ISSN 1977-0944

doi:10.3000/19770944.CE2013.347.ita

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell'Unione europea

C 347E

European flag  

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

56o anno
28 novembre 2013


Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

 

IV   Informazioni

 

INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA

 

Parlamento europeo

 

INTERROGAZIONI SCRITTE CON RISPOSTA

2013/C 347E/01

Interrogazioni scritte presentate dai deputati al Parlamento europeo e relative risposte date da un’Istituzione dell’Unione europea

1

Nota per il lettore

Questa pubblicazione contiene interrogazioni scritte presentate dai deputati al Parlamento europeo e le relative risposte date da un'istituzione dell’Unione europea.

Per ciascuna interrogazione e risposta, la versione nella lingua originale è presentata prima di un’eventuale traduzione.

In alcuni casi è possibile che la risposta sia redatta in una lingua diversa da quella dell’interrogazione: questo dipende dalla lingua di lavoro della commissione che deve fornire la risposta.

Queste interrogazioni e risposte sono pubblicate in conformità degli articoli 117 e 118 del regolamento del Parlamento europeo.

Tutte le interrogazioni e le relative risposte sono accessibili attraverso il sito web del Parlamento europeo (Europarl) alla rubrica Interrogazioni parlamentari:

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

SIGNIFICATO DELLE ABBREVIAZIONI DEI GRUPPI POLITICI

PPE

gruppo del Partito popolare europeo (Democratico cristiano)

S&D

gruppo dell'Alleanza progressista di Socialisti e Democratici al Parlamento europeo

ALDE

gruppo dell'Alleanza dei Democratici e dei Liberali per l'Europa

Verts/ALE

gruppo Verde/Alleanza libera europea

ECR

gruppo dei Conservatori e Riformisti europei

GUE/NGL

gruppo confederale della Sinistra unitaria europea/Sinistra verde nordica

EFD

gruppo Europa della Libertà e della Democrazia

NI

non iscritti

IT

 


IV Informazioni

INFORMAZIONI PROVENIENTI DALLE ISTITUZIONI, DAGLI ORGANI E DAGLI ORGANISMI DELL'UNIONE EUROPEA

Parlamento europeo

INTERROGAZIONI SCRITTE CON RISPOSTA

28.11.2013   

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea

CE 347/1


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB
INTERROGAZIONI SCRITTE CON RISPOSTA

Interrogazioni scritte presentate dai deputati al Parlamento europeo e relative risposte date da un’Istituzione dell’Unione europea

(2013/C 347 E/01)

Sommario

E-000163/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Agreement on new liquidity rules for banks

Version française

English version

E-000502/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Agreement on new liquidity rules for banks

Version française

English version

E-000315/13 by Elisa Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Portuguese state participation in recapitalising Banif — Banco Internacional do Funchal S.A.

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000316/13 by Barbara Matera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — European Union action against violence towards women in India

Versione italiana

English version

E-000317/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Bank of Spain inspectors

Versión española

English version

E-000318/13 by Othmar Karas to the Commission

Subject: Provisional anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012)

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000319/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Bus competition and access to publicly funded bus stations and transport infrastructure in the Republic of Ireland

English version

E-002552/13 by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU financial aid to Egypt

Versione italiana

English version

E-000328/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: EUR 5 billion donation to Egypt

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000365/13 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Spanish customs checks

English version

E-000366/13 by Ivo Belet to the Commission

Subject: EIB loans and renewable energy

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000367/13 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and intellectual property

English version

E-000368/13 by Carl Schlyter to the Commission

Subject: Water supply for pigs during long-distance transport (follow-up question to Question E-004881/2012)

Svensk version

English version

E-000369/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Barriers to the single market in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-000370/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Barriers to the single market in Spain for legal persons

Versión española

English version

E-000371/13 by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission

Subject: Irregularities within OLAF investigations

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000372/13 by Milan Zver to the Commission

Subject: Size of fines for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

Slovenska različica

English version

E-000373/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Court of Auditors report on energy efficiency projects

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000374/13 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Alarming decline in the number of large old trees

Versión española

English version

E-000375/13 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Setting the Euribor rate

Versión española

English version

E-000377/13 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Council

Subject: Protection of workers' rights and combating discrimination

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000378/13 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Council

Subject: Anti-discrimination Directive and the future of negotiations

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000379/13 by Vilija Blinkevičiūtė to the Commission

Subject: Protection of workers' rights and combating discrimination

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000380/13 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: Fees for basic bank accounts

Dansk udgave

English version

P-000381/13 by Lucas Hartong to the Council

Subject: Visits by former top Netherlands official to Turkey

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000382/13 by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission

Subject: Contraction of Public Investment Programme

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000383/13 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Smog pollution in Greek cities

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000384/13 by Marian Harkin to the Commission

Subject: Atlantic Biogeographical Region

English version

E-000385/13 by Alexander Alvaro to the Commission

Subject: EU Passenger Name Record — EUR 50 million for targeted call for proposal

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000386/13 by Juozas Imbrasas to the Commission

Subject: Poultry imports from third countries

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000387/13 by Kinga Gál to the Council

Subject: Deficiency in the operation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Magyar változat

English version

E-000388/13 by Kinga Gál to the Commission

Subject: Deficiency in the operation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Magyar változat

English version

E-000389/13 by Axel Voss to the Commission

Subject: Support for the export of windows and doors from Poland

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000390/13 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Horizon 2020

Leagan Gaeilge

English version

E-000391/13 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Vaporisers and the Tobacco Directive

Leagan Gaeilge

English version

E-000392/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Sale of EU computer equipment and software that could be used by the Belarusian authorities to spy on citizens

Wersja polska

English version

E-000393/13 by Sven Giegold to the Commission

Subject: Draft paper of 19 November 2012

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000394/13 by Gaston Franco to the Commission

Subject: Guaranteeing the free movement of service providers in the European Union

Version française

English version

E-000395/13 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Fishing protected areas in the Gran Sol

Versión española

English version

E-000396/13 by Evelyn Regner to the Commission

Subject: SE/SCE information campaign

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000397/13 by Evelyn Regner to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up measures for good business management

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-000398/13 by Eva Ortiz Vilella to the Commission

Subject: Activation of the EU Solidarity Fund for the Autonomous Community of Valencia

Versión española

English version

P-000399/13 by Romana Jordan to the Commission

Subject: Environmental and energy aspects of gas terminals in the northern Adriatic

Slovenska različica

English version

E-000400/13 by Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo to the Commission

Subject: European Fisheries Control Agency

Versión española

English version

E-000401/13 by Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo to the Commission

Subject: European Fisheries Fund

Versión española

English version

E-000402/13 by Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo to the Commission

Subject: European Fisheries Fund in EU Member States

Versión española

English version

E-000403/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Hellenic Sugar Industry: ensuring continued production

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000404/13 by Anneli Jäätteenmäki and Tarja Cronberg to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Arms trade treaty

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

E-000405/13 by Catherine Bearder to the Commission

Subject: Hunger-striking prisoners

English version

E-000621/13 by Catherine Bearder to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Hunger-striking prisoners

English version

E-000406/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Violence against the main opposition leader in Azerbaijan

Versione italiana

English version

E-000407/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Applicability of Spanish regulations on State property concessions for tourism and leisure purposes in Italy

Versione italiana

English version

P-000409/13 by Gilles Pargneaux to the Commission

Subject: Improving the monitoring of third‐ and fourth-generation contraceptive pills

Version française

English version

P-000410/13 by Mário David to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU-Gulf Cooperation Council relations

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-000411/13 by Bogusław Liberadzki to the Commission

Subject: Commission and European Railway Agency action on rail safety in Poland

Wersja polska

English version

P-000412/13 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: Iceland's suspension of talks on joining the European Union and payments to Iceland under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

English version

E-000413/13 by Ivo Belet, Carlos Coelho, Regina Bastos, Christine De Veyrac, Ria Oomen-Ruijten and Csaba Őry to the Commission

Subject: Redundancies at Netjets

Version française

Nederlandse versie

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000414/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Law of administrative practice

Version française

English version

E-000415/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: The role of EU cohesion policy in the implementation of the new European energy policy

Version française

English version

E-000416/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Consumer protection legislation

English version

E-000417/13 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Consumer protection legislation II

English version

E-000418/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Fuel rebate system under EC law

English version

E-000420/13 by Pilar Ayuso to the Commission

Subject: State aid guidelines — emissions trading scheme

Versión española

English version

E-000421/13 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: The ‘Lagarde list’

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000423/13 by Gilles Pargneaux to the Commission

Subject: Revision of electromagnetic field exposure limits

Version française

English version

E-000424/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: The meaning of ‘associated rights’ — Part 3

Svensk version

English version

E-000425/13 by Pilar Ayuso to the Commission

Subject: Imports of solar panels from China

Versión española

English version

E-000426/13 by Pilar Ayuso to the Commission

Subject: Structural measures for reforming the Emissions Trading System

Versión española

English version

E-000427/13 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Spanish tobacco limits for residents of Campo de Gibraltar

English version

E-000428/13 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: ‘European Belarus’ activist attacked in Minsk

Wersja polska

English version

E-000429/13 by Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo and Juan Fernando López Aguilar to the Commission

Subject: Prospecting for oil off the Canary Islands

Versión española

English version

P-000430/13 by Sabine Verheyen to the Commission

Subject: Preparation of Commission guidance on the Open Internet and its impact on media plurality and democracy

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-000431/13 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: State Aid to the European CO2 market

Versión española

English version

P-000432/13 by Francesco Enrico Speroni to the Commission

Subject: Tax on financial products and activities in the EU — incompatibility of Italian Law No 214/2011 with EU legislation

Versione italiana

English version

E-000433/13 by Martin Ehrenhauser to the Council

Subject: Commission tendering procedure on PIUs

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000434/13 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission

Subject: Digital divide in the cost of mobile telephony in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000435/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Clarifications about the licensing of pharmacies in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000436/13 by Jean Louis Cottigny to the Commission

Subject: Funding of the next Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

Version française

English version

E-000775/13 by Jean Louis Cottigny to the Commission

Subject: Funding of the forthcoming Fund for European aid to the most deprived

Version française

English version

E-000437/13 by Iva Zanicchi to the Commission

Subject: Continued acts of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean

Versione italiana

English version

E-000438/13 by Bart Staes to the Commission

Subject: Budgets at the expense of water consumers that conflict with the cost recovery principle of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000439/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Council

Subject: Ivory and lack of implementation of the CITES regulations

Version française

English version

E-000440/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Ivory and lack of implementation of the CITES regulations

Version française

English version

E-000441/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Assessment of Member States' structural balances

Version française

English version

E-000442/13 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Ahwazi Arab minority prisoners sentenced to death by the Iranian High Revolutionary Court in Tehran

English version

E-000443/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Banning profitable companies from dismissing workers

Versión española

English version

E-000444/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Misuse of EU Funds in Palencia (Spain)

Versión española

English version

E-000445/13 by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission

Subject: ‘Social transfers’ — a necessary tool for addressing extreme poverty

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

P-000446/13 by Nessa Childers to the Commission

Subject: EU meat labelling rules

English version

P-000447/13 by Wim van de Camp to the Commission

Subject: Desirability of a review of EU competences

Nederlandse versie

English version

P-000448/13 by Richard Seeber to the Commission

Subject: Design of a system of nutrient profiles under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000449/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Revising EU telecommunications market regulations

Wersja polska

English version

E-000450/13 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission

Subject: EFSA report: bee mortality and pesticides

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000479/13 by Bas Eickhout and Bart Staes to the Commission

Subject: Impact of neonicotinoids on bee mortality

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000451/13 by Franziska Katharina Brantner to the Commission

Subject: Support for Aldi from the ‘De minimis’ programme

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000452/13 by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Commission

Subject: Public image of the President of the European Commission

English version

E-000453/13 by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Council

Subject: Public image of the President of the European Council

English version

E-000454/13 by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Commission

Subject: UK membership of the EU

English version

E-000455/13 by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission

Subject: Democracy and the rule of law in the ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’

English version

E-000456/13 by Pilar Ayuso to the Commission

Subject: Guidelines for state aid — Emissions Trading System

Versión española

English version

E-000457/13 by Pilar Ayuso to the Commission

Subject: Guidelines for state aid — Emissions Trading System II

Versión española

English version

E-000458/13 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Massacre of Christians in the Nigerian village of Masuri

Versione italiana

English version

E-000459/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Late payments by banks

Versión española

English version

E-000460/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Answer regarding growing inequality in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-000461/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: More than 20 million overweight children in the EU

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000462/13 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Privileged rich

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000463/13 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Safety of electronic cigarettes

Versione italiana

English version

E-000464/13 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Creating a European Day against persecution and discrimination of Christians throughout the world

Versione italiana

English version

E-000465/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Possible funding for the company Vortalia srl, a network of Italian portals

Versione italiana

English version

E-000466/13 by Esther de Lange to the Commission

Subject: Medicines from China

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000467/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen and Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Istanbul as the smuggler capital for EU-bound migrants

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000468/13 by Nicole Sinclaire to the Commission

Subject: UK state pensions: special provision for women

English version

E-000469/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Support for economic and social development in Somaliland

Version française

English version

E-000470/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Victims of textile factory fires in Bangladesh

Version française

English version

E-000471/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Council

Subject: European Union support for France in response to the situation in Mali

Version française

English version

E-000472/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Solidarity Fund

Version française

English version

E-000473/13 by Konrad Szymański to the Commission

Subject: Mobile telephone charges for calls to Eastern Partnership countries

Wersja polska

English version

E-000474/13 by Zbigniew Ziobro, Jacek Włosowicz, Tadeusz Cymański and Jacek Olgierd Kurski to the Commission

Subject: Level of charges for using railway infrastructure in the EU

Wersja polska

English version

E-000475/13 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission

Subject: Mismatch of skills on the labour market

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000476/13 by Alyn Smith to the Commission

Subject: Alcohol minimum pricing

English version

E-000477/13 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Progress with regard to fibromyalgia

Versión española

English version

E-000478/13 by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission

Subject: Grey water recovery and recycling

Versione italiana

English version

E-000480/13 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Use of Irish Gaelic

English version

P-000481/13 by Michael Theurer to the Commission

Subject: EU funding for the construction of Berlin Brandenburg Airport

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-000482/13 by Jill Evans to the Commission

Subject: Traces of horse meat found in beefburgers

English version

E-000483/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Spain's new Carbon Plan

Versión española

English version

E-000484/13 by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission

Subject: Increase of public debt in large European economies and the risk of destabilisation

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000485/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Turkish veto

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000623/13 by Niki Tzavela to the Commission

Subject: Blocking by Turkey of Cyprus' admission to the Council of the International Agency for Renewable Energy (IRENA)

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000486/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: ‘Tax Haven’

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000487/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Dervis Eroglu sounding just like Rauf Denktash

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000488/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Turkey's veto of Israel

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000489/13 by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Safety and well-being of Sombath Somphone, who has been missing in Laos since Saturday, 15 December 2012

English version

E-000490/13 by Sophia in 't Veld to the Commission

Subject: US extraterritorial jurisdiction over European data

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000491/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Cyber security on illegal markets: measures to tackle the phenomenon

Versione italiana

English version

E-000492/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Neurosensory hypoacusis: new possibilities of treatment with stem cells

Versione italiana

English version

E-000493/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Mononucleosis and best practice to avoid infection

Versione italiana

English version

E-000494/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Legislation on concentrated milk and differences in treatment

Versione italiana

English version

E-000495/13 by Oreste Rossi to the Commission

Subject: Traffic roundabouts — New statistics and impact assessments of the benefits of European legislation

Versione italiana

English version

E-000497/13 by Jim Higgins to the Commission

Subject: Community development programmes

English version

E-000498/13 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: Rural power supplies in Mediterranean countries

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000499/13 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Policyholders adversely affected by how unisex insurance premiums are interpreted

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000500/13 by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission

Subject: Fill levels in packaging

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000501/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: The 2013 Digital Agenda challenge

Version française

English version

P-000503/13 by Elena Băsescu to the Commission

Subject: EU strategy for combating violence against women, domestic violence and female genital mutilation

Versiunea în limba română

English version

P-000504/13 by Ismail Ertug to the Commission

Subject: Straubing-Vilshofen Danube development project

Deutsche Fassung

English version

P-000505/13 by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission

Subject: Medical insurance for travel outside Europe

Versione italiana

English version

E-000506/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Valencian government's failure to comply with the requirement to adopt management plans for Natura 2000 network areas

Versión española

English version

E-000507/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Breach of the Habitats Directive in Marjal de Nules

Versión española

English version

E-000508/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: ‘Fracking’ in the region of Valencia

Versión española

English version

E-000509/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Children attending bullfights

Versión española

English version

E-000510/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Children at bullfighting schools

Versión española

English version

E-000511/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Impact of the 3D Seismic Interpretation Project in Casablanca (Tarragona, Spain)

Versión española

English version

E-000512/13 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Books for the blind and copyright

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000513/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Organ donation and transplantation in the European Union

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000514/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Vaccine against invasive pneumococcal disease

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000515/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Low-cost airline Ryanair

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000516/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Pills with major health risks

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000517/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: The European Social Fund

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000518/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000519/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Dengue fever in Madeira II

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000520/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Carob bean biofuel

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000521/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) appeals for the urgent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000522/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Greece — Austerity hampers fight against AIDS

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000523/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Pan-European telecommunications infrastructure

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000524/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: France: Intervention in Mali

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000525/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Alarming US study on climate change

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000526/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: New discovery in the treatment of breast cancer

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000527/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Poverty spreads across the southern EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000528/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Fires in Australia

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000529/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Appeal to the United Kingdom to stay within the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000530/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: EUR 500 banknotes

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000531/13 by Ana Gomes to the Commission

Subject: Tax competition in the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000532/13 by Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė to the Commission

Subject: Accuracy of the translation of specific food safety terms

Tekstas lietuvių kalba

English version

E-000533/13 by Rachida Dati to the Commission

Subject: Free trade agreement with the United States — time for action

Version française

English version

E-000534/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Unblocking chapters in Turkish accession negotiations

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000535/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Rapid naturalisation of Turkish citizens by the Turkish Cypriot puppet state

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000536/13 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Turkey's censorship of the EU progress report

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000537/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Authorisation to hunt the Streptopelia decaocto issued by the Valencia regional government in infringement of Directive 2009/147/EC

Versión española

English version

E-000538/13 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: Protecting Church cultural assets in Kosovo's Serbian Orthodox community

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000539/13 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Egyptian President's comments on Israel

Versione italiana

English version

E-000540/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Solar energy in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-000541/13 by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission

Subject: Checks on vehicles registered in other EU Member States

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000543/13 by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission

Subject: Licensing of pharmacies in Greece — number of licences issued to establish and run pharmacies

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000544/13 by Nuno Melo to the Commission

Subject: Banking supervision in Europe

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000545/13 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: Loans written off by payday loan companies

English version

E-000546/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: European Investment Bank funding for the Crea Escola programme in Valencia

Versión española

English version

E-000547/13 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Thijs Berman, Franziska Keller, Niccolò Rinaldi and Esther de Lange to the Commission

Subject: Child labour and shoe production — follow-up

Deutsche Fassung

Versione italiana

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000548/13 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Voting rights for Italian students temporarily residing abroad under the Erasmus programme

Versione italiana

English version

E-000559/13 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Right to vote for European citizens who find themselves temporarily in an EU Member State other than their own, in the context of EU-sponsored exchange programmes

Versione italiana

English version

E-000652/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Right to vote for students temporarily resident abroad on an exchange arranged through EU programmes

Versione italiana

English version

E-000549/13 by Patricia van der Kammen and Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Inappropriateness of aid to the North Korean regime in view of human rights violations

Nederlandse versie

English version

E-000550/13 by Riikka Manner to the Commission

Subject: Interpretation of the Habitats Directive in relation to wolves

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

P-000551/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Hydrocarbon exploration along the Mediterranean coast (Girona)

Versión española

English version

E-000552/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Waiver of immunity by a UN member state

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000553/13 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan in Syria

Versione italiana

English version

E-000554/13 by Daniel Hannan to the Commission

Subject: Expansion of the Liverpool Cruise Terminal

English version

E-000555/13 by Francesco De Angelis, Silvia Costa, Guido Milana and David-Maria Sassoli to the Commission

Subject: Waste management in Lazio region

Versione italiana

English version

E-000556/13 by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission

Subject: European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) expert panel investigating hormone-disrupting substances

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000557/13 by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission

Subject: Worrying shortcomings in the management of the protected area in the River Sile Regional Nature Park, which is part of the Natura 2000 network

Versione italiana

English version

E-000560/13 by Ana Gomes to the Council

Subject: Tax competition in the EU

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000561/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Threat of lay-offs at Kemet Electronics (Evora, Portugal)

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000562/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission

Subject: Closure of the Steiff stuffed toy factory

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000563/13 by Alyn Smith to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Disappearance of Sombath Somphone

English version

E-000564/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Special 301 Reports' influence on Member State legislation

Svensk version

English version

E-000565/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Destruction of the Greek Cypriot cemetery and church in occupied Lapythos village (Cyprus)

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000566/13 by Michael Cramer to the Commission

Subject: Rail freight transport between Wendlingen and Ulm (Priority Project 17)

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000567/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: 2013 legislative package on road tolls

English version

E-000568/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Coastal erosion in Dublin

English version

E-000569/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Civil society organisations and religious minorities in Russia

English version

E-000571/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Violence against women

English version

E-000572/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Urban mobility package

English version

E-000573/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Planned Commission activities to raise awareness of trafficking among specific vulnerable groups

English version

E-000574/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Palliative care

English version

E-000575/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: UN Safer Cities Global Programme

English version

E-000576/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Industrial heritage

English version

P-000577/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Delays in transferring funding to Léargas, the Irish National Agency for the Lifelong Learning Programme

English version

E-000578/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Follow-up to December 2012 Council conclusions on violence against women

English version

E-000579/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: EU funding for health and sex education programmes for people with disabilities such as spina bifida hydrocephalus

English version

E-000771/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: Airline pilots' flight times and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) report

Version française

English version

E-000580/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Air crew fatigue rules

English version

E-000581/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Ratification of the ILO Convention on Domestic Workers

English version

E-000582/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Study on the deployment of electric vehicles in Ireland

English version

E-000583/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Supporting women's employment in Afghanistan

English version

E-000584/13 by Emer Costello to the Commission

Subject: Au pairs

English version

E-000585/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Europeana — content in official languages

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000586/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: Ramos-Horta — UNIOGBIS

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000587/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: forthcoming PAIGC congress — safety of attendees

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000588/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: marginalisation of political parties

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000589/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: changing the current military leadership

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000590/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Crisis in Mali and Algeria: European reaction

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000591/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Portugal — storm damage

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000592/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Barack Obama: second term

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000593/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: The Azores — cattle lairage

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000594/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: The Azores — end of milk quotas — impact study

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000595/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — EU-India Free-Trade Agreement: update

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000596/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: The Azores — game resources for tourism purposes

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-000597/13 by Josef Weidenholzer to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Current situation in Cambodia, in particular the restrictions on freedom of opinion and the parliamentary elections in 2013

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000598/13 by Birgit Sippel and Josef Weidenholzer to the Commission

Subject: Use of RFID chips

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000599/13 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Turkish police arrest 15 human rights lawyers

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000653/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Eighty-five people arrested in Turkey — human rights lawyers among those detained

Versione italiana

English version

E-000600/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Marine area of the Marítimo-Terrestre National Park in the Cabrera Archipelago

Versión española

English version

E-000601/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Bankers convicted of intentional crimes

Versión española

English version

E-000843/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Conditions for being a bank director

Versión española

English version

E-000602/13 by Liam Aylward to the Commission

Subject: Prioritising the Democratic Republic of Congo as the country's situation deteriorates

Leagan Gaeilge

English version

E-000603/13 by Joseph Cuschieri to the Commission

Subject: EASA proposal for air crew flight time limitations

Verżjoni Maltija

English version

E-000604/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Water filters as a solution for water contamination

Wersja polska

English version

E-000605/13 by Dan Jørgensen to the Commission

Subject: EU subsidies for bullfighting

Dansk udgave

English version

E-000606/13 by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission

Subject: Quantitative proof of the efficacy of the plant variety rights regime

Svensk version

English version

E-000607/13 by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission

Subject: Europe 2020, Youth on the Move, but not in Spain

Versión española

English version

E-000608/13 by Elisabeth Köstinger to the Council

Subject: VAT fraud on staple foods

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000609/13 by Elisabeth Köstinger to the Commission

Subject: VAT fraud on staple foods

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000610/13 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Transnational land deals for agriculture in developing countries

Versión española

English version

E-000611/13 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: EU contribution to UNWRA for job creation programme in Gaza

Versione italiana

English version

E-000612/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: future elections — the EU's role

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000613/13 by Franz Obermayr to the Commission

Subject: Recent attacks on Christian communities in Turkey

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000614/13 by Robert Goebbels to the Commission

Subject: Financial support by the Commission for a study opposing shale gas

Version française

English version

E-000615/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Labour reform and workforce reductions in nationalised banks

Versión española

English version

E-000616/13 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Prospecting for oil and gas in the Balearic Islands

Versión española

English version

P-000617/13 by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission

Subject: Financial troubles at Belsat TV

Wersja polska

English version

E-000618/13 by Mitro Repo to the Commission

Subject: Abuses in retail trade supply chains

Suomenkielinen versio

English version

E-000619/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Multiple chemical sensitivity and electromagnetic hypersensitivity

Versión española

English version

E-000620/13 by Mario Mauro to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Trial in Iran of the Christian, Saeed Abedini

Versione italiana

English version

E-000622/13 by Mario Borghezio to the Commission

Subject: Law on waste processing: Italian central government meddles in Valle d'Aosta regional affairs

Versione italiana

English version

E-000624/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Co-funding for projected submarine cable link between the Cyclades and mainland Greece — cost-benefit study

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000625/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Mortgages and protection of borrowers in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000626/13 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Availability of structural fund appropriations for the transport of children with special needs to education centres

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000628/13 by Cristiana Muscardini, Gianluca Susta and Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission

Subject: Recalibration of the GSP system for copper pipe producers

Versione italiana

English version

E-000629/13 by Cristiana Muscardini, Gianluca Susta and Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission

Subject: Improper behaviour by Mexican copper producers

Versione italiana

English version

E-000630/13 by Willy Meyer to the Commission

Subject: Rubik Agreements between EU Member States and Switzerland

Versión española

English version

E-000631/13 by Inês Cristina Zuber and João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Destruction of crops and farming infrastructure by strong winds and rainstorm

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000632/13 by Pino Arlacchi to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — European Court of Auditors report on EULEX

Versione italiana

English version

E-000633/13 by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission

Subject: EuroVelo routes

Versiunea în limba română

English version

E-000634/13 by Michael Cashman, Ulrike Lunacek, Sophia in 't Veld, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Cornelis de Jong, Antonyia Parvanova, Marije Cornelissen, Anna Hedh and Mikael Gustafsson to the Commission

Subject: Future EC laws and policies pertaining to sex, gender identity and gender expression

българска версия

Versión española

Deutsche Fassung

Nederlandse versie

Suomenkielinen versio

Svensk version

English version

P-000635/13 by Véronique Mathieu to the Council

Subject: Independence of the European Police College

Version française

English version

P-000636/13 by Anni Podimata to the Commission

Subject: Criminal proceedings arising from the publication of fiscal data for Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000637/13 by Roger Helmer to the Commission

Subject: Croatia

English version

E-000638/13 by Jürgen Creutzmann to the Commission

Subject: Market surveillance on the Internet in connection with Regulation (EC) No 765/2008

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000639/13 by Marc Tarabella to the Commission

Subject: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): Is aspartame safe?

Version française

English version

E-000640/13 by Pat the Cope Gallagher to the Commission

Subject: Tourism sector in the European Union

English version

E-000641/13 by Pat the Cope Gallagher to the Commission

Subject: Carbon monoxide poisoning

English version

E-000642/13 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Harmful effects of adjustment programme in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000643/13 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: Unoccupied beds in Greek intensive care units

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000644/13 by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission

Subject: The demographic problem in western societies

Ελληνική έκδοση

English version

E-000645/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: Dengue fever in Madeira

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000646/13 by João Ferreira to the Commission

Subject: European strategy to combat dengue fever

Versão portuguesa

English version

P-000647/13 by Edit Bauer to the Commission

Subject: Deletion of citizens from the population register and administrative measures depriving them of a permanent address

Magyar változat

English version

E-000649/13 by Anna Záborská to the Council

Subject: Kazakhstan: persecution of Christian churches

Version française

Slovenské znenie

English version

E-000650/13 by Renate Sommer to the Commission

Subject: Information in the statement on reference intake under Article 32(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (Food Information Regulation)

Deutsche Fassung

English version

E-000651/13 by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission

Subject: Assessment of potential harmful effects on health of electronic cigarettes

Versione italiana

English version

E-000654/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: New study on indicators to replace/complement the GDP per capita criterion for cohesion policy

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000655/13 by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission

Subject: Fund for European aid to the most deprived: scope of intervention

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000657/13 by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission

Subject: Death of a Belarusian journalist in Hrodna

Wersja polska

English version

E-000658/13 by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission

Subject: Funding under the Union budget of the irrigation project for the private olive groves of the Beas de Segura (Jaen) irrigation association

Versión española

English version

E-000659/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Floods in Mozambique

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-001591/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: Floods in Mozambique

Versão portuguesa

English version

E-000660/13 by Diogo Feio to the Commission

Subject: 50 years of the Élysée Treaty

Versão portuguesa

English version

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000163/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(9 janvier 2013)

Objet: Accord sur les nouvelles règles de liquidité bancaire

Le Comité de Bâle vient d'accorder aux banques quatre années supplémentaires pour mettre en place un filet de sécurité contre les troubles financiers à venir et a permis d'élargir la liste des produits financiers, dont des actions, des titres adossés à des créances hypothécaires et des obligations d'entreprise à des taux moins élevés.

La règle en matière de liquidité fait partie du cadre réglementaire de Bâle III qui imposera aux banques de lever jusqu'à trois fois plus de fonds propres qu'avant la crise en vue d'éviter que les contribuables ne doivent les renflouer.

En vertu de cet accord, considéré comme une victoire du secteur financier, les banques doivent se conformer à cette règle avant 2019 et peuvent dorénavant inclure une plus grande palette d'actifs à risque dans les réserves.

Les banques se sont plaintes qu'elles ne pouvaient pas respecter la date butoir de janvier 2015 pour mettre en œuvre la nouvelle règle. Celle-ci consiste à la fois en la mise en place d'un nombre minimum d'actifs faciles à vendre, connu sous le nom de ratio de couverture de liquidités et en l'apport de crédit aux entreprises et aux consommateurs.

1.

Seulement 11 des pays membres du G20 ont respecté les délais d'application des accords de Bâle III fixés au mois de décembre. Les États-Unis et l'Union européenne ne sont pas parvenus à les mettre en œuvre. Qu'est ce que la Commission compte mettre en place pour pallier cette situation?

2.

Les négociations sur une législation de l'UE relative à la mise en œuvre des accords de Bâle III ont repris. Affaiblir davantage les règles en matière de liquidité, comme le plaident certains législateurs, en permettant aux banques d'inclure tout actif accepté comme garantie par les banques centrales comporte quels avantages et quels risques?

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000502/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(18 janvier 2013)

Objet: Accord sur les nouvelles règles de liquidité bancaire

Le Comité de Bâle vient d'accorder aux banques quatre années supplémentaires pour mettre en place un filet de sécurité contre les troubles financiers à venir et a permis d'élargir la liste des produits financiers, dont des actions, des titres adossés à des créances hypothécaires et des obligations d'entreprise à des taux moins élevés.

La règle en matière de liquidité fait partie du cadre réglementaire de Bâle III qui imposera aux banques de lever jusqu'à trois fois plus de fonds propres qu'avant la crise en vue d'éviter que les contribuables ne doivent les renflouer.

En vertu de cet accord, considéré comme une victoire du secteur financier, les banques doivent se conformer à cette règle avant 2019 et peuvent dorénavant inclure une plus grande palette d'actifs à risque dans les réserves.

Les banques se sont plaintes qu'elles ne pouvaient pas respecter la date butoir de janvier 2015 pour mettre en œuvre la nouvelle règle. Celle-ci consiste à la fois en la mise en place d'un nombre minimum d'actifs faciles à vendre, connu sous le nom de ratio de couverture de liquidités et en l'apport de crédit aux entreprises et aux consommateurs.

1.

Seulement 11 des pays membres du G20 ont respecté les délais d'application des accords de Bâle III fixés au mois de décembre. Les États-Unis et l'Union européenne ne sont pas parvenus à les mettre en œuvre. Qu'est ce que la Commission compte mettre en place pour pallier à cette situation?

2.

Les négociations sur une législation de l'UE relative à la mise en œuvre des accords de Bâle III ont repris. Quels sont les avantages et les risques liés à un nouvel affaiblissement des règles en matière de liquidité, comme le plaident certains législateurs, en permettant aux banques d'inclure tout actif accepté comme garantie par les banques centrales?

Réponse commune donnée par M. Barnier au nom de la Commission

(1er mars 2013)

La mise en œuvre de l'accord de Bâle III est essentielle pour renforcer la résilience du système financier au niveau mondial. La Commission estime qu'il est de la plus haute importance que l'UE et les États-Unis déploient tous les efforts nécessaires pour que le nouveau cadre soit correctement mis en œuvre en parallèle sur leurs territoires respectifs, afin de garantir aux établissements de crédit européens et américains des conditions équivalentes. Dans l'UE, le processus de mise en œuvre entre dans sa phase finale; en ce qui concerne les États-Unis, la Commission va continuer à insister pour que la mise en œuvre au niveau mondial soit réalisée correctement et dans les délais prévus.

Les avis divergent en ce qui concerne les actifs pouvant être acceptés en tant que garantie par les banques centrales en application des nouvelles règles en matière de liquidité prévues par l'accord de Bâle. Ces dernières visent à encourager un recours accru aux marchés privés lorsque les banques centrales sont des prêteurs en dernier ressort et non en premier ressort. Toutefois, certains observateurs considèrent qu'en Europe, les marchés financiers privés disposant de suffisamment d'actifs liquides ne sont pas aussi développés que dans d'autres régions et que cette différence structurelle crée un handicap concurrentiel. Une baisse de la liquidité du marché des capitaux pourrait avoir une incidence sur la position de liquidité des banques et amener ces dernières à réduire leur ratio d'endettement et leur activité de prêt à l'économie réelle. De la même manière, d'autres observateurs redoutent que les nouvelles règles ne portent atteinte à la transmission efficace de la politique monétaire des banques centrales. Enfin, en dernière analyse, seules les banques centrales peuvent garantir la liquidité. Par conséquent, l'éligibilité des actifs pouvant être acceptés en tant que garantie est un problème complexe qui sera examiné cette année par un groupe de travail ad hoc du Comité de Bâle.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000163/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(9 January 2013)

Subject: Agreement on new liquidity rules for banks

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision recently gave banks a further four years in which to introduce a safety net designed to make them less vulnerable to future economic crises. It has also said that new types of easy-to-sell assets, including shares, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, will be counted towards liquidity funds.

These liquidity rules are part of the Basel III guidelines, which require banks to hold up to three times more liquid funds than was the case prior to the economic crisis, in an effort to ensure that taxpayers do not have to bail them out again in future.

Regarded as a triumph for the financial sector, the agreement means that banks now have until 2019 to comply with the liquidity rules. In addition, they can already start including a wider range of high-risk assets in their liquid funds.

Under the liquidity rules, which banks had complained they would not be able to introduce by the original deadline of January 2015, banks have to hold a minimum volume of easy-to-sell assets (known as the liquidity coverage ratio) and increase lending to businesses and individuals.

1.

Only 11 G20 Member States implemented the Basel III agreement by the December 2012 deadline. The United States and the EU failed to do so. What is the Commission going to do to remedy this state of affairs?

2.

Negotiations on drafting EU legislation on the implementation of the Basel III agreement have resumed. Some lawmakers are calling for the liquidity rules to be further relaxed by allowing banks to count towards their liquid funds any assets that are accepted as collateral by central banks. What are the benefits and risks of this strategy?

Question for written answer E-000502/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(18 January 2013)

Subject: Agreement on new liquidity rules for banks

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision recently gave banks a further four years to introduce a safety net designed to make them less vulnerable to future economic crises. It has also said that new types of easy-to-sell assets, including shares, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, will be counted towards liquidity funds.

These liquidity rules are part of the Basel III guidelines, which require banks to hold up to three times more liquid funds than was the case prior to the economic crisis, in an effort to ensure that taxpayers do not have to bail them out again in future.

Regarded as a triumph for the financial sector, the agreement means that banks now have until 2019 to comply with the liquidity rules. In addition, they can already start including a wider range of high-risk assets in their liquidity funds.

Under the liquidity rules, which banks had complained they would not be able to introduce by the original deadline of January 2015, banks have to hold a minimum volume of easy-to-sell assets (known as the liquidity coverage ratio) and increase lending to businesses and individuals.

1.

Only 11 G20 Member States implemented the Basel III agreement by the December 2012 deadline. The United States and the EU failed to do so. What is the Commission going to do to remedy this state of affairs?

2.

Negotiations on drafting EU legislation on the implementation of the Basel III agreement have resumed. What are the benefits and risks of further watering down the liquidity rules, as some parliamentarians are arguing for, by allowing banks to include any asset accepted as a guarantee by central banks?

Joint answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

The implementation of the Basel III agreement is essential to strengthening the resilience of the financial system at global level. The Commission considers of critical importance that both EU and US jurisdictions do all the efforts necessary to properly implement the new framework in parallel in order to ensure a level playing field for EU and US credit institutions. The EU implementation is reaching the final stage; as regards the US, the Commission will continue calling for a proper and timely implementation at global level.

Views differ on asset eligibility accepted as collateral by central banks under the new Basel liquidity rules. These aim at encouraging greater reliance on private markets where central banks are lenders of last and not first resort. However, some observers consider that Europe does not have as extensively developed private financial markets with sufficient liquid assets as other jurisdictions and that this structural difference causes competitive disadvantage. Falling capital market liquidity could impact banks liquidity positions leading them to deleverage and reduce lending to the real economy. Similarly, other observers worry that the new rules may impinge on the efficient transmission of monetary policy by central banks. Finally, in extremis only the central bank can guarantee liquidity. Therefore, central bank collateral eligibility is a complicated issue which will be examined this year by a dedicated Basel Committee task force.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000315/13

à Comissão

Elisa Ferreira (S&D)

(14 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Participação do Estado português na operação de recapitalização do BANIF — Banco Internacional do Funchal, S.A.

Considerando:

a apresentação pela Comissão Europeia, em 6 de junho de 2012, da proposta de Diretiva do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho que estabelece um regime para a recuperação e resolução das instituições de crédito e empresas de investimento, propondo a Comissão Europeia que os Estados‐Membros tenham de aplicar as respetivas normas de transposição a partir de 1 de janeiro de 2015; e

o comunicado do Ministério das Finanças português de 31 de dezembro de 2012, em que é apresentado o plano de recapitalização do BANIF — Banco Internacional do Funchal, S.A., com os seguintes pontos principais:

«(…) A injeção de fundos públicos no Banif ascende a 1,1 mil milhões de euros e será realizada através do recurso à linha de recapitalização disponível ao abrigo do Programa de Assistência Económica e Financeira a Portugal. Após esta injeção de capital, um total de 5,6 mil milhões de euros terá sido injetado no sistema bancário privado português através da referida linha de recapitalização, com o objetivo de assegurar o acesso continuado das empresas e dos cidadãos ao crédito e, desse modo, apoiar a economia Portuguesa. (…)»;

Sendo objetivo da Comissão Europeia, ao propor a referida Diretiva, dotar os Estados‐Membros de instrumentos harmonizados para fazer face a situações de fragilidade das instituições de crédito, em ordem a minimizar a utilização do dinheiro dos contribuintes para suportar perdas do setor bancário,

Pode a Comissão clarificar se, com o início de vigência das normas de transposição da Diretiva sobre recuperação e resolução:

Continuarão a ser possíveis situações análogas à supramencionada participação do Estado português na operação de recapitalização do BANIF — Banco Internacional do Funchal, S.A.?

Em caso de resposta afirmativa à questão anterior, em que medida e com que condições serão tais situações possíveis?

Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão

(8 de março de 2013)

O artigo 31.° da DRRB (1) prevê um conjunto mínimo de instrumentos de resolução aos quais os Estados-Membros podem recorrer e que incluem o instrumento de venda, a utilização de uma instituição de transição, o instrumento de segregação de ativos e o instrumento de resgate interno (bail-in). A DRRB não impede que os Estados-Membros utilizem outros instrumentos de resolução, incluindo injeções de capital, desde que cumpram os princípios e as condições da diretiva. Em particular, e antes que possa haver uma injeção de dinheiros públicos, a DRRB impõe que:

Uma instituição que recorra a apoio financeiro público seja declarada como uma instituição em situação ou em risco de colapso. Desta forma, fica assegurado que não será prestado qualquer apoio financeiro sem que seja lançado o processo de reestruturação previsto no enquadramento em causa.

Os acionistas e credores deverão estar em primeiro lugar na fila para assumirem os encargos da resolução, como aconteceria de qualquer forma se a instituição fosse liquidada.

Além disso, a DRRB prevê uma série de poderes de intervenção precoce que permitirão às autoridades públicas evitar o colapso das instituições de crédito ou, no mínimo, minimizar a exposição dos fundos públicos.

Assim, a probabilidade de operações como aquela que refere, em que foram injetados capitais públicos para a resolução de uma instituição de crédito, diminuirá significativamente em resultado da reforma.

As regras da UE sobre os auxílios estatais continuam, contudo, a ser integralmente aplicáveis e a reger qualquer apoio financeiro a instituições de crédito que os Estados-Membros possam vir a equacionar no futuro.

A proposta de DRRB apresentada pela Comissão encontra-se atualmente em negociação no Parlamento Europeu e no Conselho.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000315/13

to the Commission

Elisa Ferreira (S&D)

(14 January 2013)

Subject: Portuguese state participation in recapitalising Banif — Banco Internacional do Funchal S.A.

On 6 June 2012 the Commission submitted its proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, proposing that Member States should apply the relevant provisions transposing the directive from 1 January 2015.

The statement presenting the recapitalisation plan for Banif — Banco Internacional do Funchal, issued by the Portuguese Finance Ministry on 31 December 2012, contained the following main points:

‘(…) The injection of public funds into Banif amounts to EUR 1.1 billion and will be carried out using the recapitalisation line available under the Economic and Financial Assistance Programme for Portugal. Following this injection of capital, a total of EUR 5.6 billion will have been injected into the Portuguese private banking system using this recapitalisation line, with the aim of ensuring continued access to credit for businesses and citizens and thereby supporting the Portuguese economy. (…).’

The Commission's objective in proposing the above directive is to provide the Member States with harmonised tools to tackle weaknesses in credit institutions, in order to minimise the use of taxpayers' money to support losses in the banking sector.

Can the Commission clarify whether operations such as the above Portuguese state participation in recapitalising Banif — Banco Internacional do Funchal S.A will still be possible when the provisions transposing the directive on recovery and resolution come into force?

If so, to what extent and under what conditions will such operations be possible?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

Article 31 of the proposal for the BRRD (2) foresees a minimum resolution toolbox for Member States, including the sale of business, the use of a bridge institution, the asset separation and the bail-in tool. The BRRD does not preclude Member States from using other resolution tools, including capital injections, as long as they comply with the principles and conditions of the BRRD. In particular, before any public money is engaged, the BRRD imposes that:

An institution that requires extraordinary public financial support should be deemed failing or likely to fail. This will ensure that no financial support is provided without engaging into the restructuring process foreseen in the framework.

Shareholders and creditors should be the very first in line to assume the burden of resolution, as they would anyway if that institution were to be liquidated.

Furthermore, the BRRD foresees a series of early intervention powers that would enable public authorities to prevent failure of credit institutions or, at the very least, minimise the exposure of public funds.

Therefore the likelihood of operations such as the one referred to, whereby public capital is injected for the resolution of a credit institution, should be significantly reduced as a result of the reform.

However, EU rules on state aid would remain entirely applicable, and they would continue to govern any financial support to credit institutions which Member States might contemplate in the future.

The BRRD Commission proposal is currently being negotiated in the European Parliament and in the Council.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000316/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Barbara Matera (PPE)

(14 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Azioni dell'Unione europea contro la violenza sulle donne in India

La condizione della donna è uno dei paradossi della cultura indiana. La società è maschilista e, mentre da un lato ci sono figure femminili, come Sonia Gandhi, presidente del Congresso nazionale indiano, che si stanno distinguendo, dall'altro molte sono le mamme e le figlie di questo paese che vivono in una condizione disperata.

C'è diversità e poca uguaglianza tra uomo e donna non per le leggi, ma a causa delle tradizioni che subordinano la giurisprudenza che nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi non ha alcun valore.

L'India continua ad essere al centro di raccapriccianti episodi di violenza sessuale che hanno provocato una vera e propria emergenza a livello politico e sociale. Manifestazioni di protesta si sono svolte in tutto il paese per settimane dopo il mortale stupro subito da una ragazza di 23 anni su un autobus a Nuova Delhi il 28 dicembre 2012. Ancor più recente è la notizia, del 1° gennaio 2013, relativa allo stupro di una bambina di soli 7 anni, violentata da un uomo che sosteneva di essere un amico di famiglia, ritrovata sul ciglio della strada piangente e dolorante; sempre lo stesso giorno a Nuova Delhi un'altra ragazza di 17 anni è stata aggredita da due ragazzi durante la festa del capodanno. Per contrastare l'ondata di violenze sessuali che ha colpito tutta l'India, il governo dell'ex territorio francese di Pondicherry ha deciso di introdurre anche l'uso obbligatorio per le studentesse di un soprabito. Il ministro dell'Istruzione, T. Thiagarajan, ha dichiarato il massimo impegno per proteggere la sicurezza delle donne indiane, proibendo persino l'utilizzo dei cellulari.

A tale proposito, chiedo al Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante:

L'Unione europea ha intenzione di collaborare con il governo indiano per identificare possibili soluzioni alle violazioni dei diritti delle donne, creando un organo ad hoc che abbia il compito di intervenire qualora accadessero situazioni critiche come quella in India?

La delegazione dell'Unione europea in India sta monitorando il deterioramento dei diritti delle donne e cercando di far attuare un inasprimento delle pene per chi commette il reato?

Ritiene che l'Unione europea possa organizzare in India corsi di formazione per gli agenti di polizia e di sicurezza al fine di evitare la diffusione di tali atti violenti nei confronti delle donne?

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

(2 aprile 2013)

Già da tempo l’Unione europea coinvolge le autorità indiane e la società civile nel dibattito sulla violenza e la discriminazione nei confronti delle donne e sulle questioni di genere, in particolar modo nel quadro delle riunioni del dialogo regolare sui diritti umani tra l’UE e l’India, che si svolgono a livello locale e a cui partecipa la delegazione dell’UE, che le presiede insieme alle autorità del paese. L’Unione ha inoltre avuto contatti con le autorità indiane nella sua azione di sensibilizzazione in vista della 57a sessione della Commissione delle Nazioni Unite sulla condizione delle donne, il cui tema prioritario è l’eliminazione e la prevenzione di ogni forma di violenza nei confronti di donne e ragazze.

Le questioni legate alle donne sono parte integrante anche delle attività di cooperazione allo sviluppo dell’UE: il benessere delle donne e delle ragazze è al centro dei programmi in materia di istruzione e di sanità, mentre numerosi progetti hanno aiutato le organizzazioni della società civile ad affrontare questioni quali la violenza contro le donne, compresi fenomeni quali la tratta di minori, i matrimoni infantili, la violenza domestica e l’HIV/AIDS. Un progetto in atto ha in particolare l’obiettivo di conferire maggiore responsabilità alle donne che occupano posti di rilievo in organismi di governance locali affinché promuovano i diritti delle donne.

Nel 1997 l’UE ha contribuito con un 1 milione di euro alla creazione di un istituto di formazione sulle questioni di genere a Delhi che permette alle donne in posizione di responsabilità di consolidare le loro capacità e offre formazioni in materia di questioni di genere a una vasta gamma di professionisti, tra cui funzionari governativi e delle forze dell’ordine. L’istituto svolge un ruolo importante nell’azione di sensibilizzazione e mobilitazione delle comunità locali per contribuire a ridurre ed eliminare la violenza in India.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000316/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Barbara Matera (PPE)

(14 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — European Union action against violence towards women in India

The situation of women is one of the paradoxical aspects of Indian culture. India is a male-dominated society and while there are female figures, such as Sonia Gandhi, President of the Indian National Congress Party, who stand out, there are also many mothers and daughters in India living in desperate conditions.

This difference and lack of equality between men and women is not due to regulations. It is due to traditions that take precedence over legislation which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, has no value.

India continues to be at the centre of atrocious episodes of sexual violence which have sparked a veritable political and social crisis.

Protests and demonstrations took place throughout India for weeks following the fatal rape of a 23-year old girl on a bus in New Delhi on 28 December 2012. More recently, on 1 January 2013, a young girl of only seven years was raped and beaten by a man who purported to be a family friend. She was found on the side of the road, crying and in pain.

On the same day, another girl of 17 years was attacked by two young men during New Year celebrations in New Delhi. To tackle the wave of sexual violence that has shocked the whole of India, the government of the former French territory of Puducherry decided to make overcoats compulsory for female students. The Education Minister T. Thiagarajan said that he was fully committed to protecting the safety of Indian women, even banning the use of mobile phones.

Can the Vice-President/High Representative therefore state:

whether the European Union intends to work with the Indian Government to identify possible solutions to the breaches of women’s rights, setting up an ad-hoc body that would be charged with intervening whenever critical situations occur such as that in India?

whether the EU delegation in India is monitoring the deterioration of women’s rights and is seeking to have harsher penalties imposed on those who commit crime?

whether she believes that the European Union could organise training courses in India for police and security officers in order to stop the spread of these acts of violence towards women?

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

(2 April 2013)

The EU has engaged the Indian authorities and civil society for some time already on violence and discrimination against women and gender issues. This topic features prominently, in the meetings of the regular Human Rights Dialogue between the EU and India, conducted locally with the active participation of the EU Delegation as co-chair. The EU has been in contact with the Indian authorities in its outreach for the 57th Session of the UN Commission of the Status of Women. The session's priority theme is ‘Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls’

Women's issues are also mainstreamed into EU's development cooperation activities: education and health-related programmes have a strong focus on women and girls' welfare, while numerous projects have helped civil society organisations to address issues such as violence against women, including trafficking and child marriage, domestic violence and HIV/AIDS. An ongoing project aims at empowering women leaders from local governance institutions to promote women's rights.

In 1997 the EU contributed EUR 1 million to the establishment of a Gender Training Institute in Delhi which provides capacity building for women leaders and gender training for a wide range of professionals, including government and law enforcement officials. This Institute plays an important role in the sensitisation and mobilisation of grassroots communities to help abate reduce and end ‐based violence in India.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000317/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(14 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Inspectores del Banco de España

La prensa española (3) e internacional (4) se ha hecho eco de las denuncias de los inspectores del Banco de España contra su dirección por la gestión que esta hizo de la crisis del sector financiero en España. A pesar de ello, las denuncias del cuerpo de inspectores sobre la pasividad del Banco de España para abordar la entonces incipiente burbuja inmobiliaria ya empezaron en 2006 (5).

En el Memorando de Entendimiento relativo a la ayuda europea para el sector financiero, no se incluía ninguna condición que tuviera como objetivo relevar a aquellos cargos directivos del Banco de España que tuvieron una actitud negligente en la gestación de la burbuja inmobiliaria.

En estos momentos está a punto de concluir la negociación del Reglamento propuesto por la Comisión que convertirá el Banco Central Europeo en supervisor europeo para el sector bancario.

A la luz de lo anterior:

¿Por qué la Comisión no incluyó en el Memorando de Entendimiento ningún tipo de condicionalidad respecto a la estructura interna del Banco de España para dar más autonomía a los inspectores?

¿Por qué la Comisión no incluyó en el Memorando de Entendimiento ninguna condicionalidad relativa a la sustitución inmediata de aquellos cargos directivos del Banco de España que, como se demuestra ahora, tuvieron una actitud negligente ante la gestación de la crisis en España?

¿Qué artículo y que párrafo del Reglamento propuesto por la Comisión para convertir el BCE en supervisor de toda la banca europea propone medidas para que situaciones como esta no vuelvan a ocurrir?

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(28 de febrero de 2013)

La Comisión cree que uno de los elementos más importantes de un sistema bancario estable es el refuerzo de la red de seguridad financiera, lo que incluye no solo la mejora de determinados aspectos del Reglamento, sino también el compromiso de reforzar la supervisión.

El Memorando de Entendimiento, firmado en julio de 2012 por las autoridades españolas y la Comisión en nombre de los Estados miembros acreedores, impone una serie de condiciones destinadas a mejorar la normativa y la supervisión, las cuales son fundamentales para reforzar la robustez del sector bancario en el futuro.

Una de esas condiciones establece que las autoridades españolas deben proceder a una evaluación interna de los procesos de toma de decisiones y supervisión del Banco de España, a fin de garantizar la oportuna adopción de medidas correctoras para solucionar los problemas detectados en una fase temprana mediante inspecciones sobre el terreno. La Comisión está también al corriente de las críticas de los inspectores.

En consonancia con los compromisos del Memorando de Entendimiento, las autoridades españolas presentaron en octubre de 2012 un informe con los resultados de la evaluación interna de los procedimientos de supervisión del Banco de España y recomendaciones con vistas a reforzar tales procedimientos. La Comisión está debatiendo ahora con las autoridades españolas ese informe y su posible seguimiento.

Paralelamente, la Comisión está trabajando en la futura aplicación de un único mecanismo de supervisión, lo que constituye un elemento clave de la unión bancaria de la UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000317/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(14 January 2013)

Subject: Bank of Spain inspectors

The Bank of Spain's own inspectors' criticism of its executives' handling of the crisis in Spain's financial sector has received coverage in the Spanish (6) and international press (7). In as early as 2006, the Bank of Spain's inspectorate started to accuse the bank of taking no action as the property bubble grew at an unsustainable rate (8).

In the memorandum of understanding concerning European aid for the financial sector, there was no requirement to replace Bank of Spain executives who had been negligent in their handling of the housing bubble.

Negotiations on the Commission's proposal for a regulation to give the European Central Bank new supervisory powers over the European banking sector are now in their final stages.

Why did the Commission not impose any conditions in the memorandum of understanding concerning the internal structure of the Bank of Spain, with a view to granting the inspectors further autonomy?

Why did the Commission not lay down a requirement in the memorandum of understanding for the immediate replacement of Bank of Spain executives who acted negligently in the lead-up to the crisis in Spain?

Which article and paragraph of the Commission's proposal for a regulation to make the ECB the chief supervisor of eurozone banks includes measures to prevent similar situations from recurring?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

The Commission believes that one of the most important elements of a stable banking system is the strengthening of the financial safety net. That includes not only the enhancement of certain areas of the regulation but also the commitment to reinforce the supervision.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in July 2012 by the Spanish authorities and the Commission on behalf of the lending Member States imposes a number of conditions aiming at improving the regulatory and supervisory framework which is critical to enhance the resilience of the banking sector in the future.

One of these conditions establishes that the Spanish authorities must conduct an internal review of supervisory and decision-making processes of the Banco de España in order to ensure timely adoption of remedial actions for addressing problems detected at an early stage by on-site inspections. The Commission is also aware of inspectors' criticism.

In line with the MoU commitments, the Spanish authorities submitted in October 2012 a report with the results of the internal review of the supervisory procedures of the Banco de España and recommendations to further enhance these procedures. The Commission is currently discussing with the Spanish authorities this report and possible follow-up.

In parallel, the Commission is working on the future implementation of a single supervisory mechanism which is a key element of the EU banking union.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000318/13

an die Kommission

Othmar Karas (PPE)

(14. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Einführung eines vorläufigen Antidumpingzolls auf Importe von Geschirr und anderen Keramik-Artikeln für den Tisch- und Küchengebrauch mit Ursprung in der Volksrepublik China (Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1072/2012)

Die Kommissionsverordnung (EU) Nr. 1072/2012 führt Antidumpingzölle auf die Importe von Geschirr und anderen Keramik-Artikeln für den Tisch- und Küchengebrauch mit Ursprung in der Volksrepublik China in Höhe von 17,6 % bis 58,8 % ein.

Durch diese Zölle werden die Preise dieser Produkte beträchtlich ansteigen, was eine zusätzliche Belastung für die von der Rezession in der Eurozone bereits hart geprüften Verbraucher darstellt. Auch ist sehr wohl bekannt, dass die EU-Industrie nicht die Kapazitäten hat, um mehr als nur einen kleinen Teil der EU-Nachfrage nach diesen Produkten zu decken.

1.

Eine Mehrheit der Mitgliedstaaten im Anti-Dumping-Ausschuss stimmte demokratisch gegen die Einführung dieser vorläufigen Antidumpingmaßnahmen. Kann die Kommission mitteilen, warum sie sich zu dem ungewöhnlichen Schritt entschlossen hat, diese Abstimmungsergebnisse zu ignorieren?

2.

Das Deutsche Bundeskartellamt prüft derzeit

„abgestimmte Verhaltensweisen“ auf dem EU-Keramik- und Porzellanmarkt. Kann die Kommission erläutern, warum sie dieses Vorkommen von Preisabsprachen auf dem EU-Markt nicht geprüft hat, bevor sie provisorische Maßnahmen erließ?

3.

Stimmt die Kommission dem zu, dass die EU-Verbraucher die Haupt-Leidtragenden dieser Antidumpingzölle sein werden, da die chinesischen Keramik-Importe in die EU dadurch sehr teuer oder gar ganz vom Markt verschwinden werden, wodurch es den EU-Erzeugern ermöglicht wird, die Preise so stark anzuheben, dass — wie in der Vergangenheit schon geschehen — ernsthafte Besorgnisse darüber laut werden könnten, ob diese wohl mit den EU- und den nationalen Kartellvorschriften vereinbar sind?

4.

Während die Kommission geltend macht, dass nur 350 Beschäftigte in den fünf an der Erhebung beteiligten nicht einschlägigen Einzelhandels- und Exportbetrieben an der Erzeugung der betreffenden Waren beteiligt sind, liegen uns Informationen vor, wonach in diesen 5 Firmen alleine um die 5 000 Menschen in der hier relevanten Produktionsabteilung beschäftigt sind. Kann die Kommission diese eklatanten Abweichungen im Informationsstand erklären?

Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission

(11. März 2013)

Nach Artikel 7 Absatz 4 der Antidumpinggrundverordnung kann die Kommission nach Konsultation der Mitgliedstaaten vorläufige Maßnahmen ergreifen. Im Falle der Einfuhr von Geschirr und anderen Keramikartikeln hat die Untersuchung ergeben, dass Dumping seitens chinesischer Hersteller die EU-Wirtschaft geschädigt hat. Diese Maßnahmen liefen also dem Interesse der EU nicht zuwider. Die Tatsache, dass sich nach Konsultation der Mitgliedstaaten die Mehrheit gegen den Vorschlag der Kommission zur Einführung vorläufiger Maßnahmen aussprach, ändert nichts daran, dass der Fall technisch solide war.

Keine der die Verbraucherinteressen vertretenden Parteien gab an, von den Antidumpingmaßnahmen betroffen zu sein. Für den unwahrscheinlichen Fall, dass der Zoll in vollem Umfang an die Verbraucher weitergegeben werden sollte, wird geschätzt, dass die Antidumpingzölle, in ihrer vorläufig festgesetzten Höhe zu jährlichen Zusatzkosten pro EU-Haushalt von etwas mehr als einem Euro führen würden.

Es ist nicht zu erwarten, dass aufgrund dieser Maßnahmen chinesische Produkte vom Markt verschwinden werden. Zweck der Maßnahmen ist es, gleiche Voraussetzungen für alle betroffenen Wirtschaftsbeteiligten zu schaffen und wieder einen fairen Wettbewerb herzustellen.

Es gibt derzeit keine Anzeichen dafür, dass diese Maßnahmen zu wettbewerbswidrigen Praktiken seitens der EU-Hersteller führen werden. Die Anzahl der EU-Hersteller ist groß, und bisher ist keine Behörde zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, dass es im betreffenden Zeitraum abgestimmte Verhaltensweisen auf dem EU-Keramik‐ und Porzellanmarkt gab.

Die Untersuchung hat ergeben, dass die fünf in die Stichprobe einbezogenen Importeure 350 Mitarbeiter im Bereich Einfuhr und Wiederverkauf von Keramik für den Tisch‐ oder Küchengebrauch beschäftigten. Diese Zahl schließt nicht die Beschäftigten mit ein, die für die Herstellung von Waren eingesetzt wurden, die nicht Teil der Untersuchung waren, oder die andere Tätigkeiten, zum Beispiel im Einzelhandelsverkauf, verrichteten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000318/13

to the Commission

Othmar Karas (PPE)

(14 January 2013)

Subject: Provisional anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012 imposes provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of ceramic tableware originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) ranging from 17.6 % to 58.8 %.

The imposition of these duties will raise the prices for these products considerably, placing an additional burden on European consumers already hard-pressed by the ongoing eurozone recession. It is also a well known fact that EU industry does not have the capacity to supply more than a small part of the EU’s demand for these products.

