ISSN 1977-0987

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali

tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 355

European flag  

Edizzjoni bil-Malti

Informazzjoni u Avviżi

Volum 57
8 ta' Ottubru 2014


Avviż Nru

Werrej

Paġna

 

IV   Informazzjoni

 

INFORMAZZJONI MINN ISTITUZZJONIJIET, KORPI, UFFIĊĊJI U AĠENZIJI TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA

 

Parlament Ewropew

 

MISTOQSIJIET BIL-MIKTUB U TWEĠIBIET

2014/C 355/01

Mistoqsijiet bil-miktub magħmula mill-Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew u t-tweġibiet tagħhom mogħtija minn istituzzjoni tal-Unjoni Ewropea

1


Avviż lill-qarrej

Din il-pubblikazzjoni tinkludi mistoqsijiet bil-miktub magħmula mill-Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew u t-tweġibiet tagħhom mogħtija minn istituzzjoni tal-Unjoni Ewropea.

Għal kull mistoqsija u tweġiba, il-verżjoni tal-lingwa oriġinali hija ppreżentata qabel traduzzjoni possibbli.

F'xi każijiet, jista’ jkun li r-risposta tingħata b'lingwa differenti minn dik tal-mistoqsija. Dan jiddependi mil-lingwa li jaħdem biha l-kumitat li jkun intalab jagħti tweġiba.

Dawn il-mistoqsijiet u tweġibiet huma ppubblikati skont l-Artikoli 117 u 118 tar-Regoli tal-Proċedura tal-Parlament Ewropew.

Il-mistoqsijiet u t-tweġibiet kollha jistgħu jinqraw fis-sit elettroniku tal-Parlament Ewropew (Europarl) taħt l-intestatura Mistoqsijiet Parlamentari:

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

ABBREVJAZZJONIJIET UŻATI GĦALL-GRUPPI POLITIĊI

PPE

Grupp tal-Partit Popolari Ewropew (Demokristjani)

S&D

Grupp tal-Alleanza Progressiva tas-Socjalisti u d-Demokratici fil-Parlament Ewropew

ALDE

Grupp tal-Alleanza tal-Liberali u d-Demokratiċi għall-Ewropa

ECR

Grupp tal-Konservattivi u Riformisti Ewropej

Verts/ALE

Grupp tal-Ħodor/Alleanza Ħielsa Ewropea

GUE/NGL

Grupp Konfederali tax-Xellug Magħqud Ewropew - Xellug Aħdar Nordiku

EFD

Grupp għall-Ewropa Ħielsa u Demokratika

NI

Membri mhux Affiljati

MT

 


IV Informazzjoni

INFORMAZZJONI MINN ISTITUZZJONIJIET, KORPI, UFFIĊĊJI U AĠENZIJI TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA

Parlament Ewropew

MISTOQSIJIET BIL-MIKTUB U TWEĠIBIET

8.10.2014   

MT

Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

C 355/1


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB
MISTOQSIJIET BIL-MIKTUB U TWEĠIBIET

Mistoqsijiet bil-miktub magħmula mill-Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew u t-tweġibiet tagħhom mogħtija minn istituzzjoni tal-Unjoni Ewropea

(2014/C 355/01)

Werrej

E-000698/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Drones and European defence

Versione italiana 15
English version 16

E-001455/14 by David Casa to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Ukrainian aid package

Verżjoni Maltija 17
English version 18

E-002056/14 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Council

Subject: New round of talks to resolve the Cyprus problem

Ελληνική έκδοση 19
English version 20

E-003403/14 by Salvador Sedó i Alabart to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Situation in Venezuela

Versión española 21
English version 26

P-002167/14 by Crescenzio Rivellini to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Crisis in Venezuela

Versione italiana 22
English version 25

E-002717/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Venezuela — re-examination of EU actions under strategy for 2014-20 following recent events

Versione italiana 22
English version 25

E-003725/14 by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission

Subject: Venezuela: right to protest descends into violence and chaos

Versione italiana 23
English version 26

E-003946/14 by Syed Kamall to the Commission

Subject: Outbreak of violence in Venezuela

English version 27

E-002425/14 by Elena Băsescu to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — The situation in Venezuela

Versiunea în limba română 24
English version 25

E-002315/14 by Fiorello Provera to the Commission

Subject: Syrian Refugee Crisis

Versione italiana 28
English version 29

E-002601/14 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Mass redundancies in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση 30
English version 32

E-002860/14 by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission

Subject: Collective redundancies in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση 30
English version 32

E-002602/14 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Maldives elections

Versión española 34
English version 35

E-002603/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Financial impact and effects of obesity

Deutsche Fassung 36
English version 37

E-002604/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: New strategy to support the fight against obesity

Deutsche Fassung 38
English version 39

E-002605/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Depression set to be one of the leading causes of disability

Deutsche Fassung 40
English version 41

E-002606/14 by Sophia in 't Veld and Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission

Subject: Health insurance and labour mobility

Nederlandse versie 42
English version 43

E-002607/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Travel to islands in Europe

English version 44

E-002608/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Scientific exploration of the marine environment

English version 45

E-002609/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Outdoor leisure facilities in the EU

English version 46

E-002610/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Winter sports infrastructure across the EU

English version 47

E-002611/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Improving literacy from an early age

English version 48

E-002612/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Improving access to education

English version 49

E-002614/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Firefighter training in the EU

English version 50

E-002615/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Eating disorders across the EU

English version 51

E-002616/14 by Ian Hudghton to the Commission

Subject: Business opportunities for women

English version 52

E-002617/14 by Davor Ivo Stier to the Commission

Subject: Return of emigrants

Hrvatska verzija 53
English version 54

E-002620/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Influence of protein intake on the development of cancer

Versione italiana 55
English version 56

E-002621/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — OSCE visit to Ukraine

Versione italiana 57
English version 58

E-002622/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: New anaerobic digestion plants for waste management

Versione italiana 59
English version 60

E-002623/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: New scientific study on the fight against pancreatic cancer

Versione italiana 61
English version 62

E-002624/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Plans to establish telecommunication systems by using civilian drones

Versione italiana 63
English version 64

E-002625/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Online school application systems in the European Union

Versione italiana 65
English version 66

E-002626/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: The rise of environmentally sustainable tourist facilities

Versione italiana 67
English version 69

E-002627/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Using social networks to analyse and prevent social risks

Versione italiana 71
English version 72

E-002628/14 by Auke Zijlstra and Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Budgetary equilibrium and compliance with Article 310(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Nederlandse versie 73
English version 74

E-002629/14 by Horst Schnellhardt to the Commission

Subject: REACH: Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation

Deutsche Fassung 75
English version 76

E-002630/14 by Horst Schnellhardt to the Commission

Subject: End-of-waste status of lignite fly ash

Deutsche Fassung 77
English version 78

E-002631/14 by Horst Schnellhardt to the Commission

Subject: Recycling of intestines from BSE-free Member States and non-EU countries

Deutsche Fassung 79
English version 80

E-002633/14 by George Lyon to the Commission

Subject: Dog management in Romania

English version 81

E-002634/14 by Jean-Luc Mélenchon to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Does the European Union support the far right?

Version française 82
English version 83

E-002636/14 by Guido Milana to the Commission

Subject: Labelling of leather products

Versione italiana 84
English version 85

E-002637/14 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Social consequences of the crisis at Pali Italia

Versione italiana 86
English version 87

E-002638/14 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Granting of a subsidy to ‘Notre Europe — Jacques Delors Institute’

Nederlandse versie 88
English version 90

P-002639/14 by Marije Cornelissen to the Commission

Subject: Involvement of the European Parliament in the European Semester

Nederlandse versie 92
English version 93

P-002640/14 by Claude Turmes to the Commission

Subject: Draft Guidelines on environmental and energy state aid for 2014-2020

Version française 94
English version 96

P-002641/14 by Iratxe García Pérez to the Commission

Subject: Protecting the EU from Citrus Black Spot

Versión española 97
English version 98

P-002642/14 by Heinz K. Becker to the Commission

Subject: Future of social entrepreneurship in Europe

Deutsche Fassung 99
English version 101

P-002643/14 by Erminia Mazzoni to the Commission

Subject: Suspicions of dumping on the Italian rabbitmeat market

Versione italiana 103
English version 104

E-002644/14 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Council

Subject: Start of negotiations on the new EU-Mauritania Fisheries Protocol

Versión española 105
English version 106

E-002645/14 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Airport controls

Versión española 107
English version 108

E-002646/14 by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission

Subject: Consumer fraud in information on labels for fish

Versión española 109
English version 110

E-002647/14 by Heinz K. Becker to the Commission

Subject: Disabled parking permits

Deutsche Fassung 111
English version 112

E-002649/14 by Phil Bennion, Baroness Sarah Ludford, George Lyon, Bill Newton Dunn, Rebecca Taylor, Sir Graham Watson, Chris Davies, Catherine Bearder, Andrew Duff and Sharon Bowles to the Commission

Subject: Protection of geographical indications

English version 113

E-002650/14 by Heinz K. Becker to the Commission

Subject: Hearing loss

Deutsche Fassung 114
English version 115

E-002651/14 by Heinz K. Becker to the Commission

Subject: International Year of the Family

Deutsche Fassung 116
English version 117

E-002652/14 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Autism bullying

Ελληνική έκδοση 118
English version 119

E-002653/14 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations

Ελληνική έκδοση 120
English version 121

E-002655/14 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Widespread violence against women

Ελληνική έκδοση 122
English version 123

E-002656/14 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Industrial policy

Ελληνική έκδοση 124
English version 125

E-002658/14 by Jens Rohde to the Commission

Subject: Approval of aid for photovoltaic cells

Dansk udgave 126
English version 127

E-002659/14 by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission

Subject: EU-US free trade agreement

Version française 128
English version 129

E-002660/14 by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission

Subject: Working conditions of seasonal migrant workers

Version française 130
English version 132

E-002661/14 by Tonino Picula to the Commission

Subject: Usability of disused buildings

Hrvatska verzija 134
English version 135

E-002662/14 by Tonino Picula to the Commission

Subject: Combating violence against women

Hrvatska verzija 136
English version 137

E-002663/14 by Tonino Picula to the Commission

Subject: Availability of the EURES portal in Croatian

Hrvatska verzija 138
English version 139

E-002664/14 by Guido Milana to the Commission

Subject: Action plan

Versione italiana 140
English version 141

E-002665/14 by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission

Subject: Ukraine to receive EUR 11 billion from the EU

Nederlandse versie 142
English version 143

E-002666/14 by Lucas Hartong to the Commission

Subject: Development aid to Congo

Nederlandse versie 144
English version 145

P-002667/14 by Derek Vaughan to the Commission

Subject: NOx infraction measures

English version 146

P-002668/14 by Salvatore Caronna to the Commission

Subject: Presumed infringement by Italy of EU legislation on mediation

Versione italiana 147
English version 148

E-002669/14 by George Lyon to the Commission

Subject: Geographical indication schemes

English version 149

E-002670/14 by George Lyon to the Commission

Subject: Geographical indication protection for Scottish tartan

English version 150

E-002671/14 by Willy Meyer and Sabine Lösing to the Commission

Subject: Record of the events of 6 February 2014 at Playa El Tarajal beach in Ceuta, Spain

Versión española 151
Deutsche Fassung 152
English version 153

E-002672/14 by Ruža Tomašić to the Commission

Subject: Informing small and medium-sized enterprises about funding opportunities through EU programmes

Hrvatska verzija 154
English version 155

E-002673/14 by Ruža Tomašić to the Commission

Subject: Impact of the Upper Horizons project on the ecosystem of the river Neretva and the local economy

Hrvatska verzija 156
English version 157

E-002674/14 by Ruža Tomašić to the Commission

Subject: Poaching of protected animal species in Croatia

Hrvatska verzija 158
English version 159

E-002675/14 by Matteo Salvini to the Commission

Subject: Problems relating to the functioning of CONAI and the determination of contributions

Versione italiana 160
English version 162

E-002676/14 by Jarosław Kalinowski to the Commission

Subject: EU milk market

Wersja polska 163
English version 164

E-002677/14 by Minodora Cliveti to the Commission

Subject: Separate rules on people trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation

Versiunea în limba română 165
English version 166

E-002678/14 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: Time to implement the Birds Directive — 2.5 million dead migratory birds is too many

Deutsche Fassung 167
English version 168

E-002679/14 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: Pesticides: prolongation of all deadlines for requests for ongoing approval

Deutsche Fassung 169
English version 170

E-002680/14 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: Pesticides: is the publication of a list of candidates for substitution being prevented by industry?

Deutsche Fassung 171
English version 172

E-002681/14 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: Pesticides: criteria for endocrine disruption

Deutsche Fassung 173
English version 174

E-002682/14 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: Pesticides: data and study requirements

Deutsche Fassung 175
English version 176

E-002683/14 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: Pesticides: independent literature and scientists to scrutinise European Food Safety Authority opinion

Deutsche Fassung 177
English version 178

E-002684/14 by Hiltrud Breyer to the Commission

Subject: European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption: Ensuring participation of all stakeholders to make sure all possible risk factors are identified

Deutsche Fassung 179
English version 180

E-002685/14 by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission

Subject: Revision of the GDP calculation method

Nederlandse versie 181
English version 182

P-002688/14 by Teresa Riera Madurell to the Commission

Subject: Horizon 2020 — ‘Science with and for society’ in the 2014 EU budget

Versión española 183
English version 184

E-002690/14 by Teresa Riera Madurell to the Commission

Subject: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) commitments and payments in the Balearic Islands

Versión española 185
English version 186

E-002691/14 by Teresa Riera Madurell to the Commission

Subject: Structural and Investment funds for 2014-2020 in the Balearic Islands

Versión española 187
English version 188

E-002692/14 by Sabine Lösing to the Commission

Subject: EUBAM Libya

Deutsche Fassung 189
English version 190

E-002693/14 by Alain Cadec and Tokia Saïfi to the Commission

Subject: Herring war — WTO Dispute Settlement Body

Version française 191
English version 192

E-002695/14 by Philippe de Villiers to the Commission

Subject: Soil erosion

Version française 193
English version 194

E-002696/14 by Philippe de Villiers to the Commission

Subject: Increase in sugar stocks

Version française 195
English version 196

E-002697/14 by Philippe de Villiers to the Commission

Subject: Youth Guarantee scheme

Version française 197
English version 198

E-002699/14 by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Funding for the archaeological site of Pompeii

Versione italiana 199
English version 201

E-002782/14 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Preserving Pompeii

English version 201

E-002872/14 by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission

Subject: Doing more for Pompeii

Versione italiana 199
English version 201

E-002700/14 by Esther de Lange to the Commission

Subject: Mutual recognition of driving licences in Portugal

Nederlandse versie 203
English version 204

E-002701/14 by Marisa Matias and Alda Sousa to the Commission

Subject: Infringement by Portugal of legislation on identifying the risks to workers of exposure to asbestos

Versão portuguesa 205
English version 206

E-002702/14 by Marisa Matias and Alda Sousa to the Commission

Subject: Unlawful felling of trees in Alqueva and failure to comply with EU legislation

Versão portuguesa 207
English version 208

E-002703/14 by Silvia-Adriana Ţicău to the Commission

Subject: Balancing employment rates in the European tourism sector to cover off-season periods

Versiunea în limba română 209
English version 210

P-002705/14 by Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission

Subject: Protection of Geographical Indications

Versione italiana 211
English version 212

E-002706/14 by Andrés Perelló Rodríguez to the Commission

Subject: Spanish bill at odds with new European legislation on e-cigarettes

Versión española 213
English version 214

E-002707/14 by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission

Subject: State aid from the Government of Navarra

Versión española 215
English version 216

E-002709/14 by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission

Subject: Level of compliance with EU legislation on conservation of fauna in zoos and aquariums

Versión española 217
English version 218

E-002710/14 by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission

Subject: European participation in setting up shelters for abandoned pets in Member States

Versión española 219
English version 220

E-002711/14 by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission

Subject: Use of animals in circuses

Versión española 221
English version 222

E-002712/14 by Catherine Stihler and Claude Moraes to the Commission

Subject: European Pensioners' Parliament

English version 223

E-002713/14 by Barbara Matera, Lara Comi, Cristiana Muscardini, Marco Scurria, David Casa, Dubravka Šuica, Marietje Schaake, Sophia in 't Veld, Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández, Joanna Senyszyn, Angelika Werthmann, Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid, Nicole Sinclaire, Roberta Metsola, Anne Delvaux, Ana Gomes, Jörg Leichtfried, Hannu Takkula, Rolandas Paksas, Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska, Zuzana Roithová, Reinhard Bütikofer, Antigoni Papadopoulou, Alda Sousa, Jan Březina, Marisa Matias, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Jean Lambert and Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Rights of women detained in Egypt

Versión española 224
České znění 225
Deutsche Fassung 226
Ελληνική έκδοση 227
Version française 229
Hrvatska verzija 231
Versione italiana 232
Tekstas lietuvių kalba 233
Verżjoni Maltija 234
Nederlandse versie 236
Wersja polska 237
Versão portuguesa 238
Suomenkielinen versio 239
English version 240

E-002714/14 by Ruža Tomašić to the Commission

Subject: Vulnerable electricity and natural gas customers in Croatia

Hrvatska verzija 241
English version 242

P-002715/14 by Gilles Pargneaux to the Commission

Subject: Endocrine disruptors and hormonal imbalances

Version française 243
English version 244

E-002716/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: China's increased military budget: EU monitoring activities and failed European army project

Versione italiana 245
English version 246

E-002718/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Women and endometriosis: EU involvement in ‘Million Woman March for Endometriosis’

Versione italiana 247
English version 248

E-002719/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Offshore wind farms — a challenge for Europe

Versione italiana 249
English version 250

E-002720/14 by Oreste Rossi and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission

Subject: Hydrogeological risks and European funding

Versione italiana 251
English version 252

E-002723/14 by Biljana Borzan to the Commission

Subject: Potentially hazardous chemicals in materials used for the packaging and storage of food

Hrvatska verzija 253
English version 254

P-002725/14 by Emma McClarkin to the Commission

Subject: Discrimination against lecturers

English version 255

E-002726/14 by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission

Subject: Report by the Fundamental Rights Agency

Versión española 256
English version 257

E-002728/14 by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission

Subject: Evaluation of the consequences of the ‘haircut’ in Cyprus one year ago

Ελληνική έκδοση 258
English version 259

E-002729/14 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Counterfeiting of ‘Made in Italy’ products

Versione italiana 260
English version 261

E-002730/14 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Parent 1 and 2, or mother and father

Versione italiana 262
English version 263

E-002731/14 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Maritime piracy

Versione italiana 264
English version 265

E-002732/14 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Swiss referendum and EU reactions

Versione italiana 266
English version 267

E-002733/14 by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission

Subject: Fight against food waste

Versione italiana 268
English version 269

E-002734/14 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Social utility project in healthcare sector aimed at supporting citizens over 60

Versione italiana 270
English version 272

E-002735/14 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Development of a socially relevant theatre project by an association in Tuscany: possible financing

Versione italiana 274
English version 275

E-002736/14 by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission

Subject: IT programs for the learning of foreign languages by people with autism

Versiunea în limba română 276
English version 277

E-002737/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 278

E-002738/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US Trade Agreements

English version 278

E-002739/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 278

E-002740/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US Trade Agreements

English version 278

E-002741/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 278

E-002742/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 279

E-002743/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 279

E-002744/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 279

E-002745/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 279

E-002746/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 279

E-002747/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 280

E-002748/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 280

E-002749/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 280

E-002750/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 280

E-002751/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 280

E-002752/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 281

E-002753/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 281

E-002754/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 281

E-002755/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 281

E-002756/14 by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission

Subject: Unacceptable clauses in US trade agreements

English version 281

E-002757/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Commission answer to Written Question E-012063/2013 on lack of filters in flag factory

Deutsche Fassung 283
English version 284

E-002758/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Costs of nuclear waste disposal

Deutsche Fassung 285
English version 286

E-002759/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: European Union and further candidates for accession

Deutsche Fassung 287
English version 288

E-002760/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Research into final repositories for radioactive waste

Deutsche Fassung 289
English version 290

E-002761/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: ITER research reactor — costs under the new Multiannual Financial Framework

Deutsche Fassung 291
English version 292

E-002762/14 by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission

Subject: Risks of working with fusion reactors

Deutsche Fassung 293
English version 294

E-002764/14 by Derek Vaughan to the Commission

Subject: Food shortages

English version 295

E-002765/14 by Derek Vaughan to the Commission

Subject: Spanish equity release scheme

English version 296

E-002766/14 by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission

Subject: Classification of the truffle as an agricultural product: request for information

Versione italiana 297
English version 298

P-002767/14 by Michèle Rivasi to the Commission

Subject: Collusion between Novartis and Roche in connection with the marketing of the drugs Lucentis and Avastin

Version française 299
English version 300

E-002768/14 by Iñaki Irazabalbeitia Fernández to the Commission

Subject: Formal application to build a floating dock in Ferrol (Galicia)

Versión española 301
English version 302

E-002770/14 by Pavel Poc, Baroness Sarah Ludford and Brian Simpson to the Commission

Subject: Possible extension of mandatory method-of-production labelling

České znění 303
English version 304

E-002771/14 by Diane Dodds to the Commission

Subject: Cost of rural crime

English version 305

E-002880/14 by Fabrizio Bertot to the Commission

Subject: VP/HR — Developments in Ukraine

Versione italiana 306
English version 307

E-002896/14 by Marlene Mizzi to the Commission

Subject: Entry to Switzerland for EU citizens

Verżjoni Maltija 308
English version 309

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-000698/14

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(23 gennaio 2014)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Droni e difesa europea

I recenti studi e le operazioni sul campo condotte dalle forze armate di diversi Stati membri hanno messo in luce una serie di lacune non indifferenti, tra cui emerge l'assenza di droni per operazioni ISR in grado di rivaleggiare con gli omologhi internazionali, in particolare con i modelli statunitensi, oggi leader del mercato.

La debolezza nel settore è stata inoltre riconosciuta sia dalla Commissione sia dal Consiglio europeo.

Eppure in Europa esistono dei progetti di dimostratori che hanno presentato risultati estremamente interessanti, come ad esempio un progetto partito da un'azienda francese e poi rimodulato e esteso a aziende provenienti da cinque Stati membri e dalla Svizzera e che ha portato notevoli risultati.

Alla luce di quanto riportato, può il Vice-presidente/Alto Rappresentante chiarire se:

è a conoscenza di programmi di dimostratori nel settore dei droni in Europa e quale sia il loro stato di avanzamento;

quali specifiche misure sono allo studio per promuovere gli investimenti privati nel settore;

tramite quali investimenti in altri veicoli, strumenti e equipaggiamenti potrebbe essere ulteriormente colmata la lacuna europea nel campo delle capacità ISR?

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

(15 luglio 2014)

La capacità strategica e operativa di gestire, raccogliere, trattare e divulgare informazioni è uno strumento di difesa di primaria importanza per le operazioni militari, comprese quelle intraprese nel quadro della PSDC. Al fine di colmare le lacune esistenti in tale ambito, occorre operare in alcune aree specifiche investendo in modo consistente nelle stesse.

In particolare, sono necessarie delle soluzioni in materia di sorveglianza durature ed efficaci sotto il profilo dei costi, volte a proteggere per lunghi periodi vaste aree contro una serie di minacce. Tale capacità può essere in parte sviluppata grazie ai Sistemi Aeromobili a Pilotaggio Remoto (SAPR). Esiste un'ampia gamma di SAPR in termini di grandezza, tipologia, velocità, autonomia di durata, altitudine e carico utile. Il prezzo dei SAPR li rende accessibili a livello nazionale. Molti Stati membri hanno già dotato le loro forze armate di tali sistemi, spesso in seguito a investimenti privati da parte delle PMI.

Alcuni Stati membri stanno effettuando delle dimostrazioni tecnologiche a livello nazionale o in collaborazione sui futuri sistemi aerei a pilotaggio remoto. In alcuni casi si tratta di prodotti tecnologici di avanguardia che contribuiscono a rafforzare la base industriale della difesa europea. Nel settore dei SAPR idonei ad operare a media quota e con lunga autonomia (MALE — Medium Altitude Long Endurance) viene riconosciuta la necessità di favorire la collaborazione tra gli Stati membri. A tal fine, l'Agenzia europea per la difesa sta sostenendo un programma di lavoro che mira a risolvere una lunga serie di questioni di carattere tecnologico, normativo e operativo. Il potenziale economico dei sistemi aeromobili a pilotaggio remoto e delle relative tecnologie per applicazioni civili crea delle sinergie naturali tra gli investimenti civili e militari.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-000698/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(23 January 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — Drones and European defence

Recent studies and field operations conducted by the armed forces of various Member States have brought to light a series of major deficiencies that need to be addressed, including the lack of any ISR drones that are as technologically advanced as those of other national forces, and especially those of the United States, which is currently leading the way in this field.

The shortcomings of Europe’s drones have, moreover, been acknowledged by both the Commission and the European Council.

That said, there are several demonstrator projects currently underway in Europe that are yielding extremely encouraging results: for instance, the project that was launched by a French company and subsequently reshaped to incorporate companies from five other Member States and Switzerland, which has so far produced outstanding results.

1.

In light of the above, is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of any drone demonstrator projects that are currently underway in Europe, and how far advanced they are?

2.

What specific measures are being looked into in order to promote private investment in drones?

3.

What investments need to be made in other vehicles, instruments and equipment in order to further address Europe’s deficiencies in its ISR capabilities?

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

(15 July 2014)

The ability at strategic and operational levels to direct, collect, process and disseminate information is a major defence capability required for military operations including those undertaken under CSDP. To overcome existing gaps in this field some areas need specific attention and sustained investments.

In particular, persistent surveillance solutions are required to cover wide areas over long timescales, against a diverse set of threats in a cost effective manner. Part of this capability can be provided by Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS). The spectrum of RPAS types is very broad in size, range, speed, endurance, altitude and payloads. Regarding very light RPAS, the cost of such systems makes them affordable at a national level. Many Member States have already equipped their armed forces with such systems; very often these are the result of private investments involving SMEs.

Some Member States are conducting, either nationally or collaboratively, technological demonstrations on future unmanned aerial systems. Some are at the leading edge of technology, and reinforce the strength of the European defence industrial base. On the segment of Medium Altitude and Long Endurance (MALE) RPAS, there is a recognised need to foster cooperation among the Member States. To that end, the European Defence Agency is supporting the Member States through a programme of work addressing a wide range of technological, regulatory and operational issues. The economic potential of remotely piloted aircraft systems and the related technologies for civil applications creates natural synergies between civil and military investments.

(Verżjoni Maltija)

Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-001455/14

lill-Kummissjoni (Viċi President/Rappreżentant Għoli)

David Casa (PPE)

(11 ta' Frar 2014)

Suġġett: VP/HR — pakkett ta' għajnuna għall-Ukraina

Ġie rrappurtat li l-Unjoni Ewropea u l-Istati Uniti qed jaħdmu flimkien biex jipproduċu pakkett ta' għajnuna għall-Ukraina li se jkun jiswa mill-anqas USD 15 biljun. Min-naħa l-oħra, l-offerta min-naħa tar-Russi, li tirrappreżenta l-istess ammont preċiż, għadha valida u l-pressjoni ekonomika tar-Russja fuq l-Ukraina qed tkompli tiżdied (1)  (2).

L-Unjoni Ewropea, l-Istati Uniti u r-Russja ma jaqblux bejniethom dwar l-involviment tagħhom fl-Ukraina u dwar it-theddida ekonomika tal-Punent kif perċepita mir-Russja.

Pakkett ta' għajnuna ekonomika mill-Unjoni Ewropea u l-Istati Uniti għall-Ukraina se jkollu impatt fuq ir-relazzjonijiet bejn l-Unjoni Ewropea u r-Russja? U, jekk iva, liema se jkun dan l-impatt?

Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Füle f'isem il-Kummissjoni

(8 ta' Lulju 2014)

L-UE hija impenjata bis-sħiħ lejn assoċjazzjoni politika u integrazzjoni ekonomika eqreb mal-Ukraina u qed tipprovdi appoġġ kruċjali f’koordinazzjoni ma’ sħab internazzjonali oħra. L-għajnuna tal-UE se tgħin biex jiġi stabbilizzat il-pajjiż kif ukoll se tgħin lill-programm ta’ riforma u biex tkompli tissaħħaħ is-sjieda mill-awtoritajiet Ukraini. Il-Gvern Ukrain qed iniedi sett ambizzjuż ta’ riformi strutturali, inkluż fir-rigward tal-ġlieda kontra l-korruzzjoni u t-tisħiħ tat-trasparenza. Prijorità immedjata hija li tiġi stabbilita mill-ġdid l-istabbiltà makroekonomika permezz ta’ politiki fiskali, monetarji u tal-kambju sodi. Il-miżuri tal-UE flimkien, jistgħu jammontaw għal għajnuna komplessiva ta’ mill-inqas EUR 11-il biljun matul is-snin li ġejjin. Ta' min isemmi EUR 3 biljun mill-baġit tal-UE, EUR 1.6 biljun f’self ta’ assistenza makrofinanzjarja u pakkett ta’ għajnuna ta’ għotjiet li jiswa EUR 1.4 biljun. L-ewwel porzjon ta’ EUR 100 miljun f’Għajnuna Makrofinanzjarja ġie żborżat fl-20 ta’ Mejju 2014. L-UE dalwaqt se tiffirma d-dispożizzjonijiet li fadal tal-Ftehim ta’ Assoċjazzjoni, inkluża Żona ta’ Kummerċ Ħieles Approfondita u Komprensiva. Inħeġġu lis-sħab internazzjonali tagħna, inkluża r-Russja, biex jikkontribwixxu għal dawn l-isforzi ta’ stabbilizzazzjoni, u joqogħdu lura minn kwalunkwe miżura li potenzjalment ma tkux konformi tad-WTO. Jekk jintlaħaq ftehim dwar il-kundizzjonijiet tal-provvista tal-gass mir-Russja lill-Ukraina, permezz tal-faċilitazzjoni tal-UE, fit-taħditiet trilaterali fis-seħħ, ikun ta' kontribut kbir biex l-ekonomija tal-Ukraina tiġi stabbilizzata.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-001455/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

David Casa (PPE)

(11 February 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — Ukrainian aid package

It has been reported that the European Union and the United States are working together to produce an aid package for Ukraine that will be worth at least USD 15 billion. On the other hand, the Russian offer representing exactly the same amount still stands, and Russia’s economic pressure on Ukraine is being stepped up (3) ,  (4).

The EU, the US and Russia disagree over their involvement in Ukraine and the economic threat of the West as perceived by Russia.

What impact, if any, will an EU-US economic aid package for Ukraine have on EU-Russian relations?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2014)

The EU is firmly committed to closer political association and economic integration with Ukraine and is providing crucial support in coordination with other international partners. EU assistance will help stabilise the country as well as support the reform programme and further enhance ownership by the Ukrainian authorities. The Ukrainian Government is launching an ambitious set of structural reforms, including with respect to fighting corruption and enhancing transparency. An immediate priority is to restore macroeconomic stability through sound fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies. EU measures combined could bring overall support of at least EUR 11 billion over the coming years. Highlights include EUR 3 billion from the EU budget, EUR 1.6 billion in macro financial assistance loans and an assistance package of grants worth EUR 1.4 billion. A first tranche of EUR 100 million in Macro-Financial Assistance was disbursed on 20 May 2014. The EU will very soon sign remaining provisions of the Association Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area. We encourage our international partners, including Russia, to contribute to these stabilisation efforts, and refrain from any potential WTO non-compliant measures. Reaching agreement on the conditions of the gas supply from Russia to Ukraine with the EU's facilitation in the ongoing trilateral talks will greatly contribute to the stabilisation of Ukraine's economy.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-002056/14

προς το Συμβούλιο

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(20 Φεβρουαρίου 2014)

Θέμα: Νέος κύκλος συνομιλιών για επίλυση του Κυπριακού προβλήματος

Στην Κύπρο έχει αρχίσει ένας νέος γύρος συνομιλιών, υπό την αιγίδα του Οργανισμού Ηνωμένων Εθνών, για επίλυση του χρονίζοντος πολιτικού προβλήματος, το οποίο δημιουργήθηκε λόγω της τουρκικής εισβολής, της βίαιης διαίρεσης και της συνεχιζόμενης για 40 χρόνια ημι-κατοχής του νησιού από τα τουρκικά στρατεύματα.

Ερωτάται το Συμβούλιο:

Προτίθεται να εμπλακεί και να βοηθήσει στη επίτευξη μιας δίκαιης, λειτουργικής, βιώσιμης και σύμφωνης με το ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο λύσης του προβλήματος;

Ποιους μοχλούς πίεσης διαθέτει και πώς προτίθεται να τους χρησιμοποιήσει ώστε να εξαναγκαστεί η κατοχική Τουρκία να συνεργαστεί, αποσύροντας τα στρατεύματά της και αποδεχόμενη την επανένωση του νησιού που, στο σύνολο του, αποτελεί μέλος της ΕΕ;

Θεωρεί το Συμβούλιο ότι οι βασικές αρχές που περιέχονται στο Κοινό Ανακοινωθέν του Προέδρου της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας κ. Ν. Αναστασιάδη και του Τουρκοκύπριου ηγέτη κ. Ν. Έρογλου μπορούν να οδηγήσουν σε μια λύση που να είναι σύμφωνη με το ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο ως έχει σήμερα, χωρίς οποιεσδήποτε παρεκκλίσεις;

Αν η λύση που πιθανόν να συμφωνηθεί δεν διασφαλίζει όλα τα δικαιώματα που έχει κάθε ελεύθερος Ευρωπαίος πολίτης, όπως π.χ. το δικαίωμα της ελεύθερης διακίνησης, της εγκατάστασης, της περιουσίας και του εκλέγειν και εκλέγεσθαι στον τόπο διαμονής του, τι θα πράξει η ΕΕ; Θα προσυπογράψει μια τέτοια λύση ή θα επιμείνει στην χωρίς όρους και παρεκκλίσεις εφαρμογή όλων των ευρωπαϊκών αρχών καθώς και του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου;

Απάντηση

(8 Ιουλίου 2014)

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο χαιρετίζει την επανέναρξη των συνολικών διαπραγματεύσεων για διευθέτηση του Κυπριακού με βάση την κοινή δήλωση της 11ης Φεβρουαρίου και με σκοπό την επανένωση της Κύπρου. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο υποστηρίζει μια συνολική και βιώσιμη διευθέτηση του Κυπριακού προβλήματος υπό την αιγίδα του ΟΗΕ, σύμφωνα με τις σχετικές αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ και τηρουμένων των αρχών στις οποίες εδράζεται η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο υπογραμμίζει ότι η διχοτόμηση της Κύπρου έχει διαρκέσει πολύ μεγάλο χρονικό διάστημα και τονίζει τη σημασία της διατήρησης της συγκεκριμένης δυναμικής. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο είναι έτοιμο να εκπληρώσει το ρόλο του συμβάλλοντας στη στήριξη των διαπραγματεύσεων. Η επανένωση της Κύπρου θα είναι προς όφελος όλων των Κυπρίων και υπό το πρίσμα αυτό το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο υποστηρίζει τα μέτρα οικοδόμησης εμπιστοσύνης που θα συμφωνηθούν μεταξύ των δύο μερών και τα οποία θα μπορούσαν να συμβάλουν αποφασιστικά στη δημιουργία κλίματος αμοιβαίας εμπιστοσύνης και να δώσουν ώθηση στη διαπραγματευτική διαδικασία.

Υπενθυμίζεται ότι, όπως τονίζεται στο διαπραγματευτικό πλαίσιο, το Συμβούλιο αναμένει επίσης ότι η Τουρκία θα υποστηρίξει ενεργά τις διεξαγόμενες διαπραγματεύσεις με σκοπό τη δίκαιη, συνολική και βιώσιμη λύση του Κυπριακού στο πλαίσιο του ΟΗΕ, σύμφωνα με τις σχετικές αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ και βάσει των αρχών στις οποίες εδράζεται η Ένωση. Η δέσμευση της Τουρκίας και η συμβολή της με συγκεκριμένες ενέργειες σε αυτή τη συνολική διευθέτηση είναι θέμα ζωτικής σημασίας.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002056/14

to the Council

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(20 February 2014)

Subject: New round of talks to resolve the Cyprus problem

A new round of talks has started in Cyprus, under the aegis of the UN, to resolve the long-standing political problem created by the Turkish invasion and the violent division of the island, which has been semi-occupied by Turkish troops for the past 40 years.

In view of the above, will the Council say:

Does it intend to become involved in order to help achieve a fair, workable and sustainable solution to the problem in line with the Community acquis?

What means of applying pressure does it have at its disposal and how does it intend to use them in order to force Turkey, as the occupying country, to cooperate by withdrawing its troops and agreeing to the reunification of the island, which is an EU Member State in its entirety?

Does the Council consider that the basic principles set out in the joint statement released by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr N. Anastasiades, and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr N. Eroglu, can lead to a solution in line with the Community acquis as it stands, without any derogation?

If an agreed solution does not safeguard all the rights which every free European citizen enjoys, such as the right to freedom of movement, to freedom of establishment and to property and the right to vote and stand as a candidate in their place of residence, what will the EU do? Will it endorse such a solution or will it insist on the unconditional application of all European principles and the Community acquis without derogation?

Reply

(8 July 2014)

The European Council welcomes the resumption of fully fledged settlement negotiations based on the 11 February Joint Declaration with the aim to reunite Cyprus. The European Council supports a comprehensive and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem within the UN framework, in accordance with relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the European Union is founded. The European Council underlines that the division of Cyprus has endured for too long and emphasises the importance of maintaining the momentum. The European Council stands ready to play its part in supporting the negotiations. Reunification of Cyprus would be to the benefit of all the Cypriot people and in this respect the European Council supports any confidence building measures agreed by the two parties which could contribute decisively to creating a climate of mutual trust and give impetus to the negotiation process.

It is recalled that, as emphasised by the Negotiating Framework, the Council also expects Turkey to actively support the ongoing negotiations aimed at a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. Turkey’s commitment and contribution in concrete terms to such a comprehensive settlement is crucial.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003403/14

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE)

(20 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: VP/HR — Situación en Venezuela

La represión ejercida por las autoridades venezolanas contra las marchas pacíficas que se registran desde el pasado 12 de febrero se ha saldado hasta la fecha con trece muertes y numerosos heridos.

La elevada tasa de inflación, la delincuencia y la escasez de algunos productos de primera necesidad, así como los niveles de corrupción y la intimidación de los medios de comunicación y de la oposición democrática en general, han provocado una creciente y preocupante tensión y polarización política.

A la luz de lo expuesto anteriormente, ¿podría indicar la Comisión qué puede hacer la UE para evitar la violación alarmante de derechos fundamentales por parte del Gobierno venezolano así como para garantizar el respeto del principio de la separación de poderes en Venezuela?

Respuesta conjunta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(13 de junio de 2014)

La Comisión ha estado muy atenta a la evolución de la situación desde el 12 de febrero. La Delegación de la Unión Europea en Venezuela y las doce embajadas de los Estados miembros de la UE siguen los acontecimientos e informan de los mismos periódicamente.

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a su declaración de 21 de febrero de 2014 sobre los disturbios en Venezuela, así como al comunicado oficial del Comisario responsable de Fiscalidad, Unión Aduanera, Estadística, Auditoría y Lucha contra el Fraude, en nombre de la Comisión, en la sesión plenaria del Parlamento Europeo de 27 de febrero. Además, el portavoz de la Comisión emitió declaraciones los días 14 de febrero, 28 de marzo y 14 de abril.

Con arreglo a los nuevos instrumentos financieros para el período 2014-2020, la ayuda de la UE se va a concentrar en los países y regiones más pobres y vulnerables. Venezuela, que ha sido clasificada por el Banco Mundial como una economía de renta media alta durante tres años consecutivos sobre la base de la renta nacional bruta (RNB) per cápita, es uno de los países que ya no se beneficia de las ayudas en virtud de la cooperación bilateral y, a partir del 1 de enero de 2014, tampoco del sistema de preferencias comerciales (SPG).

Las asignaciones de ayuda humanitaria de la Comisión Europea se hacen siempre con arreglo a las necesidades existentes, aplicando estrictamente los principios humanitarios. Desde el año 1998, la Comisión Europea ha prestado ayuda humanitaria a Venezuela por un total de 14 122 823 EUR, incluidas las ayudas a la preparación ante las catástrofes.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-002167/14

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE)

(25 febbraio 2014)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Crisi in Venezuela

L'UE intrattiene con la Repubblica bolivariana del Venezuela relazioni politiche ed economiche.

Sulla base del dialogo economico UE-Repubblica bolivariana del Venezuela, quest'ultima beneficia delle riduzioni tariffarie previste dallo schema generalizzato di preferenza e degli accordi commerciali di cui agli accordi di associazione economica e ai programmi di aiuti al commercio.

L'UE rappresenta per il Venezuela il più grande donatore/oblatore al mondo in materia di cooperazione allo sviluppo, giacché la Commissione attua una cooperazione bilaterale attraverso il memorandum d'intesa del 2009 e lo strumento di associazione del 2011, una cooperazione tematica attraverso finanziamenti diretti a progetti nei settori previsti dallo strumento europeo per la democrazia ed i diritti umani e una cooperazione regionale che prevede attualmente il sovvenzionamento di quaranta progetti.

Nel programma di aiuti umanitari all'America latina, la DG ECHO ha già speso in favore del Venezuela, a partire dal 1998, 41 milioni e 550 mila euro nel soccorso e nella prevenzione dalle catastrofi.

Può l'Alto Rappresentante per la PESC riferire:

se vi siano e quali siano, al di là delle dichiarazioni pubbliche, le azioni concrete intraprese dall'Alto Rappresentante in merito all'uso della forza nei confronti della società civile, agli arresti di studenti e esponenti politici e alle gravi lesioni delle libertà di espressione, associazione e riunione da parte delle autorità pubbliche in Venezuela;

se stia valutando la sospensione delle agevolazioni commerciali, dei programmi di cooperazione e degli aiuti umanitari succitati?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002717/14

alla Commissione

Oreste Rossi (PPE) e Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(7 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Venezuela — riesame delle azioni dell'UE nell'ambito della strategia 2014-2020 a seguito dei recenti avvenimenti

Il 12 febbraio scorso gli studenti dello Stato di Tachira (sud ovest del Venezuela) hanno deciso di protestare esigendo al governo più sicurezza, rifornimento di viveri e migliori misure economiche. A seguito delle proteste cinque studenti sono stati incarcerati e trasferiti nella città di Coro, dove sono stati malmenati e torturati con l'elettricità. Il 12 febbraio 2014 gli studenti di tutto il paese sono scesi in piazza esigendo la liberazione dei loro compagni. Il governo di Nicolas Maduro e Diosdado Cabello ha proibito alle emittenti televisive di parlare delle proteste e ordinato il silenzio alle radio. Nessun mezzo di informazione venezuelano ha menzionato le morti degli studenti. I fatti sono stati trasmessi da CNN e NTN24, ma la seconda emittente è stata oscurata per ordine di Conatel (Comisión Nacional de Telecomunicaciones de Venezuela), organo del ministero delle Telecomunicazioni venezuelano. Il governo sta censurando l'informazione bloccando anche l'accesso al sito web di NTN24.

Il fornitore Internet nazionale, CANTV, ha anche bloccato la condivisione di immagini su Twitter. Il social network ha confermato il tentativo di censura da parte del governo e, in seguito, ha offerto una guida passo a passo per aggirare il problema.

Considerando che:

due studenti e un membro del collettivo armato sono morti; più di 300 studenti sono stati detenuti dalla Guardia nazionale bolivariana, più di 200 hanno riportato ferite da arma da fuoco o contusioni e più di 100 sono stati asfissiati;

nelle scorse settimane, l'imposizione della legge del 2009 del «prezzo giusto» (che vieta alle aziende di guadagnare più del 30 %, pena l'esproprio) ha costretto una buona parte dei giornali nazionali a chiudere per mancanza di carta;

la censura e la negazione del diritto di espressione e della libertà di stampa costituiscono violazioni dei diritti fondamentali dell'uomo, in particolare degli articoli 57 e 58 della costituzione venezuelana,

si chiede alla Commissione:

se nell'ambito della cooperazione strategica tra l'Unione europea e il Venezuela 2014-2020, che mira a contribuire alla riduzione della povertà, al consolidamento della democrazia e al miglioramento dello sviluppo economico equo del paese, intende delineare nuove azioni a tutela dei diritti umani;

se intende valutare l'imposizione di sanzioni e procedere al congelamento dei fondi destinati al paese.

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003725/14

alla Commissione

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(26 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Venezuela: diritto di manifestare sfociato in violenze e caos

Come ha dichiarato il procuratore generale venezuelano Louisa Ortega Diaz dall'inizio del mese di febbraio 2014 in Venezuela ci son stati ben 28 morti e 365 feriti, per mano di partecipanti a una manifestazione di studenti nata inizialmente come pacifica per protestare contro lo stupro di una studentessa e trasformatasi in violenze e caos con la presenza di armi, mentre paesi come Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Cina e Russia hanno offerto il loro sostegno.

Può la Commissione precisare:

se è al corrente dei fatti sopra descritti;

quali misure intende intraprendere per tutelare i diritti dei manifestanti e l'incolumità dei civili?

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

(13 giugno 2014)

La Commissione segue da vicino gli sviluppi dal 12 febbraio. La delegazione dell’UE in Venezuela, così come le dodici ambasciate degli Stati membri, stanno monitorando la situazione e riferiscono regolarmente.

La Commissione rinvia l’onorevole deputato alla dichiarazione del 21 febbraio 2014 sui disordini in Venezuela, nonché alla dichiarazione ufficiale fornita, a nome della Commissione, dal commissario europeo per la Fiscalità, le dogane, le statistiche, l’audit e la lotta antifrode, in occasione del dibattito tenutosi durante la seduta plenaria del Parlamento europeo del 27 febbraio. Inoltre, la Commissione ha rilasciato dichiarazioni tramite il suo portavoce, rispettivamente il 14 febbraio, il 28 marzo e il 14 aprile.

Nell’ambito dei nuovi strumenti finanziari per il periodo 2014-2020, gli aiuti dell’UE saranno concentrati sui paesi e le regioni più poveri e vulnerabili. Il Venezuela, classificato dalla Banca mondiale come paese con reddito medio-alto per tre anni consecutivi sulla base del reddito nazionale lordo (RNL) pro capite, è tra i paesi che non beneficeranno più degli aiuti bilaterali alla cooperazione e, a decorrere dal 1o gennaio 2014, del Sistema delle Preferenze Generalizzate (SPG).

Gli stanziamenti della Commissione europea per gli aiuti umanitari sono forniti seguendo un approccio rigorosamente basato sulle esigenze e applicando i principi umanitari. Dal 1998 la Commissione europea ha fornito al Venezuela aiuti per un totale di 14 122,823 EUR, compresa l’assistenza per la preparazione alle catastrofi.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-002425/14

adresată Comisiei (Vicepreședintelui/Înaltului Reprezentant)

Elena Băsescu (PPE)

(3 martie 2014)

Subiect: VP/HR — Situația din Venezuela

Situația din Venezuela a devenit tot mai îngrijorătoare pentru comunitatea internațională. Pe lângă situația economică instabilă, o rată a criminalității foarte ridicată și o inflație în creștere, în ultimele săptămâni au avut loc proteste, reprimate în dese rânduri în mod violent de către forțele de ordine. Ceea ce este și mai îngrijorător este că aceste proteste, direcționate împotriva conducerii politice a statului, s-au soldat cu mai multe victime în rândul civililor.

Are în vedere Uniunea Europeană impunerea unor sancțiuni celor responsabili de escaladarea violențelor (interdicția de călătorie în Uniune, înghețarea conturilor etc.)?

Răspuns comun dat de Înaltul Reprezentant/doamna vicepreședinte Ashton în numele Comisiei

(13 iunie 2014)

Începând din 12 februarie, Comisia urmărește îndeaproape evoluțiile care au loc. Delegația UE în Venezuela, precum și ambasadele celor douăsprezece state membre ale UE monitorizează situația și întocmesc rapoarte cu regularitate.

Comisia dorește să aducă în atenția onorabilului deputat declarația din 21 februarie 2014 a doamnei Catherine Ashton, Vicepreședinte al Comisiei/Înalt Reprezentant, cu privire la tulburările din Venezuela, precum și declarația oficială dată în numele Comisiei de comisarul responsabil pentru impozitare, vamă, statistică, audit și lupta antifraudă, în cadrul dezbaterii din plenul Parlamentului European din 27 februarie. În plus, Comisia aduce în atenție declarațiile purtătorului de cuvânt al Comisiei din 14 februarie, 28 martie și 14 aprilie.

În conformitate cu noile instrumente financiare stabilite pentru perioada 2014-2020, resursele UE în domeniul ajutorului vor fi concentrate pe cele mai sărace și mai vulnerabile țări și regiuni. Venezuela, țară care a fost clasificată de Banca Mondială, timp de trei ani consecutiv, ca fiind, pe baza venitului național brut (VNB) pe cap de locuitor, o economie cu venituri medii superioare, se află printre țările care nu vor mai beneficia de ajutor pentru cooperare bilaterală și, începând de la 1 ianuarie 2014, de sistemul general de preferințe comerciale (SGP).

Comisia Europeană alocă fonduri pentru asistență umanitară conform unei abordări bazate strict pe necesități, precum și prin aplicarea principiilor umanitare. Începând din 1998, Comisia Europeană a oferit Venezuelei o asistență umanitară care totalizează 14 122,823 EUR, inclusiv sprijin pentru pregătire în caz de dezastre.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002167/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE)

(25 February 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — Crisis in Venezuela

The EU maintains political and economic relations with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

On the basis of the economic dialogue between the EU and Venezuela, the latter benefits from the tariff reductions provided for by the scheme of generalised tariff preferences and trade agreements laid down in the economic association agreements and the programmes of aid for trade.

The EU is Venezuela’s largest international donor in the field of development cooperation: the Commission conducts bilateral cooperation through the 2009 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2011 instrument of association, thematic cooperation through funding directed at projects in the fields covered by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and regional cooperation that currently provides grants for forty projects.

Since 1998, DG ECHO has spent EUR 41 550 000 on aid and disaster prevention in Venezuela, as part of the programme of humanitarian aid to Latin America.

In view of the above, can the VP/HR say:

Beyond the public rhetoric, has she taken any practical measures on the use of force against civil society, the arrests of students and political opponents and the grave violations of freedom of expression, association and assembly by the public authorities in Venezuela? If so, which measures?

–Is she considering whether to suspend the trade facilitation measures, cooperation programmes and humanitarian aid mentioned above?

Question for written answer E-002425/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Elena Băsescu (PPE)

(3 March 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — The situation in Venezuela

The situation in Venezuela has been giving the international community increasing cause for concern, in view of its unstable economy aggravated by very high crime rates and galloping inflation. Of even greater concern is the civilian death toll from protests against the country's political leadership over the last few weeks , which have frequently met with violent clampdowns by the forces of law and order.

Does the EU intend to impose sanctions on those responsible for the escalating violence (ban on travel to the Union, freezing of accounts, etc)?

Question for written answer E-002717/14

to the Commission

Oreste Rossi (PPE) and Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Venezuela — re-examination of EU actions under strategy for 2014-20 following recent events

On 12 February, students from Tachira State (south-western Venezuela) decided to protest and demand from the government greater security, replenishment of basic essentials and better economic measures. Following the protests five students were imprisoned and transferred to the city of Coro, where they were beaten and tortured with electricity. On 12 February 2014 students from the whole country went to the town square demanding the release of their companions. The government of Nicolas Maduro and Diosdado Cabello has prohibited television stations from talking about the protests and has ordered radio silence. The deaths of the students have not been reported in any Venezuelan media. The facts were broadcast by CNN and NTN24, but the latter station was blacked out by order of Conatel (Venezuelan National Telecommunications Commission), an agency of the Venezuelan Telecommunications Ministry. The government is censoring information and also blocking access to the NTN24 website.

The national Internet service provider, CANTV, has also blocked image sharing on Twitter. The social network has confirmed this attempt at censorship by the government and has subsequently issued a step-by-step guide to circumventing the problem.

Considering that:

two students and one member of the armed collective have been killed; more than 300 students have been arrested by the Venezuelan National Guard, more than 200 have reported firearms injuries or bruises and more than 100 have been asphyxiated;

in recent weeks, the imposition of the 2009 ‘fair price’ law (which bans companies from earning more than 30%, on pain of expropriation) has forced a large part of the national newspapers to close down due to a lack of paper;

censorship and the denial of the right of expression and of the freedom of the press are breaches of fundamental human rights, in particular of Articles 57 and 58 of the Venezuelan constitution,

1.

within the scope of the strategic cooperation between the European Union and Venezuela 2014-20, which aims to contribute to the reduction of poverty, the consolidation of democracy and the improvement of the fair economic development of the country, does the Commission intend to set out any new actions in protection of human rights?

2.

Does it intend to evaluate the imposition of sanctions and proceed to freeze any funds intended for the country?

Question for written answer E-003403/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE)

(20 March 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — Situation in Venezuela

The Venezuelan authorities’ repressive action against the peaceful marches taking place there since 12 February 2014 has so far resulted in 13 deaths and many injured.

High rates of inflation, crime, and scarcity of several basic products, as well as extensive corruption and intimidation of the media and the democratic opposition in general, have served to increase tensions and political polarisation to worrying levels.

In light of the above, could the Commission indicate what action the EU can take to prevent the alarming violation of fundamental rights by the Venezuelan Government and to guarantee respect for the principle of the separation of powers in Venezuela?

Question for written answer E-003725/14

to the Commission

Mara Bizzotto (EFD)

(26 March 2014)

Subject: Venezuela: right to protest descends into violence and chaos

Venezuela’s state prosecutor, Luisa Ortega Diaz, recently announced that the death toll from the ongoing protests in her country has risen to 28, with a further 365 people sustaining injuries. The protests, which began at the beginning of February as a peaceful student demonstration against the rape of a female student, soon descended into violence and chaos, with armed clashes taking place between the protestors and the security forces of the incumbent Venezuelan Government, which has the backing of countries such as Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, China and Russia.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the facts described above?

2.

What measures does it intend to take in order to protect the rights of protestors and guarantee the safety of civilians?

Question for written answer E-003946/14

to the Commission

Syed Kamall (ECR)

(31 March 2014)

Subject: Outbreak of violence in Venezuela

I have been contacted by a constituent who is concerned about the current violent situation in Venezuela which, he tells me, has already led to the deaths of 20 people.

My constituent tells me that after the EP resolution on Venezuela was passed on 27 February 2014, Parliament wished to send an ad hoc delegation to Venezuela. However, the Venezuelan Government has said it will not accept international mediation.

My constituent would like the Venezuelan Government to engage in unconditional dialogue with the opposition. He would also like the EU to take further action to protect citizens in Venezuela and to seek a peaceful resolution to this crisis.

Could the Commission state if it is putting any pressure on the Venezuelan Government to end the current outbreak of violence and to protect the welfare of its citizens?

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

(13 June 2014)

The Commission has been following developments closely since 12 February. The EU Delegation in Venezuela as well as the twelve EU Member States embassies are monitoring the situation and report on a regular basis.

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its 21 February 2014 Statement on unrest in Venezuela as well as to the official statement given by the Commissioner responsible for Taxation, Customs, Statistics, Audit and Anti-Fraud on behalf of the Commission during the European Parliament plenary debate on 27 February. In addition the spokesperson of the Commission issued statements on 14 February, 28 March and 14 April.

Under the new financial instruments for the period 2014-2020, EU aid resources will be concentrated on the poorest and most vulnerable countries and regions. Venezuela, which has been classified by the World Bank as an upper middle income economy during three consecutive years on the basis of the gross national income (GNI) per capita, is among the countries that will no longer benefits from bilateral cooperation aid and, from 1 January 2014, the General Scheme of trade Preferences (GSP).

The European Commission's allocations for humanitarian assistance are provided following a strictly needs-based approach and applying the humanitarian principles. Since, 1998, the European Commission has provided humanitarian assistance to Venezuela, totalling EUR 14 122 823, including support to disaster preparedness.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002315/14

alla Commissione

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 febbraio 2014)

Oggetto: Crisi dei rifugiati siriani

Il 26 febbraio 2014, l'Alto commissario dell'ONU per i rifugiati, Antonio Guterres, ha dichiarato che presto i siriani sostituiranno gli afghani come primo popolo di rifugiati nel mondo. Sono circa 9,3 milioni i siriani, quasi la metà della popolazione, che necessitano di aiuto e 2,4 milioni hanno abbandonato il paese. I bambini, in particolare, sono estremamente vulnerabili. Nei campi profughi libanesi quasi 2 000 bambini siriani rischiano di morire di fame e 10 000 bambini siriani di cinque anni di età e i più piccoli soffrono di malnutrizione acuta. Secondo il vice capo aiuti dell'ONU Kyung-Wha Kang «la Siria rischia di perdere una generazione di bambini».

Il Segretario generale dell'ONU ha chiesto al governo siriano di concedere agli operatori umanitari un maggiore accesso al paese. Gli approvvigionamenti umanitari sono disponibili, ma è difficoltoso garantire il loro transito sicuro. L'uso indiscriminato da parte del governo delle bombe barile ha provocato centinaia di vittime civili innocenti e non sembra esserci alcun rallentamento nell'uso di tali tattiche. I colloqui di pace di Ginevra 2 sono terminati il 15 febbraio 2014, con un accordo provvisorio per un terzo ciclo di colloqui in una fase successiva.

1.

Quale ruolo sta svolgendo la Commissione, insieme all'ONU, per fare pressioni affinché il governo siriano permetta agli operatori umanitari e ai soccorritori di transitare in modo sicuro nelle parti del paese sotto assedio?

2.

Quali sforzi sta compiendo la Commissione in paesi come il Libano, dove i bambini siriani rischiano di morire di fame?

Risposta di Kristalina Georgieva a nome della Commissione

(10 luglio 2014)

1.

La Commissione europea sostiene da tempo la necessità di garantire agli operatori umanitari e ai soccorritori un transito libero e sicuro in Siria, affinché possano raggiungere tutte le persone bisognose di aiuto, fra cui i 4,7 milioni di cittadini che secondo le stime risiedono in zone difficilmente raggiungibili in cui ricevono poca o nessuna assistenza.

Sin dall'adozione, nel febbraio 2014, della risoluzione n. 2139 del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU, la Commissione ne chiede una rapida attuazione e rivolge in particolare un appello a tutte le parti del conflitto affinché garantiscano il transito attraverso le linee di conflitto e le frontiere.

L'UE è un membro attivo del Gruppo ad alto livello sulle sfide umanitarie sin dalla sua creazione. Il Gruppo è stato istituito nel 2013 per promuovere e intensificare la cooperazione fra i Paesi che possono esercitare un'influenza sulle Parti del conflitto siriano in modo da ottenere miglioramenti sul piano dell'accesso umanitario.

2.

L'Unione europea, con i suoi Stati membri, è in prima fila nella risposta internazionale e ha mobilitato, collettivamente, 2,8 miliardi di euro per i soccorsi e l'assistenza ai siriani in Siria e ai rifugiati e alle comunità che li accolgono nei paesi confinanti (Libano, Giordania, Iraq e Turchia). Circa la metà dei beneficiari dei 615 milioni di euro che la Commissione ha stanziato a favore dell'aiuto umanitario è costituita da bambini (5).

La Commissione sostiene l'iniziativa «No Lost Generation» che mira ad affrontare le conseguenze immediate e a lungo termine della crisi sui bambini e sui giovani, migliorando l'accesso all'istruzione e fornendo un sostegno psicologico in Siria e nella regione. Circa la metà dei 337 milioni di euro stanziati dalla Commissione per l'aiuto allo sviluppo è destinata all'istruzione e beneficia così 2,5 milioni di bambini in tutta la regione.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002315/14

to the Commission

Fiorello Provera (EFD)

(27 February 2014)

Subject: Syrian Refugee Crisis

On February 26 2014, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, announced that Syrians would soon replace Afghans as the world’s largest refugee population. Approximately 9.3 million Syrians, almost half the population, are in need of help, and 2.4 million have fled the country. Children in particular are extremely vulnerable. In Lebanese refugee camps, nearly 2 000 Syrian children are at risk of starving to death and 10 000 Syrian children aged five years and younger are suffering from acute malnutrition. According to UN deputy aid chief Kyung-Wha Kang, ‘Syria is in danger of losing a generation of children’.

The UN Secretary-General has called for the Syrian Government to grant aid workers greater access to the country. Humanitarian supplies are available, but guaranteeing their safe passage has proved difficult. The government’s indiscriminate use of barrel bombs has resulted in hundreds of innocent civilians being killed, and there appears to be no let-up in the use of such tactics. The Geneva 2 peace talks ended on February 15 2014, with a tentative agreement for a third round of talks at a later date.

1.

What role is the Commission playing, together with the UN, to pressure the Syrian Government to allow safe passage for humanitarian and relief workers into parts of the country that have been under siege?

2.

What efforts are being undertaken by the Commission in countries such as Lebanon, where Syrian children are at risk of starvation?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2014)

1.

The European Commission has constantly been advocating for unfettered and safe access of humanitarian assistance and personnel inside Syria in order to be able to reach all people in need with aid, including the estimated 4.7 million people that reside in hard-to-reach areas that receive limited or no assistance.

Since the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2139 in February 2014, the Commission has called for its swift implementation and, in particular, on all parties to the conflict to ensure access across conflict lines and borders.

The EU has been an active member of the High Level Group on Humanitarian Challenges since its inauguration. The Group was created in 2013 to foster and maximise cooperation among those countries with influence over parties to the Syrian conflict to bring about progress in terms of humanitarian access.

2.

The EU, with its Member States, has led the international response with over EUR 2.8 billion collectively mobilised for relief and recovery assistance to Syrians inside their country as well as to refugees and host-communities in the neighbouring countries (Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey). Approximately half of the recipients of the Commission's humanitarian funding of EUR 615 million are children (6).

The Commission supports the No Lost Generation initiative that aims at addressing the immediate and long-term consequences of the crisis on children and youth by expanding access to education and providing psychosocial support in Syria and the region. Approximately half of the Commission’s development funding of EUR 337 million has been provided for education, thus reaching 2.5 million children in the region.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-002601/14

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(6 Μαρτίου 2014)

Θέμα: Ομαδικές απολύσεις στην Ελλάδα

Πρόσφατα, θεσπίστηκε η αλλαγή των αρμοδιοτήτων του «Ανώτατου Συμβουλίου Εργασίας» στην Ελλάδα (στο οποίο συμμετέχουν εκπρόσωποι του υπουργείου Εργασίας, των εργοδοτικών οργανώσεων των συνδικαλιστικών φορέων των εργαζομένων) ώστε αυτό να εξετάζει τα συγκεκριμένα οικονομικά στοιχεία μιας επιχείρησης προκειμένου να εισηγηθεί την υπέρβαση του ορίου των ομαδικών απολύσεων.

Δεδομένου ότι, για το ζήτημα των ομαδικών απολύσεων, σε παλαιότερη απάντησή της (Ε-009220/2013) η Επιτροπή μού απάντησε ότι η ελληνική κυβέρνηση συμφώνησε να προβεί στην αναθεώρηση της ισχύουσας εργασιακής νομοθεσίας «ως μέρος των όρων πολιτικής που συνδέονται με το πρόγραμμα οικονομικής προσαρμογής για την Ελλάδα», ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Θεωρεί πως η αλλαγή στις αρμοδιότητες του Ανώτατου Συμβουλίου Εργασίας ικανοποιεί τη δέσμευση της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης να προβεί σε αναθεώρηση της ισχύουσας εργασιακής νομοθεσίας; Αν όχι, ποιες άλλες αλλαγές προτείνει να γίνουν επιπλέον ως προς το καθεστώς των ομαδικών απολύσεων;

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-002860/14

προς την Επιτροπή

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(11 Μαρτίου 2014)

Θέμα: Ομαδικές απολύσεις στην Ελλάδα

Στη συνεδρίαση της Ολομέλειας του Ανωτάτου Συμβουλίου Εργασίας της 22ας Ιανουαρίου 2014 αποφασίστηκε η αλλαγή των αρμοδιοτήτων του, ώστε αυτό να εξετάζει τα συγκεκριμένα οικονομικά στοιχεία μιας επιχείρησης προκειμένου να εισηγηθεί την υπέρβαση του ορίου των ομαδικών απολύσεων, όπου θεωρεί ότι είναι αναγκαίο.

Δεδομένου ότι, πρώτον, για το ζήτημα των ομαδικών απολύσεων σε παλαιότερη απάντησή της (Ε-009220/2013) η Επιτροπή μού απάντησε, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι «το εν λόγω εγχείρημα αναμένεται να συμπεριλάβει τη συγκριτική αναθεώρηση ρυθμιστικών θεμάτων που αφορούν την αναδιάρθρωση εταιρειών και τις ομαδικές απολύσεις ώστε να εξασφαλιστεί η ισορροπία μεταξύ της διευκόλυνσης της αναγκαίας προσαρμογής και ενός δίκαιου επιμερισμού του βάρους της προσαρμογής μεταξύ εργαζομένων, εταιρειών και της κυβέρνησης» και, δεύτερον, ότι σύμφωνα με επίμονες δημοσιογραφικές πληροφορίες η Τρόικα επιμένει σε επιπλέον απελευθέρωση των ορίων για τις ομαδικές απολύσεις, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Τι έχει γίνει στην κατεύθυνση της «συγκριτικής αναθεώρησης ρυθμιστικών θεμάτων που αφορούν την αναδιάρθρωση εταιρειών και τις ομαδικές απολύσεις»;

Θεωρεί ότι η αλλαγή στις αρμοδιότητες του Ανώτατου Συμβούλιου Εργασίας δεν ικανοποιεί τη δέσμευση της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης για αναθεώρηση της ισχύουσας εργασιακής νομοθεσίας;

Ποιες ακριβώς απαιτήσεις έχει η Τρόικα για τις ομαδικές απολύσεις;

Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Kallas εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(20 Μαΐου 2014)

Στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος οικονομικής προσαρμογής για την Ελλάδα, η ελληνική κυβέρνηση, το ΔΝΤ, η ΕΚΤ και η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, εξ ονόματος των κρατών μελών της ζώνης ευρώ, συμμετέχουν σε τακτικό πολιτικό διάλογο για ευρύ φάσμα θεμάτων, συμπεριλαμβανομένων εκείνων της αγοράς εργασίας, που έχει το δυναμικό να βοηθήσει τις προοπτικές της καλύτερης λειτουργίας της ελληνικής οικονομίας. Υπήρξε η κοινή αντίληψη ότι το πλαίσιο για τις ομαδικές απολύσεις είναι σημαντικό θέμα που πρέπει να συζητηθεί δεόντως και να συμπεριληφθεί στους όρους του προγράμματος.

Υπό το πρίσμα αυτό, οι ελληνικές αρχές προέβησαν σε διοικητικές αλλαγές στον τομέα των ομαδικών απολύσεων. Επιπλέον, η ελληνική κυβέρνηση θα προβεί, αρχικά, σε αξιολόγηση του ελληνικού πλαισίου μέχρι τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2014, εξίσου υπό το φως αυτών των τελευταίων αλλαγών, καθώς και σε αξιολόγηση του πόσο το ελληνικό πλαίσιο προσεγγίζει τις βέλτιστες πρακτικές που ισχύουν αλλού· στη συνέχεια, βάσει αυτής της αξιολόγησης, θα εξετάσει τη νομοθετική δράση που θα αποδειχθεί ενδεχομένως απαραίτητη για να επιτευχθεί η καλύτερη λειτουργία του πλαισίου (7). Περιττό να πούμε ότι, οποιαδήποτε αλλαγή θα πρέπει να συμμορφώνεται με την οδηγία 98/59/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με τις ομαδικές απολύσεις (8).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002601/14

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Mass redundancies in Greece

A change was recently made to the remit of the Greek Supreme Labour Council (which comprises representatives of the Ministry of Labour, of employer organisations and of trade union organisations), allowing it to examine the specific financial data of an undertaking for the purpose of recommending that it be allowed to exceed the limit on mass redundancies.

In view of the fact that the Commission replied to an earlier question on mass redundancies (Ε‐009220/2013) that ‘As part of the policy conditionality attached to the economic adjustment programme for Greece, the Greek Government agreed in carrying out a review of existing labour relations’, will the Commission say:

Does it consider the change to the remit of the Supreme Labour Council to satisfy the commitment by the Greek Government to carry out a review of existing labour legislation and, if not, what other changes does it propose should also be made to mass redundancy schemes?

Question for written answer E-002860/14

to the Commission

Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)

(11 March 2014)

Subject: Collective redundancies in Greece

At a plenary session held on 22 January 2014 the Supreme Labour Council decided to change its powers, so as to allow it to examine the financial records of individual enterprises with a view to recommending whether the limit for collective redundancies should be exceeded, wherever it considered such as step necessary.

As regards the issue of collective redundancies, given firstly that, the Commission had answered an earlier question of mine ( E-009220/2013 ) by stating, inter alia, that: ‘This exercise is expected to include a comparative review of regulatory issues concerning the re-structuring of companies and collective dismissals to ensure a balance between facilitating necessary adjustment and a fair sharing of the burden of adjustment between workers, firms and the Government’ and secondly that, according to recurrent press reports, the Troika is insisting on the further deregulation of the limits on collective redundancies, will the Commission say:

What has been done by way of ‘a comparative review of regulatory issues concerning the re-structuring of companies and collective dismissals’?

Does it consider that changing the powers of the Supreme Labour Council will not be sufficient to meet the Greek government’s commitment to revise existing labour legislation?

What exactly are the Troika’s demands concerning collective redundancies?

Joint answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(20 May 2014)

In the context of the economic adjustment programme for Greece, the Greek Government, the IMF, the ECB and the European Commission on behalf of the euro area Member States are engaged in a regular policy dialogue on a broad range of issues, including labour market ones, that have the potential to help the prospects of a better functioning Greek economy. There has been a shared understanding that the framework for collective dismissals is a relevant issue to be properly discussed and included in the programme conditionality.

In that light, the Greek authorities have taken administrative changes in the area of collective dismissals. In addition, the Greek Government will first carry out an assessment of the Greek framework by September 2014, also in the light of these latest changes, and of how close it comes to best practises elsewhere; and, second, based on the assessment, consider legislative action that may turn out to be necessary in order to achieve a better-functioning framework. (9) Needless to say,any change will have to comply with Council Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies (10).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002602/14

a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(6 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: VP/HR — Elecciones en Maldivas

El 25 de febrero de 2014, la Delegación de la UE a Sri Lanka y Maldivas emitió una declaración clara en la que criticaba al Tribunal Supremo de Maldivas por su trato a la Comisión Electoral.

En los últimos meses, la Comisión Electoral ha criticado en repetidas ocasiones la interferencia del Tribunal Supremo en los procesos electorales, y en respuesta el Tribunal Supremo ha denunciado a la Comisión Electoral por desacato. Como señaló la Delegación de la UE, estos procedimientos pueden socavar la independencia vital de la Comisión Electoral, violando los principios fundamentales de la separación de poderes y la libertad de expresión en Maldivas. Las elecciones en Maldivas se celebrarán el 22 de marzo de 2014.

1.

¿Enviará la UE una delegación a Maldivas para observar las elecciones y ayudar a la Comisión Electoral en su tarea de salvaguardar la celebración de elecciones libres y democráticas?

2.

¿Qué otras medidas piensa tomar el Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior para asegurarse de que los miembros de la Comisión Electoral no sean perseguidos por el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones?

3.

¿Está supervisando la UE la situación en Maldivas en relación con el respeto de los derechos y libertades fundamentales, en particular la libertad de expresión?

Respuesta de la alta representante y vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión

(24 de abril de 2014)

Una Misión de Observación Electoral (MOE) de la UE se encuentra en Maldivas desde el 4 de marzo de 2014 a raíz de una invitación de la Comisión Electoral. El jefe de la Misión es Eduard Kukan, diputado del Parlamento Europeo y antiguo ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de Eslovaquia. La MOE de la UE ha desplegado treinta observadores de dieciseis Estados miembros por todo el país. Diez de ellos son observadores a corto plazo, reclutados entre el personal de las embajadas de los Estados miembros en Colombo, Sri Lanka. La MOE de la UE permanecerá en Maldivas hasta el 6 de abril para seguir de cerca los acontecimientos posteriores a la celebración de las elecciones. En los próximos dos meses se publicará un informe final.

La UE sigue atentamente la evolución política en Maldivas. En respuesta a la demanda interpuesta por el Tribunal Supremo contra los miembros de la Comisión Electoral, la UE ha emitido una declaración local de la UE. La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta también expuso su posición a través de una declaración de su portavoz de 12 de marzo de 2014. Le rogamos consulte los enlaces siguientes: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/sri_lanka/documents/press_corner/20140225_en.pdf

http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/140312_04_en.pdf

La UE seguirá supervisando la situación en Maldivas en lo que atañe al respeto de los derechos y libertades fundamentales. En este contexto, la UE continuará exhortando a las autoridades maldivas a que alineen su marco jurídico con los convenios sobre derechos humanos de los que Maldivas es parte (como el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos y la Convención sobre la Eliminación de Todas las Formas de Discriminación contra la Mujer).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002602/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — Maldives elections

On 25 February 2014, the EU Delegation to Sri Lanka and the Maldives issued a clear statement which criticised the Maldives Supreme Court for its treatment of the Electoral Commission.

In recent months the Electoral Commission has repeatedly criticised the Supreme Court’s interference in electoral processes, and in return the Supreme Court has placed the Electoral Commission in contempt of court. As the EU Delegation noted, these proceedings risk undermining the vital independence of the Elections Commission, violating the fundamental principles of separation of powers and free expression in the Maldives. Elections in the Maldives have been scheduled for 22 March 2014.