1.

A majority of the Member States on the Anti-Dumping Committee voted democratically against the imposition of these provisional anti-dumping measures. Can the Commission explain why it took the unusual step of disregarding this vote?

2.

The German Anti-Trust Authority is currently investigating collusive practices in the EU ceramics and porcelain market. Can the Commission clarify why it did not examine evidence of price collusion on the EU market before it imposed the provisional measures?

3.

Would the Commission agree that EU consumers will be the main victims of the imposition of these antidumping duties, as Chinese ceramic-ware imports into the EU will become very expensive or disappear from the market altogether, thereby allowing EU producers to increase prices to an extent that may — as has happened in the past — raise serious concerns as to whether they are in keeping with EU and national anti-trust laws?

4.

While the Commission claims that only 350 employees at the five unrelated retailers/importers sampled are involved in the production of the wares concerned, we have information that of these five firms, one alone employs some 5 000 people in the relevant product division. Can the Commission comment on this blatant information discrepancy?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

Under Article 7(4) of the basic anti-dumping regulation the Commission is competent to take provisional measures after consultations with the Member States. In the tableware case, the investigation showed dumping by Chinese manufacturers caused damage to EU industry. These measures are not against EU interests. The fact that a majority of Member States, upon consultation, opposed the Commission proposal to impose provisional measures does not undermine the fact that the case was technically solid.

No parties directly representing the interests of consumers claimed that they would be affected by the anti-dumping measures. In the unlikely event that the duty is fully passed on to consumers, it is estimated that the anti-dumping duties as provisionally set would, on average, mean a yearly extra cost per household in the EU of slightly more than EUR 1.

It is not expected that measures make Chinese products disappear from the EU market. Measures are intended to create a level playing field for all economic operators concerned and restore fair competition.

There are no indications that measures will lead to anti-competitive practices by EU manufacturers. The number of EU producers is high and to date no authority has come to a conclusion that there were collusive practices in the EU ceramics and porcelain market in the period concerned.

The investigation revealed that the five sampled importers employed 350 people in the importation and resale of ceramic table and kitchenware products. This figure does not include people employed for the production of goods that were not part of the investigation or for other activities, like retailing.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000319/13

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(14 January 2013)

Subject: Bus competition and access to publicly funded bus stations and transport infrastructure in the Republic of Ireland

In relation to Written Question E-007616/2012 and the Commission’s answer thereto, has the Irish Government provided the necessary information? What information is missing? What does the Commission mean when it refers to the ‘Irish Authorities’? Does it mean the Irish Government, the CIE group, or another party? If it is another party, what organisation is the Commission referring to?

When does the Commission intend to publish a final report on competition in the Irish bus market, given that the 2012 date given for publication has now passed? Can the Commission state whether or not it is aware of the looming 2014 deadline in Ireland, when the National Transport Authority will issue a new five-year contract to a bus operator?

Is the Commission aware that if it does not act promptly, the five-year contract to provide state subsidised transport in towns and cities such as Athlone, Galway, Sligo, Letterkenny and Limerick during the period 2014-2019 could be awarded to Bus Eireann, and that this would not have to be put out to tender? Would this comply with EC law?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

The Commission is not waiting for any further information from the Irish Authorities related to case C31/2007. The information most recently provided is being analysed to decide on the next steps. The ‘Irish Authorities’ means the Irish Government; however, the government may forward responses from other entities and agencies.

A final decision is expected in the first half of 2013. The Commission is aware that the current public service contracts between the National Transport Authority and both Bus Eireann and Dublin Bus expire in December 2014, but no definite plan as to new contracts post-2014 has yet been communicated to the Commission.

The award of any new public service contract for bus passenger transport is governed by public procurement Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (9), except when these contracts take the form of service concessions within the meaning of those directives, in which case the award of service concessions for transport services by bus is governed by the provisions of Regulation 1370/2007 (10). Article 5 of that regulation states that any competent authority which has recourse to a third party shall award public service contracts on the basis of a competitive tendering procedure. However, direct awards are also possible under certain circumstances, notably where the average annual value of the public service contracts is estimated to be below certain thresholds or in the event of disruption of services or the immediate risk of such a situation, where the competent authority may take an emergency measure. A local competent authority may also directly award the contract to an internal operator under certain conditions.

The Commission will ensure that the provisions of Regulation 1370/2007 as applicable (11) are respected.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002552/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)

(5 marzo 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Aiuti finanziari all'Egitto da parte dell'Unione Europea

Alla fine di febbraio 2013, presso la sottocommissione per le relazioni esterne del Congresso degli Stati Uniti, si è tenuta un'audizione sul Medio Oriente e il Nordafrica per discutere della politica statunitense con l'Egitto.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, presidente della sottocommissione, ha presentato la risoluzione n. 416 della Camera, un disegno di legge che limita gli aiuti militari ed economici all'Egitto qualora il governo del presidente Mohammed Morsi non rispetti determinati requisiti. Ciò implica che gli aiuti verrebbero erogati solo se in linea con gli interessi della sicurezza nazionale statunitense in Egitto e se a sostegno della promozione della democrazia.

Ros-Lehtinen ha osservato: «Non dovremmo erogare incondizionatamente fondi al governo guidato dai Fratelli musulmani, che non si conforma ai principi democratici e non è sulla buona strada per l'adempimento dei suoi obblighi nei confronti della comunità internazionale e dei propri cittadini».

Si ritiene che la risoluzione n. 416 sia un'indicazione del fatto che gli Stati Uniti riconsidereranno l'erogazione di aiuti all'Egitto. Vi sono infatti richieste di una maggiore condizionalità, che tenga in considerazione le azioni del governo egiziano dei Fratelli musulmani.

Può la Commissione rispondere alle seguenti domande:

Alla luce della decisione del Congresso degli Stati Uniti di rivedere gli aiuti all'Egitto, è il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante disposto a esaminare la questione della condizionalità con riguardo agli aiuti dell'Unione europea all'Egitto?

Nel novembre 2012 l'Unione europea ha convenuto di stanziare a favore dell'Egitto un pacchetto di aiuti da 5 miliardi di euro. Quali misure sono state adottate al fine di garantire che tali aiuti siano stati impiegati in maniera efficace?

Quali azioni sono state inoltre intraprese per indirizzare gli aiuti a favore dellapromozione della democrazia, del rafforzamento dei diritti delle donne edell'incoraggiamento del dialogo tra diversi gruppi religiosi ed etnici?

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

(2 maggio 2013)

L'UE segue gli sviluppi in Egitto ed esprime preoccupazione per la profonda polarizzazione politica che si è creata fra il governo e l'opposizione, accompagnata dal peggioramento della situazione economica. L'UE è in contatto con tutti i leader politici e insiste sulla necessità di una riconciliazione.

Il pacchetto di 5 miliardi di euro annunciato il 14 novembre 2012 nell'ambito della task force UE-Egitto, è costituito dagli impegni combinati per il 2012-2013 a titolo del finanziamento bilaterale SEVP dell'UE, dall'assistenza macrofinanziaria dell'UE — per cui un accordo fra l'Egitto e l'FMI è un requisito fondamentale — ma soprattutto da possibili prestiti dalla BEI e della BERS. I fondi sono soggetti a diversi tipi di condizioni. I prestiti della BEI e della BERS dipendono anche dalle condizioni di mercato e dalle possibilità di investimento.

I programmi di cooperazione dell'UE possono essere sospesi se il paese beneficiario contravviene agli obblighi in materia di rispetto dei diritti umani, lede i principi democratici e lo Stato di diritto e qualora si verifichino gravi casi di corruzione. L'UE segue la situazione sul terreno in stretta collaborazione con il governo, l'opposizione, i rappresentanti della società civile e gli altri soggetti interessati.

Per costruire la democrazia occorrono duro lavoro, impegno e pazienza, a livello sia nazionale che internazionale. Dopo la rivoluzione la strada percorsa dall'Egitto verso la democrazia è stata difficile e complessa. Nonostante tutto, si sono registrati sviluppi fondamentali, quali elezioni trasparenti e credibili, il passaggio alla governance civile, la formazione di partiti politici e l'istituzione di un'opposizione politica. L'Europa, in quanto paese vicino e partner, deve impegnarsi a sostenere la transizione dell'Egitto, sottolineando al tempo stesso l'importanza dello Stato di diritto e del rispetto dei diritti umani riconosciuti a livello internazionale.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000328/13

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(14 januari 2013)

Betreft: Donatie van 5 miljard euro aan Egypte

De EU heeft met andere organisaties gezamenlijk 5 miljard euro toegezegd aan leningen en giften aan Egypte, zogezegd om het „democratiseringsproces” aldaar te ondersteunen.

1.

Is de Commissie zich ervan bewust dat

„democratisering” in Egypte inhoudt dat de islamitische sharia wordt ingevoerd, wat in de praktijk betekent dat vrouwen, christelijke kopten en minderheden worden onderdrukt en er van vrijheid van meningsuiting geen sprake kan zijn?

2.

Kan de Commissie aangeven of zij deze zogenaamde

„democratisering” ook steunt als dit in de praktijk betekent dat de islamitische sharia verder wordt ingevoerd, met alle verschrikkelijke gevolgen van dien?

3.

Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat de beslissing om 5 miljard euro weg te geven aan Egypte volstrekt immoreel is, omdat burgers in Europa hard worden getroffen door de eurocrisis en de vele bezuinigingen, maar de EU desondanks wel geld weet vrij te maken voor een islamitisch regime in Egypte? Zo neen, waarom niet?

4.

Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat dit bij voorbaat weggegooid geld is, omdat Egypte zich — zolang de islam er domineert — nooit zal kunnen ontwikkelen tot een liberale democratie, inclusief daarbij horende principes zoals vrijheid van meningsuiting en mensenrechten? Zo neen, waarom niet?

5.

Kan de Commissie aangeven of zij soms van mening is dat democratie met geld te koop is, en zo niet, waarom dan deze gift voor

„democratisering”?

6.

Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat de ontwikkelingen in Egypte geen steun of geld verdienen, maar juist keiharde woorden van afkeuring? Zo neen, waarom niet?

7.

Kan de Commissie aangeven of zij bereid is  terug te komen op de beslissing om 5 miljard euro aan Egypte te doneren?

Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie

(2 mei 2013)

De EU volgt de ontwikkelingen in Egypte en maakt zich zorgen om de diepe politieke polarisatie tussen de overheid en de oppositie die gepaard gaat met een verslechterende economische situatie. De EU onderhoudt contacten met alle politieke hoofdrolspelers en dringt daarbij aan op verzoening.

De bijstand van 5 miljard euro die op 14 november 2012 in het kader van de taskforce EU-Egypte is toegezegd, bestaat uit gezamenlijke verbintenissen voor 2012-2013 uit bilaterale ENPI-middelen van de EU, macrofinanciële bijstand van de EU — waarvoor een overeenkomst tussen Egypte en het IMF een eerste voorwaarde is — maar voornamelijk uit mogelijke leningen van de EIB en de EBWO. Aan deze financiering zijn verschillende soorten voorwaarden verbonden. Leningen van de EIB en de EBWO zijn eveneens afhankelijk van de marktsituatie en de investeringsmogelijkheden.

Alle EU-samenwerkingprogramma's kunnen worden opgeschort als het begunstigde land zijn verplichtingen inzake eerbiediging van de mensenrechten, de democratische beginselen en de rechtsstaat, niet nakomt en bij ernstige corruptie. De EU volgt de situatie  ter plaatse. Zij onderhoudt nauw contact en voert dialoog met de regering, de oppositie, vertegenwoordigers van de civiele samenleving en andere belangrijke actoren.

De opbouw van democratie vergt veel werk, inzet en geduld, zowel van het land in kwestie als van de internationale gemeenschap. Sinds de opstand is de weg naar democratie van Egypte zwaar en complex geweest. Toch is er reeds een belangrijke vooruitgang geboekt, zoals transparante en geloofwaardige verkiezingen, de overgang naar burgerlijk bestuur, de vorming van politieke partijen van een politieke oppositie. Als buur en partner is het de taak van Europa om de overgang in Egypte te ondersteunen en tegelijkertijd het belang van de rechtsstaat en van de naleving van internationaal overeengekomen mensenrechtenprincipes te benadrukken.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000328/13

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(14 January 2013)

Subject: EUR 5 billion donation to Egypt

The EU has pledged, together with other organisations, EUR 5 billion in loans and grants to Egypt, supposedly to support the ‘democratisation process’ there.

1.Is the Commission aware that in Egypt ‘democratisation’ involves the introduction of Sharia law, which in practice means the oppression of women, Christian Copts and minorities and rules out freedom of expression?

2.Does it also support this so-called ‘democratisation’ even when in practice it means further implementation of Sharia law, with all the terrible consequences thereof?

3.Does it agree with the Party for Freedom (PVV) that the decision to give away EUR 5 billion to Egypt is utterly immoral because the EU is able to make money available to an Islamic regime in Egypt despite European citizens being hit hard by the euro crisis and numerous spending cuts? If not, why not?

4.Does it agree with the PVV that this is money thrown away in advance because — for as long as Islam plays a dominant role there — Egypt will never be able to develop into a liberal democracy, with associated principles such as freedom of expression and human rights? If not, why not?

5.Can it indicate whether it believes that democracy can be bought with money, and if not, why this gift is being made for ‘democratisation’?

6.Does the Commission agree with the PVV that the developments in Egypt do not deserve support or money but rather scathing words of disapproval? If not, why not?

7.Can it indicate whether it is prepared to reconsider the decision to donate EUR 5 billion to Egypt?

Question for written answer E-002552/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)

(5 March 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — EU financial aid to Egypt

In late February 2013, a hearing was held in the US Congress’ Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa in order to discuss US policy with Egypt.

The Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, introduced House Resolution 416, a bill which would limit military and economic aid to Egypt if certain standards are not met by the government of President Mohammed Morsi. This would entail that aid would only be given if it is in line with US national security interests inside Egypt and supports the promotion of democracy.

Ros-Lehtinen noted: ‘We should not be providing funds without condition to the Muslim Brotherhood-led government that is not conforming to democratic principles, and is not on the right path to fulfil its obligations to the international community and to its own citizens’.

Resolution 416 is believed to be an indication that the US will reconsider aid delivery to Egypt. There are calls for more conditionality, which takes into consideration the actions of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government.

1.

In light of the US Congress decision to review US aid to Egypt, is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to look into the question of conditionality regarding EU aid to Egypt?

2.

In November 2012, the EU agreed to deliver an EUR 5 billion aid package to Egypt. What steps have been taken to ensure that the aid was used effectively?

3.

What steps have been taken to target aid for the purpose of promoting democracy, strengthening women’s rights and encouraging dialogue between different religious and ethnic groups?

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

(2 May 2013)

The EU is following the developments in Egypt and is worried by a deep political polarisation between the government and the opposition coupled with a deteriorating economic situation. The EU is in touch with all political protagonists insisting on the need for conciliation.

Regarding the EUR 5 billion package announced in the framework of the EU-Egypt Task Force on 14 November 2012, it consists of the combined commitments for 2012-13 from the EU bilateral ENPI funding, EU Macro-Financial Assistance — for which an EGY-IMF arrangement is a precondition — but mostly from possible loans from the EIB and the EBRD. Different kinds of conditionalities are attached to these funds. Loans from the EIB and EBRD also depend on market conditions and investment opportunities.

EU cooperation programmes can be suspended if the beneficiary country breaches an obligation relating to the respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law and in serious cases of corruption. The EU is monitoring the situation on the ground in close contact and dialogue with the government, opposition, civil society representatives and other key stakeholders.

Democracy building requires hard work, commitment and patience, domestically and internationally. Since the uprising Egypt’s road to democracy has been difficult and complex; nonetheless there have been key developments such as transparent and credible elections, hand-over to civilian governance, the formation of political parties and the establishment of a political opposition. Europe as a neighbour and a partner has to engage and support Egypt’s transition while strongly emphasising the importance of the rule of law and of compliance with internationally agreed human rights principles.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000365/13

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Spanish customs checks

In response to Question E-009971/2011, the Commission stated that it does not routinely monitor the customs checks performed by the national authorities. However, it suggested that Member States should select custom controls based on ‘risk management’ factors as provided for in the customs legislation.

Gibraltar remains outside the customs union, and therefore alcohol and tobacco may be available at lower cost than in Spain. The Spanish authorities have implemented thorough checks on individuals and vehicles at the La Línea frontier. On some days every vehicle will be checked and inspected for contraband, and such an approach can lead to severe delays at the border — sometimes of up to six hours.

The Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Principality of Andorra which entered into force on 1 July 1991 establishes a customs union with most-favoured nation status between the Principality and the EU. However, VAT and duty on alcohol and tobacco are far lower in Andorra than in Spain.

Melilla and Ceuta benefit from an autonomous preferential agreement with the EU, but neither is part of the EU’s customs territory. Citizens travelling from these territories must also abide by customs and tax allowances for travellers similar to those applying to people travelling from outside the EU, just as is the case for those crossing from Gibraltar into Spain.

1.

Is the Commission satisfied that the Spanish authorities have the appropriate customs provision in place for citizens travelling between:

Andorra and Spain, and

the autonomous cities of Melilla and Ceuta onwards to Spain?

With VAT and duty being lower in Andorra as well as Melilla and Ceuta, these territories represent a threat to customs revenue similar to that posed by those entering Spain from Gibraltar. In light of this, does the Commission consider that a consistent, fair and non-discriminatory approach would see similar thorough checks also being required at the frontiers with Andorra as well as with Melilla and Ceuta?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

Although all three territories are indeed not part of the customs territory of the European Union, special and different arrangements between these territories and the EU apply.

An agreement for a customs union between the EU and Andorra has been in force since 1 July 1991 (12) covering some products, but not alcohol or tobacco. This agreement ensures that some Andorra goods enter in the entire Union free of customs duty, or benefit from preferential rates.

The territorial status of Ceuta and Melilla is contained in Protocol No2 concerning the accession of the Kingdom of Spain to the EU. Melilla and Ceuta have certain preferential arrangements with the Union as a whole, as well as additional preference arrangements with peninsular Spain whereby goods of Ceuta or Melilla origin qualify for exemption from duty. In addition, under Spanish law, these territories have been designated as exempted areas for custom purposes.

Gibraltar is treated as a third country for customs purposes by virtue of Section 4 of Annex I to the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom of 1972 and, in the absence of any specific preferential arrangements such as the ones mentioned above, exports of goods of local origin to the EU are treated under the usual terms of the Generalised system of preferences .

For excise and VAT purposes all of these territories are treated as Third Countries. Duty and tax free allowances are restricted to travellers (13). In this particular regard, the Honourable Member is referred to Question E-000427/2013.

As the rules in force in respect of the above three territories are different, different customs checks may appear necessary to ensure the correct application of the relevant legislation.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000366/13

aan de Commissie

Ivo Belet (PPE)

(15 januari 2013)

Betreft: Leningen EIB en duurzame energie

Uit een studie van Bankwatch (14) blijkt dat de Europese Investeringsbank in de periode 2007-2010, op het vlak van energie, leningen heeft toegekend aan projecten met fossiele brandstoffen (33 % van de leningen in de energiesector).

1.

Hoe kijkt de Commissie hier tegenaan?

2.

Kan de Commissie, via haar vertegenwoordiger in de Raad van Bewind van de Europese Investeringsbank, erop toezien dat deze leningen in de toekomst voornamelijk zullen worden toegekend aan projecten  ter bevordering van duurzame energie en energie-efficiëntie?

Antwoord van de heer Rehn namens de Commissie

(13 mei 2013)

In het kader van het in 2007 aangenomen beleid inzake energiekredietverstrekking van de EIB zijn de inspanningen op concurrerende, duurzame en zekere energie gericht. De activiteit van de EIB is afgestemd op de prioriteiten van het energiebeleid van de EU door steun aan hernieuwbare energie, energie-efficiëntie en onderzoek, ontwikkeling en innovatie en zekerheid en diversificatie van de voorziening, inclusief TEN-E.

Steenkool/bruinkoolcentrales blijven uit overwegingen van voorzieningszekerheid in aanmerking komen voor EIB-steun, hoewel zeer restrictieve doorlichtingscriteria gelden: vervanging van oudere en ineffectieve installaties en verlaging van de koolstofintensiteit met ten minste 20 % door middel van state-of-the-art en CCS-klare technologieën. De EIB beoordeelt broeikasgasemissies en betrekt de koolstofkosten bij projectbeoordelingen. Koolstofintensieve projecten kunnen worden afgewezen.

Tussen 2007-10 maakte kredietverstrekking aan steenkool/bruinkoolcentrales 3 % van de energiekredietverstrekking van de EIB uit, terwijl kredietverstrekking voor thermische, d.w.z. steenkool-, olie‐ en gascentrales, 11,9 % bedroeg en vooral gericht was op efficiënte gasgestookte gecombineerde warmte‐ en krachtcentrales. Het cijfer van Bankwatch omvatte ook gasnetinfrastructuren, inclusief TEN-E, en financiering van raffinaderijen.

Tijdens dezelfde periode maakte het aandeel van de EIB in de energiefinanciering  ter ondersteuning van hernieuwbare energie en energie-efficiëntie meer dan 40 % van de kredietverstrekking voor energie van de EIB uit en bereikte het 48 % in 2011-12.

In de zomer van 2013, na een publieke raadpleging, zal de EIB haar beleid inzake kredietverstrekking voor energie naar verwachting toetsen. De Commissie zal met de EIB samenwerken om ervoor te zorgen dat de voornaamste EU-energieprioriteiten tot uitdrukking komen zoals mede vastgesteld in het kader van de Europa 2020-strategie, het Pakket energie-instrastructuur, de mededeling betreffende de interne energiemarkt en het Energiestappenplan 2050, inclusief de bevordering van hernieuwbare energiebronnen en energie-efficiëntie en de uitfasering van de steun voor fossiele brandstoffen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000366/13

to the Commission

Ivo Belet (PPE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: EIB loans and renewable energy

According to Bankwatch research, between 2007 and 2010, in the field of energy the European Investment Bank granted loans for fossil fuel projects (33 % of the loans in the energy sector) (15).

1.

What is the Commission’s view of this?

2.

Can the Commission, through its representative on the European Investment Bank’s Board of Directors, ensure that these loans will in future be mainly granted for projects promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2013)

EIB's energy lending policy adopted in 2007 focuses on competitive, sustainable and secure energy. The EIB activity is aligned to the EU energy policy priorities by supporting renewable energy, energy efficiency and research, development and innovation, security and diversification of supply, including TEN-E.

Coal/lignite fuelled power stations remain eligible for EIB support for security of supply considerations, though very restrictive screening criteria are applied: replacing older and ineffective plants while decreasing carbon intensity by at least 20% with state-of-the-art and CCS-ready technologies. The EIB assesses greenhouse gas emissions and integrates carbon cost into project appraisals. Carbon-intensive projects can be screened out.

Between 2007-10, lending to coal/lignite power stations represented 3% of EIB energy lending; while lending for thermal (i.e. coal, oil and gas fired) power plants was 11.9%, mostly directed towards efficient gas fired combined cycle power plants. The Bankwatch figure included also gas grids infrastructure, including TEN-E, and refinery financing.

Over the same period, the EIB’s share of energy financing in support of renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for more than 40% of EIB energy lending and reached 48% in 2011-12.

In summer 2013, following a public consultation, the EIB is expected to review its energy lending policy. The Commission will cooperate with the EIB to ensure that the main EU energy policy priorities are reflected as identified also in the Europe 2020 strategy, the Energy Infrastructure Package, the internal energy market communication and the Energy 2050 Roadmap, including the promotion of renewables and energy efficiency and phasing out of support for fossil fuels.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000367/13

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and intellectual property

The EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) entered into force on 1 July 2011; it could create new trade in goods and services worth EUR 19.1 billion for the EU and save EU exporters EUR 1.6 billion a year.

With regard to intellectual property (IP), the FTA should provide operators with legal certainty and allow effective action against infringement. The FTA obliges the EU and South Korea to provide for measures, procedures and remedies permitting effective action against any infringements of IP rights.

1.

What specific monitoring measures does the Commission have in place to ensure that EU businesses’ IP rights are being upheld?

2.

Is the Commission aware of how many EU IP rights-holders have sought to enforce their IP rights through South Korea’s legal framework since the implementation of the FTA? If so, what percentage of the rulings on these legal cases have found in favour of EU businesses?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

The role of the Commission is to ensure a proper implementation of the EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) so that operators can fully benefit from the agreement. This role complements the necessary actions the private entities may have to undertake in the legal systems in place in Europe or in Korea to enforce their rights.

Under the FTA, the EU and Korea agreed to maintain an effective dialogue on intellectual property issues (IP Dialogue) to address topics relevant to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights covered by the IP chapter of the FTA. The IP dialogue provides a forum for inter alia monitoring the implementation of the FTA provisions on IP.

In addition, periodical public IP surveys carried out by the Commission provide useful information about the state of IP protection and enforcement in third countries, including Korea.

The Commission currently does not have precise statistics concerning legal actions undertaken by EU IP-holders in the Korean legal system since the implementation of the FTA. However, the Commission took the opportunity of the latest EU-Korea IP Dialogue (September 2012) to raise the concerns that had been expressed to it about the ability of foreign right holders to enforce their rights through the South Korean legal framework, and asked the Korean authorities whether any data existed on the success rate of cases brought by right holders. The Korean authorities undertook to check whether such data existed.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-000368/13

till kommissionen

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)

(15 januari 2013)

Angående: Tillgång till vatten för svin under långväga transporter (uppföljningsfråga till fråga E-004881/2012)

Fråga E-004881/2012 avsåg verkställandet av förordning (EG) nr 1/2005, med avseende på tillgång till vatten för svin under långväga transporter (svin får transporteras under en period av maximalt 24 timmar, under förutsättning att de hela tiden har tillgång till vatten). Kommissionen uppgav i sitt svar att den inte har fått någon information från de behöriga myndigheterna i medlemsstaterna som skulle visa på att verkställandet av denna del av lagstiftningen skulle ha medfört några större svårigheter.

Kommissionen ombes att svara på följande frågor:

På vilket sätt kontrolleras det i praktiken att medlemsstaterna uppfyller kravet på att svin hela tiden ska ha tillgång till vatten under långväga transporter?

Anser kommissionen att det på ett mätbart sätt går att kontrollera att svin hela tiden har tillgång till vatten under långväga transporter, med tanke på att detta skulle kräva att en inspektör finns med under samtliga transporter?

Har kommissionen, med beaktande av att den inte har fått någon information från de behöriga myndigheterna i medlemsstaterna som skulle visa på att verkställandet av denna del av lagstiftningen skulle ha medfört några större svårigheter, mottagit några uppgifter som motsäger detta från någon medlemsstat, det vill säga information om huruvida, och i så fall hur och i vilken omfattning, denna del av förordningen kontrolleras och verkställs?

Svar från Tonio Borg på kommissionens vägnar

(21 februari 2013)

1.

Det är medlemsstaterna som ansvarar för att kontrollera att kraven i förordning (EG) nr 1/2005 om skydd av djur under transport

1.

Det är medlemsstaterna som ansvarar för att kontrollera att kraven i förordning (EG) nr 1/2005 om skydd av djur under transport

 (16)

2.

Kommissionen håller inte med om att det enda sättet att kontrollera detta skulle vara att låta en inspektör finnas med under samtliga transporter. I enlighet med artikel 3 i förordning (EG) nr 882/2004 om offentlig kontroll

2.

Kommissionen håller inte med om att det enda sättet att kontrollera detta skulle vara att låta en inspektör finnas med under samtliga transporter. I enlighet med artikel 3 i förordning (EG) nr 882/2004 om offentlig kontroll

 (17)

3.

Kommissionen har inte fått några sådana uppgifter från medlemsstaterna.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000368/13

to the Commission

Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Water supply for pigs during long-distance transport (follow-up question to Question E-004881/2012)

Question E-004881/2012 referred to the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 with regard to water supply for pigs during long-distance transport (pigs may be transported for a maximum of 24 hours, on condition they have continuous access to water during the journey). In reply, the Commission said that it ‘has not received any information from the competent authorities of the Member States pointing to major difficulties in enforcing this part of the legislation’.

The Commission is asked to respond to the following questions:

How is compliance with the requirement to provide constant access to water for pigs during long-distance transport verified in practice in the Member States?

Is the Commission of the opinion that verification of constant access to water during long-distance transport of pigs is achievable on a measurable basis, given that this would require every instance of transport to be accompanied by an inspector?

Given that the Commission ‘has not received any information from the competent authorities of the Member States pointing to major difficulties in enforcing this part of the legislation’, has it received any information of a contrary nature from the Member States, i.e. information as to whether, and if so how and to what extent, this part of the regulation is being verified and enforced?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

1.

Member States are responsible for controlling compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport

1.

Member States are responsible for controlling compliance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport

 (18)

2.

The

2.

The

 (19)

3.

The Commission has not received such information from Member States.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000369/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(15 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Barreras al mercado único en el Estado español

Los ciudadanos y las empresas no españoles que desean realizar actos o negocios jurídicos en España tales como comprar un bien inmueble, tramitar una herencia, constituir una filial o ejecutar una sentencia extranjera se encuentran con que el Estado español no les permite efectuarlo inmediatamente. El origen de esta situación es que España no reconoce, en las actuaciones ordinarias, los números de identificación expedidos en los Estados de origen, aunque se trate de Estados miembros.

España no permite a los no españoles realizar actuaciones hasta que hayan obtenido unos números de identificación que solamente pueden ser expedidos por las propias autoridades españolas, quedando entre tanto bloqueados sus actos y negocios jurídicos. En el caso de las personas físicas, se les exige concretamente la obtención de un «NIE» (número de identidad de extranjero) ante las comisarías de policía en España o ante los consulados españoles en el extranjero. El procedimiento correspondiente exige la presentación de una solicitud con numerosos datos personales, el motivo por el cual se solicita el NIE, documentación y el desplazamiento del interesado a España o hasta una representación consular española en su país de origen (aunque sea ciudadano/a comunitario/a), o bien, en caso de desear realizar la tramitación mediante un tercero en España, el otorgamiento de un poder especial ante notario, con apostilla y traducción jurada, o el otorgamiento de poder por la vía consular. Una vez obtenido el NIE, si corresponde, se deben efectuar adicionalmente los trámites oportunos ante la Hacienda española para que al interesado, ya identificado policialmente mediante el NIE, le sea otorgado un «NIF» (número de identificación fiscal) español. Los notarios españoles rechazan el otorgamiento de escrituras públicas cuando alguna de las personas comparecientes sea no española y carezca de NIE otorgado por las autoridades españolas, aunque se trate de ciudadanos/as de un Estado miembro de la UE provistos de su correspondiente documento nacional de identidad o pasaporte.

A la luz de lo anterior,

¿No cree la Comisión que esta es una discriminación en el trato por motivo de la nacionalidad tal y como se prohíbe en el artículo 18 del TFUE?

¿No cree la Comisión que el Estado español vulnera el artículo 49 del TFUE que prohíbe poner restricciones a la libertad de los nacionales de un Estado miembro de establecerse y establecer filiales en otro Estado miembro?

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000370/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(15 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Barreras al mercado único en el Estado español para personas jurídicas

Los ciudadanos y las empresas no españoles que desean realizar actos o negocios jurídicos en España tales como comprar un bien inmueble, tramitar una herencia, constituir una filial o ejecutar una sentencia extranjera se encuentran con que el Estado español no les permite efectuarlo inmediatamente. El origen de esta situación es que España no reconoce, en las actuaciones ordinarias, los números de identificación expedidos en los Estados de origen, aunque se trate de Estados miembros.

A las sociedades mercantiles francesas, alemanas, etc. se les exige, para cualquier actuación en España, la previa obtención de un «NIF» (número de identificación fiscal) de sociedad no residente expedido por las autoridades españolas. Para la obtención de tal NIF, es necesario presentar ante la Hacienda española una solicitud acompañada de documentación del país de origen, con apostilla y traducción jurada, así como, en caso de tramitarse en España mediante un tercero, el correspondiente apoderamiento. Todo ello aunque la sociedad en cuestión carezca de actividad alguna en España y desee simplemente comprar un bien inmueble en España o inscribir en un registro de la propiedad español el embargo de una finca de un deudor moroso condenado mediante sentencia firme en un procedimiento judicial celebrado ante los tribunales franceses, alemanes, etc. Lo mismo sucede cuando la sociedad desea constituir una filial en España: no puede hacerlo mientras no tenga NIF.

Todo ello, además de gastos y molestias, tiene como consecuencia que durante semanas y meses los interesados se hallan impedidos de realizar con inmediatez y normalidad actuaciones ordinarias en el ámbito civil y mercantil intracomunitario cuando se trata de España. Todo ello infringe el derecho a la libre circulación y resulta contrario al principio de no discriminación, ya que, mientras las personas físicas y jurídicas españolas pueden actuar sin obstáculo, los ciudadanos y sociedades de la Unión Europea no pueden actuar en España mientras no dispongan de números de identificación expedidos exclusivamente por las autoridades españolas.

A la luz de lo anterior,

¿No cree la Comisión que esta es una discriminación en el trato por motivo de la nacionalidad tal y como se prohíbe en el artículo 18 del TFUE?

¿Hará uso la Comisión del artículo 50, apartado 2, letra c), del TFUE para parar estas prácticas negativas para la libertad de establecimiento?

Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Šemeta en nombre de la Comisión

(26 de febrero de 2013)

Según la información a disposición de la Comisión, la obligación de estar en posesión de un NIF (número de identificación fiscal) incumbe a todos los ciudadanos, tanto españoles como extranjeros, que intervengan en operaciones que impliquen consecuencias fiscales en España. Las normas del NIF, modificadas en 2007, implican, a la vista de esa información, que:

la obligación de disponer de un NIF atañe por igual a ciudadanos españoles y extranjeros;

el NIF se concede casi de forma instantánea, por lo que los retrasos son poco probables y, en cualquier caso, no son la norma general en este ámbito;

si, excepcionalmente, la obtención del NIF requiriera más tiempo y si, en consecuencia, el sujeto pasivo no pudiera cumplir sus obligaciones fiscales en el plazo pertinente, no se le impondría ningún interés de demora ni ninguna penalización;

los trámites del NIF tienen como objetivo determinar la identidad de la persona que lo solicita y son proporcionales a este fin.

En vista de lo anterior, y teniendo en cuenta que no se ha conseguido ninguna armonización de las obligaciones fiscales en la EU, la Comisión opina que no puede considerarse que las normas del NIF den lugar a discriminación por motivos de nacionalidad ni que sean contrarias a la libertad de establecimiento.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000369/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Barriers to the single market in Spain

Non-Spanish nationals and companies wishing to undertake legal acts or business in Spain, such as buying a property, processing an inheritance, constituting a subsidiary or executing a foreign judgment, find that the Spanish State does not allow them to do so immediately. This situation arises from the fact that Spain does not recognise, for ordinary activities, identification numbers issued in States of origin, even if they are Member States.

Spain does not permit non-Spanish citizens and companies to act until they have obtained identification numbers issued only by Spain’s own authorities, their legal acts and businesses being blocked in the meantime. In the case of natural persons, they are specifically required to obtain an ‘NIE’ (foreign national identification number) from a Spanish police station or from the Spanish consulate abroad. The relevant procedure requires an application to be made with numerous personal details, the reason for requesting the NIE and documentation, and the person concerned must travel to Spain or visit a Spanish consular representation in the country of origin (even if he/she is a Community citizen). If a third party in Spain is to handle the process, the granting of a special empowerment, made before notary, with apostille and certified translation, or empowerment via a consulate, is required. Once the NIE is obtained, it is also necessary, if applicable, to complete administrative procedures with the Spanish Ministry of Finance so that the person concerned — now identified by the police with an NIE — can be provided with a Spanish ‘NIF’ (tax identification number). Spanish notaries refuse issuance of public deeds if any of the persons appearing are non-Spanish without an NIE issued by the Spanish authorities, even if they are citizens of an EU Member State and are in possession of their own corresponding national identity or passport.

In view of the above:

Does the Commission not believe that this is discriminatory treatment on grounds of nationality, as prohibited by Article 18 of the TFEU?

Does the Commission not believe that the Spanish State is in infringement of Article 49 of the TFEU, which prohibits placing restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State and on their setting-up subsidiaries in another Member State?

Question for written answer E-000370/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Barriers to the single market in Spain for legal persons

Non-Spanish citizens and companies wishing to undertake legal acts or business in Spain, such as buying a property, processing an inheritance, constituting a subsidiary or executing a foreign judgment, find that the Spanish State does not allow them to do so immediately. This situation arises from the fact that Spain does not recognise, for ordinary activities, identification numbers issued in States of origin, even if they are Member States.

Commercial companies from France, Germany, etc., must obtain a non-resident company ‘NIF’ (tax identification number) from the Spanish authorities, prior to carrying out any activity in Spain. Obtaining this NIF requires an application to be made to the Spanish Ministry of Finance, with accompanying documentation from the country of origin, an apostille and a certified translation and — if handled in Spain by a third party — the corresponding authorisation. All of this is required even if the company in question does not undertake any activity in Spain, but simply wishes to buy a property there, or to record in the Spanish property registry the embargo of a defaulting debtor’s property as imposed by final judgment in judicial proceedings held in the courts of France, Germany, etc. The same occurs when a company wishes to establish a subsidiary in Spain: it cannot do so without a NIF.

Apart from the expense and inconvenience, all of the above prevents stakeholders from performing ordinary civil and commercial activities with immediacy and normality in Spain for weeks and months. This violates the right of freedom of movement and is contrary to the principle of non-discrimination, since Spanish legal and natural persons may act without hindrance, while citizens and companies of the European Union cannot act in Spain without identification numbers issued exclusively by the Spanish authorities.

In view of the above:

Does the Commission not believe that this is discriminatory treatment on grounds of nationality, as prohibited by Article 18 of the TFEU?

Will the Commission use Article 50, paragraph 2(c) of the TFEU to stop these negative practices on freedom of establishment?

Joint answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, the obligation to hold a NIF (tax indentification number) falls on all citizens, Spanish or foreign alike, who are a party to transactions entailing tax consequences in Spain. The NIF rules, modified in 2007 imply, in light of that information, that:

the NIF obligation bears equally on Spanish and non-Spanish citizens;

the NIF is granted almost instantaneously, so that delays are unlikely, and in any case are not the general rule in this field;

if, exceptionally, obtaining the NIF takes longer, and if, as a consequence, the taxable person is prevented from complying with his tax obligations within the relevant deadline, neither a late interest payment nor any penalty would be imposed on the taxable person;

the NIF procedure is targeted towards ascertaining the identity of the person requesting the NIF and is proportionate to this end.

In view of the above, and taking into account that no harmonisation of tax obligations has been achieved in the EU, the Commission is of the view that the NIF rules cannot be considered as leading to discrimination on grounds of nationality, nor are they contrary to the freedom of establishment.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000371/13

an die Kommission

Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)

(15. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Unregelmäßigkeiten bei OLAF-Untersuchungen

Der Überwachungsausschuss des Europäischen Amtes für Betrugsbekämpfung (OLAF) teilte dem Parlament in seinem Schreiben vom 11. Dezember 2012 mit, dass er eine Reihe möglicher Probleme festgestellt und diesbezüglich Empfehlungen an den Generaldirektor von OLAF gerichtet habe, die eine Aussprache mit dem Generaldirektor über einen systematischeren Ansatz, wie die Untersuchungen von OLAF durchgeführt werden, erforderlich machen.

1.

Im Hinblick auf die rechtliche Auslegung der Kommission stellt sich die folgende Frage: Sind derartige mögliche Probleme systematischer Natur und/oder unterliegen die aufgedeckten Unregelmäßigkeiten der Vertraulichkeit der Untersuchungen oder sonstigen Datenschutzbestimmungen, die die Kommission daran hindern, das Parlament in Kenntnis zu setzen?

2.

Wann und wie gedenkt die Kommission, das Parlament über die aufgedeckten möglichen Probleme und Unregelmäßigkeiten in Kenntnis zu setzen?

3.

Welches sind die Konsequenzen dieser Unregelmäßigkeiten und Probleme?

In dem Fall um den Rücktritt des früheren Kommissionsmitglieds Dalli teilte die Leiterin der Abteilung für Innenrevision und Ermittlungen des maltesischen Premierministers und Leiterin des maltesischen Dienstes für die Koordinierung der Betrugsbekämpfung (AFCOS) in einer öffentlichen Sitzung des Haushaltskontrollausschusses vom 6. November 2012 mit, dass sie durch OLAF über mögliche verdeckte Hinweise auf eine mangelhafte Verwaltung der Strukturfonds durch einen Wirtschaftsakteur in Malta in Kenntnis gesetzt worden sei.

4.

Wie bewertet die Kommission die Rechtmäßigkeit des Ansatzes von OLAF und die Informationen, die ihr durch die Leiterin des maltesischen AFCOS mitgeteilt wurden?

5.

Welche Bestimmungen regeln das Verhältnis zwischen OLAF und den nationalen AFCOS? Ist die mögliche Fehlinformation eines einzelstaatlichen AFCOS mit den Bestimmungen vereinbar?

Antwort von Herrn Šemeta im Namen der Kommission

(20. Juni 2013)

Die Kommission erinnert daran, dass auf das von der Frau Abgeordneten angeführte Schreiben hin die Stellungnahme 02/2012 des OLAF-Überwachungsausschusses sowie anschließend der Tätigkeitsbericht 2012 des Überwachungsausschusses an die Präsidenten aller drei Organe übermittelt wurde. In diesen Dokumenten weist der Überwachungsausschuss auf eine Reihe positiver Entwicklungen im Hinblick auf die Untersuchungstätigkeiten des OLAF sowie auf weitere Problembereiche hin, bei denen seiner Ansicht nach Maßnahmen durch das OLAF-Management erforderlich sind. Die angesprochenen Fragen wurden bereits bei den Sitzungen des Haushaltskontrollausschusses des EP vom 23. April sowie vom 28. und 29. Mai 2013 mit dem Überwachungsausschuss, Kommissar Šemeta und dem OLAF erörtert.

In diesem Zusammenhang möchte die Kommission auch darauf hinweisen, dass es dringend notwendig ist, die Reform des Rechtsrahmens des OLAF abzuschließen, um eine Reihe von Mängeln zu beheben, die der Überwachungsausschuss festgestellt hat. Die Annahme der geänderten OLAF-Verordnung würde unter anderem die Einrichtung eines interinstitutionellen Dialogs ermöglichen.

Die Kommission fordert sowohl das OLAF als auch den Überwachungsausschuss dazu auf, gemäß ihrer jeweiligen Befugnisse einen konstruktiven Dialog zu entwickeln, so dass beide ihre Rolle beim Schutz der finanziellen Interessen und bei der Optimierung der Funktionsweise und Effizienz des Amtes wirksam wahrnehmen können.

Die Bewertung der Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungen durch das OLAF ist Sache der zuständigen Justizbehörden. Der Rahmen für die Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem OLAF und den Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten, einschließlich des AFCOS, ist in Artikel 7 der Verordnung Nr. 1073/1999 vorgegeben. Die Beziehung zwischen dem OLAF und dem AFCOS kann auch durch eine gemeinsame Vereinbarung ergänzt werden, die zwar rechtlich nicht bindend ist, in der aber die praktischen Aspekte der Zusammenarbeit festgelegt werden, zu deren Einhaltung sich die unterzeichnenden Parteien verpflichten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000371/13

to the Commission

Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Irregularities within OLAF investigations

In its letter to Parliament of 11 December 2012, the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) stated that it had discovered ‘a number of potential problems and issued recommendations to the Director General of OLAF in that regard which require a discussion with him on a more systemic level about the ways in which OLAF is conducting its investigations’.

1.

Concerning the Commission’s legal interpretation, are such potential problems of systemic nature and/or found irregularities covered by the confidentiality of the investigations or any data protection provisions that prevent the Commission from informing Parliament?

2.

When and how does the Commission plan to inform Parliament about the potential problems and irregularities discovered?

3.

What are the consequences of these irregularities and problems?

In the case surrounding the resignation of former commissioner Dalli, the head of the Maltese Prime Minister’s internal audit and investigation department and head of the Maltese Antifraud Coordinating Structure (AFCOS) said at the public meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 6 November 2012 that she had been informed by OLAF of ‘possible insinuations about the mismanagement of structural funds by an economic operator in Malta’.

4.

How does the Commission assess the legality of OLAF’s approach and the information provided by the head of the Maltese AFCOS?

5.

What are the rules governing the relations between OLAF and the national AFCOS? Is the possible misinformation of a national AFCOS in line with their provisions?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2013)

The Commission recalls that the letter referred to by the Honourable Member was followed by the transmission of the opinion 02/2012 of OLAF's Supervisory Committee (SC) to the Presidents of the three Institutions, as well as, later, by the transmission of the SC's 2012 activity report. In these documents, the SC highlights a number of recent positive developments as regards the investigative activities of OLAF and a number of issues which it considers require further actions by OLAF management. The questions raised have already been the subject of discussions and exchange of views during the meetings of the EP Budgetary Control Committee on 23 April, 28 and 29 May 2013 with the SC, Commissioner Šemeta and OLAF.

In this context, the Commission would also underline the necessity and urgency to complete the reform on OLAF's legal framework to address a number of shortcomings identified by the SC. The adoption of the revised OLAF Regulation would inter alia enable the setting up of an interinstitutional dialogue.

The Commission invites both OLAF and the SC to develop a constructive dialogue in accordance with their respective prerogatives, so that both can play their role effectively in view of the protection of the financial interests and optimising the functioning and the efficiency of the Office.

It is up to the competent judicial authorities to assess the legality of OLAF's investigations. Article 7 of Reg. 1073/1999 gives the framework for cooperation between OLAF and the Member States authorities, including with the AFCOS. The relationship between OLAF and the AFCOS may also be completed by a memorandum of understanding which, although not legally binding, sets the practical aspects of cooperation to which the subscribing parties are committed.

(Slovenska različica)

Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-000372/13

za Komisijo

Milan Zver (PPE)

(15. januar 2013)

Zadeva: Višina kazni za kršitve Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2005

Člen 25 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1/2005 o zaščiti živali med prevozom navaja, da morajo države članice določiti predpise o kaznih, ki se uporabljajo za kršitve določb te uredbe, in da morajo sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev njihovega izvajanja. Člen 25 določa tudi, da morajo biti predpisane kazni učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne.

1.

Ali ima Komisija podatke o višini kazni za kršitve Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2005 v vseh 27 državah članicah?

2.

Če jih ima, ali bo zagotovila podatke o višini kazni v Franciji, Španiji, Nemčiji, Bolgariji, Belgiji in na Madžarskem za naslednje kršitve Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2005, in sicer za:

prevoz goveda na dolge razdalje na tovornjakih s pokvarjenimi napravami za napajanje (kar je kršitev Priloge I, poglavja VI, točke 2);

prevoz živali, ki med prevozom na dolge razdalje resno zbolijo in zato niso primerne za prevoz (kar je kršitev Priloge I, poglavja I);

prevoz prašičev na dolge razdalje v zabojnikih pri temperaturah, ki presegajo 35 °C (kar je kršitev Priloge I, poglavja VI, točke 3.1)?

Odgovor g. Borga v imenu Komisije

(20. februar 2013)

1.

Vse države članice so predložile informacije o kaznih v skladu s členom 25 Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2005 (20) o zaščiti živali med prevozom. Države članice pa niso obvezane predložiti natančnih informacij o tem, kakšne sankcije izrečejo za kršitev ali kaznivo dejanje.Kazni so lahko denarne kazni, zaporna kazen, odvzem potrdila o usposobljenosti za voznike ali spremne osebe ter odredbe o začasnem prenehanju izvajanja dejavnosti, kar je med drugim odvisno od resnosti in narave zadevne kršitve. V nekaterih državah članicah se lahko v primeru ponavljajočih se kršitev izrečejo strožje kazni.

2.

Posledično Komisija ne more predložiti zahtevanih informacij o višini denarnih kazni.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000372/13

to the Commission

Milan Zver (PPE)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Size of fines for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport states that the Member States must lay down the rules for penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of the regulation and must take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Furthermore, Article 25 stipulates that the penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

1.

Does the Commission have information on the level of fines for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 in each of the 27 Member States?

2.

If so, will the Commission provide information on the size of fines laid down in France, Spain, Germany, Bulgaria, Belgium and Hungary for the following violations of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005:

long-distance transport of bovine animals on a lorry with a non-functioning water system (which is a violation of Annex I, Chapter VI, point 2)?

transport of an animal which falls seriously ill during a long-distance journey, i.e. an animal not fit for transport (which is a violation of Annex I, Chapter I)?

long-distance transport of pigs at temperatures above 35°C inside animal compartments (which is a violation of Annex I, Chapter VI, point 3.1)?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

1.

All Member States have provided information on penalties according to Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

1.

All Member States have provided information on penalties according to Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005

 (21)

2.

As a consequence, the requested information concerning size of fines cannot be provided by the Commission.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000373/13

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(15 januari 2013)

Betreft: Rekenkamer rapport energiezuinigheid projecten

Vandaag kwam het rapport van de Europese Rekenkamer uit inzake „Cost effectiveness of Cohesion Policy investments in energy effeciency”. De conclusie van de Rekenkamer luidt: „The right conditions in programming and financing have not been set to enable cost-effective energy efficiency investments”. Tevens concludeerde de Rekenkamer dat „cost-effectiveness concept was not a determining factor… neither was it part of the Commission's assesment prior to approval of operational programmes”. In dat kader de volgende vragen.

1.

Hoe kan het dat de Commissie op geen enkele wijze, noch vooraf noch tijdens uitvoering, kosteneffectiviteit als factor in aanmerking heeft genomen?

2.

Hoe kan het dat de Commissie geen

„monitoring guidelines” heeft opgesteld waardoor projecten op hun effectiviteit en nut konden worden beoordeeld?

3.

Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat per direct alle subsidieverlening uit toepasselijke begrotingslijnen zoals het Regionaal Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds dient te worden stopgezet?

4.

Wat gaat de Commissie doen om ten onrechte verleende subsidie bij de ontvangende lidstaten  terug te vorderen namens de belastingbetalende burgers?

Antwoord van de heer Hahn namens de Commissie

(20 maart 2013)

1.

De cohesiebeleidsprogramma's dienen diverse beleidsdoelstellingen, waarvan energie-efficiëntie er slechts één is. De kosteneffectiviteit kan alleen geëvalueerd worden op het niveau van het project en niet op dat van het programma. De verantwoordelijkheid voor de selectie van projecten ligt bij de lidstaten; zij kunnen kostenefficiëntie opnemen in de selectiecriteria, naast andere criteria zoals het scheppen van werkgelegenheid en de mogelijkheden voor lokale economische groei. Investeringen in isolatie van gebouwen betreffen de langere  termijn, waarbij het  terugverdieneffect in verhouding staat tot de mate van renovatie. Om te voldoen aan de energiedoelstellingen van de EU voor 2020 en daarna, zullen grootschalige renovaties nodig zijn, met verbeteringen van de energie-efficiëntie die verder gaan dan de kostenoptimale niveaus. Die zullen nuttig zijn op de langere  termijn om verdere besparingen te creëren en te vermijden dat er over vijf tot vijftien jaar lock-in-effecten optreden of extra werk nodig is, waardoor de totale investeringskosten zelfs nog hoger zouden oplopen. Bij de renovatie van woningen zouden alle beschikbare technologieën voor energiebesparing moeten worden gebruikt. Voor openbare gebouwen is het eveneens van belang bij de renovatie een geïntegreerde aanpak te hanteren om het gebouw in zijn geheel te verbeteren; dit leidt gewoonlijk tot meer kosteneffectieve projecten.

2.

De nationale autoriteiten sturen de uitvoering van de programma's. Zij selecteren projecten en houden toezicht op de uitvoering. Projectfinanciering is onderworpen aan regels en voorwaarden die zijn vastgelegd op het niveau van de EU en van de lidstaten. De EU-wetgeving legt strenge criteria vast aan de hand van de richtlijn betreffende de energieprestatie van gebouwen en de nieuwe richtlijn inzake energie-efficiëntie. Die zullen van belang zijn voor investeringen op dit gebied en dan vooral in de komende periode, waarin een grotere klemtoon zal liggen op toezicht.

3.

Nee.

4.

De Rekenkamer heeft voor geen enkel van de 24 gecontroleerde projecten geoordeeld dat er onterecht subsidies waren toegekend.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000373/13

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Court of Auditors report on energy efficiency projects

The Court of Auditors recently published a report on the ‘Cost effectiveness of Cohesion Policy investments in energy efficiency’. The Court concluded that ‘the right conditions in programming and financing have not been set to enable cost-effective energy efficiency investments’. It also concluded that the ‘cost-effectiveness concept […] was not a determining factor […] Neither was [it] part of the Commission’s assessment prior to approval of operational programmes’.

1.

How is it possible that the Commission has in no way, either before or during implementation, taken cost effectiveness into consideration as a factor?

2.

How is it possible that the Commission did not draw up any monitoring guidelines in order to be able to assess the effectiveness and usefulness of projects?

3.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that all subsidies from relevant budget lines such as the European Regional Development Fund should be stopped immediately?

4.

What will the Commission do to recover improperly provided subsidies from the recipient Member States on behalf of tax-paying citizens?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2013)

1.

It has been stated that cohesion policy programmes cover several policy objectives, only one of them being energy efficiency. Assessing cost-effectiveness is only possible at project, not programme level. Member States are in charge of project selection, where cost-effectiveness may be defined in selection criteria, along with other criteria such as job creation and potential for local economic growth. Investments in insulation of buildings are longer-term, with paybacks proportionate to the degree of renovation. Large-scale renovations will be needed in order to meet the EU energy targets for 2020 and beyond, with energy efficiency improvements that go beyond cost-optimal levels. They will be valuable in a longer-term perspective, in order to generate higher savings and avoid lock-ins and additional work in 5-15 years, which would make the total investment costs even higher. For building renovation, all available energy saving technologies should be used. For public buildings, it is also important to take an integrated approach towards general refurbishment to improve the building overall, resulting typically in more cost-effective projects.

2.

The national authorities manage programme implementation. They select projects and monitor implementation. Project funding is subject to rules and conditions laid down at EU and Member State level. Stringent criteria are being set in EU legislation, under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the new Energy Efficiency Directive, which will be important for investments in this area, in particular in the next period, when monitoring will be increased.

3.

No.

4.

The Court of Auditors did not conclude that subsidies had been improperly provided for any of the 24 audited projects.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000374/13

a la Comisión

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(15 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Preocupante disminución de árboles centenarios

Varios investigadores han llamado la atención sobre el grave deterioro de los árboles centenarios en todo el mundo, el incremento de los riesgos que padecen, así como su falta de adecuada protección (por ejemplo, puede verse en este sentido el número de diciembre de la revista Science). Diversos países de la Unión Europea están elaborando catálogos sobre esta riqueza forestal.

La Directiva de hábitats 92/43/CEE, de 21 de mayo, no ha establecido una lista de especies amenazadas o en peligro de extinción, tal como han denunciado los expertos.

Por todo ello, pregunto a la Comisión:

¿No cree que la iniciativa de difundir un catálogo con los árboles centenarios de los países miembros de la Unión podría ayudar a conocer más el patrimonio forestal europeo?

¿No cree que deben incrementarse los fondos y las medidas de protección de esos «monumentos forestales», con el objeto de que también otras especies consigan la adecuada longevidad? ¿No sería conveniente incorporar, como ocurre en tantas legislaciones de los Estados miembros, la obligación de que una cantidad similar a un pequeño porcentaje de los presupuestos de las obras públicas comunitarias (por ejemplo, el 0,5 %) se destinara a proyectos de restauración forestal?

¿No considera que debe promoverse un catálogo o lista de especies en peligro como anexo de la Directiva de hábitats?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(27 de febrero de 2013)

La Comisión recuerda que las cuestiones relacionadas con los bosques y la silvicultura son principalmente cuestiones de competencia nacional. Pueden establecerse disposiciones de protección de las agrupaciones de árboles centenarios vinculadas al paisaje al amparo de la legislación nacional o regional. La Comisión no tiene previsto elaborar un catálogo de grandes árboles centenarios.

La Comisión no tiene intención de influir en las decisiones que adopten los Estados miembros en materia de gestión de obras públicas. El Reglamento (CE) n° 1698/2005 relativo a la ayuda al desarrollo rural (22) prevé pagos Natura 2000 y en favor del medio forestal, así como medidas de ayuda a las inversiones no productivas con el fin de apoyar a los Estados miembros que deseen mejorar sus ecosistemas forestales.

De conformidad con la Directiva sobre hábitats (23), se consideran especies de interés de la Unión las que estén en peligro, sean vulnerables, raras o endémicas. Los anexos de la Directiva incluyen varias especies forestales, así como otras especies que dependen de la presencia de árboles centenarios para mantener un estado de conservación favorable. Este es el caso, por ejemplo, de varias especies de aves protegidas en virtud de la Directiva sobre aves de la UE (24). Por otra parte, una serie de hábitats forestales están incluidos en el anexo I de la Directiva sobre hábitats y, por tanto, en los espacios Natura 2000. El mantenimiento o restauración de especies autóctonas de árboles centenarios figura con frecuencia entre los objetivos o las medidas de conservación de los Estados miembros en relación con los espacios Natura 2000. Por consiguiente, se espera que la plena aplicación de la legislación de la UE sobre protección de la naturaleza contribuya a la conservación de los árboles centenarios de Europa.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000374/13

to the Commission

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Alarming decline in the number of large old trees

A number of researchers have drawn attention to the rapid global decline in large old trees, the increase of threats to trees and a lack of adequate tree protection (a report on this issue was published in the December issue of the Science magazine). Several EU countries are putting together catalogues containing information on these tree resources.

As experts have criticised, the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 does not set up a list of endangered species.

1.

Does the Commission not consider that distributing a catalogue of large old trees found in EU Member States would increase knowledge about the European forest heritage?

2.

Does the Commission not agree that more money should be spent and further measures introduced to protect these

‘forest monuments’, with the aim that other species will also live as long as they should? Does the Commission not consider it appropriate to impose an obligation to allocate a small amount of money, roughly equal to 0.5 % of the budget for EU public works, for example, to forest restoration projects, as provided for in the legislation of many Member States?

3.

Does the Commission not think that a catalogue or list of species in danger of extinction should be included as an annex to the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The Commission recalls that issues related to forests and forestry are mainly matters of national competence. Protective provisions for groupings of old trees in the landscape may be set up under national or regional legislation. The Commission is not planning to establish a catalogue of large old trees.

The Commission does not intend to influence Member States in their choice of managing public works. Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development (25) does include forest-environment and Natura 2000 payment measures as well as non-productive investments measure to support Member States willing to improve forest ecosystems.

According to the EU Habitats Directive (26), species are considered of Union interest if they are endangered, vulnerable, rare or endemic. The relevant annexes of the directive include several tree species. They also include several other species which depend on the presence of old trees to have a favourable conservation status. This is for instance the case for several Bird Species protected under the EU Birds Directive (27). Moreover, a number of forest habitats are included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive and are therefore included in Natura 2000 sites. The maintenance or restoration of old native tree species is often a conservation objective or conservation measure developed by the Member States for Natura 2000 sites. The full implementation of the EU nature legislation is therefore expected to contribute to the maintenance of old trees in Europe.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000375/13

a la Comisión

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(15 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Determinación del índice Euríbor

Hace seis meses que me interesé por la investigación abierta por la Comisión Europea sobre las denuncias de manipulación del índice de referencia interbancario conocido como Euríbor (referencia E-006921/2012). En su respuesta, la Comisión afirmó que todavía era demasiado pronto para revelar su contenido porque las investigaciones, que se habían iniciado hacía más de un año, no habían concluido.

Han pasado seis meses y, como es bien conocido, se han sucedido relevantes acontecimientos en este ámbito: las autoridades financieras británicas, estadounidenses y helvéticas confirmaron la manipulación de otro índice de referencia, el Líbor, lo que condujo a la imposición de sanciones económicas y la dimisión de directivos de entidades financieras; varios bancos europeos se han dado de baja del grupo que remite la información para fijar el Euríbor; el pasado viernes 11 de enero las autoridades europeas de supervisión bancaria y de supervisión del mercado de valores publicaron un informe muy crítico sobre la determinación del índice Euríbor. Entre otras consideraciones, subrayaron la falta de transparencia y la inexistencia de controles sobre las decisiones adoptadas.

Por todo ello, pregunto de nuevo a la Comisión:

¿En qué estado se encuentra la investigación sobre la fijación del índice Euríbor?

¿Ha valorado la Comisión la posibilidad de elaborar un mecanismo transparente en el que los índices se cotejen con los datos reales de las transferencias interbancarias?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(25 de marzo de 2013)

1.

La Comisión sigue investigando el asunto relativo a la manipulación de determinados índices de referencia, tales como el LIBOR, el TIBOR y el Euribor. Como ya ha señalado el Vicepresidente y Miembro de la Comisión responsable de la Competencia, la Comisión está dando gran prioridad a estos asuntos. En esta fase de las investigaciones, la Comisión no puede pronunciarse sobre su duración exacta, pero puede indicar que están alcanzando una fase avanzada.

El procedimiento de la Comisión en virtud del artículo 101 del TFUE se diferencia de los de otras autoridades de defensa de la competencia y reguladores financieros por el hecho de que se actúa a la vez contra todos los participantes en un cártel y no solo contra una de las partes. Por último, la Comisión adoptará las medidas necesarias para sancionar las supuestas prácticas con arreglo a las normas de competencia de la UE si se confirman sus sospechas. Esto debería incitar también un cambio de prácticas en el sector bancario.