1.

Will the EU send a delegation to the Maldives to observe the elections and assist the Electoral Commission in its task of safeguarding free and democratic elections?

2.

What further steps will the European External Action Service take to ensure that the members of the Electoral Commission are not being persecuted in the process of fulfilling their duties?

3.

Is the EU monitoring the situation in the Maldives with regard to respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, especially freedom of speech?

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

(24 April 2014)

An EU Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) has been present in the Maldives since 4 March 2014, following an invitation from the Election Commission. The mission is led by Chief Observer Eduard Kukan, a Member of the European Parliament from Slovakia and former Minister for Foreign Affairs. The EU EOM deployed 30 observers from 16 EU Member States across the country. The observer group included 10 locally recruited Short-Term Observers from EU Member States' embassies in Colombo, Sri Lanka. The EU EOM will remain in the country until the 6th of April to observe post-election developments; a final report will be published within the next two months.

The EU is following political developments in the Maldives closely. In reply to the case taken by the Supreme Court against the Election Commissioners the EU has issued a Local EU statement. Also HR/VP has clearly spelt out her position in a Statement by her spokesperson, issued on 12 March 2014. Please refer to the links:

http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/sri_lanka/documents/press_corner/20140225_en.pdf

http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2014/140312_04_en.pdf

The EU will continue to monitor the situation in the Maldives with regard to respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech. In this context the EU will continue to urge the Maldives to ensure that its legal framework is aligned with international conventions on human rights to which the Maldives is a party (such as ICCPR, CEDAW).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002603/14

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Finanzielle Auswirkungen und Folgen der Fettleibigkeit

1.

Kann die Kommission konkrete Angaben dazu machen, ob sie sich mit den zukünftigen finanziellen Auswirkungen wirksamer Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung von Fettleibigkeit auf die Haushalte der Mitgliedstaaten und den EU-Haushalt befassen wird, etwa mittels einer Strategie und Empfehlungen für die Entwicklung von Programmen zur Änderung des Lebensstils?

2.

Kann die Kommission konkrete und genaue Finanzdaten zum wirtschaftlichen Nutzen der Bekämpfung von Fettleibigkeit bereitstellen?

Antwort von Tonio Borg im Namen der Kommission

(25. April 2014)

Die Kommission verweist die Frau Abgeordnete auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftlichen Anfragen E-005660/2012 und E-011219/2012 (11).

Die Kommission ist sich der schwierigen Finanzlage in den Mitgliedstaaten und insbesondere der Auswirkungen von Fettleibigkeit und damit verbundener Krankheiten auf die nationalen Haushalte bewusst. Schätzungen zufolge entfallen jährlich bis zu 7 % der Gesundheitsausgaben der EU auf mit Adipositas zusammenhängende Krankheiten (12). Hierzu addieren sich weitere Kosten infolge der Produktivitätsverluste durch Gesundheitsprobleme und vorzeitige Sterbefälle (so stehen jedes Jahr 2,8 Mio. Todesfälle mit Übergewicht und Adipositas in Zusammenhang) (13).

Die Kommission teilt die Auffassung, dass Prävention unerlässlich ist, um die Auswirkungen auf die menschliche Gesundheit und die Gesundheitssysteme sowie die Kosten von Fettleibigkeit gering zu halten.

Die Kommission fördert die Zusammenarbeit, die Abstimmung und den Austausch über bewährte Verfahren zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten gemäß dem Weißbuch „Ernährung, Übergewicht, Adipositas: Eine Strategie für Europa“ (14). Sie unterstützt darüber hinaus Initiativen wie den Aktionsplan gegen Fettleibigkeit bei Kindern (15), der freiwillige Maßnahmen im Hinblick auf einen gesünderen Lebensstil umfasst.

Die Kommission hat die Veröffentlichung „Obesity and the Economics of Prevention: Fit not Fat“ (16) kofinanziert, in der Daten über die Kostenwirksamkeit von Präventionsstrategien aufgeführt sind.

Die laufende Studie „Analyse von Sterblichkeitstabellen: Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse der Gesundheitssysteme in den Mitgliedstaaten“ (17) soll außerdem dazu beitragen, ein besseres Verständnis der langfristigen Kosten und Vorteile von Investitionen in Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention zu schaffen. Die Studie wird voraussichtlich im November 2014 fertiggestellt sein. Über das Gesundheitsprogramm (18) und das Programm Horizont 2020 (19) kann die Kommission darüber hinaus Projekte finanzieren, in deren Rahmen die langfristige Relevanz und Kostenwirksamkeit von Präventionsmaßnahmen untersucht wird.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002603/14

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Financial impact and effects of obesity

1.

Will the Commission consider the future financial impact on the Member States’ budgets and the European budget of taking effective steps to tackle obesity, possibly through a strategy and recommendations for developing lifestyle-change programmes? (Please be specific in the answer.)

2.

Is the Commission able to provide any exact financial data about the economic benefits of tackling obesity? (If so, please be specific in the answer.)

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2014)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its replies to written questions 005660/2012 and 011219/2012 (20).

The Commission is aware of the current difficult financial situation in the Member States and in particular of the impact of obesity and related diseases on the national budgets. It is estimated that up to 7% of EU health budgets are spent on diseases linked to obesity each year (21). Additional costs result from loss of productivity due to health problems and premature death (2.8 million deaths per year from causes associated with overweight and obesity) (22).

The Commission agrees that prevention is essential to minimise the human impact and the impact on healthcare systems and the economy of obesity.

The Commission promotes cooperation, coordination and exchange of good practices between Member States as set out in the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related Health issues (23). It also supports initiatives such as the action plan on Childhood Obesity (24) which includes voluntary actions to establish healthier lifestyles.

The Commission has co-financed the ‘Obesity and the Economics of Prevention: Fit not Fat’ (25) publication which has provided information on the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies.

The on-going study ‘Life-table analysis: health system cost-effectiveness assessment across Member States’ (26) also aims at understanding the long-term costs and benefits of investments in health promotion and disease prevention. The study is expected to be finalised by November 2014. Via the Health Programme (27) or Horizon 2020 (28), the Commission may also fund projects that investigate the long-term relevance and cost-effectiveness of prevention.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002604/14

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Neue Strategie zur Unterstützung des Kampfes gegen die Fettleibigkeit

Kann die Kommission angesichts der hohen Prozentzahl von Menschen, die in den Mitgliedstaaten an Fettleibigkeit leiden, ungefähre Angaben dazu machen, wann sie die Strategie der EU zu Ernährung, Übergewicht und Adipositas erneuern wird?

Wenn ja, sieht die Kommission in der Änderung der Lebensweise und einer Gewichtsregulierung ein Instrument zur Bekämpfung der Fettleibigkeit?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(29. April 2014)

Der Kommission sind die beunruhigenden Trends bei Übergewicht und Fettleibigkeit in Europa bekannt.

Die Kommission arbeitet mit den Mitgliedstaaten zusammen, und zwar im Wege der Kooperation, der Koordinierung und des Austauschs guter Beispiele für eine gesunde Lebensweise im Sinne der europäischen Strategie für Ernährung, Übergewicht und Adipositas (29). Außerdem hat sich die Hochrangige Gruppe für Ernährung und Bewegung (30) am 24. Februar 2014 auf einen Aktionsplan zur Bekämpfung der Fettleibigkeit im Kindesalter (31) geeinigt (32).

Die Strategie wurde einer unabhängigen Bewertung unterzogen, die im Jahr 2013 veröffentlicht wurde. Die Bewerter stellten den Mehrwert der gemeinsamen Arbeiten auf EU‐Ebene, die Wirksamkeit der Strategie und die Argumente für ihre Fortführung heraus, regten jedoch an, den Schwerpunkt auf die Förderung der körperlichen Betätigung und die Bekämpfung der Ungleichheiten im Gesundheitsbereich zu legen.

Derzeit steht eine Überarbeitung der Strategie nicht zur Diskussion. Die Hochrangige Gruppe für Ernährung und Bewegung ist nach wie vor das bevorzugte Forum für die Erörterung aktueller und künftiger Maßnahmen auf diesem Gebiet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002604/14

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: New strategy to support the fight against obesity

In view of the high percentage of people suffering from obesity across the Member States, can the Commission give an indication as to when it will consider renewing the EU strategy on nutrition, overweight and obesity-related health issues?

If so, would the Commission consider encouraging lifestyle and weight management as one tool for tackling obesity?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2014)

The Commission is aware of the worrying trends of overweight and obesity in Europe.

The Commission has been working with the Member States through cooperation, coordination and exchange of good practices on healthy lifestyles, as set out in the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related Health issues (33). Further, on 24 February 2014 the High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical Activity (34) agreed (35) an Action Plan on Childhood Obesity (36).

The strategy underwent an independent evaluation, published in 2013. The added value of joint work at EU level, the efficacy of the strategy and the case for its continuation were made clear by the evaluators, whilst a strengthened focus on promotion of physical activity and on fighting against health inequalities was suggested.

At present, the revision of the strategy is not under discussion. The High Level Group for Nutrition and Physical Activity remains a prime forum for the discussion of present and future action in this area.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002605/14

an die Kommission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Depressionen sollen zu einer der wichtigsten Ursachen für Behinderungen werden

Es wurde festgestellt, dass Depressionen in etwa 30 Jahren eine der wichtigsten Ursachen für Behinderungen sein werden.

Wenn sich Depressionen zu einer chronischen Krankheit entwickeln, sind sie sehr schwer heilbar, und die Patienten benötigen Medikamente, therapeutische Behandlung und so viel Unterstützung von Familie und Freunden wie möglich.

Werden frühzeitig Präventivmaßnahmen in Form einer Behandlung der Depressionen eingeleitet, verringert sich das Risiko, dass sie sich zu einer chronischen Krankheit entwickeln.

1.

Ist sich die Kommission der Tatsache bewusst, dass immer mehr Menschen an depressiven Belastungen leiden werden, die sich zu chronischen Krankheiten entwickeln werden?

2.

Wenn ja, was empfiehlt die Kommission den Mitgliedstaaten, um das bereits bestehende Risiko zu senken, mit dem langfristigen Ziel, auch die durch soziale Kosten und Gesundheitskosten entstehende finanzielle Belastung für die Mitgliedstaaten und den EU‐Haushalt zu verringern?

Antwort von Tonio Borg im Namen der Kommission

(22. April 2014)

Die jüngste Studie zu den durch Krankheiten ausgelösten globalen Belastungen (37) belegt, dass Depressionen bereits heute eine der Hauptursachen für Behinderungen sind. Gemäß der regionalen Ausgabe für die EU- und EFTA-Mitgliedstaaten (38) zählt die klinische Depression in jedem einzelnen EU- und EFTA-Mitgliedstaat zu den drei Hauptursachen für Behinderungen.

Einer weiteren breit angelegten Studie (39) zufolge ist die Zahl der an Depressionen leidenden Personen in den letzten Jahren nicht gestiegen. Dagegen nimmt die Zahl der diagnostizierten Fälle von Depression zu, da das medizinische Fachpersonal stärker für diese Krankheit sensibilisiert ist und sie weniger stark stigmatisiert wird als in der Vergangenheit.

Die Kommission unterstützt die Maßnahmen der Mitgliedstaaten in diesem Bereich durch die Bereitstellung von Mitteln für eine Gemeinsame Aktion für psychische Gesundheit und Wohlbefinden (40) aus dem EU-Gesundheitsprogramm. Einer der Aktionsschwerpunkte sind Depressionen. Zielsetzung der Aktion sind eine Bestandsaufnahme in den teilnehmenden Mitgliedstaaten, die Ermittlung bewährter Verfahren, die Ausarbeitung von Empfehlungen und schlussendlich die Vereinbarung eines gemeinsamen Aktionsrahmens.

Am 1. April 2014 wurde ferner im Rahmen des Projekts PREDI-NU (2011-2014) (41) eine Website mit Informationen zum Thema Depression eingerichtet; dort steht auch das Tool „iFightDepression“ zur Selbsttherapie leichterer Formen der Depression (42) unter Aufsicht einer medizinischen Fachkraft bereit. Dieses Projekt wird in Zusammenarbeit mit der European Alliance Against Depression (43) durchgeführt und wird ebenfalls mit Mitteln aus dem EU-Gesundheitsprogramm gefördert.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002605/14

to the Commission

Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Depression set to be one of the leading causes of disability

It has been established that in some 30 years’ time depression will have become one of the leading causes of disability.

When depression evolves into a chronic condition it is very difficult to cure, with patients requiring pharmaceutical remedies, therapeutic care and as much support as can be given by family and friends.

If preventive measures are taken in the form of treatment at a very early stage, the risk of a chronic condition developing is reduced.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the increasing number of people who will suffer from strains of depression which evolve into chronic conditions?

2.

If so, what will the Commission recommend to the Member States in order to reduce this risk, which already exists, with the long-term goal of also reducing the financial burden of social and health costs to Member States, as well as to the EU budget?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2014)

The outcomes of the latest Global Burden of Disease study for 2010 (44) underline that depression is already today one of the leading causes of disability. The edition for the EU and EFTA-countries (45) states that major depression is among the top three cause of disability in every EU‐ and EFTA-country.

Another major study (46) suggested that the number of people with depression did not grow over the past years. Instead, more cases of depression are being diagnosed because health professionals are increasingly aware about depression and it is less stigmatised than it was the case before.

In order to support Member States' action in this area, the Commission co-funds from the EU-Health Programme a Joint Action on Mental Health and Well-being (2013-2016) (47). One of its work packages specifically addresses depression. It aims to analyse the situation in the participating Member States, to identify good practices, to develop recommendations and finally to agree upon a common framework of action.

In addition, the PREDI-NU-project (2011-2014) (48) launched a website on 1 April 2014 with information about depression, which also includes an eHealth-tool (‘iFightDepresison’) for the self-management of depression (49) under the supervision of a health professional. The project is linked to the European Alliance Against Depression (50), and it is also co-funded by the EU-Health Programme.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-002606/14

aan de Commissie

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE) en Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(6 maart 2014)

Betreft: Ziektekostenverzekering en arbeidsmobiliteit

Volgens de Nederlandse Zorgverzekeringswet moet iedereen die in Nederland woont en werkt een basisverzekering ziektekosten hebben. Verzekeraars die een ziektekostenverzekering willen aanbieden aan mensen die in Nederland wonen en werken, moeten dat aan de Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit (NZa) melden. Tot nu toe heeft geen enkele buitenlandse verzekeraar dit gedaan, wat het voor Nederlandse ingezetenen onmogelijk lijkt te maken om zich aan te sluiten bij een buitenlandse ziektekostenverzekering.

Onlangs werden we attent gemaakt op een zaak waarbij een Nederlander vanuit Frankrijk  terug naar Nederland verhuisde. Hij beschikte over een Franse ziektekostenverzekering (die ook geldig was in de rest van Europa) die nog vijf maanden geldig was. Desondanks eiste de Nederlandse verzekeraar dat het contract voor de basisverzekering in Nederland zou gelden vanaf de datum van de verhuizing naar Nederland. Daardoor moest de betrokkene zowel aan de Franse als aan de Nederlandse ziektekostenverzekeraar gedurende vijf maanden premies afdragen.

1.

Is de Commissie deze bestaande praktijk in Nederland bekend en is ze al eens eerder op de hoogte gebracht van dergelijke gevallen?

2.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van soortgelijke praktijken in andere lidstaten?

3.

Vindt de Commissie dat deze praktijk in strijd is met de internemarktregelgeving, in het bijzonder het recht van vrij verkeer van personen?

4.

Is de Commissie van mening dat deze praktijk ingaat tegen het vergemakkelijken en stimuleren van de arbeidsmobiliteit in Europa?

Antwoord van de heer Barnier namens de Commissie

(2 mei 2014)

Overeenkomsting artikel 153, lid 4, VWEU zijn de lidstaten exclusief bevoegd voor de fundamentele beginselen van hun socialezekerheidsstelsels.

Aangezien Nederland de dekking van zorgrisico's die behoren tot de wettelijke sociale zekerheid voor andere verzekeraars heeft opengesteld, gelden de regels voor vervangende ziektekostenverzekering (d.w.z. ziekteverzekeringen die geheel of gedeeltelijk  ter vervanging dienen van de ziektekostenverzekering van de wettelijke sociale zekerheid) van de derde richtlijn schadeverzekering (51). De richtlijn erkent de specifieke aard en de sociale gevolgen van vervangende ziektekostenverzekering. Op grond van de richtlijn mogen lidstaten bijgevolg de systematische mededeling eisen van de voorwaarden van dergelijke verzekeringspolissen, om na te gaan of deze daadwerkelijk een volwaardige vervanging vormen voor de wettelijke sociale zekerheid. Verzekeraars kunnen worden verplicht om standaardovereenkomsten aan te bieden met dezelfde dekking als het socialezekerheidsstelsel.

De EU-wetgeving voorziet wel in een coördinatie, maar niet in een harmonisatie van de nationale socialezekerheidsstelsels. Dit betekent dat het iedere lidstaat vrij staat om de details van zijn socialezekerheidsstelsel te regelen. Via EU-coördinatiewetgeving wordt gewaarborgd dat de toepassing van verschillende nationale stelsels geen negatieve gevolgen heeft voor personen die gebruik maken van hun recht op vrij verkeer.

Daartoe bepaalt artikel 11 van Verordening (EG) nr. 883/2004 welke nationale wetgeving van toepassing is op de verschillende categorieën van personen. Dat Nederland een persoon verplicht om een verzekering af te sluiten in Nederland zelf, is dus verenigbaar met de EU-wetgeving mits dit land overeenkomstig artikel 11 van deze verordening bevoegd is voor de sociale zekerheid van deze persoon.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002606/14

to the Commission

Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE) and Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Health insurance and labour mobility

According to the Dutch health insurance law (Zorgverzekeringswet), anyone living and working in the territory of the Netherlands is required to conclude a contract for basic health insurance. Insurers wishing to offer health insurance to people living and working in the territory of the Netherlands have to announce this to the Dutch Health Authority (NZa). Until now, no foreign insurer has done so, which would seem to make it impossible for Dutch residents to use a foreign health insurer.

We were recently alerted to the case of a Dutch citizen who had moved back from France to the Netherlands while holding French health insurance (with an extension for the whole of Europe), which was valid for a further five months. Nevertheless, the Dutch insurer required a contract for basic health insurance in the Netherlands to be concluded from the date on which the citizen moved back to the country. As a consequence, premiums had to be paid to both insurers for a period of five months.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this practice in the Netherlands, and has it previously been alerted to similar cases?

2.

Is the Commission aware of similar practices in other Member States?

3.

Does the Commission consider this practice to be contrary to internal market rules, in particular the right of free movement of people?

4.

Does the Commission consider this practice to be contrary to the principle of facilitating and encouraging labour mobility in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

Under Article 153(4) TFEU Member States hold exclusive competence over the fundamental principles of their social security systems.

Since the Netherlands opened up coverage of health risks belonging to statutory social security to insurers, the rules for substitutive health insurance (i.e. health insurance which serves as a partial or complete alternative to health cover provided by the statutory social security system) under Third Non-life Insurance Directive (52) applies. The directive recognises the specific nature and social consequences of substitutive health insurance. Therefore, under the directive Member States may require systematic notification of policy conditions to verify that they effectively substitute social security cover. Insurers may be required to offer standard policies and guarantee the same cover as the social security system.

EC law provides for coordination but not harmonisation of the national social security schemes. This means that each EU Member State is free to determine the details of its social security system. EU coordination law intervenes to ensure that the application of different national legislations does not adversely affect persons exercising their right to free movement.

To this end, Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 determines which national law applies to different categories of persons. It is therefore compatible with the EC law that the Netherlands require a person to take insurance in the Netherlands, as long as this country is competent for this person's social security according to Article 11 of that regulation.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002607/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Travel to islands in Europe

The islands of Lewis and Harris were recently named the top islands in Europe to visit by international travel website TripAdvisor. The Scottish Government has created an initiative to give 8 000 free trips to encourage more people to visit Scotland’s islands, as part of the Year of Homecoming celebrations.

How does the EU help encourage travel to islands in Europe?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

In line with the EU’s competence to complement, support, and coordinate the actions of the Member States, it is the objective of the Commission to foster the competitiveness of the tourism sector and to promote and encourage travel to and within Europe.

In the recent years, the Commission has adopted several measures to support the promotion of tourism and to increase tourism demand, both intra-EU and from third countries. It is especially worth mentioning the international communication campaign, ‘Europe — Whenever you’re ready’ (53) which was carried out over the period September 2012 — December 2013 to keep Europe in the spotlight for international tourists and highlight Europe’s diverse cultural and natural heritage. The campaign included dedicated journalistic travel reports and blog reviews on coastal and maritime tourism in Europe.

Further to this, on 20 February 2014, the Commission adopted a dedicated Communication on a new strategy to enhance coastal and maritime tourism in Europe (54). This communication makes particular reference to challenges and opportunities in islands and other remote destinations and proposes a dedicated set of actions to be followed up at EU, national, regional, local, as well as industry level. Amongst others, it is proposed to encourage the diversification and integration of coastal and inland attractors, to explore ways to improve island connectivity and design innovative tourism strategies for (remote) islands. Other proposals refer to measures such as, using national and regional strategies to ensure the coherence of tourism offers and better accessibility of islands and remote locations and developing innovative practices for regenerating and re-using existing maritime infrastructure.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002608/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Scientific exploration of the marine environment

Biologists from the University of Aberdeen and a research institute in New Zealand recently visited a previously unexplored deep ocean trench in the South Pacific.

To what extent does the EU support scientific exploration of the marine environment?

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

(25 April 2014)

The scientific exploration of the marine environment is essential for filling the many gaps that remain in the knowledge of seas and oceans. The importance of marine and maritime research is reflected within the EU Research Framework Programmes.

The Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007-2013) has provided more than EUR 1.5 billion of support for more than 700 marine and maritime research projects. Scientific ocean exploration forms an essential part of many of these. For example, Euro Argo (55) supports a global ocean observation infrastructure, Eurosites (56) integrates deep ocean observatories, and Uncoss (57) develops an underwater Coastal Sea Surveyor and Hermione (58) studies deep water environments.

Support has been further strengthened in Horizon 2020, the framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), by the inclusion of a new activity specifically dedicated to the better coordination of cross-cutting marine and maritime research (59). Support for marine and maritime research and innovation is spread across Horizon 2020. Specifically in 2014 and 2015, EUR 145 million has been allocated to support research for ‘Blue Growth’. The results of this research will also contribute to the scientific exploration of the marine environment by, for example, improving underwater imaging technology and supporting observation of the Atlantic Ocean.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002609/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Outdoor leisure facilities in the EU

The town of Stonehaven in the north-east of Scotland is this year celebrating the 80th anniversary of its open air pool.

What is the EU doing to support the maintenance and availability of outdoor leisure facilities in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Mimica on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for drawing the attention to maintenance and availability issues in outdoor leisure facilities and in particular in open air swimming pools. The regulation and control of such services, similarly to other outdoor leisure activities offered to consumers, remain the competence of Member States.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002610/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Winter sports infrastructure across the EU

A new multi-million pound National Curling Centre is to be built in Scotland.

What is the European Union doing to improve winter sports infrastructure across the EU?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

The European Union has no specific instrument in support of winter sports infrastructure.

However, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) can support small-scale infrastructure investments which contribute to national, regional and local development, in view of promoting social inclusion through improved access to social, cultural and recreational services.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002611/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Improving literacy from an early age

The Scottish Government has an action plan to raise standards of literacy for all from the early years to adulthood.

Does the EU fund any programmes on a Europe-wide scale to improve literacy from an early age?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2014)

The European Union provides funding for educational projects through Erasmus+, the EU programme for education, training, youth and sport (60). The programme covers all facets of lifelong learning, from early childhood years to adult life. It offers educational institutions (pre-school, primary and secondary schools, training centres, adult education centres, higher education institutions, as well as youth groups and other bodies involved in educational provision) the opportunity to develop and take part in European projects aimed at improving literacy across all ages. Projects are based on cooperation between institutions from at least three European countries. The Erasmus+ programme is managed on behalf of the European Commission by National Agencies (61) located in all Member States. More information on concrete funding opportunities can be obtained from them or from the above website.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002612/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Improving access to education

Attendance at Scottish primary schools has been compulsory for every child since 1872. However, in many countries around the world there is no such opportunity, and according to a recent Unesco report, it will be at least 70 years before all children will have access to primary school.

What is the EU doing to improve access to education globally?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2014)

Significant progress has been made towards the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education. Between 1999 and 2011 the number of primary-school-age children not attending school fell almost by half, from 103 million to 57 million, 55 million of whom in developing countries. This progress is the result of the strong political commitment and sound policies of partner countries as well as support from the international community. However, progress has been uneven and as mentioned above, there are still 57 million children out-of-primary school. Further efforts are needed.

Education is a priority in the EU’s development cooperation. EU policy underlines the importance of equity of access to education, and improving its quality. In the programming period 2007-2013, the EU helped 14 million children to go to primary school. In the new programming period (2014-2020), the EU has made a firm commitment to spend at least 20% of development aid on human development and social inclusion, including education. The bulk of EU support to education will be channelled through bilateral programmes in partner countries which have chosen education as a focal sector. In addition, the EU is supporting education through allocations to the Global Partnership for Education. As programming is still under way, no figures are available concerning the period 2014-2020.

As regards EU Member States, the Honourable Member will be aware that, in accordance with Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the responsibility for the content and organisation of education and training systems (including access to primary school) lies entirely with the Member States.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002614/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Firefighter training in the EU

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are encouraging more men and women to sign up to the Retained Duty System, which typically trains part-time firefighters who provide a vital service to the communities in which they live and work.

To what extent does the European Union monitor and encourage the uptake of firefighter training across the Member States?

Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2014)

EU Member States (MS) have the primary responsibility for all phases of disaster management cycle (prevention, preparedness and response) and for the choice of specific measures and schemes, in their territory, that reduce the risk and impact of the disasters. Thus, as part of the preparedness, the training of firefighters is a responsibility of the MS.

Nonetheless, at European level, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013) includes a general policy framework aimed at continuously improving the level of preparedness of civil protection systems, services and their personnel and of the population within the Union. This includes also a programme of exercises, training programmes and a training network, at Union and Member State level, on prevention of, preparedness for and response to disasters.

The training programme for civil protection and emergency management personnel aims at enhancing the coordination, compatibility and complementarity between modules, experts and other response capacities coming from different MS and to improve the competence of European experts.

The training programme consists of courses on introduction, operational and management level and is complemented by an online learning and preparation tool. Access to the training programme is granted via the national training coordinator of the respective MS.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002615/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Eating disorders across the EU

The Scottish Parliament recently hosted an event during Eating Disorders Awareness Week that focused on the role of the media; the role of fashion; the role of technology and social media; eating disorders in men; nutrition and dieticians; and supporting family and careers, all of which aimed to raise awareness of eating disorders and to offer support to people affected by these issues.

What is the European Union doing to tackle eating disorders across the EU?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2014)

The European Union has no competence in tackling eating disorders.

To support Member States' efforts in this area, the Commission is co-financing the project ProYouth (2011-2014) through the EU-Health Programme (62). The project is led by Heidelberg-University from Germany and partners from six further countries are participating. It targets young people and uses the Internet to provide information about mental health, health promotion, and eating disorders in nine languages. The project further offers peer and professional support to counteract the development of eating disorders and related problems, and, where necessary, it facilitates access to the regular healthcare system (e.g. counselling, treatment). As such, it can help reduce the time between the occurrence of symptoms and the seeking of professional help.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002616/14

to the Commission

Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Business opportunities for women

The Scottish Government has recently announced a range of measures to support women in business.

What is the EU doing to increase business opportunities for women?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

The Commission has been working to facilitate access to networks for women with the creation of the European Network of Female Entrepreneurship Ambassadors in 2009. It has mobilised successful entrepreneurs to campaign on the ground as role models and to inspire women of all ages to set up their own businesses (63).

Furthermore, the European Network of Mentors for Women Entrepreneurs provides advice and support to women entrepreneurs on the starting-up, functioning and growth of their enterprises in the early stages of operation (years 2-4 of a new woman-led enterprise) (64).

The main initiative of the Entrepreneurship Action Plan targeting women is the creation of an online E-Platform for women entrepreneurs. This platform will be a one-stop shop for women of all ages who want to start, run and grow a business. It will provide educational, mentoring, advisory and business networking opportunities for women across Europe. The platform will bring together local, national and European stakeholders, and peer groups as well as the tools needed to support a new generation of women who make regular use of the Internet and other IT technologies. It will be one of the main tools that women can use across Europe to find information online and it will provide them with support for the start-up and growth of their businesses. The platform is set to be up and running sometime in 2015.

Other measures include the European Network to Promote Women’s Entrepreneurship (WES). WES is composed of government representatives responsible for promoting female entrepreneurship; it helps to identify good practices and provides guidance on future policy direction.

(Hrvatska verzija)

Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-002617/14

upućeno Komisiji

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE)

(6. ožujka 2014.)

Predmet: Povratak iseljenika

Pretpostavlja se kako će se u Uniji do 2060. godine udio stanovništva starijeg od 65 godina povećati sa 17 na 30 posto. Posljedica toga bit će da ćemo umjesto četiri radno sposobne osobe koje privređuju za jednu iznad 65 godina, što je slučaj danas, imati dvije radno sposobne osobe na jednog umirovljenika.

Jedna od mjera za demografsku obnovu EU-a mogao bi biti program povratka europskih državljana i njihovih potomaka koji su emigrirali izvan granica Unije. Namjerava li Komisija poduzeti konkretne mjere u tom pravcu i koje su to mjere?

Odgovor g. Andora u ime Komisije

(2. svibnja 2014.)

Kao što je primijetio uvaženi zastupnik, u desetljećima koja su pred nama sve države EU-a suočit će se s velikim porastom udjela osoba starije dobi u ukupnoj populaciji i znatnim padom udjela mladih i stanovništva u radnoj dobi.

Iako je produženje očekivane životne dobi veliko postignuće europskih društava, ona se zbog starenja populacija istovremeno suočavaju s velikim problemima u gospodarstvu i sustavima socijalne skrbi. Komisija pažljivo analizira i prati predviđene posljedice (65) demografske tranzicije. Komisija ne namjerava razviti program povratne migracije u EU, što je ionako izvan njezine nadležnosti.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002617/14

to the Commission

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Return of emigrants

The proportion of over-65s in the EU population is expected to rise from 17% to 30% by the year 2060. As a result, the number of people of working age to provide for every person over 65 will not be four, as it is at present, but just two per pensioner.

One way for the EU to ensure population replacement might be a programme for the return of European citizens and their offspring who have emigrated out of the EU. Does the Commission intend to take specific steps in that direction? If so, what will it do?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

As underlines by the Honourable Member, all EU countries will in the coming decades experience steep increases in the share of elderly persons in the total population and a significant decline in the share of young people and those of working age.

While longer lives are a major achievement of European societies, the ageing of the population also poses significant challenges for their economies and welfare systems. The Commission closely analyses and monitors projected impacts (66) of the demographic transition. The Commission does not envisage a programme of return migration to the EU, which is in any event outside the remits of its competence.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002620/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Incidenza dell'apporto proteico sullo sviluppo del cancro

Da tempo il mondo scientifico è attraversato da una diatriba riguardo ai benefici e ai rischi legati all'apporto eccessivo di proteine. Un nuovo studio di un'università statunitense pare dare ragione ai «detrattori» delle proteine, sostenendo che il danno può essere tanto grave da essere equiparabile a quello provocato dal consumo quotidiano di 20 sigarette. Parlando di dieta «iperproteica», i ricercatori si riferiscono a un apporto di almeno il 20 % derivante da proteine, mentre una dieta «ipocalorica» si attesta con una soglia al di sotto del 10 %.

Poco più di 6 mila soggetti adulti sono stati coinvolti nello studio, che ha rilevato che coloro che seguivano una dieta ricca di proteine (specie se animali, ad esempio provenienti dalla carne rossa o da latte e formaggi) avevano un rischio del 74 % maggiore di morte prematura, rispetto a coloro che seguono una dieta povera di proteine animali. Il rischio di morte era associato in special modo a malattie cardiovascolari, cancro e diabete.

Questi danni derivano dal fatto che le proteine controllano l'ormone della crescita IGF-I, coinvolto nello sviluppo fisico, che ad alti livelli può influire sullo sviluppo di tumori, in particolare perché dopo i 65 anni d'età i livelli di IGF-I calano drasticamente.

In riferimento a questo studio, può la Commissione disporre di ulteriori dati a conferma della tesi supportata dal team di ricercatori? Ritiene che alcune frazioni della popolazione europea possano essere particolarmente soggette a questo rischio, qualora dovesse rivelarsi provato scientificamente?

Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione

(23 aprile 2014)

La Commissione è a conoscenza dello studio condotto dalla University of Southern California cui fa riferimento l'onorevole parlamentare. È tuttavia prassi della Commissione non commentare i risultati di studi di ricerca.

Nell'ambito del 5° (67) e del 6° PQ (68) la Commissione ha finanziato progetti di ricerca quali EARNEST (69) e EARLY NUTRITION (70), destinati a fornire una solida base scientifica per formulare raccomandazioni sui modelli alimentari ottimali nei primi anni di vita e sugli effetti a lungo termine dell'alimentazione sulla salute. Dai risultati dell'ultimo progetto emerge che gli alimenti per lattanti con un basso tenore di proteine riducono l'indice di massa corporea (BMI) e il rischio di obesità in età scolare. Evitare un eccessivo apporto proteico nell'alimentazione dei lattanti potrebbe quindi contribuire a ridurre il fenomeno dell'obesità infantile (71).

Ulteriori possibilità di finanziamento per la ricerca in questo settore sono offerte da Orizzonte 2020, il programma quadro per la ricerca e l'innovazione (2014-2020), nell'ambito delle sfide sociali «Salute, cambiamento demografico e benessere» e «Sicurezza alimentare, agricoltura e silvicoltura sostenibili, ricerca marina, marittima e sulle acque interne e bioeconomia». Le informazioni sulle attuali possibilità di finanziamento sono reperibili nel portale dedicato alla ricerca e all'innovazione (72).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002620/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Influence of protein intake on the development of cancer

For some time, scientists have been deeply divided about the benefits and risks of excessive protein intake. A new study by an American university seems to support protein’s ‘detractors’, claiming that excessive protein intake can be as harmful as smoking 20 cigarettes a day. When the researchers refer to a ‘hyperproteic’ diet, they mean one in which at least 20% of a person’s calorie intake comes from proteins, while a ‘hypocaloric’ diet is one in which less than 10% of that intake comes from proteins.

The study involved just over 6 000 adults. It found that persons who ate a protein-rich diet (especially animal proteins, e.g. red meat or milk and cheese) had a 74% higher risk of premature death than persons whose diet was low in animal proteins. The main risk factors were cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.

These health problems occur because proteins control release of the growth hormone IGF-1, a factor in physical development. High levels of IGF-1 can influence the development of tumours, in particular because, after the age of 65, the levels occurring naturally in the body fall drastically.

Can the Commission confirm the theory put forward by the team of researchers who published the study referred to above? Does it consider that some sections of the European population may be particularly at risk, should the theory turn out to have a basis in fact?

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

(23 April 2014)

The Commission is aware of the study carried out by the University of Southern California referred to by the Honourable Member. It is Commission policy not to comment on individual research results.

In FP5 (73) and FP6 (74), the Commission has funded research projects such as EARNEST (75) and EARLY NUTRITION (76) that aimed at providing the scientific foundations for evidence-based recommendations on optimal early nutrition incorporating long-term health outcomes. The recent findings from the last project reveal that infant formula with lower protein content reduces the BMI (Body Mass Index) and obesity risk at school age. Therefore, the avoidance of infant foods that provide an excessive protein intake could contribute to a reduction in childhood obesity (77).

Horizon 2020, the framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014‐2020), may provide further funding opportunities through the societal challenges ‘Health, demographic change and wellbeing’ and ‘Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research, and the Bioeconomy’ to continue research in this area. Information on current funding opportunities can be obtained through the EC Research and Innovation Participant Portal (78).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002621/14

alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: VP/HR — Missione OSCE in Ucraina

In merito alla crisi ucraina, l'Osce ha deciso di imbastire una missione composta da 35 osservatori militari, su richiesta del governo ucraino di Kiev. SI tratta di una missione disarmata, nonostante si tratti di personale militare, e partirà da Odessa, per poi concludersi il 12 marzo. Alla missione partecipa personale di 18 diversi paesi: Canada, Danimarca, Estonia, Finlandia, Francia, Germania, Gran Bretagna, Irlanda, Lettonia, Lituania, Norvegia, Polonia, Repubblica Ceca, Slovacchia, Svezia, Turchia, Ungheria e Usa. L'obiettivo principale della missione è quello di dissipare le preoccupazioni su attività militari insolite, in seguito all'invasione ad opera della Federazione russa di pochi giorni fa, oggi rientrata.

La minaccia militare non pare del tutto superata, dal momento che diversi cittadini ucraini hanno creato file lunghissime davanti ai centri di arruolamento per volontari, nel timore di una spirale di violenze contro Mosca.

1.

A tal proposito, la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante può chiarire se è stata contatta dal governo ucraino per avviare un monitoraggio diretto della situazione in Ucraina o se essa stessa ha offerto il proprio supporto in tal senso?

2.

Può tenere informato il Parlamento europeo e i cittadini europei in merito all'andamento della missione e ai suoi risultati?

3.

In che modo ha intenzione di impostare la propria azione diplomatica al fine di mediare tra le due posizioni dell'Ucraina e della Russia?

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

(7 maggio 2014)

L'Unione europea ha assunto l'impegno di difendere la sovranità, l'integrità territoriale e l'indipendenza dell'Ucraina e appoggia qualsiasi meccanismo internazionale volto a trovare una soluzione in conformità del diritto internazionale. L'UE si avvale di e collabora con organizzazioni internazionali come l'OSCE e il Consiglio d'Europa per stabilizzare la situazione e acquisire una migliore conoscenza delle condizioni in loco. Anche se non è potuta entrare in Crimea, la recente missione inviata dall'OSCE in base al documento di Vienna ha svolto un ruolo importante nel fornire informazioni di base in altre parti dell'Ucraina. L'UE sta riflettendo su come appoggiare la missione di monitoraggio speciale (SMM) recentemente approvata dal Consiglio permanente dell'OCSE per contribuire a ridurre le tensioni e a promuovere la pace, la stabilità e la sicurezza in tutta l'Ucraina, nonché a sorvegliare e sostenere l'attuazione di tutti i principi e gli impegni dell'OSCE. L'Unione si aspetta che tutti gli Stati partecipanti, compresa la Russia, collaborino con l'SMM affinché i suoi membri possano accedere in condizioni di sicurezza a tutte le parti dell'Ucraina. L'UE è inoltre pronta ad aiutare l'Ucraina a riformare il settore della sicurezza civile, anche mediante un'eventuale missione PSDC, e ha inviato una missione di esperti incaricata di valutare le diverse opzioni.

L'UE si compiace che il governo ucraino si sia impegnato a garantire la natura rappresentativa e inclusiva delle strutture governative, in modo da riflettere la diversità regionale, a garantire la piena tutela dei diritti delle persone appartenenti a minoranze nazionali, a intraprendere una riforma costituzionale, a indagare su tutte le violazioni dei diritti umani e su tutti gli atti di violenza, a lottare contro l'estremismo e a organizzare elezioni presidenziali libere, eque e trasparenti.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002621/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — OSCE visit to Ukraine

In response to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is sending 35 military observers on a visit to the country, at the request of the Ukrainian Government in Kiev. The visit will start at Odessa, and is scheduled to end on 12 March. The delegation is made up of unarmed military personnel from 18 different countries, namely Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The main objective of the visit is to dispel concerns about unusual military activities following the Russian Federation’s invasion several days ago, even though it is now withdrawing its troops.

The military threat does not appear to have gone away entirely, with thousands of Ukrainian citizens queuing at volunteer recruitment centres amid fears of violence with Moscow escalating further.

1.

In light of the above, can the Vice-President/High Representative indicate whether she has been asked by the Ukrainian Government to begin directly monitoring the situation in Ukraine, or whether she has offered its support in this respect?

2.

Can she keep the European Parliament and European citizens informed of the progress made and results achieved by the delegation?

3.

What diplomatic actions does she intend to take in order to act as a mediator between Ukraine and Russia?

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

(7 May 2014)

The EU is committed to uphold the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine, and supports any international mechanism to bring about a solution in line with international law. The EU is working with and through international organisations such as the OSCE and Council of Europe to stabilise the situation and increase awareness of conditions on the ground. It is regrettable that the OSCE's recent Vienna Document Mission did not gain access to Crimea, although it played an important role in providing baseline information in other parts of Ukraine. The EU is exploring ways to support the Special Monitoring Mission (SMM), recently approved by the OSCE Permanent Council, with the goals of contributing throughout Ukraine to reducing tensions and fostering peace, stability and security; and to monitoring and supporting implementation of all OSCE principles and commitments. We expect all participating States, including Russia, to cooperate with the SMM so that its members may have safe and secure access to all parts of Ukraine. The EU is also ready to assist Ukraine in the field of civilian security sector reform, including through a possible CSDP mission, and has deployed an expert mission to assess the options.

The EU welcomes the Ukrainian Government's commitment to ensure the representative nature and inclusiveness of governmental structures, reflecting regional diversity, to ensure the full protection of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, to undertake constitutional reform, to investigate all human rights violations and acts of violence, to fight extremism, and to hold free, fair and transparent Presidential elections

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002622/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Nuovi digestori anaerobici per la gestione dei rifiuti

In Emilia Romagna, uno dei più importanti operatori nazionali nel campo della gestione dei rifiuti ha realizzato tre «digestori anaerobici», impianti per la produzione di compost, biogas ed elettricità, utilizzando come fonte di energia rifiuti umidi e sfalci di potature. Ogni impianto è in grado di trattare annualmente 60 mila tonnellate di rifiuti per produrre circa 8GWh di elettricità, abbastanza per coprire il fabbisogno di circa 2700 famiglie, e circa 5mila tonnellate di compost per la concimazione dei campi.

Si tratta di digestori basati su una tecnologia estremamente innovativa, che riduce di molto l'impatto ambientale, dato che la «digestione» produce emissioni pari al volume prodotto da appena 40 caldaie domestiche.

Questi impianti potrebbero anche potenziare il circolo virtuoso del riciclo e dell'economia circolare, dal momento che quanto più si ricicla, tanta più energia si può produrre a minor costo e minor impatto ambientale.

Alla luce di quanto detto, si chiede alla Commissione:

in che misura questi impianti sono diffusi negli altri Stati membri dell'Unione europea;

se, laddove sono già attivi da alcuni anni, si è verificato un effettivo risparmio sui consumi e una riduzione dell'impatto ambientale dei processi di riciclo dei rifiuti;

se, laddove sono già attivi da alcuni anni, si è verificato un effettivo aumento della raccolta differenziata e un consolidamento culturale del concetto di economia circolare nella cittadinanza.

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(22 aprile 2014)

Di norma la Commissione non raccoglie informazioni sui vari tipi di impianti per il trattamento dei rifiuti presenti in Europa e non può pertanto trarre conclusioni sulle conseguenze dell’attività degli impianti di digestione anaerobica sulle abitudini di consumo dei cittadini di determinati paesi o sulla loro consapevolezza in materia di economia circolare.

Secondo dati esterni (79), esistono attualmente 244 impianti di digestione anaerobica costruiti o approvati in 16 Stati membri dell’UE, con una capacità totale di 7 750 000 tonnellate di rifiuti biodegradabili all’anno. Fra le tecniche disponibili per il trattamento dei rifiuti biodegradabili, la digestione anaerobica, sebbene più costosa, vanta i migliori risultati ambientali (80). La presenza di impianti di digestione anaerobica è strettamente correlata alla raccolta differenziata, in quanto la raccolta separata dei rifiuti organici biodegradabili costituisce il prerequisito per una digestione anaerobica efficiente.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002622/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: New anaerobic digestion plants for waste management

In the Italian region of Emilia Romagna, one of the country’s largest operators in the waste management sector has constructed three ‘anaerobic digesters’ — plants that produce compost, biogas and electricity by using food waste and garden trimmings as an energy source. Each plant can process up to 60 000 tonnes of waste a year, and produce around 8 GWh of electricity — enough to meet the supply needs of around 2 700 homes — and roughly 5 000 tonnes of compost, which is used to fertilise fields.

These digestion plants are based on groundbreaking technology that significantly reduces their environmental impact, since the emissions generated by the ‘digestion’ are equivalent to those given off by just 40 household boilers.

These plants could also strengthen the virtuous circle of recycling and the circular economy, given that the amount of energy that can be produced at minimal cost (both financial and in terms of environmental impact) is directly proportional to the amount of waste that is recycled.

1.

In light of the above, can the Commission indicate how widespread these types of plants are in the other Member States of the European Union?

2.

In countries where such plants have been operational for several years, have markedly lower consumption rates and reduced environment impacts of waste recycling processes been observed?

3.

In countries where such plants have been operational for several years, have marked increases in waste sorting been observed, and has the concept of the circular economy become more ingrained in the national psyche?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2014)

The Commission does not ordinarily collect information on the various types of waste treatment plants present in Europe and cannot draw conclusions on the consequences of anaerobic digestion plants on the consumption habits or awareness of circular economy of the citizens of specific countries.

According to external data (81), there are currently 244 built or approved anaerobic digestion plants in 16 EU Member States, with a total capacity of 7 750 000 tons of biodegradable waste per year. Among the available techniques to treat biodegradable waste, anaerobic digestion, while more expensive, has the best environmental outcome. (82) There is a clear link between the presence of anaerobic digestion plants and waste sorting, as separate collection of bio-waste is a pre-requisite for efficient anaerobic digestion.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002623/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Nuovo studio scientifico sulla lotta contro il tumore al pancreas

Un'università texana ha studiato le proprietà del Phellodendron Amurense, noto anche come Amur o abete giallo, ovvero un albero della famiglia delle rutacee sfruttato nella medicina tradizionale cinese per curare il pancreas. Il team di ricercatori ha indagato le proprietà dell'arbusto per verificarne l'effettiva efficacia nella cura del cancro al pancreas, particolarmente difficile da curare poiché le cicatrici fibrotiche che si formano intorno all'area tumorale inibiscono la penetrazione e l'azione dei farmaci tradizionalmente utilizzati.

La fase che permette lo sviluppo della fibrosi incoraggia anche l'azione dell'enzima Cox-2, che provoca lo sviluppo di infiammazioni, ma è proprio su tale aspetto che, a quanto pare, l'abete giallo può giocare un ruolo significativo, dal momento che l'estratto della corteccia dell'Amur è parso in grado di contrastare l'azione enzimatica. Un'altra notizia positiva è che si tratta di un prodotto estremamente tollerabile per l'organismo umano, tanto che già è disponibile sul mercato sotto forma di capsule. La reale sfida per gli scienziati sarà ora quella di capire quanto l'azione di inibizione enzimatica possa influire sullo sviluppo della fibrosi e quindi di valutare l'effetto indiretto dell'abete giallo sullo sviluppo del tumore. Per tale motivo lo studio sarà ora esteso a un numero più elevato di soggetti, in modo da ottenere dati statistici più consistenti relativi alla correlazione tra il farmaco in oggetto e il tasso di mortalità delle cellule cancerogene.

In merito a quanto sopra esposto l'interrogante chiede alla Commissione di rispondere ai quesiti di seguito elencati.

1.

È la Commissione già a conoscenza dello studio?

2.

È il farmaco in questione disponibile sul mercato europeo?

3.

In caso affermativo, esistono dati sul suo consumo da parte dei cittadini europei?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(22 aprile 2014)

I risultati cui fa riferimento l'onorevole parlamentare, riguardanti gli estratti di abete giallo (Phellodendron Amurense) nel trattamento del tumore al pancreas, pubblicati nella rivista scientifica Clinical Cancer Research dall'Health Science Center dell'Università del Texas con sede a San Antonio (USA), sono noti alla Commissione (83)  (84). Va osservato che gli autori dello studio dichiarano esplicitamente che esso è circoscritto a un campione di 22 pazienti e che solo dopo avere analizzato i risultati valuteranno se estenderlo a un gruppo più vasto di pazienti al fine di verificare i risultati iniziali.

Come linea politica, la Commissione non valuta né commenta progetti di ricerca che non riguardano direttamente le sue attività di finanziamento.

Su proposta della Commissione è stata adottata la direttiva 2004/24/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 31 marzo 2004, che modifica, per quanto riguarda i medicinali vegetali tradizionali, la direttiva 2001/83/CE recante un codice comunitario relativo ai medicinali per uso umano, con l'obiettivo di agevolare l'immissione sul mercato dell'UE dei medicinali vegetali tradizionali. Questa direttiva prevede un periodo transitorio eccezionalmente lungo, pari a 7 anni, per la registrazione dei medicinali vegetali tradizionali già sul mercato alla data della sua entrata in vigore. Tale periodo transitorio di 7 anni è scaduto il 30 aprile 2011 (85).

Secondo i dati di cui dispone la Commissione, non è stata presentata alcuna domanda di registrazione di prodotti basati sul Phellodendron Amurense.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002623/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: New scientific study on the fight against pancreatic cancer

A Texas-based university has recently conducted a study on the properties of Phellodendron amurense, also known as the Amur cork tree or yellow fir, which is a tree in the family Rutaceae and is used in traditional Chinese medicine for treating pancreatic diseases. The team of researchers investigated the tree’s properties to see how effective it was in treating pancreatic cancer, a condition that is particularly difficult to treat since the fibrotic scarring that develops around the tumour area prevents conventionally used drugs from penetrating into the site and taking effect.

The pathway that contributes to fibrotic development also promotes the action of Cox-2, an enzyme that causes inflammation, but it seems that the Amur cork tree could specifically be used to combat this effect, since its extract appears capable of suppressing such enzymatic action. Another plus point is that Amur cork tree extract is extremely safe for human consumption, and is already available on the market in capsule form. The real challenge now facing the researchers is to discover to what extent the enzymatic inhibitory action can influence fibrotic development, and thereby assess the indirect effect that the Amur cork tree has on tumour development. For this reason, the study is now going to be extended to cover a larger number of patients, so that more consistent statistical data can be obtained concerning the relationship between the medicinal product in question and the mortality rate of tumour cells.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the study described above?

2.

Is the medicinal product in question available on the European market?

3.

If so, is there any data available on how widely it is taken by European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2014)

The Commission is aware of the results, published in the scientific journal Clinical Cancer Research, by the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (USA) referred to by the Honourable Member about cork tree (Phellodendron amurense) extracts in treating pancreatic cancer (86) ,  (87). It should be noted that authors of the study explicitly say that the study was limited to a sample of 22 patients and only after having analysed results, will they consider expanding the study to a larger group of patients to verify initial results.

As a matter of policy, the Commission does not assess or comment on research projects that do not directly relate to its funding activities.

The Commission adopted Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 31 March 2004, amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, in order to facilitate the placing on the EU market of traditional herbal medicinal products. This directive provides for an exceptionally long transitional period of 7 years to register traditional herbal medicinal products that were already on the market on the date of entry into force of the directive. This 7 year transitional period ended on 30 April 2011 (88).

According to the data in possession of the Commission, no request for registration of products based on Phellodendron amurense has been submitted to the Commission.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002624/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Progetto per sistemi di telecomunicazione tramite l'utilizzo di droni civili

Un noto social network ha avviato trattative per acquistare, da un'azienda texana attiva nel settore dei droni, circa 11000 droni alimentati da energia solare, in grado di rimanere in volo ad alta quota per cinque anni senza necessità di tornare a terra per rifornirsi. L'affare, che potrebbe concludersi con un spesa di 60 milioni di dollari, è legato al possibile sfruttamento dei droni per la telecomunicazione. I droni in questione possono infatti supportare sistemi di trasmissione wireless per dati e voce e, posizionati a una certa distanza dal suolo, possono svolgere un'attività generalmente riservata ai satelliti.

L'acquisto rientrerebbe nel progetto «Internet.org», sostenuto da diverse imprese del settore delle telecomunicazioni e mirato ad estendere l’accesso alla rete per gli oltre 5 miliardi di persone nel mondo ancora esclusi dalla possibilità di connessione.

In merito a tale progetto, può la Commissione specificare se:

il progetto possa incrementare, tramite il dispiegamento di numerosi droni, i rischi per la sicurezza aerea?

È a conoscenza di imprese o altri attori europei coinvolti nel progetto?

È a conoscenza di progetti simili sviluppati da operatori europei o extra-europei?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(5 maggio 2014)

1.

Affinché sia loro consentito il sorvolo in uno spazio aereo europeo non segregato, i droni cui fa riferimento l'on. parlamentare dovranno rispettare le norme che saranno adottate a livello europeo e degli Stati membri. La Commissione intende garantire che le norme di sicurezza che disciplinano l'aeronavigabilità dei veivoli, le capacità tecniche dell'operatore e la competenza del pilota assicurino lo stesso livello di sicurezza sia per i droni pilotati a distanza che per il resto dei veivoli. Inoltre, la normale altitudine dei droni va dai 18.000 ai 27.000 metri, molto al di sopra di quella dei veicoli commerciali e di uso generale. Di conseguenza, il rischio per la sicurezza sarebbe limitato e sussisterebbe unicamente durante le fasi di ascesa e discesa, nelle quali i droni dovrebbero affrontare altri tipi di traffico. Per questi motivi, la Commissione ritiene che, nel momento in cui saranno rispettate le normative di sicurezza poste in essere, i droni non dovrebbero avere un'incidenza sugli elevati livelli di sicurezza dell'Unione europea.

2.

La società dalla quale la ben nota rete sociale intende acquistare droni alimentati ad energia solare è una start-up statunitense fondata nel 2012. Sembra che la rete sociale collabori anche con PMI britanniche che sviluppano veivoli ad energia solare senza equipaggio. La Commissione non è a conoscenza di altre società o entità europee coinvolte in questo progetto.

3.

Secondo le informazioni a disposizione della Commissione, non vi sono progetti equivalenti in Europa e la fattibilità tecnologica di tale progetto non è ancora dimostrata. Al di fuori dell'Europa, il progetto Google Loon persegue obiettivi simili, anche se con aerostati (circa la stessa altitudine) piuttosto che con droni. Alcuni produttori europei stanno lavorando allo sviluppo di droni ad energia solare da utilizzare per un'ampia gamma di applicazioni.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002624/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Plans to establish telecommunication systems by using civilian drones

A well-known social network has recently opened talks with a Texas-based company operating in the drone sector over the possible purchase of around 11 000 solar-powered drones, each capable of remaining in the air for five years without needing to return to Earth for refuelling. The deal, which could be concluded for around USD 60 million, is linked to the belief that drones may one day be used for telecommunications purposes. The drones in question are in fact capable of carrying wireless voice and data transmission systems and, when positioned at a certain altitude above the ground, can perform functions that generally only satellites have been able to carry out to date.

The purchase would fall within the Internet.org project, which is supported by various telecommunications companies and is seeking to provide Internet access to the 5 billion-plus people across the planet who have yet to be connected to the World Wide Web.

1.

Does the Commission believe that this project could pose heightened risks to aviation safety, due to the sheer number of drones that could be deployed?

2.

Does it know if any companies or other entities from Europe are involved in the project?

3.

Is it aware of any similar projects currently being developed by European or non-European organisations?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2014)

1.

To be allowed to fly in a European non-segregated airspace, the drones referred to by the Honourable Member will have to respect the rules to be established at the European and Member States level. It is the intention of the Commission that safety rules on the airworthiness of the aircraft, the technical capabilities of the operator and the competence of the pilot ensure the same level of safety for remotely piloted drones as currently exists for the rest of aviation. In addition, those drones are planned to fly at an altitude of 18 000 to 27 000 meters, which is well-above the altitude where commercial and general aviation aircraft fly. As a consequence, there would only be a limited safety risk, likely to manifest itself during the climbing and descending phases where the drones would be confronted with other types of traffic. For these reasons, the Commission is of the view that, provided that the safety regulation to be developed is respected, those drones should not affect the high safety levels in the European Union.

2.

The company that the well-known social network is contemplating to buy solar-powered drones from is a US start-up founded in 2012. It seems that this social network also works with a UK SME that develops unmanned solar aircraft. The Commission is not aware of other European companies and entities involved in this project.

3.

As far as the Commission is aware, there is no equivalent project in Europe and the technological feasibility of such a project is not demonstrated yet. Outside of Europe, the Google Loon project pursues similar objectives though with balloons (at a similar altitude) rather than drones. Some European manufacturers are working on the development of solar-powered drones that can be used for a wide variety of applications.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002625/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Sistemi di iscrizione scolastica online nell'Unione europea

Il 28 febbraio in Italia è scaduto il termine per le iscrizioni agli istituti scolastici per il prossimo anno. Le iscrizioni per le prime classi di scuole elementari, medie e superiori erano effettuabili solo online.

La notizia aveva destato non poche preoccupazioni, soprattutto da parte di quelle famiglie che temevano che la procedura di iscrizione virtuale fosse troppo complessa o da coloro che temevano che errori di sistema potessero provocare il ritardo o problemi di altra natura nelle procedure di iscrizione.

In realtà, le iscrizioni telematiche sono state oltre 1 milione e mezzo e oltre l'80 % degli utenti si è ritenuto soddisfatto della procedura, soprattutto in termini di risparmio di tempo. Inoltre, il Ministero per l'istruzione, l'università e la ricerca ha valutato che circa il 43 % delle famiglie ha trovato la procedura on line «molto facile», mentre il 37,41 % «abbastanza facile». Un successo quindi, sia in termini di tempo che di denaro risparmiati.

A tale proposito, può dire la Commissione quali altri Stati adottino il sistema di iscrizioni online per gli anni scolastici e/o accademici e se esistano già dei dati quantitativi in merito al risparmio in termini di denaro, sia per le istituzioni pubbliche che per i cittadini? Può dire, altresì, se esista uno studio comparativo dei diversi sistemi di iscrizione online nell'UE che permetta una valutazione di quali siano i sistemi più efficienti e funzionali?

Risposta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione

(16 aprile 2014)

Come l'onorevole parlamentare saprà, a norma dell'articolo 165 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea, la responsabilità del contenuto e dell'organizzazione dei sistemi di istruzione e formazione (comprese le procedure di iscrizione) è interamente degli Stati membri.

La Commissione non raccoglie dunque informazioni dagli Stati membri sui sistemi di iscrizione alla scuola primaria e/o secondaria. La Commissione non è a conoscenza di studi comparativi dei diversi sistemi di iscrizione online nell'UE e non è in grado di indicare quali tra questi sistemi siano i più efficienti e funzionali.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002625/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Online school application systems in the European Union

On 28 February, the deadline for applying for school places for the next academic year expired in Italy. Applications for places in the lowest year groups in elementary, middle and secondary schools could only be made online.

This news had sparked more than a few concerns, not least from families who feared that the virtual application process would be too complicated, or those who were afraid that glitches in the system could result in delays or other types of problems in the application process.

In actual fact, however, over 1.5 million electronic applications were successfully made, and more than 80% of users said that they were satisfied with the process, especially in terms of the time it allowed them to save. In addition, the Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research has reported that around 43% of families found the online process to be ‘very straightforward’, with a further 37.41% finding it ‘fairly straightforward’. The initiative has therefore been a resounding success, in terms of both the time and the money that has been saved.

In this respect, can the Commission indicate which other Member States have introduced, or are in the process of introducing, online application systems for academic years, and whether there is any quantitative data currently available to show how much money is being saved, both by public authorities and by citizens? Can it also indicate whether any comparative studies of the different online application systems in the EU have been conducted in order to ascertain which of these systems are the most efficient and practical?

Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2014)

The Honourable Member will be aware that, in accordance with Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the responsibility for the content and organisation of education and training systems (including the application procedures) rests entirely with Member States.

Therefore, the Commission does not collect information from Member States on the various application systems for entrance to primary and/or secondary schools. The Commission is not aware of any comparative studies of the different online application systems in the EU and cannot indicate which of these systems are the most efficient and practical.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002626/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Sviluppo di strutture turistiche ecosostenibili

Da alcuni anni, in Italia, sta prendendo piede un nuovo fenomeno nel settore turistico, che punta allo sviluppo di un turismo innovativo e sostenibile. Si tratta, nello specifico, della diffusione di Bed & Breakfast che investono in fonti energetiche pulite, nuove tecnologie, risparmio energetico e riciclo/recupero dei materiali. Vengono, ad esempio, utilizzati materiali a basso impatto ambientale, come vernici naturali e igienizzanti, parquet ecologico, lampadine led a basso consumo, sistemi di riscaldamento muniti di biocamino a bioetanolo, ecologico e senza dispersione di calore. Inoltre, l'offerta alimentare si basa spesso su prodotti locali a km-0, biologici, che valorizzano il territorio e le produzioni locali.

Pur consapevole che non si tratti di un fenomeno esclusivamente italiano, il territorio e le produzioni tipiche delle diverse regioni italiane possono garantire una varietà e una qualità di prodotti che ben si adattano a questo modello imprenditoriale sostenibile.

1.

Può la Commissione fornire dati sulla diffusione di questo genere di attività negli altri Stati membri?

2.

Dispone di una lista di «successi» cui i nuovi imprenditori del settore o coloro i quali vogliano riconvertire le proprie strutture verso una gestione più ecosostenibile possano ispirarsi?

3.

Esistono programmi di scambio di esperienze e buone pratiche nel settore?

4.

Può comunicare in che misura questo settore possa incidere sulla riduzione delle emissioni nocive e la realizzazione degli obiettivi dell'UE in materia di sostenibilità ambientale e lotta al cambiamento climatico?

Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione

(15 maggio 2014)

La Commissione riconosce che è necessario gestire il turismo in modo responsabile e sostenibile per evitare effetti negativi sull'ambiente, cercando di conservare al massimo le risorse naturali e culturali. Essa è anche consapevole della crescente importanza del turismo sostenibile e responsabile non solo per i prestatori di servizi turistici, ma anche per i consumatori.

Sebbene la Commissione non disponga di un elenco di imprese specifiche che praticano il turismo sostenibile nell'UE, essa incoraggia e segue con interesse le iniziative dell'industria del turismo in tal senso, come, tra l'altro, la gestione ambientale e i sistemi di certificazione (89).

Esistono inoltre varie iniziative a livello dell'UE volte a incoraggiare una gestione sostenibile del turismo. Queste comprendono, tra l'altro, l'elaborazione di un sistema europeo di indicatori per la gestione sostenibile delle destinazioni turistiche (ETIS) (90). Anche il marchio di qualità ecologica dell'UE «Ecolabel UE» (91) o il sistema di ecogestione e audit EMAS (92), destinato a facilitare una sana gestione ambientale per le imprese, possono essere utilizzati dal settore turistico.

Per sensibilizzare i turisti e minimizzare il loro impatto ambientale, la Commissione ha cofinanziato numerosi progetti transnazionali per il turismo in bicicletta o a piedi (93) e le destinazioni non tradizionali del turismo sostenibile (94).

Tali iniziative contribuiscono alla crescita sostenibile del turismo. È sempre più evidente che investire nel turismo sostenibile può ridurre il costo dell'energia, dell'acqua e dei rifiuti e accrescere il valore della biodiversità, degli ecosistemi e del patrimonio culturale, con significativi vantaggi ambientali come la riduzione del consumo dell'acqua (18 %), dell'utilizzo di energia (44 %) e delle emissioni di CO2 (52 %) (95).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002626/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: The rise of environmentally sustainable tourist facilities

For several years now, a new phenomenon has gradually been sweeping across the Italian tourism sector, with the ultimate aim being to develop an innovative and sustainable form of tourism. More specifically, this phenomenon relates to the spread of B&B establishments that not only invest in clean energy sources and new technologies, but also do everything possible to save energy and recycle and reuse materials. These establishments go to great lengths to keep their environmental impact to a minimum — for example, they use natural, anti-bacterial paints and are fitted with eco-friendly parquet floors, low-consumption LED lamps and heating systems equipped with eco-friendly bioethanol fireplaces that do not disperse unnecessary amounts of heat. In addition, the food they serve is often based on organic produce sourced from the local area, which helps local producers and provides a further boost to the region.

Even though this phenomenon is by no means exclusive to Italy, the geography and traditional output of Italy’s different regions can guarantee a wide variety of high-quality produce that is more than suited to this sustainable business model.

1.

Can the Commission give any information as to how widespread this form of activity is in other Member States?

2.

Does it have a list of successful businesses to hand, including both those new to the sector and those who have sought to adapt their practices to a more environmentally sustainable form of management, which could inspire other businesses to follow suit?

3.

Are there any programmes in the sector for exchanging experience and good practices?

4.

Can the Commission indicate what impact the tourism sector could have on reducing harmful emissions and meeting the objectives of the EU in relation to environmental sustainability and combating climate change?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2014)

The Commission acknowledges that tourism needs to be managed in a responsible and sustainable manner to avoid negative impacts on the environment, striving for the utmost in the preservation of natural and cultural resources. It is also conscious of the fact that sustainable and responsible tourism is gaining more and more importance, not only in the eyes of tourism service providers, but also of consumers.

Although the Commission does not have a list of specific businesses following a sustainable tourism approach across the EU, it encourages and follows with interest the initiatives of the tourism industry in this sense, such as, among others, environmental management and certification schemes (96).

Furthermore, several EU level initiatives exist to encourage sustainable tourism management. These include, among others, the development of a European System of Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Tourist Destinations (ETIS) (97). Also the EU Eco-label (98) or the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) (99) aiming at facilitating sound environmental management for businesses, can be used by the tourism sector.

To raise tourists' awareness and minimise their environmental impact, the Commission has co-financed numerous transnational projects related to cycle or hiking tourism (100) and to non-traditional sustainable tourism destinations (101).

These initiatives contribute to the sustainable growth of tourism. There is increasing evidence that investing in sustainable tourism can reduce the cost of energy, water and waste, and enhance the value of biodiversity, ecosystems and cultural heritage: significant environmental benefits could include reductions in water consumption (18%), energy use (44%) and CO2 emissions (52%) (102).

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002627/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Uso dei social network per l'analisi e la prevenzione dei rischi sociali

I social network potrebbero rivelarsi un valido strumento per prevedere e potenzialmente prevenire la diffusione del virus HIV, causa dell'AIDS, sindrome da immunodeficienza acquisita. Questo è quello che emerge da uno studio di un'équipe scientifica californiana.

Il team ha raccolto 550 milioni di messaggi apparsi fra il maggio e il dicembre del 2012 su un noto social network e li ha poi filtrati, evidenziando quelli che contenevano espressioni legate ad attività sessuali o all'uso di droghe, fattori di rischio per la contrazione dell'AIDS. Il campione selezionato ammontava infine a 9 880 messaggi. Gli scienziati hanno quindi localizzato geograficamente gli autori e hanno quindi incrociato le informazioni ottenute da questa mappa con quelle della cartina relativa alla diffusione dell'AIDS negli Stati Uniti.

Sorprendentemente, i ricercatori hanno individuato una correlazione collimante tra la mappa dei messaggi online e quella dei casi dichiarati di HIV, suggerendo che il monitoraggio dei social network potrebbe dare un contributo importante nella prevenzione della malattia e l'individuazione di possibili «focolai».

In merito a quanto detto, può la Commissione chiarire se:

È a conoscenza dello studio?

Ritiene che lo studio in questione possa davvero dare un contributo al monitoraggio, dal momento che non copre l'interezza della popolazione e, per su natura, tende a dare una visione selettiva?

Ritiene che in generale, l'analisi dei social network possa dare un contributo nell'analisi sociale per la previsione e la prevenzione di determinati problemi?

Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione

(24 aprile 2014)

1.

La Commissione è a conoscenza dello studio cui fa riferimento l'onorevole parlamentare.

2.

Il Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie (CEPCM) ha affermato che lo studio, pur giungendo a risultati interessanti, deve essere integrato da altri studi in altre zone.

3.

Due progetti (103) finanziati nell'ambito del Programma dell'UE in materia di sanità 2009-2013 hanno analizzato le pertinenti reti sociali al fine di entrare in contatto con specifici gruppi di popolazione a rischio elevato di HIV/AIDS. Questa metodologia si è dimostrata particolarmente utile poiché questi gruppi a rischio sono spesso occulti a livello sociale a causa della discriminazione e, spesso, della criminalizzazione di alcuni comportamenti che generano rischi. I membri di questi gruppi possono pertanto sovente essere identificati solo attraverso la collaborazione tra pari. I progetti hanno fornito informazioni utili, ad esempio, in merito alla copertura garantita dell'assicurazione sanitaria, alle barriere di accesso all'assistenza sanitaria, alla copertura fornita dai servizi di prevenzione e di assistenza sanitaria, ai comportamenti a rischio riferiti dai soggetti interessati e ai rapporti tra virus HIV e le coinfezioni.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002627/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Using social networks to analyse and prevent social risks

A recent study carried out by a research team in California has revealed that social networks could prove to be a viable means of foreseeing and potentially preventing the spread of HIV, the viral precursor to AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome).

The team collated 550 million messages that had been posted on a well-known social network between May and December 2012 and then sorted through them, with all those containing expressions associated with sexual activity or drug use (the two most common ways of contracting AIDS) being flagged up. At the end of this sorting process, 9 880 such messages had been identified. Next, the researchers worked out the geographical location of the authors of each of these messages, and then checked the resulting map against that showing the prevalence of AIDS in the United States.

Surprisingly, the researchers found that there was a strong correlation between the map of online messages and the map of declared cases of HIV, which suggests that monitoring social networks could play an important role in preventing the disease and identifying any possible ‘hot spots’.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the study described above?

2.

Does it believe that this study could genuinely supplement monitoring activities in the medical field, given that it does not cover the entire population and, due to its nature, tends to give a rather selective viewpoint?

3.

Does it believe that, in general, analysing social networks could help to form a clearer picture of society and thereby foresee and prevent specific problems?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2014)

1.

The Commission is aware of the study referred to by the Honourable Member.

2.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) confirmed that while study shows some interesting findings, it needs to be supported by other studies in other locations.

3.

Two projects (104) funded under the EU Health Programme 2009-2013 have studied relevant social networks to reach out to specific population groups at high risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS. This methodology proved to be useful as such risk groups are often socially hidden due to discrimination and sometimes criminalisation of certain risk behaviour. Therefore members of these groups can often only be identified through peer to peer support. The projects provided useful information about for instance the coverage of health insurance, barriers for access to healthcare, coverage of target prevention and healthcare services, self-reported prevalence of risk behaviour and HIV and co-infections.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-002628/14

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI) en Lucas Hartong (NI)

(6 maart 2014)

Betreft: Begrotingsevenwicht en naleving artikel 310, lid 1 VWEU

Vandaag bevestigde Commissaris Lewandowski tijdens een debat met de leden van de Begrotingscommissie dat er voor 2014 een groot tekort aan zit te komen op de beleidsterreinen cohesie en ontwikkelingshulp. Dit onder andere als gevolg van een enorme stijging in de aanvragen aan het einde van 2013.

De rekening komt uiteindelijk bij de netto-bijdragende lidstaten  terecht.

1.

Wie is volgens de Commissie verantwoordelijk voor deze discrepantie tussen de inkomsten en de uitgaven van de Unie in 2014?

2.

Kan de Commissie aangeven hoe vaak het al is voorgekomen dat men meer geld uit moet geven dan dat men beschikbaar heeft op de begroting?

3.

Bent u met de PVV van mening dat het volgens artikel 310 lid 1 VWEU niet toegestaan is tekorten op de begroting te laten ontstaan (en deze onbalans dus in feite illegaal is)?

4.

Volgens welke procedure houdt de Commissie toezicht op het aangaan van verplichtingen en dan met name de voorkoming van het aangaan van verplichtingen die de betalingsniveaus zullen overschrijden?

5.

Vindt u de mobilisatie van flexibiliteitsinstrumenten en het gebruik van de contingency margin de juiste oplossing om het begrotingsevenwicht te herstellen? Zo nee, wat zou de voorkeur van de Commissie genieten?

6.

Hoe gaat de Commissie voorkomen dat in de toekomst artikel 310 VWEU wederom met voeten wordt getreden?

Antwoord van de heer Lewandowski namens de Commissie

(3 april 2014)

Artikel 310, lid 1 van het VWEU bepaalt: „De ontvangsten en uitgaven van de begroting moeten in evenwicht zijn.” Telkens als de Commissie de ontwerpbegroting of een ontwerp van gewijzigde begroting voorstelt, ziet zij erop toe dat dit evenwicht wordt gerespecteerd. Hetzelfde geldt bij de goedkeuring van de eigenlijke begroting en de wijzigingen hieraan. In de praktijk betekent dit dat er net zoveel middelen van de lidstaten worden afgeroepen als er uitgaven zijn begroot.

Het geachte Parlementslid heeft het over een „tekort”, maar dit is geen „tekort” op de balans van uitgaven en ontvangsten, die altijd in evenwicht moet blijven. Het gaat eerder over een achterstand aan onbetaalde betalingsaanvragen, die is ontstaan doordat de afgelopen jaren meer aanvragen zijn ingediend dan er overeenkomstige betalingskredieten in de begroting waren opgenomen, met name bij het cohesiebeleid. De betalingsachterstand is grotendeels afkomstig van in december ontvangen betalingsaanvragen die het volgende jaar moesten worden uitbetaald.

De Commissie kan niet meer geld uitgeven dan er in de begroting beschikbaar is en indien er dus meer betalingskredieten nodig zijn, zoals het geval was in 2013, kan zij een ontwerp van gewijzigde begroting voorstellen om meer betalingen te kunnen verrichten.

Tijdens de begrotingsprocedure 2014 zijn de Commissie en het Europees Parlement het eens geworden over een gezamenlijke verklaring dat „de jaarlijkse fluctuaties van het totale niveau van betalingen beheerst zullen worden door gebruik te maken van de overkoepelende marge voor betalingen. Zo nodig kan de Commissie ook gebruikmaken van het flexibiliteitsinstrument en de marge voor onvoorziene uitgaven, overeengekomen in de MFK-verordening.”