2.

Los servicios de la Comisión pusieron en marcha en septiembre de 2012 una consulta pública que abordó los problemas de la transparencia de los métodos de los índices de referencia y de la información en la que se basan y la manera en que deben validarse los índices de referencia y sus datos, por ejemplo, mediante comparaciones con los datos de las operaciones reales. La consulta finalizó el 29 de noviembre de 2012 y la Comisión está estudiando ahora las respuestas con vistas a presentar una propuesta legislativa en el segundo trimestre de 2013. Además, la ABE y la AEVM remitieron el 11 de enero de 2013 una carta conjunta a EBF-Euribor que recomendaba, entre otras cosas, que los datos debían comprobarse retrospectivamente. Una recomendación de la ABE emitida el 11 de enero, sobre la supervisión de los bancos del comité Euribor aconsejó que

2.

Los servicios de la Comisión pusieron en marcha en septiembre de 2012 una consulta pública que abordó los problemas de la transparencia de los métodos de los índices de referencia y de la información en la que se basan y la manera en que deben validarse los índices de referencia y sus datos, por ejemplo, mediante comparaciones con los datos de las operaciones reales. La consulta finalizó el 29 de noviembre de 2012 y la Comisión está estudiando ahora las respuestas con vistas a presentar una propuesta legislativa en el segundo trimestre de 2013. Además, la ABE y la AEVM remitieron el 11 de enero de 2013 una carta conjunta a EBF-Euribor que recomendaba, entre otras cosas, que los datos debían comprobarse retrospectivamente. Una recomendación de la ABE emitida el 11 de enero, sobre la supervisión de los bancos del comité Euribor aconsejó que

 (28)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000375/13

to the Commission

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Setting the Euribor rate

Six months ago, I enquired about the Commission's investigation into allegations of manipulation of the Euribor, the interbank reference interest rate (Written Question E-006921/2012). The Commission replied stating that it was too early to reveal the content of the investigations, which had started more than a year earlier, since they were still ongoing.

Six months have now elapsed and it is well known that significant developments have occurred: the British, American and Swiss financial regulators confirmed that another inter-bank lending reference rate, the Libor, had also been rigged, which led to fines and the resignation of bank executives; a number of European banks have left the panel that submits the data used to set the Euribor rate and on 11 January, the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority published a very critical report on the Euribor setting process. Among other issues, the report emphasised a lack of transparency and the absence of checks on the accuracy of data on which decisions are based.

In light of the above, I shall repeat my questions to the Commission:

Can the Commission say how far advanced the investigation into Euribor rate-fixing is?

Has the Commission considered setting up a transparent mechanism to check rates against real data from inter-bank transfers?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

1.

The Commission continues to investigate the subject matter relating to the manipulation of certain benchmarks including the LIBOR, TIBOR and EURIBOR. As the Vice-President and Member of the Commission responsible for Competition has already emphasised, the Commission is giving high priority to these cases. At this stage of the investigations, the Commission cannot comment on their exact duration, but can however indicate that they are now reaching an advanced stage.

The Commission's proceedings under Article 101 TFEU differ from those of other antitrust authorities and financial regulators in that action is taken against all participants of a cartel in one go and not only against one party. Last but not least, if the Commission's concerns are confirmed, it will take the necessary actions to sanction the alleged practices under EU competition rules. This should also prompt a change of culture in the banking sector.

2.

The Commission services launched a public consultation in September 2012 that considered the issues of transparency in benchmarks’ methodologies and underlying data and how benchmarks and their input data should be validated — for example through comparisons with actual transactions data. The consultation closed on 29 November 2012 and the Commission is now considering the responses with a view to launching a legislative proposal in the second quarter of 2013. In addition on 11 January 2013 the EBA and ESMA issued a joint letter to EBF-Euribor recommending, amongst other things, that data should be back tested. An EBA recommendation of the 11 January on supervisory oversight of banks in the Euribor panel recommended that

2.

The Commission services launched a public consultation in September 2012 that considered the issues of transparency in benchmarks’ methodologies and underlying data and how benchmarks and their input data should be validated — for example through comparisons with actual transactions data. The consultation closed on 29 November 2012 and the Commission is now considering the responses with a view to launching a legislative proposal in the second quarter of 2013. In addition on 11 January 2013 the EBA and ESMA issued a joint letter to EBF-Euribor recommending, amongst other things, that data should be back tested. An EBA recommendation of the 11 January on supervisory oversight of banks in the Euribor panel recommended that

 (29)

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000377/13

Tarybai

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(2013 m. sausio 15 d.)

Tema: Darbuotojų teisių apsauga ir kova su jų diskriminacija

Džiugu, jog šį pusmetį Europos Sąjungos Tarybai pirmininkaujanti Airija savo darbo programoje užsimena apie darbuotojų teisių apsaugą ir kovą su jų diskriminacija. Tai ypač aktualu, kadangi šie metai paskelbti Europos piliečių metais.

Taigi kokių konkrečių veiksmų imsis pirmininkaujančioji šalis, siekdama pagerinti darbuotojų, ypač judančių Europos Sąjungoje, padėtį ?

Atsakymas

(2013 m. kovo 11 d.)

Taryba norėtų atkreipti gerbiamosios narės dėmesį į tai, kad Taryba kartu su Europos Parlamentu jau priėmė teisės aktus, skirtus kovai su diskriminacija užimtumo srityje. Šie teisės aktai apima kovos su diskriminacija dėl lyties  (30), rasinės arba etninės kilmės  (31) ir dėl religijos arba įsitikinimų, negalios, amžiaus arba lytinės orientacijos  (32) klausimą.

Taip pat būtų galima priminti, kad už ES teisės aktų įgyvendinimą nacionaliniu lygiu yra atsakingos valstybės narės. Komisija yra atsakinga už galiojančių ES teisės aktų perkėlimo į nacionalinę teisę stebėseną ir turi įgaliojimus pradėti pažeidimo nagrinėjimo procedūrą.

Kalbant apie galimybę priimti šios srities teisės aktų ateityje, kaip gerbiamoji narė žino, Taryba gali veikti kaip teisės aktų leidėja tik remdamasi Komisijos pateiktu pasiūlymu. Manoma, kad Komisija ketina tinkamu laiku priimti pasiūlymą dėl mobiliųjų darbuotojų judėjimo laisvės įgyvendinimo užtikrinimo. Taryba šį pasiūlymą tinkamai apsvarstys, vadovaudamasi įprastomis procedūromis.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000377/13

to the Council

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Protection of workers' rights and combating discrimination

I am pleased that Ireland, which holds the Council Presidency in the first half of 2013, mentions the protection of workers’ rights and combating discrimination in its work programme. This is particularly relevant as this year has been designated as the European Year of Citizens.

What specific actions will the Presidency take to improve the situation for workers, particularly workers who are mobile within the European Union?

Reply

(11 March 2013)

The Council would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the Council, together with the European Parliament, has already adopted legislation aimed at combating discrimination in the field of employment. This legislation covers the issue of the fight against discrimination on the grounds of sex (33), of racial or ethnic origin (34) and of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (35).

It could be also recalled that the Member States are responsible for implementing EU legislation at national level. The Commission is responsible for monitoring the transposition of existing EU legislation and has the power to launch infringement proceedings.

As regards the possibility of future legislation in this area, as the Honourable Member is aware, the Council can only act in a legislative capacity on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. It is understood that the Commission intends to adopt a proposal in due course concerning the enforcement of the freedom of movement of mobile workers. This proposal will be duly examined by the Council in accordance with the usual procedures.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000378/13

Tarybai

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(2013 m. sausio 15 d.)

Tema: Kovos su diskriminacija direktyva ir derybų perspektyvos

Nors 2010 m. gruodžio 23 d. Europos Sąjunga oficialiai ratifikavo Jungtinių Tautų neįgaliųjų teisių konvenciją, kai kurios Europos Sąjungos valstybės narės vis dar nepritaria Tarybos direktyvai, kuria įgyvendinamas vienodo požiūrio į asmenis, nepaisant jų religijos ar tikėjimo, negalios, amžiaus arba seksualinės orientacijos, principas (KOM(2008)0426) (Kovos su diskriminacija direktyva), ir vis nepavyksta rasti bendro susitarimo.

1.

Kokių konkrečių veiksmų planuoja imtis Europos Sąjungos Tarybai šį pusmetį pirmininkaujanti Airija dėl šios direktyvos priėmimo?

2.

Kaip Taryba planuoja tęsti derybas su valstybėmis narėmis, kad pagaliau būtų pasiekta konkrečių derybų rezultatų šioje srityje?

Atsakymas

(2013 m. kovo 11 d.)

Pirmininkaujanti Airija yra pasiryžusi tęsti darbą dėl siūlomos Tarybos direktyvos, kuria įgyvendinamas vienodo požiūrio į asmenis, nepaisant jų religijos ar tikėjimo, negalios, amžiaus arba seksualinės orientacijos, principas  (36). Pirmas už šį dokumentą atsakingos Tarybos darbo grupės posėdis įvyko 2013 m. sausio 14 d.

Atėjus laikui vyks kiti posėdžiai, o pirmininkaujanti valstybė narė 2013 m. birželio 20 d. ketina Tarybai pateikti pažangos ataskaitą.

Taryba negali numatyti dėl šios direktyvos projekto vykstančių derybų trukmės ar rezultatų. Kad Direktyva būtų priimta, ji turi būti vieningai patvirtinta Taryboje.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000378/13

to the Council

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Anti-discrimination Directive and the future of negotiations

Although the European Union formally ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 23 December 2010, some European Union Member States are still opposed to the Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426) (Anti-discrimination Directive) and still cannot come to a mutual agreement.

1.

What specific actions does Ireland, which holds the Council Presidency in the first half of 2013, plan to take as regards the adoption of this directive?

2.

How does the Council plan to continue negotiations with the Member States so that the negotiations produce concrete results in this area?

Reply

(11 March 2013)

The Irish Presidency is determined to continue working on the proposed Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (37). A first meeting of the Council working party in charge of this dossier took place on 14 January 2013.

Further meetings will take place in due course, and the Presidency intends to present a progress report to the Council on 20 June 2013.

The Council is not in a position to anticipate the duration or the outcome of the ongoing negotiations on the draft Directive, which must be approved unanimously by the Council in order to be adopted.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000379/13

Komisijai

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(2013 m. sausio 15 d.)

Tema: Darbuotojų teisių apsauga ir kova su jų diskriminacija

Taryba per šiuos Europos piliečių metus planuoja kuo daugiau dėmesio skirti darbuotojų teisių apsaugai ir kovai su jų diskriminacija.

1.

Ar Komisija planuoja imtis veiksmų šioje srityje, siekdama pagerinti judančių darbuotojų padėtį Europos Sąjungoje?

2.

Kokie artimiausi Komisijos planai teisėkūros srityje, kovojant su darbuotojų diskriminacija?

L. Andoro atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2013 m. kovo 13 d.)

2013 m. pirmą ketvirtį Komisija ketina pateikti naują iniciatyvą, kad sudarytų palankesnes sąlygas darbuotojams ir jų šeimos nariams naudotis laisvo judėjimo teise pagal ES teisę. Pagal iniciatyvą turėtų būti nustatytos konkrečios priemonės, kurios valstybėms narėms suteiktų galimybę užtikrinti didesnę paramą ES darbuotojams migrantams ir geriau informuoti šiuos darbuotojus apie jų teises.

Ši iniciatyva turėtų padėti kovoti su diskriminacija dėl pilietybės ir užtikrinti, kad būtų veiksmingai taikoma ES teisė laisvo darbuotojų judėjimo srityje. Iniciatyva taip pat turėtų padėti padidinti teisinį tikrumą: bus aiškiai nustatyta apsauga būtent nuo diskriminacijos dėl pilietybės ir padidintas informuotumas apie ją. Minėta iniciatyva šiam klausimui bus suteikta daugiau matomumo, taigi ji turėtų padidinti nacionalinių institucijų, taip pat viešojo ir privačiojo sektoriaus darbdavių, nevyriausybinių organizacijų bei socialinių partnerių suinteresuotumą ir paskatinti juos imtis veiksmų.

Pagal Europos piliečių metų informavimo kampaniją teikiama informacija apie ES teises ir galimybes plačiąja prasme, piliečiai skatinami prisidėti ir dalyvauti formuojant ES ateitį. Per šią kampaniją bus visapusiškai naudojamasi ES institucijų sukurtomis priemonėmis ir medžiaga (38), taip pat bus siekiama pasinaudoti visomis jų teikiamomis galimybėmis informuojant piliečius, įskaitant darbuotojus migrantus, ir sudarant jiems dalyvavimo ES sąlygas (39).

Pagal kampaniją, siekiant spręsti piliečiams susirūpinimą keliančius klausimus ir užtikrinti, kad jie iš tiesų galėtų naudotis savo teisėmis, visų pirma bus didinamas informuotumas apie dabartines daugiakalbes informavimo ir dalyvavimo priemones, kaip antai apie „Europe Direct“, „YourEurope“, SOLVIT, sąveikiojo politikos formavimo iniciatyvą, Europos piliečių iniciatyvą, peticijas ir Europos ombudsmeną, taip pat bus skatinama naudotis šiomis priemonėmis.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000379/13

to the Commission

Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Protection of workers' rights and combating discrimination

In this Year of European Citizens, the Council plans to pay as much attention as possible to the protection of workers’ rights and combating discrimination.

1.

Does the Commission plan to take action in this field to improve the situation for workers who are mobile within the European Union?

2.

What immediate plans does the Commission have in the field of legislation for combating discrimination against workers?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission intends to present a new initiative during the first quarter of 2013 to facilitate the exercise by workers and members of their families of their right of free movement under EC law. This should introduce specific measures to enable the Member States to provide EU migrant workers with more support and better information on their rights.

The initiative should contribute to combating discrimination on the basis of nationality and to guaranteeing the effective application of EC law on free movement of workers. It should also improve legal certainty by providing explicitly for protection from, and awareness of, discrimination based specifically on nationality. By giving the issue greater visibility, it should also increase interest in it among the national authorities, as well as among public and private employers, NGOs, social partners, and stimulate action by them.

The communication campaign for the European Year of Citizens builds on providing information on EU rights and opportunities in a wide sense and on encouraging citizens to engage and participate in shaping the way forward for the EU. In doing so, the campaign will make the most of existing tools and materials (40) created by the EU institutions and will seek to fully exploit their potential, informing citizens, including migrant workers, and enabling their participation in the EU (41).

The campaign will primarily raise awareness about, and promote the use of, existing multilingual information and participatory tools such as ‘Europe Direct’, ‘YourEurope’, ‘Solvit’, the ‘Interactive Policy Making’ (IPM) initiative, the ‘European Citizens’ Initiatives', Petitions, and the European Ombudsman to address citizens' concerns and to bring tangible effect to their rights.

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-000380/13

til Kommissionen

Christel Schaldemose (S&D)

(15. januar 2013)

Om: Gebyrer i forbindelse med basale bankkonti

Indenfor de sidste måneder har en række danske banker varslet indførslen af oprettelsesgebyrer på bankkonti. Disse oprettelsesgebyrer er bl.a. pålagt kunder, der ønsker at oprette bankernes mest basale bankkonti. Oprettelsesgebyrerne befinder sig i størrelsesorden af 300-400 danske kroner, hvilket er et betragteligt beløb for personer uden indtægt.

I Danmark er en bankkonto en forudsætning for at kunne modtage socialsikring, eksempelvis i tilfælde af sygdom, alderdom eller arbejdsløshed. Bankernes oprettelsesgebyrer risikerer dermed at forhindre personer med lille eller ingen indkomst i at modtage social understøttelse fra den danske stat. Dette sker på trods af, at Danmarks lovgivning giver disse personer ret til social understøttelse.

Bankernes indførsel af oprettelsesgebyrer på deres mest basale bankkonti kan stride mod Den Europæiske Unions Charter om grundlæggende rettigheder, der i artikel 34 foreskriver, at personer beboende inden for EU har ret til sociale sikringsydelser i henhold til den relevante medlemsstats lovgivning. Under den nuværende lovgivning har bankerne mulighed for at forhindre dette.

Dette problem knytter sig ikke kun til oprettelsesgebyrer, men også periodiske gebyrer for opretholdelse af en basal bankkonto igennem længere tid.

På denne baggrund vil jeg gerne spørge Kommissionen om følgende:

Har Kommissionen planer om at forbyde banker i at opkræve oprettelsesgebyrer eller periodiske gebyrer i forbindelse med besiddelse af en basal bankkonto af hensyn til EU-borgeres ret til social understøttelse?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Michel Barnier

(13. marts 2013)

Adgangen til betalingskonti og basale banktjenester er blevet altafgørende for forbrugernes integration og deltagelse i det økonomiske og sociale liv, men forskelsbehandling, f.eks. på grundlag af bopæl, nationalitet eller et lavt indkomstniveau, kan stadig forekomme. Der er derfor behov for at bistå de borgere, som måtte have problemer med at åbne en bankkonto, for at fremme den sociale og territoriale samhørighed og mobilitet.

Adgang til en bankkonto er en forudsætning for, at alle borgere i EU skal kunne udnytte alle de fremskridt, der er opnået inden for det fælles europæiske betalingsområde, navnlig med direktiv 2007/64/EF og senere med forordning 260/2012. Parallelt med revisionen af direktiv 2007/64/EF er Kommissionen derfor ved at udarbejde et lovgivningsinitiativ om bankkonti, som forventes vedtaget i første kvartal af 2013, og som skal behandle dette spørgsmål vedrørende adgang til en bankkonto. Forslaget vil også gøre oplysninger om bankgebyrer mere gennemsigtigt for forbrugerne og gøre det lettere at skifte mellem banker.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000380/13

to the Commission

Christel Schaldemose (S&D)

(15 January 2013)

Subject: Fees for basic bank accounts

Over the last few months, a number of Danish banks have announced the introduction of fees for setting up bank accounts. These fees are imposed, inter alia, on customers who want to set up the most basic of bank accounts. The start-up fees range from 300-400 Danish kroner, which is a considerable amount for people without any income.

In Denmark, a bank account is required in order to receive social security payments, such as for illness, old age or unemployment. These start-up fees could therefore prevent people with little or no income from receiving social assistance from the Danish state, despite the fact that Danish legislation gives these people the right to receive State support.

The introduction of start-up fees by the banks on their most basic bank accounts may be contrary to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights which lays down in Article 34 that persons residing within the EU are entitled to social security benefits in accordance with relevant national laws. Under current legislation, it is possible for banks to prevent this.

This problem relates not only to start-up fees, but also to fees charged periodically for keeping open a basic bank account over a long period of time.

Does the Commission intend to stop banks demanding start-up fees or imposing periodic charges for having a basic bank account, with respect to the right of EU citizens to receive social assistance?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

Access to payment accounts and basic banking services has become essential for the integration and participation of consumers in economic and social life, but discrimination, for instance on grounds of residence, nationality or low level of income, does still occur. There is therefore a need to assist citizens who may experience difficulties in opening a bank account to facilitate social and territorial cohesion and mobility.

Accessing to a bank account is a necessary condition for every EU citizen to be able to benefit from all the progresses achieved within the single European payment area, notably with Directive 2007/64/EC (42) and more recently Regulation 260/2012 (43). That's why, in parallel with the revision of Directive 2007/64/EC, the Commission is preparing a legislative initiative on bank accounts which is planned for adoption in the first quarter of 2013, where this issue of access to a bank account should be tackled. The proposal would also make the information on bank fees more transparent for consumers and facilitate the process of switching of accounts between banks.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-000381/13

aan de Raad

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(16 januari 2013)

Betreft: Bezoeken voormalig Nederlands topambtenaar aan Turkije

Eind vorig jaar ontving de voorzitter van de VS Delegatie in het Europees Parlement, de heer Ehler, een brief van de zijde van drie VS Congresleden, te weten de heren Joseph Pitts, Frank Wolf en Christopher Smith, inzake de voormalig Nederlands topambtenaar Demmink. Onlangs kwam daar een brief bij van de zijde van Congreslid Ted Poe gericht aan premier Erdogan van Turkije om opening van zaken te geven in deze slepende kwestie. In dat kader de volgende vragen aan de Raad:

Kan de Raad aangeven wie de deelnemers waren aan de officiële K4-delegatie naar Ankara en Istanbul op 9 en 10 maart 1998?

Kan de Raad aangeven of meer K4-delegaties in Turkije zijn geweest tussen 1990 en 1999, waarbij de heer Demmink al dan niet aanwezig was? Welke data en locaties betroffen deze reizen?

Kan de Raad aangeven of de heer Demmink mogelijk deel heeft uitgemaakt van nog andere delegaties naar Turkije tussen 1990 en 1999, niet zijnde in het kader van K4?

Antwoord

(15 april 2013)

De Raad beschikt over de volgende informatie betreffende het bezoek door het Comité K.4 aan Turkije op 9-10 maart 1998. Volgens het verslag van dit bezoek omvatte de groep op hoog niveau van functionarissen die Istanbul en Ankara bezochten, de voorzitter van het Comité K.4, de voorzitter van de groep migratie en vertegenwoordigers van de Commissie en het secretariaat‐generaal van de Raad. De Raad heeft geen informatie over de namen van de deelnemers. De heer Demming was evenwel niet de (waarnemend) voorzitter van het Comité K.4 in maart 1998, aangezien het Nederlandse voorzitterschap reeds op 1 juli 1997 afliep.

De Raad heeft informatie over twee bezoeken van het Comité K.4 aan Turkije tussen 1990 en 1999: het hierboven aangegeven bezoek van 9-10 maart 1998 alsmede een bezoek aan Ankara op 10 december 1998. De Raad heeft, evenmin als voor het bezoek van 9-10 maart, informatie over de namen van de deelnemers aan het tweede bezoek.

De Raad heeft geen informatie als bedoeld in vraag nr. 3.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000381/13

to the Council

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Visits by former top Netherlands official to Turkey

At the end of last year, Mr Ehler, chairman of the European Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the United States, received a letter from three US congressmen, namely Messrs. Joseph Pitts, Frank Wolf and Christopher Smith, concerning former Netherlands top official Demmink. Congressman Ted Poe has also recently sent a letter to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey urging him to disclose the state of affairs of this long-standing issue. I would like to ask the following questions in this connection:

Can the Council indicate who took part in the K4 official delegation to Ankara and Istanbul on 9‐10 March 1998?

Can the Council indicate whether more K4 delegations visited Turkey between 1990 and 1999 and whether or not Mr Demmink was part of them? What were the dates and the locations of those trips?

Can the Council indicate whether Mr Demmink may have been part of other delegations to Turkey between 1990 and 1999, other than in the context of K4?

Reply

(15 April 2013)

The Council has the following information on the visit by the K4 Committee to Turkey on 9-10 March 1998. According to the report of this visit, the EU high-level group of officials visiting Istanbul and Ankara included the chair of the K4 Committee, the Chair of the Migration Working Group and representatives from the Commission and the General Secretariat of the Council. The Council has no information on the names of the participants. However, Mr Demmink was not the (acting) chair of the K4 Committee in March 1998, as the Netherlands Presidency already ended as at 1 July 1997.

The Council has information on two visits by the K4 Committee to Turkey between 1990-1999: as indicated above, a visit on 9-10 March 1998 and also a visit on 10 December 1998 to Ankara. As in the case of the 9-10 March visit, the Council has no information on the names of the participants during the second visit.

The Council has no information as referred to in question number 3.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000382/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Συρρίκνωση Προγράμματος Δημοσίων Επενδύσεων

Από το 2010 ο προϋπολογισμός του Προγράμματος Δημοσίων Επενδύσεων (ΠΔΕ) μειώνεται σημαντικά, συμβάλλοντας στον περιορισμό των δαπανών αλλά και στην ύφεση και την ανεργία. Για το 2013, βάσει του ψηφισμένου Κρατικού Προϋπολογισμού (44), το ΠΔΕ προβλέπεται να μην ξεπεράσει τα 6,85 δις ευρώ ή το 3,5% του ΑΕΠ. Την πενταετία 2005-2009 ανερχόταν σε 4% του ΑΕΠ. Στην πραγματικότητα η μείωση είναι μεγαλύτερη, με δεδομένη τη συρρίκνωση του ΑΕΠ λόγω της παρατεταμένης ύφεσης. Παράλληλα, έχει συρρικνωθεί σημαντικά και ο προϋπολογισμός του εθνικού υποπρογράμματος του ΠΔΕ (το 2013 θα ανέλθει σε 850 εκ. ευρώ (45)). Τα τελευταία χρόνια το ΠΔΕ σε μεγάλο ποσοστό ταυτίζεται με τη χρηματοδότηση συγχρηματοδοτούμενων δράσεων, πράγμα που εμποδίζει την εκπλήρωση του ρόλου του στην άσκηση ολοκληρωμένης οικονομικής πολιτικής της χώρας και στην επίτευξη σύγκλισης των ελληνικών περιφερειών τόσο με τις ευρωπαϊκές όσο και μεταξύ τους αλλά και στο εσωτερικό κάθε περιφέρειας (46). Σημειώνεται επίσης ότι οι ανάγκες συγχρηματοδότησης των δράσεων που έχουν ενταχθεί στα Επιχειρησιακά Προγράμματα της 4ης Προγραμματικής Περιόδου 2007-2013 ανέρχονται σε 16-20 δισ. ευρώ μέχρι το 2015 (47), ενώ βρίσκονται σε φάση υλοποίησης χιλιάδες επενδυτικά σχέδια που έχουν ενταχθεί στους αναπτυξιακούς νόμους καθώς και άλλες ανάγκες. Ερωτάται η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή:

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις ανάγκες για συγχρηματοδότηση των έργων της προγραμματικής περιόδου 2007-2013 και του αναπτυξιακού νόμου, θεωρεί πως οι προβλεπόμενες πιστώσεις του ΠΔΕ για το έτος 2013 και αντίστοιχα για τα έτη 2014 και 2015 αρκούν ή θα υπάρξουν καθυστερήσεις στις πληρωμές έργων και κενά χρηματοδότησης;

Γνωρίζει το ύψος των εκκρεμών χρηματοδοτήσεων του εθνικού υποπρογράμματος του ΠΔΕ καθώς και κατηγορίες έργων που πιθανώς θα μείνουν ημιτελή εξαιτίας της σημαντικής μείωσης του προϋπολογισμού;

Προτίθεται να συνεργαστεί με τις ελληνικές αρχές για τον επανασχεδιασμό του ΠΔΕ εξ ολοκλήρου στη βάση πολυετούς ολοκληρωμένου εθνικού σχεδίου ανασυγκρότησης της οικονομίας, της παραγωγής και της αγοράς εργασίας;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(8 Μαρτίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή αποδίδει πολύ μεγάλη σημασία στις συζητήσεις που διεξάγονται με τις ελληνικές αρχές στο πλαίσιο των προσπαθειών για την εξασφάλιση επαρκών κεφαλαίων που θα επιτρέψουν την τήρηση των απαιτήσεων συγχρηματοδότησης σχετικά με τα σχέδια που χρηματοδοτούνται από διαρθρωτικά ταμεία της ΕΕ, τόσο κατά τη διάρκεια του προγράμματος όσο και τα επόμενα έτη. Ο προϋπολογισμός των επενδύσεων έχει προστατευτεί στο μεγαλύτερο δυνατό βαθμό από περικοπές του προϋπολογισμού. Στην τελευταία δέσμη δημοσιονομικών μέτρων που εγκρίθηκε τον Νοέμβριο, μόνο περίπου 450 εκατ. ευρώ προήλθαν από μειώσεις του προϋπολογισμού επενδύσεων. Είμαστε πεπεισμένοι ότι υπάρχουν επαρκείς πιστώσεις του προϋπολογισμού για να αποφεύγονται καθυστερήσεις στην εκτέλεση των έργων.

Η Επιτροπή δεν διαθέτει συγκεκριμένες πληροφορίες σχετικά με έργα που έχουν καθυστερήσει λόγω περικοπών του προϋπολογισμού. Ο προϋπολογισμός δημοσίων επενδύσεων μπορεί να διαδραματίσει πολύ σημαντικό ρόλο στην αναθέρμανση της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης και της ευημερίας στην Ελλάδα. Κατά συνέπεια, το πρόγραμμα έχει εστιαστεί σαφώς στην επιτάχυνση της απορρόφησης των πόρων των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων με την απλοποίηση των διαδικασιών και την ενίσχυση των μηχανισμών παρακολούθησης. Η Επιτροπή θα εξακολουθήσει να συνεργάζεται στενά με τις ελληνικές αρχές στο πλαίσιο της μεσοπρόθεσμης δημοσιονομικής στρατηγικής (ΜΔΣ) για να διασφαλίσει ότι διατίθενται επαρκείς πόροι στο ΠΔΕ και να μεγιστοποιηθεί ο αντίκτυπός του στην ελληνική οικονομία.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000382/13

to the Commission

Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Contraction of Public Investment Programme

Since 2010, the budget for the Public Investment Programme (PIP) has fallen sharply, thereby helping to reduce costs, but by the same token aggravating the recession and unemployment. According to the state budget (48) that has been adopted, for 2013 the PIP is not expected to exceed EUR 6.85 billion or 3.5% of GDP. During the five years 2005-2009, it stood at 4% of GDP. In reality the reduction is even greater, given the contraction in GDP due to the prolonged recession. At the same time, the budget of the national PIP sub-programme has also shrunk significantly (in 2013 it will amount to EUR 850 million (49) ). In recent years, the PIP has largely been identified with funding the co-funding actions, which has prevented it fulfilling its role in pursuing an integrated national economic policy and bringing about the convergence of Greek regions both with European regions and with each other and within each region (50). It should also be noted that the co-funding needs for the actions included in the Operational Programmes of the 4th Programming Period 2007-2013 amount to EUR 16 to 20 billion up to 2015 (51) and thousands of investment projects are being implemented that have been included in the development legislation, together with other needs. In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Taking into account the co-funding needs of projects for the programming period 2007-2013 and the development legislation, does it take the view that the proposed PIP appropriations for 2013 and for the years 2014 and 2015, respectively, are sufficient or will there be delays in payments for projects and funding gaps?

Does it know the amount of outstanding funding for the national PIP sub-programme and categories of project that will probably remain unfinished due to the swingeing budget cuts?

Will it work together with the Greek authorities to redesign the PIP based completely on an integrated multiannual national plan for the reconstruction of the economy, of production and of the labour market?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

The Commission is very concerned in the discussion with the Greek authorities to ensure that adequate funds are in place to meet the co-financing requirements relating to the projects funded by EU structural funds both during the programme and going forward. The investment budget has to the greatest extent possible been shielded from budgetary cuts. In latest fiscal package adopted in November, only about EUR 450 million came from cuts to the investment budget. It is our clear view that there are sufficient budget appropriations to avoid any delays in implementing the projects.

The Commission does not have specific information about any projects that have been delayed by budget cuts. The Public Investment Budget can play a very important role in fostering renewed economic growth and prosperity in Greece. As a result, the programme has explicitly focused on accelerating the absorption of structural funds by simplifying procedures and enhancing monitoring mechanisms. The Commission will continue to work closely with the Greek authorities in the context of the Medium Term Fiscal Strategy (MTFS) to ensure that adequate resources are devoted to the PIB and its impact on the Greek economy is maximised.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000383/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Μόλυνση των Ελληνικών πόλεων από την αιθαλομίχλη

Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση καθιέρωσε την εξίσωση της τιμής του πετρελαίου κίνησης και θέρμανσης, με αποτέλεσμα η τιμή του τελευταίου να ανέβει από 0,9 ευρώ/λίτρο πέρυσι τον Φεβρουάριο πάνω από 1,3 ευρώ/λίτρο. Αποτέλεσμα ήταν να πέσουν κατακόρυφα οι παραγγελίες πετρελαίου θέρμανσης, κάτι που είχε ως συνέπεια την μείωση των κρατικών εσόδων αλλά και την δημιουργία μιας απίστευτης κατάστασης στις ελληνικές πόλεις: οι Έλληνες καταναλωτές αναγκάζονται πλέον να καίνε σε τζάκια και ξυλόσομπες κάθε είδους ξύλο, χαρτί και ακατάλληλο υλικό, κάτι που έχει δημιουργήσει νέφη από αιθαλομίχλη πάνω από την Αθήνα και άλλες ελληνικές πόλεις.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή

1.

Ετέθη στις ελληνικές αρχές το ερώτημα πότε θα λάβουν σοβαρά και συγκεκριμένα μέτρα ώστε να σταματήσει η πρωτοφανής υποβάθμιση του περιβάλλοντος των ελληνικών πόλεων;

2.

Προτάθηκε στις ελληνικές αρχές ο εξορθολογισμός της τιμής του πετρελαίου θέρμανσης ώστε να ομαλοποιηθεί η αγορά, να υπάρξουν κρατικά έσοδα και να εκλείψουν τα επικίνδυνα νέφη αιθαλομίχλης στις ελληνικές πόλεις;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(8 Μαρτίου 2013)

1.

Η Επιτροπή έχει σε εξέλιξη μια νομική διαδικασία για παράβαση σχετικά με τα αιωρούμενα σωματίδια (PM10), με σκοπό να παροτρύνει την Ελλάδα να επισπεύσει κατά το δυνατόν το χρονικό διάστημα της μη συμμόρφωσης

1.

Η Επιτροπή έχει σε εξέλιξη μια νομική διαδικασία για παράβαση σχετικά με τα αιωρούμενα σωματίδια (PM10), με σκοπό να παροτρύνει την Ελλάδα να επισπεύσει κατά το δυνατόν το χρονικό διάστημα της μη συμμόρφωσης

 (52)

2.

Μολονότι ο Τύπος έχει πρόσφατα αναφερθεί σε επικείμενες πρωτοβουλίες της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης για τη μείωση της φορολογίας στα καύσιμα, η Επιτροπή δεν είναι ενήμερη για οποιαδήποτε πρωτοβουλία στο θέμα αυτό. Η τιμολογιακή εξίσωση του πετρελαίου θέρμανσης (με το πετρέλαιο κίνησης) έχει αποφασιστεί από την ελληνική κυβέρνηση, κατόπιν διαβουλεύσεων με την ΕΕ, την ΕΚΤ και το ΔΝΤ, αποσκοπεί δε τόσο στον περιορισμό των κινήτρων για λαθρεμπόριο όσο και στην αντιμετώπιση δημοσιονομικών αναγκών.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000383/13

to the Commission

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Smog pollution in Greek cities

The Greek Government has set the same price for diesel fuel and heating oil, causing the price of the latter to rise from 0.9 euros / litre in February 2012 to over 1.3 euros / litre now. The result has been a sharp fall in demand for heating oil, which has led to a fall in government revenue and the creation of an incredible situation in Greek cities: Greek consumers are now forced to burn in their fireplaces and stoves any wood, paper as well as other inappropriate materials which come to hand. This has created clouds of smog over Athens and other Greek cities.

Will the Commission say:

Have the Greek authorities been asked when they intend to take serious practical measures to stop the unprecedented degradation of the environment in Greek cities?

Has a proposal been put to the Greek authorities to deal rationally with the price of heating oil in order to restore a normal situation on the market, to secure revenue for the government and to eliminate the hazardous smog clouds hanging over Greek cities?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

1.

The Commission has an ongoing legal case on airborne particles (PM10) infringement with the aim of urging Greece to keep the period of noncompliance as short as possible

1.

The Commission has an ongoing legal case on airborne particles (PM10) infringement with the aim of urging Greece to keep the period of noncompliance as short as possible

 (53)

2.

While the press has recently reported about some upcoming initiatives of the Greek Government to reduce the taxation on fuels, the Commission is not aware of any initiative in this respect. The equalisation of heating oil has been decided by the Greek Government, in consultation with the

EC/ECB/IMF, with the specific aim of both reducing the incentive for smuggling and addressing fiscal needs.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000384/13

to the Commission

Marian Harkin (ALDE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Atlantic Biogeographical Region

Can the Commission detail which new and amended Sites of Community Importance have been proposed to it by Ireland for the Atlantic Biogeographical Region since 2010 which have necessitated the Commission Implementing Decision of 16 November 2012 adopting a sixth updated list of Sites of Community Importance for the Atlantic Biogeographical Region [C(2012)8222]?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

There have been two Commission decisions updating lists of Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) for the Atlantic Region since 2010, the latest being that of 16 November 2012 (54). No new SCIs have been added to the Irish network of sites during this period but there have been slight amendments to the area of 35 sites (55), resulting in an overall net increase in surface area of the network of approximately 370 hectares. Such changes arise from greater scientific precision of the boundaries of the areas affected. Information on these and all other Natura 2000 sites in Ireland, including updated standard data forms, is available on the Natura 2000 map viewer (56).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000385/13

an die Kommission

Alexander Alvaro (ALDE)

(16. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: EU PNR — 50 000 000 EUR für gezielte Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen

Die Kommission wird gebeten, jede Frage direkt und separat zu beantworten.

Aus welchem Grund hat die Kommission die gezielte Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen zu nachstehendem Thema veröffentlicht: „Zusammenarbeit bei der Strafverfolgung in der Form, dass die Mitgliedstaaten Stellen einrichten, die Fluggastdaten (Passenger Name Records, PNR) sammeln, weiterverarbeiten, analysieren und austauschen“?

Ist sich die Kommission der Tatsache bewusst, dass das Europäische Parlament keinen Legislativvorschlag angenommen hat, um ein EU-PNR-System einzurichten, und sich Monate lang geweigert hat, über diesen Vorschlag abzustimmen?

Ist sich die Kommission der Tatsache bewusst, dass einige Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments Änderungsanträge eingereicht haben, in denen der Legislativvorschlag der Kommission, ein EU-PNR-System einzurichten, abgelehnt wird?

Ist sich die Kommission der Tatsache bewusst, dass es gemäß den Verträgen ihre Aufgabe ist, Rechtsvorschriften lediglich vorzuschlagen, nicht aber die Rechtssetzungsorgane vor bereits vollendete Tatsachen zu stellen?

Wie rechtfertigt die Kommission ihr Vorhaben, 50 000 000 EUR für ein System auszugeben, das möglicherweise nie eingerichtet wird?

Welche Generaldirektionen waren an der Erarbeitung dieser Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen beteiligt?

Antwort von Frau Malmström im Namen der Kommission

(1. März 2013)

Als Teil des Förderprogramms „Prävention und Bekämpfung von Kriminalität“ (ISEC), das von der GD Inneres verwaltet wird, steht die gezielte Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen für die Einrichtung von Stellen in den Mitgliedstaaten zur Verarbeitung von Fluggastdaten (PNR) in Einklang mit den Programmvorgaben, nämlich die Entwicklung innovativer Methoden und Technologien, die den Bürgern ein hohes Maß an Sicherheit gewährleisten.

Die Kommission hat die Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen deshalb veröffentlicht, weil die Sammlung, Verarbeitung, Auswertung und Weitergabe von PNR-Daten aus ihrer Sicht notwendig ist, um terroristische Straftaten und schwere Kriminalität wirksam zu verhüten, aufzudecken, aufzuklären und strafrechtlich zu verfolgen und damit die innere Sicherheit zu erhöhen.

Die Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen stellt eine eigenständige Fördermaßnahme im Rahmen des ISEC-Programms dar und ist nicht direkt an das laufende Legislativverfahren zum Kommissionsvorschlag für ein EU-PNR-System (KOM(2011)32 endg.) gekoppelt. Im Gegensatz zu dem Legislativvorschlag, der alle Mitgliedstaaten dazu verpflichten würde, eine zuständige Stelle für die Sammlung, Speicherung und Auswertung von PNR-Daten zu schaffen, ist die Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen darauf ausgerichtet, einzelne Mitgliedstaaten zu unterstützen, die auf freiwilliger Basis und nach innerstaatlichem Recht ein nationales PNR-System einrichten.

Die Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen und der Legislativvorschlag für ein EU‐ PNR-System dienen demselben zweifachen Ziel, d. h. die Verarbeitung von PNR-Daten soll als wirksames Instrument zur Bekämpfung von schwerer Kriminalität und Terrorismus in der EU gefördert und gleichzeitig strengen Auflagen und verlässlichen Garantien unterworfen werden, um die Achtung der Grundrechtecharta und den Schutz personenbezogener Daten sicherzustellen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000385/13

to the Commission

Alexander Alvaro (ALDE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: EU Passenger Name Record — EUR 50 million for targeted call for proposal

The Commission is requested to answer each question directly and separately.

Why did the Commission publish the targeted call for proposal ‘Law enforcement cooperation through measures to set up Passenger Information Units in Member States for the collection, processing, analysis and exchange of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data’?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that Parliament has not adopted any legal proposal to set up an EU PNR system and has refused to vote on such a proposal for months?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that several Members of the European Parliament have tabled amendments rejecting the Commission’s legal proposal to set up an EU PNR system?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that its role under the Treaties is to propose legislation and not to present the legislative bodies with a fait accompli?

How does the Commission justify planning to spend EUR 50 million on a system which may never be set up?

Which DGs were involved in drafting this call for proposal?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

As part of the funding programme on the ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’ (ISEC), managed by DG Home Affairs, the targeted call for proposals to set up Passenger Information Units in Member States for the processing of passenger name record (PNR) data is in accordance with the objectives of the ISECprogramme, namely to develop innovative methods and technologies that contribute to a high level of security for citizens.

The Commission published the call for proposals as it considers that the collection, processing, analysis and exchange of PNR data is necessary to effectively prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, and thus enhance internal security.

The call for proposals is a stand-alone funding action within the ISECprogramme. It is not directly linked to the ongoing legislative procedure on the Commission proposal for an EU PNR system (COM(2011) 32 final). Unlike the legislative proposal, which would make it obligatory for all Member States to set up a competent authority to collect, store and analyse PNR data, the call for proposals aims at supporting individual Member States that voluntarily set up a national PNR system on the basis of national law.

The call for proposals and the legislative proposal for an EU PNR system share the same dual objective, namely to foster the processing of PNR data as an effective tool to fight serious crime and terrorism in the EU, while making such processing subject to strict conditions and effective safeguards in order to comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the protection of personal data.

(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)

Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-000386/13

Komisijai

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD)

(2013 m. sausio 16 d.)

Tema: Naminių paukščių importas iš trečiųjų šalių

Iš trečiųjų šalių į Europos Sąjungos teritoriją importuojami paukščiai turi atitikti 2008 m. rugpjūčio 8 d. Komisijos reglamento (EB) Nr. 798/2008, kuriuo nustatomas trečiųjų šalių, teritorijų, zonų ar skyrių, iš kurių galima importuoti į Bendriją ir vežti tranzitu per Bendriją naminius paukščius ir naminių paukščių produktus, sąrašas ir veterinarijos sertifikatų reikalavimai (OL L 226, 2008 8 23, p. 1), reikalavimus. Vadovaujantis reglamento (EB) Nr. 798/2008 3 straipsniu ir I priedo I dalies lentele, importuoti paukščius iš trečiųjų šalių į Europos Sąjungos teritoriją draudžiama, tačiau paukščių auginimo verslui, kuriam įtaką daro gamtinės sąlygos ir geografinė vieta, būtų tikslinga pradinę gamybą vykdyti trečiosiose šalyse, pvz., Ukrainoje. Ten būtų perkamos patalpos, įrengimai, motininis pulkas, o prieauglis būtų atsivežamas į ES toliau auginti ir realizuoti vietinėje rinkoje.

Ar Komisija nemano, kad šis draudimas importuoti paukščius iš trečiųjų šalių į Europos Sąjungos teritoriją yra neproporcingas ir neigiamai veikia Europos Sąjungos rinką, o tai galimai brangina produkciją ir daro neigiamą įtaką galutiniam vartotojui?

Ar Komisija nemano, kad būtina keisti nusistovėjusią tvarką, kad šios produkcijos gamintojai galėtų įvykdę atitinkamas sąlygas šiuos paukščius (prieauglį) atsivežti į Europos Sąjungą?

Kaip paukščių fermas, esančias trečiosiose šalyse, įtraukti į reglamento sąrašą ir ko reikėtų, kad būtų galima paukščius ar jų prieauglį importuoti į Europos Sąjungą?

T. Borgo atsakymas Komisijos vardu

(2013 m. vasario 27 d.)

ES gyvūnų sveikatos ir maisto saugos teisės aktai dėl gyvūnų ir jų produktų importo grindžiami principais, kad nepaisant tokio importo kilmės, jis turi atitikti standartus, lygiaverčius ES viduje galiojantiems standartams, ir būti saugus.

Komisijos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 789/2008 (57) nustatyti gyvūnų ir visuomenės sveikatos reikalavimai, taikomi kelioms paukštienos prekėms, įskaitant gyvus naminius paukščius, perinius kiaušinius, paukštieną, kiaušinius ir kiaušinių gaminius. Minėto reglamento I priedo 1 dalyje išvardytos visos trečiosios šalys, iš kurių valstybėms narėms leidžiama importuoti prekes, kurioms jos gali panaudoti atitinkamą veterinarijos sertifikatą. Importas iš į šią lentelę neįtrauktų trečiųjų šalių neleidžiamas, nes trečioji šalis arba neprašė Komisijos ją įtraukti, arba neatitinka ES sveikatos ir maisto saugos reikalavimų.

Trečiųjų šalių įtraukimo į visų ar tam tikrų prekių, kurioms taikomas šis reglamentas, importo sąrašą procedūra yra aiškiai apibrėžta. Išsami informacija pateikiama Komisijos svetainėje:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/trade/poultry/index_en.htm.

Visai neseniai Komisijos įgyvendinimo reglamentu (ES) Nr. 88/2013 (58) Ukraina įrašyta į trečiųjų šalių, iš kurių leidžiama į Sąjungą įvežti tam tikrą mėsą, mėsos gaminius, kiaušinius ir kiaušinių gaminius, sąrašą. Į ES importuoti gyvus naminius paukščius Ukraina leidimo neprašė.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000386/13

to the Commission

Juozas Imbrasas (EFD)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Poultry imports from third countries

Poultry imported into the territory of the European Union from third countries must comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 of 8 August 2008, laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements (OJ L 226, 23.8.2008 p. 1). According to Article 3 and the table in Annex I (Part I) of Regulation (EC) No 798/2008, it is prohibited to import poultry from third countries into the territory of the European Union, but it would be appropriate for poultry rearing businesses that are affected by natural conditions and geographical location to carry out initial production in third countries, such as Ukraine. Facilities, equipment and the parent flock would be purchased there and the offspring would be brought into the EU to be further reared and sold on the local market.

Does the Commission not think that this ban on importing poultry from third countries into the territory of the European Union is disproportionate and has a negative impact on the European Union market, and that this possibly makes production more expensive and has a negative impact on the end consumer?

Does it not think that we need to change the established practice so that the producers could, having fulfilled relevant conditions, bring such poultry (offspring) into the European Union?

How can poultry farms located in third countries be included on the regulation’s list and how can we make it possible to import poultry or their offspring into the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

EU animal health and food safety legislation on imports of animals and their products is based on the principles that those imports comply with standards equivalent to those in place within the EU and that they should be safe regardless of their origin.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 789/2008 (59) lays down the animal and public health conditions for imports of several poultry commodities including live poultry, hatching eggs, poultry meat, eggs and egg products. The table in Part 1 of Annex I to that regulation lists all third countries from where Members States are authorised to import the commodities for which they may use the respective veterinary certificate. Imports from third countries not listed in this table are not authorised because the third country has either not requested the Commission to be listed or the EU health and food safety requirements cannot be met.

There is a well-defined procedure in place for listing third countries for imports of all or certain commodities covered by this regulation. Detailed information is available on the Commission's website http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/trade/poultry/index_en.htm.

Most recently Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 88/2013 (60) added Ukraine in the lists of third countries from which certain meat, meat products, eggs and egg products may be introduced into the Union. Ukraine did not request to be authorised for the import into the EU of live poultry.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-000387/13

a Tanács számára

Gál Kinga (PPE)

(2013. január 16.)

Tárgy: Hiányosság a szabadság, biztonság és jog térségének müködésében

2000 áprilisában Francis Ciaran Tobin két kisgyermek életét követelő autóbalesetet okozott a magyarországi Leányfalun. Tobin, mivel időközben megszűnt a magyarországi munkaviszonya, 2000 novemberében hazatért Írországba. A magyar bíróság 2002 novemberében távollétében 18 hónap szabadságvesztésre ítélte az ír férfit. Magyarország kérte Francis Tobin kiadatását a dublini hatóságoktól, akik jogszabályi hivatkozások miatt ezt megtagadták.

A magyar közvélemény elégedetlen a helyzet megoldatlanságával. Ez nem tesz jót a jog és az igazságosság érvényesülésén alapuló térség megítélésének, illetve csalódást kelt az Unió közösségi politikájával kapcsolatban. A magyar közvélemény és a hatóságok számára nem az a fontos, hogy Francis Tobin Magyarországon töltse le büntetését, hanem hogy egyáltalán letölti-e. Hiszen elfogadhatatlan, hogy jogi kiskapuk lehetővé tegyék az elkövető számára, hogy büntetlenül élje mindennapjait.

Ezek fényében kérdezném a soros Elnökséget, hogy milyen rendelkezésre álló eszközei vannak arra, hogy segítse az ügy nemcsak jogszerű, hanem igazságot is szolgáltató lezárását, bizonyítva ezzel a jog és az igazságosság érvényesülésén alapuló térség működőképességét?

Válasz

(2013. május 15.)

A tagállamok közötti korábbi kiadatási rendszer helyébe lépő európai elfogatóparancs a kölcsönös elismerés és bizalom elvén nyugszik.

A Tanács a 97/827/IB együttes fellépés alapján értékelte az európai elfogatóparancs gyakorlati alkalmazását valamennyi tagállamban. Az értékelés (61) egyik fő megállapítása az, hogy az európai elfogatóparancs összességében eredményesen működik.

Az európai elfogatóparancson kívül léteznek más olyan jogi eszközök is, amelyek az Európai Unión belül a szabadság, a biztonság és a jogérvényesülés növelését célozzák. A kölcsönös elismerés elvének büntetőügyekben hozott, szabadságvesztés-büntetéseket kiszabó vagy szabadságelvonással járó intézkedéseket alkalmazó ítéleteknek az Európai Unióban való végrehajtása céljából történő alkalmazásáról szóló, 2008. november 27-i 2008/909/IB tanácsi kerethatározat meghatározza azokat a szabályokat, amelyek a szabadságvesztés-büntetéseket kiszabó vagy szabadságelvonással járó intézkedéseket alkalmazó, valamely tagállamban hozott ítéleteknek a valamely más tagállamban való elismerésére és végrehajtására vonatkoznak.

A tisztelt képviselő olyan tragikus eseményre utal, amely kétoldalú üggyel kapcsolatos, és amelyet az érintett tagállamok igazságügyi hatóságai vizsgáltak meg. A Tanácsnak nem feladata véleményt nyilvánítani a nemzeti bíróságok határozatairól.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000387/13

to the Council

Kinga Gál (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Deficiency in the operation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

In April 2000 Francis Ciaran Tobin caused a road accident which cost the lives of two small children at Leányfalu in Hungary. Because his work contract in Hungary had by then ended, Tobin returned to Ireland in November 2000. In November 2002 the Hungarian court sentenced the Irishman in his absence to 18 months’ imprisonment. Hungary requested the extradition of Francis Tobin from the Dublin authorities, but they refused, citing legal reasons.

Public opinion in Hungary is dissatisfied with the failure to resolve this situation. This does not do any good to perceptions of the area of law and justice, and is a disappointment in terms of the Union’s common policy. For Hungarian public opinion and the Hungarian authorities the main thing is not that Francis Tobin should serve his sentence in Hungary, but that he should serve it somewhere. It is unacceptable that legal loopholes should make it possible for the culprit to live out his days unpunished.

In the light of the above, what instruments does the Presidency have at its disposal to help this case to reach a conclusion that satisfies not just the law but also the interests of justice, thus ensuring the proper functioning of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?

Reply

(15 May 2013)

The European arrest warrant, which replaced the previous system of extradition between the Member States, is based on the principle of mutual recognition and trust.

The Council has evaluated the practical operation of the European arrest warrant in all Member States on the basis of Joint Action 97/827/JHA. A main conclusion of that evaluation (62) is that, in general, the European arrest warrant is operating efficiently.

Besides the European arrest warrant, there are also other legal tools which aim at the strengthening of freedom, security and justice in the European Union. The Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union sets out the rules whereby judgments that impose custodial sentences or measures involving the deprivation of liberty delivered in one Member State are to be recognised and enforced in another Member State.

The tragic case raised by the Honourable Member relates to a bilateral case which has been dealt with by judicial authorities in the Member States concerned. It is not for the Council to comment on decisions taken by national courts.

(Magyar változat)

Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-000388/13

a Bizottság számára

Gál Kinga (PPE)

(2013. január 16.)

Tárgy: Hiányosság a szabadság, biztonság és jog térségének müködésében

2000 áprilisában Francis Ciaran Tobin két kisgyermek életét követelő autóbalesetet okozott a magyarországi Leányfalun. Tobin, mivel időközben megszűnt a magyarországi munkaviszonya, 2000 novemberében hazatért Írországba. A magyar bíróság 2002 novemberében távollétében 18 hónap szabadságvesztésre ítélte az ír férfit. Magyarország kérte Francis Tobin kiadatását a dublini hatóságoktól, akik jogszabályi hivatkozások miatt ezt megtagadták.

A magyar közvélemény elégedetlen a helyzet megoldatlanságával. Ez nem tesz jót a jog és az igazságosság érvényesülésén alapuló térség megítélésének, illetve csalódást kelt az Unió közösségi politikájával kapcsolatban. A magyar közvélemény és a hatóságok számára nem az a fontos, hogy Francis Tobin Magyarországon töltse le büntetését, hanem hogy egyáltalán letölti-e. Hiszen elfogadhatatlan, hogy jogi kiskapuk lehetővé tegyék az elkövető számára, hogy büntetlenül élje mindennapjait.

Ezek fényében kérdezném a Bizottságot, hogyan tervez közbenjárni a Tobin-ügyben, különös tekintettel a most kezdődő ír elnökségre az elnökségi ideje alatt? Milyen lépéseket szándékozik tenni az ügy nemcsak jogszerű, hanem igazságot is szolgáltató lezárásában, bizonyítva ezzel elköteleződését a jog és az igazságosság érvényesülésén alapuló térség további építésében?

Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében

(2013. március 25.)

A Bizottság osztozik az említett tragikus balesetben elhunyt gyermekek szüleinek gyászában. Nagyra tartja továbbá a jog érvényesülésén alapuló európai térség tiszteletét.

Miután a Bizottság az ügyről tudomást szerzett, azonnal lépéseket tett annak megoldására. 2012 júliusában hivatalos ülést tartott a magyar és az ír igazságügyi minisztériummal. A Bizottság kezdeményezésére az ügy 2012 októberében az Igazságügyi Tanács elé került, amely megerősítette, hogy nincs mód további lépésekre.

Az ügy rendezéséhez alkalmazható uniós eszközöket az érintett tagállam nem kellő időben vagy egyáltalán nem hajtotta végre. Az Igazságügyi Tanács 2012. októberi ülésén a Bizottság hangsúlyozta az elítélt személyek átszállításáról szóló kerethatározat valamennyi tagállam általi gyors végrehajtásának fontosságát a kölcsönös elismerésre vonatkozó meglévő uniós eszközök működésének biztosítása érdekében. A határok nem jelenthetnek akadályt a büntetőeljárások lebonyolításában és az ítéletek végrehajtásában. A Bizottság 2013 közepén jelentést tesz közzé arról, hogy milyen szakaszban tart a fenti kerethatározat végrehajtása.

A Bizottság megérti, hogy miután az Ír Legfelsőbb Bíróság az ügyben véglegesnek tekintendő döntést hozott, Írországban valamennyi jogi eljárást kimerítettek. Ennélfogva az igazságszolgáltatás és az ítéletek függetlenségének alapvető tiszteletben tartására tekintettel a Bizottság az ügyben nem rendelkezik további hatáskörrel.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000388/13

to the Commission

Kinga Gál (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Deficiency in the operation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

In April 2000 Francis Ciaran Tobin caused a road accident which cost the lives of two small children at Leányfalu in Hungary. Because his work contract in Hungary had by then ended, Tobin returned to Ireland in November 2000. In November 2002 the Hungarian court sentenced the Irishman in his absence to 18 months’ imprisonment. Hungary requested the extradition of Francis Tobin from the Dublin authorities, but they refused, citing legal reasons.

Public opinion in Hungary is dissatisfied with the failure to resolve this situation. This does not do any good to perceptions of the area of law and justice, and is a disappointment in terms of the Union’s common policy. For Hungarian public opinion and the Hungarian authorities the main thing is not that Francis Tobin should serve his sentence in Hungary, but that he should serve it somewhere. It is unacceptable that legal loopholes should make it possible for the culprit to live out his days unpunished.

In the light of the above, how does the Commission plan to intervene in the Tobin case during this Presidency period, particularly since Ireland has just assumed the Presidency of the Council? What measures does it propose to take to enable this case to reach a conclusion that satisfies not just the law but also the interests of justice, thus ensuring the proper functioning of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2013)

The Commission sympathises with the distress of the parents of the children who died in this tragic case. It also recognises that respect for the European Judicial area.

Once aware of the case, the Commission immediately responded. It held, in July 2012, a meeting with officials from the Ministries of Justice of Hungary and Ireland. Following a Commission's initiative, the matter was discussed at the Justice Council in October 2012, where it was acknowledged that no further action could be taken.

The EU instruments that could have been applied to settle this case were not implemented in time or at all by the Member State concerned. At the Justice Council in October 2012, the Commission stressed the importance of speedy implementation by all Member States of the framework Decision on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons to ensure that all available EU mutual recognition instruments are operational. Borders should not be an impediment to carrying out criminal proceedings and to enforcing the outcome. The Commission will publish a report in mid-2013 including the state of implementation of this framework Decision.

The Commission understands that all legal procedures in Ireland have been exhausted after the matter was judged by the Supreme Court of Ireland, whose decision is final. Therefore, with regard to the essential respect for the independence of the judiciary and of judicial decisions, the Commission has no competence to further intervene in this case.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000389/13

an die Kommission

Axel Voss (PPE)

(16. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Förderung der Ausfuhr von Fenstern und Türen aus Polen

Ein Unternehmen aus der Region Mittelrhein hat mitgeteilt, dass der polnische Staat den Export von in Polen hergestellten Fenstern und Türen in den europäischen Binnenmarkt fördert. Diese Förderung soll auch mit Mitteln aus dem Europäischen Fonds für regionale Entwicklung finanziert werden.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

Ist es nach Auffassung der Kommission generell zulässig, dass Mittel aus dem Europäischen Fonds für regionale Entwicklung von einem Mitgliedsland für die Unterstützung von Exporten in den europäischen Binnenmarkt verwendet werden?

Wie bewertet die Kommission die Tatsache, dass der polnische Staat den Export von in Polen hergestellten Fenstern und Türen in den europäischen Binnenmarkt fördert? Wird die Kommission die polnische Regierung in der Angelegenheit um eine Stellungnahme ersuchen?

Welche Schritte wird die Kommission einleiten, falls sie diese Beihilfen als mit dem EU-Recht nicht vereinbar bewerten sollte?

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(4. März 2013)

Wie die Kommission bereits in ihrer Antwort auf die Anfrage E-011525/2012 (63) erläutert hat, ist bei ihr eine Beschwerde über die mutmaßliche staatliche Beihilfe des polnischen Staates für den Export von in Polen hergestellten Fenstern und Türen eingegangen.

Die Kommissionsdienststellen prüfen zurzeit die Beschwerde und wissen, dass die besagte Maßnahme aus Mitteln des Europäischen Fonds für regionale Entwicklung finanziert wird.

Im Rahmen der Prüfung forderte die Kommission Informationen von den polnischen Behörden an, die kürzlich eingegangen sind. Diese Informationen sowie die vom Beschwerdeführer vorgelegten Daten sollten es den Kommissionsdienststellen ermöglichen, die Maßnahmen vor dem Hintergrund der Artikel 107 und 108 AEUV zu bewerten.

Sollte die Kommission feststellen, dass nicht mit den Wettbewerbsvorschriften vereinbare Beihilfen gewährt werden, weist sie den Mitgliedstaat an, diese von den Begünstigten zurückzufordern. Die Begünstigten müssen dann den vom Staat erhaltenen Beihilfebetrag zuzüglich aufgelaufener Zinsen an den Mitgliedstaat zurückzahlen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000389/13

to the Commission

Axel Voss (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Support for the export of windows and doors from Poland

An enterprise from the region of Mittelrhein has stated that the Polish Government is supporting the export of windows and doors made in Poland to the European internal market. This support is said to be financed with funds from the European Regional Development Fund.

1.

In the Commission’s view, is it generally permissible for funds from the European Regional Development Fund to be used by a Member State to support exports to the European internal market?

2.

How does it assess the fact that the Polish Government is supporting the export of windows and doors made in Poland to the European internal market? Will the Commission request a statement from the Polish Government on this issue?

3.

What steps will it take if it finds that this aid is incompatible with EC law?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

As the Commission already explained in its answer to Question E-011525/2012 (64), it has received a complaint about the alleged state aid granted by Poland in favour of window and door producers located in Poland to promote their export activities.

The Commission services are currently analysing the complaint and are aware of the fact that the measure in question is based on ERDF support.