Wat het aangaan van verplichtingen betreft, zijn er geen sancties aan de lidstaten te betalen in geval van vertraging bij  terugbetaling van middelen onder gedeeld beheer.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002628/14

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI) and Lucas Hartong (NI)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Budgetary equilibrium and compliance with Article 310(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Today, Commissioner Lewandowski confirmed during a debate with the members of the Committee on Budgets that there is set to be a severe deficit in 2014 in the policy areas of cohesion and development aid. This is due in part to the enormous rise in applications at the end of 2013.

Ultimately, the bill will be footed by the net contributing Member States.

1.

In the Commission’s view, who is responsible for this discrepancy between the Union’s income and expenditure in 2014?

2.

Can the Commission indicate how often it has been necessary in the past to pay out more money than is available in the budget?

3.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that it is not permitted, pursuant to Article 310(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for budget deficits to arise (and this imbalance is therefore actually illegal)?

4.

How does the Commission monitor the incurrence of liabilities and specifically the prevention of the incurrence of liabilities which will exceed the disbursement levels?

5.

Does the Commission think that the mobilisation of flexibility instruments and the use of the contingency margin is the right way to restore the budgetary equilibrium? If not, what would be the Commission’s preferred approach?

6.

How does the Commission intend to prevent any future violations of Article 310 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2014)

Article 310(1) of the TFEU states that ‘the revenue and expenditure shown in the budget shall be in balance.’ The Commission ensures that this balance is maintained every time it proposes either the draft budget, or draft amending budgets to the annual budget, and each time the budget or amendments to it are adopted. This is done by ensuring that the call for own resources from the Member States corresponds with the level of expenditure budgeted.

The Honourable Member refers to a ‘deficit’, but this is not a ‘deficit’ in relation to the balance between expenditure and revenue, which must always be in equilibrium. Rather, it is a backlog of unpaid payment applications which has arisen because, notably in relation to Cohesion Policy, the level of payment claims over the last years has been higher than the corresponding level of payment appropriations in the budget. The backlog mostly derives from payment applications received in December that have to be paid the following year.

The Commission cannot pay out more money than is available in the budget, and so if more payment appropriations are required, as was the case in 2013, it can propose a draft amending budget to increase payments.

The Commission and the European Parliament agreed a joint statement in the course of the 2014 budget procedure, to the effect that ‘the annual fluctuations in the global level of payments would be managed through the use of the global margin for payments. If needed, the Commission may also have recourse to the Flexibility Instrument and the Contingency Margin agreed upon in the draft MFF Regulation.’

With respect to the incurrence of liabilities, there are no penalties payable to the Member States in the case of delays in the payment of reimbursements for funds in shared management.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002629/14

an die Kommission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: REACH: Aufnahme von Chromtrioxid in die Liste der zulassungspflichtigen Stoffe

Im Wege der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 348/2013 wird Chromtrioxid in die Liste der zulassungspflichtigen Stoffe der REACH-Verordnung aufgenommen.

1.

Welche Daten wurden von der Kommission bzw. von der ECHA verwendet, um die Aufnahme von Chromtrioxid in die Liste zu begründen? Welche anderen Daten wurden ggf. im Rahmen des Verfahrens geprüft? Mit welchen Methoden wurde die Prüfung des Stoffes durchgeführt?

2.

Wurde im Zuge dieser Entscheidung geprüft, ob das für die Behandlung von Oberflächen ausschließlich industriell eingesetzte Chromtrioxid aufgrund anderer bestehender Rechtsvorschriften zum Schutz der Arbeitnehmer von dieser Zulassungspflicht gemäß Artikel 58 Absatz 2 der REACH-Verordnung ausgenommen werden kann? Mit welchen Argumenten und Fakten wurde die Entscheidung begründet?

3.

In welcher Weise wurde der betroffene Wirtschaftszweig in der Entscheidungsfindung konsultiert?

Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission

(25. April 2014)

Chromtrioxid wurde im Rahmen der REACH-Verordnung (105) als ein besonders besorgniserregender Stoff (substance of very high concern — SVHC) ermittelt und auf die Liste der für eine Aufnahme in Anhang XIV infrage kommenden Stoffe gesetzt, da es die in Artikel 57 Buchstaben a und b der REACH-Verordnung festgelegten Kriterien erfüllt, weil Nachweise sowohl beim Menschen als auch beim Tier seine Einstufung als karzinogen (Kategorie 1A) und mutagen (Kategorie 1B) nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1272/2008 (106) begründen.

Die Europäische Chemikalienagentur (ECHA) empfahl Chromtrioxid als prioritären Stoff für die Aufnahme in die Liste der zulassungspflichtigen Stoffe (Anhang XIV der REACH-Verordnung), und zwar aufgrund der Verwendung dieses Stoffes in großen Mengen, wobei einige Verwendungen als weit verbreitet gelten. Die ECHA stützte ihre Empfehlung auf die in den Registrierungsdossiers vorliegenden Informationen. Demzufolge beträgt die Menge des im Geltungsbereich der Zulassung in der EU verwendeten Chromtrioxids 1 000 bis 10 000 t/Jahr; es wird an zahlreichen Standorten mit der Möglichkeit einer signifikanten Exposition der Beschäftigten in verschiedenen Anwendungen eingesetzt.

Während der dreimonatigen öffentlichen Konsultation, die der ECHA-Empfehlung vorausging (107), wurden nach Artikel 58 Absatz 2 der REACH-Verordnung zahlreiche Anträge auf Ausnahme von der Zulassungspflicht für bestimmte Verwendungen eingereicht. Gemäß Artikel 58 Absatz 2 können Verwendungen oder Verwendungskategorien von der Zulassungspflicht ausgenommen werden, sofern — auf der Grundlage bestehender spezifischer Rechtsvorschriften der Union mit Mindestanforderungen an den Schutz der menschlichen Gesundheit oder der Umwelt bei der Verwendung des Stoffes — das Risiko ausreichend beherrscht wird. Die ECHA kam zu dem Schluss, dass die in der EU geltenden Vorschriften zum Schutz von Arbeitnehmern die in Artikel 58 Absatz 2 festgelegten Bedingungen hinsichtlich der Verwendung von Chromtrioxid nicht erfüllen. Die Kommission stimmte mit dieser Einschätzung überein.

Während der Konsultation gingen zahlreiche Stellungnahmen der betroffenen Wirtschaftszweige ein, insbesondere aus dem Bereich Oberflächenbehandlung.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002629/14

to the Commission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: REACH: Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation

Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 includes chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation under the REACH Regulation.

1.

What data did the Commission or the ECHA use to justify the inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list? What other data were checked during the process? What methods were used to test the substance?

2.

When making this decision, did the Commission or the ECHA check whether the chromium trioxide used exclusively for industrial surface treatment can be exempted from this authorisation obligation under Article 58 (2) of the REACH Regulation on the basis of other existing employee protection laws? What arguments and facts were used to support the decision?

3.

How was the sector concerned consulted in the decision-making process?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2014)

Chromium trioxide was identified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH (108) and included in the candidate list as it meets the criteria set out in Article 57(a) and (b) of REACH due to its classification as carcinogenic (Category cA) and mutagenic (Category cB) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (109) based on human and animal data.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) recommended chromium trioxide as a priority substance for inclusion in the list of substances subject to authorisation (Annex XIV of REACH) due to its use in high volumes, with some uses considered as wide-dispersive. ECHA based its recommendation on the information available in the registration dossiers. According to it the amount of chromium trioxide used in the scope of authorisation in the EU is in the range of 1 000 — 10 000 t/y, and at a large number of sites, with the potential for significant worker exposure in a number of uses.

During the three months public consultation preceding the ECHA recommendation (110) numerous requests were submitted for exemptions for certain uses in accordance with Article 58(2) REACH. Article 58(2) allows exempting a use or category of uses from the authorisation requirement provided that, on the basis of existing specific Union legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance, the risk is properly controlled. ECHA concluded that the existing EU worker protection legislation did not meet the conditions set out in Article 58(2) regarding the uses of chromium trioxide. The Commission agreed with that assessment.

During the consultation, numerous comments were submitted by the sectors concerned, in particular the surface treatment sector.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002630/14

an die Kommission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Ende der Abfalleigenschaft von Braunkohlenflugasche

Der Artikel 6 (1) der Abfallrahmenrichtlinie ist darauf gerichtet, die Recyclingmärkte zu unterstützen, indem einheitliche Qualitätsstsandards für sekundäre Rohstoffe eingeführt werden und Rechtssicherheit geschaffen wird.

1.

Sind der Kommission durch die Europäische Union geförderte und/oder betreute Modellvorhaben bekannt, in deren Mittelpunkt die Wandlung von mineralischen Abfällen zu Produkten für die Bauindustrie steht?

2.

An welchem Punkt endet nach Auffassung der Kommission konkret die Abfalleigenschaft von Braunkohlenflugasche für den Einsatz in der Bauindustrie?

3.

Ist der Kommission bekannt, wie andere Mitgliedstaaten den Artikel 6 (1) der Abfallrahmenrichtlinie in nationales Recht umgesetzt haben?

Antwort von Herrn Potočnik im Namen der Kommission

(13. Mai 2014)

1.

Aus dem Umweltprogramm LIFE wurden verschiedene Projekte kofinanziert, die mit der Umwandlung mineralischer Abfälle in Produkte für die Bauindustrie zusammenhängen (111). Im Rahmen der europäischen Innovationspartnerschaft für Rohstoffe hat die Kommission ebenfalls eine Reihe diesbezüglicher Zusagen erhalten, die von der hochrangigen Lenkungsgruppe anerkannt wurden.

Das Siebte Rahmenprogramm für Forschung und technologische Entwicklung (RP7) finanziert Vorhaben zur stofflichen Verwertung von Bau- und Abbruchabfällen zur Herstellung von recycelten Baustoffen (112). Außerdem enthält das Arbeitsprogramm 2014-2015 des neuen Rahmenprogramms für Forschung und Innovation „Horizont 2020“ eine spezielle Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen zu Abfällen als Ressource für Recycling, Wiederverwendung und stoffliche Verwertung von Rohmaterial („Waste: a Resource to Recycle, Reuse and Recover Raw Materials“), in der ein Themenschwerpunkt das Recycling von Rohstoffen aus Produkten und Gebäuden zum Gegenstand hat.

2.

Es gibt keine EU-weit geltenden Kriterien für das Ende der Abfalleigenschaft von Braunkohlenflugasche, und der Kommission sind auch keine diesbezüglichen nationalen Kriterien für solche Abfallströme bekannt. Insofern ist es Sache der Mitgliedstaaten, von Fall zu Fall unter Berücksichtigung der einschlägigen, in Artikel 6 Absatz 4 der Richtlinie 2008/98/EG (113) wiedergegebenen Rechtsprechung festzulegen, wann das Ende der Abfalleigenschaft vorliegt.

3.

Gemäß Artikel 40 Absatz 2 der Richtlinie 2008/98/EG müssen die Mitgliedstaaten der Kommission den Wortlaut der wichtigsten nationalen Rechtsvorschriften zur Umsetzung der genannten Richtlinie mitteilen. Die Liste dieser Maßnahmen ist auf EUR-Lex unter dem Link „Nationale Durchführungsmaßnahmen“ abrufbar.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002630/14

to the Commission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: End-of-waste status of lignite fly ash

Article 6 (1) of the directive on waste aims to support the recycling markets by introducing uniform quality standards for secondary raw materials and creating legal certainty.

1.

Is the Commission aware of pilot projects promoted and/or overseen by the European Union which focus on the conversion of mineral waste into products for the building industry?

2.

In the Commission’s opinion, at which precise point does lignite fly ash acquire end-of-waste status for use in the building industry?

3.

Does the Commission know how other Member States have transposed Article 6 (1) of the directive on waste into national law?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2014)

1.

The LIFE Environment Programme has been used to co-finance various projects related to the conversion of mineral waste into products for the building industry (114). Within the European Innovation Partnership on Raw Materials, the Commission has received, and the High-Level Steering Group has recognised, a number of commitments that are also related to this.

The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7) is funding projects aiming at the recovery of Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste for the production of recycled building materials (115). Furthermore, the new Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’, in its work programme 2014-2015, includes a specific call for proposals on ‘Waste: a Resource to Recycle, Reuse and Recover Raw Materials’, in which a specific topic addresses the recycling of raw materials from products and buildings.

2.

There are no EU-wide end-of-waste (EoW) criteria for lignite fly ash and the Commission is not aware of any EoW criteria set at national level for this waste stream. Thus, the point for this waste to reach the EoW status is determined by Member States on a case-by-case basis taking into account the applicable case law as reflected in Article 6 (4) of Directive 2008/98/EC (116).

3.

Member States are required under Article 40(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC to notify to the Commission the main provisions transposing the directive. The list of those transposition measures is available through EUR-lex database under ‘National execution measures’.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002631/14

an die Kommission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Verwertung von Darmpaketen aus BSE-freien Mitgliedstaaten und Drittstaaten

Die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 999/2001 sieht einen differenzierten Umgang mit Tiergeweben vor, je nachdem, welche Statusklasse für den Herkunfts- oder Haltungsmitgliedstaat bzw. den Herkunfts- oder Haltungsdrittstaat des Tieres in Bezug auf das Auftreten von BSE in ihrem Hoheitsgebiet festgestellt wurde.

1.

Kann die Kommission bestätigen, dass für Tiergewebe aus Mitgliedstaaten und aus Drittstaaten derselben Statusklasse die gleichen Anforderungen an die Weiterbehandlung und Beseitigung gelten?

2.

Sind der Kommission Fälle bekannt, in denen Darmpakete aus BSE-freien Drittstaaten in das geografische Gebiet der EU eingeführt wurden, während Darmpakete in BSE-freien Mitgliedstaaten in Tierkörperbeseitigungsanstalten abgeliefert werden müssen?

3.

Sind Möglichkeiten vorgesehen, nach denen Rinderschlachtbetriebe in BSE-freien Mitgliedstaaten Darmpakete selbst verwerten dürfen, ohne sie an die Tierkörperbeseitigungsanstalten abzuführen?

Antwort von Tonio Borg im Namen der Kommission

(9. April 2014)

Auf die Frage zur Beseitigung von aus Mitgliedstaaten und Drittstaaten stammenden Tiergeweben aus Gründen, die mit der bovinen spongiformen Encephalopathie (BSE) zusammenhängen, verweist die Kommission auf ihre Antwort auf die vorhergehende schriftliche Anfrage E-008891/2013. 

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002631/14

to the Commission

Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Recycling of intestines from BSE-free Member States and non-EU countries

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 provides for differentiated handling of animal tissue, depending on the category classifying the Member State or non-EU country of origin or residence of the animal on the basis of the occurrence of BSE in its territory.

1.

Can the Commission confirm that the processing and disposal of animal tissue from Member States and non-EU countries of the same category are subject to the same requirements?

2.

Is the Commission aware of any cases in which intestines from BSE-free non-EU countries were imported into the geographical area of the EU while, in BSE-free Members States, intestines have to be delivered to rendering plants?

3.

Is there any possibility of permitting cattle slaughterhouses in BSE-free Member States to recycle intestines themselves without sending them to rendering plants?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2014)

Regarding the question about the disposal of animal tissues for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) related reasons from Member States and non-EU countries, the Commission refers to its answer to previous Written Question E-008891/2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002633/14

to the Commission

George Lyon (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Dog management in Romania

In light of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee voting in favour of a motion for resolution on stray animals on 18 March, could the Commission answer the following questions:

Does the Commission have competence to intervene on the issue of stray dogs in Romania, specifying whether this competence lies within the area of Public Health and/or other areas of EU competences?

Does the Commission have any information about whether Romania's Rabies Eradication Program mentions dog control?

Could the Commission confirm whether, to the best of its knowledge, EU funds might be being used, directly or indirectly, to finance the so-called ‘Catch & Kill’ dog management business in Romania and whether it is aware of accusations that such funds are being channelled through local administration budgets for this purpose?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answers to written questions E‐006543/2011, E-007161/2011, E-002062/2012 and E-005276/2013 (117) which address the issues of stray dogs and of dog population management and the EU competence on this matter.

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answers to written questions E-001377/2014, E-01404/2014 and P-001898/2014 which address the issues of the dog control within the framework of the EU co-funded rabies eradication programme for Romania.

EU competences do not allow the Commission to fund stray dogs control programs.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002634/14

à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL)

(6 mars 2014)

Objet: VP/HR — L'Union européenne soutient-elle l'extrême-droite?

Svoboda, parti national-socialiste (nazi) qui encadre l'insurrection ukrainienne d'Euro-Maidan, a été soutenu par Catherine Ashton, qui s'est affichée aux côtés de son président, Oleh Tyahnybok. En faisant cela, la représentante de la diplomatie de l'UE apporte le soutien de l'Union aux forces d'extrême-droite en Ukraine. Qui lui en a donné le mandat?

Certains membres du nouveau gouvernement tiennent des positions en contradiction totale avec les valeurs de l'UE, comme le Parlement européen l'a d'ailleurs déclaré dans l'une de ses résolutions, en décembre 2012 (118). Voilà ce que l'on disait de Svoboda à l'époque: «les opinions racistes, antisémites et xénophobes sont contraires aux valeurs et principes fondamentaux de l'Union européenne et, par conséquent, (…) invite les partis démocratiques siégeant à la Verkhovna Rada (Assemblée ukrainienne) à ne pas s'associer avec ce parti, ni à approuver ou former de coalition avec ce dernier.» Catherine Ashton a-t-elle conscience que sa voix ne peut représenter la diplomatie de l'UE à partir du moment où elle ne respecte pas les votes du Parlement?

Enfin, Catherine Ashton sait-elle que ses nouveaux amis défilent sous le drapeau rouge et noir de l'OUN-B, les collaborateurs nazis qui exterminèrent les juifs et les Polonais dans le cadre de la machine de guerre nazie?

Réponse donnée par la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante Ashton au nom de la Commission

(13 mai 2014)

Il n'existe aucune preuve concrète du renforcement des activités antisémites en Ukraine depuis la mise en place du nouveau gouvernement. Ces dernières semaines, nombre d'éminents dirigeants juifs, tels Josef Zisels, président de l'association des communautés et organisations juives d'Ukraine, ont rejeté les rapports faisant état de pressions ou de politiques antisémites exercées par le gouvernement ukrainien. Le nouveau gouverneur de l'oblast de Dnipropetrovsk, Ihor Kolomoyskyy, est un membre actif bien connu de la communauté juive d'Ukraine. L'UE estime essentiel que le gouvernement ukrainien comprenne des ministres défendant toutes les régions et groupes de population du pays afin d'assurer la pleine protection des minorités nationales. Selon le Haut commissaire de l'OSCE pour les minorités nationales et sous-secrétaire général des Nations unies aux Droits de l'homme Ivan Šimonović, la situation est très préoccupante en Crimée ukrainienne, où les Ukrainiens et les Tatars sont particulièrement exposés suite aux mesures prises illégalement par la Russie pour annexer la péninsule. L'UE presse toutes les parties à assurer la sécurité et le respect des Droits de l'homme, en particulier les droits des minorités, pour tous ceux qui se trouvent sur le territoire ukrainien, quelle que soit leur ethnie, leur religion ou leur origine nationale. Toutes les formes de racisme et de xénophobie sont inacceptables.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002634/14

to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)

Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: VP/HR — Does the European Union support the far right?

Svoboda, the national-socialist (Nazi) party behind the Euro-Maidan Ukrainian insurrection, has been supported by Catherine Ashton, who has appeared beside its leader, Oleh Tyahnybok. In doing so, the EU diplomacy representative gives the Union’s support to the far-right forces in Ukraine. Who gave her the mandate to do this?

Certain members of the new government hold views which are in complete contradiction to the values of the EU, as was furthermore declared by the European Parliament in one of its resolutions, in December 2012 (119). This is what was said about Svoboda at the time: ‘racist, anti‐Semitic and xenophobic views go against the EU’s fundamental values and principles and therefore (…) appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Assembly) not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party.’ Is Catherine Ashton aware that, as soon as she fails to respect Parliament’s votes, she cannot represent EU diplomacy?

Finally, does Catherine Ashton know that her new friends march under the red and black flag of the OUN-B, the Nazi collaborators who exterminated Jews and Poles as part of the Nazi war machine?

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

(13 May 2014)

There is no concrete evidence of increased anti-Semitic activity in Ukraine since the new Government has been in place. In recent weeks, many prominent Jewish leaders, including Josef Zisels, Chairman of the Association of Jewish Communities and Organisations of Ukraine, have dismissed reports of pressure or anti-Semitic policies by the Ukrainian Government. The new Governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast, Ihor Kolomoyskyy, is a well-known and active member of Ukraine's Jewish community. The EU believes that an inclusive Ukrainian Government that reaches out to all Ukrainian regions and population groups to ensure full protection of national minorities is essential. According to the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Šimonović, a big concern in Ukraine Crimea, where Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar groups are at particular risk following Russia's illegal steps to annex the peninsula exists. The EU urges all sides to ensure security and respect for human rights, including minority rights, for all those present on Ukrainian territory, regardless of ethnicity, religion or national origin. Racism, xenophobia of any kind are unacceptable.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002636/14

alla Commissione

Guido Milana (S&D)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Etichettatura manufatti in cuoio

Il mercato europeo dei beni di consumo in pelle è privo di una regolamentazione specifica armonizzata, che stabilisca regole precise di etichettatura del manufatto e dei materiali che lo costituiscono a partire dalla loro provenienza. Il vuoto normativo ha permesso il moltiplicarsi di pratiche sleali e ingannevoli a danno dei consumatori e dell'industria conciaria europea.

Da ben tre anni la Commissione valuta l'opportunità di una regolamentazione apposita, conclusasi con una consultazione pubblica a fine gennaio 2014 volta a stabilire se consumatori e imprese sentano la necessità di un intervento comunitario.

Considerando che:

i risultati preliminari dell'indagine della Commissione europea dimostrano la presenza di un'elevata confusione nell'uso della terminologia;

circa l'80 % dei rispondenti ha chiesto un'azione a livello di UE sotto forma di un'etichettatura obbligatoria;

dallo studio preliminare della consultazione era già emersa l'esigenza di trasparenza richiesta dai consumatori;

il «pacchetto sicurezza» è fermo e rischia nuovamente di fallire nel conseguimento dell'obiettivo di attuare un'etichettatura d'origine per tutti i manufatti e loro materiali costituenti in circolazione nel mercato unico;

chiediamo se i provvedimenti che la Commissione intende adottare vadano nella direzione di un'etichettatura obbligatoria per dare una risposta concreta a cittadini, imprese e lavoratori in relazione alle loro ripetute richieste di una trasparenza vera e leale.

1.

chiediamo la data di pubblicazione definitiva dei risultati della consultazione;

Risposta di Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione

(16 aprile 2014)

1.

La consultazione pubblica è parte integrante del processo di valutazione d'impatto avviato dalla Commissione riguardo a un possibile regime UE di etichettatura attestante l'autenticità del cuoio. I risultati della consultazione pubblica saranno pubblicati entro la fine di aprile 2014. Inoltre, anche la relazione sulla valutazione d'impatto conterrà informazioni sui risultati della consultazione.

2.

Nel quadro dell'attuale processo di valutazione d'impatto, è in corso uno studio realizzato da un consulente esterno per aiutare la Commissione ad effettuare la valutazione. In linea con gli orientamenti per la valutazione d'impatto (120), la Commissione esaminerà le diverse opzioni strategiche, tra cui il mantenimento della situazione attuale e l'introduzione di un'etichettatura obbligatoria, considerando il rapporto costo/efficacia di ciascuna opzione. In questa fase non è dunque ancora stata scelta l'opzione favorita.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002636/14

to the Commission

Guido Milana (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Labelling of leather products

The European market for leather consumer goods is lacking any specific, harmonised regulation which lays down precise rules for labelling of the product and its component materials at origin. This regulatory void has allowed unfair and misleading practices to multiply, to the detriment of consumers and of the European tanning industry.

For over three years, the Commission has been assessing whether appropriate legislation is required, ending with a public consultation at the end of January 2014 intended to establish whether consumers and companies feel the need for Community intervention.

Considering that:

the preliminary results of the European Commission’s survey show the existence of a high degree of confusion as regards the use of terminology;

around 80% of respondents requested action at EU level in the form of compulsory labelling;

the preliminary consultation study had already revealed a demand for transparency by consumers;

the ‘safety package’ is at a standstill and again risks failing to achieve the objective of implementing labelling of origin for all manufactured goods and their component materials within the single market;

1.

What is the date of final publication of the results of the consultation?

2.

Do the measures which the Commission intends to adopt tend towards compulsory labelling in order to give a specific response to citizens, companies and employees to their repeated requests for true and fair transparency?

Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2014)

1.

The public consultation is an integral part of the impact assessment process that the Commission is currently carrying out on a possible authenticity leather labelling scheme at EU level. The results of the public consultation will be published by the end of April 2014. In addition, the impact assessment report will also provide feedback on the outcome of the consultation.

2.

In the framework of the current impact assessment process, a study by an external consultant is being carried out in order to support the Commission to carry out the assessment. In line with the impact assessment Guidelines (121), the Commission will analyse different policy options, including a ‘no action’ and a compulsory labelling option, considering the cost-effectiveness of all options. Therefore, no preferred option has been chosen at this stage.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002637/14

alla Commissione

Matteo Salvini (EFD)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Conseguenze sociali della crisi dell'azienda Pali Italia

L'azienda Pali Italia, produttrice fin dagli anni '80 di pali metallici destinati a sostenere dispositivi di illuminazione pubblica, nonché antenne radio e cavi dell'alta tensione, è da tempo interessata da una procedura di accordo di ristrutturazione del debito.

I 129 dipendenti della sede di Parma (frazione Pizzolese) della Pali Italia si trovano attualmente in cassa integrazione, con scadenza, eventualmente prorogabile di altri sei mesi, a maggio 2104; nonostante i ripetuti incontri tra sindacati, dirigenza dell'azienda e autorità locali, non è a tutt'oggi emerso un piano industriale condiviso che permetta di riorganizzare l'azienda evitando esuberi, pertanto l'azienda ha comunicato l'avvio di una procedura di mobilità per 114 dei 129 dipendenti della sede di Parma.

Poiché, in questo periodo di crisi, la perdita del lavoro avrebbe conseguenze gravissime e facilmente prevedibili per le famiglie dei numerosi lavoratori interessati, chiediamo alla Commissione se essa sia a conoscenza di tale situazione e quali strategie intenda eventualmente adottare per incoraggiare una maggiore cooperazione tra tutti gli attori coinvolti, istituzionali e non, al fine di evitare la perdita di posti di lavoro.

Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione

(28 aprile 2014)

La Commissione non è a conoscenza dei dettagli riguardanti l'attuale ristrutturazione dell'azienda Pali Italia e non ha la facoltà di interferire nelle decisioni dell'impresa o nel dialogo sociale interno all'impresa.

Essa esorta tuttavia le imprese ad attenersi alle buone pratiche in materia di anticipazione e gestione socialmente responsabile delle ristrutturazioni, come indicato nella sua comunicazione del 13 dicembre 2013, che istituisce un quadro di qualità UE per l'anticipazione dei cambiamenti e delle ristrutturazioni (122).

Per quanto riguarda il dialogo sociale la Commissione ricorda inoltre che conformemente al diritto dell'Unione (123), in caso di chiusura di imprese, il datore di lavoro è tenuto a rispettare i propri obblighi in materia di informazione e consultazione dei lavoratori.

Essa osserva inoltre che i lavoratori interessati possono avere diritto ad un sostegno del Fondo sociale europeo (FSE) e, purché in possesso dei requisiti necessari, del Fondo europeo di adeguamento alla globalizzazione.

Per quanto riguarda la politica industriale, nel gennaio 2014 la Commissione ha adottato una comunicazione per un rinascimento industriale europeo (124). Un numero crescente di strumenti finanziari saranno messi a disposizione degli Stati membri, delle regioni e dell'industria grazie al programma Orizzonte 2020, al programma COSME e ai Fondi strutturali e di investimento europei. La Commissione suggerirebbe alle autorità competenti e alle parti interessate di esaminare come le imprese locali possano beneficiare di tali opportunità di finanziamento per sviluppare la propria posizione competitiva.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002637/14

to the Commission

Matteo Salvini (EFD)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Social consequences of the crisis at Pali Italia

The company Pali Italia, which since the 1980s has produced metal posts for supporting street lighting equipment, as well as radio masts and high-tension cables, has for some time been involved in a debt restructuring agreement process.

The 129 staff at the Pizzolese (Parma) site of Pali Italia are currently being paid under the Wage Guarantee Scheme until May 2014, which may be extended for a further six months; despite repeated meetings between union representatives, management and local authorities, as yet no joint business plan has emerged which allows for restructuring of the company and avoids compulsory redundancies, and therefore the company has announced a redundancy scheme for 114 of the 129 staff at the Parma site.

Since, at this time of crisis, the loss of employment would have very serious and readily foreseeable consequences for the families of the many workers involved, we ask the Commission whether it is aware of this situation and what strategies it intends to adopt in order to encourage greater cooperation between all parties involved, institutional and otherwise, so as to avoid the loss of jobs.

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

The Commission is not aware of the details of the current restructuring within Pali Italia nor does it have powers to interfere in the company's decisions or in the social dialogue procedures internal to the company.

The Commission, however, urges all companies to follow good practices on anticipation and socially responsible management of restructuring as outlined in its communication of 13 December 2013 establishing a EU Quality Framework for Anticipation of Change and Restructuring (125).

With regard to social dialogue, the Commission reminds that, in case of closure of undertakings, the employer has to respect his/her obligations relating to information and consultation of workers in accordance with EC law (126).

It would also point out that workers affected may qualify for support from the ESF and, provided that the necessary conditions are met, from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

On industrial policy, the Commission has adopted a communication for a European industrial renaissance (127) in January 2014. An increasing share of financial levers will be put at the disposal of Member States, regions, and industry thanks to the Horizon 2020 Programme, COSME, and European Structural and Investment Funds. The Commission would suggest that relevant authorities and stakeholders consider how local companies could benefit of these funding opportunities to develop their competitive position.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-002638/14

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(6 maart 2014)

Betreft: Subsidieverlening aan „Notre Europe — Jacques Delors Institute”

In 2012 heeft het Jacques Delors Institute EUR 1 350 000 aan inkomsten ontvangen. Bijna de helft daarvan is afkomstig uit het „Europe for Citizens Programme” van uw Commissie (128). In dat kader de volgende vragen:

Kunt u aangeven hoeveel geld de Commissie exact aan het Jacques Delors Institute heeft gegeven in 2012, 2013 en het huidige verkiezingsjaar 2014?

Zijn er buiten het Jacques Delors Institute nog meer stichtingen, instellingen dan wel (semi) NGO’s die in 2013 en 2014 een EU-bijdrage hebben ontvangen via het „Europe for Citizens programme”?

Op 25 februari jl. schreef Yves Bertoncini, directeur van het Jacques Delors Institute: „It is hardly surprising, then, that higher-than-normal popular support is going to political parties who slam the EU. Those wishing to destroy the European integration have no positive proposals to address the problems and fears they exploit and absolutely no chance of obtaining a majority at the European Parliament.” en: „The European election campaign must naturally draw positive attention to the opportunities and advantages of European integration, for example in terms of economic growth and employment or human exchanges. But it must not leave the fear being invoked only by „populists”, whose increased popularity is both an ineffective solution and an additional threat to Europeans” (129).

3.

Kunt u aangeven hoe het „Europe for Citizens Programme” Europa via subsidie aan dit Jacques Delors Institute dichter bij de burger tracht te brengen en dan met name het groeiende eurosceptische deel van het electoraat? Kunt u wellicht uitleggen hoe Europa „for the citizens” is, terwijl tegelijkertijd een significant deel van die „citizens” wordt buitengesloten door dit soort uitspraken?

4.

Vindt de Commissie dat een stichting die wordt gesubsidieerd door uw Commissie zich op bovenstaande wijze mag mengen in de Europese verkiezingen? Zo ja, bent u niet van mening dat u zich tijdens de verkiezingen onafhankelijk en neutraal moet opstellen? Zo nee, wat gaat u hieraan doen?

5.

Vindt u de uitspraken van de directeur van dit door uw Commissie gesubsidieerde Jacques Delors Institute getuigen van respect voor de parlementaire democratie in het algemeen en het werk van de democratisch door het volk gekozen eurosceptische europarlementsleden in het bijzonder?

6.

Bent u voornemens de directeur van het Jacques Delors Institute tot de politieke orde te roepen? Zo nee, waarom niet? Zo ja, op welke  termijn?

Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie

(7 april 2014)

Het programma „Europa voor de burger” (130) biedt structurele steun aan Europese organisaties die onderzoek naar overheidsbeleid doen, en aan Europese maatschappelijke organisaties.

In het kader van het programma „Europa voor de burger” (2007-2013) kreeg de organisatie „Notre Europe‐Jacques Delorsinstituut” in 2012 een exploitatiesubsidie van 500 000 EUR, en in 2013 een exploitatiesubsidie van 500 000 EUR en een projectsubsidie van 195 000 EUR. Aangezien het nieuwe „Europa voor de burger”-programma nog niet in werking is getreden op 1 januari 2014, zoals eerst gepland, werd voor het jaar 2014 nog geen subsidie toegekend.

Het nieuwe „Europa voor de burger”-programma beoogt onder andere de democratische en burgerparticipatie aan te moedigen op het niveau van de Unie, door het inzicht van burgers in de beleidsvorming van de Unie te ontwikkelen en door de mogelijkheden tot maatschappelijke en interculturele betrokkenheid en vrijwilligersactiviteiten op het niveau van de Unie te bevorderen. Met het programma zal worden getracht om Europa dichter bij alle burgers, inclusief de eurosceptische burgers, te brengen, door hun de mogelijkheid te bieden hun ideeën, angst en hoop uit te drukken via projecten die door hen werden ontwikkeld, met het volste respect voor de beginselen van diversiteit, pluralisme en vrije meningsuiting.

Organisaties die in het kader van de „Europa voor de burger”-programma's exploitatiesubsidies krijgen, zoals het „Notre Europe‐Jacques Delorsinstituut”, moeten werkprogramma's opzetten die in overeenstemming zijn met de doelstellingen van het programma, die door het Europees Parlement zijn bevestigd, toen het heeft ingestemd met de ontwerpverordening van de Raad tot oprichting van het „Europa voor de burger”-programma op 18 november 2013.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002638/14

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Granting of a subsidy to ‘Notre Europe — Jacques Delors Institute’

In 2012, the Jacques Delors Institute received income of EUR 1 350 000, with almost half of this revenue coming from the Commission’s ‘Europe for Citizens Programme’ (131). In the light of the above:

Can the Commission indicate precisely how much money the Commission gave to the Jacques Delors Institute in 2012, 2013 and the current election year of 2014?

Can the Commission confirm whether, in addition to the Jacques Delors Institute, any other organisations, institutions or (semi-)NGOs received an EU contribution through the ‘Europe for Citizens programme’ in 2013 and 2014?

On 25 February 2013, Yves Bertoncini, director of the Jacques Delors Institute, wrote: ‘It is hardly surprising, then, that higher-than-normal popular support is going to political parties who slam the EU. Those wishing to destroy the European integration have no positive proposals to address the problems and fears they exploit and absolutely no chance of obtaining a majority at the European Parliament.’ and: ‘The European election campaign must naturally draw positive attention to the opportunities and advantages of European integration, for example in terms of economic growth and employment or human exchanges. But it must not leave the fear being invoked only by “populists”, whose increased popularity is both an ineffective solution and an additional threat to Europeans’. (132)

3.

Can the Commission indicate how the ‘Europe for Citizens Programme’ is seeking to bring Europe closer to its citizens, and in particular the growing Eurosceptic constituent of the electorate, by way of the subsidy to this Jacques Delors Institute? Can it perhaps explain how Europe is ‘for the citizens’, while a significant proportion of these ‘citizens’ are being excluded by such statements?

4.

Does the Commission believe that an organisation which it subsidises should interfere in the European elections in the abovementioned sense? If so, does it not think that it should adopt an independent and neutral approach during the elections? If not, what does it intend to do about it?

5.

Does it think that the statements made by the director of this Jacques Delors Institute, which is subsidised by the Commission, are respectful of parliamentary democracy in general and in particular of the work of the Eurosceptic MEPs who have been democratically elected by the people?

6.

Does it intend to take action to bring the director of the Jacques Delors Institute into line politically? If not, why not? If so, when will this be done?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2014)

The Europe for Citizens Programme (133) provides structural support for European public policy research organisations and for European civil society organisations.

Within the Europe for Citizens Programme (2007-2013), the organisation ‘Notre Europe — Jacques Delors Institute’ was awarded an operating grant of EUR 500 000 in 2012 as well as an operating grant of EUR 500 000 and a project grant of EUR 195 000 in 2013. As the new Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) has not entered into force on 1 January 2014 as foreseen, so far no grant was awarded for the year 2014.