As part of the assessment, the Commission services requested information from the Polish authorities, which it recently received. This information together with the data provided by the complainant should allow the Commission services to assess the measures in the light of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

If the Commission finds that incompatible aid has been granted, it orders the Member State to recover the incompatible aid from the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries will then be required to pay back to the Member State's budget the amount of the state aid received together with applicable interest.

(Leagan Gaeilge)

Ceist i gcomhair freagra scríofa E-000390/13

chuig an gCoimisiún

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(16 Eanáir 2013)

Ábhar: Horizon 2020

1.

Is bac orthu siúd a bhíonn ag beartú ar chur isteach ar mhaoiniú ón Aontas Eorpach go minic iad an rómhaorlathas agus an ró-oifigiúlachas atá i gceist. Ag tús na tréimhse Parlaiminte seo, aithníodh go raibh an rómhaorlathas sin ag cur isteach ar an bhfás geilleagrach agus ag cur le costais riaracháin. Cad iad na forálacha atá i gceist faoin gclár nua seo (Horizon 2020) chun dul i ngleic leis an bhfadhb sin agus cad iad na bearta atá i bhfeidhm chun a chinntiú go mbíonn sé éasca rochtain a fháil ar an gclár agus gur córas díreach, ó thús go deireadh, a bhíonn i gceist dóibh siúd atá ag cur isteach air?

2.

Cad iad na bearta atá i bhfeidhm ag an gCoimisiún ar mhaithe le tionscadail oiriúnacha taighde agus nuála a aithint agus chun taighdeoirí a chur ar an eolas maidir leis na deiseanna atá ann dóibh faoin gclár seo?

3.

Tá fiontair bheaga agus mheánmhéide (FBManna) ríthábhachtach ó thaobh an gheilleagair agus an téarnaimh gheilleagraigh de. Chuige sin, an bhféadfadh an Coimisiún eolas a thabhairt maidir leis na bearta atá i bhfeidhm faoin gclár Horizon 2020 chun cúnamh agus tacaíocht a thabhairt do na FBManna sin nach bhfuil ach acmhainní teoranta agus cumas nuála teoranta acu?

Freagra ón gCoimisinéir Geoghegan-Quinn thar ceann an Choimisiúin

(7 Márta 2013)

1.

Moltar struchtúr níos simplí i dtogra an Choimisiúin maidir le Fís 2020, struchtúr atá bunaithe ar thrí chuspóir: sraith aonair rialacha a thabharfaidh le chéile na gníomhaíochtaí taighde agus nuálaíochta uile ar leibhéal an AE agus ráta maoinithe aonair do gach cineál rannpháirtí agus do gach cineál gníomhaíochta. Fágfaidh sé seo go mbeidh sé níos éasca ag rannpháirtithe deiseanna maoinithe atá ann a aithint agus beidh rochtain dhíreach ar an gclár dá bharr. Níl gá réamh-mhaoiniú a thuairisciú agus ús a aisghabháil air a thuilleadh de thoradh athruithe ar an Rialachán Airgeadais agus tá an bealach réitithe chun gach idirbheart a chur i gcrích ar líne gan pháipéar.

2.

Baineann saineolaithe seachtracha úsáid as dianchóras athbhreithnithe piaraí chun na tograí is fearr le maoiniú a aithint. Foilsítear gach gairm tograí san Iris Oifigiúil, agus ar an Tairseach do Rannpháirtithe de chuid an Choimisiúin

2.

Baineann saineolaithe seachtracha úsáid as dianchóras athbhreithnithe piaraí chun na tograí is fearr le maoiniú a aithint. Foilsítear gach gairm tograí san Iris Oifigiúil, agus ar an Tairseach do Rannpháirtithe de chuid an Choimisiúin

 (65)

3.

Beidh ionstraim thiomnaithe mar chuid de Fís 2020 chun FBManna, nó cuibhreannais FBManna, a spreagadh chun na smaointe is nuálaí a chur isteach. Beidh seirbhísí cóitseála ar fáil do thairbhithe tríd an Líonra Fiontar Eorpach

3.

Beidh ionstraim thiomnaithe mar chuid de Fís 2020 chun FBManna, nó cuibhreannais FBManna, a spreagadh chun na smaointe is nuálaí a chur isteach. Beidh seirbhísí cóitseála ar fáil do thairbhithe tríd an Líonra Fiontar Eorpach

 (66)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000390/13

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Horizon 2020

1.

Red tape and bureaucracy often a hinder those intending to apply for European Union funding. At the start of this Parliamentary period, it was recognised that red tape and bureaucracy were affecting economic growth and adding to administrative costs. What provisions are envisaged under this new programme (Horizon 2020) to tackle this problem and what measures are in place to ensure easy access to the programme and that the programme, from start to finish, is straightforward for those who are applying to it?

2.

What measures has the Commission in place to give recognition to suitable projects of research and innovation and to inform researchers about the opportunities that are available to them under this programme?

3.

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are essential for the economy and economic recovery. To that effect, can the Commission provide information concerning the measures that are in place under the Horizon 2020 programme to assist and support SMEs with limited resources and limited capacity for innovation?

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

(7 March 2013)

1.

The Commission's proposal for Horizon 2020 offers a simpler structure based on three objectives; a single set of rules bringing together all EU level Research & Innovation activities and one single funding rate for all types of participants and activities. This will make it easier for participants to identify where funding opportunities exist and make access to the programme straightforward. Changes to the Financial Regulation have removed the need to report and recover interest on pre-financing and have paved the way for online, paperless completion of all transactions.

2.

A rigorous system of peer review by external experts is used to identify the best proposals for funding. All calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal, and on the Commission's Participant Portal

2.

A rigorous system of peer review by external experts is used to identify the best proposals for funding. All calls for proposals are published in the Official Journal, and on the Commission's Participant Portal

 (67)

3.

Horizon 2020 will include a dedicated instrument encouraging single SMEs, or SME consortia, to submit their most innovative ideas. Beneficiaries may access coaching services via the Enterprise Europe Network

3.

Horizon 2020 will include a dedicated instrument encouraging single SMEs, or SME consortia, to submit their most innovative ideas. Beneficiaries may access coaching services via the Enterprise Europe Network

 (68)

(Leagan Gaeilge)

Ceist i gcomhair freagra scríofa E-000391/13

chuig an gCoimisiún

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(16 Eanáir 2013)

Ábhar: Galaitheoirí agus an Treoir maidir le Tobac

Tá an Treoir Eorpach nua maidir le Tobac ag déanamh imní dóibh siúd san Aontas Eorpach atá ag iarraidh éirí as an gcaitheamh tobac. Tá an Treoir nua seo ag moladh gur uasleibhéal de 2 mg nicitín nó tiúchan nicitín de 4 mg/ml a bheadh i bhfeidhm do na hearraí sin a bhfuil nicitín iontu agus a bhíonn ar fáil gan oideas leighis. Cé go bhfuil neart díoltóirí agus úsáideoirí galaitheoirí i bhfách le reachtaíocht a thabhairt isteach agus caighdeáin a fheabhsú, tá siad buartha faoin togra áirithe seo toisc go gceapann siad nach leor na leibhéil molta sin dóibh siúd atá ag iarraidh éirí as an gcaitheamh tobac.

1.

Ós rud é go bhfuil daoine a bhíonn ag úsáid galaitheoirí buartha faoin laghdú atá molta ar an méid nicitín atá i dtoitíní leictreonacha, an bhféadfadh an Coimisiún breis eolais a thabhairt faoina bhfuil taobh thiar den togra áirithe sin? An bhféadfadh sé, freisin, a mhíniú conas go díreach a chabhródh an togra nua sin leo siúd atá ag iarraidh éirí as an gcaitheamh tobac le cabhair galaitheoirí/toitíní leictreonacha?

2.

Anuas ar sin, an bhfuil na scéalta sin cloiste ag an gCoimisiún a thugann le tuiscint go gcuirfeadh an cinneadh i dtaca le huasmhéid tiúchana nicitín de 4

 mg brú ar an dream a úsáideann toitíní leictreonacha a dtoitíní ar leibhéal nicitín níos airde a cheannach ar an margadh dubh?

Freagra ón gCoimisinéir Borg thar ceann an Choimisiúin

(28 Feabhra 2013)

1.

Tháinig méadú mór ar dhíolachán na dtoitíní leictreonacha le blianta beaga anuas agus is minic a chuirtear na táirgí ar an margadh gan rialú iomchuí a dhéanamh orthu. Bíonn cineálacha difriúla cur chuige ag na Ballstáit maidir le conas toitíní leictreonacha a rialú. Dá bharr sin, bíonn ilroinnt sa mhargadh agus fágann sin go bhfuil údar le gníomhaíochtaí ar leibhéal an AE.

Tá sé mar aidhm leis an togra ón gCoimisiún taighde, nuálaíocht agus forbairt ar tháirgí níos sábháilte a spreagadh, táirgí a ndearnadh cothromaíocht idir riosca agus tairbhe orthu roimh ré agus atá níos oiriúnaithe don éirí as an gcaitheamh tobac.

2.

De réir an togra ón gCoimisiún, beidh toitíní leictreonacha atá os cionn na tairsí nicitín atá molta ceadaithe ar an margadh fós, ar choinníoll iad a bheith údaraithe mar tháirgí míochaine. Dá bhrí sin, meastar gur teoranta an baol go ndéanfar trádáil aindleathach ar tháirgí den sórt sin.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000391/13

to the Commission

Liam Aylward (ALDE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Vaporisers and the Tobacco Directive

The new European Tobacco Directive is causing concern to those in the European Union who are trying to quit smoking. This new directive proposes that a limit of 2 mg of nicotine or 4 mg/ml of nicotine concentrate would be applied to devices that contain nicotine and that are available without prescription. While many sellers and users of vaporisers are in favour of the introduction of legislation and improving standards, they are concerned about this particular proposal as they believe that the proposed limits are too low for those who are trying to quit smoking.

1.

Given that people who use vaporisers are concerned about the proposed reduction in the amount of nicotine contained in electronic cigarettes, could the Commission provide further information on the background to this particular proposal? Could it also explain how exactly this new proposal would help those who are trying to quit smoking with the aid of vaporisers/electronic cigarettes?

2.

Furthermore, has the Commission heard those reports which suggest that a decision in favour of a maximum nicotine concentrate limit of 4mg would put pressure on those who use electronic cigarettes to purchase their cigarettes, with a higher nicotine level, on the black market?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

1.

The sales of electronic cigarettes have increased substantially in recent years and the products are often placed on the market without appropriate control. Member States take different approaches how to regulate electronic cigarettes. This leads to fragmentation of the market and justifies action at the EU level.

The Commission proposal seeks to encourage research, innovation and development of safer products which have undergone a prior risk/benefit balance and which are more adapted for smoking cessation.

2.

According to the Commission proposal, electronic cigarettes above the suggested nicotine threshold would still be allowed on the market, provided they have been authorised as medicinal products. Therefore, the risk of illicit trade of such products is considered limited.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000392/13

do Komisji

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(16 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Sprzedaż urządzeń i programów komputerowych z UE mogących służyć władzom Białorusi do inwigilacji obywateli

Jak podaje raport „Belarus: Pulling the Plug” organizacji Index on Censorship, Białoruś jest jednym z najbardziej nieprzyjaznych miejsc na świece dla użytkowników Internetu. Nowe technologie mogą być bardzo pomocne w wyrażaniu wolności swoich myśli, ale i mogą być również skutecznym narzędziem w jej ograniczaniu. Tak też się dzieje na Białorusi gdzie reżim ogranicza wolność słowa w sieci poprzez filtrowanie treści, blokowanie dostępu do krytykujących władze Białorusi stron, inwigilowanie użytkowników i cyberataki na niezależne strony, w tym również zmienianie ich treści.

Jak wynika z raportu władze Białorusi planują jeszcze większe nasilenie masowej kontroli obywateli w dostępie do Internetu.

Rząd głównie nastawia się na rozwój specjalnego oprogramowania, które umożliwi śledzenie prawie wszystkich działań każdego użytkownika Internetu w kraju. Europejskie firmy dostarczają sprzęt, który ułatwia inwigilację obywateli. Dzięki tym narzędziom na Białorusi było kilka fal aresztowań moderatorów internetowych społeczności i serwisów opozycyjnych. Dziennikarze i działacze, którzy wyrażają swoje opinie on-line stali się przedmiotem postępowania karnego o zniesławienie.

Dla przykładu, jak informuje raport, firma Ericsson sprzedała sprzęt komunikacyjny do białoruskich operatorów komórkowych, który mógł zostać wykorzystany do śledzenia komunikacji mobilnej telefonów liderów opozycji i niezależnych dziennikarzy w Mińsku przed i podczas wydarzeń z dnia 19 grudnia 2010 r.

Raport powołuje się również na informację gazety Die Zeit mówiącą o tym, że niemiecka policja szkoliła białoruską milicję z obsługi Analyst's Notebook, narzędzia zaprojektowanego do monitoringu działalności grup terrorystycznych, jak się okazało zostało ono wykorzystane do inwigilacji i represjonowania działaczy demokratycznych.

W związku z tym zapytuję:

Czy Komisja planuje wprowadzić rozwiązania zmierzające do ograniczenia lub zablokowania sprzedaży i dostarczania urządzeń i programów komputerowych, pochodzących z terenu Unii Europejskiej, mogących służyć do inwigilacji opozycji na Białorusi, filtrowania treści, blokowania dostępu do stron internetowych i prowadzenia cyberataków?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela de Guchta w imieniu Komisji

(1 marca 2013 r.)

Zgodnie z art. 215 TFUE zastosowanie środków przewidujących zerwanie lub ograniczenie stosunków gospodarczych i finansowych, takich jak zmniejszenie lub zablokowanie sprzedaży i dostaw z UE sprzętu komputerowego i oprogramowania, które mogłyby zostać wykorzystane do inwigilacji opozycji na Białorusi, jest możliwe jedynie na podstawie decyzji przyjętej w ramach wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa. Komisja jest zdania, że podjęcie takich działań wymaga bardziej dogłębnego zbadania kwestii poruszonych w raporcie „Belarus: Pulling the Plug” i w związku z tym, wraz z Wysoką Przedstawiciel ds. Wspólnej Polityki Zagranicznej i Bezpieczeństwa, przeprowadzi dalszą analizę zagadnień, o których mowa we wspomnianym raporcie.

W strategii bezpieczeństwa cybernetycznego Unii Europejskiej (69) zaproponowano, by jednym z priorytetów UE było ustanowienie spójnej międzynarodowej polityki w zakresie cyberprzestrzeni dla Unii Europejskiej i promowanie podstawowych wartości UE. Mogłoby to pociągać za sobą monitorowanie wywozu produktów lub usług, które mogłyby zostać wykorzystane do cenzury lub masowych kontroli za pośrednictwem Internetu.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000392/13

to the Commission

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Sale of EU computer equipment and software that could be used by the Belarusian authorities to spy on citizens

According to a report entitled ‘Belarus: Pulling the Plug’, which was produced by the ‘Index on Censorship’ organisation, Belarus is one of the most hostile countries on Earth for Internet users. New technologies may help to facilitate freedom of expression, but they may also be used as an effective means of restricting it. This is the situation in Belarus, where the regime is restricting freedom of expression on the Internet by filtering content, blocking access to websites that criticise the Belarusian authorities, spying on users and conducting cyber attacks on independent websites, including altering their content.

The report states that the Belarusian authorities are planning to tighten their grip on citizens' access to the Internet.

Above all, the government is seeking to develop specialised software that will enable it to track nearly all of the activities of every Internet user in the country. European companies are supplying equipment that helps the Belarusian authorities to spy on their citizens. The use of this equipment has already led to several waves of arrests of moderators of online opposition groups and services. Journalists and activists who express their opinions online have been subject to criminal prosecutions for libel.

The report gives the example of Ericsson, which sold communications equipment to Belarusian mobile phone operators which may have been used to track the mobile telephone communications of opposition leaders and independent journalists in Minsk in the run‐up to and during the events of 19 December 2010.

It also refers to information published by the German newspaper ‘Die Zeit’ stating that the German police had trained their Belarusian counterparts to use ‘Analyst’s Notebook’ software, which is designed to monitor the activities of terrorist groups. It was later confirmed that the software was used to spy on and persecute democratic activists.

In light of the above:

Does the Commission plan to take steps to restrict or block the sale and supply of computer equipment and software from the EU that could be used to spy on the Belarusian opposition, filter content, block access to websites and carry out cyber‐attacks?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

In accordance with Article 215 TFEU, measures that provide for the interruption or reduction of economic and financial relations such as the restriction or blockage of the sale and supply of computer equipment and software from the EU that could be used to spy on the Belarusian opposition have to be based on a decision adopted under the common foreign and security policy. The Commission considers that such action would require a more in-depth study of the issues raised in the report and will therefore reflect further with the High Representative. on the issues referred to in the report ‘Belarus: Pulling the Plug’.

The Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union (70) proposes that the EU define as one of its priorities the establishment of a coherent international cyberspace policy for the EU and the promotion of its core values. This could entail monitoring the export of products or services that might be used for censorship or mass surveillance online.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000393/13

an die Kommission

Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)

(16. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Konzeptpapier vom 19.11.2012

Inwiefern ist das am 19.11.2012 vom Bundeswirtschaftsministerium, der GD Energie sowie der hessischen und bayrischen Landesregierung vorgelegte Konzeptpapier mit dem Titel „Zusammenstellung von für den Stromnetz‐ und Kraftwerksbau bedeutsamen Regelungen und mögliche Ansatzpunkte für Erleichterungen“ mit der GD Energie abgestimmt worden, und unterstützt die GD Energie den Inhalt dieses Papiers uneingeschränkt?

Antwort von Herrn Oettinger im Namen der Kommission

(6. März 2013)

Die Kommission wurde zu dem Konzeptpapier des deutschen Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft sowie der hessischen und der bayrischen Landesregierung, die für dessen Inhalt und Empfehlungen allein verantwortlich sind, nicht offiziell konsultiert.

Zu dieser Initiative erfolgte eine informelle Konsultation der Kommission. Sie war mit einigen Aspekten des Papiers nicht einverstanden und machte dazu informelle Anmerkungen und Vorschläge.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000393/13

to the Commission

Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Draft paper of 19 November 2012

To what extent has the draft paper put forward on 19 November 2012 by the German Federal Ministry of Economics, the Directorate-General for Energy (DG Energy) and the provincial governments of Hessen and Bavaria entitled ‘Zusammenstellung von für den Stromnetz‐ und Kraftwerksbau bedeutsamen Regelungen und mögliche Ansatzpunkte für Erleichterungen’ (‘Compilation of significant regulations for the construction of power supply networks and power plants and possible strategies for easing’) been agreed with DG Energy, and does DG Energy support the content of this paper without reservation?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2013)

The Commission has not been formally consulted on the draft paper prepared by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and the provincial governments of Hessen and Bavaria who are solely responsible for its content and recommendations.

The Commission has been informally consulted on this initiative. It did not agree with some of the elements of the paper and provided informal comments and suggestions.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000394/13

à la Commission

Gaston Franco (PPE)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Garanties concernant la libre circulation des prestataires de services à l'intérieur de la Communauté européenne

Le règlement (CE) no 883/2004 du 29 avril 2004, et son règlement d'application (CE) no 987/2009 du 16 septembre 2009, concernant la garantie de libre circulation des personnes et des prestataires de services à l'intérieur de la Communauté européenne, régissent notamment les règles d'assujettissement des travailleurs salariés et non salariés au régime de protection sociale.

Ces règlements disposent que la législation applicable en matière de sécurité sociale est normalement celle du territoire sur lequel s'effectue l'activité professionnelle, conformément au principe de territorialité. Cependant, il existe une exception à ce principe de territorialité, qui est le détachement.

1.

Quelles sont les conditions minimales, légales, précises, à réunir pour que des prestataires de services étrangers, exerçant une activité rémunérée dans un pays qui n'est pas leur pays d'origine soient considérés comme relevant de l'exception au principe de territorialité, tant dans leur pays d'origine, que dans le ou les pays de l'UE où ils exerceraient leurs activités?

2.

Les règlements disposent que les prestations de service effectuées dans le cadre du détachement doivent être de durée inférieure à 24 mois, sauf accord préalable:

De quel accord préalable s'agit-il? Qui est habilité à le délivrer? Quelles sont les conditions à réunir pour pouvoir l'obtenir?

Cette durée, inférieure à 24 mois, peut-elle être renouvelée? À quelles conditions? Notamment, existe-t-il une règle communautaire précisant les possibilités de renouvellement de cette période de détachement, la durée d'interruption entre deux périodes de détachement, la possibilité de cumul de plusieurs périodes successives de détachement?

Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(13 mars 2013)

1.

Les exigences légales concernant le détachement figurent à l'article 12 du règlement (CE) n

1.

Les exigences légales concernant le détachement figurent à l'article 12 du règlement (CE) n

o  (71) o  (72)  (73)

Les dispositions sont expliquées en détail et accompagnées d'exemples dans la première partie du guide pratique (74) de la législation applicable aux travailleurs dans l'UE, l'EEE et en Suisse, élaboré et adopté par la commission administrative. Il est conseillé à l'Honorable Parlementaire de consulter ce guide, qui contient des réponses à toutes ses questions.

2.

Les détachements au sens de la législation de l'UE ne doivent pas être d'une durée supérieure à 24 mois.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000394/13

to the Commission

Gaston Franco (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Guaranteeing the free movement of service providers in the European Union

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of 29 April 2004, and its implementing regulation, Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of 16 September 2009, on the free movement of persons and service providers in the European Union lay down rules specifying how Member State social security legislation applies to employed and self-employed persons.

These regulations state that the applicable social security legislation is that of the Member State in which the professional activity is carried out, in line with the territoriality principle. However, that principle does not apply when workers are posted to another Member State.

1.

What are the specific minimum legal requirements that service providers engaged in a remunerated activity in a country other than their country of origin must meet in order to be exempt from the territoriality principle, both in their country of origin and in the EU country or countries in which they work?

2.

The regulations provide that the duration of the work carried out by a service provider posted to another Member State must not exceed 24 months unless prior authorisation to the contrary has been given.

What does this prior authorisation consist of? Who has the power to issue such authorisation? What conditions must a service provider meet in order to obtain such authorisation?

Can a posting period of less than 24 months be renewed? Subject to what conditions? In particular, is there an EU rule which specifies under what circumstances a posting period may be renewed, the period of time which must elapse between two posting periods, and whether it is possible to complete a series of consecutive posting periods?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

1.

The legal requirements concerning posting are set out in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004

1.

The legal requirements concerning posting are set out in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004

 (75)  (76)  (77)

The provisions are explained in detail with examples in Part I of the Practical Guide (78) to legislation applying to workers in the EU, the EEA and Switzerland, drafted and adopted by the Administrative Commission. The Honourable Member is advised to consult the Guide, which contains answers to all his questions.

2.

Postings within the meaning of the EU legislation may not cover a period of more than 24 months.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000395/13

a la Comisión

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Áreas protegidas de pesca en el Gran Sol

Diversas informaciones apuntan a una iniciativa del Gobierno británico orientada a proteger la pesca en determinadas áreas del Gran Sol en las que, tradicionalmente y de manera particular, faena la flota europea con origen en Galicia (España). Estas mismas informaciones señalan el primer semestre de este año, en el marco de la presidencia irlandesa, como el plazo previsto para la creación de tales áreas, generándose así una gran inquietud en el sector.

El establecimiento de estas áreas protegidas de pesca no puede vulnerar los derechos pesqueros de manera unilateral y proteccionista en detrimento de otros Estados miembros. Con el agravante de que esas áreas, orientadas a la conservación de los recursos y los ecosistemas marinos, puedan albergar parques eólicos, explotaciones petrolíferas u otras actividades agresivas con el medio ambiente.

Estas mismas informaciones, aduciendo fuentes de la DG MARE de la Comisión Europea, plantean la posibilidad de que se produzcan modificaciones en las cuotas asignadas a los pesqueros que faenan en las zonas protegidas de pesca.

1.

¿Podría aclarar la Comisión si ha recibido algún tipo de solicitud o propuesta por parte de algún Estado miembro en el sentido de constituir áreas protegidas de pesca en su espacio marino, en particular, en el Gran Sol?

2.

¿Qué requisitos se han de cumplir para decretar ciertas áreas marinas como de especial protección, de manera compatible con la política pesquera común y los derechos históricos de los Estados miembros?

3.

En tales áreas protegidas, además de la pesca ¿se prevé excluir aquellas otras actividades potencialmente dañinas con el medio ambiente (parques eólicos, explotaciones petrolíferas, etc.)?

4.

¿Es compatible la creación de estas áreas protegidas de pesca con que se produzcan modificaciones en la asignación de las cuotas de pesca? En su caso, ¿de qué manera?

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de marzo de 2013)

Es responsabilidad de los Estados miembros designar áreas protegidas en las aguas bajo jurisdicción nacional y establecer medidas de conservación para proteger los hábitats y especies vulnerables y en peligro. En función de los objetivos de conservación del espacio marino que se desee proteger, los Estados miembros pueden prever la aplicación de diferentes medidas para reglamentar o restringir las actividades marítimas en el área. Naturalmente, entre tales medidas pueden contarse las de gestión y control de la pesca, así como las que afecten a cualquier otra actividad económica.

Con respecto a la pesquería del Gran Sol (mar Céltico), la Comisión es consciente de que el Reino Unido prevé designar una serie de áreas protegidas en esta región en el marco del programa Natura 2000 (79) y debe presentar medidas de gestión para las áreas candidatas. Esta presentación aún no ha tenido lugar. Una vez se haya efectuado la misma, la Comisión tendrá que evaluar los planes de gestión a fin de comprobar si son adecuados para garantizar la consecución de los objetivos de conservación de estas áreas. Las medidas previstas en tales planes de gestión que puedan limitar o prohibir las actividades de pesca en las áreas protegidas deberían ser adoptadas a nivel de la UE cuando la zona afectada se encuentre fuera del límite de las doce millas del mar territorial, si fueran a aplicarse a buques distintos de los que enarbolan el pabellón del Estado miembro ribereño. Las decisiones sobre asignación de cuotas corresponden en todo caso a los Estados miembros.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000395/13

to the Commission

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Fishing protected areas in the Gran Sol

Several reports point to a UK Government initiative which aims to protect fishing in certain areas of the Gran Sol, where the EU fleet from Galicia (Spain), in particular, traditionally operates. These same reports indicate that the first half of 2013, during Ireland’s EU Presidency, is the deadline planned for establishing these areas, which is causing major concern in the industry.

Fishing protected areas cannot be established in a unilateral and protectionist manner in breach of fishing rights and at the expense of other Member States. Even more seriously, these areas, which aim to conserve marine resources and ecosystems, can accommodate wind farms, oil fields and other activities that harm the environment.

These same reports, citing sources from the European Commission Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, raise the possibility of changes to the quotas allocated to fishing vessels operating in fishing protected areas.

1.

Could the Commission confirm whether it has received any request or proposal from a Member State to establish fishing protected areas in its marine space, particularly in the Gran Sol?

2.

What requirements must be fulfilled to declare certain marine areas as special protection areas, in accordance with the common fisheries policy and the historical rights of the Member States?

3.

Does it plan to ban activities other than fishing that may harm the environment (wind farms, oil fields, etc.) in these protected areas?

4.

Will establishing these fishing protected areas lead to changes in the allocation of fishing quotas? If so, how?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

It is the responsibility of Member States to designate protected areas in the waters under national jurisdiction and to establish conservation measures in order to protect vulnerable and endangered habitats and species. Depending on the conservation objectives of the marine site to be protected, Member States may envisage the implementation of various measures regulating and/or restricting maritime activities in the area. These may of course include fisheries management and control measures along with those affecting any other economic activity.

With regard to the fishing grounds in Gran Sol (Celtic Sea), the Commission is aware that the United Kingdom envisages designating a number of protected areas in this region in the framework of the EU Natura 2000 programme (80) and must submit management measures for the candidate areas. This submission has not yet taken place. Once received, the Commission will need to assess the management plans to see if they are adequate to ensure the attainment of the conservation objectives for these areas. Measures foreseen in such management plans that would restrict or prohibit fishing activities in protected areas would need to be adopted at EU level whenever the area would lie beyond the 12 miles territorial sea limit, if they are to apply to vessels other than those flying the flag of the coastal Member State. Decisions on quota allocation rest in any case with the Member States.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000396/13

an die Kommission

Evelyn Regner (S&D)

(16. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Informationskampagne SE/SCE

In ihrem Aktionsplan zum europäischen Gesellschaftsrecht und zur Corporate Governance kündigt die Kommission unter anderem als eine der Hauptinitiativen eine Informationskampagne über die SE und gegebenenfalls die SCE an.

1.

Warum beschränkt die Kommission die Kampagne auf die SE und zieht eine Kampagne für die SCE nur gegebenenfalls in Erwägung?

2.

Teilt die Kommission nicht die Auffassung, dass insbesondere europäische Gesellschaftsformen, die selten von den Unternehmen als Gesellschaftsform gewählt werden (wie etwa die SCE), besonders beworben werden sollten?

3.

Bei der Ankündigung der Informationskampagne zur SE erwähnt die Kommission ausdrücklich die Einbeziehung der Arbeitnehmer. Wird es auch Informationen für die Arbeitnehmer/innen geben? Sollten nicht auch die Arbeitnehmer/innen europäischer Gesellschaftsformen gleichberechtigt mit den Unternehmen über ihre Rechte und Pflichten aufgeklärt werden?

4.

Im Rahmen der Konsultation haben die einschlägigen Interessengruppen Zurückhaltung bei der SPE gezeigt. Die Kommission hingegen erklärt, dass Interesse an alternativen Modellen besteht. Welche Alternativen werden hier vornehmlich genannt?

5.

Warum setzt die Kommission die Verhandlungen über die SPE offensichtlich fort, obwohl die Mitgliedstaaten und auch die Interessensgruppen dem Statut eher zurückhaltend oder gar ablehnend gegenüberstehen?

Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission

(28. Februar 2013)

Im Aktionsplan zum Gesellschaftsrecht und zur Corporate Governance heißt es, dass die Kommission eine Informationskampagne zur Stärkung der Kenntnisse über das Statut der Europäischen Aktiengesellschaft (SE) lancieren wird. Die Kommission hat die Kampagne nicht auf die SE beschränkt, sondern sich lediglich für ein schrittweises Vorgehen entschieden, das den Prioritäten und verfügbaren Ressourcen Rechnung trägt. Bevor für andere Rechtsinstrumente wie das Statut der Europäischen Genossenschaft (SCE) eine ähnliche Aktion gestartet wird, will die Kommission zunächst die Erfahrungen mit der Informationskampagne zur SE auswerten.

Die Kommission möchte der relativ geringen Popularität bestimmter Gesellschaftsformen, etwa der SCE, näher auf den Grund gehen. Eine Ursache könnte darin liegen, dass Genossenschaften, auf die in vielen Mitgliedstaaten nur ein vergleichsweise geringer Teil aller eingetragenen Unternehmen entfällt, eher klein und lokal stark verwurzelt sind; deshalb kann es sein, dass sich die Gesellschaftsform der Europäischen Genossenschaft, die ja grenzüberschreitend tätig sein soll, kaum öfter in Anspruch nehmen lässt.

Die Kommission misst dem Gleichtstellungsgebot höchste Bedeutung bei. Die im Aktionsplan geforderte Beteiligung der Arbeitnehmerseite schließt Arbeitnehmerinnen ebenso ein wie Arbeitnehmer.

In der Kommission werden derzeit Überlegungen über mögliche Alternativen zur SPE angestellt. Allerdings wird eine Fortführung des SPE-Projekts von verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten und Interessenträgern nach wie vor befürwortet, um die mit der SPE angestrebten Ziele zu erreichen. Aus diesem Grund hält es die Kommission nicht für angemessen, ihren Vorschlag zurückzuziehen. In der Tat ist die Kommission nach wie vor überzeugt, dass KMU einfachere und weniger aufwändige Bedingungen, auch in Bezug auf ihren Rechtsrahmen, brauchen, um EU-weit tätig sein zu können. Maßnahmen in dieser Richtung haben für die Kommission daher nach wie vor klare Priorität.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000396/13

to the Commission

Evelyn Regner (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: SE/SCE information campaign

One of the main initiatives announced by the Commission in its action plan on European company law and corporate governance is an information campaign on the European Company (SE) Statute and possibly the European Cooperative (SCE) Statute.

1.

Why does the Commission propose to restrict the campaign to the SE and why is it only possibly considering a campaign for the SCE?

2.

Does not the Commission agree that it is precisely European company forms which undertakings hardly ever choose for their business (such as the SCE) that ought particularly to be publicised and popularised?

3.

In announcing the information campaign on the SE, the Commission explicitly mentions involving employees

[the masculine form is used — translator’s note]

. Will information also be provided for female employees? Ought not female employees of European forms of company to be informed about their rights and duties on a footing of equality with undertakings?

4.

In the consultations, stakeholders displayed hesitations about the European Private Company (SPE); the Commission mentions that they were keen to explore alternative measures — what alternatives are mainly referred to here?

5.

Why is the Commission evidently continuing the negotiations on the SPE even though the Member States and also stakeholders are either hesitant about the Statute or even reject it?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

The action plan on company law and corporate governance specifies that the Commission will launch an information campaign to increase awareness of the European Company (SE) Statute. The Commission did not restrict the campaign to the SE, but adopted a ‘step-by-step’ approach based on priorities and available resources. The Commission plans to draw lessons from the experience of SE campaign before launching a similar action for other legal instruments such as the European Cooperative (SCE) Statute.

The Commission would like to assess in more detail the reasons for the relatively low popularity of certain company law forms such as the SCE. One reason might be that cooperatives, which in many Member States make up only a relatively small proportion of registered companies, are small in size and have strong roots in local communities; therefore it might be difficult for a European cooperative form that is supposed to have cross-border activities to be used more frequently.

The Commission attaches the highest importance to the principle of non-discrimination. Therefore, the Action plan refers to the involvement of employees regardless of their gender.

The Commission is in the process of considering whether there are possible alternatives to the SPE. It has to be stressed that a number of Member States and stakeholders remain positive about a continuation to arrive at the objective pursued by the SPE. Therefore, the Commission has not considered it appropriate to withdraw its proposal. Indeed, the Commission continues to believe that SMEs need simpler and less burdensome conditions, including their legal framework, for doing business across the EU and it remains therefore a clear priority for the Commission to take measures in this regard.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000397/13

an die Kommission

Evelyn Regner (S&D)

(16. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Folgemaßnahmen Gute Unternehmensführung

Die Kommission hat ihren Aktionsplan „Europäisches Gesellschaftsrecht und Corporate Governance“ vorgelegt, in dem sie konkrete Initiativen für die Modernisierung des Gesellschaftsrechts und der Corporate Governance für europäische Unternehmen bis zum Ende ihrer Mandatszeit in Aussicht stellt. Bei der zur Verbesserung der Corporate Governance in Aussicht gestellten Initiative bleiben einige Fragen offen:

Obwohl die Kommission die Notwendigkeit erkennt, dass zumindest eine bessere Berichterstattung über Corporate Governance eingeführt werden sollte, erwägt die Kommission nur, eine Empfehlung an die Mitgliedstaaten zu richten. Teilt die Kommission nicht die Ansicht, dass der Grundsatz „comply and explain“ („Mittragen oder begründen“) und sämtliche vorangegangenen Initiativen der Kommission, die nicht bindend waren, fehlgeschlagen sind?

Wenn nicht, wo sieht die Kommission den Fortschritt der letzten Jahrzehnte? Inwieweit kontrolliert oder beobachtet die Kommission laufend die Einhaltung von Kodizes zur Corporate Governance?

Was hält die Kommission von dem Ansatz, ein Monitoring-System zur Einhaltung der nationalen Kodizes für Governance einzurichten und in der Folge die Fortschritte in einem jährlichen Bericht zu veröffentlichen?

Warum erwägt die Kommission nicht für den Fall der Nichteinhaltung der nationalen Kodizes eine Auffangregel in Form einer Richtlinie mit bindenden Regeln für die Corporate Governance und/oder eines Europäischen Kodex für Corporate Governance?

Erwägt die Kommission, eine Rahmenrichtlinie zur Corporate Governance für jene Fälle einzuführen, in denen keine Abweichung vom jeweils anwendbaren Kodex erfolgt?

Wie gedenkt die Kommission die Unternehmen zu besserer Berichterstattung über Corporate Governance ohne Sanktionen oder Strafen bei nicht konformem Verhalten zu motivieren?

Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission

(1. März 2013)

1.

Nach Auffassung der Kommission hat der

„Comply-or-explain“-Ansatz erhebliche Vorteile, da er den Unternehmen den nötigen Spielraum lässt, ihre Unternehmensregelungen so anzupassen, wie es ihren jeweiligen Bedürfnissen entspricht. Auch wenn sich bei der praktischen Anwendung dieses Grundsatzes, insbesondere kurz nach seiner Einführung auf EU-Ebene, Schwachstellen offenbart haben, hat die Regeltreue offenbar doch zugenommen.

2.

Die Kommission erhält von den einzelstaatlichen Stellen, die über die Einhaltung der nationalen Corporate-Governance-Kodizes wachen, regelmäßig aktualisierte Informationen. Danach sind in der Tat konstante Verbesserungen festzustellen.

3.

Angesichts der Vielfalt der nationalen Corporate-Governance-Rahmen sind die nationalen Stellen nach Auffassung der Kommission am besten in der Lage, die Einhaltung der nationalen Kodizes zu überwachen. Die meisten zuständigen nationalen Stellen veröffentlichen Jahresberichte über die Anwendung der entsprechenden Kodizes.

4.

Da es in den Mitgliedstaaten vielfältige Unternehmen unterschiedlicher Sektoren und unterschiedlicher Größe gibt, hält es die Kommission nicht für angemessen, in diesem Bereich mit einer Richtlinie oder einem europäischen Corporate-Governance-Kodex einheitliche Regeln auf EU-Ebene einzuführen.

5.

Die Kommission erwägt keine Rahmenrichtlinie, hat jedoch die Absicht, verbindliche Vorschriften für die Aspekte vorzuschlagen, bei denen eine vollumfängliche Regeleinhaltung als notwendig angesehen wird (z. B. Geschäfte mit verbundenen Unternehmen).

6.

Die Kommission will Leitlinien aufstellen, wie die Berichterstattung über die Corporate Governance verbessert werden kann, und arbeitet eng mit den für die Überwachung der Corporate Governance zuständigen nationalen Stellen zusammen, um die Regeltreue durch geeignete Anreize für eine qualitativ bessere Berichterstattung zu erhöhen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000397/13

to the Commission

Evelyn Regner (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Follow-up measures for good business management

The Commission has presented its Action Plan on ‘European Company Law and Corporate Governance’ in which it proposes specific initiatives for the modernisation of company law and corporate governance for European enterprises until the end of its term. A number of questions remain outstanding in relation to the promised initiative for improving corporate governance:

Although the Commission recognises the need to introduce at least improved reporting on corporate governance, it is only considering making a recommendation to the Member States. Does it not agree that the principle of ‘comply or explain’ and all previous non-binding initiatives by the Commission have failed?

If not, what progress can it identify in recent decades? To what extent is it continuously monitoring or observing compliance with codes of conduct for corporate governance?

What is its view of the idea of introducing a system for monitoring compliance with national codes of conduct for governance and publishing an annual report on the progress achieved?

Why does it not consider issuing a ‘catch-all rule’ in the form of a directive with binding rules for corporate governance and/or a European code of conduct for corporate governance in the event that national codes of conduct are flouted?

Is it considering the introduction of a framework directive for corporate governance for cases in which there is no deviation from the applicable code of conduct?

How does the Commission intend to encourage enterprises to improve reporting on corporate governance without sanctions or penalties for non-compliance?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2013)

1.

The Commission believes that the

‘comply or explain’ approach has significant merits, as it offers companies flexibility to adapt corporate arrangements corresponding to their specific needs. Although shortcomings in the practical application of this principle have been identified, in particular shortly after the introduction of this approach on EU level, the level of compliance appears to have increased.

2.

The Commission receives regularly updates from the national bodies in charge of monitoring compliance with national corporate governance codes and the information received shows indeed constant improvements in this area.

3.

Given the variety of national corporate governance frameworks, the Commission considers that national bodies are best placed to monitor compliance with the national codes. Most of the competent national bodies publish annual reports on the application of the codes.

4.

Given the great variety of companies within different Member States, with different sectors and different sizes, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to introduce uniform rules in this respect at EU level in the form of a directive or of an EU corporate governance code.

5.

The Commission does not consider introducing a framework directive, but it intends to put forward binding rules regarding issues where full compliance is considered necessary (such as for example related party transactions).

6.

The Commission intends to provide guidelines on how to improve corporate governance reporting and will cooperate closely with the national bodies in charge of monitoring corporate governance in order to encourage a better level of compliance through appropriate incentives encouraging a better quality of reporting.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-000398/13

a la Comisión

Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Activación del Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE para la Comunidad Valenciana

En su respuesta a la pregunta parlamentaria sobre la activación de ayuda del Fondo de Solidaridad de la UE tras el incendio que asoló la Comunidad Valenciana el verano pasado, la Comisión Europea afirmaba que antes de acabar el año 2012 se habría concluido la evaluación de una posible intervención excepcional de este Fondo conforme a los criterios aplicables a las llamadas «catástrofes regionales».

1.

¿Podría informar la Comisión si ya ha tomado una decisión al respecto?

2.

En caso afirmativo, ¿podría indicar cuándo recibirá España estas ayudas?

Respuesta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión

(19 de febrero de 2013)

La naturaleza y el carácter detallado de la información facilitada ha hecho que la evaluación de si se debe movilizar de manera excepcional el Fondo de Solidaridad para los incendios forestales en la Comunidad Valenciana lleve más tiempo del previsto inicialmente. Actualmente la evaluación se encuentra en su fase final. La Comisión tiene intención de adoptar a su debido tiempo una decisión sobre la solicitud relativa a la Comunidad Valenciana.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000398/13

to the Commission

Eva Ortiz Vilella (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Activation of the EU Solidarity Fund for the Autonomous Community of Valencia

In its answer to the parliamentary question on activating EU Solidarity Fund aid following the wildfires that ravaged the Autonomous Community of Valencia last summer, the Commission stated that it would assess, before the end of 2012, whether the Fund could be activated exceptionally under the criteria for ‘regional disasters’.

1.

Could the Commission state whether it has made a decision yet in this regard?

2.

If so, could it indicate when Spain will receive this aid?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2013)

The nature and detail of the information provided has led to the assessment of whether the criteria for exceptionally mobilising the Solidarity Fund for the forest fires in Valencia taking longer than initially envisaged. The assessment is currently in its concluding phase. The Commission intends taking a decision in due course on the application relating to Valencia.

(Slovenska različica)

Vprašanje za pisni odgovor P-000399/13

za Komisijo

Romana Jordan (PPE)

(16. januar 2013)

Zadeva: Okoljsko-energetski vidiki plinskih terminalov v severnem Jadranskem morju

V Tržaškem zalivu Italija načrtuje gradnjo dveh plinskih terminalov. Projektoma nasprotuje Slovenija, spodbijajo pa ju tudi lokalne tržaške italijanske oblasti. Italijanski minister za okolje je pred kratkim celo ponovno odprl okoljsko poročilo za projekta. Nasprotovanje gradnji terminalov namreč ne izvira le iz postopkovnih in birokratskih težav, ampak obstajajo tudi močni okoljski razlogi proti gradnji terminalov, kot sta neupoštevanje kumulativnih vplivov terminalov na okolje ter nevarnosti živega srebra, ki se je skozi stoletja nalagalo na dnu Tržaškega zaliva zaradi nekdaj delujočega rudnika živega srebra. Predvsem slednje je zaskrbljujoče tako v okoljskem smislu kot tudi v smislu skrbi za javno zdravje prebivalcev te regije. Poleg tega z energetskega stališča izgradnja terminala ni prioriteta, saj sta predvidena dva nova plinovoda iz Azije v Srednjo Evropo.

Zaradi obstoječih postopkov se lahko zgodi, da se bo gradnja terminalov začela prej, preden bo imela Slovenija pravno možnost ukrepanja.

Zato sprašujem Komisijo, kaj bo storila, da se gradnja terminalov ne bo začela prej, preden bo imela Slovenija pravno možnost ukrepanja.

Odgovor komisarja Potočnika v imenu Komisije

(27. februar 2013)

Izbira posameznega projekta in njegova lokacija ter izvrševanje nacionalnih predpisov so v nacionalni pristojnosti. Zagotovitev spoštovanja ustreznih postopkov, ki jih določa okoljska zakonodaja EU, je temeljna odgovornost nacionalnih organov. Zato Komisija meni, da bi bilo najboljšo rešitev treba poiskati z dialogom med vsemi zainteresiranimi stranmi. Komisija dejavno spodbuja tak dialog.

Na podlagi informacij, ki so trenutno na voljo, soglasje za izvedbo plinskih projektov v Tržaškem zalivu še ni bilo izdano. Kar zadeva domnevno neupoštevanje kumulativnih vplivov na okolje in zdravstvenih tveganj, ki jih predstavlja živo srebro, ki se nabira na dnu Tržaškega zaliva, so italijanski organi obvestili Komisijo, da so bili kumulativni vplivi projektov in možna zdravstvena tveganja, ki izhajajo iz živega srebra, upoštevani v okviru postopkov presoje vplivov na okolje (EIA), ki še potekajo. Poleg tega so italijanski organi nedavno obvestili Komisijo o svoji odločitvi, da bodo postopke presoje vplivov na okolje podaljšali, tako da bo mogoče bolje upoštevati možne učinke navedenih projektov.

V okviru tekoče preiskave je Komisija ocenila vse informacije, o katerih je bila obveščena v zvezi s to zadevo, in do zdaj nima dokazov o kršitvi zakonodaje EU.

Komisija poslanki zagotavlja, da bo še naprej pozorno spremljala dogajanje in ocenila vse dodatne informacije, ki jih bo Komisiji predložila katera koli stran, da se zagotovi ustrezno spoštovanje določb prava EU, zlasti direktive o presoji vplivov na okolje.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000399/13

to the Commission

Romana Jordan (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Environmental and energy aspects of gas terminals in the northern Adriatic

Italy is planning to build two gas terminals in the Gulf of Trieste. Slovenia opposes the projects, and is supported by the Italian local authorities in Trieste. Italy’s environment minister recently even reopened the environmental report on the projects. Opposition to the construction of the terminals is based not only on procedural and bureaucratic difficulties; there are also strong environmental arguments against their construction, such as the failure to take account of the cumulative impact on the environment and the risks posed by mercury, which over the centuries accumulated on the seabed in the Gulf of Trieste as a result of earlier mercury mining operations in the region. This latter element is particularly worrying, both from an environmental point of view and in terms of public health for the people living in the area. In addition, as far as the energy aspect is concerned, the construction of these terminals is not a priority, given that plans exist for two new gas pipelines from Asia to central Europe.

Given that the existing procedures are already in progress, it is possible that construction of the terminals could begin before Slovenia has the opportunity to take legal action.

I would ask, therefore, what the Commission intends to do to ensure that construction does not begin before Slovenia has the chance to pursue legal measures.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

The choice of a particular project, its location and enforcement of national rules are matters of national competence. It falls primarily to national authorities to ensure that the relevant procedures required by EU environmental legislation are respected. Therefore the Commission considers that the best solution should be obtained by way of dialogue between all interested parties. The Commission has actively encouraged such dialogue.

According to the information currently available, no development consent has yet been granted to the gas projects in the Gulf of Trieste.

As concerns the alleged failure to take account of the cumulative impacts on the environment and of the health risks posed by mercury which accumulated on the seabed of the Gulf of Trieste, the Italian authorities have informed the Commission that the cumulative impacts of the projects as well as the potential health risks deriving from mercury have been taken into account in the framework of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures which are still ongoing. In addition, the Italian authorities have recently informed the Commission about their decision to extend the environmental impact assessment procedures to better take into account the potential effects of these projects.

In the framework of the ongoing investigation, the Commission has assessed all the information brought to its attention in relation to this matter. So far, no evidence of a breach of EC law has emerged.

The Commission can therefore reassure the Honourable Member that it will continue to follow closely the developments and assess all additional information provided to it by any parties, to make sure that the relevant provisions of the EC law are duly observed, in particular the EIA Directive.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000400/13

a la Comisión

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Agencia Europea de Control de la Pesca

Esta diputada quisiera conocer las medidas desarrolladas en materia de control e inspección de pesca irregular e ilegal por la Agencia Europea de Control de la Pesca desde la fecha de su constitución en cada Estado miembro.

Así mismo requiere que se informe del número de infracciones y de expedientes abiertos así como de las resoluciones recaídas sobre los mismos.

Finalmente, solicita que se presente una memoria de las actividades desarrolladas con cargo al presupuesto de la Agencia durante los últimos tres años, especificándose el número de personas contratadas y la categoría profesional a la que pertenecen.

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(13 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión ha solicitado a la Agencia Europea de Control de la Pesca (AECP) que le facilite elementos de respuesta a la pregunta planteada por Su Señoría. La respuesta de la Agencia se remitirá a Su Señoría lo antes posible.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000400/13

to the Commission

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: European Fisheries Control Agency

This MEP would like to know what measures the European Fisheries Control Agency has implemented in terms of controlling and inspecting irregular and illegal fishing activity in each Member States since its establishment.

She also requests information on the number of offences and open cases as well as the number of judgments handed down.

Finally, she calls for a report on the activities carried out under the Agency’s budget in the last three years, specifying the number of people employed and the occupation of each employee.

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission has asked to the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) to provide the elements of response to the question raised by the Honourable Member. The response from the Agency will be forwarded to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000401/13

a la Comisión

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Fondo Europeo de Pesca

¿Puede indicar la Comisión las cantidades y concepto de las mismas del Fondo Europeo de Pesca destinadas a España durante el periodo comprendido entre 2007 y 2012?

¿Puede detallar esta información por tipo de subvenciones y finalidad de las mismas, así como explicitar y constatar el oportuno control y verificación que se ha hecho de las mismas?

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(8 de marzo de 2013)

En el período 2007-2013, se destinaron a España 1 131 890 912 euros del Fondo Europeo de Pesca (FEP). Las medidas financiadas abarcan todo el espectro de posibilidades que ofrece el FEP. Las autoridades españolas han elaborado un plan estratégico que especifica las prioridades, los objetivos, los gastos públicos estimados y los plazos, conforme a los objetivos del FEP. También proporciona una perspectiva a largo plazo de cómo ven el desarrollo de su política pesquera y acuícola entre 2007 y 2013 y explica de qué modo ello se ajusta a los objetivos de la política pesquera común. Este plan se lleva a cabo mediante un programa operativo que describe más detalladamente cómo piensan las autoridades nacionales aprovechar en la práctica las posibilidades que ofrece el FEP. Ambos documentos se preparan en estrecha colaboración con los interlocutores económicos y sociales regionales y locales.

La Comisión confirma que el uso de los fondos en España se controla y verifica adecuadamente. En particular, la Comisión comprueba que existan sistemas nacionales de gestión y control, y que funcionen correctamente, y realiza periódicamente auditorías in situ.

Para más información sobre el programa operativo español, ruego a Su Señoría se dirija a la autoridad española de gestión (81).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000401/13

to the Commission

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: European Fisheries Fund

Can the Commission indicate the amounts allocated to Spain from the European Fisheries Fund during the period 2007‐2012 and their purpose?

Can it provide details of the types of subsidies and their purpose, and confirm that their use has been appropriately monitored and verified?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

The amount allocated to Spain from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) during the period 2007-2013 is EUR 1 131 890 912. Measures funded cover the wide spectrum of the possibilities offered by the EFF. The Spanish national authorities have drawn up a strategic plan which defines priorities, objectives, public spending estimates and deadlines in line with EFF objectives and gives a long-term view of how they see the development of their fisheries and aquaculture policy between 2007 and 2013, and explaining how this meets the CFP’s objectives. This plan is implemented by way of an Operational Programme describing in more detail the way the national authorities intend to translate the opportunities offered by the EFF into practice. Both are prepared in close consultation with regional and local economic and social partners.

The Commission confirms that the use of the funds in Spain is appropriately monitored and verified. The Commission checks in particular the existence and proper functioning of national management and control systems and carries out on a regular basis on the spot audits.

For more information on the Spanish Operational Programme, the Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Spanish Managing Authority (82).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000402/13

a la Comisión

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Fondo Europeo de Pesca en los Estados miembros de la UE

¿Puede informarme la Comisión de las cantidades del Fondo Europeo de Pesca destinadas a los Estados Miembros durante el periodo comprendido entre 2007 y 2012, así como del concepto de las mismas?

¿Puede facilitar la Comisión información detallada por tipo de subvenciones y la finalidad de las mismas, así como explicitar y constatar el oportuno control y la verificación que se ha hecho de ellas?

Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión

(13 de marzo de 2013)

El Fondo Europeo de Pesca (FEP) ofrece a la industria pesquera y a las comunidades costeras financiación para adaptarse al cambio de las condiciones del sector y lograr que este sea económicamente fuerte y ecológicamente sostenible.

El Fondo Europeo de Pesca cuenta con un presupuesto de 4 300 millones de euros para el periodo 2007-2013. La Decisión de la Comisión, de 13 de agosto de 2008, publicada en el Diario Oficial L 229 de 28.8.2008, fija los importes del FEP asignados a cada Estado miembro para el periodo de programación 2007-2013. Pueden optar a la financiación todos los sectores de la industria pesquera: pesca marina e interior, acuicultura (peces, moluscos y plantas acuáticas), transformación y comercialización de productos de la pesca. Se presta especial atención a las comunidades pesqueras más afectadas por los cambios recientes en la industria.

Las autoridades nacionales elaboran un plan estratégico con una perspectiva a largo plazo sobre la previsible evolución de su política pesquera y acuícola entre 2007 y 2013, y explican de qué modo dicho plan cumple los objetivos de la PPC. El plan debe definir prioridades, objetivos, estimaciones de gasto público y plazos. Tras el plan, elaboran un programa operativo que describe más detalladamente la manera en que las autoridades nacionales tienen previsto poner en práctica las oportunidades ofrecidas por el FEP. Ambos se elaboran en estrecha consulta con interlocutores económicos y sociales, regionales y locales.

Las autoridades de gestión de cada Estado miembro son directamente responsables, en particular, de garantizar la coordinación general y los avances en la aplicación de los programas operativos del FEP, y de informar a la Comisión sobre el grado de ejecución, incluyendo eventuales cambios y transferencias de recursos entre prioridades y programas operativos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000402/13

to the Commission

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: European Fisheries Fund in EU Member States

Can the Commission indicate the amounts allocated to Member States from the European Fisheries Fund during the period 2007‐2012, and their purpose?

Can it provide details of the types of subsidies and their purpose, and confirm that their use has been appropriately monitored and verified?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The European Fisheries Fund (EFF) provides funding to the fishing industry and coastal communities to help them adapt to changing conditions in the sector and become economically resilient and ecologically sustainable.

The EFF has a budget of EUR 4.3 billion for 2007-2013. The amounts allocated from the EFF per Member State for the programming period 2007-2013 are laid down in the Commission decision of 13 August 2008 published in the Official Journal OJ L 229, 28.8.2008. Funding is available for all sectors of the industry — sea and inland fishing, aquaculture (the farming of fish, shellfish and aquatic plants), and processing and marketing of fisheries products. Particular attention is given to fishing communities most affected by recent changes in the industry.

National authorities draw up a strategic plan giving a long-term view of how they see the development of their fisheries and aquaculture policy between 2007 and 2013, and explaining how this meets the CFP’s objectives. The plan must define priorities, objectives, public spending estimates and deadlines. This is then followed by an operational programme describing in more detail the way the national authorities intend to translate the opportunities offered by the EFF into practice. Both are prepared in close consultation with regional and local economic and social partners.

Managing Authorities in each Member State are directly responsible mainly for: ensuring overall coordination and progress in the implementation of the EFF operational programmes and report to the Commission on the progress of implementation including on any changes and shifts of resources between priorities and operational programmes.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000403/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Ελληνική Βιομηχανία Ζάχαρης: διασφάλιση συνέχισης της παραγωγής

Με βάση τους όρους του διαγωνισμού για την πώληση της Ελληνικής Βιομηχανίας Ζάχαρης δεν εξασφαλίζεται η συνέχιση της λειτουργίας της, αφού, σύμφωνα με δημοσιεύματα, οι υποψήφιοι αγοραστές ενδιαφέρονται μόνο για την εξασφάλιση της ποσόστωσης της Ελλάδας. Υπενθυμίζεται ότι, την περίοδο 2007/2008, η Ελλάδα είχε ενταχθεί στο πρόγραμμα αναδιάρθρωσης, βάσει του 2006/320/ΕΚ, αποποιούμενη το 50,01% της εθνικής της ποσόστωσης. Επίσης, επισημαίνεται ότι τον Δεκέμβριο του 2012 το Υπουργείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων, στα πλαίσια του Προγράμματος Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης 2007-2013, για το Μέτρο των Αγροπεριβαλλοντικών Ενισχύσεων, εξέδωσε «Πρόσκληση για συμμετοχή στο Σύστημα Ολοκληρωμένης Διαχείρισης στην Παραγωγή Σακχαροτεύτλων», βάσει του Κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1698/2005 όπως τροποποιημένος ισχύει. Το πρόγραμμα αυτό συγχρηματοδοτείται από το Ευρωπαϊκό Γεωργικό Ταμείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης.

Ανεξάρτητα από την άποψη που κάποιος μπορεί να έχει για την πώληση κρατικών επιχειρήσεων σε ιδιώτες,

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Υπάρχουν αντίστοιχες περιπτώσεις στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, όπου κρατικές βιομηχανίες ζάχαρης εντάχθηκαν στο καθεστώς αναδιάρθρωσης βάσει του Κανονισμού 320/2006 και στη συνέχεια ιδιωτικοποιήθηκαν; Πώς διασφαλίσθηκαν στις περιπτώσεις αυτές τα δικαιώματα των εργαζομένων, βάσει του άρθρου 4 παρ. 3στ του Κανονισμού;

Σε ενδεχόμενη πώληση της Ελληνικής Βιομηχανίας Ζάχαρης εκχωρείται και η ελληνική ποσόστωση ζάχαρης; Ποια είναι η αντίστοιχη ευρωπαϊκή εμπειρία; Διασφαλίζονται οι θέσεις των εργαζομένων στη Βιομηχανία, βάσει του άρθρου 4 παρ. 3στ του Κανονισμού;

Μπορεί να διαβεβαιώσει ότι η ελληνική κυβέρνηση έχει το δικαίωμα, κατά την πώληση της Βιομηχανίας, να θέσει ως όρο τη συνέχιση της λειτουργίας της και τη διασφάλιση των δικαιωμάτων των εργαζομένων σε αυτήν, προκειμένου να μην διακοπεί η παραγωγική διαδικασία σακχαροτεύτλων από την οποία εξαρτώνται χιλιάδες οικογένειες, δεδομένης και της δέσμευσης που θα αναλάβουν οι δικαιούχοι του Συστήματος Ολοκληρωμένης Διαχείρισης ως το 2017;

Απάντηση του κ. Cioloş εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(26 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

1.

Η Επιτροπή δεν γνωρίζει την ύπαρξη άλλων κρατικών βιομηχανιών ζάχαρης εντός της Ένωσης που εντάχθηκαν στο καθεστώς αναδιάρθρωσης βάσει του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006

1.

Η Επιτροπή δεν γνωρίζει την ύπαρξη άλλων κρατικών βιομηχανιών ζάχαρης εντός της Ένωσης που εντάχθηκαν στο καθεστώς αναδιάρθρωσης βάσει του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006

 (83)

2.

Η Ένωση χορηγεί στα κράτη μέλη ποσοστώσεις ζάχαρης και ισογλυκόζης. Η μεταφορά των ποσοστώσεων αυτών μεταξύ κρατών μελών δεν επιτρέπεται. Ωστόσο, κάθε κράτος μέλος είναι αρμόδιο για την κατανομή της εθνικής του ποσόστωσης σε εγκεκριμένες επιχειρήσεις παραγωγής ζάχαρης ή ισογλυκόζης, οι οποίες είναι εγκατεστημένες στο έδαφός του. Οι διατάξεις για την εν λόγω κατανομή και οι λεπτομερείς κανόνες μεταφοράς· ποσοστώσεων ζάχαρης ή ισογλυκόζης περιέχονται στα άρθρα 56 έως 60 και στο Παράρτημα

2.

Η Ένωση χορηγεί στα κράτη μέλη ποσοστώσεις ζάχαρης και ισογλυκόζης. Η μεταφορά των ποσοστώσεων αυτών μεταξύ κρατών μελών δεν επιτρέπεται. Ωστόσο, κάθε κράτος μέλος είναι αρμόδιο για την κατανομή της εθνικής του ποσόστωσης σε εγκεκριμένες επιχειρήσεις παραγωγής ζάχαρης ή ισογλυκόζης, οι οποίες είναι εγκατεστημένες στο έδαφός του. Οι διατάξεις για την εν λόγω κατανομή και οι λεπτομερείς κανόνες μεταφοράς· ποσοστώσεων ζάχαρης ή ισογλυκόζης περιέχονται στα άρθρα 56 έως 60 και στο Παράρτημα

 (84)

3.

Το άρθρο 5 παράγραφος 4 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006 προβλέπει ότι:

3.