One of the objectives of the new Europe for Citizens Programme will be to encourage the democratic and civic participation of citizens at Union level, by developing citizens understanding of the Union policy-making process and promoting opportunities for societal and intercultural engagement and volunteering at Union level. The programme will seek to bring Europe closer to all citizens including Eurosceptic citizens by giving them the opportunity to express their ideas, fears and hopes in projects developed by them in full respect of the principles of diversity, pluralism and freedom of speech.

Organisations receiving operating grants within the Europe for Citizens Programme such as ‘Notre Europe — Jacques Delors Institute’ have to develop work programmes in line with the objectives of the programme that have been confirmed by the European Parliament as it gave its consent to the draft Council Regulation setting up the Europe for Citizens Programme on 18 November 2013.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-002639/14

aan de Commissie

Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)

(6 maart 2014)

Betreft: Betrokkenheid van het Europees Parlement bij het Europees semester

De cyclus van het Europees semester vangt aan met de publicatie van de jaarlijkse groeianalyse, waarin de Commissie een overzicht geeft van de economische prioriteiten van de EU. Op basis van dit Commissiedocument stelt de Europese Raad jaarlijks richtsnoeren vast voor het economisch beleid. In de periode 2011‐2013 zijn de door de Commissie aangegeven economische prioriteiten door de Europese Raad ongewijzigd overgenomen, ondanks talloze aanmerkingen hierop van het Parlement.

In zijn resolutie van 25 februari 2014 over „het Europees semester voor economische beleidscoördinatie: sociale en werkgelegenheidsaspecten in de jaarlijkse groeianalyse 2014” dringt het Parlement aan op een interinstitutioneel akkoord om het Parlement te betrekken bij de opstelling en goedkeuring van de jaarlijkse groeianalyse.

1.

Wanneer en op welke wijze zal de Commissie een vervolg geven aan het verzoek van het Parlement om een interinstitutioneel akkoord  ter waarborging van de democratische legitimiteit van beleidsmaatregelen die genomen worden in het kader van het Europees semester?

2.

Hoe kan er volgens de Commissie het best voor gezorgd worden dat het Parlement daadwerkelijk de bevoegdheid heeft om de door de Commissie in haar jaarlijkse groeianalyse voorgestelde economische prioriteiten te wijzigen voordat deze door de Raad en de Europese Raad worden besproken?

Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie

(15 april 2014)

De jaarlijkse groeianalyse vormt de bijdrage van de Commissie tot de discussie over de prioriteiten van het economisch beleid door de Europese Raad. Zij schetst het standpunt van de Commissie over de economische prioriteiten voor het komende jaar. Het doel van de jaarlijkse groeianalyse is om een debat op gang te brengen op Europees niveau, namelijk met het Parlement en de Raad.

In haar „Blauwdruk voor een hechte Economische en Monetaire Unie” heeft de Commissie opgemerkt dat een grotere betrokkenheid van het Parlement bij de besprekingen over de jaarlijkse groeianalyse van de Commissie mogelijk is. Op cruciale momenten tijdens het Europees semester zouden er immers twee debatten kunnen worden gehouden in het Parlement, namelijk vóór de Europese Raad de jaarlijkse groeianalyse van de Commissie bespreekt en vóór de vaststelling door de Raad van de landenspecifieke aanbevelingen (CSR’s).

Met dit doel voor ogen heeft de Commissie het idee gelanceerd van een interinstitutioneel akkoord tussen het Europees Parlement, de Raad en de Commissie. Het zou echter de taak van de volgende Commissie zijn om deze mogelijkheid te onderzoeken.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002639/14

to the Commission

Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Involvement of the European Parliament in the European Semester

The European Semester cycle starts with the publication of the Annual Growth Survey (AGS), in which the EU's economic priorities are outlined. The European Council issues its yearly economic policy guidance on the basis of this document, which is drafted by the Commission. In the period 2011-2013 the economic priorities set by the Commission have been endorsed by the European Council without changes, despite Parliament's numerous comments.

In its resolution of 25 February 2014 on ‘The European Semester for economic policy coordination: Employment and Social Aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2014’, Parliament calls for an interinstitutional agreement in order to involve Parliament in the drafting and approval of the AGS.

1.

How and when is the Commission going to follow up on Parliament's request to enter into an interinstitutional agreement in order to ensure sufficient democratic legitimacy of the policies pursued in the European Semester?

2.

In the Commission's view, what is the best way to ensure that Parliament has the de facto power to amend the economic priorities proposed by the Commission in the Annual Growth Survey before they are discussed by the Council and the European Council?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2014)

The Annual Growth Survey is the Commission's contribution to the discussion of economic policy priorities by the European Council. It outlines the Commission's view on the economic priorities for the coming year. The purpose of the Annual Growth Survey is to open a debate at EU level, namely with the Parliament and the Council.

In its ‘Blueprint for a deep and genuine Economic and Monetary Union’, the Commission suggested that a stronger involvement of the Parliament in the discussions on the Commission's Annual Growth Survey could be envisaged. In particular, two debates in Parliament could be held at key moments of the European Semester, namely before the European Council discusses the Commission's Annual Growth Survey and before the adoption by the Council of the country-specific recommendations (CSRs).

In this context, the Commission put forward the idea that this could be achieved through an interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it would be for the next Commission to examine this option.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-002640/14

à la Commission

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE)

(6 mars 2014)

Objet: projet de lignes directrices concernant les aides d'État dans le domaine de l'environnement et de l'énergie pour la période 2014-2020

Le 18 décembre 2013, la Commission a entamé des consultations avec les parties intéressées sur la révision des lignes directrices concernant les aides d'État destinées aux projets en matière d'environnement et d'énergie. Nous considérons que ces lignes directrices constituent une violation du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne et de la directive 2009/28/CE sur les énergies renouvelables, étant donné que les dispositions juridiques non contraignantes qu'elles contiennent livrent une définition trop étroite des outils de politique énergétique des États membres. Elles vont donc à l'encontre de l'article 290, paragraphe 1, du traité FUE, qui dispose que «les éléments essentiels d'un domaine sont réservés à l'acte législatif et ne peuvent donc pas faire l'objet d'une délégation de pouvoir».

Les lignes directrices instaurent un système d'adjudication comme principal instrument de soutien pour développer l'utilisation des énergies renouvelables. Toutefois, l'expérience acquise avec ce système jusqu'à présent est rare et essentiellement négative. Ces lignes directrices compromettent fortement la liberté des États membres de choisir le mécanisme de soutien le plus adéquat et constituent donc une tentative de passer outre aux dispositions spécifiques de la directive sur les énergies renouvelables (droit dérivé) par le biais du droit tertiaire.

Nous demandons une transparence totale sur cette question. Nous savons que de nombreuses parties intéressées, y compris les États membres, pensent que les modifications proposées auront un effet négatif sur les projets d'intérêt collectif et les coopératives de citoyens.

1.

Combien de parties intéressées ont participé à la consultation?

2.

Dans quelles proportions les différentes parties intéressées ont-elles participé (secteur privé, États membres, régions ou Länder, coopératives, municipalités, ONG)?

3.

Quelles sont les principales inquiétudes exprimées par les gouvernements, les coopératives et les responsables de projets d'intérêt collectif?

4.

Comment la Commission entend-elle prendre en compte les critiques formulées sur les appels d'offres technologiquement neutres en tant qu'instrument principal de demande d'aide ainsi que sur les seuils arbitraires et peu élevés servant à différencier les technologies matures et immatures? Comment la Commission entend-elle définir le droit à bénéficier du système de tarif de rachat?

5.

Il a récemment été révélé que la Commission a l'intention de faire adopter le projet final d'ici le début du mois d'avril 2014. Le délai étant très serré, nous pensons que les citoyens risquent de rejeter cette procédure de consultation, qu'ils pourraient considérer comme une mascarade. Comment la Commission entend-elle garantir que les principes de bonne gouvernance inscrits dans le traité de Lisbonne seront respectés et que les commentaires de toutes les parties intéressées seront correctement analysés et pris en compte?

Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission

(7 avril 2014)

La Commission a reçu 4 494 réponses dont beaucoup ne sont pas directement liées aux lignes directrices et expriment des préoccupations générales au sujet de l'énergie éolienne.

77 % de citoyens, 14 % d'entreprises, 5 % de représentants de l'industrie, 2 % d'ONG actives dans le domaine de l'environnement, 0,2 % d'autorités publiques (locales ou régionales, régulateurs de l'énergie) et 1 % de répondants divers (associations locales, par exemple). 22 États membres, la Norvège et l'AELE ont répondu à la consultation.

De manière générale, les pouvoirs publics accueillent favorablement le réexamen des lignes directrices tout en demandant à disposer d'une marge de manœuvre pour décider de leur bouquet énergétique. Les coopératives énergétiques demandent que les tarifs de rachat soient maintenus pour les installations qui produisent de l'énergie renouvelable. Un grand nombre de citoyens et d'associations locales sont critiques à l'égard de la promotion des éoliennes, du fait des incidences négatives que celles-ci ont sur la santé, l'économie locale et l'environnement.

En réponse à la consultation, la Commission envisage de prévoir des conditions accordant aux États membres beaucoup plus de latitude pour décider du lancement d'appel d'offres en vue de soutenir les énergies renouvelables et des technologies à prendre en compte dans ce cadre, ainsi que pour décider du maintien ou non de la distinction entre technologies déployées et moins déployées. Ces conditions limiteraient les distorsions de concurrence au sein du marché intérieur et garantirait la réalisation des objectifs en matière d'énergies renouvelables à l'horizon 2020. La Commission envisage également de prolonger la période de transition et de maintenir les tarifs de rachat pour les petites installations.

L'analyse des réponses n'est pas terminée. La Commission revoit actuellement son projet en tenant le plus grand compte de ces réponses et des discussions avec les États membres et les parties prenantes.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002640/14

to the Commission

Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Draft Guidelines on environmental and energy state aid for 2014-2020

On 18 December 2013, the Commission opened a stakeholder consultation on the revision of state aid guidelines for environmental and energy projects. We are of the opinion that the guidelines represent a breach of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Renewables Directive 2009/28/EC, since their soft-law approach excessively defines energy policy tools for Member States. They thus contradict Article 290(1) of the TFEU, which stipulates that ‘essential elements of an area shall be reserved for the legislative act and accordingly shall not be the subject of a delegation of power’.

The guidelines impose a tendering scheme as a main support tool to expand renewable energy deployment. However, so far there has been very little, and mainly negative, experience of this scheme. These guidelines impact strongly on Member States’ freedom to choose the most appropriate support mechanism and therefore constitute an attempt to overrule specific provisions of the Renewables Directive (secondary law) with tertiary law.

We demand full transparency on this issue, as we know that many stakeholders, including Member States, believe the proposed changes will have a negative impact on communal projects and citizens’ cooperatives.

1.

How many stakeholders participated in the consultation?

2.

What was the participation ratio among the different stakeholders (industry, Member States, regions or Länder, cooperatives, municipalities, NGOs)?

3.

What are the main concerns expressed by governments, cooperatives and communal projects?

4.

How does the Commission intend to integrate criticisms regarding technology-neutral bidding as the main mechanism to apply for support and the arbitrary and low thresholds for distinguishing between mature and immature technologies? How will the Commission define eligibility for feed-in tariff support?

5.

It was recently disclosed that the Commission intends to have the final draft approved by early April 2014. The timing seems to be very tight and we think there is a risk that the whole consultation process could be dismissed by European citizens as farcical. How will the Commission ensure that the principles of good governance enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty are safeguarded and that all stakeholders’ comments are adequately evaluated and respected?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2014)

The Commission has received 4 494 replies. Many are not directly linked to the Guidelines but express general concerns about wind power.

77% citizens, 14% companies, 5% industry representatives, 2% environmental NGOs, 0.2% other public authorities (local, regional, energy regulators), and 1% other (like local associations). 22 Member States, Norway and EFTA replied to the consultation.

Governments generally welcome the review while pleading for flexibility to decide on their energy mix. Energy cooperatives ask to maintain feed-in-tariffs for renewable energy installations. Many local associations and individual citizens are critical about the promotion of wind turbines for their negative impacts on health, the local economy and the environment.

In response to the consultation the Commission is considering including conditions which give Member States much more flexibility to decide when they tender RES support and which technologies to include in such a process, and whether to maintain the distinction between deployed and less deployed technologies. Such conditions would limit distortions to the internal market and ensure that the 2020 renewables targets are met. A longer transition period and continuation of feed-in tariffs for small installations are also being considered.

The analysis of replies is still on-going. The Commission is revising the draft taking the utmost account of those replies and the input from discussions with Member States and stakeholders.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-002641/14

a la Comisión

Iratxe García Pérez (S&D)

(6 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Protección de la UE contra la plaga Black Spot

El elevado riesgo de contagio, para las plantaciones de cítricos europeas, de Guirlardia Citricarpa (Black Spot) por la llegada de fruta contaminada, ha sido confirmado por la EFSA en su informe de 21 de febrero de 2014.

La fruta contaminada ha estado entrando en la EU, a lo largo de estos últimos años y especialmente en 2013, en importaciones procedentes de Sudáfrica: 38 interceptaciones de cítricos contaminados, varias de ellas posteriores al anuncio de medidas paliativas y cautelares por el Gobierno de este país. Pese a ello, la Comisión solo propuso cerrar parcialmente la frontera, cuando la campaña de importación desde Sudáfrica ya había finalizado.

Teniendo en cuenta que el sector de los cítricos en la EU juega un papel social, medioambiental y económico fundamental, siendo fuente de empleo (especialmente joven y femenino) en regiones especialmente afectadas por la crisis económica y el desempleo; teniendo en cuenta que, si llegara a producirse el contagio, podría ser necesario arrancar hasta 500 000 hectáreas de plantaciones citrícolas en la EU, lo que supondría un gasto colosal de dinero público,

¿no cree la Comisión que habría razones más que suficientes para cerrar de inmediato la frontera a los cítricos procedentes de Sudáfrica antes de que comience su campaña de exportación a la UE y evitar una situación similar a la vivida en 2013?

¿no cree la Comisión que la protección fitosanitaria de las plantaciones comunitarias en cualquier sector, así como el principio de «mercado único europeo», deberían estar por encima de cualquier interés comercial de algunos operadores que, según parece, prefieren seguir arriesgando al sector citrícola en aras de otros intereses?

Respuesta del Sr. Borg en nombre de la Comisión

(26 de marzo de 2014)

A fin de cubrir la próxima campaña comercial de cítricos procedentes de Sudáfrica y antes de la revisión de los requisitos generales de importación relativos a la mancha negra de los cítricos, la Comisión considerará la adopción de medidas específicas más estrictas para Sudáfrica.

El régimen fitosanitario de la UE tiene como objetivo proteger todos los sectores agrícolas y hortícolas de la Unión contra las plagas y las enfermedades nocivas. Para cumplir este objetivo, la Unión regula la introducción y los traslados internos de determinados vegetales y productos vegetales estableciendo requisitos fitosanitarios específicos. Estos requisitos deben cumplirse antes de comercializar dichos productos.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002641/14

to the Commission

Iratxe García Pérez (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Protecting the EU from Citrus Black Spot

The high risk to European citrus plantations of contagion with Guignardia Citricarpa (Citrus Black Spot), due to the importation of contaminated fruit, has been confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority’s scientific opinion of 21 February 2014.

In recent years, infected fruit has reached the EU in consignments imported from South Africa, particularly in 2013: 38 consignments of contaminated citrus fruit were intercepted, some of them after the Spanish Government had announced palliative and precautionary measures. Despite this situation, the Commission only proposed to partially close the border, once the import season from South Africa was already over.

In view of the fact that the EU’s citrus fruit sector plays a fundamental social, environmental and economic role and is a source of employment, particularly for young people and women, in regions which have been hard hit by the economic crisis and unemployment, and bearing in mind that any introduction of this disease would lead to up to 500 000 hectares of citrus orchards being uprooted in the EU, at huge public expense, does the Commission not think there are more than enough reasons to immediately close our borders to citrus fruit from South Africa before the start of that country’s next export season to the EU, thereby avoiding a repeat of what happened in 2013?

Does the Commission not think that the protection of plant health in Community crops in any sector, and the start of the European single market, should outweigh the commercial interests of those operators who seem happy to continue endangering the citrus sector in order to pursue other goals?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2014)

In order to cover the upcoming trade season of citrus fruit from South Africa and in advance of the revision of the general import requirements for citrus black spot, the Commission will consider the adoption of specific more strict measures for South Africa.

The EU plant health regime aims to protect all agricultural and horticultural sectors in the Union from harmful pests and diseases. In order to meet this aim, the Union regulates the introduction and internal movements of certain plants and plant products establishing specific phytosanitary requirements. Before trade takes place these phytosanitary requirements should be met.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-002642/14

an die Kommission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Zukunft des sozialen Unternehmertums in Europa

Im Rahmen der von der Kommission am 16. und 17. Januar 2014 in Straßburg organisierten Konferenz „Soziales Unternehmertum — Deine Meinung zählt!“ mit rund 2 000 Teilnehmer/innen aus Politik, Sozialwirtschaft, Wissenschaft usw. wurde erörtert, wie sich die „Initiative für soziales Unternehmertum“ der EU auf die Sozialwirtschaft in Europa bisher ausgewirkt und entwickelt hat. Auf Basis der gesammelten Expertisen, der Workshop-Ergebnisse und verschiedener offener Foren wurde die „Straßburger Erklärung“ verfasst.

Aus aktueller Sicht ergeben sich daher folgende Fragen:

Welche konkreten Schritte plant die Kommission, um die Förderung des sozialen Unternehmertums verstärkt voranzutreiben?

Wie sollen soziale Innovationen und das Management sozialer Innovationen mit den zukünftigen Maßnahmen für das soziale Unternehmertum verknüpft werden?

Wie wird 2014 sichergestellt, dass das soziale Unternehmertum in die Umsetzung der neuen EU-Förderprogramme — vor allem in den Bereichen Beschäftigung, KMU, Umwelt, Energie, Jugend, Forschung und Dienstleistungen — integriert wird?

Welche Unterstützung beabsichtigt die Kommission den Mitgliedstaaten und Regionen bei der Programmierung des Investitionsschwerpunktes „Soziales Unternehmertum“ in den Programmen der europäischen Struktur‐ und Investitionsfonds anzubieten, und mit wie vielen Mitgliedstaaten wird konkret darüber verhandelt?

Wann ist zu erwarten, dass der Sozialinvestitionsfonds, begleitet von einem Zertifizierungs-/Kennzeichnungssystem, mit dem bei Investoren Vertrauen geschaffen wird, europaweit zur Verfügung steht?

Welche nächsten Schritte beabsichtigt die Kommission — nach der Einführung eines europäischen Statuts für Gegenseitigkeitsgesellschaften und Genossenschaften — bei der Umsetzung auch für Vereine und Stiftungen?

Welche Unterstützung wird den Mitgliedstaaten bei der Umsetzung und Anwendung der neuen Richtlinie über die Vergabe öffentlicher Aufträge im Hinblick auf die Einbeziehung sozialer und ökologischer Kriterien angeboten, um Sozialunternehmen einen effektiveren Zugang zu öffentlichen Aufträgen zu ermöglichen?

Was wird unternommen, um soziales Unternehmertum in die nationalen Programme zur Bekämpfung der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit zu integrieren?

Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission

(5. Mai 2014)

1.

In der Straßburger Erklärung werden alle Beteiligten aufgerufen, soziales Unternehmertum in Europa zu unterstützen und zu fördern. Die Erklärung empfiehlt eine rasche Umsetzung der Initiative für soziales Unternehmertum und enthält Vorschläge für eine mögliche Fortsetzung des Projekts. Die Kommission prüft derzeit alle Vorschläge.

2.

Soziale Innovationen können dazu dienen, soziale Bedürfnisse zu decken und soziale Herausforderungen zu überwinden. Sie werden durch die Programme EaSI und Horizont 2020 unterstützt. Dem Sozialinvestitionspaket (134) zufolge könnte der private Sektor spezielle innovative Finanzinstrumente schaffen.

3.

Im EaSI-Programm sind 86 Mill. EUR für die Finanzierung sozialer Unternehmen vorgesehen. Damit soll die Entwicklung eines Markts für Sozialinvestitionen unterstützt und den Unternehmen der Zugang zu Finanzierungen erleichtert werden.

4.

Unter den Strukturfonds können die Mitgliedstaaten soziales Unternehmertum als Investitionsschwerpunkt wählen. Dies ist auch den Programmplanungsdokumenten zu entnehmen. Wenn die Mitgliedstaaten dies nicht ausdrücklich als Ziel wählen, können Projekte im Rahmen anderer thematischer Schwerpunkte finanziert werden.

5.

Fonds der Kategorie EuSEF (135) ermöglichen es unterschiedlichsten Investoren, Kapital in der Sozialwirtschaft anzulegen. Diese Fonds müssen in nicht börsennotierte Firmen investieren, die sich in erster Linie Zielen mit positiver sozialer Wirkung verschrieben haben. Fonds, die den EuSEF-Bestimmungen entsprechen, sind Investoren, die mindestens 100 000 EUR bereitstellen, vorbehalten.

6.

Weitere Gespräche über Europäische Statute für andere Formen sozialer Unternehmen können nach der Verabschiedung des Statuts der Europäischen Stiftung beginnen.

7.

Die Mitgliedstaaten werden von der Government Expert Group on Public Procurement (Arbeitsgruppe der Regierungssachverständigen zum öffentlichen Auftragswesen) in bilateralen Treffen und mit Leitlinien unterstützt.

8.

Die Empfehlung des Rates zur Einführung einer Jugendgarantie (136) enthält einen Verweis auf die Unterstützung sozialen Unternehmertums und fordert ESF-Verwaltungsbehörden auf, in ihren ESF-Programmen entsprechende Investitionsprioritäten zu setzen.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002642/14

to the Commission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Future of social entrepreneurship in Europe

At the conference entitled ‘Social entrepreneurs — have your say!’ organised by the Commission in Strasbourg on 16 and 17 January 2014 some 2 000 participants from realms including politics, the social economy and academia discussed the impact the EU’s ‘Social Business Initiative’ has had thus far on the social economy in Europe. They drew up the ‘Strasbourg declaration’ on the basis of the expert contributions to the conference, the outcome of the workshops held and the views expressed in various open discussion forums.

1.

What practical steps does the Commission plan to take in order to step up support for social entrepreneurship?

2.

How will future measures to foster social entrepreneurship tie in with social innovations and the management of social innovations?

3.

In 2014, what steps will be taken to ensure that the issue of social entrepreneurship is reflected in the measures drawn up to implement the new EU support programmes, in particular in the areas of employment, SMUs, the environment, energy, youth, research and services?

4.

What support does the Commission plan to offer Member States and regions to help them implement the investment priority ‘social entrepreneurship’ in programmes carried out under the EU Structural Funds and Investment Fund, and with how many Member States are specific negotiations being conducted?

5.

When will the social entrepreneurship funds, combined with a certification/labelling system designed to foster investor confidence, likely to be available Europe-wide?

6.

What steps does the Commission now plan to take — following the introduction of a European statute for mutual societies and cooperatives — to establish a similar framework for associations and foundations?

7.

What support will the Member States be offered to help them take account of social and environmental criteria when transposing and applying the new directive on public procurement, with a view to guaranteeing social enterprises better access to public contracts?

8.

What steps are being taken to incorporate ideas linked to social entrepreneurship into national programmes to combat youth unemployment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(5 May 2014)

1.

The Strasbourg Declaration calls on all actors to foster and promote social entrepreneurship in Europe. It advocates a swift implementation of the Social Business Initiative and makes suggestions for a possible follow-up. The Commission is currently examining these suggestions.

2.

Social innovation addresses social needs or challenges. It is supported under the EaSI Programme and Horizon 2020. The SIP (137) mentions the private sector which could create specific innovative financial instruments.

3.

EUR 86 million is earmarked for financing social enterprises under EaSI with the aim of supporting the development of the social investment market and facilitate their access to finance.

4.

Structural Funds allow MSs to choose social entrepreneurship as an investment priority. This is reflected in the programming documents. If MSs choose not to have it as an explicit objective, projects may still be financed under other thematic objectives.

5.

EuSEFs (138) enable a wide range of investors to invest in the social economy. Such funds must invest in unlisted firms which have the primary aim of achieving a positive social impact. Funds complying with the EuSEF regulations will be eligible for investors who commit at least EUR 100 000.

6.

Future discussions on European statutes for other forms of social enterprise could start after the adoption of the Statute for a European Foundation.

7.

Assistance will be provided to MSs by the Commission Government Expert Group on Public Procurement, through bilateral meetings and guidance notes.

8.

The Council Recommendation on Establishing a Youth Guarantee (139) makes a reference to the support of social entrepreneurship, inviting ESF managing authorities to make use of the relevant investment priorities in their ESF programmes.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-002643/14

alla Commissione

Erminia Mazzoni (PPE)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Presunto dumping nel mercato italiano delle carni cunicole

Secondo recenti dati statistici, le importazioni di carni cunicole dell'Italia provengono per il 55 % dalla Francia, il 26 % dall'Ungheria e il 16 % dalla Spagna. Durante il 2013 dalla Francia sono arrivati in Italia quasi 15 000 quintali di conigli macellati, con un incremento del 22 % rispetto al 2012, quando invece i consumi in Italia sono rimasti pressoché invariati o leggermente calati (meno 2 % nel 2013). Inoltre, occorre considerare che in Italia i prezzi del coniglio «vivo» sono più bassi che nel resto d'Europa. Il surplus di conigli macellati francesi viene immesso in commercio in Italia ad un prezzo inferiore al valore normale del prodotto praticato all'interno della stessa Francia e tale fenomeno, che si ripete ciclicamente da aprile ad agosto di ogni anno, quest'anno è iniziato a febbraio, in concomitanza dei ribassi eccessivi sulla piazza di Verona.

Inoltre, l'elevato livello di autoapprovvigionamento del mercato italiano non sembra giustificare l'aumento delle importazioni.

Può la Commissione indicare se non ritiene che l'immissione in commercio in Italia di carni cunicole provenienti dalla Francia ad un prezzo inferiore al valore normale del prodotto praticato all'interno della stessa Francia non denoti comportamenti scorretti, tesi ad alterare la concorrenza tra paesi europei, praticando un vero e proprio dumping? Può inoltre verificare se la Francia non stia finanziando, attraverso aiuti di Stato, prezzi di dumping a favore delle imprese francesi?

Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione

(31 marzo 2014)

Le pratiche delle imprese che potrebbero falsare la concorrenza nel mercato interno sono disciplinate dagli articoli da 101 a 106 del TFUE (Regole di concorrenza applicabili alle imprese). Alla Commissione non risulta che i produttori francesi di carni cunicole abbiano ricorso a pratiche di tale tipo né che beneficino di aiuti di Stato specifici che, falsando la concorrenza nel mercato interno ai sensi dell'articolo 107 del TFUE, recano pregiudizio agli omologhi di altri Stati membri.

Per quanto attiene ai regimi di aiuto approvati dalla Commissione per il settore agricolo francese, non si può escludere che fra i beneficiari si annoverino anche produttori di carni cunicole. Non può tuttavia essere preclusa a tali produttori, sempre che soddisfino le condizioni di ammissibilità, la possibilità di beneficiare dei regimi di aiuto per il solo motivo che, applicando il principio di libera circolazione delle merci, offrono i loro prodotti sul mercato di un altro Stato membro dell'UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002643/14

to the Commission

Erminia Mazzoni (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Suspicions of dumping on the Italian rabbitmeat market

According to recent statistics, 55% of rabbitmeat imported into Italy comes from France, 26% from Hungary and 16% from Spain. In 2013, Italy imported almost 15 000 quintals of butchered rabbits, a 22% increase over 2012, even though consumption in Italy dropped very slightly (2% less than in 2012). It must also be borne in mind that in Italy prices for ‘live’ rabbits are lower than in the rest of Europe. French surplus butchered rabbits are flooding the Italian market at a price lower than that normally charged in France itself. This phenomenon, which is normally repeated each year between April and August, this year began in February, in parallel with very significant drops in prices on the Verona market.

Apart from anything else, the fact that Italy is essentially self-sufficient in rabbitmeat would not seem to justify the increase in imports.

Does the Commission not agree that flooding the Italian market with rabbitmeat from France, and what is more at prices lower than those normally charged in France itself, is an inappropriate practice which serves to distort competition between Member States and amounts to dumping? Can it check whether France is not financing this dumping by granting French undertakings state aid?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2014)

Practices of undertakings that could distort competition within the internal market are governed by Articles 101 to 106 of the TFEU (Rules on Competition applying to undertakings). The Commission has no indication that French rabbit meat producers have made use of any such practices. Neither is known to the Commission any state aid specifically benefitting French rabbit meat producers that would distort the internal market within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU and thus harm rabbit meat producers in other Member States.

As regards the aid schemes approved by the Commission for the French sector of agriculture, it cannot be excluded that among the beneficiaries of aid there are also rabbit meat producers. However, provided that such producers meet the eligibility conditions, they cannot be excluded from the possibility of benefitting from aid schemes only on the basis that, in application of the principle of free movement of goods, they offer their products on the market of an another EU Member State.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002644/14

al Consejo

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(6 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Inicio de las negociaciones de un nuevo Protocolo de Pesca entre Mauritania y la UE

En su respuesta del 26 de febrero de 2014 a mi pregunta E-014339/2013, la Comisaria Damanaki señala en nombre de la Comisión Europea que, en cuanto reciba la autorización del Consejo, tiene intención de iniciar las negociaciones tendentes a la renovación del Protocolo de Pesca existente entre Mauritania y la UE, que expira en diciembre del presente año.

La Comisión ha informado de que, a tal fin, ha presentado al Consejo una recomendación para que la autorice a entablar negociaciones.

¿Tiene previsto el Consejo conceder su autorización a la Comisión para el inicio de las correspondientes negociaciones o acaso la ha concedido ya? ¿Tiene previsto incluir en el mandato de negociación la obtención de oportunidades para la pesca de cefalópodos por la flota europea? Si ya ha sido otorgado el mandato, ¿contempla esta cuestión?

Respuesta

(13 de mayo de 2014)

El 18 de febrero de 2014, el Consejo adoptó la Decisión por la que se autoriza a la Comisión a entablar negociaciones en nombre de la Unión Europea para la renovación del Protocolo adjunto al Acuerdo de Asociación en el sector pesquero con Mauritania. El 21 de febrero de 2014 se transmitió al Parlamento Europeo una copia en papel de la Decisión (140).

Los mandatos de negociación no especifican ninguna especie en particular. Por ello cualquier posible inclusión de oportunidades de pesca para una especie específica en un Protocolo depende de:

las solicitudes de los Estados miembros de la UE al respecto,

la determinación de la existencia de un remanente de capturas del total admisible sobre la base de los mejores dictámenes científicos disponibles y de un cambio de información pertinente entre la Unión y el tercer país de que se trate, y

el deseo del tercer país de poner a disposición de la Unión ese remanente.

Cabe señalar que en el actual Protocolo, la República Islámica de Mauritania ejerció su derecho de Estado soberano y, en respuesta a una solicitud de la UE, declaró que no quedaba disponible ningún excedente de cefalópodos, subrayando así que su flota nacional quería explotar estos recursos.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002644/14

to the Council

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Start of negotiations on the new EU-Mauritania Fisheries Protocol

In her answer of 26 February 2014 to my Question E-014339/2013, Commissioner Damanaki stated on behalf of the European Commission that, as soon as it receives authorisation from the Council, it intends to start the negotiations for renewal of the existing Fisheries Protocol between Mauritania and the EU, which expires in December this year.

The Commission has stated that, to that end, it has submitted to the Council a recommendation for it to be authorised to open negotiations.

Does the Council plan to authorise the Commission to open the corresponding negotiations or has it done so already? Does it intend to include in the mandate for negotiations a proposal to obtain opportunities for the European fishing fleet to catch cephalopods? If authorisation has already been granted, does the mandate include this question?

Reply

(13 May 2014)

On 18 February 2014, the Council adopted a decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the European Union for the renewal of the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Mauritania. A paper copy of the decision was transmitted to the European Parliament on 21 February 2014 (141).

Negotiation mandates do not single out any one particular species. Therefore, any possible inclusion of fishing opportunities for a specific species in a Protocol depends on:

requests from the EU Member States in this respect,

the establishment of a catch surplus of the allowable catch on the basis of the best available scientific advice and the exchange of relevant information between the Union and the third country in question, and

the third country's wish to make available any surplus to the Union.

It should be noted that under the current Protocol, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania exercised its rights as a sovereign state and stated, in response to an EU request, that there was no available surplus of cephalopods, thus underlining that it wished its national fleet to exploit these resources.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002645/14

a la Comisión

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(6 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Controles aeroportuarios

Usuarios del transporte aéreo se quejan de diferentes prácticas en los controles aeroportuarios a las que se han visto sometidos en sus desplazamientos por la UE. Las quejas aluden, entre otros, a procedimientos en los aeropuertos de A Coruña y Vigo en España, Helsinki en Finlandia, Copenhague en Dinamarca, Heathrow en el Reino Unido y Bruselas en Bélgica.

Se plantean si existe alguna justificación para que se establezcan diferencias en las prendas de ropa y calzado de las que tienen que despojarse, en el modo en que se procede a la revisión del equipaje, en las condiciones en que se realizan cacheos e inspecciones personales por los encargados y si estas últimas funciones deben ser desempeñadas por agentes de la autoridad y con garantías adecuadas.

1.

¿Considera la Comisión que los aeropuertos de la UE cumplen la normativa europea de control aeroportuario de forma armonizada?

2.

¿Podría indicar la Comisión cuántas denuncias por trato vejatorio o abuso de autoridad se han producido a causa de la realización de procedimientos de control aeroportuarios en la EU en los últimos siete años y qué consecuencias han tenido?

3.

¿Considera la Comisión que debería mejorarse la protección del viajero en el actual sistema de control aeroportuario?

4.

¿Va a adoptar la Comisión alguna medida para evitar que los usuarios del transporte aéreo tengan que someterse a controles de seguridad redundantes con motivo de sus conexiones dentro del espacio Schengen?

5.

¿Podría indicar la Comisión qué puede hacer un pasajero que se enfrenta a una situación de este tipo?

Respuesta del Sr. Kallas en nombre de la Comisión

(28 de abril de 2014)

1.

Las medidas de seguridad aérea de la UE tienen por objeto reducir el riesgo de interferencias ilícitas en la aviación y están adaptadas a las necesidades de seguridad exigidas (pasajeros, equipaje, carga, correo) con el fin de garantizar el máximo nivel de seguridad desde el punto de vista de los resultados.

Las autoridades competentes, los aeropuertos, las líneas aéreas y los demás agentes aplican las medidas de seguridad que son más compatibles con sus operaciones. Su correcta aplicación está supeditada a inspecciones sobre la calidad de la seguridad aérea realizadas a escala nacional o por la Comisión. Esta última publica anualmente un informe destinado al Parlamento en el que le presenta la información correspondiente.

2.

La Comisión no suele recibir denuncias sobre la aplicación de las medidas de seguridad aérea, ya que generalmente suelen dirigirse a la autoridad competente o al propio aeropuerto.

3.

Los niveles de observancia de los que se tiene conocimiento gracias al Programa universal de auditoría de la seguridad de la aviación (USAP) de la OACI muestran que el grado de protección que ofrece el sistema de aeropuertos de la Unión es uno de los mejores del mundo. Junto con los Estados miembros y las partes interesadas, la Comisión garantiza la concepción y el seguimiento continuo de controles efectivos y eficientes de seguridad que simplifican las operaciones y facilitan los viajes de los pasajeros.

4.

La Comisión recuerda que, en los aeropuertos del espacio Schengen, los controles de seguridad de los pasajeros no se duplican desde que la UE aplica el control de seguridad único. A los pasajeros solo se los controla una vez al inicio de su viaje, salvo que se apliquen medidas más estrictas conforme a la normativa de la UE.

5.

Se insta a los pasajeros que se vean sometidos a situaciones injustificadas o abusivas a presentar una denuncia ante la autoridad competente en asuntos de seguridad aérea del Estado correspondiente (142).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002645/14

to the Commission

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Airport controls

Users of air transport complain of different practices they have to put up with at airport controls in the course of their journeys across the EU. These complaints refer, among others, to procedures at A Coruña and Vigo airports in Spain and the airports of Helsinki in Finland, Copenhagen in Denmark, Heathrow in the UK and Brussels in Belgium.

Passengers have asked whether any justification exists for differences in the clothing and footwear they have to remove, how baggage is checked, how they are frisked or body searches are carried out by security staff, and whether these latter functions ought to be carried out by law enforcement officers with proper guarantees.

1.

Does the Commission consider that European airports comply in a harmonised manner with EU regulations on airport controls?

2.

Could the Commission say how many complaints of degrading treatment or abuse of authority have been made in relation to airport control procedures in the EU over the past seven years and what the consequences have been?

3.

Does the Commission consider that passengers should receive greater protection in the present airport control system?

4.

Does the Commission intend to adopt any measures to stop airline passengers from having to submit to pointless security controls at their connections for flights within the Schengen area?

5.

Could the Commission say what a passenger can do when he or she is faced with such a situation?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

1.