Το άρθρο 5 παράγραφος 4 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 320/2006 προβλέπει ότι:

« τα κράτη μέλη παρακολουθούν, ελέγχουν και επαληθεύουν την υλοποίηση της ενίσχυσης αναδιάρθρωσης, όπως την έχουν εγκρίνει » .  (85) « Τα κράτη μέλη διασφαλίζουν τη συνοχή και τη συμπληρωματικότητα των μέτρων ή των δράσεων που χρηματοδοτούνται από το ταμείο αναδιάρθρωσης και από άλλα κοινοτικά ταμεία σε περιφερειακό ή εθνικό επίπεδο, καθώς και τη μη αλληλοεπικάλυψη μεταξύ τους »

Κατά συνέπεια, η εφαρμογή της αναδιάρθρωσης και η συμμόρφωση με άλλα μέτρα αποτελεί αρμοδιότητα του κράτους μέλους.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000403/13

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Hellenic Sugar Industry: ensuring continued production

The terms of the tender for the sale of the Hellenic Sugar Industry fail to guarantee the continued functioning of this industry, since prospective purchasers are reportedly interested only in preserving Greece’s quota. It should be recalled that in the period 2007/2008, Greece had joined the restructuring programme under Regulation 2006/320/EC, renouncing 50.01% of its national quota. It should also be noted that in December 2012 the Ministry of Rural Development and Food, under the 2007-2013 Rural Development Programme, issued in respect of the measure agri-environmental aid a ‘Call for Participation in the Integrated Management System in the Production Sugar Beet’ under Regulation ( EC) No 1698/2005, as amended, which is currently in force. This programme is co-funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.

Leaving aside the controversial question of whether state companies should be sold to private individuals, will the Commission say:

Do other cases exist in the European Union, in which state sugar refiners have been included in the restructuring scheme under Regulation 320/2006 and then privatised? What measures have been taken in such cases to safeguard employee rights under Article 4, paragraph 3f, of the regulation?

In the event of a sale of the Hellenic Sugar Industry, will the Greek quota sugar also be transferred? What experience does the EU have of such matters? Are workers’ jobs in the Industry safeguarded, under Article 4, paragraph 3f, of the regulation?

Can it confirm that the Greek Government has the right, in selling the Hellenic Sugar Industry, to make the sale conditional upon the continued operation of the Industry and the safeguarding of workers’ rights in order not to interrupt sugar beet production on which thousands of families depend for their livelihoods, given also the commitment to be assumed by the beneficiaries of the Integrated Management System until 2017?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

1.

The Commission is not aware of other state owned sugar producers within the Union which have been included in the restructuring scheme under Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006

1.

The Commission is not aware of other state owned sugar producers within the Union which have been included in the restructuring scheme under Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006

 (86)

2.

The Union allocates sugar and isoglucose quotas to Member States. Transfer of these quotas between Member States is not allowed. However, it is a Member States' competence to allocate its national quota to approved undertakings producing sugar or isoglucose established in its territory. The provisions for such an allocation and detailed rules on transfer of sugar or isoglucose quotas are laid down in the articles 56 to 60 and Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1234/2007

2.

The Union allocates sugar and isoglucose quotas to Member States. Transfer of these quotas between Member States is not allowed. However, it is a Member States' competence to allocate its national quota to approved undertakings producing sugar or isoglucose established in its territory. The provisions for such an allocation and detailed rules on transfer of sugar or isoglucose quotas are laid down in the articles 56 to 60 and Annex VIII to Council Regulation 1234/2007

 (87)

3.

Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 states: ‘Member States shall monitor, control and verify the implementation of the restructuring aid as approved by it’. Moreover, Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006

3.

Article 5(4) of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 states: ‘Member States shall monitor, control and verify the implementation of the restructuring aid as approved by it’. Moreover, Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006

 (88)

The implementation of the restructuring and compliance with other measures is therefore a Member States' competence.

(Suomenkielinen versio)

Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-000404/13

komissiolle (Varapuheenjohtajalle / Korkealle edustajalle)

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE) ja Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE)

(16. tammikuuta 2013)

Aihe: VP/HR – Asekauppasopimus

Neuvottelut kansainvälisestä asekauppasopimuksesta (ATT) päättyivät tuloksettomina heinäkuussa 2012. Uusi ja viimeinen neuvottelukierros pidetään New Yorkissa 18.–27. maaliskuuta 2013.

Parlamentti ja jäsenvaltiot ovat olleet laajan asekauppasopimuksen vankkoja tukijoita. Tiettyihin avoimiin kysymyksiin on kuitenkin kiinnitettävä edelleen huomiota ja niitä on selvennettävä, erityisesti EU:n asemaa asekauppasopimuksen osapuolena ja sopimuksen avointa täytäntöönpanoa.

1.

Miten jäsenvaltiot aikovat varmistaa, että asekauppasopimuksen täytäntöönpano on mahdollisimman avointa, ja millaiseen avoimuuteen ne ovat valmiita? Noudattavatko jäsenvaltiot edelleen velvoitetta julkistaa vuotuiset aseiden siirtoja koskevat raportit?

2.

Miten jäsenvaltiot varmistavat, että asekauppasopimukseen sisällytetään lauseke, jolla EU tunnustetaan sopimuksen osapuoleksi, ja että aseiden siirtoja EU:ssa koskeva EU:n säännöstö otetaan asianmukaisesti huomioon sopimuksessa?

Korkean edustajan, varapuheenjohtaja Catherine Ashtonin komission puolesta antama vastaus

(18. maaliskuuta 2013)

Kansainvälisen asekauppasopimuksen (ATT) avulla on mahdollista tehdä asekaupasta aiempaa vastuullisempaa ja läpinäkyvämpää ja siten edistää maailmanlaajuista rauhaa ja turvallisuutta. Tästä syystä EU:n ensisijainen tavoite on sopimuksen onnistunut tekeminen. EU on määrittänyt ensisijaisia neuvottelutavoitteitaan asekauppasopimusta käsittelevään YK:n päätöskonferenssiin, joka järjestetään maaliskuussa 2013.

EU on ollut ensimmäisten joukossa edistämässä läpinäkyvyyttä kansainvälisessä asekaupassa. EU julkaisee vuosittain tavanomaisten aseiden viennistä laajan raportin, joka sisältää tiedot kaikkien EU:n jäsenvaltioiden aseviennistä. EU on johdonmukaisesti puoltanut asekauppasopimuksen raportointi‐ ja läpinäkyvyyssäännöksiä. Tällä hetkellä sopimusluonnoksen säännöksissä edellytetään, että osapuolina olevat valtiot raportoivat aseiden siirroista YK:n pääsihteeristölle. EU tekee kaikkensa maaliskuun 2013 konferenssissa varmistaakseen, että aseiden siirrosta raportoinnin tulisi olla julkista.

Heinäkuun 2012 asekauppasopimuskonferenssissa EU puhui sen puolesta, että sopimusluonnokseen sisällytettäisiin RIO-lauseke, joka sallisi alueellisen yhdistymisen järjestön (regional integration organization, RIO), eli myös EU:n, tulla sopimuspuoleksi. Jotkut YK:n jäsenet vastustivat kuitenkin jyrkästi RIO-lausekkeen lisäämistä sopimukseen. EU pyrkii edelleen ajamaan RIO-lausekkeen lisäämistä asekauppasopimukseen neuvotteluissaan kolmansien maiden kanssa.

Valtuuksista neuvotella asekauppasopimus maaliskuun konferenssissa on käyty keskusteluja, joiden yhteydessä komissio suositteli, että RIO-lauseke olisi lisättävä asekauppasopimukseen. Samaan aikaan EU:ssa tehdään valmistelutyötä, jotta voitaisiin määrittää sopimusluonnokseen välttämättä vaadittavat muutokset, joilla voitaisiin taata yhteensopivuus EU:n säännöstön kanssa siinä tapauksessa, ettei sopimukseen saada RIO-lauseketta.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000404/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE) and Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Arms trade treaty

The negotiations on the global arms trade treaty (ATT) ended unsuccessfully without a treaty in July 2012. The new and last round of negotiations will be organised in New York on 18-27 March 2013.

Parliament and the Member States have been robust supporters of a comprehensive ATT. However, there are some unanswered questions which require further attention and clarification, especially regarding the EU’s status as a party to the ATT and the transparent implementation of the treaty.

1.

How are the Member States going to ensure the highest possible level of transparency in the implementation of the ATT and what level of transparency can they accept? Will the Member States pursue an obligation to publish annual reports on arms transfers?

2.

How will the Member States guarantee the inclusion of a clause recognising the EU as a party to the ATT and that the EU

acquis

on arms transfers within the EU will be appropriately taken into account within the framework of the treaty?

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

(18 March 2013)

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has the potential of making the trade in arms more responsible and transparent, thus contributing to reinforcing global peace and security. This is why the EU considers the successful conclusion of the Treaty as a priority. The EU has been developing its negotiating priorities for the final UN Conference on the ATT to be held in March 2013.

The EU has been at the forefront in the promotion of transparency in the international arms trade. It publishes, annually, a comprehensive report on exports of conventional arms including data on arms exports by all EU Member States. The EU has been consistently advocating reporting and transparency provisions in the ATT. At present, the provisions of the draft Treaty foresee an obligation by States Parties to report on arms transfers to the UN Secretariat. The EU will exert its best efforts at the March 2013 Conference to ensure that reporting on arms transfer should be public.

The EU advocated at the July 2012 Conference on ATT the inclusion of a RIO (regional integration organisation) clause in the draft treaty text that would allow the EU to become a party to the Treaty. However, the inclusion of a RIO clause was strongly opposed by a number of UN Members. The EU continues to promote the inclusion of a RIO clause in the ATT in its consultations with third countries.

In the framework of the discussions on the authorisation to negotiate at the March Conference the ATT, the Commission recommended that a RIO clause should be inserted in the ATT. At the same time, preparatory work is ongoing in the EU to identify amendments to the draft ATT that would be necessary to ensure compatiblity with the EU acquis in the absence of a RIO clause.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000405/13

to the Commission

Catherine Bearder (ALDE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Hunger-striking prisoners

Jafar Azzidine, Tarek Qa’adan and Yousef Yassin are currently on hunger strike in prisons in Israel after being arrested under the occupation policy of administrative detention. Although they have not been charged with any crimes, they are being held indefinitely in poor conditions. Their situation is the subject of much media attention, yet a solution does not appear to be imminent.

In light of this, can the Commission confirm whether it is aware of these cases? In addition, will the Commission consider liaising with other partners involved in the situation to attempt to resolve the matter for these prisoners and tell me what is being done to end the Israeli policy of administrative detention?

Question for written answer E-000621/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Catherine Bearder (ALDE)

(22 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Hunger-striking prisoners

Jafar Azzidine, Tarek Qa’adan and Yousef Yassin are currently on hunger strike in prisons in Israel after being arrested under the occupation policy of administrative detention. They have not been charged with any crimes yet and are being held indefinitely in poor conditions. Their situation is the subject of much media attention, yet a solution does not appear to be imminent.

In light of this, can the Vice-President/High Representative confirm whether she is aware of these cases?

In addition, will the Vice-President/High Representative consider liaising with other partners involved in the situation in order to attempt to resolve the matter for these prisoners, and will she tell me what is being done to end the Israeli policy of administrative detention?

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

(12 March 2013)

The Commission is indeed aware of the cited cases. Conditions of detention remain a matter of concern for the EU vis-à-vis Israel. The issue is discussed with Israel at all relevant levels, and we have witnessed some improvements in the numbers of administrative detainees (from 322 in April 2012 to 178 on 1 January 2013). A ruling of Israel's Supreme Court of 7 May 2012 stated that ‘the policy of administrative detention should be changed: the decision to detain people should be taken at a higher judicial level and there should be more legal oversight’. The EU will continue to engage Israel in order to promote humanitarian protection of detainees in its territory.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000406/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(16 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Violenze ai danni del principale esponente dell'opposizione in Azerbaigian

In base al comunicato stampa emesso da Amnesty International, Isa Gambar, leader del principale partito d'opposizione in Azerbaigian, il «Musavat», il 13 gennaio ha subito un attacco premeditato durante un viaggio, nel quale la sua auto e altre al suo seguito sono state oggetto di una fitta sassaiola, seguita da aggressioni fisiche. Nove persone sono state ferite senza che vi fosse un intervento della polizia locale, mentre un fotografo è stato temporaneamente fermato e rilasciato solamente dopo aver consegnato la fotocamera.

— Considerando che tale evento rappresenta una palese violazione sia dei diritti umani che di quelli politici;

— considerando che l'Azerbaigian figura al 162° posto su 179 nella classifica, redatta da «Reporter Senza Frontiere», dei paesi con la maggior libertà di informazione;

— considerando che l'Unione Europea e l'Azerbaigian sono legati da un accordo di partenariato e di cooperazione in base al quale l'UE mira a rafforzare lo sviluppo democratico e la buona governance;

— considerando che anche le ultime elezioni presidenziali del 2008, in cui il presidente Aliyev aveva ottenuto l'89 % delle preferenze, si erano svolte sotto l'ombra di pesanti brogli;

si chiede alla VP/HR:

quali provvedimenti sta prendendo per migliorare la democrazia e per assicurare che in Azerbaigian si svolgano elezioni aperte, libere e corrette?

ha già presentato rimostranze al governo azero in merito alla situazione sopra esposta?

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

(7 marzo 2013)

L'UE è al corrente degli incidenti avvenuti durante il viaggio del leader del partito di opposizione, Musavat, a Lenkoran per celebrare il ventesimo anniversario della sezione locale del Musavat. Benché vi siano versioni divergenti su quello che è veramente accaduto, è evidente che i membri del Musavat sono stati aggrediti e feriti da una folla inferocita.

Il ministero dell'Interno ha preso le distanze dagli eventi, affermando che all'origine dell'aggressione vi potrebbe essere la frustrazione di un gruppo di sfollati dal Nagorno-Karabakh. L'argomentazione sembra discutibile. Il ministero dell'Interno ha avviato un'indagine, ma finora non si hanno informazioni concrete da riferire.

Nel corso di riunioni politiche di alto livello con il governo, l'Unione europea ha messo in rilievo — e su questo punto continuerà a insistere — la necessità di una campagna elettorale corretta, trasparente e in condizioni di parità, pienamente conforme alle raccomandazioni dell'OSCE-ODIHR formulate in seguito alle elezioni del 2010. Nel contempo l'UE continuerà ad esigere il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali e a monitorare attentamente gli sviluppi nel periodo precedente le elezioni presidenziali nella seconda metà dell'anno.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000406/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Violence against the main opposition leader in Azerbaijan

According to the press release issued by Amnesty International, on 13 January Isa Gambar, leader of Musavat, the main opposition party in Azerbaijan, suffered a premeditated attack while travelling. His car and others in his entourage were subjected to heavy stoning, followed by physical attacks. Nine people were injured with no intervention by the local police, while a photographer was briefly detained. He was released only after handing over his camera.

— Given that this episode is a clear violation of human and political rights;

— given that Azerbaijan occupies the 162nd place out of 179 on the index of countries with the greatest press freedom drawn up by Reporters Without Borders;

— given that the European Union and Azerbaijan are linked by a partnership and cooperation agreement, on the basis of which the EU is seeking to strengthen the development of democracy and good governance;

given that the last presidential elections in 2008, in which President Aliyev obtained 89 % of the vote, were also marred by serious election fraud:

What measures is the Vice-President/High Representative taking to strengthen democracy and to ensure that open, free and fair elections are held in Azerbaijan?

Has she already made representations to the Azerbaijani Government with regard to the above situation?

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

(7 March 2013)

The EU is well aware of the incidents linked to the trip of the leader of the opposition party Musavat to Lenkoran, to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the local branch of Musavat. Although there seem to be conflicting reports on what actually happened, it is clear that Musavat party members were hit and injured by a mob.

The Ministry of Interior has distanced itself from the events, claiming frustrated Internally Displaced Persons from Nagorno Karabakh likely to be behind the attack. This argument seems debatable. An investigation has been launched by the Ministry of Interior, without any concrete information to report to date.

In political meetings with the government at high level, the EU has underlined and will continue to underline the need for fair, transparent and level ground election campaign fully in line with the OSCE-ODIHR recommendations issued following the 2010 elections. At the same time, the EU will continue to press for respect of fundamental rights and continue closely to monitor developments, in the runup to the Presidential elections later this year.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000407/13

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(16 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Applicabilità della normativa spagnola alle concessioni demaniali per fini turistici e ricreativi in Italia

Nella risposta all'interrogazione E-010266/2012, relativa alla compatibilità della «Ley de Costas» spagnola con la direttiva 2006/123/CE in termini di durata e rinnovo delle concessioni demaniali, la Commissione europea riconosce la legittimità della durata di settantacinque anni per le concessioni accordate ai proprietari per l'uso di fabbricati costruiti in aree facenti parte del demanio marittimo.

Dato che in Italia molte strutture turistico-balneari sono costituite da fabbricati di proprietà, composti da strutture dotate di una vasta gamma di servizi come piscine, bar, ristoranti, ecc., può la Commissione chiarire se il periodo di settantacinque anni previsto dalla normativa spagnola può applicarsi anche alla fattispecie italiana, viste l'importanza economica, la diffusione territoriale e la caratterizzazione, anche strutturale, delle imprese turistico-balneari italiane?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(6 marzo 2013)

Come la Commissione ha spiegato nella recente risposta all’interrogazione E-010266/2012, la direttiva 2006/123/CE (direttiva sui servizi) impone agli Stati membri di garantire la parità di accesso al mercato quando il numero di autorizzazioni disponibili è limitato a causa della scarsità delle risorse naturali. In base all’articolo 12, paragrafo 2, della direttiva sui servizi, in questi casi l’autorizzazione è rilasciata per una durata limitata adeguata.

Spetta agli Stati membri fissare per la suddette autorizzazioni una congrua durata, che consenta al prestatore di recuperare il costo degli investimenti e ottenerne un giusto rendimento.

È altresì compito degli Stati membri stabilire la procedura per il rilascio delle autorizzazioni in conformità degli articoli 9 e 10 e dell’articolo 12, paragrafo 1, della direttiva sui servizi.

Il periodo di 75 anni previsto dalla normativa spagnola non si riferisce ad autorizzazioni specificamente destinate all’esercizio di attività di servizio, ma rappresenta piuttosto un indennizzo per la reversione dei terreni al demanio marittimo. Come la Commissione ha spiegato nelle sue recenti risposte alle interrogazioni E-10266/2012 e P-010112/2012, il citato periodo di settantacinque anni si applica alle concessioni accordate ai proprietari per l’utilizzo dei loro immobili, che erano stati edificati in aree che tornano ora al demanio marittimo. Il progetto di riforma mira a garantire la certezza del diritto per i proprietari, in considerazione delle ambiguità riscontrate nel vigente quadro giuridico sui fabbricati situati nella fascia costiera in Spagna.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000407/13

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Applicability of Spanish regulations on State property concessions for tourism and leisure purposes in Italy

In its answer to Question E-010266/2012 on the compatibility of the Spanish Ley de Costas with Directive 2006/123/EC in terms of the duration and renewal of State property concessions, the European Commission acknowledges the legitimacy of the 75-year duration for concessions granted to owners for the use of buildings constructed in areas that are part of the public maritime domain.

Given that, in Italy, many seaside tourism facilities are composed of privately owned buildings, comprising constructions featuring a wide range of services such as swimming pools, bars, restaurants and so on, can the Commission clarify whether the 75-year period specified by the Spanish regulations could also be applied to the situation in Italy, given the economic importance, the geographical distribution and the features, including structural features, of Italian seaside tourism businesses?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2013)

As the Commission explained in its recent reply to Question E-010266/2012, Directive 2006/123/EC (the Services Directive) obliges Member States to ensure equal access to the market when the number of available authorisations is limited due to the scarcity of natural resources. According to Article 12, paragraph 2 of the Services Directive in those cases the authorisations shall be granted for an appropriate limited period.

It is for the Member States to set the appropriate duration of such authorisations. This period should be such as is necessary to enable the provider to recoup the cost of investment and to generate a fair return.

It is also for the Member States to determine the procedure for the grant of authorisations in accordance with Articles 9, 10 and 12 paragraph 1 of the Services Directive.

The 75-year period specified by the Spanish regulation does not concern authorisations granted specifically for the purpose of exercising a service activity but rather a compensation following the reversion of the territory to the public maritime domain. As the Commission explained in its recent replies to Question E-10266/2012 and Question P-010112/2012, the seventy-five year period mentioned in the question applies to concessions granted to owners for the use of their own property, which had been constructed in areas that now revert to the public maritime domain. The draft reform seeks to ensure legal certainty for owners of buildings in view of the ambiguities found in the current legal framework for shoreline property in Spain.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-000409/13

à la Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Renforcer la pharmacovigilance sur les pilules de dernières générations

Le 14 décembre dernier, Marion Larat accuse la pilule de 3e génération Méliane, fabriquée par le laboratoire Bayer, d'avoir provoqué son accident vasculaire cérébral.

Elle dépose plainte pour «atteinte involontaire à l'intégrité de la personne humaine» contre le directeur général du laboratoire, auprès du procureur de Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis). Cette plainte vise également le directeur général de l'Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament (ANSM), qui n'a pas demandé le retrait de cette pilule du marché, «en violation manifestement délibérée du principe de précaution».

La dangerosité des pilules de 3e et 4e générations — risques accrus de phlébite et d'embolie pulmonaire — est reconnue en Europe et en Amérique du Nord.

Au Canada, en Australie, en Suisse, en Belgique, en Allemagne, des procédures judiciaires sont en cours depuis plusieurs années, et aux États-Unis, ce sont quelque 15 000 plaintes qui ont été déposées.

L'Agence européenne du médicament doit prendre des mesures concrètes pour répondre aux inquiétudes des citoyennes européennes.

Pouvez-vous me préciser les mécanismes que vous entendez mettre en place afin de renforcer le suivi de pharmacovigilance et de faciliter la remontée des effets secondaires de ces contraceptifs?

À l'instar des tests menés par votre prédécesseur, John Dalli, sur le médicament Mediator, pouvez-vous lancer des tests de résistance pour déterminer les dangers des contraceptifs de dernières générations?

Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission

(5 février 2013)

La Commission renvoie l'auteur de la question à la réponse donnée à la question P-000297/2013 (89) sur le même sujet.

Le 22 janvier 2013, la France a ouvert une procédure de saisine à l'échelle de l'Union européenne en vue de la réévaluation des contraceptifs oraux combinés de troisième et de quatrième génération, au motif d'un risque majeur de thrombose veineuse et d'un volume élevé de prescriptions en France. À l'issue de cette réévaluation, la Commission prendra, le cas échéant, des mesures d'ordre réglementaire.

Sur la base des résultats du test de résistance effectué dans l'affaire du Mediator, l'UE a renforcé son cadre législatif en 2010, puis en 2012 (90), pour ce qui est de la pharmacovigilance et de la surveillance post-commercialisation. La responsabilité de l'Agence européenne des médicaments quant au suivi des signes relatifs à la sécurité des produits (c'est-à-dire, la pharmacovigilance) s'en trouve désormais beaucoup plus engagée. Le nouveau Comité pour l'évaluation des risques en matière de pharmacovigilance de l'Agence évalue ces signes et recommande, le cas échéant, une action réglementaire au niveau de l'Union. Le projet d'une réévaluation prochaine des contraceptifs oraux combinés témoigne du bon fonctionnement de ce système de pharmacovigilance redynamisé.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000409/13

to the Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Improving the monitoring of third‐ and fourth-generation contraceptive pills

On 14 December 2012, Marion Larat publicly blamed the third-generation contraceptive pill Méliane (made by Bayer) for the stroke she had suffered.

She has filed a lawsuit with the public prosecutor of Bobigny (Seine-Saint-Denis) against the head of Bayer for ‘involuntary bodily harm’ and the director-general of the French medicines agency (ANSM) for failing to withdraw Méliane from sale, which constituted ‘a clear and wilful violation of the precautionary principle’.

The dangers posed by third‐ and fourth-generation contraceptive pills (increased risk of phlebitis and pulmonary embolisms) have been recognised in Europe and North America.

Legal proceedings have been under way for years in Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Belgium and Germany, and some 15 000 complaints have been lodged in the United States.

The European Medicines Agency must now take practical measures to allay the concerns of people in Europe.

What measures is the Commission planning to take to improve the monitoring of these types of contraceptive pill and make it easier to get feedback on the side effects?

Could the Commission launch a resistance testing programme to assess the dangers of third‐ and fourth-generation contraceptive pills along the lines of the tests that the former Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli, ordered into the drug Mediator?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2013)

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer to Parliamentary Question P-000297/2013 (91) on the same subject.

On 22 January 2013 France initiated a referral procedure at EU level for the review of third and fourth generation of combined oral contraceptives, taking into account a higher risk of venous thrombosis and high prescription volumes in France. Following this review the Commission will take regulatory action if necessary.

The EU legal framework, as regards the post-marketing surveillance of medicinal products' safety, was strengthened in 2010 and again 2012 (92) following the Mediator stress-test. The European Medicines Agency now possesses much stronger responsibilities in the monitoring of signals related to the safety of products (i.e. pharmacovigilance). The Agency's new Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee performs the assessment of signals and recommends, where necessary, a regulatory action at EU level. The issue of combined oral contraceptives and its upcoming review indicates the robust functioning of this reinvigorated pharmacovigilance system.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-000410/13

à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)

Mário David (PPE)

(16 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: VP/HR — Relações UE-Conselho de Cooperação do Golfo

Em 24 de março de 2011, o Parlamento Europeu aprovou um relatório de iniciativa sobre as relações entre a União Europeia e o Conselho de Cooperação do Golfo (CCG). Fui o autor do parecer da INTA sobre esse relatório.

O relatório lamentava que a presença diplomática da UE nos países do CCG continuasse a ser mínima: apenas uma delegação para seis países (Barém, Koweit, Omã, Catar, Arábia Saudita e Emirados Árabes Unidos). Consequentemente, o Parlamento insistiu em que, na sequência da criação do SEAE, a UE deveria aumentar a sua presença diplomática na região, incluindo abrindo uma delegação da União em cada um dos seis Estados do CCG.

Passados quase dois anos, persiste esta situação lamentável. Os estados do CCG são potências regionais e mundiais extremamente importantes. Os seus laços políticos e comerciais com a UE aumentam diariamente, mas esta falta de interesse pode transmitir a impressão errada a estes estados e povos amigos, em particular quando a UE já dispõe de 140 delegações em todo o mundo, muitas das quais assentes em acordos internacionais e com países que representam muito menos em termos de parceria.

Recusamos admitir que esta situação fique a dever-se a limitações financeiras. Concluímos, por conseguinte, que se trata de uma decisão política com a qual não concordamos e que desejamos seja revertida o mais rapidamente possível.

A Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante está a ponderar criar delegações da UE em todos os países do CCG?

Em caso afirmativo, quando?

Em caso negativo, por que razão?

Espero poder felicitar em breve a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante pela criação das cinco delegações da UE que faltam no Barém, no Koweit, em Omã, no Catar e nos Emirados Árabes Unidos.

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

(27 de fevereiro de 2013)

A AR/VP está ciente da necessidade de reforçar a rede das delegações da UE nos países do Conselho de Cooperação do Golfo, dada a importância dos nossos interesses geoestratégicos e das relações políticas, económicas e setoriais com esses países. Contudo, a abertura de novas delegações da UE na região e a reconversão da atual rede de delegações da UE só pode ser gradual, tendo em conta os condicionalismos em matéria de recursos orçamentais e humanos.

A decisão da AR/VP, de 10 de janeiro de 2013, de abrir uma nova delegação em Abu Dhabi, nos Emirados Árabes Unidos, é um primeiro passo nessa direção. A nova delegação deverá estar operacional no segundo semestre deste ano e complementará o trabalho da atual delegação em Riade, que continuará a abranger as relações com o Secretariado do CCG e com o Barém, o Kuwait, Omã, o Catar e a Arábia Saudita.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000410/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Mário David (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — EU-Gulf Cooperation Council relations

On 24 March 2011 the European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report on European Union relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). I was the rapporteur for the INTA opinion on that report.

The report deplored the fact that the EU’s diplomatic presence in the GCC member states remains minimal: only one delegation for six countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates). Consequently, Parliament insisted that following the establishment of the EEAS the EU should increase its diplomatic presence in the region, including by setting up an EU delegation in each of the six GCC member states.

Almost two years have passed and still the same regrettable situation persists. The GCC states are extremely important regional and world powers. Their political and commercial ties with the EU are increasing daily, yet this lack of interest can give the wrong impression to such friendly states and peoples, particularly when the EU already has 140 delegations all over the world, many of them based on international agreements and with countries that represent much less in terms of partnership.

We refuse to accept that this situation is due to any financial constraints. We conclude, therefore, that it is a political decision, and one which we do not share and would like to see reversed as soon as possible.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative considering setting up EU delegations in all the GCC countries?

If so, when will that be?

If not, why not?

I look forward to congratulating the Vice-President/High Representative soon on the establishment of the five missing EU delegations in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

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

(27 February 2013)

The HR/VP is well aware of the need to strenghten the network of EU Delegations in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, in view of the importance of our geo-strategic interests and political, economic and sectoral ties with these countries. The opening of new EU Delegations in the region and the redeployment of the current network of EU Delegations however can only be gradual, taking due account of budgetary and human resources constraints.

The decision of the HR/VP of 10 January 2013 to open a new Delegation in Abu Dhabi, UAE, is a first step in this direction. The new Delegation should be operational in the second half of this year, and will complement the work of the existing Delegation in Riyadh, which will continue to cover relations with the GCC Secretariat and with Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia for the time being.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-000411/13

do Komisji

Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D)

(16 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Kroki Komisji Europejskiej i Europejskiej Agencji Kolejowej w sprawie bezpieczeństwa kolei w Polsce

Ostatni rok był dla Polski fatalny pod względem bezpieczeństwa transportu kolejowego. W roku 2012 zaistniało bardzo wiele wypadków i katastrof kolejowych. Najbardziej tragiczna – pod Szczekocinami z dnia 3.3.2012 – pochłonęła aż 16 ofiar śmiertelnych i spowodowała poważne okaleczenia ponad 60 dalszych osób. Polski Związek Zawodowy Maszynistów Kolejowych (ZZMK) ostrzega, że nadal praktycznie codziennie dochodzi do zagrażających zdrowiu i życiu ludzkiemu wypadków i incydentów.

Stan ten wpisuje się w katastrofalny bilans ostatnich siedmiu lat (2006-2012), w których w Polsce – zgodnie z danymi polskiego Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego oraz Europejskiej Agencji Kolejowej – prawie 2500 osób straciło życie w wypadkach kolejowych.

ZZMK od wielu lat wskazuje instytucjom rządowym na zaniechania, mające bezpośredni wpływ na stan bezpieczeństwa na kolei. Jednak wystąpienia do właściwego ministerstwa odpowiedzialnego za sprawy transportu oraz do Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego (krajowej władzy odpowiedzialnej za bezpieczeństwo kolejowe), nie spowodowały dotąd podjęcia rzeczywistych i skutecznych działań, przywracających bezpieczeństwo na polskiej kolei.

W obliczu zastanej sytuacji, Związek Zawodowy Maszynistów Kolejowych zwrócił się pod koniec ostatniego roku do Europejskiej Agencji Kolejowej. W liście z dnia 12.11.2012 r., wystosowanym do rąk pana Chrisa Carra, są szczegółowo opisane systemowe, organizacyjne, techniczne oraz szkoleniowe aspekty aktualnej sytuacji polskiego rynku kolejowego, które zagrażają bezpieczeństwu ruchu.

Czy Komisja i jej podległe, właściwe instytucje – tj. Europejska Agencja Kolejowa – mają zamiar podjąć jakieś kroki w obliczu tak dramatycznego i nie do zaakceptowania stanu bezpieczeństwa kolei w Polsce?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Siima Kallasa w imieniu Komisji

(18 lutego 2013 r.)

Komisja jest świadoma niepokojących danych dotyczących bezpieczeństwa transportu kolejowego w Polsce. Według danych zebranych przez Europejską Agencję Kolejową, Polska zajmuje drugie miejsce w UE pod względem liczby śmiertelnych wypadków na kolei na mln pociągokilometrów (2009-2011) i sytuuje się powyżej średniej UE pod względem liczby ofiar śmiertelnych wśród pasażerów na mld pasażerokilometrów (2006-2011). Ponadto, Polska ma stosunkowo dużą liczbę przejazdów kolejowych, z których większość posiada bierny system zabezpieczeń, co negatywnie wpływa na dane dotyczące bezpieczeństwa.

W związku z tym, Komisja zwróci się do Europejskiej Agencji Kolejowej o wydanie opinii technicznej na ten temat, w tym również wizytę w terenie. Następnie Komisja podejmie decyzję, czy należy podjąć odpowiednie środki.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000411/13

to the Commission

Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Commission and European Railway Agency action on rail safety in Poland

2012 was a terrible year for rail transport safety in Poland, with a great number of incidents and rail disasters occurring. The most tragic of these happened near Szczekociny on 3 March 2012, when 16 people lost their lives and more than 60 were seriously injured. The Polish train drivers’ union (ZZMK) has stated that life‐threatening incidents are occurring on an almost daily basis.

The 2006‐2012 period was a disastrous one in which, according to data from the Polish Office of Rail Transportation and the European Railway Agency, almost 2 500 people died in rail accidents in Poland.

For many years, the ZZMK has been pointing out failings that have a direct impact on rail safety to government institutions. However, in spite of the representations made to the Polish Ministry of Transport and the Office of Rail Transportation (the Polish rail safety body), no real or effective action has been taken to improve safety on the Polish rail system.

Faced with such a state of affairs, the ZZMK appealed to the European Railway Agency in late 2012. In its letter of 12 November 2012, which was addressed to Chris Carr, the ZZMK described the systemic, organisational, technical and training aspects of current situation on the Polish rail market that pose a threat to transport safety.

Do the Commission and its appropriate subordinate institutions — specifically the European Railway Agency — intend to take action with regard to the appalling and unacceptable state of safety on the Polish rail system?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the poor railway safety figures in Poland. According to data gathered by the European Railway Agency, Poland scores second highest in the EU regarding railway fatalities per million train-km (2009-2011) and is above the EU average regarding passenger fatalities per billion passenger-km (2006-2011). Moreover, Poland has a relativelly high number of level crossings, with most of them passive; this negatively contributes to the railway safety figures.

Therefore the Commission will ask the European Railway Agency for a technical opinion on this subject, including a field visit. Following this, the Commission will decide whether it is necessary to take appropriate measures.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000412/13

to the Commission

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Iceland's suspension of talks on joining the European Union and payments to Iceland under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

On 14 January, Iceland announced that it was suspending talks on joining the European Union.

1.

Can the Commission please confirm that, following this announcement, it has suspended all payments to Iceland under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)?

2.

Can the Commission also confirm that, following the suspension of negotiations, no more budgetary commitments will be made to Iceland from the IPA budget lines?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2013)

The accession negotiation process with Iceland has not been suspended.

The agreement of the two governing parties on the management of the EU accession negotiations in the run up to the parliamentary elections (scheduled for 27 April) is a domestic political decision that will imply a temporary slowing down for a limited part of the accession negotiation process.

In all other respects, cooperation continues including on the implementation of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance.

In consequence payments will continue to be made in accordance with underlying contractual provisions.

No new budgetary commitments are foreseen at this stage for the remaining part of 2013.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000413/13

à la Commission

Ivo Belet (PPE), Carlos Coelho (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Christine De Veyrac (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) et Csaba Őry (PPE)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Licenciements chez Netjets

Dans sa réponse à la question E-009186/12, la Commission fait savoir que le règlement (UE) n465/2012 ne devrait pas servir de prétexte aux compagnies pour licencier du personnel navigant.

Toutefois, dans une communication interne sur ce sujet, Netjets affirme: «Un nouveau règlement européen qui vient d'entrer en vigueur a une incidence sur le régime de sécurité sociale applicable au personnel navigant en fonction du pays où se trouve son aéroport d'affectation. Selon nos calculs, effectués sur la base du niveau des effectifs et des cotisations sociales, ces changements devraient coûter, par an, 6,3 millions d'euros de cotisations patronales à l'entreprise. (…) Nous proposons d'offrir la possibilité aux commandants de bord ayant leur aéroport d'affectation dans l'un des six pays où la part des cotisations sociales de l'employeur est la plus élevée de démissionner volontairement. (…) Si la réduction nécessaire du nombre de commandants de bord ne peut être atteinte par le biais des départs volontaires, alors nous proposerons de choisir quels commandants de bord feront l'objet d'un licenciement sec, en tenant compte en premier lieu de la part de cotisations sociales de leur employeur dans leur pays d'affectation».

1.

Quelles mesures la Commission envisage-t-elle en la matière?

2.

De quelle manière le personnel navigant peut-il faire valoir ses droits contre cette pratique?

Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(14 mars 2013)

1.

La Commission ne peut pas intervenir dans le processus décisionnel des entreprises privées en se prononçant, par exemple, sur la taille de leurs effectifs ou sur le choix de l'État membre où elles exercent leurs activités.

La législation européenne en matière de sécurité sociale prévoit la coordination, et non l'harmonisation, des régimes de sécurité sociale. Cela signifie que chaque État membre est libre de définir les spécificités de son propre système de sécurité sociale, y compris le type de prestations qu'il octroie, les conditions à remplir pour en bénéficier, le mode de calcul des prestations et le montant des cotisations.

À titre d'exemple, la législation européenne détermine uniquement, par ses règles de conflit de lois, la législation applicable en matière de sécurité sociale. Elle veille également à ce que toutes les personnes relevant de la même législation bénéficient des mêmes droits et aient les mêmes obligations, indépendamment de leur nationalité ou de leur lieu de résidence (principes d'égalité de traitement et de non-discrimination).

2.

Le personnel navigant peut faire valoir ses droits en cas, par exemple, de licenciement injustifié, de discrimination ou de tout autre problème lié au droit du travail et à la relation avec l'employeur, de la même manière que n'importe quel autre travailleur, c'est-à-dire en engageant une procédure devant une juridiction nationale.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000413/13

aan de Commissie

Ivo Belet (PPE), Carlos Coelho (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Christine De Veyrac (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) en Csaba Őry (PPE)

(16 januari 2013)

Betreft: Ontslagen bij Netjets

In haar antwoord op vraag E-009186/12 verklaart de Commissie dat bedrijven Verordening (EU) nr. 465/2012 niet als voorwendsel mogen gebruiken om cockpitpersoneel te ontslaan.

In een interne mededeling over deze kwestie schrijft Netjets echter het volgende: „Een nieuwe Europese verordening die van kracht is geworden is nu van invloed op het sociale-zekerheidsstelsel dat van toepassing is op het personeel en dat zich nu baseert op het land waarin zich hun gateway bevindt. Wij schatten dat deze veranderingen, uitgaande van de huidige personeelomvang en socialezekerheidstarieven de branche een extra bedrag van 6,3 miljoen EUR per jaar aan werkgeversbijdragen zal kosten (…). Wij stellen voor een vrijwillig ontslag aan te bieden aan gezagvoerders met gateways in de zes landen waarin de werkgever de hoogste socialeverzekeringstarieven moet betalen (…). Indien de noodzakelijke vermindering van het aantal gezagvoerders niet door middel van vrijwillige ontslagen kan worden bereikt, wordt voorgesteld gezagvoerders die gedwongen ontslagen zullen moeten worden allereerst te selecteren op grond van de door de werkgever te betalen sociale-verzekeringstarieven van het land waarin zich hun gateway bevindt”.

1.

Welke actie denkt de Commissie naar aanleiding van deze zaak te ondernemen?

2.

Op welke manieren kan cockpitpersoneel zijn rechten tegenover deze praktijk doen gelden?

Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie

(14 maart 2013)

1.

De Commissie kan zich niet mengen in de besluiten die door particuliere ondernemingen worden genomen, zoals het aantal personeelsleden dat zij aannemen en vanuit welke lidstaat zij hun werkzaamheden uitvoeren.

De EU-wetgeving voorziet op het gebied van sociale zekerheid in de coördinatie en niet in de harmonisatie van de socialezekerheidsregelingen. Dit betekent dat elke lidstaat zelf mag bepalen hoe zijn socialezekerheidsstelsel eruit ziet, welke soorten uitkeringen worden verstrekt, aan welke voorwaarden moet worden voldoen om in aanmerking te komen voor deze uitkeringen, hoe deze uitkeringen worden berekend en hoeveel premie er moet worden betaald.

De EU-wetgeving beperkt zich, middels haar collisieregels, ertoe te bepalen welke socialezekerheidswetgeving van toepassing is. Zij zorgt er ook voor dat alle personen die onder dezelfde wettelijke regeling vallen dezelfde rechten en plichten genieten ongeacht hun nationaliteit of verblijfplaats (grondbeginselen van gelijke behandeling en non-discriminatie).

2.

Vliegtuigbemanningsleden kunnen, net als andere werknemers, hun rechten doen gelden, bijvoorbeeld bij kennelijk onredelijk ontslag, discriminatie of enig andere kwestie op het gebied van arbeidsrecht en de verhouding met de werkgever, via nationale gerechtelijke procedures.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-000413/13

à Comissão

Ivo Belet (PPE), Carlos Coelho (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Christine De Veyrac (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) e Csaba Őry (PPE)

(16 de janeiro de 2013)

Assunto: Despedimentos na Netjets

Na sua resposta à pergunta E-009186/12, a Comissão afirma que o Regulamento (UE) n.° 465/2012 não deve ser utilizado como desculpa pelas companhias para despedir pessoal navegante.

No entanto, numa comunicação interna sobre o assunto, a Netjets afirma o seguinte: «Acaba de entrar em vigor um novo regulamento europeu que afeta o regime de segurança social aplicável aos membros de tripulações de voo em função do país em que está situada a sua base de afetação. Consideramos que, tendo em conta os atuais níveis de efetivos e as contribuições para a segurança social, tais alterações custarão à empresa mais 6,3 milhões de euros por ano em contribuições patronais. (…) Propomo-nos oferecer um incentivo à cessação voluntária da relação de trabalho aos comandantes com bases nos seis países em que as contribuições patronais para a segurança social são mais elevadas. (…) Se a redução necessária do número de comandantes não puder ser atingida através da saída voluntária, propomo-nos então selecionar comandantes para despedimento assente em primeiro lugar nas contribuições patronais para a segurança social do respetivo país de base».

1.

Que medidas tenciona a Comissão tomar a este respeito?

2.

De que forma podem as tripulações defender os seus direitos contra esta prática?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(14 de março de 2013)

1.

A Comissão não pode intervir no processo de decisão das empresas privadas, por exemplo quanto ao número de trabalhadores que empregam e a partir de que Estado-Membro exploram o seu negócio.

A legislação da UE no domínio da segurança social prevê a coordenação, e não a harmonização, dos regimes de segurança social. Tal significa que cada Estado-Membro tem liberdade para determinar as modalidades do respetivo sistema de segurança social, incluindo quais as prestações a ser concedidas, as condições de elegibilidade, o modo de cálculo das prestações e quais as contribuições a pagar.

Por exemplo, a legislação da UE só determina, através das suas normas de conflito de leis, qual é a legislação aplicável em matéria de segurança social. Assegura também que todas as pessoas abrangidas pela mesma legislação beneficiam dos mesmos direitos e obrigações, independentemente da sua nacionalidade ou do local de residência (princípios de igualdade de tratamento e de não-discriminação).

2.

O pessoal de bordo das companhias de aviação pode defender os seus direitos, por exemplo, contra os despedimentos sem justa causa, a discriminação ou qualquer outra questão relativa ao direito do trabalho e à relação com a entidade patronal, tal como quaisquer outros trabalhadores, no âmbito de um processo judicial.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000413/13

to the Commission

Ivo Belet (PPE), Carlos Coelho (PPE), Regina Bastos (PPE), Christine De Veyrac (PPE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE) and Csaba Őry (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Redundancies at Netjets

In its answer to Question E-009186/12, the Commission states that regulation (EU) No 465/2012 should not be used as an excuse by companies to dismiss aircrew staff.

However, in an internal communication on the matter Netjets states the following: ‘A new European regulation that has come into force now affects the social security regime applicable to crew based upon the country in which their gateway is located. We estimate that based on current crew levels and social security rates, these changes will cost the business an additional EUR 6.3m per year in employer contributions. (…) We propose to offer voluntary redundancy to pilots-in-command (PIC’s) with gateways in the six countries with the highest employer social security rates. (…) If the necessary reduction in the number of PIC’s cannot be achieved through voluntary redundancy then the proposal is to select PIC’s for compulsory redundancy based first on the employer social security rates of their gateway country’.

1.

What action does the Commission intend to take on the matter?

2.

In what ways can flight crews defend their rights against this practice?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2013)

1.

The Commission cannot intervene in the decision making of private companies, for example how many staff they employ and from which Member State it operates its business.

EC law in the field of social security provides for the coordination and not the harmonisation of social security schemes. This means that each Member State is free to determine the details of its own social security system, including which benefits it provides, the conditions of eligibility, how these benefits are calculated and what contributions should be paid.

For example, EC law only determines, through its conflict of law rules, which social security legislation applies. It also ensures that all persons falling under the same legislation enjoy the same rights and obligations despite their nationality or place of residence (principles of equality of treatment and non-discrimination).

2.

Flight crews can defend their rights, e.g. against unjustified dismissal, discrimination or any other matter concerning labour law and the relationship with the employer, as any other worker, through national court proceedings.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000414/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Droit de procédure administrative

Un droit de procédure administrative est l'opportunité de renforcer la légitimité de l'Union et, en parallèle, de donner aux citoyens et aux personnes morales des droits plus clairs. C'est aussi l'opportunité de leur fournir davantage de sécurité juridique dans leurs relations avec l'administration de l'Union.

Dès lors, la Commission travaille-t-elle, sur la base de l'article 298 du traité FUE, à l'élaboration d'une proposition de règlement comprenant les principes fondamentaux de bonne administration et établissant des normes de qualité et des garanties procédurales minimales à respecter par l'ensemble des institutions, organes, bureaux et agences de l'Union?

Réponse donnée par M. Barroso au nom de la Commission

(4 mars 2013)

Cette question porte sur la résolution du Parlement européen du 15 janvier 2013 contenant des recommandations à la Commission sur un droit de procédure administrative de l'Union européenne [2012/2024(INI)], qui se réfère à l'article 225 du TFUE. Conformément à l'accord-cadre sur les relations entre le Parlement européen et la Commission, cette dernière informera le Parlement de la suite qu'elle compte donner à cette résolution dans les trois mois.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000414/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Law of administrative practice

Introducing a law of administrative practice would strengthen the legitimacy of the EU, more clearly define the rights of citizens and legal persons, and give the latter greater legal security in their dealings with the EU administration.

Is the Commission currently drawing up, on the basis of Article 298 TFEU, a proposal for a regulation setting out the basic principles of sound administration and laying down minimum quality standards and procedural safeguards to be respected by all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

This question concerns the European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union (2012/2024(INI)), which refers to Article 225 TFEU. In line with the framework agreement between Parliament and Commission, the Commission will inform Parliament of its intended follow-up to this resolution within three months.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000415/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Rôle de la politique de cohésion de l'Union dans la mise en œuvre de la nouvelle politique européenne de l'énergie

1.

La Commission compte-t-elle donner suite à la demande du Parlement d'instaurer un programme de coopération à l'échelle européenne, fondé sur l'expérience des programmes de jumelage, afin d'améliorer la coopération entre les régions ayant un taux d'absorption élevé des fonds de l'Union et celles affichant de faibles taux d'absorption, et afin de faciliter la diffusion des bonnes pratiques?

2.

Comment la Commission compte-t-elle optimiser le niveau de coordination entre les Fonds structurels et le Fonds de cohésion, d'une part, et le mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe, d'autre part?

3.

La Commission pourrait-elle clarifier et définir les secteurs de l'énergie qui ne seraient pas admissibles au financement au titre de la politique de cohésion? Les projets déployés dans les régions de convergence pourraient-ils bénéficier de ces financements?

Réponse donnée par M. Hahn au nom de la Commission

(13 mars 2013)

1.

La proposition de règlement relatif à la coopération territoriale européenne prévoit déjà la possibilité d'encourager, dans le cadre de la coopération interrégionale, les activités de coopération et l'échange des bonnes pratiques, dans le respect de certaines priorités d'investissement, notamment le passage à une économie sobre en carbone. Il ne semble, dès lors, pas utile d'élaborer un nouveau programme paneuropéen spécifiquement consacré à l'amélioration de la coopération. Des activités de coopération et des forums de discussion sont en outre organisés dans ce domaine dans le cadre du programme

«Énergie intelligente Europe».

2.

En ce qui concerne la coordination entre les différents Fonds structurels et d'investissement européens (ESI) et le mécanisme pour l'interconnexion en Europe, le Parlement européen et le Conseil ont récemment approuvé les dispositions de programmation stratégique du projet de règlement portant dispositions communes des Fonds structurels et d'investissement européens, qui dispose que les contrats de partenariat présentés par les États membres doivent prévoir des dispositifs assurant la coordination entre les Fonds structurels et d'investissement européens, les autres instruments de financement de l'Union et des États membres ainsi que la Banque européenne d'investissement, de manière compatible avec le cadre institutionnel de chaque État membre. La Commission vérifiera le caractère adapté de ces dispositifs lors de l'évaluation des projets d'accords de partenariat.

3.

L'article 3 du projet de règlement FEDER et l'article 2 du projet de règlement relatif au Fonds de cohésion définissent les domaines non couverts par ces fonds: le déclassement des centrales nucléaires et la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre provenant d'activités relevant de l'annexe I de la directive 2003/87/CE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000415/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: The role of EU cohesion policy in the implementation of the new European energy policy

1.

Does the Commission intend to act on Parliament’s request to introduce a cooperation programme at European level, based on the experience of twinning programmes, in order to improve cooperation between the regions that have a high EU fund absorption rate and those with low absorption rates, and to facilitate the dissemination of good practices?

2.

How does it intend to optimise the level of coordination between the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, on the one hand, and the Connecting Europe Facility, on the other?

3.

Could it clarify and define the energy sectors which might not be eligible for funding under the cohesion policy? Could the projects implemented in the convergence regions benefit from this funding?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

1.

The proposed European Territorial Cooperation Regulation already sets out the possibility for interregional cooperation to support cooperation activities and exchange of good practices within certain investment priorities, covering in particular the shift towards a low-carbon economy. For this reason, the setting up of another specific EU-wide programme aiming to foster cooperation does not seem to be necessary.

In addition, there are cooperation activities and discussion fora organised in this field via the Intelligent Energy Europe programme.

2.

As regards coordination between the various European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds and the Connecting Europe Facility, the European Parliament and the Council have recently agreed on the strategic programming block of the draft Common Provisions Regulation of the ESI Funds, which provides that Partnership Agreements submitted by Member States shall set out the arrangements ensuring coordination between the ESI Funds and other EU and national funding instruments and with the European Investment Bank, in line with the institutional framework of each Member State. The Commission will assess the appropriateness of these arrangements when appraising the draft Partnership Agreements.

3.

Article 3 of the proposed ERDF Regulation and Article 2 of the proposed Cohesion Fund Regulation set out the areas which these Funds shall not support: decommissioning of nuclear power stations, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from activities falling under Annex I of Directive 2003/87/EC.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000416/13

to the Commission

Diane Dodds (NI)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Consumer protection legislation

Recently, in the British media, there has been concern raised over the exclusion of Northern Ireland residents from buying online products and the additional cost of posting packages to Northern Ireland.

1.

Could the Commission provide information on whether it is lawful to exclude residents of the UK from buying products due to their geographical location?

2.

Are there any legal provisions regarding these disparities in EU competition law? Are customers not protected by EU consumer protection legislation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

Selling practices and prices of related services, such as for example delivery, are normally subject to market forces and commercial decisions taken by economic operators.

Nevertheless, these operators are, when selling their goods or providing their services cross-border within the EU, bound by certain EU rules, examples of which have been provided in the reply to the parallel question of the Honourable Member of the Parliament (93).

1.

Where customers are based in the same Member State as the service provider, the lawfulness of any differentiated treatment depends on how the Services Directive has been implemented in national law. The legal assessment is the sole prerogative of the competent national authorities, rather than the Commission.

2.

EU competition law, which can be applied by the Commission and national competition authorities, prohibits anti-competitive agreements and abuses of a dominant position which may appreciably affect trade between Member States. If there is no such effect on inter-State trade, national competition laws may nevertheless apply.

3.

Furthermore the Distance Selling Directive requires the online traders to clearly inform the consumers, before the conclusion of the distance contract, about the delivery costs. The same provision is included in the new Consumer Rights Directive (CRD), which will become applicable in the Member States by 13 June 2014 and will replace the Distance Sales Directive. The CRD also requires the online traders to indicate clearly, at the latest at the beginning of the ordering process, whether any delivery restrictions apply.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000417/13

to the Commission

Diane Dodds (NI)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Consumer protection legislation II

Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, the Scottish Highlands and the Northern Isles are among locations in the United Kingdom that currently require an additional delivery cost for some packages.

The Citizens Advice Bureau states that customers living in Northern Ireland experience an additional cost of GBP 9.29, an increase of 127 %. It should not matter whether an individual lives in London or Enniskillen: they are both in the United Kingdom and so should be treated equally.

Can the Commission clarify whether this is an infringement of consumer protection legislation? Are there any EU directives in place to prevent traders from discriminating against the citizens of Member States due to their location?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

Prices of delivery services are normally subject to market forces and commercial decisions of economic operators. Nevertheless, these operators are, when providing cross-border services within the EU, bound by EU rules such as:

The Services Directive requires in Article 20(2) that there should be no discrimination against the recipient of the service based on nationality or place of residence, unless different treatment is directly justified by objective criteria (e.g. additional costs incurred due to the distance involved). The Commission Staff Working Document (94) on Article 20(2) shows that the costs of the delivery service may differ significantly between countries, as well as in national circumstances, which may justify different pricing.

The Postal Services Directive in Article 3 provides that the provision of basic postal services must be affordable and available to all citizens on the whole territory at, where applicable, uniform tariff. It is for the national regulatory authorities to ensure that these principles are respected.

Article 4 of the Distance Selling Directive requires the traders to clearly inform the consumers, before the conclusion of the distance contract, about the delivery costs. The new Consumer Rights Directive, which will become applicable by 13 June 2014, requires the traders to provide the information on delivery costs for all consumer sales contracts (Articles 5 and 6).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000418/13

to the Commission

Jim Higgins (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Fuel rebate system under EC law

Can the Commission state whether a fuel rebate system under EC law could be restricted to Irish licensed hauliers or whether it would have to be extended to all vehicles intended exclusively for the carriage of goods by road, with a maximum permissible gross laden weight of not less than 7.5 tonnes? In addition, would the rebate have to include the carriage of passengers by a motor vehicle falling under category M2 or category M3 as defined in Council Directive 70/156/EEC?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2013)

Article 7(3) of Directive 2003/96/EC defines the term ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’. Although the legislator has not clearly stated this, the Commission, considers that the scope of the tax advantage for such gas oil can be limited to the carriage of goods covered by Article 7(3)(a) of Directive 2003/96/EC and it is not obligatory to include the carriage of passengers by a motor vehicle covered by Article 7(3)(b) thereof.

Member States should determine conditions for the control of the application of Article 7, paragraphs 2 and 3 in order to avoid abuse. However these conditions should not result in discrimination of hauliers registered in other Member States and in particular in depriving them from the possibility to purchase in Ireland commercial gas oil for propellant use which is taxed at a lower rate than the gas oil used as motor fuel for non-commercial uses.

It goes without saying that the Commission can only comment on specific national legislation after careful analysis of its precise terms.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000420/13

a la Comisión

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Directrices de ayudas de Estado — Régimen de comercio de emisiones

En su respuesta a la pregunta P-006867/2012, la Comisión afirma que «el factor de emisión de CO2 para cada zona es una media de las emisiones de CO2 generadas por cada uno de los combustibles fósiles consumidos en la generación, ponderado por la cantidad de electricidad producida a partir de dichos combustibles fósiles. Las emisiones de CO2 por unidad de combustible se calculan utilizando el mismo método en toda la UE».

¿Puede la Comisión detallar los factores de emisión de cada combustible fósil aplicados para el cálculo de los factores regionales de emisión?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(15 de marzo de 2013)

Las Directrices sobre ayudas estatales en relación con el régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión de la UE a partir de 2012 definen las normas relativas a las ayudas estatales por el aumento de los costes de emisión de CO2 repercutidos en los precios de la electricidad por los derechos de emisión de la UE. Establecen las condiciones que permitirán a los Estados miembros compensar una parte de dichos costes, calculados para las empresas más eficientes de cada sector en cuanto al consumo de electricidad, si el Estado miembro así lo decide.

La compensación se calcula teniendo en cuenta la cantidad de CO2 utilizada para generar electricidad a partir de combustibles fósiles en el Estado miembro o en la región en su conjunto. Este «factor de emisión de CO2 » se refiere a la cantidad de CO2 (en t) utilizada para producir un MWh de electricidad a partir de combustibles fósiles en distintas zonas geográficas. La ponderación deberá reflejar la mezcla de producción de los combustibles fósiles en la zona geográfica de que se trate. El factor de CO2 es el resultado de la división de los datos equivalentes de emisión de CO2 de la industria de la energía por la producción bruta de electricidad con combustibles fósiles en TWh. La media ponderada de la intensidad de CO2 de la electricidad producida a partir de combustibles fósiles en cada zona de tarificación representará la central eléctrica que fija los precios. La ponderación debe reflejar la producción mixta de combustibles fósiles en la zona determinada. Los cálculos se realizan en dos fases: 1) factor de insumo: establecimiento de la intensidad de CO2 de las fuentes de combustibles fósiles utilizadas para producir electricidad, y 2) factor de producción: establecimiento de la intensidad de CO2 de la producción de energía a partir de combustibles fósiles que impliquen la eficiencia de las centrales eléctricas.

La diferenciación regional de los factores de emisión de CO2 sigue correspondiendo a la realidad de la integración del mercado de la electricidad en la EU. El cálculo del factor de CO2 se ha basado en los datos más recientes de generación de electricidad de Eurostat (2009).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000420/13

to the Commission

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: State aid guidelines — emissions trading scheme

In response to Question P-006867/2012, the Commission stated that ‘For each zone the CO2 factor is an average of the CO2 emissions caused by each fossil fuel consumed in generation, weighted by the amount of electricity produced from such fossil fuel. CO2 emissions per unit of fuel are calculated using the same method across the EU.’

Can the Commission indicate the emission factor applied to each fossil fuel in calculating regional emission factors?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2013)

The Guidelines for state aid in connection with the EU ETS after 2012 define the rules concerning state aid for increased CO2 costs passed through in electricity prices due to the EU ETS. They set the conditions that allow Member States to compensate part of these costs, calculated for the most electricity efficient companies in each sector, if the Member State decides to do so.

The calculation of the compensation takes into account the amount of CO2 used to generate electricity from fossil fuels in the Member State or wider region. This ‘CO2 emission factor’ refers to the amount of CO2 (in t) used to produce one MWh of electricity from fossil fuels in different geographic areas. The weight shall reflect the production mix of the fossil fuels in the given geographic area. The CO2 factor is the result of the division of the CO2 equivalent emission data of the energy industry divided by the Gross electricity generation based on fossil fuels in TWh. Weighted average of the CO2 intensity of electricity produced by using fossil fuel sources in each pricing area shall represent the price setting power plant. The weight should reflect the production mix of the fossil fuels in the given area. The calculations are done in two steps: Step 1) Input factor: establishing the CO2 intensity of fossil fuel sources used to produce electricity, Step 2) Output factor: establishing the CO2 intensity of fossil fuel power production involving efficiency of power plants.

The regional differentiation for CO2 emission factors still corresponds to the reality in terms of electricity market integration in the EU. The CO2 factor calculation was based on the most recent Eurostat electricity generation data (2009).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000421/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: «Η λίστα Λαγκάρντ»

Η Ελλάδα, ως γνωστόν, λαμβάνει δανειακή βοήθεια από το ΔΝΤ και την ΕΕ. Η ήδη επικεφαλής του ΔΝΤ κ. Λαγκάρντ παρέδωσε στις ελληνικές αρχές λίστα με φυσικά πρόσωπα ελληνικής υπηκοότητας που φέρονται να έχουν καταθέσεις σε συγκεκριμένη τράπεζα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Έλαβε γνώση της λίστας αυτής στα πλαίσια της συνεργασίας ΕΕ και ΔΝΤ καθώς και της συνεργασίας Ελληνικής κυβέρνησης και τρόικας;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(20 Μαρτίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή πληροφορήθηκε την ύπαρξη της λίστας η οποία παραδόθηκε από την τότε Υπουργό Οικονομικών της Γαλλίας, κ. Lagarde, από τα μέσα ενημέρωσης.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000421/13

to the Commission

Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: The ‘Lagarde list’

Greece is receiving loan assistance from the IMF and the EU. Ms Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, handed to the Greek authorities a list of names of Greek nationals alleged to have deposits in a specific bank.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Did it learn of the existence of this list within the framework of EU‐ IMF cooperation and cooperation between the Greek Government and the Troika?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2013)

The Commission only learned about the existence of the list, which was handed over by Mrs Lagarde as French Minister of Finance at the time, from the media.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000423/13

à la Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Révision des limites d'exposition aux champs électromagnétiques

Selon le rapport BioInitiative 2012, les téléphones portables, réseaux Wifi, ordinateurs portables, téléviseurs et autres lignes à haute tension sont des outils au potentiel dangereux, en raison des ondes électromagnétiques.

Cette compilation de 1 800 études internationales réalisées par vingt-neuf chercheurs de dix pays décrit les conséquences très variées d'une trop forte exposition aux radiations, notamment pour les femmes enceintes et les jeunes enfants.

Le rapport BioInitiative conclut que «les ondes devraient être classées comme cancérigènes pour les humains».

Le Centre de recherche international sur le cancer (CIRC) de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) était arrivé à une conclusion similaire en 2011.

Dans ses recommandations finales, BioInitiative 2012 préconise une baisse rapide des normes d'exposition actuelles et l'instauration de campagnes de sensibilisation pour les populations les plus fragiles, comme les femmes enceintes, les nourrissons et les enfants. La multiplication des gadgets sans fil et l'exposition journalière, même à de faibles quantités de radiations, restent dangereuses pour la santé publique.

Face à ce constat, je ne peux que m'étonner que les limites d'exposition aux champs électromagnétiques n'aient pas été modifiées dans l'Union européenne depuis 1999.

La Commission peut-elle indiquer si elle envisage, à court terme, de réviser la législation sur l'exposition aux champs électromagnétiques afin de mieux prendre en compte les dangers de la multiplication des gadgets sans fil?

Si oui, peut-elle préciser quel est le calendrier législatif envisagé?

Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission

(20 février 2013)

La Commission demande périodiquement une actualisation des preuves scientifiques disponibles et vérifie que ces preuves confirment toujours les limites d'exposition proposées dans la recommandation du Conseil relative à la limitation de l'exposition du public aux champs électromagnétiques (1999/519/CE) (95).

Le comité scientifique des risques sanitaires émergents et nouveaux (CSRSEN), comité indépendant qui travaille pour la Commission européenne, dispose d'un mandat permanent pour évaluer les risques des champs électromagnétiques, y compris ceux qui émanent des téléphones mobiles. Conformément à ses dernières conclusions (2009) (96), trois séries de preuves indépendantes (études épidémiologiques, in vivo et in vitro) montrent qu'il est peu probable que l'exposition aux radiations des téléphones mobiles entraîne une augmentation de l'incidence du cancer chez les êtres humains.

Une actualisation par le CSRSEN est en cours et devrait être prête pour une consultation publique d'ici à la fin de juin 2013. Dans le cadre de ses travaux, le CSRSEN se fonde sur toutes les preuves scientifiques disponibles. Le rapport BioInitiative a été soigneusement évalué par le CSRSEN avec de nombreux autres rapports et études.

Il sera évalué s'il convient de modifier la recommandation actuelle à la lumière des preuves scientifiques fournies dans le prochain avis du CSRSEN.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000423/13

to the Commission

Gilles Pargneaux (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Revision of electromagnetic field exposure limits

According to the BioInitiative 2012 report, mobile phones, wireless Internet networks, laptop computers, televisions and other power lines are potentially dangerous tools, due to the presence of electromagnetic waves.

This assortment of 1 800 international studies carried out by 29 researchers from 10 countries describes the very diverse consequences of overexposure to radiation, in particular for pregnant women and young children.

The BioInitiative report concludes that ‘waves should be classified as a human carcinogen’.

The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) came to a similar conclusion in 2011.

In its final recommendations, BioInitiative 2012 advocates a swift lowering of exposure standards and the introduction of awareness campaigns for the most vulnerable citizens, such as pregnant women, infants and children. The increase in the number of wireless devices and daily exposure, even to small amounts of radiation, remain a danger for public health.

In view of this, it is surprising that electromagnetic field exposure limits have not been modified in the European Union since 1999.

Can the Commission say whether it intends, in the short term, to revise the legislation on electromagnetic field exposure limits in order to better reflect the dangers presented by the proliferation of wireless devices?

If so, can it specify the legislative timetable envisaged?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2013)

The Commission requests periodically an update of the scientific evidence available and checks whether this still supports the exposure limits as proposed in the Council Recommendation on electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure limits (1999/519/EC) (97).

The independent Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) serving the European Commission has a standing mandate to evaluate the risks from EMF, including those emanating from mobile phones. According to its latest conclusion (2009) (98), three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, in vivo and in vitro studies) show that exposure to mobile phones radiation is unlikely to lead to an increase of cancer incidence in humans.

An update by SCENIHR is ongoing and scheduled to be ready for public consultation by the end of June 2013. In its work, SCENIHR relies on all available scientific evidence. The BioInitiative report was also carefully evaluated by the Committee together with numerous other reports and studies.

Any need to modify the current Recommendation will be evaluated in the light of scientific evidence provided by the forthcoming opinion of SCENIHR.

(Svensk version)

Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-000424/13

till kommissionen

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(16 januari 2013)

Angående: Innebörden av ”närstående rättigheter” del 3

I sitt svar på den tidigare skriftliga frågan E-009977/2012 skriver kommissionen att ”[f]örklaringarna avseende stadgan om de grundläggande rättigheterna [inte härrör] från kommissionen” och att de ”därför inte [kan] ta på sig något ansvar för tolkningen av dessa”. Vidare anmärker kommissionen att ”förklaringarna inte i sig har rättslig status, [men att de trots allt] utgör de ett värdefullt tolkningsverktyg avsett att klargöra stadgans bestämmelser”.

I den skriftliga frågan E-005787/2012 ställde jag till rådet frågan om hur man ska utläsa innebörden av ”närstående rättigheter”. Rådet svarade att det ”inte [är] upphovsman till den förklaring till artikel 17.2 i stadgan som den ärade parlamentsledamoten hänvisar till” och att ”[t]olkning av stadgan ligger inte inom rådets behörighetsområde”.

Även om det är uppenbart att det i slutändan kommer vara domstolen som avgör omfattningen av artikel 17.2, synes inte domstolen vara rätt institution i unionen att belastas med politiskt ansvar av den arten. Vem menar kommissionen bär det politiska ansvaret för formuleringarna i artikel 17.2 och det dokument som ska underlätta artikelns tolkning?

Svar från José Manuel Barroso på kommissionens vägnar

(5 mars 2013)

Kommissionen hänvisar parlamentsledamoten till svaret på skriftlig fråga E-009977/2012. (99)

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000424/13

to the Commission

Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: The meaning of ‘associated rights’ — Part 3

In its answer to my previous Written Question E-009977/2012, the Commission writes that ‘the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights do not emanate from the Commission’ and that it ‘therefore cannot claim authority for their interpretation’. The Commission also notes that ‘[the explanations] do not as such have the status of law, [however,] they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the Charter’.

In Written Question E-005787/2012, I asked the Council what it means by ‘associated rights’. The Council answered that ‘[it] is … not the author of the explanation of Article 17(2) of the Charter to which the Honourable Member refers’ and that ‘interpreting the Charter is not within the remit of the Council’.

Obviously it will ultimately be the Court of Justice which decides on the scope of Article 17(2). However, the Court does not seem to be the right EU institution to be burdened with this kind of political responsibility. Whom does the Commission think should take political responsibility for the wording of Article 17(2) and for the document intended to make the article easier to interpret?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2013)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-009977/2012 (100).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000425/13

a la Comisión

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Importaciones de paneles solares procedentes de China

El 6 de septiembre de 2012 la Comisión Europea inició una investigación antidumping sobre las importaciones de paneles solares procedentes de China, después de una denuncia de la industria europea. Dos meses después se inició otra investigación sobre ayudas públicas. Según anunció la Comisión en el Pleno del Parlamento Europeo, las importaciones de paneles solares procedentes de China se han incrementado de manera notable, superando los 20 000 millones de euros.

El hecho de que los Estados Unidos hayan impuesto ya aranceles a las importaciones de China puede hacer que el volumen dirigido a la Unión Europea sea todavía mayor. La industria europea se vería así claramente perjudicada, aunque las medidas adoptadas por los Estados Unidos están muy probablemente bien fundamentadas.

1.

¿Tiene más datos la Comisión sobre las cantidades de paneles importados, sus diferentes procedencias y los fabricados en la Unión Europea?

2.

¿Qué porcentaje aproximado de los paneles instalados en la Unión Europea son fabricados en terceros países?

3.

¿En qué plazo prevé la Comisión tener resultados sobre las investigaciones iniciadas?

4.

¿Qué medidas podrían adoptarse si se acredita que los paneles solares fabricados en China reciben ayudas públicas o se venden por debajo del coste?

Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión

(12 de marzo de 2013)

De acuerdo con la información de que dispone en estos momentos la Comisión, aproximadamente un 80 % de los paneles solares instalados en la EU en 2011 proviene de China y entre el 5 % y el 6 %, de terceros países. La Comisión dispondrá de más detalles una vez hayan concluido las investigaciones.

La Comisión se reserva el derecho de adoptar medidas provisionales tras haberlo consultado con los Estados Miembros en un plazo de nueve meses desde el comienzo de las investigaciones. De estimarse necesarias, las medidas provisionales antidumping y las medidas antisubsidio habrían de adoptarse no más tarde del 5 de junio de 2013 y del 5 de agosto de 2013 respectivamente. La Comisión prevé contar con los resultados definitivos de ambas investigaciones a principios de diciembre de 2013.

Si de las investigaciones se desprende que se cumplen las condiciones para imponer estas medidas, y que estas no son claramente contrarias a los intereses de la Unión Europea, el Consejo se reserva el derecho de adoptar medidas antidumping y/o antisubsidio siguiendo una propuesta de la Comisión a fin de contrarrestar los efectos negativos de tales prácticas. Dichas medidas suelen imponerse para un período de cinco años.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000425/13

to the Commission

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Imports of solar panels from China

On 6 September 2012, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of solar panels from China following a complaint from European industry. Two months later another investigation was initiated into state aid. As announced by the Commission in the Plenary Sitting of the European Parliament, imports of solar panels from China have increased significantly, exceeding EUR 20 billion.

The fact that the United States has now imposed tariffs on imports from China may lead to the volume heading to the European Union to become even greater. European industry will clearly suffer in consequence, although the measures taken by the United States are probably well-founded.

1.

Does the Commission have details about the quantities of imported panels and their different sources, and about those manufactured in the European Union?

2.

Approximately what percentage of panels installed in the European Union are manufactured in non-member countries?

3.

When does the Commission expect to have the results of the investigations initiated?

4.

What measures might be taken if it is established that solar panels manufactured in China receive state aid or are sold below cost?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2013)

According to the information currently available to the Commission, around 80% of panels installed in the EU in 2011 were from China and around 5-6% from other non-EU countries. More precise and detailed data will be available once investigations are completed.

The Commission may decide within nine months of initiation to impose provisional measures after consultation with Member States. Provisional measures, if any, could be imposed by 5 June 2013 for the anti-dumping case and by 5 August 2013 for the anti-subsidy case. The definitive findings for both proceedings are due in early December 2013.

If the investigations conclude that the conditions for imposition of measures are met including a finding that measures are not clearly against Union interest, the Council may impose, based on a proposal from the Commission, anti-dumping and/or anti-subsidy measures to remove effects of injurious dumping and subsidisation. Measures are usually imposed for five years.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000426/13

a la Comisión

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Medidas estructurales para la reforma del régimen de derechos de emisión

La Comisión publicó en noviembre de 2012 un informe sobre el estado del mercado europeo del carbono en 2012 (101). En él se dan una serie de opciones para emprender cambios de gran calado en el régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión de la UE.

Las tres primeras opciones implican una subida —explícita o implícita— del objetivo de reducción para 2020, que actualmente es del 20 %. Las tres últimas tienen diferentes ventajas e inconvenientes derivados de intervenir en un mercado que debe funcionar con las mínimas interferencias posibles.

1.

¿Estaría dispuesta la Comisión a proponer un objetivo mayor de reducción de emisiones en 2020 —mediante cualquiera de las tres primeras opciones— sin el acuerdo previo del Parlamento y el Consejo?

2.

En caso de optarse por la inclusión de nuevos sectores en el régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión, ¿qué sectores está considerando la Comisión? ¿Sería necesario modificar la Decisión n° 406/2009/CE, sobre el reparto del esfuerzo?

3.

Puesto que el problema que subyace es la abundancia de derechos de emisión en el mercado, y su bajo precio, debido a la crisis económica, ¿ha previsto la Comisión medidas de estímulo para los diferentes sectores industriales?

Respuesta de la Sra. Hedegaard en nombre de la Comisión

(8 de marzo de 2013)

El régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión de la Unión Europea necesita medidas estructurales que puedan ofrecer una solución duradera a su consolidación. El Parlamento Europeo así lo ha reconocido al solicitar a la Comisión, en el contexto de las negociaciones sobre la Directiva relativa a la eficiencia energética, (102) que examine en el informe sobre el estado del mercado europeo del carbono opciones de actuación con vistas a adoptar lo antes posible las medidas adecuadas durante la fase 3 (103). Como opción, el Parlamento Europeo ha subrayado la retirada permanente de los derechos, lo que implica un aumento del objetivo. Si la Comisión propone algunas medidas, incluido un objetivo mayor, se examinarán a la luz del debate, en el que también se espera tomen parte el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo, y tras efectuar una consulta pública y una evaluación de impacto.

En caso de que, tras la consulta pública, se opte por ampliar el ámbito de aplicación, la cuestión de qué sector o sectores se incluirían sería objeto de una evaluación de impacto. En caso de que esta opción también exija modificar los objetivos previstos en la Decisión sobre el esfuerzo compartido (104), dicha circunstancia debería examinarse.

La Comisión es plenamente consciente de la situación de muchos sectores de elevado consumo de energía y, por supuesto, de la situación de la economía europea y de su industria en general. En la actualización de la Comunicación del pasado año, «Una contribución al crecimiento y a la recuperación económica» (105) se identifican cuatro ámbitos principales que se reforzarán en el futuro: inversión en nuevas tecnologías e innovación; acceso a los mercados; acceso a la financiación y a los mercados de capitales y capital humano. En su Comunicación «Hacia una recuperación generadora de empleo» (106), la Comisión propuso, además, explotar el potencial de creación de empleo, por ejemplo, en la eficiencia energética y en los sectores de las energías renovables, que, por sí solos, podrían crear cinco millones de puestos de trabajo de aquí a 2020.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000426/13

to the Commission

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Structural measures for reforming the Emissions Trading System

In November 2012 the Commission published a report on the state of the European carbon market in 2012 (107). The report outlines a number of options for making major changes to the EU Emissions Trading System.

The first three options involve an explicit or implicit increase in the reduction target for 2020, which is currently 20 %. The final three options have various advantages and disadvantages which stem from participating in a market that must operate with minimum possible interference.

1.

Would the Commission be willing to propose an increased emissions reduction target in 2020, via any of the first three options, without the prior consent of Parliament and of the Council?

2.

Should it choose to include new sectors in the Emissions Trading System, which sectors is it considering? Would it therefore be necessary to amend Decision No 406/2009/EC on the distribution of effort?

3.

Since the underlying problem is the abundance of emission allowances on the market, and their low price, due to the economic crisis, has it planned stimulus measures for the different industries?

Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2013)

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) needs structural measures that can provide a lasting solution to strengthen it. The European Parliament has recognised this in asking the Commission in the context of the negotiations on the Energy Efficiency Directive (108) to examine in the report on the state of the European carbon market options for action with a view to adopting as soon as possible appropriate measures during phase 3 (109). As an option, the European Parliament has outlined permanent withholding of allowances, which implies an increase in the target. If the Commission will propose any measures, including an increased target, it will be in the light of the debate, in which also the European Parliament and the Council are expected to take part, and after a public consultation and an impact assessment.

Should it, in the light of the public consultation, be chosen to extend the scope, the question of which sector(s) would be included would be subject to an impact assessment. Whether this option would also require amendments to the targets under the Effort-Sharing Decision (110) would need to be examined.

The Commission is certainly aware of the situation of many energy intensive sectors and of course of the situation of the European economy and its industry at large. In last year's communication update, ‘A Contribution to Growth and Economic Recovery’ (111) it identified four main policy areas which will be further strengthened: investment in new technologies and innovation; access to markets; access to finance and capital markets and the human capital. In its communication ‘Towards a Job Rich Recovery’ (112) it further proposed to exploit the job creation potential e.g. in the energy efficiency and renewable energy sectors which alone could create 5 million jobs by 2020.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000427/13

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Spanish tobacco limits for residents of Campo de Gibraltar

Directive 2007/74/EC lays down quantitative limits for alcohol and tobacco products exempt from VAT and excise duty.

On 1 January 2013 the Spanish authorities implemented further restrictions on imports of cigarettes across the La Línea de la Concepción border with Gibraltar. Under the new rules, people living within a radius of 15 kilometres of the border (that is, residents of Campo de Gibraltar in southern Spain) will only be allowed to bring 80 cigarettes per month across the border, instead of 200 cigarettes.

Citizens who reside in all other parts of Spain will continue to be allowed to cross the border with 200 cigarettes. The Campo de Gibraltar area contains a sizable British community.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this new restriction?

2.

Whilst Article 8(2) of the directive allows Member States to implement lower quantitative limits on tobacco products for non-airline travellers, does the Commission consider such a limited geographical restriction, confined to residents of Campo de Gibraltar, to be:

in line with the directive, which refers to restrictions applied to Member States as a whole?

discriminatory against residents of Campo de Gibraltar?

indirectly discriminatory against the sizable minority of non-Spanish EU citizens and cross-border workers in the area?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

According to Recital (10) and Articles 3(5), 8 and 13 of Council Directive 2007/74/EC:

Member States shall exempt from VAT and excise duty imports of cigarettes subject either to the higher limit of 200 units or to the lower limit of 40 units.

However, Member States may lower those limits in the case of ‘persons resident in a frontier zone’ and ‘frontier-zone workers’, to take account of the special situation of those persons. To this effect, ‘frontier zone’ is a zone which, as the crow flies, does not extend more than 15 kilometres from the frontier of a Member State and which includes the local administrative districts part of the territory of which lies within the zone .

The lower limit in (ii) cannot apply where the person affected produces evidence to show that he is going beyond the frontier zone of the Member State or that he is not returning from the frontier zone of the neighbouring third country .

The Spanish Excise Duty Law applies the limit of 200 cigarettes. However, the Budget Law for 2013 provides that, as of 1-1-2013, this limit will be restricted to 80 cigarettes for residents in the frontier zone of Gibraltar and frontier-zone workers. ‘Frontier zone of Gibraltar’ means the zone within the Spanish territory which extends 15 kilometres from the frontier with Gibraltar. A limit of 200 cigarettes applies in the situations in (iii) above.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Budget Law states that this measure aims at tackling the abuse of law detected specifically in this frontier zone. It underlines that the 80-cigarette limit established should be enough to cover the daily consumption of these goods. The Commission is of the view that these measures are in line with Directive 2007/74/EC.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000428/13

do Komisji

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(16 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Aktywistka „Europejskiej Białorusi” napadnięta w Mińsku

W nocy na 14 stycznia 2013 r. w Mińsku została napadnięta działaczka opozycyjnego ruchu „Europejska Białoruś” Julia Ściapanawa. Nieznani sprawcy pobili ją i rzucili w śnieg, jeden z napastników trzymał ją za ręce, a drugi obciął jej włosy. Sprawcy obrzucali ją przy tym inwektywami, grozili jej i żądali, by zaprzestała swej działalności na rzecz więźniów politycznych. Ściapanawa zajmuje się m.in. zbiórką darów dla więźniów politycznych w sieciach społecznościowych.

Aktywistka już wcześniej skarżyła się na to, że prześladują ją nieznani ludzie, dostawała anonimowe groźby, a na jej konto na Facebooku niejednokrotnie się włamywano.

Projekt Partnerstwa Wschodniego nakłada na Unię Europejską obowiązek monitorowania przestrzegania praw człowieka na Białorusi.

W związku z tym pragnę zapytać Komisję, czy ma zamiar podjąć interwencję w sprawie napaści na aktywistkę „Europejskiej Białorusi” i przedsięwziąć kroki, by zatrzymać falę represji i aktów tłamszenia działaczy społecznych, przedstawicieli organizacji pozarządowych i opozycji na Białorusi? Jakie kroki w tej sprawie podejmie Przedstawicielstwo UE na Białorusi?

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

(7 marca 2013 r.)

UE wie o przypadku napaści na działaczkę społeczną Julię Ściapanawą, która pomaga innym ofiarom represji. Zajście to było przedmiotem licznych doniesień.

UE uważnie śledzi rozwój sytuacji w zakresie praw człowieka na Białorusi. Przypadki represji i prześladowań są przedmiotem regularnych dyskusji dyplomatów UE i państw członkowskich w Mińsku oraz szefów unijnych misji.

W związku z tym UE nieustannie podnosi kwestię represji na spotkaniach z władzami białoruskimi w Mińsku, Brukseli i stolicach państw członkowskich.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000428/13

to the Commission

Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: ‘European Belarus’ activist attacked in Minsk

On the night of 14 January 2013, Yuliya Stsyapanava, an activist with the opposition ‘European Belarus’ movement, was attacked in Minsk. The unidentified attackers beat her and threw her into the snow, where one of them held her by her arms while another cut off her hair. At the same time, the attackers insulted and threatened her, demanding that she cease her activities on behalf of political prisoners. Stsyapanava’s activities include the collection of donations for political prisoners via social networks.

The activist had previously complained that she was being persecuted by unidentified persons; she had received anonymous threats, and her Facebook page had been hacked on numerous occasions.

The Eastern Partnership project obliges the EU to monitor respect for human rights in Belarus.

In this connection, does the Commission intend to intervene with regard to the attack on the ‘European Belarus’ activist and take steps to end the wave of repression and the constant attacks on social activists, representatives of NGOs and opposition activists in Belarus?

What steps will the EU Representation in Belarus take in this matter?

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

(7 March 2013)

The EU is aware of this act of harassment of civic society activist Yuliya Stsyapanava, who was assisting other victims of repression. The incident was widely reported.

The EU is closely monitoring the Human Rights situation in Belarus on the ground. Cases of repression and harassment are regularly discussed by EU and Member States diplomats in Minsk and by EU Heads of Missions.

In this context, the EU is consistently raising the issue of repressions in meetings with Belarusian authorities in Minsk, Brussels and in Member States capitals.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000429/13

a la Comisión

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D) y Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Prospecciones petrolíferas en el Canal Canario

Los diputados que formulan la presente pregunta están al tanto de que la autorización de catas de hidrocarburos, y posible explotación en el futuro, en el Canal Canario, situado entre las Islas Canarias orientales y África, es plenamente efectiva y que, por tanto, podrían iniciarse en cualquier momento, lo que pondría en peligro numerosos hábitats y especies protegidas recogidas en la legislación nacional, europea e internacional en materia de conservación del medio ambiente.

Entre las áreas elegidas para las exploraciones podrían encontrarse arrecifes y formaciones geológicas generadas por emisiones de gases que podrían vulnerar la Directiva 92/43/CEE. Asimismo, entre las zonas potencialmente afectadas se encuentran doce zonas de especial conservación (ZEC) y una reserva marina, pero su impacto podría extenderse a otras once ZEC y a un área marina designada para su protección, que cuenta con financiación de la Comisión Europea a través del proyecto LIFE para su estudio e inclusión en la Red Natura 2000.

En este contexto, ¿podría facilitar la Comisión las conclusiones de la investigación realizada por EU Pilot al respecto, tal y como señaló en su respuesta del 5 de julio de 2012?

Asimismo, ¿podría facilitar la Comisión la evaluación inicial del medio marino y el análisis de un buen estado medioambiental, así como los objetivos en materia de medioambiente, que el Gobierno español ha tenido que haberle enviado ya (el plazo finalizó el pasado 15 de octubre)?

Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión

(11 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión ha examinado la información recabada en la investigación EU PILOT 3279/12. Las autoridades españolas han otorgado una concesión administrativa para la prospección de petróleo, es decir, para realizar un sondeo exploratorio, en aguas de las islas Canarias. Ese tipo de proyecto no requiere una evaluación de impacto ambiental (EIA) con arreglo a la Directiva 2011/92/UE (113). No obstante, si el sondeo exploratorio conduce a una solicitud de autorización de un proyecto de producción de petróleo, las autoridades competentes tendrán que realizar una EIA antes de conceder tal autorización. Esa EIA debería identificar, describir y evaluar los efectos del proyecto en el medio ambiente y, en particular, los recursos naturales protegidos por la Directiva 92/43/CEE (114). Como parte de esa EIA, debería abrirse un procedimiento de consulta pública para que cualquier persona interesada pueda presentar todos los elementos y documentos que obren en su poder que demuestren que el futuro proyecto podría tener un impacto ambiental negativo. Las autoridades españolas han confirmado que, en relación con ese proyecto, van a tenerse debidamente en cuenta las disposiciones pertinentes del Derecho de la UE. Por consiguiente, la Comisión no tiene motivos para intervenir en este momento.

España ha presentado la evaluación inicial prevista en la Directiva Marco sobre la Estrategia Marina (artículo 8) (115). En la actualidad, la Comisión está examinando el informe y comprobando si los elementos notificados cumplen los requisitos de la Directiva y constituyen un marco adecuado para conseguir un buen estado medioambiental de aquí a 2020.

En el marco del expediente EU PILOT 3880, la Comisión sigue investigando supuestas infracciones de la Directiva 94/22/CE en relación con los permisos de las islas Canarias, e informará a su debido tiempo de su decisión a los denunciantes.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000429/13

to the Commission

Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D) and Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Prospecting for oil off the Canary Islands

It has come to our attention that a decision has been made approving plans for exploratory drilling, and potential future oil production, in the stretch of water between the eastern Canary Islands and the African continent. Drilling could begin at any time and could pose a threat to many habitats and protected species listed in national, European and international environmental conservation law.

The marine areas earmarked for oil prospecting may contain reefs and geological formations which are created by the gases which bubble up from the ocean floor. Drilling in these areas could lead to breaches of Directive 92/43/EEC. The marine areas in question would include 12 special areas of conservation (SACs) and a marine reserve, as well as a further 11 SACs and a protected marine area, for which the Commission has set aside funding under the LIFE project so that it can be studied and declared part of the Natura 2000 network.

Can the Commission say what conclusions have been reached in the EU PILOT investigation into the matter, as referred to in its answer of 5 July 2012?

Can it make available the findings of the initial impact assessment concerning the marine environment in question and the good environmental status report, along with the relevant environmental objectives, which the Spanish Government should have submitted by now (the deadline having expired on 15 October 2012)?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

The Commission has assessed the information resulting from the EU PILOT 3279/12 investigation. The Spanish authorities have granted an administrative concession for oil prospecting, i.e. exploratory drilling, in the waters off the Canary Islands. This type of project does not call for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) under the terms of Directive 2011/92/EU (116). By contrast, should the exploratory drilling result in a project request for oil production, the competent authorities will have to conduct an EIA before consent can be granted. This EIA shall identify, describe and assess the effects of the project on the environment and, in particular, on the natural assets protected by Directive 92/43/EC (117). The EIA should include a public consultation procedure whereby any person concerned may submit all the elements and documents in his/her possession that would point to the possible negative effects of the future project on the environment. The Spanish authorities have confirmed that the relevant provisions of EC law will be duly taken into account in relation to this project. Consequently, the Commission has no ground to intervene at this stage.

Spain has submitted its initial assessment in accordance with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (art. 8) (118). The Commission is now in the process of assessing the report and verifying whether the elements notified comply with the directive and constitute an appropriate framework to meet good environmental status by 2020.

Under the EU PILOT 3880/12, the Commission continues to investigate into alleged breaches of Directive 94/22/EC regarding the Canary Islands permits and will inform the complainants of its decision in due time.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-000430/13

an die Kommission

Sabine Verheyen (PPE)

(16. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Vorbereitung der Leitlinien der Kommission zum offenen Internet und seinen Auswirkungen auf Medienvielfalt und Demokratie

Das Internet ist angesichts der Tatsache, dass 91 % der Internet‐Nutzer in Europa (388,5 Millionen Menschen) online Nachrichten lesen (119), zu einem wichtigen Kommunikationsmedium geworden. Diese Nachrichten entstammen professionellen Nachrichtenportalen (z. B. der Website einer Zeitung oder einer Sendeanstalt) oder Kommentaren und Links, die in Diskussionsforen, soziale Netzwerke oder auf Video‐Websites eingestellt werden.

Einer Studie des Gremiums Europäischer Regulierungsstellen für elektronische Kommunikation (GEREK) zufolge ist das stark marktorientierte Datenverkehrsmanagement einiger Internetdienstanbieter möglicherweise problematisch, da durch das Blockieren und Drosseln der Übertragungsgeschwindigkeit von Inhalten anderer Online‐Dienste ein kommerzieller Vorteil für ihre eigenen Dienstleistungen bewirkt werden könnte.

1.

Teilt die Kommission die Auffassung, dass der Zugang der EU‐Bürger zu Nachrichten gefährdet ist, wenn Internetdienstanbieter Inhalte blockieren oder deren Übertragungsgeschwindigkeit drosseln?

2.

Teilt die Kommission meine Auffassung, dass im Rahmen ihrer Bewertung der Definition eines

„angemessenen“ bzw. „nicht angemessenen“ Datenverkehrsmanagements auch der Zugang zu Medien und Nachrichten bewertet werden sollte, und wird die Kommission in ihre Leitlinien, die 2013 veröffentlich werden sollen, Leitlinien zu „angemessenem“ bzw. „nicht angemessenem“ Datenverkehrsmanagement aufnehmen?

Antwort von Frau Kroes im Namen der Kommission

(12. Februar 2013)

Die Kommission setzt sich für den Erhalt der Offenheit und Neutralität des Internets ein und ist überzeugt, dass die EU im Interesse der Regulierungssicherheit für Bürger, Betreiber und alle anderen Beteiligten in Fragen der Netzneutralität eine gemeinsame Linie vertreten sollte. Die Untersuchungen des GEREK („Gremium europäischer Regulierungsstellen für elektronische Kommunikation“) zum Datenverkehrsmanagement und die öffentliche Konsultation der Kommission zu „spezifischen Aspekten der Transparenz, des Datenverkehrsmanagements und des Anbieterwechsels in einem offenen Internet“ haben Anhaltspunkte für die Definition und Behandlung der einschlägigen Fragen ergeben. Auf der Grundlage der bestehenden Rechtsvorschriften über elektronische Kommunikationsdienste verfügen die nationalen Regulierungsbehörden über alle erforderlichen Durchführungsbefugnisse. Die Kommission erarbeitet derzeit Empfehlungen, die eine gemeinsame europäische Herangehensweise an Fragen der Netzneutralität unterstützen sollen. Sie sollen die Endnutzer in die Lage versetzen, Entscheidungen in voller Sachkenntnis zu treffen, und Leitlinien zur Transparenz, zum Anbieterwechsel und zum verantwortlichen Einsatz von Instrumenten des Datenverkehrsmanagements enthalten. Insbesondere möchte die Kommission erreichen, dass alle Internetanbieter ihren Kunden ein umfassendes Best-Effort-Internetzugangsprodukt anbieten.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000430/13

to the Commission

Sabine Verheyen (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Preparation of Commission guidance on the Open Internet and its impact on media plurality and democracy

The Internet has become an important medium of communication given that 91 % of Internet users in Europe read news online (388.5 million people) (120). This news may come from professional news outlets (e.g. a newspaper or broadcaster’s site) or from comments and links posted on discussion forums, social networks or video sites.

A study by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) points out that the strongly market-oriented traffic management of some Internet service providers (ISPs) is potentially problematic, since blocking or slowing down content from online services may be to the commercial advantage of their own services:

Does the Commission agree that blocking and throttling by ISPs puts European citizens’ access to news at risk?

Does the Commission share my view that access to media and news must form part of the Commission’s assessment of what constitutes ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable’ traffic management and will the Commission offer guidelines as to what is ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable’ in its guidance scheduled for publication in 2013?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2013)

The Commission is committed to maintaining the open and neutral character of the Internet and is convinced that a common EU approach on net neutrality issues is necessary to provide regulatory certainty for citizens, operators and all other stakeholders. The traffic management investigation undertaken by BEREC (the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications) and the Commission's public consultation ‘on specific aspects of transparency, traffic management and switching in an Open Internet’ have provided evidence to define and address the issues at stake. NRA's have all the necessary powers of implementation under the existing legislation on electronic communication services. The Commission is currently working on recommendations which will foster a common European approach to net neutrality. It will aim at empowering end-users to make informed choices and will include guidance on transparency, switching and the responsible use of traffic management tools. In particular, the Commission envisages that every ISP should offer a full, best efforts Internet access product to its clients.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-000431/13

a la Comisión

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Ayudas de Estado al mercado europeo de CO2

La prensa española (El País, 16 de enero de 2013) informa de que la Comisión Europea ha autorizado ayudas de Estado para la industria pesada en riesgo de deslocalización por el alto precio de la electricidad derivado del coste del dióxido de carbono. Algún país, concretamente Alemania, ya ha anunciado que concederá tales ayudas, lo que difícilmente pueden hacer otros países —notoriamente los del Sur de Europa— al no gozar de una situación presupuestaria saneada.

¿Podría informarme la Comisión de si es cierta esta información que incide de lleno en la sesión de voto que se desarrollará el próximo día 24 de enero de 2013 en la Comisión de Investigación, Industria y Energía del Parlamento Europeo?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(18 de febrero de 2013)

De conformidad con el artículo 10 bis, apartado 6, de la Directiva 2003/87/CE (121), modificada por la Directiva 2009/29/CE (122) (en lo sucesivo, «la Directiva RCDE»), los Estados miembros pueden adoptar medidas financieras en favor de sectores o subsectores que se consideren expuestos a un riesgo significativo de fugas de carbono debido a los costes relacionados con las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero repercutidos en los precios de la electricidad, a fin de compensar dichos costes de conformidad con las normas sobre ayudas estatales.

Los Estados miembros tienen libertad para decidir sobre la concesión o no de una ayuda estatal en favor de sectores o subsectores que se consideren expuestos a un riesgo significativo de fugas de carbono. No obstante, esa ayuda estatal puede generar falseamientos significativos de la competencia en el mercado interior, en particular cuando empresas del mismo sector reciben un trato diferente en los distintos Estados miembros, debido a las diferentes limitaciones presupuestarias. Por esa razón, la Comisión adoptó en 2012 las Directrices relativas a determinadas medidas de ayuda estatal (123), en las que se establecen las condiciones en las que los Estados miembros pueden compensar una parte del aumento de los costes de la electricidad a que tienen que hacer frente las empresas más eficientes de cada sector como resultado de la aplicación de la Directiva RCDE, con efecto a partir del 1 de enero de 2013. Al mismo tiempo que garantizan la transparencia y la seguridad jurídica, las Directrices tratan tres objetivos específicos: la minimización del riesgo de fuga de carbono, la conservación del objetivo del RCDE de la UE de lograr una descarbonificación rentable y la minimización de los falseamientos de la competencia en el mercado interior.

Como se subrayó en la Hoja de ruta hacia una economía hipocarbónica competitiva en 2050, la Comisión seguirá supervisando el impacto del RCDE UE en la competitividad de las industrias de gran consumo de energía. Además, la Comisión supervisará periódicamente las subvenciones concedidas por los Estados miembros, y podría revisar las Directrices del RCDE después de los primeros años de aplicación.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000431/13

to the Commission

Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: State Aid to the European CO2 market

The Spanish press (El País, 16 January 2013) reports that the European Commission has approved state aid for heavy industry at risk of relocation due to the high price of electricity that results from the cost of carbon dioxide. Some countries, such as Germany, have already announced that they will grant this type of aid, while other countries — notably those in Southern Europe — are not in a position to so, as they do not have a sound budgetary situation.

Can Commission inform me as to the truth of this information, which has great bearing on the voting session on 24 January 2013 in the European Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

Under Article 10a(6) of Directive 2003/87/EC (124), as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC (125) (hereafter the ‘ETS Directive’), Member States may grant state aid in favour of sectors or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage due to costs relating to greenhouse gas emissions passed on in electricity prices, in order to compensate for those costs in accordance with state aid rules.

The Member States are free to decide whether or not to grant any state aid in favour of sectors or subsectors deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage. However, such state aid may result in significant distortions of competition in the internal market, in particular whenever undertakings in the same sector are treated differently in different Member States due to different budgetary constraints. Therefore, the Commission adopted in 2012 State aid Guidelines (126) which set the conditions under which Member States may compensate part of the increased electricity costs faced by the most efficient companies in each sector as a result of implementation of the ETS Directive incurred as of 1 January 2013. The Guidelines, while ensuring transparency and legal certainty, address three specific objectives: minimising the risk of carbon leakage, preserving the EU ETS objective to achieve cost-efficient decarbonisation and minimising competition distortions in the internal market.

As was underlined in the 2050 Low carbon Roadmap, the Commission will continue to monitor the impact of the EU ETS on the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. Moreover, the Commission will regularly monitor the subsidies granted by Member States and may review the ETS Guidelines after the first years of application.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-000432/13

alla Commissione

Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)

(16 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Imposta su prodotti e attività finanziarie in ambito UE — Incompatibilità della legge italiana 214/2011 con l'ordinamento comunitario

La legge italiana n. 214 del 22.12.2011 ha istituito un'imposta di bollo sulle «attività finanziarie» facenti capo a cittadini italiani al di fuori del territorio nazionale e dunque anche sulle attività finanziarie localizzate in ambito UE. Tale imposta rileva allo 0,10 % per l'anno 2012 e, retroattivamente, per l'anno 2011 ed allo 0,15 % per l'anno 2013. La normativa in questione ha applicato la medesima percentuale impositiva limitatamente ai «prodotti finanziari» facenti capo a cittadini italiani sul territorio nazionale.

Tale normativa stabilisce, di fatto, un criterio impositivo più estensivo, iniquo ed evidentemente in contrasto con l'esercizio della libera circolazione dei capitali in ambito UE. Infatti, l'investimento in «attività finanziarie» in altri paesi UE risulta, per quanto sopra esposto, più svantaggioso rispetto all'investimento in «prodotti finanziari» in territorio nazionale. A diverso titolo le «attività finanziarie» condotte negli altri Stati membri subiscono già gli effetti delle diverse imposizioni previste dalle differenti normative nazionali, per cui l'ulteriore previsione impositiva applicata dalla L. 214/2011 renderebbe più svantaggioso l'investimento in altri paesi UE.

Ritiene la Commissione che il criterio impositivo previsto dalla L. 214/2011 sulle attività finanziarie estere sia contrario ai principi comunitari ed all'articolo 63 TFUE?

Risposta di Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione

(21 febbraio 2013)

La Commissione informa l’onorevole deputato di aver già avviato la verifica della compatibilità con il diritto dell’UE delle due imposte italiane cui l’interrogazione si riferisce, vale a dire l’imposta sul valore degli immobili situati all’estero (IVIE) e l’imposta sul valore delle attività finanziarie detenute all’estero da persone residenti in Italia (IVAFE).

La Commissione ha sollevato dubbi su tale compatibilità, con particolare riguardo all’articolo 63 del TFUE, nel quadro del procedimento amministrativo EU‐Pilot/3506/12/TAXUD. In risposta le autorità italiane hanno modificato la normativa in materia, abolendo segnatamente la retroattività delle imposte (127).

Raffrontando l’IVAFE all’imposta corrispondente (imposta di bollo) applicata in Italia alla comunicazione d’informazioni sui prodotti finanziari fra intermediario e investitore/residente, si riscontra che ambedue applicano la stessa base imponibile, le stesse aliquote e le stesse esenzioni. Dalla prassi amministrativa corrente (128) emerge che l’ambito d’applicazione non è identico: l’IVAFE riguarda anche le partecipazioni e i finanziamenti delle persone fisiche (residenti) in società straniere, mentre l’imposta di bollo si applica anche alle società.

Per evitare una doppia imposizione, l’articolo 19 del D.L. 201/2011 permette di dedurre dall’IVAFE un credito d’imposta pari all’ammontare dell’eventuale imposta patrimoniale versata nello Stato in cui sono detenute le attività finanziarie.

È pertanto intenzione della Commissione approfondire l’esame per stabilire se le differenze tra l’IVAFE e l’imposta di bollo configurino di fatto una violazione del diritto dell’UE, in particolare del principio di libera circolazione dei capitali (129).

L’onorevole deputato sarà tenuto al corrente degli sviluppi.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000432/13

to the Commission

Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Tax on financial products and activities in the EU — incompatibility of Italian Law No 214/2011 with EU legislation

Italian Law No 214 of 22 December 2011 established a stamp duty on ‘financial activities’ carried out by Italian citizens outside national territory and therefore also on financial activities located within the EU. This duty is levied at 0.10 % for 2012 and, retroactively, for 2011, and at 0.15 % for 2013. The legislation in question has applied the same tax percentage rate only to ‘financial products’ held by Italian citizens on national territory.

This law lays down a taxation criterion that is broader, unfair and which clearly runs counter to the free movement of capital in the EU. Indeed, investment in ‘financial activities’ in other EU countries is more unfavourable than investment in ‘financial products’ on national territory. The ‘financial activities’ carried out in other Member States are already subject to the effects of the different taxes laid down by the various national regulations. The additional tax requirement applied by Law No 214/2011 therefore appears to make investing in other EU countries more unfavourable.

Does the Commission believe that the taxation criterion specified in Law No 214/2011 on foreign financial activities runs counter to EU principles and to Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has already started to investigate the compatibility with EC law of the two Italian taxes raised in this question (IVIE and IVAFE), namely, the Taxes on the Value of the Immovable Property and on the Value of the Financial Transaction held by Italian residents abroad.

The Commission's doubts concerning their compatibility with the EC law, in particular with Article 63 of TFUE, were raised in the context of administrative procedure EU‐Pilot/3506/12/TAXUD. As a result, the Italian authorities amended the relevant legislation eliminating, in particular, the retroactive effect of the taxes (130).

As concerns the comparison between the IVAFE and the correspondent tax (so called ‘bollo’), applied in Italy on the transmission of information between the financial intermediaries and the investor/resident on financial products, it appears that they both apply the same tax basis, rates and exemptions. From the prevailing administrative practice (131), it appears that they do not have exactly the same scope. On the one hand, the IVAFE covers also participations and financing of natural persons (residents) in foreign companies while, on the other hand, the ‘bollo’ applies also to corporate entities.

According to Article 19 of D.L. 201/2011, double taxation is eliminated by allowing the deduction from IVAFE of similar taxes already paid in the country where the financial activities take place.

In these circumstances, the Commission intends further investigate whether the differences between the IVAFE and the ‘bollo’ effectively constitute a violation of EC law, in particular with the principle of free movement of capital (132).

The Honourable Member will be kept informed on the developments.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000433/13

an den Rat

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(16. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Ausschreibung der EU-Kommission zu PIUs

Die Europäische Kommission hat im Bereich Erhebung und Verarbeitung von Fluggastdatensätzen eine Ausschreibung unter dem Titel „TARGETED CALL FOR PROPOSALS — Law enforcement cooperation through measures to set up Passenger Information Units in Member States for the collection, processing, analysis and exchange of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data“ veröffentlicht, noch bevor eine Entscheidung durch den Rat und das EU-Parlament über die Nutzung von PNR-Daten herbeigeführt werden konnte.

1.

Wie steht der Rat dieser Ausschreibung gegenüber?

2.

Wurde der Rat vor der Veröffentlichung der Ausschreibung seitens der Kommission über diese Ausschreibung informiert? Falls ja, wann, wie und durch wen? Falls nicht, wann, wie und durch wen wurde der Rat über die Ausschreibung unterrichtet?

3.

Wie steht der Rat dem Umstand gegenüber, dass die Ausschreibung die Sammlung und Auswertung von PNR-Daten von internationalen Flügen, nicht aber von innereuropäischen Flügen abdeckt?

4.

Wie steht der Rat dem Vorwurf gegenüber, die Kommission würde durch derartige Handlungen das EU-Parlament und den Rat übergehen?

Antwort

(11. März 2013)

Die Ausschreibung der Kommission, auf die der Herr Abgeordnete verweist, beruht auf dem Beschluss des Rates vom 12. Februar 2007 (133) zur Auflegung des spezifischen Programms „Kriminalprävention und Kriminalitätsbekämpfung“ als Teil des Generellen Programms „Sicherheit und Schutz der Freiheitsrechte“ für den Zeitraum 2007 bis 2013. Nach diesem Beschluss des Rates ist es die Aufgabe der Kommission, diese Art von Ausschreibung zu veröffentlichen. Folglich ist es nicht Sache des Rates, bezüglich einer bestimmten Ausschreibung Stellung zu nehmen.

Der Beschluss des Rates vom 12. Februar 2007 verpflichtet die Kommission nicht dazu, dem Rat solche Ausschreibungen mitzuteilen. Artikel 8 des Beschlusses sieht vor, dass die Kommission von einem Ausschuss unterstützt wird, der sich aus Vertretern der Mitgliedstaaten zusammensetzt und in dem der Vertreter der Kommission den Vorsitz führt. Gemäß Erwägungsgrund 9 des Durchführungsbeschlusses der Kommission vom 19. September 2011 zur Annahme des Arbeitsprogramms 2012 für das spezifische Programm „Kriminalprävention und Kriminalitätsbekämpfung“ als Teil des Generellen Programms „Sicherheit und Schutz der Freiheitsrechte“ entsprechen die in diesem Arbeitsprogramm vorgesehenen Maßnahmen der Stellungnahme dieses Ausschusses. Das Arbeitsprogramm 2012 bezieht sich auf eine gezielte Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen zur Zusammenarbeit bei der Strafverfolgung in der Form, dass die Mitgliedstaaten Stellen einrichten, die Fluggastdaten (Passenger Name Records, PNR) sammeln, weiterverarbeiten, analysieren und austauschen.

Wie bereits erwähnt, ist es nicht Sache des Rates, bezüglich einer bestimmten Ausschreibung Stellung zu nehmen. Der Rat möchte den Herrn Abgeordneten jedoch darauf hinweisen, dass sich der Rat am 26. April 2012 auf eine allgemeine Ausrichtung zu dem Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Verwendung von Fluggastdatensätzen zu Zwecken der Verhütung, Aufdeckung, Aufklärung und strafrechtlichen Verfolgung von terroristischen Straftaten und schwerer Kriminalität verständigt hat.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000433/13

to the Council

Martin Ehrenhauser (NI)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Commission tendering procedure on PIUs

The Commission published a ‘TARGETED CALL FOR PROPOSALS — Law enforcement cooperation through measures to set up Passenger Information Units in Member States for the collection, processing, analysis and exchange of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data’ before any decision could be reached by the Council and the European Parliament on the use of PNR data.

1.

What is the Council’s position on this tendering procedure?

2.

Was the Council notified prior to the publication of this call for proposals by the Commission? If so, when, how and by whom? If not, when, how and by whom was the Council notified?

3.

What is the Council’s position with respect to the fact that the tender covers the collection and analysis of PNR data for international flights, but not for flights within Europe?

4.

What is the Council’s position on the charge levelled against the Commission that it is going over the heads of the European Parliament and the Council by proceeding in this way?

Reply

(11 March 2013)

The Commission call for proposals referred to by the Honourable Member is based on the Council Decision of 12 February 2007 (134) establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the Specific Programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’. Under this Council Decision, it falls to the Commission to issue this type of call for proposals. Consequently it is not up to the Council to take a position with regard to a specific call for proposals.

Council Decision of 12 February 2007 does not require the Commission to notify the Council of any such call for proposals. Article 8 of the decision stipulates that the Commission is to be assisted by a Committee composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission. According to Recital 9 of the Commission Implementing Decision of 19 September 2011 on adopting the annual work programme for 2012 for the specific programme on the ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’ as part of the General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’, the measures provided for in this work programme are in accordance with the opinion of that Committee. The annual work programme for 2012 refers to a targeted call on law enforcement cooperation through measures to set up Passenger Information Units in Member States for the collection, processing, analysis and exchange of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data.

As stated above, it is it is not up to the Council to take a position with regard to a specific call for proposals. However, the Council would like to inform the Honourable Member that on 26 April 2012 the Council agreed on a general approach on the proposal for a directive of the Council and the European Parliament on the use of Passenger Name Record data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000434/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Ανισορροπίες κόστους υπηρεσιών κινητής τηλεφωνίας στην ΕΕ

Σύμφωνα με τη μελέτη (135) της εταιρείας Rewheel Ltd. για την ανταγωνιστικότητα των δασμών σχετικά με τα «έξυπνα» τηλέφωνα στην ΕΕ των 27, οι τιμές στα κράτη-μέλη που χαρακτηρίζονται από «προστατευόμενη» αγορά είναι έως και δέκα φορές υψηλότερες από ό,τι στα κράτη μέλη με «προοδευτική αγορά». Συγκεκριμένα, τονίζεται πως οι ευρωπαίοι καταναλωτές καλούνται να πληρώσουν μεταξύ 8 ευρώ και 78 ευρώ το μήνα για χρήση «έξυπνων» τηλεφώνων, προσφέροντας επίδομα δεδομένων 2GB και 200 λεπτά ομιλίας, με τις υψηλότερες μηνιαίες τιμές να διαπιστώνονται στην Τσεχία, την Ελλάδα (50 ευρώ), την Ουγγαρία και τη Γερμανία. Παράλληλα, η έρευνα αναφέρει πως στα πλουσιότερα κράτη-μέλη όπου υφίσταται «προοδευτική» αγορά, οι καταναλωτές δαπανούν 1% του καθαρού μηνιαίου εισοδήματος τους για τη χρήση των «έξυπνων» τηλεφώνων όταν στα φτωχότερα κράτη-μέλη με «προστατευόμενες» αγορές οι καταναλωτές δαπανούν 10-17% του εισοδήματος τους. Δεδομένου ότι η ΕΕ και τα κράτη μέλη πρέπει να εργαστούν για τη δημιουργία ενός ρυθμιστικού και νομικού περιβάλλοντος που να ενισχύει τον ανταγωνισμό και την καινοτομία αλλά και την προστασία των δικαιωμάτων των χρηστών (136) με ακόμη περισσότερα οφέλη σε επίπεδο διακυβέρνησης, υγείας, εκπαίδευσης, προστασίας του περιβάλλοντος, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Διαθέτει σχετικές μελέτες κόστους χρήσης «έξυπνων» τηλεφώνων;

Πώς αντιμετωπίζει την ύπαρξη ανισορροπιών που αναφέρει η μελέτη της Rewheel Ltd., δεδομένης μάλιστα της σημασίας που αποκτάει ο ανταγωνισμός και η ενίσχυση της ενιαίας αγοράς στις τηλεπικοινωνίες στο πλαίσιο της ψηφιακής ατζέντας για την Ευρώπη 2020;

Πώς αξιολογεί την αποτελεσματικότητα του έργου των εθνικών ρυθμιστικών αρχών στην κατεύθυνση της τόνωσης του ανταγωνισμού;

Πώς κρίνει τη σύσταση της Rewheel Ltd. κατά την οποία η ανάδειξη του ανταγωνιστικού δυναμικού της αγοράς κινητής τηλεφωνίας θα πρέπει να δρομολογηθεί μέσω της καταγραφής της χρήσης δεδομένων από τα κινητά ανά άτομο όπως και της διείσδυσης της κινητής ευρυζωνικότητας από την ΕΕ και τους εθνικές ρυθμιστικές αρχές;

Απάντηση της κ. Kroes εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(22 Φεβρουαρίου 2013)

Οι αγορές κινητής τηλεφωνίας στην Ευρώπη συνεχίζουν να έχουν κατά κύριο λόγο εθνικό χαρακτήρα. Οι εγχώριες υπηρεσίες κινητής τηλεφωνίας εμπίπτουν στην εποπτεία της εθνικής ρυθμιστικής αρχής (ΕΡΑ) της κάθε χώρας. Το κανονιστικό πλαίσιο της ΕΕ παρέχει στις ΕΡΑ μέσα ώστε να ενεργούν σχετικά με τυχόν προβλήματα ανταγωνισμού, τα οποία υπάρχουν στις εθνικές αγορές τους, και να επιβάλουν διορθωτικά μέτρα όταν κρίνεται σκόπιμο.

Τα πορίσματα που παρουσιάζονται σχετίζονται με συγκεκριμένο τμήμα της αγοράς, τους χρήστες των υψηλής ποιότητας «έξυπνων τηλεφώνων» (smartphones) και δεν πρέπει να γενικεύονται. Αν και όντως υπάρχουν διαφορές όσον αφορά τη χρήση των «έξυπνων τηλεφώνων» στην ΕΕ, οι συγκρίσεις βάσει ενιαίου καλαθιού του καταναλωτή δεν φιλοτεχνούν την πλήρη εικόνα. Η Επιτροπή και ο BEREC (Φορέας Ευρωπαϊκών Ρυθμιστικών Αρχών για τις Ηλεκτρονικές Επικοινωνίες) συμμετείχαν πρόσφατα στον καθορισμό της μεθοδολογίας μέτρησης των τιμών της κινητής ευρυζωνικότητας στον ΟΟΣΑ και σύντομα θα ξεκινήσει η συλλογή στοιχείων. Η Επιτροπή και οι ΕΡΑ προβαίνουν τακτικά σε συλλογή και διάθεση στοιχείων για τη διείσδυση της κινητής ευρυζωνικότητας (137).

Η αγορά κινητών υπηρεσιών δεδομένων είναι ακόμη σχετικά νέα και ταχέως μεταβαλλόμενη, και οι προσφορές στην αγορά διαφοροποιούνται ανάλογα με τα καταναλωτικά πρότυπα και την ωρίμανση της αγοράς. Οι περισσότερες εθνικές αγορές κινητής τηλεφωνίας προσφέρουν στους πελάτες ποικιλία υπηρεσιών (μεμονωμένες ή δέσμες υπηρεσιών) και τιμών η οποία επιτρέπει στους καταναλωτές να επιλέγουν υπηρεσίες που ανταποκρίνονται καλύτερα στις ανάγκες τους.

Τα μερίδια αγοράς του κορυφαίου παρόχου και του βασικού ανταγωνιστή συνεχίζουν να μειώνονται στα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ λόγω της εμφάνισης ανταγωνιστών που αμφισβητούν την κυριαρχία τους (138). Η Επιτροπή και οι ΕΡΑ συνεργάζονται στενά για την ενίσχυση του ανταγωνισμού και του οφέλους του καταναλωτή.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000434/13

to the Commission

Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Digital divide in the cost of mobile telephony in the EU

According to a study (139) carried out by the company Rewheel Ltd on smartphone tariff competitiveness in EU-27, pricing in Member States that have a ‘protected’ market is up to ten times higher than in Member States with a ‘progressive’ market. Specifically, it argues that European consumers are required to pay between EUR 8 and EUR 78 per month for the use of smartphones, with a 2GByte data allowance and 200 off-net minutes a month, with the highest monthly tariffs to be found in the Czech Republic, Greece (EUR 50), Hungary and Germany. Furthermore, the report indicates that in the richer Member States where there is a ‘progressive’ market, consumers spend 1% of their net monthly income on using smartphones while in the poorer Member States with ‘protected’ markets consumers spend 10-17% of their income for this purpose. Given that the EU and Member States should work towards creating a regulatory and legal environment that fosters competition and innovation, while protecting the rights of users (140) with even more benefits in terms of governance, health, education and environmental protection, will the Commission say:

Does it have at its disposal any studies on the cost of using smartphones?

How does it view the existence of the digital divide referred to in the study by Rewheel Ltd., especially given the importance of competition and strengthening the single market in telecommunications in the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe 2020?

How does it evaluate the effectiveness of the work of national regulatory authorities in stimulating competition?

How does it view the recommendation by Rewheel Ltd that the competitive potential of the mobile telephony market should be tapped by the EU and the national regulatory authorities through recording data usage by mobile per person and the penetration of mobile broadband?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2013)

Mobile markets in Europe continue to be primarily national in scope. Domestic mobile services fall under the supervision of the National Regulatory Authority (NRA) in each country. The EU regulatory framework provides NRAs with tools to act in relation to any competition problems that exist within their national markets and to impose remedies when appropriate.

The presented findings relate to a specific segment of the market, high end smartphone users, and should not be generalized. There are indeed differences in smartphone use in the EU, but comparisons based on one single consumption basket do not give a full picture. The Commission and BEREC have recently been involved in defining the methodology to measure prices of mobile broadband in the OECD and data collection should start soon. The Commission and NRAs regularly collect and make available data about mobile broadband penetration (141).

The mobile data market is still relatively young and changing quickly, offerings on the market differ depending on consumption patterns and market maturity. Most national mobile markets offer customers a variety of services and tariffs, both as stand alone or in bundles that allow consumers to choose services that best correspond to their needs.

The market shares of the leading operator and the main competitor continue to decrease in the EU Member States due to the appearance of challengers (142). The Commission and NRAs are closely cooperating to strengthen competition and consumer benefit.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000435/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Διευκρινίσεις για την αδειοδότηση φαρμακείων στην Ελλάδα

Σε συνέχεια της προηγούμενης ερώτησής μου προς την Επιτροπή, αναφορικά με το θέμα της αδειοδότησης των φαρμακείων στην Ελλάδα (E-009719/2012) και κατόπιν σχετικής επιστολής του Προέδρου και του Γενικού Γραμματέα του Πανελλήνιου Φαρμακευτικού Συλλόγου (143), ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Γνωρίζει πόσες νέες άδειες δόθηκαν για το άνοιγμα φαρμακείων, με βάση το καθεστώς του νόμου 3918/2011, γύρω από συνταγογραφικά κέντρα (Νοσοκομεία ή Κέντρα Υγείας) ή εάν ακόμα ισχύουν περιορισμοί που αποσκοπούν στη διατήρηση της μονοπωλιακής θέσης όσων ήδη διατηρούν φαρμακεία έξω από Νοσοκομεία και Κέντρα Υγείας;

Γνωρίζει το ισχύον καθεστώς για την τήρηση αποστάσεων μεταξύ φαρμακείων και ειδικότερα εάν αυτές τροποποιήθηκαν ή παρέμειναν ως είχαν, με αποτέλεσμα κάποιοι απ’ όσους έλαβαν άδεια ίδρυσης, να μη μπορούν να βρουν κατάστημα που να πληρεί τον σχετικό όρο περί τήρησης αποστάσεων από τα ήδη υπάρχοντα φαρμακεία;

Γνωρίζει πώς ακριβώς λειτουργεί στην πράξη το πληθυσμιακό όριο του ενός φαρμακείου ανά 1 000 κατοίκους, εάν δηλαδή είναι δυνατή η ίδρυση και δεύτερου φαρμακείου μόλις υπάρχει αξιοσημείωτη υπέρβαση του σχετικού ορίου ή αν για παράδειγμα απαιτούνται 2 001 κάτοικοι για να επιτραπεί η ίδρυση δεύτερου φαρμακείου, με αποτέλεσμα να διατηρείται η μονοπωλιακή κατάσταση σε χωριά με σχεδόν 2 000 κατοίκους;

Γνωρίζει εάν υπήρξε ενιαίο κριτήριο από πλευράς υπολογισμού των πληθυσμιακών κριτηρίων για την ίδρυση νέων φαρμακείων και ειδικότερα εάν ιδρύθηκαν νέα φαρμακεία, όχι με βάση τον ν. 3852/2010 (Καλλικράτης) για την αναδιοργάνωση της τοπικής αυτοδιοίκησης, αλλά με βάση την αυτοδιοικητική διαίρεση της χώρα σύμφωνα με τον προγενέστερο ν. 2539/1997 (Καποδίστριας), με αποτέλεσμα να είναι εξαιρετικά δύσκολη η έκδοση νέων αδειών σε αστικά κέντρα;

Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(4 Μαρτίου 2013)

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει ότι ζητήθηκαν και εκδόθηκαν νέες άδειες για την εγκατάσταση και εκμετάλλευση φαρμακείων στην Ελλάδα. Οι ελληνικές αρχές δεν υποβάλλουν στην Επιτροπή εκθέσεις σχετικά με τον αριθμό των νέων αδειών που εκδίδονται κάθε χρόνο.

Τα μέτρα πολιτικής που αφορούν τα φαρμακεία έχουν επικεντρωθεί σε μια σειρά μεταβλητών, όπως η μείωση των περιθωρίων κέρδους, η επέκταση των ωρών λειτουργίας τους και η αναθεώρηση του πληθυσμιακού ορίου για την εγκατάσταση φαρμακείου το οποίο έχει μειωθεί από ένα φαρμακείο ανά 1 500 κατοίκους σε ένα φαρμακείο ανά 1 000 κατοίκους. Μειώνοντας το πληθυσμιακό όριο, στόχος των αρχών ήταν να αυξηθεί ο αριθμός των φαρμακείων, ιδίως σε αραιοκατοικημένες περιοχές.

Η Επιτροπή θα παρακολουθεί την πρόοδο σχετικά με την τήρηση των πολιτικών αυτών στα πλαίσια των τακτικών αποστολών ελέγχου βάσει του προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής για την Ελλάδα.

Όσον αφορά τις ακριβείς λεπτομέρειες για την πρακτική εφαρμογή των νομοθετικών διατάξεων, το Αξιότιμο Μέλος καλείται να έλθει σε απευθείας επαφή με τις εθνικές αρχές.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000435/13

to the Commission

Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Clarifications about the licensing of pharmacies in Greece

Further to my previous question to the Commission about the licensing of pharmacies in Greece (E-009719/2012) and in the light of the letter on this subject by the President and the General Secretary of the Panhellenic Pharmaceutical Association, will the Commission say:

Does it know how many new licences have been issued to open pharmacies, under the rules of Law 3918/2011, around prescription issuing centres (hospitals or health centres) or whether the restrictions aimed at preserving the monopoly of those who already operate pharmacies outside hospitals and health centres still apply?