EU aviation security measures are designed to mitigate the risk of unlawful interference in aviation and are adapted to the required security needs (passengers, baggage, cargo, mail) to ensure the highest level of security from the outcome point of view.

Responsible authorities, airports, airlines, and other agents implement the security measures that are most compatible with their operations. Their correct application is subject to aviation security quality inspections done at national level or by the Commission. Every year the Commission issues a report providing the Parliament with details thereof.

2.

The Commission rarely receives complaints on the application of aviation security measures since they are normally directed to the relevant Authority or to the airport itself.

3.

The compliance levels evidenced under the Universal Security Audit Programme (USAP) of ICAO show that the level of protection granted by the airport system of the Union is one of the best in the world. With Member States and stakeholders, the Commission ensures the design and constant monitoring of effective and efficient security controls that simplify operations and facilitate passenger travel.

4.

The Commission recalls that no duplicate security screening of passengers takes place in airports within the Schengen area since the EU implements One-stop-security. Passengers are screened only once at the start of their trip (unless more stringent measures are applicable in compliance with EC law).

5.

A passenger faced with unjustified or abusive situations is invited to address a complaint to the appropriate authority for aviation security established in every state (143).

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002646/14

a la Comisión

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(6 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Fraude al consumidor en la información contenida en el etiquetado de pescado

Nuevos estudios científicos ponen de manifiesto la gravedad del fraude al consumidor en el etiquetado de pescado que planteé en mi pregunta E-001836/2013.

A los estudios realizados por la Universidad de Oviedo entre 2006 y 2010, a que me refería entonces, se unen los del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas de España, que alertan del fraude en el etiquetado en porcentajes que oscilan entre el 25 % para atún congelado o fresco, el 12,2 % para semiconservas de anchoa, el 11,3 % para conservas de atún y el 6,5 % para bacalao seco salado.

Las señales de alarma se multiplican. En 2011 la Universidad de Oviedo junto con la Universidad Aristóteles de Grecia mostraban que prácticamente el 40 % de la merluza vendida en ambos países contenían información errónea sobre su procedencia. Un estudio de la Universidad de Dublín del mismo año señalaba que el 28 % de los productos de bacalao comercializados en Irlanda y Reino Unido correspondían a especies más baratas que las indicadas en sus etiquetas.

Al otro lado del Atlántico, un estudio encargado el pasado año por la organización ambientalista Oceana puso de manifiesto que, en los EE.UU., el 33 % de la información sobre el origen del pescado resultaba engañosa. En esta parte del Atlántico, estudios preliminares, pendientes de publicación, en el Reino Unido e Irlanda calculan asimismo tasas de error de entre el 2 % y el 18 %.

A raíz del escándalo de la carne de caballo, hemos sabido que el pescado ocupa el segundo lugar en la lista de los alimentos con mayor riesgo de fraude, solo por detrás del aceite de oliva.

¿Se han producido en este último año nuevos avances en el ámbito del control del etiquetado del pescado y sus productos derivados? ¿Ha adoptado la Comisión alguna nueva medida o tiene previsto adoptarla para asegurar un control sistemático y coordinado en el ámbito de la UE?

Respuesta del Sr. Borg en nombre de la Comisión

(16 de abril de 2014)

La Comisión sigue atentamente los resultados de los estudios que se llevan a cabo dentro o fuera de la UE destinados a evaluar la magnitud de la sustitución de las especies de peces. Dichos estudios llegan a la conclusión de que las discrepancias entre las auténticas especies y la información transmitida al consumidor pueden alcanzar, en ocasiones, proporciones significativas.

En su Resolución sobre la crisis alimentaria, los fraudes en la cadena alimentaria y el control al respecto, aprobada el 14 de enero de 2014, el Parlamento Europeo ha incluido el pescado entre los productos alimenticios que con mayor frecuencia son objeto de fraude. El etiquetado incorrecto del pescado (especies de menor valor de mercado etiquetadas como especies más caras y/o peces de acuicultura etiquetados como silvestres) se sitúa en segundo lugar, después del de aceite de oliva, según una base de datos de los EE.UU. y la «información de organizaciones sectoriales y de distribución minorista», que no ha sido comunicada a la Comisión.

Tras el escándalo de la carne de caballo, la Comisión ha decidido emprender acciones para reforzar la capacidad de todo el sistema de control de la UE con el fin de detectar y combatir el fraude alimentario. Un objetivo clave es mejorar las capacidades de los Estados miembros encargados de efectuar los controles para verificar que los productos alimenticios comercializados cumplen las normas pertinentes nacionales y de la UE. Ello también se considera esencial para facilitar la asistencia y la cooperación administrativas entre las autoridades nacionales cuando se registren infracciones transfronterizas.

La Comisión está investigando actualmente las técnicas de diagnóstico disponibles para detectar el etiquetado incorrecto de las especies de peces en el contexto de los controles oficiales, antes de decidir adoptar otras medidas como, por ejemplo, planes coordinados de control de conformidad con el artículo 53 del Reglamento (CE) n° 882/2004 (144).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002646/14

to the Commission

Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Consumer fraud in information on labels for fish

New scientific research shows the depth of the fraud committed against consumers in fish labelling, to which I referred in my Question E-001836/2013.

In addition to the research carried out by the University of Oviedo between 2006 and 2010, which I referred to then, studies undertaken by the Spanish National Research Council warn of labelling fraud in proportions that range between 25% for fresh or frozen tuna, 12.2% for anchovy semi-preserves, 11.3% for tuna conserves and 6.5% for salted dry cod.

The alarm signals are multiplying. In 2011 the University of Oviedo together with the Aristoteles University of Greece showed that practically 40% of the hake sold in both countries contained wrong information about its origin. Research by the University of Dublin that same year showed that 28% of the cod products marketed in Ireland and the United Kingdom corresponded to cheaper species than what was indicated on the label.

On the other side of the Atlantic, a study commissioned last year by the environmental organisation Oceana revealed that in the United States 33% of the information on the origin of fish was misleading, while on this side preliminary research results, which have not yet been published, in Ireland and the United Kingdom calculate error rates of between 2% and 18%.

As a result of the horsemeat scandal we have learnt that fish comes in second place on the list of foods at risk of fraud, only surpassed by olive oil.

Has any progress been made in the past year in the ambit of checks on labels for fish and fish products? Has the Commission taken any new steps or does it intend to do so in order to ensure systematic and coordinated monitoring within the EU?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2014)

The Commission closely monitors the results of studies aiming to assess the magnitude of fish species substitution, whether they are conducted within or outside the EU. They lead to conclude that discrepancies between the real species and the information conveyed to the consumer may sometimes occur in significant proportion.

The European Parliament has listed fish among food products that are the most often subject to fraud in its resolution entitled ‘The food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof’ adopted on 14 January 2014. The mislabelling of fish species (lower-market-value species labelled as higher-market-value species and/or aquaculture fish labelled as fish caught in the wild) is ranked in second position, after olive oil, on the basis of a US database and of ‘information from retail and branch organisations’ that have not been communicated to the Commission.

Following the horse meat scandal the Commission has decided to undertake actions to strengthen the ability of the EU control system as a whole to detect and counter food fraud. A key objective is to improve the capabilities of the Member States which are responsible for carrying controls to verify that food products placed on the market comply with the relevant national and EU rules. It is also considered critical to facilitate administrative assistance and cooperation among national enforcers in the case of cross border violations.

The Commission is currently investigating the diagnostic techniques available to detect the mislabelling of fish species in the context of official controls before deciding for any further action, for instance in the form of coordinated control plans in accordance with Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (145).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002647/14

an die Kommission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Behinderten-Parkausweise

In der EU leben etwa 80 Millionen Menschen mit Behinderungen, ihr Behindertenausweis gibt ihnen häufig Zugang zu besonderen Vergünstigungen, vor allem im Bereich öffentlicher Verkehrsmittel oder kultureller Einrichtungen.

Diese Unterstützung soll maximal ausgebaut werden. In der „Empfehlung des Rates (98/376/EG) vom 4. Juni 1998 betreffend einen Parkausweis für Behinderte“ wurde erstmals ein einheitliches — aber unverbindliches — EU-Modell entwickelt. Es werden gleiche Standards vorgegeben, welche es Behinderten erlauben, Parkerleichterungen zu bekommen. Außerdem ist der Behinderten-Parkausweis geeignet, Parkraum-Kontrolleuren, Polizisten, etc. die Feststellung zu erleichtern, dass Ausweisinhaber berechtigt sind, die Parkerleichterungen zu nutzen. Auf diese Weise lässt sich auch die unberechtigte Ausstellung von Strafzetteln vermeiden und zugleich den Alltag der Betroffenendeutlich erleichtern.

Leider kommt es zum Beispiel in Österreich vermehrt zu einem Missbrauch von nicht legitimierter Inanspruchnahme von Behinderten-Parkausweisen. Dies könnte einfach unterbunden werden, wenn österreichische Behörden die Empfehlungen des Rates zu einer genauen Angabe des Ablaufdatums vom Gültigkeitsdatum auf den Parkausweisen einhalten würden.

Zu obigem Sachverhalt ergeben sich folgende Fragen:

Was gedenkt die Europäische Kommission zu unternehmen, um Missbrauch von bestehenden Ausweisen durch nicht legitimierte Personen vorzubeugen?

Wie bewertet die Europäische Kommission aus heutiger Sicht die Notwendigkeit einer Europäischen Strategie für Behinderte Personen?

Wird die Europäische Kommission wie angekündigt (Bericht über die Unionsbürgerschaft aus dem Frühjahr 2013, S. 15-16) die Entwicklung eines allgemein anerkannten EU-Behindertenausweises vorantreiben, um Behinderten EU-weit gleichberechtigten Zugang zu bestimmten Sonderleistungen — vornehmlich in den Bereichen Verkehr, Tourismus, Kultur und Freizeit — zu gewährleisten?

Ist dazu ein verpflichtender Rahmen mit Mindestvorgaben innerhalb der Europäischen Union zweckmäßig?

Antwort von Herrn Hahn im Namen der Kommission

(23. April 2014)

Die Kommission verweist den Herrn Abgeordneten auf ihre Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-003132/2013 und möchte hinzufügen, dass das im letzten Absatz genannte Pilotprojekt ausgewählt wurde und im Januar 2014 für einen Zeitraum von drei Jahren gestartet ist.

Eine Überprüfung der Umsetzung der verschiedenen Maßnahmen der Europäischen Strategie zugunsten von Menschen mit Behinderungen 2010-2020 (146) ist im Gange. 2014 soll ein Bericht über die erzielten Fortschritte vorgelegt werden. Ferner wird eine aktualisierte Liste der Maßnahmen ab 2016 vorbereitet.

Zu dem im Bericht über die Unionsbürgerschaft 2013 (147) angekündigten EU-Behindertenausweis hat die Kommission eine Projekt-Arbeitsgruppe eingesetzt, in der sich Vertreter interessierter Mitgliedstaaten (bisher 15) und der Zivilgesellschaft mit den praktischen Modalitäten der Ausstellung und Verwaltung eines europäischen Muster-Behindertenausweises befassen. Diese Gruppe befindet sich noch in der Frühphase ihrer Arbeit. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass die zu entwickelnde Karte Vorteile in den Bereichen Verkehr, Kultur, Freizeit, Sport und Tourismus bieten wird.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002647/14

to the Commission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Disabled parking permits

There are approximately 80 million people with disabilities living in the EU. They often have access to certain entitlements, particularly in connection with public transport or cultural institutions, linked to their disability card.

This support is to be expanded as far as possible. A standard — but not compulsory — EU model was first established in ‘Council Recommendation of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities (98/376/EC)’, which specifies identical standards providing disabled people with parking facilities. The disabled parking card also makes it easier for car park attendants, police officers etc., to ascertain that card holders are entitled to use the parking facilities. This prevents parking tickets from being issued unjustifiably and makes daily life considerably easier for those concerned.

Unfortunately, abuse of the system by people not authorised to hold a disabled parking card is increasingly common, for example in Austria. This could easily be prevented if the Austrian authorities adhered to the Council Recommendation to state the expiry date clearly on the parking cards.

I have the following questions on the above:

What does the European Commission intend to do to prevent the abuse of existing cards by people not authorised to hold them?

What is the European Commission’s current assessment of the need for a European strategy for disabled people?

Will the European Commission press ahead with the development of a generally-recognised EU disabled parking card, as announced (EU Citizenship Report, spring 2013, p. 15-16), to allow disabled people throughout the EU to have equal access to certain special facilities — primarily in the fields of traffic, tourism culture and leisure?

Would it be advisable to establish a compulsory framework of minimum requirements for this within the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2014)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-003132/2013, adding that the pilot project referred to in the last paragraph was selected and started in January 2014, for a period of three years.

A review of the implementation of the various actions of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (148) is ongoing with a view to report in 2014 on progress made and to prepare an updated list of actions from 2016.

Regarding the EU disability card, announced in the EU Citizenship report 2013 (149), the Commission has initiated a Project Working Group where representatives of interested Member States (15 so far) and civil society are dealing with practical details of issuing and managing a European model disability card. This group is still in the early stages of its work but the expectation is that the card to be developed is likely to grant benefits in the areas of transport, culture, leisure, sport and tourism.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002649/14

to the Commission

Phil Bennion (ALDE), Baroness Sarah Ludford (ALDE), George Lyon (ALDE), Bill Newton Dunn (ALDE), Rebecca Taylor (ALDE), Sir Graham Watson (ALDE), Chris Davies (ALDE), Catherine Bearder (ALDE), Andrew Duff (ALDE) and Sharon Bowles (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Protection of geographical indications

Can the Commission give an estimate of the increased added value to local economies from the recognition of European geographical indications (GIs) in the EU’s external trade agreements?

How many of the EU’s trade agreements protect GIs originating in the UK, and how many British products are explicitly protected by GIs?

Would British GIs continue to enjoy protection in third countries and within the EU if the UK were to leave the EU?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2014)

The Commission does not have data available on the added value to local economies from Geographical Indications (GI's) protected through EU's external trade agreements. However, a recent study (2010) on the value of all EU GI's combined, estimated the worldwide wholesales value at EUR 54.3 billion. It furthermore highlighted the importance of exports, with extra-EU trade increasing more rapidly (29%) than production (12%). This export is realised mainly by France (40%), the UK (25%) and Italy (21%) and results from a small number of GI's, among which Scotch Whisky. Moreover, the UK remains the leading producer Member State in whisky, lamb and beef products under GIs.

Nineteen concluded EU trade agreements and three close to conclusion protect GI's originating in the UK (all including Scotch Whisky). Furthermore, the EU is currently negotiating GI protection with at least 13 other partners. All major export markets are covered. At this date the names of 57 agricultural products and foodstuffs, four wines and six spirits originating in the UK are protected by GI's in the EU.

With regard to the third sub-question, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to Question E-003836/2013 (150).

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002650/14

an die Kommission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Hörverlust

Eine Reihe fachspezifischer Studien (151) belegen alarmierende Informationen, wonach es notwendig ist, für eine große Anzahl von europäischen Bürgern mit Hörproblemen die Gesundheitsfürsorge zu verbessern und generell effizientere Präventivmaßnahmen einzuführen.

Dieser Studie zufolge leiden 16 % der EU-Bevölkerung, d. h. 80 Millionen Menschen, an Hörverlust: 30 Millionen davon sind unentdeckte Fälle. Hörverlust an sich stellt bereits ein Problem dar, aber es ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass Hörverlust häufig mit einer Reihe anderer Krankheiten einhergeht, einschließlich Fettleibigkeit, wobei fettleibige Frauen mit einem BMI von mehr als 40 zu 25 % anfälliger für Hörprobleme sind. Nach Bainbridge et al. (2008) leiden Diabetiker doppelt so häufig an Hörverlust, und die Wahrscheinlichkeit, an Demenz zu erkranken, steigt mit dem Grad der Schwerhörigkeit. In Bezug auf Depressionen ist anzumerken, dass das Risiko bei Menschen mit Hörminderung, depressive Symptome zu entwickeln, um 50 % reduziert werden kann, wenn diese Menschen Hörhilfen verwenden.

Angesichts dessen wird die Kommission ersucht, folgende Fragen zu beantworten:

Kann die Kommission angesichts der Tatsache, dass Menschen mit Hörproblemen möglicherweise auch an anderen Krankheiten leiden, erläutern, mit welchen Maßnahmen und Initiativen auf EU-Ebene gefördert wird, dass bei Vorsorgeuntersuchungen für Erwachsene in den Mitgliedstaaten auch systematisch Hör-Tests durchgeführt werden?

Aufgrund des erhöhten Risikos von Mehrfacherkrankungen in Zusammenhang mit Hörverlust benötigen hörgeschädigte Menschen spezifische und integrierte medizinische Versorgung. Kann die Kommission angesichts dessen erläutern, welche Fortschritte auf EU-Ebene zur Förderung einer integrierten Gesundheitsfürsorge erzielt wurden, insbesondere im Rahmen der Europäischen Innovationspartnerschaft im Bereich Aktivität und Gesundheit im Alter?

Antwort von Tonio Borg im Namen der Kommission

(11. April 2014)

Die Kommission verfolgt keine politischen Strategien oder Initiativen zur Unterstützung systematischer Untersuchungen auf Hörverlust im Rahmen der medizinischen Vorsorgeuntersuchungen für Erwachsene in den Mitgliedstaaten. Dies ist eine Angelegenheit der medizinischen Versorgung und fällt laut Vertrag in die Zuständigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten.

Die Kommission engagiert sich für die Förderung von Aktivität und Gesundheit im Alter. Ihre Pilotinitiative ist die Europäische Innovationspartnerschaft im Bereich „Aktivität und Gesundheit im Alter“, mit der die Zahl der gesunden Lebensjahre der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger um zwei erhöht werden soll.

Die Partnerschaft zielt auf Lösungen zur Verbesserung der Lebensqualität älterer Menschen, die Nachhaltigkeit der Gesundheitssysteme und die Umsetzung innovativer Ideen in konkrete Produkte und Dienstleistungen, die der demografischen Entwicklung in Europa Rechnung tragen. In diesem Zusammenhang arbeiten die Partner zusammen, um Gesundheits‐ und Pflegedienstleistungen zu entwickeln und zu koordinieren, damit ältere Menschen aktiv und rüstig bleiben, auch wenn sie einen Hörverlust erleiden, der eine bedeutende funktionelle Einschränkung für die Betroffenen darstellt und die Teilhabe an der Gesellschaft beeinträchtigt. Auch werden IKT-Lösungen entwickelt, um Problemen im Zusammenhang mit dem Hörverlust entgegenzuwirken.

Zur Prävention der Gebrechlichkeit wird derzeit ein Projekt vom Institut Carlos III in Madrid erarbeitet, das auf Ernährungsinterventionen beruht und erforscht, inwieweit Nahrungsergänzungsmittel die Entwicklung von Altersschwerhörigkeit verhindern oder verzögern könnten. Dazu gehört die Entwicklung neuer Nahrungsmittel anhand wissenschaftlich gesicherter Erkenntnisse durch die Industrie.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002650/14

to the Commission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Hearing loss

Professional studies (152) have produced relevant and alarming information that highlights the need to improve the health situation and introduce more effective preventive measures for a significant number of European citizens with hearing problems.

According to one study, some 16% of the EU population, i.e. 80 million people, suffer from hearing loss: of this figure, 30 million correspond to undetected cases. Aside from being a problematic condition in itself, hearing loss is often associated with a number of other diseases, including obesity, with extremely obese women with a BMI in excess of 40 being 25% more likely to suffer from hearing problems. According to Bainbridge et al. (2008), diabetics are twice as likely to suffer from hearing loss, while the likelihood of developing dementia increases with the severity of hearing loss. With regard to depression, the risk for people who are hard of hearing of developing depressive symptoms is reduced by 50% if they use hearing aids.

In light of this, could the Commission answer the following:

Given the increased risk for people who are hard of hearing of suffering from other diseases, can it indicate the policies and initiatives which are in place at EU level to support systematic screening for hearing loss as part of medical check-ups for adults in the Member States?

Owing to the increased risk of multimorbidity associated with their condition, people who are hard of hearing have specific needs in terms of integrated care. In view of this, can the Commission outline any progress that has been made at EU level to promote integrated care, in particular within the framework of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2014)

The Commission does not have policies or initiatives in place which support systematic screening for hearing loss as part of medical check-ups for adults in the Member States. This is a healthcare management issue and falls under the responsibility of Member States, as laid down in the Treaty.

The Commission is taking action to encourage active and healthy ageing. Its pilot initiative is the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing which seeks to increase by two the healthy life years (HLY) of the European citizens.

The Partnership is aimed at finding solutions to improve the quality of life of older people, the sustainability of health systems and to translate innovative ideas into tangible products and services that respond to European demographic challenges. In this context, partners are working to design and coordinate health and care services to enable older people to remain active and functional while living with hearing loss, which is an important functional limitation for patients to participate in the society. ICT solutions are emerging too to help counteract problems related to hearing loss.

In the area of frailty prevention, a project is currently developed by the Institute Carlos III in Madrid, based in dietary interventions with nutritional supplements that could prevent or delay the development of age-related hearing loss. It involves the creation by industry of new nutritional products according to scientific based results.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002651/14

an die Kommission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Internationales Jahr der Familie

Das Recht, eine Familie zu gründen, ist durch Artikel 16 der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte sowie durch Artikel 7, 9 und 33 der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union geschützt.

Das 20. Jubiläum des Internationalen Jahres der Familie bietet 2014 laut der Erklärung der Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen die Gelegenheit, verstärkt Aufmerksamkeit auf die Ziele dieses Internationalen Jahres zu schenken, nämlich die verstärkte Zusammenarbeit auf allen Ebenen bei Familienfragen und konzertierte Aktionen zur wirksamen Stärkung und Förderung auf die Familie ausgerichteter politischer Maßnahmen und Programme.

Die ökonomische und demographische Krise wirkt sich auf keine andere Weltregion so stark aus wie auf Europa. Da nur eine familienfreundliche Gesellschaft stabil sein und prosperieren kann, sollte die Europäische Union die politische Führung auf diesem Gebiet übernehmen.

Darüber hinaus haben die Vereinten Nationen der Europäischen Union vorgeschlagen, eine Familienperspektive in ihre politischen Entscheidungsprozesse zu integrieren. Dies würde die Schaffung eines familienfreundlichen europäischen Rechtsrahmens befördern, wobei alle Stellen zur Gestaltung der Familienpolitik jedoch auf nationaler Ebene verbleiben würden.

1.

Wird die Kommission eine Familienperspektive in ihre politischen Entscheidungsprozesse integrieren, um zu gewährleisten, dass Familienwerte durch EU-Rechtsvorschriften stärker unterstützt werden?

2.

In der Resolution der Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen wird die Bedeutung regionaler und zwischenstaatlicher Organisationen für die Vorbereitungen und Feierlichkeiten zum 20. Jubiläum des Internationalen Jahrs der Familie hervorgehoben. Welche Vorbereitungen hat die Kommission diesbezüglich getroffen?

3.

Plant die Kommission Leitlinien für ihre Generaldirektionen angesichts der Tatsache, dass die EU-Organe Rechtsvorschriften erlassen, von denen die Familie und ihr gesellschaftliches Umfeld in einer ganzen Reihe von Gebieten betroffen sind?

Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission

(28. April 2014)

In der vorherigen Antwort der Kommission auf die Frage P-000568/2014 sind die politische Ausrichtung und die Koordination der verschiedenen Initiativen, die die Kommission zur Förderung des Wohlergehens von Familien und Kindern ergriffen hat, dargelegt; dazu gehören die Mitteilung „Die demografische Zukunft Europas“ (153), das Paket zu Sozialinvestitionen (154) und die im Rahmen des Europäischen Semesters abgegebenen länderspezifischen Empfehlungen. Der Herr Abgeordnete sei bezüglich der Fragen 1 und 3 auf diese Antwort verwiesen.

Zu Ihrer Frage 2 zum 20. Jahrestag des Internationalen Jahres der Familie: Die Kommission hat über eine neue Partnerschaftsrahmenvereinbarung mit der COFACE (155) finanzielle Unterstützung bereitgestellt. Die COFACE ist ein Bund von Familienorganisationen in der Europäischen Union, der für das Jahr 2014 eine EU-weite Informationskampagne zur Vereinbarkeit von Berufs- und Familienleben gestartet hat und einschlägige Seminare zu Familien in Krisensituationen organisiert.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002651/14

to the Commission

Heinz K. Becker (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: International Year of the Family

The right to found a family is protected by Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 7, 9 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

As declared by the United Nations General Assembly, the 20th anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2014 provides a useful opportunity to draw further attention to the objectives of the International Year, which are to increase cooperation at all levels on family issues and undertake concerted action to effectively strengthen and promote family-focused policies and programmes.

The economic and demographic crisis has had a much greater impact in Europe than in any other region of the world. Since only a family-friendly society can be stable and prosperous, the European Union should take political leadership in this regard.

Furthermore, the United Nations has suggested that the European Union should integrate a family perspective into the policy-making process. This would facilitate the creation of a family-friendly European legal framework even though all family policy-making bodies remain at a national level.

In light of the above, we ask the Commission to answer the following:

Will the Commission integrate a family perspective into the policy-making process, to ensure that European legislation further supports family values?

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution has highlighted the importance of regional and intergovernmental organisations preparing for and observing the twentieth anniversary of the International Year of the Family. What preparations have been made by the Commission in this regard?

Since the European institutions are adopting legislation which affects families and its societal environment in a number of areas, does the Commission plan to establish overall guidelines for the DGs in the EC General Directorate?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

The Commission’s previous reply to Question P-000568/2014 outlines the policy orientation and coordination of its various initiatives undertaken to promote the wellbeing of families and children, which includes the communication on The Demographic Future of Europe (156), the Social Investment Package (157) and country-specific recommendations issued in the framework of the European Semester. The Honourable Member is referred to this reply in response to Questions 1 and 3.

Concerning Question 2 on the 20th Anniversary of the International Year of the Family, the Commission has provided financial support through a new framework partnership agreement with COFACE (158), a confederation of family organisations across Europe, which has launched an EU-wide information campaign on Reconciling Work and Family life for 2014 and organised relevant seminars on families in the crisis.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-002652/14

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 Μαρτίου 2014)

Θέμα: Εκφοβισμός ατόμων με αυτισμό

Ο εκφοβισμός είναι ιδιαίτερα βλαπτικός όταν στο στόχαστρο είναι άτομα με διαταραχές αυτιστικού φάσματος, οι οποίες πλήττουν έναν στους 150 ανθρώπους. Ο διαδικτυακός εκφοβισμός συνιστά ένα όλο και μεγαλύτερο πρόβλημα στο διαδίκτυο.

1.

Ποια μέτρα προφύλαξης λαμβάνει η Επιτροπή για την προστασία των ατόμων με διαταραχές αυτιστικού φάσματος από τον εκφοβισμό και το διαδικτυακό εκφοβισμό;

2.

Πώς προτίθεται η Επιτροπή να καταπολεμήσει το διαδικτυακό εκφοβισμό, ο οποίος καλπάζει στην ΕΕ;

Απάντηση της κ. Kroes εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(29 Απριλίου 2014)

Τα παιδιά αποτελούν ευάλωτη ομάδα στον επιγραμμικό τομέα που χρήζει ιδιαίτερης παρακολούθησης και προστασίας, δεδομένου ότι το Διαδίκτυο δεν δημιουργήθηκε για να χρησιμοποιείται από την ομάδα αυτή. Η στρατηγική της Επιτροπής για ένα καλύτερα προσαρμοσμένο στα παιδιά Διαδίκτυο άπτεται του φάσματος των επιγραμμικών προβλημάτων, από τη διαχείριση του κινδύνου μέχρι την παροχή ευκαιριών στο Διαδίκτυο για όλα τα παιδιά, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της ψηφιακής εκπαίδευσης και της απόκτησης στα σχολεία γνώσεων περί των επιγραμμικών εργαλείων και της ανάπτυξης της ατομικής υπευθυνότητας των παιδιών στο Διαδίκτυο. Στον «μη επιγραμμικό» κόσμο, διαπιστώθηκε ότι τα παιδιά με διαταραχές του αυτιστικού φάσματος (ΔΑΦ) διατρέχουν υψηλότερο κίνδυνο προσβολής (159), ιδιαίτερα όταν ερμηνεύουν λανθασμένα τις κοινωνικές περιστάσεις. Ταυτόχρονα, ενδέχεται τα παιδιά να μην συνειδητοποιούν τις συνέπειες της ίδιας τους της συμπεριφοράς και ως εκ τούτου να εκφοβίζουν ασυνείδητα. Συνολικά, τα συσσωρευόμενα αποδεικτικά στοιχεία (160) υποδηλώνουν ότι τα παιδιά που είναι ευάλωτα ή που ανήκουν σε ομάδες κινδύνου συγκεντρώνουν περισσότερες πιθανότητες να εκτεθούν σε κίνδυνο μέσω του Διαδικτύου.

Η Επιτροπή συγχρηματοδοτεί ένα πανευρωπαϊκό δίκτυο κέντρων για την ασφαλή χρήση του διαδικτύου (Safer Internet Centres), ώστε να εξασφαλίσει την παροχή στήριξης μέσω εθνικών δικτύων ανοιχτών γραμμών επικοινωνίας-αρωγής και την αύξηση της συνειδητοποίησης των ανηλίκων, γονέων και εκπαιδευτικών για τους τρόπους διαχείρισης των κινδύνων που ελλοχεύουν στο Διαδίκτυο. Γραμμές επικοινωνίας-αρωγής προσφέρουν συμβουλές σε παιδιά, γονείς και εκπαιδευτικούς σχετικά με τους διαδικτυακούς κινδύνους, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του εκφοβισμού στον κυβερνοχώρο. Επιπλέον, από τις έρευνες έχει συναχθεί το συμπέρασμα ότι τα εργαλεία των ΤΠΕ μπορούν κάλλιστα να αναβαθμίσουν τις κοινωνικές ικανότητες των παιδιών που πάσχουν από ΔΑΦ (161)  (162).

Η συμμετοχή της βιομηχανίας σε ολόκληρη την αξιακή αλυσίδα είναι καίριας σημασίας παράγοντας για την αντιμετώπιση των νέων προβλημάτων που συνοδεύουν τις νέες τεχνολογίες και τις πρακτικές των χρηστών. Η Επιτροπή προσπαθεί, μέσω αυτορρυθμιστικών πρωτοβουλιών, όπως είναι ο συνασπισμός CEO (163), να καταστήσει το Διαδίκτυο ασφαλέστερο για τα παιδιά.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002652/14

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Autism bullying

Bullying is especially harmful when targeted at people with autistic spectrum disorders, which affect one in 150 people. Cyberbullying is a growing problem online.

1.

What precautions is the Commission taking to protect people with autistic spectrum disorders from bullying and cyberbullying?

2.

How does the Commission intend to combat cyberbullying, which is rampant in the EU?

Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2014)

Children are a vulnerable group online that needs special empowerment and protection as the Internet was not created for its use. The Commission's Strategy for a Better Internet for Children deals with the range of online challenges from managing risks to providing opportunities online for all children, including through teaching digital and media literacy in schools and developing children's self-responsibility online. In the ‘offline’ world, children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) have been found to be at higher victimisation risk (164), especially when they misinterpret social situations. At the same time those children may not be aware of the consequences of their own behaviour, and may thus bully, without being aware of it. Overall, the growing evidence base (165) suggests that those children who are vulnerable or at risk offline are more likely also to be at risk online.

The Commission co-funds a pan‐European network of Safer Internet Centres, to provide support through national networks of helplines and promote awareness to minors, parents and teachers of how to manage risks online. Helplines offer advice to children, parents and teachers on online risks, including cyber-bullying. In addition, research has shown how ICT tools can successfully promote the learning of social competence by children with ASD (166)  (167).

Engaging industry across the value chain is central to tackle new challenges coming out of new technology and user patterns. The Commission endeavours through self-regulatory initiatives such as the CEO Coalition (168) to make the Internet a better place for children.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-002653/14

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 Μαρτίου 2014)

Θέμα: Διαπραγματεύσεις σχετικά με τη διατλαντική εταιρική σχέση συναλλαγών και επενδύσεων

Η κυβέρνηση των ΗΠΑ διαπραγματεύεται επί του παρόντος με την Επιτροπή τη διατλαντική εταιρική σχέση συναλλαγών και επενδύσεων (TTIP), η οποία αποσκοπεί στη δημιουργία της μεγαλύτερης ζώνης ελεύθερων συναλλαγών παγκοσμίως και η οποία θα απέφερε αυξημένα κέρδη για τις επιχειρήσεις. Στο πλαίσιο των διαπραγματεύσεων η εντολή της Επιτροπής εστιάζεται στην προώθηση του διατλαντικών συναλλαγών.

1.

Λαμβάνει υπόψη της η Επιτροπή, στο πλαίσιο της εντολής της, την απαραίτητη προστασία των καταναλωτών, των δικαιωμάτων των εργαζομένων, των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων και του περιβάλλοντος;

2.

Είναι ρεαλιστικό να πιστεύει κανείς ότι ο στόχος της δίκαιης κατανομής του πλούτου μπορεί να επιτευχθεί μόνο μέσω της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης;

3.

Συνιστά η TTIP απειλή όσον αφορά την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και των καταναλωτών;

4.

Έχοντας υπόψη ότι έχουν συγκεντρωθεί 70 000 υπογραφές πολιτών κατά της TTIP, με ποια επιχειρήματα υποστηρίζει η Επιτροπή την TTIP;

Απάντηση του κ. De Gucht εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(30 Απριλίου 2014)

1 και 3. Σύμφωνα με τις οδηγίες που εξέδωσε το Συμβούλιο, οι διαπραγματεύσεις για τη διατλαντική εταιρική σχέση εμπορίου και επενδύσεων (ΤΤΙΡ) προσπαθούν να εξασφαλίσουν ότι η πρόοδος όσον αφορά την ενίσχυση του εμπορίου και των επενδύσεων δεν θα γίνει εις βάρος των θεμελιωδών αξιών της ΕΕ και δεν θα θίγει το δικαίωμα της ΕΕ να θεσπίζει ρυθμίσεις και να λαμβάνει μέτρα για την επίτευξη νόμιμων στόχων δημόσιας πολιτικής με τον τρόπο που αυτή κρίνει ενδεδειγμένο. Η Επιτροπή θα εξασφαλίσει ότι τα αποτελέσματα των διαπραγματεύσεων θα εξακολουθήσουν να προωθούν υψηλά επίπεδα προστασίας για το περιβάλλον, την υγεία, τους εργαζομένους και τους καταναλωτές.

2.

Η κατανομή του πλούτου που θα προκύψει ως αποτέλεσμα της έναρξης ισχύος της συμφωνίας εξαρτάται από αποφάσεις εθνικού επιπέδου αλλά και επιπέδου ΕΕ που υπερβαίνουν την απλή εμπορική πολιτική.

4.

Η Επιτροπή διεξάγει τις διαπραγματεύσεις για την ΤΤΙΡ έχοντας την εδραία πεποίθηση ότι η συμφωνία μπορεί να αποφέρει οφέλη στις κοινωνίες, τους πολίτες και τις επιχειρήσεις της ΕΕ με βιώσιμο τρόπο. Η συμφωνία αναμένεται να δημιουργήσει θέσεις εργασίας και ανάπτυξη με την παροχή καλύτερης πρόσβασης στην αγορά των ΗΠΑ, την επίτευξη μεγαλύτερης κανονιστικής συμβατότητας μεταξύ της ΕΕ και των ΗΠΑ και τη δημιουργία των προϋποθέσεων για τη θέσπιση παγκόσμιων προτύπων. Αν συναφθεί αυτή η φιλόδοξη συμφωνία, αναμένεται ότι η οικονομία της ΕΕ θα ενισχυθεί κατά 0,5% έως και 1% του ΑΕγχΠ, ή κατά 119 δισ. ευρώ ετησίως, όταν εφαρμοστεί πλήρως. Περισσότερες πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα αναμενόμενα οφέλη της ΤΤΙΡ υπάρχουν στον ιστότοπο της Επιτροπής (169).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002653/14

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations

The US administration and the Commission are currently negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which aims to create the world’s largest free trade area and would result in increased profits for businesses. The focus of the Commission’s mandate in these negotiations is the promotion of transatlantic trade.

1.

Does the Commission’s mandate take into consideration the necessary protection of consumers, workers’ rights, civil rights and the environment?

2.

Is it realistic to believe that the goal of fairly distributed wealth can be achieved through economic growth alone?

3.

Does the TTIP pose any threats to the protection of the environment and consumers?

4.

Bearing in mind that more than 70 000 signatures have been collected by citizens against the TTIP, what are the Commission’s arguments for supporting the TTIP?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2014)

1 and 3. In line with the directives adopted by the Council, the negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) strive to ensure that progress in terms of enhanced trade and investment will not come at the expense of EU’s fundamental values and will be without prejudice to its right to regulate and to take measures to meet legitimate public policy objectives in the way it considers appropriate. The Commission will ensure that the outcomes of the negotiations will continue to promote high levels of protection for the environment, health, workers and consumers.

2.