Does it know the current rules about the distance to be respected between pharmacies and in particular whether they have been amended or remained unchanged, resulting in a situation in which some of those who have received authorisation to establish a pharmacy cannot find an establishment that meets the condition about maintaining the requisite distance from existing pharmacies?

Does it know exactly how the population limit of one pharmacy per 1 000 inhabitants works in practice, i.e. whether it is possible to establish a second pharmacy as soon as the threshold has been significantly exceeded or whether, for example, a second pharmacy may only be established if there is a population of 2 001, which would perpetuate the monopoly that exists in villages with nearly 2 000 residents?

Does it know whether there was a uniform criterion for calculating the population for the establishment of new pharmacies, in particular whether new pharmacies were established, not on the basis of Law 3852/2010 (Kallikratis) on the reorganisation of local government, but on the basis of the local government division of the country according to the earlier Law 2539/1997 (Kapodistrias), which makes it extremely difficult to issue new licences in urban centres?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

The Commission is aware that new licences have been requested and issued to establish and operate pharmacies in Greece. The Greek authorities do not report to the Commission on the number of new licences that are issued every year.

The policy measures regarding pharmacies have focused on a number of variables such as the reduction of their profit margins, the extension of their opening hours and the revision of the population criteria for establishing a pharmacy which has been reduced from one pharmacy per 1500 inhabitants down to one pharmacy per 1000 inhabitants. By reducing the population threshold, authorities' aim was to increase the number of pharmacies especially in less populated areas.

The Commission will be monitoring progress regarding these policies within the regular review missions under the Economic Adjustment Programme to Greece.

As regards the precise modalities of the practical implementation of the legislative provisions, the Honourable Member is invited to directly contact the national authorities.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000436/13

à la Commission

Jean Louis Cottigny (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Financement du prochain Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis

Alors que l'Union européenne s'est fixé comme objectif de réduire la pauvreté de 20 % à l'horizon 2020, plus de 24 % de sa population est actuellement menacée de pauvreté ou d'exclusion sociale.

Dans cette situation sociale d'extrême urgence, le programme européen d'aide aux plus démunis (PEAD) permet de distribuer des repas à 18 millions d'Européens dans vingt États membres. De plus, rappelons que le droit à la sécurité alimentaire est un droit fondamental et élémentaire, qui relève des Droits de l'homme.

La Commission européenne a proposé, en octobre dernier, la création d'un nouveau Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis, doté d'un montant de 2,5 milliards pour la période de sept ans. Dans le dernier document issu du Conseil européen des 22 et 23 novembre 2012, le Fonds se voit doté d'un montant de 2,1 milliards d'euros pour la période 2014-2020.

Alors que la dotation du PEAD est d'environ 500 millions par an, et compte tenu de l'augmentation du nombre de personnes en situation ou menacées de pauvreté en raison de la crise, la Commission ne pense-t-elle pas que la dotation du futur Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis sera insuffisante pour répondre aux besoins des plus nécessiteux?

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000775/13

à la Commission

Jean Louis Cottigny (S&D)

(25 janvier 2013)

Objet: Financement du prochain Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis

Alors que l'Union européenne s'est fixé comme objectif de réduire la pauvreté de 20 % à l'horizon 2020, plus de 24 % de sa population est actuellement menacée de pauvreté ou d'exclusion sociale.

Dans cette situation sociale d'extrême urgence, le Programme européen d'aide aux plus démunis (PEAD) permet de distribuer des repas à 18 millions d'Européens dans 20 États membres. De plus, rappelons que le droit à la sécurité alimentaire est un droit fondamental et élémentaire, qui relève des Droits de l'homme.

La Commission a proposé, en octobre dernier, la création d'un nouveau Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis, doté d'un montant de 2,5 milliards pour les 7 ans à venir. Dans le dernier document issu du Conseil européen des 22 et 23 novembre 2012, le Fonds se voit doté d'un montant de 2,1 milliards d'euros pour la période 2014‐2020.

Alors que la dotation du PEAD est d'environ 500 millions par an, et compte tenu de l'augmentation du nombre de personnes en situation — ou menacées — de pauvreté en raison de la crise, la Commission ne pense-t-elle pas que la dotation du futur Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis sera insuffisante pour répondre aux besoins des plus nécessiteux?

Réponse commune donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(13 mars 2013)

Le Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis ne suffira effectivement pas à répondre à lui seul au dénuement des citoyens européens les plus vulnérables. Il y contribuera néanmoins et la proposition de la Commission prévoit un cofinancement des États membres qui augmentera les ressources disponibles. Le Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis viendra en outre en complément des dispositifs nationaux qui fournissent une assistance non-financière aux plus pauvres, en aide alimentaire, mais aussi en biens de consommation de base pour les personnes sans-abris ou les enfants confrontés à la très grande pauvreté.

Il reste qu'en ces temps de fortes contraintes budgétaires, la recherche d'une plus grande efficience a présidé à l'élaboration de cette proposition, qui conjugue ouverture et flexibilité.

Pour ce faire, la Commission propose un instrument qui assure à la fois une grande prévisibilité des ressources et une grande flexibilité. En effet, le Fonds serait mis en œuvre par les États membres à travers des programmes multi-annuels. Chaque pays serait donc en mesure d'adapter l'assistance en privilégiant une des formes d'assistance ou en les combinant, afin de répondre au mieux aux situations nationales.

Cette proposition de la Commission a été transmise au Parlement européen et au Conseil de l'Union européenne. La création de ce nouveau Fonds et le niveau du budget y afférent sont maintenant de leur ressort.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000436/13

to the Commission

Jean Louis Cottigny (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Funding of the next Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived

Although the European Union has set itself the goal of reducing poverty by 20 % by 2020, more than 24 % of its population is currently at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

In this extremely urgent social situation, food is distributed to 18 million Europeans in 20 of the Member States through the European Food Aid Programme for the Most Deprived (PEAD). Moreover, it should be noted that the right to food security is a basic and fundamental human right.

In October 2012, the European Commission proposed a budget of EUR 2.5 billion for a period of seven years for the creation of a new Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived. The last statement to be released by the European Council on 22 and 23 November 2012 confirmed that a budget of EUR 2.1 billion would be provided for the period 2014-2020.

Given that the PEAD allocation is almost EUR 500 million per annum, and taking account of the increased number of people that are either living in poverty or are at risk of poverty because of the crisis, does the Commission believe that the allocation for the future Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived will be sufficient to meet the needs of the most deprived?

Question for written answer E-000775/13

to the Commission

Jean Louis Cottigny (S&D)

(25 January 2013)

Subject: Funding of the forthcoming Fund for European aid to the most deprived

Although the European Union has set the goal of reducing poverty by 20 % by 2020, more than 24 % of its population are currently at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

In this extremely urgent social situation, the European programme of food aid for the most deprived persons helps ensure that food is distributed to 18 million Europeans in 20 Member States. Moreover, it should be noted that the right to food security is a basic and fundamental human right.

In October 2012, the Commission proposed the creation of a new Fund for European aid to the most deprived, equipped with a budget of EUR 2.5 billion for the next seven years. The last document issued by the European Council of 22 and 23 November 2012 confirmed that the Fund will be allocated a budget of EUR 2.1 billion for the period 2014-2020.

Given that the budget for the European food aid programme for the most deprived is around EUR 500 million per annum, and given that more people are now either living in poverty or at risk of poverty because of the crisis, does the Commission not believe that the budget for the future Fund for European aid to the most deprived will be insufficient in terms of meeting the needs of the most deprived?

(Version française)

Réponse commune donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(13 mars 2013)

Le Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis ne suffira effectivement pas à répondre à lui seul au dénuement des citoyens européens les plus vulnérables. Il y contribuera néanmoins et la proposition de la Commission prévoit un cofinancement des États membres qui augmentera les ressources disponibles. Le Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis viendra en outre en complément des dispositifs nationaux qui fournissent une assistance non-financière aux plus pauvres, en aide alimentaire, mais aussi en biens de consommation de base pour les personnes sans-abris ou les enfants confrontés à la très grande pauvreté.

Il reste qu'en ces temps de fortes contraintes budgétaires, la recherche d'une plus grande efficience a présidé à l'élaboration de cette proposition, qui conjugue ouverture et flexibilité.

Pour ce faire, la Commission propose un instrument qui assure à la fois une grande prévisibilité des ressources et une grande flexibilité. En effet, le Fonds serait mis en œuvre par les États membres à travers des programmes multi-annuels. Chaque pays serait donc en mesure d'adapter l'assistance en privilégiant une des formes d'assistance ou en les combinant, afin de répondre au mieux aux situations nationales.

Cette proposition de la Commission a été transmise au Parlement européen et au Conseil de l'Union européenne. La création de ce nouveau Fonds et le niveau du budget y afférent sont maintenant de leur ressort.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000437/13

alla Commissione

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(16 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Persistere di attività di pirateria nel Golfo di Aden e nell'Oceano Indiano

L'Unione europea, mediante Eunavfor (la missione navale antipirateria al largo delle coste della Somalia, che vedrà impegnate unità della marina da guerra di diversi paesi europei almeno fino al dicembre del 2014) si sta adoperando per la deterrenza, la prevenzione e la repressione delle attività di pirateria lungo le coste somale e la protezione delle navi in transito nei mari a rischio.

Secondo le recenti dichiarazioni rilasciate dall'ammiraglio Duncan L. Potts, comandante di Eunavfor, nel corso dell'ultimo anno gli attacchi da parte dei pirati al largo del Corno d'Africa si sono sensibilmente ridotti. Ciò nonostante il tratto di mare comprendente il Mar Rosso meridionale, il Golfo di Aden e l'Oceano Indiano occidentale continua ad essere considerata un'area ad alto rischio.

L'attività dei pirati lungo le coste della Somalia continua, infatti, a turbare la sicurezza marittima internazionale e le attività economiche nell'area. Nonostante l'impegno della forza antipirateria, per i diportisti e gli operatori mercantili il pericolo di venire assaltati resta elevato.

Inoltre, secondo fonti locali, alcuni pirati, starebbero cercando di riciclarsi, chiedendo soldi ai mercantili o agli yachts in transito nel Golfo di Aden a garanzia di una navigazione tranquilla.

Può la Commissione far sapere:

quali ulteriori sforzi intende compiere l'Unione europea per combattere il fenomeno della pirateria;

se l'Unione europea è a conoscenza dei recenti tentativi dei pirati di estorcere denaro ai mercantili e alle altre imbarcazioni in transito nel Golfo di Aden in cambio di «finta protezione» durante la navigazione?

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

(14 marzo 2013)

Nonostante i recenti successi ottenuti nella lotta alla pirateria, non ci si può riposare sugli allori. Il 5 gennaio 2013 EUNAVFOR ATALANTA ha arrestato 12 presunti pirati autori di un violento assalto a una nave mercantile panamense, perpetrato a circa 400 kilometri dalla costa somala. Queste persone sono attualmente a Maurizio, in attesa di processo. Ciò dimostra che, nonostante i recenti successi ottenuti nella lotta alla pirateria, le capacità chiave dei gruppi di pirati rimangono intatte. Più di 100 ostaggi sono ancora in mano a gruppi criminali.

L'azione volta a contrastare la pirateria deve proseguire sulla terraferma. L'UE è persuasa che, a lungo termine, solo l'instaurazione dello Stato di diritto e lo sviluppo economico permetteranno di fare terra bruciata alla criminalità organizzata in Somalia. L'UE collaborerà con le autorità somale per sviluppare le capacità delle autorità di contrasto costiere e terrestri che sostengono l'autorità dello Stato in tutto il paese. Le tre missioni della politica estera e di sicurezza comune (PESC) (EUNAVFOR ATALANTA, EUCAP Nestor e EU Training Mission (EUTM)) contribuiscono a questo obiettivo. Un elemento importante di questa svolta radicale verso un'azione UE maggiormente incentrata sulle operazioni terrestri sarebbe un'impostazione più mirata che, oltre ai flussi finanziari, punti a individuare i principali capi della pirateria, e non solo i «soldati semplici».

Nell'ottobre 2012 EUNAVFOR ATALANTA ha segnalato un caso di «protezione fittizia», in cui la nave è stata abbandonata dalla squadra di sicurezza somala che l'avrebbe dovuta proteggere e assalita durante la notte da un commando di pirati che però è fuggito, probabilmente per paura di essere arrestato.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000437/13

to the Commission

Iva Zanicchi (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Continued acts of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean

The European Union is endeavouring to deter, prevent and curb piracy off the coast of Somalia and to protect vessels transiting high-risk waters by means of Eunavfor (the European Union’s counter-piracy operation off the coast of Somalia which will involve warships from various European countries until at least December 2014).

According to recent statements by Rear Admiral Duncan L. Potts, Operation Commander of Eunavfor, during the last year, attacks by pirates off the Horn of Africa have diminished considerably. This is despite the fact that the stretch of sea comprising the southern Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the western Indian Ocean continues to be considered a high-risk area.

Indeed, acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia continue to disrupt international maritime safety and economic activities in the area. Despite the efforts of the counter-piracy force, the danger of leisure craft and merchant ships being attacked remains high.

Furthermore, according to local sources, some pirates are attempting to reinvent themselves, asking for money from cargo ships or yachts transiting the Gulf of Aden in return for safe passage.

Can the Commission state:

what additional efforts the European Union intends to make to combat piracy;

whether the European Union is aware of pirates’ recent attempts to extort money from cargo ships and other vessels transiting the Gulf of Aden in return for ‘sham protection’ while at sea?

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

(14 March 2013)

Despite recent success in the fight against piracy, there is not room for complacency. On 5 January 2013, EUNAVFOR ATALANTA arrested 12 suspected pirates who violently attacked a Panama Merchant Vessel, some 400 kilometres off the Somali Coast. They have now been successfully transferred to Mauritius for prosecution. This is a sign that, despite the recent success in the fight against piracy, key capabilities of piracy groups remain intact. Over 100 hostages are still being held by criminal groups.

Pressure on pirates at sea needs to continue on land. The EU is convinced that — in the long run — only the establishment of the rule of law and economic development will withdraw the breeding ground for organised crime in Somalia. Together with Somali authorities the EU will help to develop law enforcement capacities, both coastal and land, that support the authority of the state across the country. All three Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions (EUNAVFOR ATALANTA, EUCAP Nestor and EU Training Mission (EUTM)) are supporting this objective. One important element of such a ‘paradigm shift’ towards more land-based EU action would be a more focused approach to target not only financial flows but also seek out the ‘pirate kings’, not just the foot soldiers.

EUNAVFOR ATALANTA reported a case of ‘sham protection’ in October 2012 when a Somali Security team left the ship they were supposed to be protecting. The vessel was boarded by a pirate action group during the night but nothing happened in the end as the pirate group left, probably for fear of being arrested.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000438/13

aan de Commissie

Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)

(16 januari 2013)

Betreft: Begrotingen ten koste van de waterconsument en die in strijd zijn met het kostenterugwinningsprincipe uit de kaderrichtlijn water (2000/60/EG)

In Vlaanderen wordt een deel van de infrastructuur van de Vlaamse Milieu Maatschappij verkocht aan Aquafin (20 miljoen euro). Aquafin leent hiervoor geld op de markt en betaalt die lening  terug (voor een deel) met het geld dat consumenten betalen via de waterfactuur. De waterconsument betaalt dus twee keer voor de infrastructuur: via de algemene belastingen + via de waterfactuur (afbetaling van die lening). Daarnaast komen er nog kosten voor de transfer en de lening zelf bij.

Deze manier van handelen is al bezig sinds de begroting 2010 op Vlaams niveau (voor een bedrag van ongeveer 150 miljoen euro), maar wordt ook toegepast tussen de gemeentes en de intercommunales. Er wordt een milieubelasting misbruikt om de gaten in de begrotingen te dichten, in plaats van het geld in te zetten voor onderhoud van de infrastructuur.

Is deze manier van werken niet in strijd met het kostenterugwinningsprincipe uit de kaderrichtlijn water (2000/60/EG) of in strijd met andere EU-regels?

Wat kan de EU doen aan deze niet-duurzame manier van werken?

Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie

(6 maart 2013)

Artikel 9 van de kaderrichtlijn water (144) vereist onder andere dat de diverse watergebruikssectoren (huishoudens, bedrijven en landbouw) een redelijke bijdrage leveren aan de  terugwinning van kosten van waterdiensten, rekening houdend met het beginsel dat de vervuiler betaalt. Waterdiensten zijn alle diensten die ten behoeve van huishoudens, openbare instellingen en andere economische actoren voorzien in de onttrekking, opstuwing, opslag, behandeling en distributie van water, alsmede installaties voor de verzameling en behandeling van afvalwater.

Mits er rekening wordt gehouden met het beginsel dat de vervuiler betaalt, biedt artikel 9 de lidstaten de mogelijkheid om besluiten te nemen over de bijdrage van watergebruikssectoren aan de  terugwinning van kosten van waterdiensten, de lokale omstandigheden in acht nemend. Daarnaast verbiedt het artikel niet dat lidstaten belastingen gebruiken voor andere doeleinden dan de  terugwinning van kosten voor waterdiensten.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000438/13

to the Commission

Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Budgets at the expense of water consumers that conflict with the cost recovery principle of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)

In Flanders, a part of the Flemish Environment Agency’s (VMM) infrastructure is being sold to Aquafin for EUR 20 million. In order to do this, Aquafin is borrowing money on the market and repaying the loan (in part) with the money consumers pay their water bills with. The water consumer thus pays twice for the infrastructure: through general taxation and through the water bill (repayment of the loan). On top of that, there are also costs for the transfer and the loan itself.

This way of doing business has been in operation since the 2010 budget at the Flemish level (for an amount of approximately EUR 150 million), and is also being applied between municipal councils and local authorities. An environmental tax is being misused to fill the gaps in the budgets, instead of being used for infrastructure maintenance.

Does this practice not conflict with the cost recovery principle of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) or other EU rules?

What can the EU do about this unsustainable practice?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2013)

Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive (145) requires, inter-alia, that Member States ensure an adequate contribution of the different water uses (industry, households and agriculture) to the recovery of the costs of water services, taking into account the polluter pays principle. Water services are all those services which provide — for households, public institutions or any economic activity — abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and distribution of water, as well as waste-water collection and treatment facilities.

Provided the polluter pays principle is taken into account, Article 9 allows Member States to decide on the adequacy of the contribution by water uses to cost recovery of water services taking into account local conditions. It also does not prevent Member States from relying on taxation through water bills for other purposes than cost-recovery of water services.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000439/13

au Conseil

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Ivoire et non application de la réglementation CITES

Le Parlement a récemment dénoncé la non-application de la réglementation de la CITES. Dans un des rapports soumis en session plénière, il est demandé au Conseil d'encourager la création d'un dispositif de certification et de contrôle des importations d'ivoire dans l'Union européenne, inspiré de la réussite du processus de Kimberley.

Le Conseil compte-t-il donner suite? Si oui, de quelle manière?

Réponse

(15 avril 2013)

Comme le sait l'Honorable Parlementaire, la Convention sur le commerce international des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages menacées d'extinction (CITES), à laquelle l'Union n'est pas partie contractante, est néanmoins mise en œuvre dans l'Union par le règlement (CE) no 338/97 du Conseil du 9 décembre 1996 relatif à la protection des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages par le contrôle de leur commerce (146).

C'est à la Commission, dans le cadre de son initiative législative, qu'il appartiendrait de décider, si nécessaire, des mesures qu'il conviendrait de prendre pour l'avenir en ce qui concerne la question évoquée par l'Honorable Parlementaire. Le Conseil examinera alors avec beaucoup d'attention les propositions qui émaneraient de la Commission à ce propos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000439/13

to the Council

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Ivory and lack of implementation of the CITES regulations

Parliament recently denounced the lack of implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) regulations. In one of the reports tabled in plenary, the Council was called on to promote the creation of a system of certification and control of ivory imports into the European Union, similar to the successful Kimberley process.

Does the Council intend to do this? If so, how?

Reply

(15 April 2013)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), to which the Union is not a contracting party, is nonetheless implemented in the Union by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (147).

It would be for the Commission — in the context of its legislative initiative — to take, if necessary, the appropriate decisions for future action on the issue the Honourable Member refers to. The Council would examine with great attention any proposals that might come from the Commission on this subject.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000440/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Ivoire et non-application de la réglementation CITES

Le Parlement a récemment dénoncé la non-application de la réglementation de la CITES. Dans un des rapports soumis en session plénière, il est demandé à la Commission d'encourager la création d'un dispositif de certification et de contrôle des importations d'ivoire dans l'Union européenne, inspiré de la réussite du processus de Kimberley.

La Commission compte-t-elle donner suite? Si oui, de quelle manière?

Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission

(14 mars 2013)

La convention CITES, mise en œuvre dans l'UE par le règlement (CE) n° 338/97 du Conseil relatif à la protection des espèces de faune et de flore sauvages (148), interdit le commerce international de l'ivoire.

Tant que cette interdiction s'applique, il n'est pas nécessaire d'élaborer un système de certification et de contrôle des importations d'ivoire dans l'UE.

Les parties à la convention CITES œuvrent à la mise en place d'un «mécanisme décisionnel régissant le commerce de l'ivoire» établissant les conditions d'un éventuel commerce de l'ivoire à l'avenir. Ces travaux sont toujours en cours. Ils devraient être achevés lors de la 17e session de la conférence des parties à la convention CITES, prévue pour 2016.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000440/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Ivory and lack of implementation of the CITES regulations

Parliament recently denounced the lack of implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) regulations. In one of the reports tabled in plenary, the Commission was called on to promote the creation of a system of certification and control of ivory imports into the European Union, similar to the successful Kimberley process.

Does the Commission intend to do this? If so, how?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2013)

International trade in ivory is prohibited under the CITES Convention, which is implemented within the EU through Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (149) on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora.

As long as this prohibition is in place, there is no need for the creation of any system of certification and control of ivory imports into the EU.

The Parties to the CITES Convention have been working on the establishment of a ‘Decision-making mechanism for a process of trade in ivory’, which would set out the conditions under which possible trade in ivory could occur in the future. This work has not been finalised yet. It is expected that it will be concluded at the 17th Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention which should take place in 2016.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-000441/13

à la Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 janvier 2013)

Objet: Évaluation des soldes structurels des États membres

Pour plus de transparence et une compréhension plus aisée, la Commission envisage-t-elle la publication de la méthode qu'elle utilise pour évaluer les soldes structurels des États membres, ainsi que les changements opérés dans cette méthode depuis 2008 et l'incidence de ces changements sur l'évaluation des soldes structurels des États membres?

Réponse donnée par M. Rehn au nom de la Commission

(28 février 2013)

La Commission va publier la méthode qu'elle utilise pour évaluer les soldes budgétaires corrigés des variations conjoncturelles des États membres dans sa série European Economy. Cette publication sera disponible avant la fin de mars 2013 et tiendra compte des améliorations méthodologiques apportées récemment au cadre de l'UE pour la surveillance budgétaire.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000441/13

to the Commission

Marc Tarabella (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Assessment of Member States' structural balances

Does the Commission intend to publish its methodology underpinning the assessment of Member States’ structural balances, as well as the changes introduced in this methodology since 2008 and the impact of those changes on the assessment of Member States’ structural balances, so as to improve transparency and facilitate understanding?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

The Commission will publish the methodology underpinning the assessment of the Member States' cyclically-adjusted budget balances in its European Economy series. The publication will be released by the end of March 2013 and will include the recent methodological improvements used in the EU's framework of fiscal surveillance.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000442/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Ahwazi Arab minority prisoners sentenced to death by the Iranian High Revolutionary Court in Tehran

I have been contacted by one of my London constituents, who has expressed grave concern that the prisoners Mokhtar Alboshoka, Jabber Alboshoka, Hadi Rashedi, Hashem Shabani and Mohammad Ali Amoori have all been sentenced to death by the Iranian High Revolutionary Court in Tehran.

Could the European External Action Service (EEAS) please explain what measures it has taken, or intends to take, in response in order to urgently help these five Ahwazi Arab minority prisoners avoid the death penalty by quashing the grossly unfair verdict against them?

In its response, could the EEAS please take the following points into account:

The situation is now very critical, since the High Court in Tehran very recently confirmed the sentence, despite Amnesty International’s Urgent Actions identifying the prisoners’ plight and the July 2012 report by Human Rights Watch.

A revolutionary court allegedly convicted the men without transparency and behind closed doors on terrorism-related charges that carry the death penalty, and there is little information available about the evidence used against the men, except for televised confessions.

The men’s lawyers and family members have been denied access to visit them in detention.

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

(6 March 2013)

The HR/VP is very concerned about the death sentences recently reaffirmed against five Ahwazi Arab men in Iran, and follows further developments very closely. She issued a statement on these cases on 29 January, where she urged the Iranian authorities to commute the death sentences. She also expressed her concern over reports that the men had not received fair trials, and reminded the Iranian authorities of their obligations to uphold the civil and political rights of all of its citizens, including ethnic minorities.

In line with the EU's strong and principled position against the death penalty, the High Representative continues to call upon the Iranian authorities to introduce a moratorium and halt all pending executions.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000443/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Prohibición del despido en empresas con superávit

Desde el inicio de la crisis financiera internacional el desempleo en la Unión Europea ha crecido hasta alcanzar los insostenibles niveles actuales. El número de trabajadores despedidos no deja de crecer, especialmente en los países del sur de Europa, impulsado por las reformas laborales fomentadas por las instituciones europeas.

Este drama del desempleo, paradójicamente, no es consecuencia solamente del fracaso económico y la quiebra de las empresas europeas, ya que son numerosos los despidos en grandes empresas que obtienen cuantiosos beneficios económicos con su actividad y, simplemente, están aprovechando el cambio en las condiciones laborales para «deslocalizar» su producción.

Así, en España son numerosos los casos de este tipo desde la aprobación de la última reforma laboral puesto que abarata el despido de forma escandalosa. Empresas con importantes beneficios como Telefónica, Asea Brown Boveri, etc., están aprovechando las facilidades para destruir empleo a través de expedientes de regulación de empleo. Estas empresas cargan el coste del desempleo de sus trabajadores a las arcas públicas mientras mejoran aún más su cuenta de resultados. El Gobierno de España trató de intervenir el pasado octubre, obligando a que dichas empresas con beneficios paguen parte de las cotizaciones en el caso de despidos masivos, pero el drama que viven sus trabajadores lanzados directamente al desempleo y a la pobreza no es retribuido de ninguna manera. En el caso de España, con una tasa de desempleo del 26,6 % según Eurostat, el despido supone con certeza una importante carencia económica que puede conllevar la pobreza y la exclusión social para muchos trabajadores.

En una crisis económica como la que atraviesa Europa, marcada por el masivo desempleo, resulta incomprensible que las diferentes legislaciones nacionales, así como las recomendaciones específicas elaboradas por la Comisión, sostengan marcos legales que permiten el despido en empresas rentables, obviando la necesidad de trabajar para una mayor protección de los trabajadores, sobre todo en contextos laborales donde sí es posible conservar sus puestos por existir beneficios.

— ¿Está la Comisión contemplando en sus recomendaciones específicas que los Estados miembros prohíban el despido de trabajadores en las empresas con superávit?

— ¿Plantea la Comisión desarrollar normativa para evitar que las empresas que operen con beneficios puedan despedir a trabajadores?

Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión

(13 de marzo de 2013)

La Comisión no tiene la intención de recomendar a los Estados miembros que prohiban el despido de los trabajadores en las empresas con superávit.

La Comisión no está facultada para interferir en las decisiones de las empresas de despedir a sus trabajadores. No obstante, la legislación de la UE (150) establece que los empleadores deben informar y consultar a los representantes de los trabajadores antes de proceder a despidos colectivos. Dicha consulta incluye medios para evitar los despidos, o reducir su número, y para mitigar sus consecuencias con medidas sociales de acompañamiento.

La Comisión insta a las empresas y las partes interesadas a que anticipen las necesidades de cualificación y formación de su mano de obra y lleven a cabo las reestructuraciones de manera socialmente responsable. Tras la adopción en enero de 2012 del Libro Verde (151) sobre reestructuración y previsión del cambio, la Comisión decidirá qué medidas son necesarias para garantizar de la mejor manera posible su aplicación.

La Comisión también puede apoyar a las empresas inmersas en importantes procesos de reestructuración y a sus trabajadores a través del Fondo Social Europeo y el Fondo Europeo de Adaptación a la Globalización, de conformidad con las normas que los rigen. Es posible asimismo movilizar el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional y el Fondo Europeo de Inversiones cuando se cumplen las condiciones para ello.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000443/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Banning profitable companies from dismissing workers

Since the start of the international financial crisis, unemployment in the EU has grown to its current unsustainable levels. The number of workers being laid off continues to grow, especially in southern European countries, driven by labour reforms promoted by the European institutions.

Paradoxically, this unemployment predicament is not solely down to the economic failure and bankruptcy of European companies; major companies operating at a substantial profit have laid off countless workers and, quite simply, are using the change in labour conditions to ‘outsource’ their production.

Spain has seen many such cases, since the adoption of the latest labour reform, which scandalously makes dismissal cheaper. Companies making hefty profits, such as Telefónica and Asea Brown Boveri, are using the opportunity to cut jobs by dismissing workers. The public coffers fund the cost of the workers’ unemployment, while the companies further improve their own income statements. The Spanish Government tried to intervene last October, by forcing profitable companies to pay part of the costs in the event of mass layoffs; however, the plight of workers plunged directly into unemployment and poverty is not remunerated in any way. In the case of Spain, which has an unemployment rate of 26.6 % according to Eurostat, dismissal is undoubtedly a major economic issue which can lead to poverty and social exclusion for many workers.

In an economic crisis such as that sweeping Europe, marked by mass unemployment, it is incomprehensible that the different national laws and the Commission’s specific recommendations should uphold legal frameworks that enable profitable companies to dismiss workers, making obvious the need for greater worker protection, especially in situations where jobs could be retained due to profit being made.

— In its specific recommendations, will the Commission suggest that Member States ban profitable companies from dismissing workers?

— Does it plan to establish rules to prevent companies operating at a profit from being able to dismiss workers?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

The Commission does not intend recommending that the Member States prohibit profitable companies from dismissing workers.

The Commission has no powers to interfere in companies’ decisions to dismiss their workers. However, EC law (152) provides that employers are to inform and consult employees' representatives before they decide to carry out collective redundancies. Such consultation covers ways of avoiding redundancies, or reducing their number, and of mitigating their consequences through accompanying social measures.

The Commission urges companies and stakeholders to anticipate skills and training needs for their workforce and carry out restructuring in a socially responsible way. Following the Commission’s January 2012 Green Paper (153) on restructuring and anticipation of change, The Commission will decide soon on how best a follow-up to this Green Paper could be ensured.

The Commission can also provide support for enterprises undergoing major restructuring and for their workers through the European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with the rules governing them. Support from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Investment Fund can also be mobilised where the required conditions are met.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000444/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Mal uso de Fondos Europeos en Palencia (España)

En el municipio español de Palencia, el Ayuntamiento está tratando de cambiar el uso de un parque urbano construido con la participación de los Fondos FEDER. Se trata del parque Ribera Sur de Palencia que fue financiado al 70 % con fondos europeos para ser destinado al recreo y uso público de la ciudadanía palentina.

La construcción del parque se aprobó con el II plan de Riberas Urbanas de Palencia en 2004, que acondicionó una zona en la ribera izquierda del río Carrión con un gran espacio verde. Este espacio ha sido utilizado durante años por la ciudadanía como un parque público que ha permitido desarrollar actividades de recreo o descanso.

El actual Ayuntamiento de Palencia ha decidido convertir dicha área verde en una ampliación del cercano Campo de Golf Municipal, limitando el disfrute de la zona a las personas federadas al golf. Este cambio de uso y limitación de su acceso supone la utilización de bienes construidos con la participación de los Fondos FEDER para fines diferentes de los acordados en el proyecto original. Así, lo que fue diseñado y financiado como un espacio de esparcimiento de la población se convertirá en un centro para la práctica de un deporte exclusivo.

El Ayuntamiento alega que, pasados los cinco años de la inversión en dicho proyecto, ya ha finalizado la obligación municipal de seguir destinando esa zona de la ribera del río recuperada con fondos FEDER para uso y disfrute de la ciudadanía como parque público y que por tanto, ahora puede ser destinado a otro tipo de fines sin suponer incumplimiento alguno del proyecto original.

1.

¿Está la Comisión informada sobre las intenciones del Ayuntamiento de Palencia de convertir el citado parque en la ampliación del Campo de Golf y piensa investigar este proyecto?

2.

¿Considera la Comisión que el citado cambio de uso del parque Ribera Sur de Palencia respeta las condiciones de cofinanciación de los Fondos FEDER?

3.

En caso de que esta decisión municipal contravenga la normativa europea,

¿

qué medidas pretende desarrollar la Comisión para impedir el proyecto de transformación del citado parque en la ampliación del Campo de Golf Municipal?

Respuesta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión

(18 de marzo de 2013)

1.

La Comisión no dispone de información relativa a la construcción de un campo de golf en un emplazamiento de Palencia (España) inicialmente previsto como parque de la ribera del río y cofinanciado por el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) para el periodo 2000-2006.

2. y 3.

La Comisión debe aclarar que, aunque el desarrollo de dicho campo de golf pueda modificar de manera significativa la naturaleza del plan inicial en caso de seguir adelante, esta institución carece de base jurídica que le permita oponerse según los términos del FEDER.

Los programas cofinanciados por los fondos europeos se rigen por el principio de gestión descentralizada y compartida entre las autoridades nacionales y regionales. Por consiguiente, corresponde a las autoridades españolas seleccionar los proyectos que consideran convenientes con arreglo a dichos programas y de conformidad con la normativa vigente.

En el caso a que hace referencia Su Señoría, ha de tenerse en cuenta que las disposiciones legales no suponen ningún compromiso de mantener la inversión una vez transcurridos los cinco primeros años. Dado que la construcción de este parque y su cofinanciación por parte del FEDER se aprobaron en 2004, la Comisión no puede impedir que este proyecto siga adelante.

Para el futuro, la Comisión no propone que se modifique esta norma, si bien el Parlamento está a favor de aumentar del periodo a diez años.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000444/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: Misuse of EU Funds in Palencia (Spain)

The Council of the Spanish town of Palencia is trying to change the use of an urban park co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The Parque Ribera Sur de Palencia (Palencia South Bank Park) was 70 % financed using EU funds and was designated as a public recreational area for local residents.

The park’s construction was approved under the II Palencia Urban Riverside Plan in 2004, with an area on the left bank of the River Carrión turned into a large green space. For years, this space has been used as a public park, enabling residents to enjoy recreational and leisure activities.

The current Palencia Council has decided to convert this green space into an extension of the nearby Municipal Golf Course, limiting enjoyment of the area to golfers. This change in use and access limitation involves using facilities co-financed by the ERDF for purposes other than those agreed in the original project. What was therefore designed and funded as a public recreational area will become a centre for practising an exclusive sport.

The Council argues that, after five years of investment in the project, it has fulfilled its municipal obligation to designate this restored riverbank area, co-financed by the ERDF, as a public park to be used and enjoyed by residents and, as such, it can now assign it to other purposes without any breach of the original project.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the Palencia Council’s intentions to convert this park into an extension of the golf course and will it investigate this project?

2.

Does it believe that this change in use of the Parque Ribera Sur de Palencia complies with the ERDF co-financing conditions?

3.

Should this municipal decision contravene EC law, what measures will the Commission take to prevent this park from being converted into an extension of the Municipal Golf Course?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2013)

1.

The Commission has no information concerning the construction of a golf course on a site in Palencia (Spain) that was previously designated as a riverside park and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the period 2000-2006.

2-3. The Commission must point out that, while the development of this golf course could substantially change the nature of the initial plan were it to go ahead, there is no legal basis for the Commission to oppose it on the terms of the ERDF.

Programmes co-financed by the European funds are governed by the principle of decentralised management, shared between the national and regional authorities. It therefore falls to the Spanish authorities to select those projects which they consider suitable under these programmes and in accordance with the regulations in force.

In the case the Honourable Member refers to, it should be borne in mind that the legal provisions do not entail any commitment to maintain the investment beyond the first five years. Given that the construction of this park and its co-financing by the ERDF were approved in 2004, the Commission cannot prevent this project from going ahead.

For the future, the Commission does not propose to change this rule, though the Parliament is supporting an increase of the period to 10 years.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-000445/13

προς την Επιτροπή

Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)

(16 Ιανουαρίου 2013)

Θέμα: Οι «κοινωνικές μεταβιβάσεις» ως αναγκαίο εργαλείο αντιμετώπισης φαινομένων ακραίας φτώχειας

Στο πλαίσιο πρόσφατης έρευνας της Ελληνικής Στατιστικής Αρχής (ΕΛ.ΣΤΑΤ.) για τις «Συνθήκες Διαβίωσης στην Ελλάδα» επισημαίνεται η σημαντικότατη αύξηση του αριθμού των Ελλήνων που απειλούνται από τον κίνδυνο της φτώχειας ενώ υπογραμμίζεται ότι η συσχέτισή της με την «εκτίναξη» του ποσοστού ανεργίας διαμορφώνει μια «εκρηκτική» κοινωνική κατάσταση. Την ίδια στιγμή, οι «κοινωνικές μεταβιβάσεις» (οικογενειακά επιδόματα, επιδόματα ή βοηθήματα ανεργίας, αναπηρίας, ασθένειας, ανικανότητας, ενισχύσεις κατοίκων ορεινών και μειονεκτουσών περιοχών) περιγράφονται ως αναγκαίο «ανάχωμα» στην ένταση και έκταση της κοινωνικής κρίσης. Σε αυτήν την κατεύθυνση, και με δεδομένο τον κορυφαίο κοινωνικό στόχο της «Στρατηγικής Ευρώπη 2020» για το δραστικό περιορισμό της φτώχειας στην Ένωση, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Έχει λάβει γνώση των αποτελεσμάτων της εν λόγω έρευνας;

Πώς αξιολογεί την αναγκαιότητα των συγκεκριμένων κοινωνικών-προνοιακών παροχών μέσα στις έκτακτες κοινωνικές συνθήκες που βιώνουν οι Έλληνες πολίτες;

Υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα κονδύλια από τα Ευρωπαϊκά Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία για τη χρηματοδότηση δράσεων αντίστοιχου περιεχομένου;

Διαθέτει στατιστικά στοιχεία για τα ποσοστά απορροφητικότητας των κρατών-μελών είτε για την υλοποίηση είτε για την κάλυψη κοινωνικών μεταβιβάσεων;

Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(14 Μαρτίου 2013)

1.

Η ΕΛ.ΣΤΑΤ παράγει ευρωπαϊκές στατιστικές για το εισόδημα και τις συνθήκες διαβίωσης

1.

Η ΕΛ.ΣΤΑΤ παράγει ευρωπαϊκές στατιστικές για το εισόδημα και τις συνθήκες διαβίωσης

 (154)

2.

Η κρίση έχει αυξήσει την εξάρτηση από τις κοινωνικές παροχές με τους αυτόματους σταθεροποιητές να έρχονται στο προσκήνιο εν μέσω ύφεσης. Η Ελλάδα καταβάλλει προσπάθεια στο πλαίσιο του Προγράμματος Οικονομικής Προσαρμογής για την προστασία του εισοδήματος και της ευημερίας των πλέον ευπαθών κοινωνικών ομάδων. Μέρος της εν λόγω προσπάθειας αποτελούν μέτρα όπως ο νόμος 3869/2010 για την προστασία των υπερχρεωμένων νοικοκυριών και ο νόμος 4093/2012, ο οποίος προβλέπει σύστημα εγγύησης ελάχιστου εισοδήματος, σε μία προσπάθεια ενδυνάμωσης των μηχανισμών κοινωνικής ασφάλειας. Επιπλέον, το συγχρηματοδοτούμενο από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (155) επιχειρησιακό πρόγραμμα για την ανάπτυξη του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού χρηματοδοτεί την αναθεώρηση των κοινωνικών προγραμμάτων βάσει μελέτης του ΟΟΣΑ, στοχεύοντας στην πιο αποτελεσματική αντιμετώπιση της φτώχειας στην Ελλάδα, όπου έως τώρα οι κοινωνικές παροχές έχουν καταφέρει να τη μειώσουν στο 13,7%, ενώ σε επίπεδο ΕΕ κυμαίνεται κατά μέσο όρο στο 35,2% (156).

3.

Το ΕΚΤ υποστηρίζει διάφορα ενεργητικά μέτρα

3.

Το ΕΚΤ υποστηρίζει διάφορα ενεργητικά μέτρα

 (157)

4.

Η

Eurostat συγκεντρώνει και δημοσιεύει τις ακόλουθες στατιστικές για τις κοινωνικές παροχές στα κράτη μέλη:

Τις κοινοτικές στατιστικές για το εισόδημα και τις συνθήκες διαβίωσης (EU-SILC), ιδίως όσες αφορούν την επίδραση των κοινωνικών παροχών στη φτώχεια,

Το ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα στατιστικών για την κοινωνική προστασία,

Τους εθνικούς λογαριασμούς, στους οποίους παρουσιάζονται αναλυτικά όλες οι δημόσιες δαπάνες.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000445/13

to the Commission

Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: ‘Social transfers’ — a necessary tool for addressing extreme poverty

A recent survey by the Greek Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) on living conditions in Greece notes the very significant increase in the number of Greeks at risk from poverty. It stresses that, coupled with soaring unemployment, this is creating a highly volatile social situation. In this context, ‘social transfers’ (family allowances, unemployment, disability, illness and invalidity benefits or allowances, and assistance for residents of mountainous and disadvantaged areas) are seen as a necessary cushion reducing the intensity and extent of the social crisis. Given this situation and given also the paramount social objective of the ‘Europe 2020 strategy’, namely drastically to reduce poverty in the EU, will the Commission say:

Is it aware of the findings of this survey?

How does it assess the need for specific social and welfare benefits under the extraordinary social conditions facing Greek citizens today?

Is any funding available from the European Structural Funds to finance actions in this area?

Does it have any statistics on take-up rates by Member States to implement and cover social transfers?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2013)

1.

ELSTAT produces European statistics on income and living conditions

1.

ELSTAT produces European statistics on income and living conditions

 (158)

2.

The crisis has increased dependence on social transfers with automatic stabilisers coming into play during recession. Greece is making an effort under the Economic Adjustment Programme to protect the income and welfare of the most vulnerable. That includes also measures such as Law 3869/2010 to protect over-indebted households and Law 4093/2012 introducing a minimum income guarantee scheme in an effort to enhance social safety nets. In addition, the Human Resources Development operational programme co-financed by the European Social Fund

2.

The crisis has increased dependence on social transfers with automatic stabilisers coming into play during recession. Greece is making an effort under the Economic Adjustment Programme to protect the income and welfare of the most vulnerable. That includes also measures such as Law 3869/2010 to protect over-indebted households and Law 4093/2012 introducing a minimum income guarantee scheme in an effort to enhance social safety nets. In addition, the Human Resources Development operational programme co-financed by the European Social Fund

 (159)  (160)

3.

The ESF supports active measures

3.

The ESF supports active measures

 (161)

4.

Eurostat compiles and publishes the following statistics on social transfers in Member States:

the EU-SILC, in particular those on the effect of social transfers on poverty;

the European System for social protection statistics;

the national accounts, which detail all public expenditure.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000446/13

to the Commission

Nessa Childers (S&D)

(16 January 2013)

Subject: EU meat labelling rules

Will the Commission consider introducing stronger EU meat labelling rules following the recent horsemeat scandal in Irish and British markets?

We need an examination of the case of horsemeat traces found in Irish processed meat products, and must bring forward stronger legislation if necessary.

If, as it seems, some of the meat additive suppliers were from European plants, this shows how EU rules on meat traceability and labelling are not strong enough. That 27 % of meat tested in one burger was horsemeat is shocking to all consumers. It is very serious then that this product was exported under an Irish meat label, which is a brand of quality around the world.

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2013)

Under the existing EU food labelling legislation (162), the sale names of meat preparations which only suggest the presence of beef meat where, in fact, also other species of meat are present, are to be considered as misleading and breaching the EU legislation. Similarly, labelling of meat products containing horse meat/protein used for their preparation infringes the EU legislation, if the presence of such substances is not mentioned in the list of ingredients. Moreover, if an ingredient is mentioned in the name of the food, its quantity expressed as percentage has to be provided in the list of ingredients. These requirements, when correctly enforced, are sufficient to ensure that consumers receive correct and complete information about the characteristics and composition of meat products.

In addition, the new Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (163) requires that, when meat products/preparations contain added proteins as such, of a different animal origin, their names shall indicate the presence of those proteins and of their origin. The new rules will apply from 13 December 2014.

The enforcement of the EU food legislation, including traceability requirements, is the responsibility of the competent authorities of the Member States. They shall verify, through the organisation of official controls, that the EU rules are fulfilled by food business operators.

The Commission is in close contact with the Irish authorities and is kept informed about the investigations launched in this regard. Member States' enforcers have all the elements necessary to decide whether the information they collect during their official activities justifies an increased level of checks such as suggested by the Honourable Member.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-000447/13

aan de Commissie

Wim van de Camp (PPE)

(17 januari 2013)

Betreft: Wenselijkheid van een herordening van de bevoegdheden van de Europese Unie

In het Nederlandse regeerakkoord van het Kabinet Rutte 2 staat:

„Nederland vraagt de Europese Commissie te inventariseren, op basis van het beginsel van subsidiariteit, welke beleidsterreinen kunnen worden overgedragen aan nationale overheden en zal zelf ook voorstellen doen.” (164).

In de aanloop naar een veelbesproken toespraak van de Engelse Premier David Cameron op vrijdag 18 januari in Nederland, wordt ook duidelijk dat een herordening van de bevoegdheden van de Unie de komende jaren bovenaan de agenda komt te staan. Na het „money back” van oud minister-president Thatcher wil minister-president Cameron de geschiedenisboeken in gaan met „competencies back”.

1.

Heeft de Commissie het verzoek van de Nederlandse regering reeds ontvangen? Zo ja op welke  termijn kunnen we een antwoord verwachten?

2.

Zo niet kunt u aangeven of de Commissie de intentie heeft in haar huidige mandaat de discussie over de bevoegdheden tussen het nationale en Europese bestuur, zoals vastgelegd in het Verdrag van Lissabon, te voeren?

3.

Vindt de Commissie het wenselijk om tot een duidelijkere verdeling van de bevoegdheden te komen?

4.

Is de Commissie van mening dat er naast exclusieve Europese bevoegdheden ook exclusieve nationale bevoegdheden bestaan? Zo ja, welke zijn dat dan?

Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie

(14 februari 2013)

De Commissie heeft dergelijk verzoek van de Nederlandse overheid niet ontvangen.

In het Verdrag van Lissabon worden de bevoegdheidsterreinen van de EU reeds duidelijk omschreven. In overeenstemming met het beginsel van de bevoegdheidstoedeling blijven de lidstaten bevoegd voor elk domein dat niet onder de bevoegdheid van de EU valt. De bevoegdheden van de EU worden uitgeoefend in overeenstemming met de beginselen van subsidiariteit en evenredigheid zoals die zijn vastgelegd in de Verdragen.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000447/13

to the Commission

Wim van de Camp (PPE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Desirability of a review of EU competences

The Netherlands coalition agreement of the Second Rutte cabinet states that:

‘The Netherlands will ask the European Commission to list the policy areas that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, could be transferred to national governments. We will also make proposals ourselves.’ (165)

In the run-up to a much-discussed address by British Prime Minister David Cameron in the Netherlands on Friday, 18 January, it is becoming clear that a review of the Union’s competences will rise to the top of the agenda in the coming years. After former Prime Minister Thatcher’s ‘money back’, Prime Minister Cameron wants to enter the history books with ‘competences back’.

1.

Has the Commission already received the Netherlands government’s request? If so, when can we expect an answer?

2.

If not, can you indicate whether the Commission intends to conduct a discussion, during its current mandate, on the division of competences between national and European authorities, as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty?

3.

Does the Commission consider it desirable to arrive at a clearer division of competences?

4.

Does the Commission believe that, alongside exclusive European competences, exclusive national competences should also exist? If so, which ones?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2013)

The Commission has not received any such request from the Dutch authorities.

The Treaty of Lisbon defines already clearly the areas of competence of the EU. In accordance with the principle of conferral any area not falling within the EU competence remains in the domain of the Member States. EU competences are exercised in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as set out in the Treaties.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-000448/13

an die Kommission

Richard Seeber (PPE)

(17. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Gestaltung eines Systems von Nährwertprofilen gemäß Art. 4 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1924/2006

Im Rahmen der vom Europäischen Parlament am 13. November 2012 veranstalteten Anhörung hat sich das damals noch designierte Mitglied der Kommission mit Zuständigkeit für Gesundheit, Tonio Borg, klar dafür ausgesprochen, die Gestaltung eines Systems von Nährwertprofilen gemäß Artikel 4 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1924/2006 voranzutreiben. Zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt sind dem Europäischen Parlament keine Fortschritte bei dieser Thematik bekannt.

1.

Wann plant die Kommission, ihren Vorschlag für ein System der Nährwertprofile vorzulegen?

2.

Welche Probleme traten in den letzten Monaten bei der Erarbeitung dieses Vorschlags auf?

3.

Gibt es potenzielle Interessenkonflikte von Bediensteten der Kommission bezüglich der Gestaltung der Nährwertprofile?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(8. Februar 2013)

Die Kommission kann keine ausführliche Planung für die Festlegung von Nährwertprofilen vorschlagen, da die Erörterungen innerhalb der Kommission noch andauern.

Der Kommission liegen keine Informationen über einen Interessenskonflikt in diesem Bereich vor. Sollte ein Bediensteter/eine Bedienstete einem solchen unterliegen, ist er/sie verpflichtet, dies zu melden, damit die Anstellungsbehörde entsprechende Maßnahmen ergreifen kann (166).

(English version)

Question for written answer P-000448/13

to the Commission

Richard Seeber (PPE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Design of a system of nutrient profiles under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

During the hearing held by the European Parliament on 13 November 2012, the designated EU Commissioner for Health at the time, Tonio Borg, indicated his intention to press forward with the design of a system of nutrient profiles under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. To date, the European Parliament is unaware of any progress in this area.

1.

When does the Commission plan to put forward its proposal for a system of nutrient profiles?

2.

What problems have been encountered in recent months during the drafting of this proposal?

3.

Is there any potential for a conflict of interest among Commission officials in relation to the design of nutrient profiles?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2013)

The Commission is not in a position to propose a detailed planning for the setting of nutrient profiles, since discussions are still ongoing within the Commission.

The Commission has not been informed of a situation of conflict of interest in this field. Should a member of staff face such a situation, he/she has the obligation to declare it in order for the appointing authority to take appropriate measures (167).

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-000449/13

do Komisji

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(17 stycznia 2013 r.)

Przedmiot: Zmiana regulacji na rynku telekomunikacyjnym UE

Na rynku telekomunikacyjnym Unii Europejskiej istnieje wiele odmiennych regulacji krajowych, które utrudniają operatorom dzielenie jednej sieci telekomunikacyjnej. Przekłada się to na trudności w budowie jednolitego rynku, wyrównywaniu opłat i zniesienia roamingu w UE. W sumie we wszystkich 27 państwach UE funkcjonuje ponad 100 operatorów sieci komórkowych.

Według informacji prasowych firmy telekomunikacyjne wyrażają niezadowolenie w związku z sytuacją na rynku i poszukują konstruktywnych pomysłów na sprawniejsze funkcjonowanie europejskiego rynku telekomunikacyjnego.

Zgodnie z wypowiedzią komisarz ds. agendy cyfrowej Neelie Kroes, Komisja Europejska pracuje nad szeregiem rozwiązań, mających na celu stworzenie w Unii wspólnych, stabilnych warunków do konkurencji, inwestycji i wzrostu w branży telekomunikacji, co powinno także zwiększyć atrakcyjność transgranicznych fuzji.

Zwracam się z zapytaniem:

Czy Komisja będzie wspierać działania mające na celu utworzenie jednolitych regulacji na rynku telekomunikacyjnym Unii Europejskiej?

Czy w prowadzonych w przyszłości działaniach Komisja będzie mieć na uwadze dążenie do obniżenia nieproporcjonalnie wysokich cen za połączenia telefoniczne do krajów Partnerstwa Wschodniego?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wiceprzewodniczącą Neelie Kroes w imieniu Komisji

(4 marca 2013 r.)

Jak zauważył Szanowny Pan Poseł, brak spójnej i stabilnej regulacji w całej Europie stanowi przeszkodę w zapewnieniu prawdziwego, jednolitego rynku.

Komisja podziela Pana opinię, że Europa potrzebuje dużo bardziej zintegrowanego jednolitego rynku łączności elektronicznej. W tym celu, zgodnie z deklaracją (168) Wiceprzewodniczącej Neelie Kroes, Komisja pracuje obecnie nad wnioskami legislacyjnymi mającymi na celu zapewnienie operatorom telekomunikacyjnym większej przewidywalności i przejrzystości, wspieranie konkurencji i zwiększanie inwestycji w zakresie łączy szerokopasmowych.

Bezpośrednimi wynikami działań zapowiedzianych w deklaracji politycznej będą m.in. przegląd rynków, które powinny zostać objęte regulacją w sposób skoordynowany, oraz bardziej zharmonizowane podejście regulacyjne do kluczowych elementów regulacji sieci dominujących operatorów w UE.

Jeśli chodzi o koszty międzynarodowych połączeń wykonywanych z danego kraju, Komisja zachęca kraje spoza UE do zajęcia się tą kwestią, na przykład w ramach Partnerstwa Wschodniego. Komisja wspiera w szczególności państwa Partnerstwa Wschodniego w ich działaniach na rzecz zbliżenia swoich ustawodawstw do ram regulacyjnych UE.

Chociaż poziom cen połączeń międzynarodowych nie jest regulowany na mocy prawa UE, ramy regulacyjne UE zapewniają krajowym organom regulacyjnym narzędzia do podejmowania działań ukierunkowanych na rozwiązanie problemów związanych z konkurencją w obrębie swoich rynków krajowych.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000449/13

to the Commission

Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Revising EU telecommunications market regulations

The EU telecommunications market is governed by a variety of divergent national regulations which make it difficult for operators to share a single telecommunications network. This translates into difficulties constructing a single market, levelling out charges and abolishing roaming within the EU. A total of more than 100 mobile network operators are currently operating in the 27 Member States.

According to press reports, telecommunications companies are dissatisfied with the state of affairs on the market and are seeking constructive ideas to enable the European telecommunications market to function more efficiently.

As stated by the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, the Commission is working on a series of solutions aimed at establishing common and stable conditions across the EU for competition, investment and growth in the telecommunications sector. This should also help make cross‐border mergers more attractive.

1.

Will the Commission give its backing to steps to establish uniform regulations on the EU's telecommunications market?

2.

In its future activities, will the Commission take into consideration the objective ofreducing the disproportionally high charges levied on telephone calls to EasternPartnership countries?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2013)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member the lack of consistent and stable regulation across Europe is an obstacle to ensuring a true single market.

The Commission shares your assessment that Europe needs a much more integrated single market for e-communications. To that end, further to the announcement (169) by the Vice-President Neelie Kroes, the Commission is currently working on regulatory proposals to bring more predictability and clarity to telecom operators, promote competition and enhance the broadband investments.

Among the immediate outputs of the announcement will be the review of markets that should be regulated in a coordinated manner and more harmonised regulatory approach of key elements for the regulation of the dominant operator's networks in the EU.

As regards the costs of international calls made from caller's own country, the Commission is encouraging the non-EU countries, for example within the Eastern Partnership, to address this issue. In particular, the Commission is supporting the Eastern Partnership countries in their work to approximate their laws to the EU regulatory framework.

Although the price levels of international calls are not regulated as such under the EC law, the EU regulatory framework provides National Regulatory authorities with tools to act in relation to any competition problems that exist within their national markets.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000450/13

aan de Commissie

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)

(17 januari 2013)

Betreft: Rapport EFSA: bijensterfte en pesticides

Het voedselveiligheidsagentschap van de EU heeft vandaag een studie gepubliceerd waaruit blijkt dat de meeste gebruikte insecticiden een onaanvaardbaar risico inhouden voor de gezondheid van de bijen. In februari nog stelde ik een vraag over de massale bijensterfte en het eventuele verband met het gebruik van insecticiden (170) (E-001228/2012). De Commissie antwoordde dat het de resultaten van verschillende Europese onderzoeken afwachtte. Deze resultaten werden nu door de EFSA gepubliceerd. (171)

De neonicotinoide-insecticides waarvan sprake is, zitten onder meer in het veelgebruikte imidacloporide, een product dat door Bayer wordt geproduceerd. Het product lag al langer onder vuur, maar bij gebrek aan sterk wetenschappelijk bewijs werden de verbanden tussen bijensterfte en insecticiden steeds geminimaliseerd. De EFSA besluit nu in haar rapport, dat tot stand kwam in samenwerking met experts uit heel Europa en meer dan 300 studies over bijensterfte onder de loep nam, dat imidacloporide enkel aanvaardbaar is als het gebruikt wordt op planten die minder aantrekkelijk zijn voor bijen. Het product houdt echter een „hoog risico in, of een hoog risico kon niet uitgesloten worden, in relatie tot sommige aspecten van het risico-assessment voor honingbijen,” schrijft de EFSA, die verder stelt dat „de huidige regelgeving belangrijke zwaktes vertoont”. Volgens de EFSA missen de risico-assessments ook belangrijke gegevens, die het mogelijk moeten maken de precieze risico’s van neonicotinoïden in te schatten.

1.

Hoe zal de Commissie omgaan met deze resultaten?

2.

Worden de nodige procedures opgestart om (bepaalde) nu toegelaten neonicotinoïden te verbieden of hun gebruik te beperken? Zo ja, welke?

3.

Zal de Commissie Imidacloperide van de markt weren?

4.

Hoeveel tijd zou dat vragen?

5.

Overweegt de Commissie om de manier waarop pesticides op de markt toegelaten worden te herzien?

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000479/13

aan de Commissie

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE) en Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)

(17 januari 2013)

Betreft: Invloed neonicotinoiden op bijensterfte

De Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid (EFSA) concludeert uit onderzoek dat bepaalde pesticiden schadelijk zijn voor de gezondheid van honingbijen. Zie „EFSA identifies risks to bees from neonicotinoids” (172).

Het EFSA‐rapport geeft aan dat bestrijdingsmiddelen als imidacloprid, clothianidine en thiamethoxam een belangrijke factor zijn in de bijensterfte. Bovendien concludeert de EFSA dat de manier waarop wordt beoordeeld of een bepaald bestrijdingsmiddel veilig tot de markt kan worden toegelaten, tot nu toe geen rekening houdt met deze schadelijke effecten op bijen.

Bas Eickhout riep samen met collega's op 10 februari 2012 al op, dit risico te erkennen en maatregelen te nemen (E‐001297/2012) (173).

Op 2 maart 2012 antwoordde de Commissie op deze vraag over de invloed van pesticiden (neonicotinoiden) op bijensterfte onder andere:

„Tot nu toe kon geen verband worden vastgesteld tussen neonicotinoïde insecticiden, wanneer die correct worden gebruikt, en het probleem van bijensterfte. Er zijn bijgevolg geen cijfers beschikbaar.”

De EFSA erkent met zijn onderzoek het verband tussen neonicotinoïde insecticiden en het probleem van bijensterfte, waardoor de antwoorden op de eerder gestelde vragen bijgesteld kunnen worden.

1.

Kan de Commissie meedelen of de lidstaten de nodige maatregelen hebben getroffen om aan Richtlijn 2010/21/EU te voldoen?

2.

Kan de Commissie aan de hand van concrete cijfers aangeven of de vastgestelde rechtsnormen (bv. Richtlijn 2010/21/EU en Verordening (EG) nr. 1107/2009) toereikend zijn en de  terugloop van het honingbijenbestand voorkomen?

3.

Welke concrete maatregelen denkt de Commissie te nemen om honingbijen tegen neonicotinoïden te beschermen?

4.

Is de Commissie bereid en in staat een moratorium op het gebruik van neonicotinoïden in te stellen totdat concrete wetgeving in werking treedt?

Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie

(11 maart 2013)

De Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid (EFSA) is op verzoek van de Commissie overgegaan tot toetsing van de risico-evaluatie voor bijen van de werkzame stoffen clothianidine, imidacloprid en thiamethoxam als pesticide (174).

In overeenstemming met Richtlijn 2010/21/EU van de Commissie (175) deden sommige lidstaten een uitgebreide monitoring. De Commissie is echter van mening dat de in deze richtlijn opgenomen risicobeperkende maatregelen niet volstaan om de door de EFSA in haar recente conclusies gesignaleerde risico's te ondervangen.

Daarom kondigde de Commissie al aan dat er snelle en evenredige maatregelen moeten worden genomen op EU-niveau.

Op 31 januari 2013 vond een eerste overleg met deskundigen van de lidstaten plaats bij het Permanent Comité voor de voedselketen en de diergezondheid.

Op 7 februari 2013 stelde de Commissie in het kader van een ad-hocvergadering van de Adviesgroep voor de voedselketen ontwerpmaatregelen voor aan alle belanghebbenden.

Vervolgens zal de Commissie zo spoedig mogelijk een definitieve ontwerpverordening  ter advies voorleggen aan het Permanent Comité voor de voedselketen en de diergezondheid.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000450/13

to the Commission

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: EFSA report: bee mortality and pesticides

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has today published a study showing that the most widely used insecticides pose an unacceptable risk to the health of the bees. Last February, I asked a question about the massive levels of bee mortality and the possible connection with the use of insecticides (E-001228/2012) (176). The Commission replied that it was awaiting the results of various European studies. These results have now been published by EFSA (177).

The neonicotinoid insecticides at issue are present inter alia in Imidacloporid, a widely used product produced by Bayer. This product had already been under fire for some time but, in the absence of strong scientific evidence, the links between bee mortality and insecticides were always minimised. EFSA has now decided in its report, which was compiled in cooperation with experts from across Europe and looked at over 300 studies on bee mortality, that Imidacloporid is only acceptable if it is used on plants that are less attractive to bees. EFSA states, however, that ‘a high risk was indicated or could not be excluded in relation to certain aspects of the risk assessment for honey bees’, and that there are major weaknesses in the current legislation. According to EFSA, there is also some important information missing from the risk assessments that would make it possible to estimate the precise risks of neonicotinoids.

1.

How will the Commission deal with these results?

2.

Have the necessary procedures been launched to ban, or restrict the use of, (certain) neonicotinoids that are currently authorised? If so, which?

3.

Will the Commission exclude Imidacloporid from the market?

4.

How long would that take?

5.

Does the Commission intend to change the rules on market authorisation for pesticides?

Question for written answer E-000479/13

to the Commission

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Impact of neonicotinoids on bee mortality

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concludes from research that certain pesticides are harmful to the health of honey bees. See ‘EFSA identifies risks to bees from neonicotinoids’ (178).

The EFSA report states that pesticides such as imidacloprid, clothianidine and thiamethoxam are an important factor in bee mortality. EFSA also concludes that the procedure for deciding whether a particular pesticide may safely be approved for marketing does not at present take account of these harmful effects on bees.

Together with other MEPs, Bas Eickhout called in February 2012 for this risk to be acknowledged and measures to be taken (E‐001297/2012) (179).

On 2 March 2012 the Commission, in its answer to this question on the impact of pesticides (neonicotinoids) on bee mortality, stated: ‘Until today, no link between neonicotinoid insecticides, if correctly used, and the problem of bee mortality could be established, and therefore figures are not available’.

By its research, EFSA has recognised the link between neonicotinoid insecticides and the problem of bee mortality, and the answers to the earlier questions may therefore need to be adjusted.

1.

Can the Commission state whether the Member States have taken the necessary measures to comply with Directive 2010/21/EU?

2.

Can the Commission supply specific figures indicating whether the legislative measures adopted (e.g. Directive 2010/21/EU and Regulation (EC) No1107/2009) are sufficient and are contributing to prevent depletion of honey bees?

3.

What other concrete measures is the Commission planning to adopt in order to protect honey bees from neonicotinoids?

4.

Is the Commission willing and able to introduce a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoids until specific legislation is in force?

Joint answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2013)

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as requested by the Commission, carried out a review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substances clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam (180).

Extensive monitoring has been performed by some Member States in compliance with Commission Directive 2010/21/EU (181). However, the Commission believes that the risk mitigation measures provided for in this directive are not sufficient to address the risks identified by EFSA in the recent conclusions.

Therefore, the Commission already announced swift and proportionate measures to be applied at EU level.

A first discussion with Member States experts took place on 31 January 2013 at the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.

On 7 February 2013 the Commission draft measures were presented to all interested parties in the framework of an ad hoc meeting of the Advisory group of the Food Chain.

Thereafter, a final Commission draft regulation will be submitted for opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health within the shortest delay.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000451/13

an die Kommission

Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE)

(17. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Förderung aus dem Programm „De minimis“ für Aldi

Das Magazin Der Spiegel berichtete am 31. Juli 2012 (182) , dass der deutsche Discounter Aldi im Zeitraum 2009 bis 2011 Zuschüsse von über 4 Mio. EUR vom deutschen Bundesamt für Güterverkehr erhalten hat. Das De minimis-Programm, aus dem Aldi diese Gelder bezog, steht Unternehmen des Güterkraftverkehrs offen und zielt auf fahrzeugbezogene Maßnahmen, personenbezogene Maßnahmen und Maßnahmen zur Effizienzsteigerung ab.

1.

Ist die Kommission über diese Subventionen unterrichtet, insbesondere über die 1,75 Mio. EUR aus dem Programm De minimis, welche regionalen Subunternehmen von Aldi gewährt wurden?

2.

Welchen Standpunkt vertritt die Kommission im Zusammenhang mit der Tatsache, dass Aldi (ein Handelsunternehmen und kein Transportunternehmen) diese Zuschüsse aus dem De minimis-Programm, das sich an Unternehmen im Straßengüterverkehr richtet, erhalten hat, um spezifische Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Komponenten Sicherheit und Umweltschutz durchzuführen? Vertritt die Kommission die Auffassung, dass das Bundesamt für Güterverkehr bei der Zuteilung dieser Fördergelder an Aldi in Übereinstimmung mit EU-Recht handelte?

3.

Falls sich die Förderung als unzulässig herausstellen sollte, welche (rechtlichen) Schritte gedenkt die Kommission zu unternehmen, um diesen Missstand zu beheben?

Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission

(23. April 2013)

Die De-minimis-Verordnung  (183) legt die Bedingungen für die Gewährung von De-minimis-Beihilfen fest. Sie gilt für Beihilfen an Unternehmen in allen Wirtschaftsbereichen, einschließlich des Verkehrsgewerbes, und unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen für die Verarbeitung und Vermarktung landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse. Nicht unter die Verordnung fallen Beihilfen in der Fischerei und Aquakultur, an Primärerzeuger landwirtschaftlicher Produkte, für exportbezogene Tätigkeiten, im Steinkohlebergbau, für den Erwerb von Fahrzeugen für den Straßengütertransport oder an Unternehmen in Schwierigkeiten sowie Beihilfen, die von der Verwendung heimischer Erzeugnisse zu Lasten von Importwaren abhängig gemacht werden. Zuwendungen, die in einem Zeitraum von drei Jahren 200 000 EUR nicht übersteigen, gelten nicht als staatliche Beihilfen im Sinne von Artikel 107 Absatz 1 AEUV. Im Bereich des Straßentransportsektors gilt eine spezifische Höchstgrenze von 100 000 EUR.

Die Verantwortung für die Durchführung der De-minimis-Verordnung liegtbei den Mitgliedstaaten. Sie müssen sicherstellen, dass den Anforderungen in vollem Umfang entsprochen wird. Die Kommission braucht weder über die Absicht, De-minimis-Beihilfen zu gewähren, noch über die tatsächliche Gewährung unterrichtet werden. Daher ist die Kommission nicht über die Beihilfe in Höhe von 1,75 Mio. EUR aus einem De-minimis‐Programm in Deutschland informiert worden. Die Rolle der Kommission beschränkt sich darauf, eine Ex-Post-Kontrollfunktion wahrzunehmenundeinzugreifen, wenn sie von einer missbräuchlichen oder fehlerhaften Praxis bei der Gewährung von De - minimis-Beihilfen Kenntnis erlangt.

Die Kommission sieht sich anhand der in der Anfrage vorgelegten Informationen nicht in der Lage, die Rechtmäßigkeit oder Vereinbarkeit der den regionalen Subunternehmen von Aldi gewährten Beihilfen zu beurteilen. Sollten die Anforderungen der De-minimis-Verordnung nicht eingehalten worden sein, könnte dies darauf hindeuten, dass es sich um nicht angemeldete staatliche Beihilfen im Sinne von Artikel 108 Absatz 3 handelt, die von der Kommission zu prüfen sind. Bei einer solchen Prüfung könnte sich allerdings herausstellen, dass die Beihilfen dennoch nach Maßgabe des Artikels 107 Absatz 3 Buchstabe c als mit dem AEUV vereinbar anzusehen sind.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000451/13

to the Commission

Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Support for Aldi from the ‘De minimis’ programme

On 31 July 2012 (184), Der Spiegel magazine revealed that German discounter Aldi had received subsidies of over EUR 4 million from the German Federal Office for Goods Transport in the period 2009 to 2011. The ‘De minimis’ programme that provided the funding to Aldi is open to enterprises involved in the carriage of goods and is intended for vehicle-related measures, personnel-related measures and measures aimed at increasing efficiency.

1.

Is the Commission aware of these subsidies, in particular the EUR 1.75 million from the

‘De minimis’ programme paid out to Aldi’s regional subsidiaries?

2.

What is its position on the fact that Aldi (which is a distributor, not a transport company) received these subsidies from the

‘De minimis’ programme, which is aimed at road transport companies to encourage specific measures aimed at enhancing safety and environmental protection? Does it take the view that the Federal Office for Goods Transport acted in compliance with EC law when it allocated this grant to Aldi?

3.

If this support is found to be inadmissible, what (legal) steps is the Commission considering to rectify this instance of maladministration?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2013)

The de minimis regulation (185) lays down the conditions under which de minimis subsidies can be granted. It applies to subsidies granted to firms in all sectors, including transport and, on certain conditions, for the processing and marketing of agricultural products. It does not apply to aid for fisheries and aquaculture, primary production of agricultural products, export-related activities, the coal sector, acquisition of road freight transport vehicles or firms in difficulty, or aid tied to the use of domestic over imported goods. Subsidies of less than EUR 200 000 granted over a period of three years are not regarded as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. A specific ceiling of EUR 100 000 applies to road transport.

Implementation of the de minimis regulation is the full responsibility of Member States. Member States must ensure that the requirements are fully complied with. They do not need to inform the Commission of their intention to grant de minimis aid nor of the fact that they have granted it. Thus, the Commission has not been informed of EUR 1.75 million grant from a de minimis programme in Germany. The Commission's role is limited to ex post control functions and to acting when informed of abuse or misapplication of de minimis aid.

On the basis of the information received through this question, the Commission is not in a position to assess the legality or compatibility of the subsidies received by Aldi's regional subsidiaries. If the conditions of the de minimis Regulation were not complied with, this could indicate that this might constitute non-notified state aid within the meaning of Article 108(3) that the Commission would have to examine. However, the aid could still be considered compatible with the TFEU under Art. 107(3) (c), depending on the outcome of such examination.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000452/13

to the Commission

Andrew Henry William Brons (NI)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Public image of the President of the European Commission

With regard to its answer to my Written Question E-009871/2012, the Commission is asked the following:

Looking beyond the more general budget, which covers the wider issues to which the Commission refers in its reply, will the Commission kindly provide, from its files or from the suppliers of the services rendered, an account of the costs to the public purse of outlays pertaining specifically to advice and/or information provided regarding the President’s personal and public image? I wish to know the costs of this service.

Will the Commission kindly provide copies of the reports made on such payments over the past two years?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2013)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to the Written Question E-9871/12 (186).

The relevant budget line is a general one covering public opinion analysis and media monitoring of the European Union and its Institutions.

There is not a more specific budget line for monitoring the President’s personal and public image.

The Honourable Member’s request for the reports will be handled in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000453/13

to the Council

Andrew Henry William Brons (NI)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Public image of the President of the European Council

With regard to reply E-008109/2012, will the Council kindly specify whether reports are prepared relating to the President’s personal and public image, and if so will it supply me with those reports which will have been prepared with public funds?

Reply

(11 March 2013)

There are no such reports.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000454/13

to the Commission

Andrew Henry William Brons (NI)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: UK membership of the EU

With respect to the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-010616/2012, would it kindly explain, therefore, why UK opinion polls consistently register public dissatisfaction with the EU, usually with a majority desiring withdrawal?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2013)

In the performance of its duties under the Treaties, the Commission does not acquire information of the kind requested. It is therefore unable to answer the question.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000455/13

to the Commission

Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Democracy and the rule of law in the ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’

A series of disturbing events took place during the plenary session of the Sobranie (the parliament of the ‘former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, or FYROM) of 24 December 2012.

Ahead of the vote on the budget, 42 MPs out of the total of 123 were deprived of their right to register their presence at the session and were forced out of the plenary hall by security guards. Two female MPs were hospitalised and another person had to receive medical treatment. Journalists were removed in violation of the Macedonian Constitution and the Law on the Assembly.

In view of FYROM’s status as an EU candidate country:

how does the Commission assess the impact of the events described above on FYROM’s commitment to achieving progress towards the Copenhagen political criteria, in particular the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law?

what has the Commission done to raise its concern about the events described above with FYROM’s parliament and government?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2013)

In EU statements and frequent contacts by the Commissioner responsible for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy and senior EU officials, the Commission has expressed its concern regarding the events of 24 December 2012 and their handling.

The Commissioner responsible for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy has called on political leaders to take responsibility and find a solution to the current political stalemate, demonstrating the maturity of democratic institutions and putting the best interests of the country and its citizens first.

The Commission assesses compliance with the relevant criteria in its annual enlargement package, published each autumn (187). The December 2012 Council Conclusions, which invited the Commission to report in spring 2013 on progress on EU-related reforms and good neighbourly relations, are a real opportunity to advance the country's strategic interests.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000456/13

a la Comisión

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(17 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Directrices para las ayudas de Estado — Comercio de derechos de emisión

En las Directrices para las ayudas de Estado en el contexto del régimen del comercio de derechos de emisión, la Comisión Europea afirma que estas ayudas «pueden dar lugar a significativas distorsiones de la competencia en el mercado interior, en particular si las empresas del mismo sector son tratadas de manera diferente en distintos Estados miembros, debido a diferentes limitaciones presupuestarias».

En estos momentos algunos Estados miembros están sometidos a fuertes programas de ajuste de sus presupuestos y no pueden otorgar ayudas a sus industrias en el marco de las directrices mencionadas. En cambio, otros Estados miembros sí pueden hacerlo.

¿Qué medidas va a tomar la Comisión para evitar las distorsiones en el mercado interior que puede causar el hecho de que unos Estados miembros puedan otorgar ayudas a su industria y otros no, por razones estrictamente presupuestarias?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(7 de marzo de 2013)

La Directiva 2009/29/CE (188) prevé el perfeccionamiento y la ampliación del régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión de la UE a partir del 1 de enero de 2013. Dicha Directiva se integra en el paquete legislativo de medidas para combatir el cambio climático y fomentar la energía renovable y con bajas emisiones de carbono. A fin de acompañar el cambio y neutralizar el riesgo de fuga de carbono, la Directiva establece la posibilidad de que los Estados miembros otorguen una ayuda temporal para compensar la subida del precio de la electricidad derivada de la inclusión en el mismo de los costes de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero debido al régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión de la UE (denominados habitualmente «costes indirectos de las emisiones de CO2»).

La Comisión ha adoptado unas Directrices sobre ayudas estatales (189) que fijan las condiciones en las que los Estados miembros pueden compensar parcialmente el aumento de los costes de la electricidad. Las Directrices garantizarán la transparencia, la previsibilidad jurídica y unas condiciones equitativas de competencia para todos los Estados miembros y demás partes interesadas.

Con objeto de reducir al máximo el falseamiento de la competencia en el mercado interior y salvaguardar el objetivo del régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión de la UE de lograr una descarbonización eficiente en costes, la Comisión ha determinado un número limitado de sectores que pueden acogerse a ayudas estatales (15 sectores y subsectores). Por otro lado, las compañías más eficientes de cada sector han servido de referencia para determinar el importe máximo de ayuda, el cual solo puede compensar parcialmente los costes de las emisiones de CO2 en los precios de la electricidad y se irá reduciendo con el transcurso del tiempo.

La Comisión controlará periódicamente las subvenciones otorgadas por los Estados miembros y podrá revisar las Directrices relacionadas con el régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión una vez transcurridos los primeros años de aplicación.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000456/13

to the Commission

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Guidelines for state aid — Emissions Trading System

In the Guidelines for state aid in the context of the Emissions Trading System, the Commission states that such aid ‘can lead to significant distortions of competition in the internal market, particularly if companies in the same sector are treated differently in different Member States, due to different budgetary constraints’.

At present, some Member States are subject to severe budgetary adjustment programmes and are unable to grant aid to their industries as indicated in the above guidelines. Other Member States, however, are able to do so.

What measures will the Commission take to avoid the distortions in the internal market that may be caused by the fact that some Member States can grant aid to industry while others, for strictly budgetary reasons, cannot?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2013)

Directive 2009/29/EC (190) has improved and extended the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as from 1 January 2013. It is part of a legislative package containing measures to fight climate change and promote renewable and low-carbon energy. In order to accompany the change and address the risk of carbon leakage, the ETS Directive foresees the possibility for Member States to temporarily grant aid to compensate increases in electricity prices resulting from the inclusion of the costs of greenhouse gas emissions due to EU ETS (commonly referred to as ‘indirect CO2 costs’).

The Commission adopted state aid Guidelines (191) which set the conditions under which Member States may compensate part of the increased electricity costs. The Guidelines will ensure transparency, legal predictability and a level playing field across Member States and other stakeholders.

In order to minimise competition distortions in the internal market and preserve the objective of the EU ETS to achieve a cost-effective decarbonisation, the Commission defined a limited number of sectors which may receive state aid (15 sectors and subsectors). Furthermore, the maximum aid has been benchmarked by the most efficient companies in each sector, may only partially compensate the costs of CO2 in electricity prices, and shall be reduced over time.

The Commission will regularly monitor the subsidies granted by Member States and may review the ETS Guidelines after the first years of application.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000457/13

a la Comisión

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(17 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Directrices para las ayudas de Estado — Comercio de derechos de emisión II

En la Declaración realizada durante el proceso de adopción de la Directiva 2009/29/CE, la Comisión afirmaba que «los Estados miembros podrán considerar necesario compensar temporalmente a determinadas instalaciones por los costes relacionados con el CO2 que repercuten en los precios de la electricidad, en caso de que dichos costes les expusieran a un riesgo de fuga de carbono». Por entonces los precios de los derechos de emisión oscilaban entre los 15 y los 20 euros.

Más recientemente, la Comisión ha propuesto modificar el calendario de subastas, así como varias opciones para la reforma estructural del régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión. En todas estas propuestas subyace el desajuste entre oferta y demanda, que desemboca en un precio actual de entre 5 y 7 euros por derecho de emisión.

¿Cree la Comisión que los precios actuales del derecho de emisión justifican un mecanismo de ayudas de Estado como el aprobado en junio de 2012?

Si los factores de emisión se fijan en función de las instalaciones de CO2, que son las que determinan el precio marginal en los mercados mayoristas, ¿no se estará perjudicando a los Estados miembros que más esfuerzos han hecho para el fomento de las energías renovables?

Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión

(11 de abril de 2013)

La Comisión adoptó las Directrices para las ayudas estatales que establecen las condiciones en las que los Estados miembros pueden compensar parte del aumento de los costes de electricidad debido al régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión. Los Estados miembros son libres de decidir si es o no oportuno conceder este tipo de ayuda estatal.

Dichas Directrices equilibran cuidadosamente varios objetivos clave. Su objetivo es mitigar el efecto de los costes indirectos del CO2 en las industrias más vulnerables, y también minimizar las distorsiones de la competencia en el mercado interior, evitando la escalada de subvenciones dentro de la UE en momentos de incertidumbre económica y disciplina presupuestaria.

Para la elaboración de la lista de sectores elegibles para las ayudas estatales y los derechos de emisión gratuitos, la Comisión utilizó las hipótesis para el precio del CO2 establecidas en la evaluación de impacto realizada para el paquete sobre cambio climático y energía en 2009. No obstante, en el caso de las ayudas estatales para el período 2013-2020, solo se tendrá en cuenta el precio de mercado real del CO2, a fin de evitar beneficios extraordinarios.

Aunque la situación económica de algunos Estados miembros ha cambiado desde la modificación de la Directiva sobre el comercio de derechos de emisión, en estos momentos la Comisión se está centrando en la aplicación de la Directiva, a fin de garantizar que puedan establecerse los mecanismos acordados para abordar las fugas de carbono.

El cálculo de las emisiones de CO2 solo tiene en cuenta la cantidad de electricidad producida a partir de combustibles fósiles, ya que la generación de electricidad basada en los combustibles fósiles es fundamental para la formación de los precios de la electricidad. La producción de electricidad sin CO2, como la de las energías renovables, no suele influir en la formación de los precios de la electricidad al por mayor.

La Comisión efectuará un seguimiento periódico de las subvenciones concedidas por los Estados miembros y podrá revisar las Directrices sobre el régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión después de los primeros años de aplicación.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000457/13

to the Commission

Pilar Ayuso (PPE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Guidelines for state aid — Emissions Trading System II

In the Declaration made during the adoption process for Directive 2009/29/EC, the Commission stated that ‘Member States may deem it necessary to temporarily compensate certain installations which have been determined to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage for costs related to greenhouse gas emissions passed on in electricity prices.’ At that time, allowance prices ranged from EUR 15 to EUR 20.

More recently, the Commission has proposed amending the auction calendar, as well as several options for structural reform of the Emissions Trading System. The mismatch between supply and demand underlies all of these proposals, leading to a current price of between EUR 5 and EUR 7 per allowance.

Does the Commission believe that current allowance prices justify a state aid mechanism as approved in June 2012?

If emission factors are set according to CO2 facilities, which are the ones used to determine the marginal price in wholesale markets, will Member States that have made efforts to promote renewable energies not be adversely affected?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2013)

The Commission adopted state aid Guidelines which set the conditions under which Member States may compensate part of the increased electricity costs due to the ETS. Member States are free to decide whether or not to grant such state aid.

The Guidelines carefully balance several key objectives. They aim to mitigate the impact of indirect CO2 costs for the most vulnerable industries, while also designed to minimise competition distortions in the internal market by avoiding subsidy races within the EU at a time of economic uncertainty and budgetary discipline.

For establishing the list of eligible sectors both for state aid and for free allowances, the Commission used the assumptions for the CO2 price laid down in the impact assessment made for the climate and energy package in 2009. However, for the state aid for the period 2013-2020, only the actual market price of CO2 will be taken into account, so as to avoid windfall profits.

Although the economic situation for some Member States has changed since the amendment of the ETS Directive, the Commission currently is concentrating on implementing the directive, to ensure that the agreed policy tools to address carbon leakage can be put in place.

The calculation of CO2 emissions takes into account only the amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels, because fossil fuel-based electricity generation is key to electricity price formation. CO2 ‐free electricity production such as renewables usually do not influence wholesale electricity price formation.

The Commission will regularly monitor the subsidies granted by Member States and may review the ETS Guidelines after the first years of application.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000458/13

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(17 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Massacro di cristiani nel villaggio di Masuri in Nigeria

Il 28 dicembre 2012, le milizie islamiste Boko Haram hanno perpetrato un attacco contro la minoranza cristiana residente nel villaggio di Masuri, nel nord-est della Nigeria, uccidendo quindici fedeli nel sonno. Fonti umanitarie e testimoni locali hanno riferito del massacro e hanno smentito la versione fornita dalle autorità nigeriane, le quali parlano di un numero inferiore di vittime e forniscono scarsi dettagli sull'accaduto.

Nel 2012 sono stati ben tredici gli attentati contro i fedeli cristiani registrati sul territorio nigeriano, quasi tutti rivendicati dalle milizie islamiste Boko Haram. Dal 2009 ad oggi sono oltre tremila le vittime di attacchi a sfondo religioso in Nigeria.

Tale situazione minaccia di diventare ancora più drammatica dopo l'intervento militare francese in Mali, che rischia di provocare le reazioni dei ribelli islamisti anche in Nigeria.

1.

Alla luce di tali avvenimenti, può l'Alto Rappresentante far sapere se è a conoscenza della tragica situazione dei fedeli cristiani in Nigeria?

2.

Quali sono stati gli interventi dell'Unione europea per far fronte ai sempre più numerosi attacchi terroristici delle milizie islamiste Boko Haram?

3.

Tenendo conto del recente intervento militare francese in Mali, l'Unione europea ha intenzione di prendere provvedimenti adeguati, allo scopo di proteggere i fedeli cristiani di quest'area dalle eventuali ripercussioni islamiste?

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

(26 febbraio 2013)

L'inasprirsi delle violenze in alcune zone della Nigeria settentrionale, che hanno preso di mira civili innocenti, sia musulmani che cristiani, è fonte di crescenti preoccupazioni per chi si trova all'interno e all'esterno del paese. L'UE collabora con la Nigeria per sostenerla nel difficile tentativo di creare condizioni di sicurezza durature e di agire sui fattori che contribuiscono alla radicalizzazione e alla violenza, sia mediante un costante dialogo politico sulle strategie più idonee ad affrontare i problemi, sia con interventi di aiuto mirati. Di recente, una missione inviata in Nigeria ha esaminato forme specifiche di sostegno alla lotta al terrorismo. L'obiettivo è aiutare le autorità nigeriane a garantire lo Stato di diritto e il rispetto dei principi in materia di diritti umani.

L'Unione europea ha già avviato una serie di programmi di assistenza sociale, ad esempio nel settore della maternità, e in materia di risorse idriche nel nord del paese, e attualmente sta sviluppando un progetto sul coinvolgimento delle donne nella costruzione della pace nella Nigeria settentrionale. L'UE sta tuttavia prendendo in considerazione la possibilità di concentrarsi maggiormente, nell'ambito dell'11° FES, su programmi integrati che affrontino l'insieme delle questioni economiche e sociali all'origine della violenza.

Inoltre, nel luglio 2012 l'Unione europea ha sostenuto il rafforzamento delle capacità di mediazione in una delle aree più sensibili, ricorrendo ai fondi di un'iniziativa speciale del Parlamento europeo (EEAS BL 2238). L'UE sta inoltre preparando un altro progetto incentrato sulla prevenzione dei conflitti e sull'occupazione giovanile nella regione.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000458/13

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Mario Mauro (PPE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: VP/HR — Massacre of Christians in the Nigerian village of Masuri

On 28 December 2012, the militant Islamist group Boko Haram carried out an attack against the Christian minority living in the village of Masuri in the north-east of Nigeria, killing 15 Christians while they slept. Humanitarian sources and witnesses on the ground reported the massacre and contradicted the version of events provided by the Nigerian authorities, who gave little information regarding the attack other than a lower death toll.

In 2012, there were 13 attacks against Christians in Nigeria and the militant Islamist group Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for almost all of these. Since 2009, more than 3 000 people have fallen victim to religiously motivated attacks in Nigeria.

The situation is likely to become even more serious following France’s military intervention in Mali which may provoke violent reactions from Islamist rebels in Nigeria as well.

1.

Given these events, can the Vice-President/High Representative state whether she is aware of the tragic situation of Christians in Nigeria?

2.

What action has the European Union taken to tackle the increasing number of terrorist attacks by the Islamist militant group Boko Haram?

3.

Taking into account France’s recent military intervention in Mali, does the European Union intend to take appropriate measures, in order to protect Christians in this area from potential Islamist reprisals?

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

(26 February 2013)

The escalating violence in parts of northern Nigeria are a growing cause of concern for those inside and outside the country and targets innocent civilians, both christians and muslims, and the institutions of the state. The EU is working with Nigeria to help it tackle the challenges of creating durable security and dealing with the factors conducive to radicalisation and violence, through both continuous political dialogue on appropriate approaches to the problems, as well as targeted aid interventions. A mission was recently in Nigeria to examine specific forms of support to fight terrorism. The objective is to help the Nigerian authorities ensure the rule of law and the respect of human rights principles.

The EU already undertakes a number of programmes providing social assistance, e.g. through maternal care, and water resources in the North and is currently designing a project on women's engagement in peace building in the North. The EU is considering, however, focusing more attention under the 11th EDF on integrated programmes that tackle the full range of economic and social challenges that give impetus to the violence.

In addition, in July 2012, the EU provided capacity building for mediation in one of the most fragile areas, using funds from a special initiative by the European Parliament (EEAS BL 2238). The EU is also preparing another project focusing on conflict prevention and youth employment for this area.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000459/13

a la Comisión

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(17 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Morosidad del sector bancario

En fecha reciente, la prensa se ha hecho eco de que la banca debe 256 millones de euros a las comunidades de propietarios en el Estado español (192). Este hecho es debido a que actualmente el sector bancario se está quedando en propiedad un gran número de pisos por el impago de la hipoteca por parte de sus propietarios.

El problema en este caso reside en que una vez las entidades bancarias se quedan los pisos, no siguen pagando las cuotas de la comunidad de vecinos. Este impago, al producirse de forma masiva acumula ya una deuda por valor de 256 millones de euros.

A la luz de lo anterior:

¿Cree la Comisión que el sector bancario cumple con la Directiva de morosidad 2011/7/UE por lo que se refiere a las comunidades de vecinos?

¿No cree la Comisión que los bancos, al quedarse los pisos, deben seguir manteniendo sus obligaciones con respecto a las comunidades de vecinos?

Respuesta del Sr. Tajani en nombre de la Comisión

(2 de abril de 2013)

La Directiva 2011/7/UE por la que se establecen medidas de lucha contra la morosidad en las operaciones comerciales (193) se aplica a los pagos efectuados como contraprestación en operaciones comerciales entre empresas o entre empresas y poderes públicos que den lugar a la entrega de bienes o la prestación de servicios.

La Directiva establece, además, que una empresa es cualquier organización, distinta de los poderes públicos, que actúe en ejercicio de su actividad independiente económica o profesional. Teniendo en cuenta la información disponible, la Comisión es de la opinión de que las cuotas que abonen los bancos en su calidad de propietarios a las comunidades de propietarios no pueden considerarse como contraprestación en operaciones comerciales entre empresas a tenor de la Directiva.

En el caso que nos ocupa, un banco, tan pronto como se convierte en propietario de una vivienda en un edificio, está legalmente obligado, como cualquier otro propietario, a pagar las cuotas a la comunidad establecidas por los propietarios de las viviendas situadas en el mismo edificio. La Ley española de Propiedad Horizontal (Ley 8/1999, de 6 de abril, de Reforma de la Ley 49/1960, de 21 de julio, sobre Propiedad Horizontal) regula los derechos y obligaciones de dichos propietarios. Si uno de ellos no cumpliera con esa obligación, la comunidad puede recurrir a la «vía judicial» para exigir el pago. La legislación española prevé un sistema rápido de seguimiento para la resolución de estos casos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000459/13

to the Commission

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Late payments by banks

The press have recently reported that banks owe EUR 256 million to owners’ associations in Spain (194). This is due to the fact that banks currently own a large number of flats, on account of their owners defaulting on mortgage payments.

The problem is that once the banks own these flats they stop paying fees to owners’ associations. This failure to pay on a massive scale has already accumulated a debt of EUR 256 million.

Does the Commission believe that banks are acting in accordance with Directive 2011/7/EU on late payment, regarding their treatment of owners’ associations?

Does it not believe that banks that own flats should continue to fulfil their obligations to owners’ associations?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2013)

Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions (195) applies to payments made as remuneration for commercial transactions between undertakings or between undertakings and public authorities which lead to the delivery of goods or provision of services.

The directive further establishes that an undertaking is any organisation, other than a public authority, acting in the course of its independent economic or professional activity. Taking into consideration the available information, the Commission is of the opinion that the fees paid by the bank in its capacity as a home owner to home owners' associations cannot be considered as remuneration for commercial transactions between businesses in the meaning of the directive.

In the case under discussion, a bank, as soon as it is entitled to the ownership of a dwelling in a building, and as any other owner, is legally obliged to pay contribution fees to the community set up by the owners of the dwellings located in the same building. The Spanish law on Propiedad Horizontal (LEY 8/1999, de 6 de abril, de Reforma de la Ley 49/1960, de 21 de julio, sobre Propiedad Horizontal) regulates the rights and obligations of these owners. If an owner does not comply with this obligation, the community can appeal to the ‘judicial via’ to demand the payments. Spanish law provides for a fast track system for the resolution of these cases.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-000460/13

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(17 de enero de 2013)

Asunto: Respuesta sobre el incremento de la desigualdad en España

En su respuesta a mi pasada pregunta parlamentaria E-009516/2012, el Comisario Rehn elude escuetamente responder sobre el contenido de sus recomendaciones específicas a España aduciendo que dichas políticas son competencia de los Estados miembros.

En su respuesta dice: «La Comisión comparte la preocupación por las desigualdades en la renta y la riqueza y por las consecuencias sociales de la crisis»; sin embargo, no logramos entender cómo esta preocupación de la Comisión se ha trasladado al texto de las recomendaciones específicas a España.

En el actual contexto de crisis presupuestaria, las recomendaciones elaboradas por la Comisión están calcándose en las agendas de reformas de los Estados miembros, en especial de España, que parece querer cumplir las recomendaciones más que la propia Comisión. Pero atendiéndonos al propio texto de las recomendaciones, no logramos encontrar ni una sola medida en la que se proponga política económica alguna para luchar contra la desigualdad en España. Por esto insisto en mi anterior pregunta, puesto que no consideramos que exista ninguna política de lucha contra la desigualdad que no pase por el mecanismo de los impuestos directos y no encontramos ninguna recomendación realizada a España que pueda reducir la desigualdad.

¿Ha plasmado la Comisión su «preocupación por las desigualdades en la renta y la riqueza» en el caso de España en sus recomendaciones específicas? ¿En qué forma?

Por lo tanto, ¿considera la Comisión que el incremento en la desigualdad en España facilitará su salida de la crisis económica?

Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión

(21 de febrero de 2013)

La Comisión comparte la preocupación por las consecuencias de la crisis en las desigualdades de la renta y la riqueza, y considera que la pobreza y la exclusión social son obstáculos importantes para la consecución del objetivo de Europa 2020 de un crecimiento integrador.

Los desafíos y recomendaciones fundamentales para salir de la crisis se resumieron en las recomendaciones específicas por país dirigidas a España el 10 de julio de 2012:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/20_scps/2012/04_council/es_2012-07-10_council_recommendation_en.pdf

En particular, la recomendación 7 aconseja a España que tome medidas para mejorar la empleabilidad de los grupos vulnerables, junto con servicios eficaces de apoyo a los niños y a las familias, con el fin de mejorar la situación de las personas en riesgo de pobreza o exclusión social o ambas, y de incrementar por consiguiente el bienestar de los niños.

Además, la recomendación 5 pide a España que aplique las reformas del mercado laboral y tome medidas adicionales encaminadas a aumentar la eficacia de las políticas activas del mercado de trabajo, mejorando la selección de sus destinatarios; aumentando la utilización de los servicios de formación, de asesoramiento y acoplamiento de la oferta y la demanda de empleo; intensificando sus vínculos con las políticas pasivas, y reforzando la coordinación entre los servicios públicos de empleo nacionales y autonómicos, incluido el intercambiando de información sobre ofertas de empleo. Esta recomendación tiene por objeto tratar directamente el aumento del desempleo en España, que constituye uno de los principales factores que explican el aumento de la pobreza y la desigualdad.

La respuesta a estas recomendaciones se supervisa en el marco del «semestre europeo».

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000460/13

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Answer regarding growing inequality in Spain

In answer to my previous Written Question No E-009516/2012, Commissioner Rehn only briefly eludes to the content of the Commission’s specific recommendations to Spain, on the grounds that such policies are the responsibility of the Member States themselves.

In his answer, the Commissioner says ‘the Commission shares the concern about income and wealth inequality and the social consequences of the crisis’. However, we fail to understand how this concern from the Commission is reflected in the text containing specific recommendations to Spain.

In the current budget crisis, the Commission’s recommendations are based on the reform agendas of the Member States, particularly of Spain, which seems more willing to comply with the recommendations than the Commission itself. Nevertheless, in the text we fail to find a single measure proposing an economic policy to combat inequality in Spain. I therefore return to my previous question, as we refuse to believe that any policy to combat inequality does not involve direct taxation and we fail to find any recommendations to Spain that could reduce inequality.

Is the Commission’s ‘concern about income and wealth inequality’ reflected in its specific recommendations to Spain? If so, how?

Does it therefore believe that the growing inequality in Spain will help the country emerge from the economic crisis?

Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2013)

The Commission shares the concern about the consequences of the crisis on income and wealth inequality, and believes that poverty and social exclusion are major obstacles to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objective of inclusive growth.

The basic challenges and recommendations to emerge from the crisis have been summarised in the country-specific recommendation addressed to Spain on 10 July 2012:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/sgp/pdf/20_scps/2012/04_council/es_2012-07-10_council_recommendation_en.pdf

In particular Recommendation 7 thereof, requests Spain to improve the employability of vulnerable groups, combined with effective child and family support services, in order to improve the situation of people at risk of poverty and/or social exclusion, and consequently to achieve the well-being of children.

Moreover, Recommendation 5 asks Spain to implement the labour market reform and take additional measures to increase the effectiveness of active labour market policies by improving their targeting, by increasing the use of training, advisory and job matching services, by strengthening their links with passive policies, and by strengthening coordination between the national and regional public employment services, including sharing information about job vacancies. This recommendation aims to address directly the increase in unemployment in Spain, one of the major factors behind rising poverty and inequality.

The response given to these recommendations is monitored in the framework of the European Semester.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000461/13

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(17. Januar 2013)

Betrifft: Mehr als 20 Millionen Kinder in der EU übergewichtig

Den jüngsten Forschungsergebnissen zufolge sind mehr als 20 Millionen Kinder in der Europäischen Union übergewichtig.

1.

Ist der Kommission diese erschreckend hohe Zahl bekannt?

2.

Welche Empfehlung an die Mitgliedstaaten erlässt/plant die Kommission, um langfristige Auswirkungen auf die zukünftig erwachsene Generation in puncto Volksgesundheit aber auch im Hinblick auf die sicher damit verbundenen Kosten

„zumindest“ in Grenzen zu halten?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(18. Februar 2013)

Die Kommission kennt das Problem der wachsenden Zahl übergewichtiger Kinder in der Europäischen Union und die damit verbundenen gesundheitlichen Probleme. Der Bericht „Gesundheit auf einen Blick — Europa 2012“ der Kommission hat gezeigt, dass der Anteil der Fünfzehnjährigen mit Übergewicht und Adipositas in der EU von durchschnittlich 11 % im Jahr 2001 auf 13 % im Jahr 2010 gestiegen ist (196).

Als Reaktion auf diesen Trend fördert die Kommission die im Weißbuch „Ernährung, Übergewicht, Adipositas: Eine Strategie für Europa“ dargelegten EU-Maßnahmen (197). Kinder sind eine der vorrangigen Zielgruppen der EU-Strategie.

Durch Förderung verantwortungsvoller Werbe‐ und Marketingaktionen, durch die Verbesserung der Verbraucherinformationen und durch Maßnahmen zur besseren Verfügbarkeit gesünderer Lebensmittelvarianten leistet die Kommission einen Beitrag dazu, dass sich Familien für einen gesünderen Lebensstil entscheiden. So trägt die Kommission durch das EU-Schulobstprogramm (198) zur Etablierung gesünderer Ernährungsgewohnheiten bei Kindern bei. Es ist überaus wichtig, dass die Mitgliedstaaten auf regionaler und lokaler Ebene Maßnahmen zur Förderung einer gesunden Ernährung und zur Bekämpfung von Übergewicht ergreifen.

Die EU-Strategie wird derzeit evaluiert, und die Ergebnisse dieser Evaluierung dürften im Frühjahr 2013 vorgelegt werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000461/13

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: More than 20 million overweight children in the EU

According to the latest research findings, more than 20 million children in the European Union are overweight.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this shockingly high figure?

2.

What recommendation will the Commission adopt, or is the Commission planning to adopt, for the Member States in order to at least limit the long-term effects on the future adult generation in terms of public health, but also regarding the costs that will inevitably be associated with this problem?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of the increasing number of overweight children in the European Union and of the health problems associated with this. The report ‘Health at a Glance Europe 2012’ funded by the Commission showed that, on average, 15-year-olds' rate of overweight and obesity across the EU has increased from 11% in 2001 to 13% in 2010 (199).

In response to this trend, the Commission is promoting EU action as set out in the in the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related Health issues (200). Children are among the priority groups in the EU Strategy.

By working on responsible advertising and marketing to children, by improving consumer information, and by working to make the healthier option easily available, the Commission contributes to help families choose a healthier lifestyle. For instance, through the EU School Fruit Scheme (201), the Commission contributes to establishing healthier eating habits among children. It is essential that actions to promote healthy eating and fight obesity are developed and carried out by Member States at regional and local levels.

The EU Strategy is currently being evaluated and the results of this evaluation are expected in spring 2013.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-000462/13

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 januari 2013)

Betreft: Bevoorrechte rijken

In oktober 2012 nam de Portugese regering nieuwe wetgeving aan die de weg vrijmaakt voor een grootscheeps programma voor het aantrekken van niet-Europese investeerders naar Portugal, en met hen vers kapitaal dat het land moet helpen de economische crisis te boven te komen. Op grond van deze wet moeten de investeerders ten minste 1 miljoen EUR in een Portugees bedrijf injecteren of onroerend goed  ter waarde van 500.000 EUR verwerven. Indien aan een van deze voorwaarden is voldaan, krijgen betrokkenen een „voorlopig” visum met een geldigheid van twee jaar en dat kan worden omgezet in een permanente verblijfsvergunning of zelfs een Portugees paspoort.

1.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van deze regeling waarmee welgestelden uit derde landen paspoorten kunnen kopen?

2.

Heeft Portugal de Commissie geraadpleegd over dit voornemen om nieuwe wetgeving vast te stellen, die uiteraard ook gevolgen voor andere lidstaten zal hebben?

3.

Is de Commissie van oordeel dat dit initiatief strookt met het gemeenschappelijk beleid betreffende grenscontroles, asielverlening en immigratie, met name in het licht van artikel 77 VWEU? Zo niet, welke juridische stappen zal zij dan nemen?

4.

Kennen andere lidstaten dergelijke wetgeving?

5.

Zo ja, hoe zal zij er dan voor zorgen dat er een bescherming is tegen het witwassen van geld, wat een mogelijke consequentie van deze wet zou zijn?

Antwoord van mevrouw Malmström namens de Commissie

(27 februari 2013)

De EU-wetgeving bevat geen geharmoniseerde verblijfsvoorwaarden voor investeerders uit derde landen in de lidstaten. De lidstaten bepalen zelf de voorwaarden voor toegang en verblijf van onderdanen van derde landen die in het land wensen te investeren en langer dan drie maanden wensen te blijven.

Portugal kan dus zelf de voorwaarden bepalen waarop visa voor verblijf van lange duur en verblijfsvergunningen worden verstrekt aan onderdanen van derde landen. Deze nationale vergunningen geven de onderdanen van derde landen niet het recht om buiten Portugal te gaan wonen. Overeenkomstig artikel 21 van de Overeenkomst  ter uitvoering van het akkoord van Schengen mogen zij wel gedurende ten hoogste drie maanden binnen een periode van zes maanden verblijven of reizen op het grondgebied van andere Schengenlanden.

Alleen langdurig ingezeten onderdanen van derde landen met een verblijfsvergunning die verleend is onder de voorwaarden van Richtlijn 2003/109/EG (202) van de Raad, hebben recht van verblijf in andere lidstaten. Een van deze voorwaarden is dat onderdanen van derde landen al vijf jaar legaal en ononderbroken op het grondgebied van de lidstaat moeten verblijven; een andere voorwaarde is dat zij moeten beschikken over voldoende inkomsten om zichzelf te onderhouden en over een ziektekostenverzekering.

Als regelingen als bedoeld door het geachte Parlementslid betrekking hebben op investeringen in een lidstaat, is de EU-wetgeving inzake het witwassen van geld (203) van toepassing op de transacties of zakelijke relaties die verband houden met deze investeringen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000462/13

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Privileged rich

In October 2012 the Portuguese Government adopted new legislation paving the way for a major programme for attracting non-European investors to Portugal. and with them fresh capital to help the country overcome the economic crisis. Under this new law, investors are required to inject at least EUR 1 million into a Portuguese company or to acquire property worth EUR 500 000. Once one of these conditions has been fulfilled, they are issued an ‘initial’ visa which is valid for two years and can be converted into a permanent residence permit or even a Portuguese passport. (204)

1.

Is the Commission aware of this rule allowing passport-buying by wealthy people from third countries?

2.

Has Portugal consulted the Commission about its intention to adopt this new legislation, which will evidently also have an impact on the other Member States?

3.

Does the Commission consider this initiative to be in line with the common policies on border checks, asylum and immigration, especially in the light of Article 77 TFEU? If it is not, what legal action will the Commission take?

4.

Does similar legislation exist in other Member States?

5.

Does the Commission consider this to be a suitable tool for fighting the economic crisis? If so, how will the Commission ensure that there is protection against money laundering, which could be a possible consequence of this law?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2013)

Conditions for residence of third-country national investors in the Member States have not been harmonised under EC law. Member States determine the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals who wish to invest in the country and stay for longer than three months.

Portugal is therefore entitled to determine the conditions on which it grants long-stay visas and residence permits to third-country nationals. These national permits do not entitle the third-country nationals to reside outside Portugal, but according to Article 21 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, their holders can travel for up to three months in any six-months period within the territories of the other Schengen Member States.

Only long-term third-country national residents issued with a residence permit according to the conditions of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (205) have a right of residence in other Member States. Those conditions include that the third-country nationals must have legally and continuously lived in the territory of the Member State concerned for at least five years; they must also have sufficient resources to maintain themselves, as well as health insurance.

To the extent that schemes such as the one referred to by the Honourable Member refer to investments in a Member State, EU legislation against money laundering (206) applies to transactions or business relationships connected to those investments.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000463/13

alla Commissione

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Livello di sicurezza delle sigarette elettroniche

Le sigarette elettroniche sono dispositivi elettronici che, consentendo al fumatore di inalare vapore acqueo contenente anche nicotina, emulano una normale sigaretta eliminando però la fase della combustione.

Questi dispositivi sono sempre più diffusi in Italia. La loro commercializzazione è ormai larghissima e un numero sempre maggiore di cittadini ne fanno uso.

A fine dicembre 2012, un ragazzo di 25 anni di Genova è rimasto ferito mentre stava maneggiando una sigaretta elettronica di fabbricazione cinese che è esplosa, causandogli bruciature a mani, occhi e volto.

È la Commissione a conoscenza di quanto sopra descritto?

Si sono verificati episodi simili in altri Stati membri?

Reputa che siano sufficientemente elevati gli standard di sicurezza richiesti per la commercializzazione di questi prodotti?

Ritiene che i controlli effettuati sulle sigarette elettroniche prima della commercializzazione siano sufficienti?

Come intende affrontare il pericolo e la minaccia all'incolumità dei cittadini rappresentato da tutti quei dispositivi che arrivano e arriveranno dalla Cina?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(28 febbraio 2013)

La Commissione è consapevole delle preoccupazioni concernenti la sicurezza del prodotto legate alle sigarette elettroniche. Diverse misure adottate dalle autorità di sorveglianza del mercato degli Stati membri su prodotti che presentano un grave rischio (essenzialmente i liquidi di ricarica) sono state notificate attraverso il sistema di allarme rapido RAPEX. Tuttavia la Commissione non dispone di un quadro completo degli incidenti legati alle sigarette elettroniche poiché questi non vengono registrati sistematicamente.

Nel contesto della proposta della Commissione del 19 dicembre 2012 finalizzata alla revisione della direttiva sui prodotti del tabacco, le sigarette elettroniche rientrerebbero nel campo di applicazione della direttiva sui prodotti medicinali se contenessero livelli di nicotina superiori a certe soglie. Pertanto, l'immissione sul mercato di tali sigarette elettroniche richiederebbe l'autorizzazione previa in forza della legislazione farmaceutica.

Per le sigarette elettroniche che si situano al di sotto delle soglie in questione la proposta prevede che rechino avvertimenti sanitari. Esse dovrebbero inoltre ottemperare al disposto della direttiva sulla sicurezza generale dei prodotti che impone ai produttori d'immettere sul mercato esclusivamente prodotti sicuri. Far rispettare la normativa dell'UE, comprese la direttiva sui prodotti del tabacco e la direttiva sulla sicurezza generale dei prodotti, è responsabilità degli Stati membri.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000463/13

to the Commission

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Safety of electronic cigarettes

Electronic cigarettes are electronic devices which allow the person smoking to inhale vapour containing nicotine thus mimicking a real cigarette, although no combustion is involved.

These devices are increasingly widespread in Italy. They are now being sold more widely and growing numbers of Italians are using them.

At the end of December 2012, a 25-year-old man from Genoa was injured while handling an electronic cigarette manufactured in China. The device exploded, resulting in burns to his hands, eyes and face.

Is the Commission aware of the facts described above?

Have there been any similar incidents in other Member States?

Does it believe that the safety standards required to sell these products are stringent enough?

Does it believe that the checks carried out on electronic cigarettes before they are put on sale are sufficient?

How does it intend to tackle the danger and the threat to citizens’ safety posed by all these devices coming from China?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2013)

The Commission is aware of product safety concerns connected with electronic cigarettes. A number of measures taken by Member States' market surveillance authorities on products posing a serious risk (mainly refill liquids) have been notified to the rapid alert system RAPEX. However, the Commission does not have a comprehensive overview of incidents involving electronic cigarettes because they are not systematically reported.

Under the Commission proposal of 19 December 2012 to revise the Tobacco Products Directive, electronic cigarettes would fall under the Medicinal Products Directive if they contain levels of nicotine above certain thresholds. Thus, the placing on the market of such electronic cigarettes would require prior authorisation under pharmaceutical legislation.

For electronic cigarettes below the thresholds in question, the proposal foresees that they carry health warnings. They would also have to comply with the General Product Safety Directive requiring producers to place only safe products on the market. Enforcement of EU legislation, including the Tobacco Products Directive and the General Product Safety Directive is the responsibility of the Member States.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000464/13

alla Commissione

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Istituzione della Giornata europea contro la persecuzione e la discriminazione dei cristiani nel mondo

Autorevoli fonti internazionali hanno diffuso alla fine del 2012 studi e ricerche che descrivono un'escalation senza precedenti di violenze contro i cristiani e dimostrano che, proprio quella cristiana è la comunità religiosa più perseguitata al mondo. Il centro di statistica americano «Center for Study of Global Christianity» ha stimato che, nel solo 2011, sono stati uccisi 105.000 cristiani, 1 ogni 5 minuti, a fronte di episodi di violenza, attentati e attacchi terroristici. La «Società internazionale per i Diritti Umani» conferma con propri studi che l'80 % delle persone perseguitate nel mondo per motivi religiosi sono di fede cristiana. L'ONG «Open Doors» indica almeno 100 milioni di cristiani vittime di discriminazioni, persecuzioni e atti di violenza in tutto il globo. Dal fondamentalismo islamico arrivano i casi più frequenti e violenti di intolleranza religiosa verso i cristiani: sempre secondo «Open Doors», su 50 paesi dove sono in atto forme di persecuzione contro i cristiani, ben 38 sono islamici.

Preso atto delle cifre che descrivono la gravità del fenomeno;

considerati i valori fondanti dell'UE quali il rispetto della dignità umana, della libertà, dei diritti umani, dei diritti delle persone e dell'uomo, della libertà religiosa sanciti tanto dai Trattati quanto dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE;

ricordando che la percentuale di musulmani in Europa è destinata a crescere di circa un terzo nei prossimi 20 anni, passando dai 44,1 milioni del 2010 ai 58 milioni del 2030;

può la Commissione far sapere se:

è a conoscenza del fenomeno e quali misure pensa di adottare per fermare la persecuzione silenziosa dei cristiani nel mondo?

Al fine di sensibilizzare l'opinione pubblica e non dimenticare le migliaia e migliaia di cristiani uccisi ogni anno dall'intolleranza religiosa che sono troppo spesso colpevolmente ignorati dai grandi media ha essa intenzione di istituire una Giornata europea contro la persecuzione e la discriminazione dei cristiani nel mondo?

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

(12 aprile 2013)

L'UE ha dedicato un'attenzione crescente alle violazioni della libertà di religione o di convinzione e ha condannato il sempre maggior numero di atti d'intolleranza e discriminazione religiosa e di violenza contro le comunità religiose.

In una dichiarazione rilasciata il 20 marzo 2012 i presidenti van Rompuy e Barroso hanno rammentato che la libertà di pensiero, di religione e di convinzione e il rispetto della persona fanno parte della Carta dei diritti fondamentali e che l'UE continua a sostenere questi diritti. L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha formulato numerose dichiarazioni sulla situazione specifica in diversi paesi.

L'UE ha sostenuto la promozione e la difesa della libertà di religione o di convinzione a livello bilaterale e multilaterale e continuerà a farlo con la redazione di nuovi orientamenti dell'UE in materia; incrementerà inoltre il proprio impegno nello spirito delle risoluzioni 16/13 e 16/18 della commissione delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani.

Sul versante interno dell'UE, la decisione quadro 2008/913/GAI impone agli Stati membri di rendere punibili l'istigazione pubblica intenzionale alla violenza o all'odio definito in riferimento alla razza, al colore, alla religione, all'ascendenza o all'origine nazionale o etnica. La Commissione segue attentamente il recepimento e l'attuazione della decisione e ne valuterà la conformità da parte degli Stati membri in una relazione che presenterà nel 2013. La decisione quadro non autorizza la Commissione ad avviare procedure di infrazione fino al 1° dicembre 2014. Spetta alle autorità nazionali giudiziarie e di contrasto analizzare le situazioni in concreto e stabilire se rappresentino un'istigazione alla violenza o all'odio.

Dato il numero di attività intraprese, l'UE non crede che la creazione di una Giornata europea contro la persecuzione e la discriminazione dei cristiani nel mondo possa portare un valore aggiunto.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000464/13

to the Commission

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Creating a European Day against persecution and discrimination of Christians throughout the world

At the end of 2012, authoritative international sources published studies and research describing an unprecedented escalation of violence against Christians and which illustrate that Christianity is the most widely persecuted religion in the world. The Center for the Study of Global Christianity, a US statistical organisation, has estimated that 105 000 Christians were killed in 2011 alone, that is, one every five minutes, during outbreaks of violence, aggression and terrorist attacks. Studies by the International Society for Human Rights confirm that 80 % of people who suffer religious persecution around the world are Christians. The non-governmental organisation Open Doors says that at least 100 million Christians are victims of discrimination, persecution and acts of violence globally.

Islamic fundamentalism is behind the most frequent and violent outbreaks of religious intolerance towards Christians.

According to Open Doors, Islamic countries make up 38 out of the 50 countries where Christians face persecution.

Given the figures which illustrate the gravity of the situation;

considering the founding values of the European Union such as respect for human dignity, freedom, human rights, the rights of persons and religious freedom ratified by the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

recalling that Europe’s Muslim population is projected to grow to 58 million by 2030, up from 44.1 million in 2010, increasing by approximately one third over the next 20 years:

Is the Commission aware of the situation and what measures it is considering in order to put a stop to the silent persecution of Christians throughout the world?

In order to raise public awareness and remember the thousands of Christians killed every year because of religious intolerance, and who are all too often ignored by the mainstream media, does the Commission intend to create a European Day against persecution and discrimination of Christians throughout the world?

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

(12 April 2013)

The EU has been increasingly focusing on violations of freedom of religion or belief and condemned the increasing number of acts of religious intolerance and discrimination and violence against religious communities.

In a statement made on 20 March 2012, Presidents van Rompuy and Barroso recalled that freedom of thought, freedom of religion and belief and the respect for the individual formed part of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that the EU would continue to foster these rights. The HR/VP made numerous statements on specific country situations.

At bilateral and multilateral levels, the EU has been addressing the promotion and defence of freedom of religion or belief and will carry on doing so through the elaboration of new EU guidelines on freedom of religion or belief. It will also enhance efforts in the spirit of UNHRC resolutions 16/13 and 16/18.

On the internal EU side, Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA obliges MS to make punishable intentional public incitements to violence or hatred defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. The Commission is closely monitoring the transposition and implementation of this decision. It will present its assessment of MS' compliance in a report in 2013. The Commission is not authorised to launch infringement proceedings on the basis of Framework Decision until 1 December 2014. It is for national law enforcement and judicial authorities to investigate concrete situations and determine whether such situations represent incitement to violence or hatred.

Given the number of activities undertaken, the EU does not believe that the creation of a ‘European Day against persecution and discrimination of Christians throughout the world’ would have further value.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000465/13

alla Commissione

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(17 gennaio 2013)

Oggetto: Possibili finanziamenti per la società Vortalia srl, network di portali italiani

In Italia è presente una società considerata uno dei più grandi network di portali italiani, che ha l'obiettivo di fornire uno strumento innovativo di commercio elettronico e che raccoglie i prodotti/servizi esclusivamente italiani.

Tale società si presenta attualmente in rete con un servizio di comparazione di 100 domini tematici, aggregati in 19 aree tematiche e 25 mila categorie merceologiche. Esso permette quindi alle aziende che hanno un negozio online o un listino di prodotti/servizi di essere facilmente ricercabili nel loro target, incrementando così le performance di vendita.

Al fine di aumentare le proprie prestazioni, questa società intende investire nell'internazionalizzazione del brand e nell'implementazione dell'attuale infrastruttura per fornire alle imprese ulteriori servizi di dropshipping con logistica integrata, di e-content multilanguage e di direct marketing. Questa società, per conferire maggiore sostenibilità alla crescita innovativa e tecnologica delle imprese italiane, intende altresì promuovere un centro di ricerca e sviluppo di applicazioni web-based e un centro di rilevazione statistica su target, strutturati in gruppi operativi per aree tematiche e aventi in carico le funzioni di marketing analysis.

Ciò premesso, si chiede alla Commissione di verificare:

se siano previsti programmi o finanziamenti per la realizzazione del progetto suesposto;

quali azioni o programmi siano previsti per il sostegno alle PMI e alle tecnologie di comunicazione e informazione nella nuova programmazione 2014-2020;

un quadro generale della situazione.

Risposta di Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione

(13 marzo 2013)

1. e 3.

La Commissione stabilisce programmi e finanziamenti a sostegno delle PMI, quale il Programma Quadro per la Competitività e l'Innovazione (207). Nello specifico, nel Programma per l'Imprenditorialità e l'Innovazione (CIP/EIP) rientrano provvedimenti miranti ad agevolare l'accesso a finanziamenti, servizi imprenditoriali e innovazione da parte delle PMI. Disponibili in forma sia di garanzie sia di investimenti, i finanziamenti sono erogati dalle istituzioni finanziarie che prendono parte al programma. La Enterprise Europe Network potrà fornire ulteriori informazioni riguardo alle fonti di finanziamento locali e/o europee più appropriate per ogni progetto (208).

Per quanto riguarda la possibilità di ricevere sovvenzioni da parte del Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale, per promuovere l'imprenditoria il Programma Regionale Campania 2007-2013 finanzia anche lo sviluppo di servizi interattivi a vantaggio delle PMI e la promozione di un impiego efficace delle TIC da parte di queste imprese.

2.

In merito alla programmazione futura la Commissione ha proposto un nuovo Programma per la competitività delle imprese e delle PMI, che porterà avanti le iniziative già promosse dal CIP/EIP

2.

In merito alla programmazione futura la Commissione ha proposto un nuovo Programma per la competitività delle imprese e delle PMI, che porterà avanti le iniziative già promosse dal CIP/EIP

 (209)

La Commissione ha proposto inoltre un nuovo programma quadro per la ricerca e l'innovazione, denominato Horizon 2020 (210).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000465/13

to the Commission

Roberta Angelilli (PPE)

(17 January 2013)

Subject: Possible funding for the company Vortalia srl, a network of Italian portals

In Italy there is a company which is considered to be one of the largest networks of Italian portals and which aims to provide an innovative e-commerce tool that brings together exclusively Italian goods and services.

This company currently presents itself on the Internet as a comparison service covering 100 thematic domains, grouped into 19 thematic areas and 25 000 categories of goods. This therefore enables businesses with an online store or with a list of goods or services to be easily searched for in their sector, thereby improving their sales performance.

In order to improve its own performance, the company intends to invest in internationalising its brand and in implementing its current infrastructure to provide businesses with further services: drop shipping with integrated logistics, multilingual e-content and direct marketing. Furthermore, in order to make the innovative and technological growth of Italian companies more sustainable, this company intends to promote a research and development centre for web-based applications and a centre for statistical surveys based on target area, organised into operational groups according to thematic area, and with marketing analysis functions.

1.

Can the Commission confirm whether any programmes or funding to implement the above project are planned?

2. Can it confirm what actions or programmes are envisaged to support small and

medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and information and communication technologies in the new 2014‐2020 programming period?

3.

Can it provide an overview of the situation?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2013)

1 and 3. The Commission provides financial and non-financial support to SMEs, among others, via the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme). In particular the specific Programme for Entrepreneurship and Innovation (CIP/EIP) includes measures to improve SMEs' access to finance, business services and innovation. Financing is provided in the form of guarantees and equity which are available through financial institutions participating in the programme. The Enterprise Europe Network can provide advice on any sources of European and/or local funding which may be appropriate for a specific project.

Regarding the possibility of funding from the European Regional Development Fund, the Regional Programme ‘Campania’ 2007-2013 supports entrepreneurship also by funding the development of fully interactive services to SMEs and the promotion of the effective use of ICT by SMEs.

2.

For the new programming period, the Commission presented a proposal for a new Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs which will continue the successful initiatives taken under the CIP/EIP

2.

For the new programming period, the Commission presented a proposal for a new Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs which will continue the successful initiatives taken under the CIP/EIP