The repartition of the wealth obtained as a result of the entry into force of the Agreement depends on both national and EU-wide decisions that go beyond mere trade policy.

4.

The Commission conducts TTIP negotiations having the firm belief that the Agreement can bring benefits to EU societies, citizens and companies in a sustainable way. The Agreement is expected to create jobs and growth by delivering better access to the US market, achieving greater regulatory compatibility between the EU and the US, and paving the way for setting global standards. If such an ambitious agreement were achieved, it is expected that EU economy would be boosted by 0.5% to up to 1% of GDP, or EUR 119 billion annually, once fully implemented. More detailed information on the expected benefits of TTIP can be found on the Commission's website (170).

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-002655/14

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 Μαρτίου 2014)

Θέμα: Ευρέως διαδεδομένη η κακοποίηση των γυναικών στα κράτη μέλη

Μια μελέτη του Οργανισμού Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ (FRA), διαπίστωσε ότι μία στις τρεις γυναίκες στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει υποστεί σωματική ή σεξουαλική βία από την ηλικία των 15, αποκαλύπτοντας ότι σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη είναι ευρέως διαδεδομένη η κακοποίηση των γυναικών. Πέντε τοις εκατό όλων των γυναικών ισχυρίζονται ότι έχουν πέσει θύματα βιασμού.

Επιπλέον, η μελέτη διαπίστωσε ότι το 75% των γυναικών που έχουν υποστεί σεξουαλική παρενόχληση είναι εργαζόμενες σε εξειδικευμένα επαγγέλματα ή σε ανώτατες διοικητικές θέσεις, και ότι στις περιπτώσεις (μια στις 10 γυναίκες) που υπάρχει σεξουαλική βία εκτός σχέσης, στο σοβαρό περιστατικό υπάρχει ανάμιξη περισσότερων από ένα δραστών.

Η απροθυμία των γυναικών να καταγγείλουν τις περιπτώσεις κακοποίησης συνεχίζεται, και πρέπει να εξεταστεί το ενδεχόμενο ανανέωσης της πολιτικής.

1.

Ποια μέτρα προτίθεται η Επιτροπή να λάβει φέτος για την υλοποίηση μέτρων πρόληψης και εκστρατειών ευαισθητοποίησης που θα στοχεύουν τόσο τους άνδρες όσο και τις γυναίκες;

2.

Πώς εξασφαλίζει η Επιτροπή ότι η νομοθεσία σε κάθε κράτος μέλος είναι σύμφωνη με τη νομοθεσία της ΕΕ και τις συμβάσεις του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης για τη βία κατά των γυναικών;

3.

Πώς μπορεί η Επιτροπή να διασφαλίσει ότι οι νόμοι που αφορούν την ισότητα των φύλων θα εφαρμόζονται δεόντως;

Απάντηση του κ. Hahn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(7 Μαΐου 2014)

1.

Τον Νοέμβριο του 2013, 13 εθνικά προγράμματα για την προώθηση δραστηριοτήτων ευαισθητοποίησης σχετικά με τη βία κατά των γυναικών επιχορηγήθηκαν με συνολικό ποσό ύψους 3,7 εκατ. ευρώ στο πλαίσιο του προηγούμενου προγράμματος χρηματοδότησης Progress (2007-2013). Τα προγράμματα θα υλοποιηθούν το 2014-2016. Εφέτος, η Επιτροπή θα χρηματοδοτήσει επίσης προγράμματα σχετικά με τη βία κατά των γυναικών στο πλαίσιο του γενικού προγράμματος «Δικαιώματα, Ισότητα και Ιθαγένεια».

2.

H Επιτροπή δεν είναι αρμόδια να εξασφαλίσει ότι τα κράτη μέλη συμμορφώνονται με τις συμβάσεις του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης σχετικά με τη βία κατά των γυναικών. Ωστόσο, η οδηγία 2012/29/ΕΕ, που θα ισχύσει από τις 16 Νοεμβρίου 2015, θα εξασφαλίσει ότι για όλα τα θύματα, περιλαμβανομένων των γυναικών και των κοριτσιών που είναι θύματα βίας, θα ισχύουν ελάχιστα πρότυπα για τα δικονομικά δικαιώματα, τη στήριξη και την προστασία. Στόχος της είναι επίσης να εξασφαλίσει ότι οι ανάγκες των θυμάτων αξιολογούνται κατά περίπτωση και ότι τα πλέον ευάλωτα θύματα, μεταξύ των οποίων τα θύματα βίας λόγω φύλου, υποβάλλονται σε θεραπεία κατάλληλη για τις ανάγκες τους.

3.

Η Επιτροπή, ως θεματοφύλακας των Συνθηκών, οφείλει να εξασφαλίζει τον σεβασμό του δικαίου της ΕΕ, ελέγχοντας την τήρηση από τα κράτη μέλη των κανόνων της Συνθήκης και της ενωσιακής νομοθεσίας. Σε περίπτωση κενών ή μη ορθής μεταφοράς του δικαίου της ΕΕ, η Επιτροπή μπορεί να κινήσει διαδικασία επί παραβάσει και να προσφύγει στο Δικαστήριο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, προκειμένου να τεκμηριωθεί παράβαση ενωσιακής νομοθεσίας από κράτος μέλος. Όταν η νομοθεσία της ΕΕ έχει εφαρμοστεί ορθά, αρμόδια για την παρακολούθηση της εφαρμογής της σε μια συγκεκριμένη υπόθεση είναι, κατ' αρχήν, τα εθνικά δικαστήρια. Εναπόκειται, συνεπώς, στους ιδιώτες να κινήσουν δικαστική διαδικασία και να καταγγείλουν οποιαδήποτε παράβαση του δικαίου της ΕΕ ενώπιον των εθνικών δικαστηρίων.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002655/14

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Widespread violence against women

A study by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) found that one in three women in the European Union has experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 15, revealing widespread abuse of women throughout all Member States. Five percent of all women claim to have been raped.

Furthermore, the study found that 75% of women who have been sexually harassed are in qualified professions or top management positions, and that in the case of one in 10 women who have experienced sexual violence by a non-partner there was more than one perpetrator involved in the most serious incident.

The unwillingness of women to report abuse continues, and attention must be given to a renewal of policy.

1.

What action does the Commission intend to take this year to implement prevention and awareness-raising campaigns targeting both men and women?

2.

How does the Commission ensure that legislation in each Member State is in line with EC law and with Council of Europe conventions on violence against women?

3.

How can the Commission ensure that gender equality laws are implemented?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2014)

1.

In November 2013, 13 national projects developing awareness-raising activities on violence against women were awarded a grant for a total amount of EUR 3.7 million under the previous funding programme Progress (2007-2013). The projects will be implemented in 2014-2016. This year, the Commission will also fund projects on violence against women through the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme.

2.

It is not for the Commission to ensure that EU Member States comply with the Council of Europe Conventions on violence against women. However, Directive 2012/29/EU, applicable as of 16 November 2015, will ensure that all victims, including women and girls victims of violence, benefit from common minimum standards on procedural rights, support and protection. It also aims to ensure that needs of victims are individually assessed and that the most vulnerable victims, among them victims of gender-based violence, receive treatment appropriate to their requirements.

3.

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has the responsibility to ensure respect for EC laws, verifying that Member States abide by Treaty rules and EU legislation. In case of lack of or incorrect transposition of EC law, the Commission can institute infringement proceedings and can bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union, seeking a declaration of infringement of EC law by the Member State. When the EU legislation has been correctly implemented, the monitoring of its application in a particular case is in principle the competence of national courts. It is therefore up to individuals to initiate judicial proceedings and claim any breach of EC law before the national courts.

(Ελληνική έκδοση)

Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-002656/14

προς την Επιτροπή

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 Μαρτίου 2014)

Θέμα: Βιομηχανική πολιτική

Με τη στρατηγική «Ευρώπη 2020» και τη νέα βιομηχανική πολιτική της, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει θέσει ένα φιλόδοξο στόχο: 20% του ΑΕγχΠ της ΕΕ πρέπει να προέρχεται από τον τομέα της μεταποίησης έως το 2020.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι δυνατό να επιτευχθεί αυτός ο στόχος έως το 2020;

Ποια συγκεκριμένα μέτρα έχουν ληφθεί για να στηριχθεί η πραγματική οικονομία και να επανέλθει στο επίκεντρο των πολιτικών της ΕΕ;

Γιατί δεν είναι ορατή η «βιομηχανική αναγέννηση» και στα 28 κράτη μέλη;

Ποιες χώρες έχουν επωφεληθεί περισσότερο από τα βιομηχανικά σχέδια που έχουν εγκριθεί μέχρι σήμερα (για την αυτοκινητοβιομηχανία, τον χαλυβουργικό τομέα, τον τομέα των κατασκευών και τον ναυπηγοεπισκευαστικό τομέα);

Σε τι βαθμό ωφέλησαν οι «αποστολές για την ανάπτυξη» του επιχειρηματίες — μεγάλους ή μικρούς, νέους ή πεπειραμένους — στην Ελλάδα, την Πορτογαλία και την Κύπρο;

Καθώς ο δρόμος που πρέπει να διανύσουμε είναι ακόμη μακρύς, με ποιους τρόπους μπορεί η Επιτροπή να διασφαλίσει ότι μια στέρεη και ισχυρή νέα βιομηχανική πολιτική θα είναι επωφελής για όλα τα κράτη μέλη στη βόρεια, κεντρική και νότια Ευρώπη, χωρίς τις τεράστιες ανισότητες που σημειώνονται σήμερα;

Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής

(6 Μαΐου 2014)

1.

Θα είναι δύσκολο αλλά όχι αδύνατο να επιτευχθεί ο στόχος του 20% του ΑΕγχΠ στον τομέα της μεταποίησης. Η αιώνια φθίνουσα τάση του τομέα της μεταποίησης στην οικονομία είναι αναστρέψιμη, όπως αποδείχθηκε από πρόσφατες εξελίξεις στην οικονομία των ΗΠΑ.

2.

Η πρόσφατη ανακοίνωση για τη βιομηχανική πολιτική με τίτλο «Για μια ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανική αναγέννηση» (171) προβαίνει σε απολογισμό των διαφόρων μέτρων που έχουν ληφθεί και που απαιτούνται για να διασφαλιστεί η ανάκαμψη της βιομηχανικής ανάπτυξης στην ΕΕ.

3.

Δεν υπάρχει ένας μεμονωμένος παράγοντας που να εξηγεί γιατί η ανάκαμψη στη βιομηχανία της ΕΕ είναι τόσο δύσκολη. Αντίθετα, υπάρχει ένα σύνολο παραγόντων όπως οι συνθήκες συνολικής ζήτησης, η πρόσβαση στη χρηματοδότηση, τα εμπόδια όσον αφορά την αποτελεσματική αναδιάρθρωση και η παρατεταμένη αβεβαιότητα σχετικά με το περιβάλλον της πολιτικής.

4.

Τα βιομηχανικά σχέδια που έχουν εγκριθεί μέχρι σήμερα δεν χρηματοδοτούν προγράμματα της ΕΕ, πράγμα το οποίο θα ωφελούσε κάποιο από τα κράτη μέλη. Είναι μάλλον κοινές στρατηγικές που έχουν εκπονηθεί από όλα τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη, ούτως ώστε να αντιμετωπιστεί η πρόσφατη κρίση. Λόγω της φύσης τους, η Επιτροπή δεν αναμένει ότι τα σχέδια θα έχουν διαφοροποιημένο αντίκτυπο στα κράτη μέλη πέραν της ειδικής βαρύτητας των αντίστοιχων βιομηχανικών τομέων σε κάθε κράτος μέλος.

5.

Οκτώ αποστολές οργανώθηκαν σε πέντε κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ: Ελλάδα (2), Πορτογαλία (1), Βέλγιο (1), Ιταλία (2) και Ισπανία (2). Κατά μέσο όρο, κάθε αποστολή περιελάμβανε 500 εταιρείες που συμμετείχαν σε 800 συνεδριάσεις. Συνολικά 850 ελληνικές, 695 πορτογαλικές και 22 κυπριακές εταιρείες συμμετείχαν σε αυτές τις εκδηλώσεις. Επιπλέον, οι αποστολές για την ανάπτυξη οργανώθηκαν σε 17 χώρες εκτός της ΕΕ. 17 ελληνικές, 9 πορτογαλικές και 9 κυπριακές εταιρείες συμμετείχαν σε αυτές.

6.

Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί τις βιομηχανικές επιδόσεις της ΕΕ και των επιμέρους κρατών μελών στις ετήσιες και μηνιαίες δημοσιεύσεις της, οι οποίες είναι διαθέσιμες στην ιστοσελίδα βιομηχανικής ανταγωνιστικότητας Europa (172).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002656/14

to the Commission

Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Industrial policy

With the Europe 2020 strategy and its new industrial policy, the European Union has set itself an ambitious target: 20% of EU GDP is to come from the manufacturing sector by 2020.

We ask the Commission:

Is this target achievable by 2020?

What concrete action has been taken to support the real economy and to put it back at the centre of EU policies?

Why is the ‘industrial Renaissance’ not visible in all 28 Member States?

What countries have benefited most from the industrial plans adopted so far (for cars, steel, construction and shipbuilding)?

To what extent have the ‘missions for growth’ benefited entrepreneurs — large or small, beginners or experienced — in Greece, Portugal and Cyprus?

As the road ahead is still long, how can the Commission ensure that a solid and strong new industrial policy will benefit all the Member States in northern, central and southern Europe, without the huge inequalities experienced at present?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2014)

1.

It will be difficult but not impossible to achieve the target of 20% GDP for manufacturing. The secular diminishing trend of manufacturing in the economy is not irreversible as it has been shown by recent developments in the US economy.

2.

The recent Industrial Policy Communication ‘For a European Industrial Renaissance’ (173) takes stock of the different measures taken and needed to assure that industrial growth takes off in the EU.

3.

There is no single factor explaining why recovery in EU industry is so difficult. There is rather a set of factors including aggregate demand conditions, access to finance, barriers to effective restructuring and a prolonged uncertainty on the policy environment.

4.

The industrial plans adopted so far are not funding programmes of the EU which would benefit one MS or another. These are rather joint strategies elaborated by all stakeholders in order to address the recent crisis. Due to their nature, the Commission does not expect that the plans will have a differentiated impact across MS beyond the specific weight of the respective industrial sectors in each MS.

5.

Eight Missions have been organised in five EU countries: Greece (2), Portugal (1) Belgium (1), Italy (2) and Spain (2). On average each mission involved 500 companies participating in 800 meetings. In total 850 Greek, 695 Portuguese and 22 Cypriot companies have participated in these events. In addition, mission for growth have been organised to countries outside the EU to 17 countries. 17 Greek, 9 Portuguese and 9 Cypriot companies have participated in them.

6.

The Commission keeps track of industrial performance of the EU and individual MS in its annual and monthly publications that can be found in our Industrial Competitiveness Europa webpage (174).

(Dansk udgave)

Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-002658/14

til Kommissionen

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(6. marts 2014)

Om: Godkendelse af støtteordning til solceller

Kan Kommissionen som supplement til sit svar på skriftlig forespørgsel E-012370/13 oplyse, hvornår den forventer at have færdigbehandlet ansøgningen fra de danske myndigheder om godkendelse af de nye danske regler for statsstøtte til solceller?

Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Joaquín Almunia

(28. april 2014)

Danmark anmeldte i februar 2013 en støtteordning for solcelleanlæg, men den måtte efterfølgende ændres. Kommissionen er kommet langt med vurderingen heraf, men der er stadig visse spørgsmål, der mangler at blive besvaret, før den kan godkende ordningen. I den forbindelse er Kommissionen i tæt kontakt med de danske myndigheder. På nuværende tidspunkt kan Kommissionen ikke nøjagtig oplyse, hvornår den vil træffe afgørelse.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002658/14

to the Commission

Jens Rohde (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Approval of aid for photovoltaic cells

Further to its answer to Written Question E-012370/13, can the Commission say when it expects to finish processing the application from the Danish authorities regarding the new rules on state aid for photovoltaic cells?

Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

Denmark notified a support scheme for photovoltaic installations in February 2013, but the scheme subsequently had to be modified. The Commission made significant progress in the assessment, but some issues still need to be resolved before the Commission can give its approval. The Commission is in close contact with the Danish authoritites in this regard. At this stage, the Commission cannot give a definite date for when a decision will be taken.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002659/14

à la Commission

Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)

(6 mars 2014)

Objet: Traité transatlantique UE-USA

Le grand marché transatlantique en cours de négociation est un projet de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis. Ce projet de traité pose problème et suscite l'inquiétude car il vise non seulement à abaisser les barrières douanières entre l'Europe et les États-Unis, mais aussi à harmoniser les normes en matière sociale, technique, alimentaire et environnementale, et à appliquer les principes édictés par l'OMC. Or les États-Unis sont nettement moins-disants sur ces normes.

En matière alimentaire, les normes concernant les OGM, les hormones, les additifs toxiques, les pesticides, etc., sont nettement différentes et moins protectrices de nos santés aux États-Unis. Nos normes deviendraient des «barrières commerciales illégales».

Par ailleurs, il peut y avoir un risque que les nations interdisant l'exploitation du gaz de schiste soient poursuivies par des sociétés privées réclamant des dommages et intérêts, sachant que dans ces accords de libre-échange, il y a ce qu'on appelle des «arbitrages», dont les États-Unis et leurs firmes sortent toujours vainqueurs.

1.

Quelles procédures ou mécanismes la Commission prévoit-elle afin de maintenir les normes en matière de protection sociale, technique, environnementale et alimentaire de l'Union européenne face aux États-Unis?

2.

Sachant que les États-Unis n'ont signé presqu'aucune des conventions de l'OIT, comment les aspects sociaux et le respect des conventions de l'OIT d'un tel accord se règleront-ils?

3.

Sachant que les États-Unis n'ont pas signé le protocole de Kyoto, comment la Commission compte-t-elle maintenir ses standards en matière environnementale face un tel accord?

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

(30 avril 2014)

1.

La Commission renvoie l'Honorable Parlementaire aux réponses qu'elle a données aux questions E-002653/2014 et E-013569/2013.

2.

Comme elle l'a souligné dans le document public exposant sa position sur le commerce et le développement durable (175), la Commission considère que les négociations sur le partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement (TTIP) devraient refléter les engagements des parties sur un ensemble de principes et de règles reconnus au niveau international concernant le travail et l'environnement, y compris le changement climatique. Pour ce qui est du travail, les discussions devraient prendre comme point de départ les engagements existants des parties dans les domaines pertinents, y compris la déclaration relative aux principes et droits fondamentaux au travail de l'Organisation internationale du travail (OIT) de 1998 et son suivi, ainsi que la déclaration de l'OIT de 2008 sur la justice sociale pour une mondialisation équitable, qui s'applique à l'ensemble des membres de l'OIT. L'UE estime également que les normes fondamentales du travail de l'OIT, inscrites dans les principales conventions de l'OIT et reconnues au niveau international en tant que droits fondamentaux du travail, sont un élément clé à intégrer dans le cadre d'un accord commercial.

3.

La Commission est fermement déterminée à préserver le droit de réglementer et d'adopter des mesures pour répondre à des objectifs publics légitimes dans le domaine de l'environnement et assurer un niveau élevé de protection environnementale. Pour la Commission, il est de la plus haute importance de veiller à ce que ce niveau élevé de protection dans l'UE ne soit pas fragilisé ou affaibli. Dans le cadre du TTIP, la Commission cherche à établir des engagements sur des principes et règles internationalement approuvés en matière d'environnement, à parvenir à une mise en œuvre efficace du droit environnemental sur le plan national et à maintenir un niveau élevé de protection de l'environnement par l'application efficace des législations nationales.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002659/14

to the Commission

Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: EU-US free trade agreement

The Transatlantic Free Trade Area currently under negotiation is an EU-US free trade project. The draft agreement would not only lower customs barriers between Europe and the USA, but would also bring the two sides’ social, technical, food and environmental standards more closely into line and apply World Trade Organisation principles. This is problematic and a cause for concern, because US standards in these areas are much less strict.

US standards governing the use of genetically modified organisms or levels of hormones, toxic additives, pesticides, etc. in food are very different from the EU’s and are not so clearly designed to protect public health. Our standards would become ‘illegal trade barriers’.

What is more, there is a risk that private companies may take legal action to claim damages from states which ban fracking, since free trade agreements of this kind make provision for arbitration procedures which the USA and US companies always seem to win.

1.

What procedures or mechanisms is the Commission planning to employ in an effort to safeguard the EU’s social protection, technical, environmental and food standards in the face of US pressure to water them down?

2.

Given that the US has signed hardly any of the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) conventions, what provisions will the free-trade agreement contain governing labour issues and compliance with ILO conventions?

3.

Given that the US has not signed the Kyoto Protocol, how does the Commission intend to maintain EU environmental standards in the context of such an agreement?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2014)

1.

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answers provided to questions E-002653/2014 and E-013569/2013.

2.

As highlighted in its public position paper on Trade and Sustainable Development (176), the Commission considers that the TTIP negotiations should reflect the Parties’ commitments regarding a set of internationally agreed principles and rules on labour and the environment, including climate change. In the labour domain, the starting point for discussions should be the Parties’ existing commitments in relevant areas, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO) 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work, as well as and its follow-up, and the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation, which applies to all ILO members. The EU also considers that ILO core labour standards, enshrined in the core ILO Conventions and internationally recognised as the fundamental labour rights, are a key element to be integrated in the context of a trade agreement.

3.

The Commission is fully committed to protect the right to regulate and to take measures to meet legitimate public objectives in the area of environment, and to ensure high levels of environmental protection. For the Commission it is of utmost importance to ensure that these high levels of environmental protection in the EU are not weakened or lowered. In TTIP, the Commission is looking for commitments regarding internationally agreed principles and rules on the environment, effective domestic implementation of the environmental laws and upholding of high levels of environmental protection through the effective enforcement of domestic laws.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002660/14

à la Commission

Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)

(6 mars 2014)

Objet: Conditions de travail des travailleurs migrants saisonniers

La directive européenne établissant les conditions d'entrée et de séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers aux fins d'un emploi en tant que travailleur saisonnier (PE-CONS 113/13), qui a pour objectif de faciliter l'accès des travailleurs saisonniers de pays non européens aux permis de travail, de définir une série de droits sociaux et économiques de base pour ceux-ci et de mettre sur un pied d'égalité les droits du travail de ces travailleurs de pays tiers et les droits des travailleurs européens, semble ne pas avoir les effets désirés.

En France et en Espagne, la précarité des saisonniers dans l'agriculture intensive est renforcée par le fait que la plupart d'entre eux, Africains et Européens de l'Est, sont dans la semi‐légalité. Tous ces travailleurs ne bénéficient plus des garanties qu'offraient les contrats à l'origine et sont donc plus exposés aux abus (salaires, horaires, conditions de travail, logement) et au travail sans contrat.

Le secteur des fraises espagnoles est l'un des exemples de cette agriculture intensive dans laquelle les conditions de vie et d'emploi des travailleurs — majoritairement immigrés — sont bien éloignées des normes de l'Union européenne.

Dans la province de Huelva (Espagne), où l'on cultive la fraise, plus de 2 500 immigrés vivraient actuellement dans des chabolas, habitations faites de bois, de plastiques ou de cartons et dépourvues d'eau courante et d'électricité. Ces conditions dramatiques renforcent la vulnérabilité des travailleurs immigrés. Les quelques jours de travail ne se déroulent que très rarement dans le respect des conventions collectives et les conditions de travail sont difficiles (pauses très rares, exposition à des produits chimiques) et aléatoires (dépendantes des conditions climatiques).

Le PE vient d'adopter une résolution sur des inspections du travail efficaces à titre de stratégie pour l'amélioration des conditions de travail.

1.

Quelles mesures la Commission compte-t-elle prendre afin de veiller à ce que les droits des travailleurs saisonniers soient respectés et en accord avec la directive? Quelles sont les étapes à venir?

2.

Comment mettre en œuvre les inspections du travail dans le domaine du travail saisonnier? Comment protéger les droits sociaux et économiques des travailleurs saisonniers?

Réponse donnée par Mme Malmström au nom de la Commission

(2 mai 2014)

La directive sur les travailleurs saisonniers (177) a été adoptée par le Parlement européen et le Conseil le 26 février 2014. Les États membres doivent mettre en vigueur les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour s'y conformer au plus tard le 30 septembre 2016.

Cette directive garantira l'égalité de traitement des travailleurs migrants saisonniers et des ressortissants de l'État membre d'accueil en ce qui concerne, notamment, les conditions d'emploi et de travail ou le droit de grève. Elle impose en outre aux États membres d'exiger la preuve que le travailleur saisonnier dispose d'un logement qui lui assure des conditions de vie décentes pendant la durée de son séjour et de veiller à ce que des mécanismes appropriés de contrôle des employeurs soient mis en place et des inspections efficaces réalisées.

La Commission veillera à la bonne mise en œuvre de cette directive, en engageant notamment des procédures d'infraction s'il le faut, et présentera un rapport sur son application au plus tard le 30 septembre 2019.

La directive relative aux sanctions à l'encontre des employeurs (178) devrait également permettre de remédier au problème soulevé par l'Honorable Parlementaire. Elle interdit l'emploi de ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier dans l'ensemble de l'Union et prévoit des sanctions pour ceux qui contreviennent à ses dispositions.

La Commission a adopté (179), le 9 avril 2014, une initiative visant à améliorer la coopération entre les États membres au niveau de l'UE pour lutter plus efficacement contre le travail non déclaré. Cette initiative réunira des organes nationaux chargés de faire appliquer la législation, tels que les inspections du travail et les organismes de sécurité sociale, les administrations fiscales et les services d'immigration.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002660/14

to the Commission

Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Working conditions of seasonal migrant workers

The European directive establishing the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of seasonal work (PE-CONS 113/13), which aims to facilitate the access of seasonal workers from non-European countries to work permits, define a series of basic social and economic rights for these workers and put the labour rights of these workers from third countries on an equal footing with the rights of European workers, does not seem to be having the desired effects.

In France and Spain, the precarious situation of seasonal workers in intensive agriculture is reinforced by the fact that the majority of them, Africans and Eastern Europeans, are in a position of semi-legality. These workers no longer benefit from the guarantees originally offered by contracts and are therefore more exposed to abuse (wages, hours, working conditions, accommodation) and to working without a contract.

The Spanish strawberry sector is one example of this intensive agriculture in which the living and working conditions of the workers — the majority of which are immigrants — are far removed from the standards of the European Union.

In the province of Huelva (Spain), where strawberries are cultivated, more than 2 500 immigrants seem to currently be living in chabolas, dwellings made of wood, plastic or cardboard and with no running water or electricity. These appalling conditions make immigrant workers even more vulnerable. On the few working days, the collective agreements are only very rarely respected and the working conditions are difficult (very infrequent breaks, exposure to chemical products) and uncertain (dependent on climatic conditions).

The EP has just adopted a resolution on effective labour inspections as a strategy to improve working conditions.

1.

What measures is the Commission intending to take in order to ensure that the rights of seasonal workers are respected in accordance with the directive? What steps will be taken next?

2.

How will the labour inspections in the field of seasonal work be implemented? How will the social and economic rights of seasonal workers be protected?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

The Seasonal Workers Directive (180) was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 26 February 2014. Member States should bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive by 30 September 2016.

According to this directive, migrant seasonal workers will be entitled to equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State with regard to terms of employment, working conditions or the right to strike, among others. Moreover, Member States must require evidence that the seasonal worker will benefit from accommodation that ensures an adequate standard of living for the duration of his or her stay. Member States will have to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place for the monitoring of employer and that effective inspections are carried out.

The Commission will ensure the proper implementation of the directive, including by launching infringement procedures where necessary, and will produce a report on the application of the directive no later than 30 September 2019.

The Employer Sanctions Directive (181) should also help tackle the phenomenon raised by the Honourable Member. It prohibits the employment of illegally staying third-country nationals across the EU and provides for sanctions for those who do employ illegally staying workers.

The Commission adopted (182) on 9 April 2014 an initiative to improve Member States' cooperation at EU level to tackle undeclared work more efficiently. It will bring together Member States enforcement bodies, such as the labour inspectorates and the social security, tax and migration authorities.

(Hrvatska verzija)

Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-002661/14

upućeno Komisiji

Tonino Picula (S&D)

(6. ožujka 2014.)

Predmet: Iskoristivost napuštenih zgrada

Prema posljednjim podacima u Europi se nalazi najmanje 11 milijuna praznih nekretnina. U Španjolskoj je prazno više od 3,4 milijuna nekretnina, zatim slijede Francuska i Italija s više od 2 milijuna praznih nekretnina te Njemačka s 1,8 milijuna praznih nekretnina. Značajan broj praznih domova imaju i Velika Britanija, Grčka, Portugal, Irska i ostale europske zemlje. Mnoge od tih nekretnina nalaze se u turistički atraktivnim područjima i sagrađene su tijekom građevinskog booma koji je završio financijskim krahom 2008. godine.

Postojeće inicijative politike EU-a u području zaštite okoliša zgrada uglavnom su usmjerene na energetsku učinkovitost te, do sada, samo ograničen broj država članica inicijative koristi resurse izvan domene energetske učinkovitosti u građevinskom sektoru.

Opći cilj inicijative Komisije o održivoj izgradnji je, između ostalog, smanjenje utjecaja zgrada na okoliš poboljšanjem ukupne učinkovitosti resursa i, kao rezultat veće učinkovitosti, poboljšanje konkurentnosti građevinskih poduzeća. No unatoč tome broj napuštenih zgrada u pojedinim se zemljama članicama povećava.

Slijedom najava o pripremama priopćenja o održivoj gradnji i procjeni popratnih učinaka, pritom uvažavajući podatke o iznimno velikom broju praznih nekretnina, kao i već poduzete inicijative i strategije, koje mjere Komisija planira provesti kako bi se postojeće zgrade intenzivnije koristile i time smanjila potreba za dodatnom izgradnjom okoliša?

Odgovor g. Potočnika u ime Komisije

(28. travnja 2014.)

Intenzitet uporabe zgrada, koji je u određenoj mjeri povezan s uporabom praznih zgrada umjesto novih, pitanje je koje Komisija razmatra u okviru pripremne inicijative o mogućnostima učinkovitog korištenja resursa u građevinskom sektoru. Točnije, Komisija u suradnji s dionicima razmatra okvir za sveobuhvatne procjene utjecaja zgrada na okoliš, koje će obuhvaćati i pokazatelje povezane s intenzitetom uporabe zgrada.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002661/14

to the Commission

Tonino Picula (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Usability of disused buildings

According to the most recent data there are at least 11 million empty properties in Europe. In Spain there are more than 3.4 million, the next highest figures being recorded by France and Italy (over 2 million) and Germany (1.8 million). There are also considerable numbers of empty homes in the United Kingdom, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and other European countries. Many of these properties are situated in popular tourist centres and were erected during the building boom that ended with the financial crash in 2008.

Current EU policy initiatives in the area of building-related environmental protection are intended primarily to promote energy efficiency, and, to date, only a limited number of Member States have taken initiatives aimed at utilising resources in the building sector for purposes other than energy efficiency.

One of the general aims of the Commission’s ‘sustainable buildings’ initiative is to reduce the environmental impact of buildings by improving resource efficiency overall and, through this greater efficiency, boost the competitiveness of building firms. That notwithstanding, the number of disused buildings in individual Member States is rising.

Following the announcement that it is drawing up a communication on sustainable buildings and an accompanying impact assessment, and taking into account the data on the exceptionally high number of empty properties as well as the initiatives and strategies already under way, what measures will the Commission implement to enable more intensive use to be made of existing buildings, thereby reducing the need to add to the built environment?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

The intensity of use of buildings, which to some extent is linked to the use of empty buildings instead of new ones, is an issue that the Commission is considering in its preparatory initiative on Resource Efficiency Opportunities in the Building Sector. More specifically the Commission is examining, in collaboration with stakeholders, a framework for comprehensive environmental assessments of buildings that will also include indicators related to the use intensity of buildings.

(Hrvatska verzija)

Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-002662/14

upućeno Komisiji

Tonino Picula (S&D)

(6. ožujka 2014.)

Predmet: Borba protiv nasilja nad ženama

Na današnji dan objavljeno je istraživanje Europske agencije za temeljna prava provedeno u svih 28 država članica Unije vezano uz nasilje nad ženama. Podaci o nasilju prikupljeni razgovorima s 42 000 žena više su nego alarmantni te ukazuju na činjenicu da je svaka treća žena starija od 15 godina bila žrtva fizičkog ili seksualnog zlostavljanja. Ovakve brojke sasvim sigurno nisu u skladu s poveljom o temeljnim pravima Europske unije. Od petnaeste godine svaka je deseta žena proživjela neku vrstu seksualnog zlostavljanja, a svaka dvadeseta bila je silovana. Zabrinjava i podatak da je nasilje nad ženama jedan od najmanje prijavljenih zločina, što dodatno ukazuje na potrebu za poduzimanjem adekvatnih mjera kako bi se žene zaštitile na učinkovit način.

Unatoč činjenici da postoje sličnosti između nacionalnih politika za borbu protiv nasilja nad ženama, države članice pristupaju ovom problemu na različite načine. Iako se na nivou Europske unije raspravlja o nasilju nad ženama, trenutačno još ne postoji zajednička strategija na razini Unije osmišljena posebno za zaštitu žena od nasilja. Europski parlament u svojim je raspravama više puta pozivao na strategiju kako bi se suprotstavilo nasilju, uključujući i pravno obvezujući instrument. „Istanbulskom konvencijom” (Konvencija Vijeća Europe o sprečavanju i borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i obiteljskog nasilja) i Direktivom EU-a o žrtvama kaznenih djela iz 2012. godine postavljeni su minimalni standardi pravne zaštite koji u mnogim slučajevima nisu adekvatni ni dovoljni.

Nastavljajući se na mišljenje Europske komisije iz 2010. godine o strategiji EU-a o nasilju nad ženama i djevojčicama, napore Parlamenta vezano za jačanje politike Unije u tom području te poražavajuće velik broj zlostavljanih žena, koje konkretne mjere Komisija planira kako bi dodatno ojačala pravni okvir za zaštitu žena žrtava nasilja? Jesu li planirani europski programi podizanja svijesti o štetnosti zlostavljanja kroz obrazovanje od najranije dobi? Je li u planu donošenje zajedničke europske strategije posvećene isključivo borbi protiv nasilja nad ženama i njihovoj zaštiti?

Odgovor g. Hahna u ime Komisije

(23. travnja 2014.)

Komisija aktivno pomaže državama članicama smjernicama o provedbi nedavno donesenog sveobuhvatnog pravnog okvira za žrtve kaznenih djela.

Direktivom 2012/29/EU kojom se uspostavljaju minimalni standardi u području prava, potpore i zaštite žrtava kaznenih djela osigurat će se da sve žrtve nasilja, uključujući žene i djevojčice, imaju koristi od zajedničkih minimalnih standarda u području postupovnih prava, potpore i zaštite. Cilj joj je i osigurati da se potrebe žrtava pojedinačno procijene i da se prema najranjivijim žrtvama, među kojima su žrtve nasilja u obitelji, postupa na način koji odgovara njihovim potrebama.

Uredba 606/2013/EU (za uzajamno priznavanje zaštitnih mjera u građanskim stvarima) i Direktiva 2011/99/EU (za uzajamno priznavanje zaštitnih mjera u kaznenim stvarima) primjenjivat će se od siječnja 2015. te će se njima omogućiti da se mjera zaštite koja je izdana protiv počinitelja u jednoj državi članici prizna i izvrši u drugoj državi članici EU-a.

Jedan od posebnih ciljeva Programa o pravima, ravnopravnosti i građanstvu jest „sprječavati i suzbijati sve oblike nasilja nad djecom, mladima i ženama, kao i nasilja nad drugim rizičnim skupinama, posebno skupinama koje su u opasnosti od nasilja u bliskim odnosima, te zaštititi žrtve od takvog nasilja”. (183) Time će se omogućiti financiranje aktivnosti podizanja svijesti namijenjenih djeci, mladima i ženama u narednim godinama.

Mjere koje je Komisija poduzela radi potpore državama članicama u sprječavanju i uklanjanju svih oblika nasilja nad ženama međusobno se dopunjuju i predstavljaju čvrst i sveobuhvatan okvir za konkretno djelovanje kojime se postižu vidljivi rezultati. Komisija smatra da nije potrebno donositi daljnje posebne strateške dokumente u tom području.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002662/14

to the Commission

Tonino Picula (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Combating violence against women

On 5 March 2014 the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights published the findings of a survey conducted in all 28 Member States into violence against women. The data on violence, obtained from interviews with 42 000 women, are more than alarming, showing as they do that one woman in three has suffered physical or sexual abuse since the age of 15. Figures of this kind are utterly at odds with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. One woman in 10 has, since the age of 15, experienced some form of sexual abuse, and one woman in 20 has been raped. Violence against women is, worryingly, one of the crimes least likely to be reported, a fact which further underlines the need to take such measures as might be necessary to ensure that women are properly protected.

Although national policies to combat violence against women are in some respects similar, Member States approach the problem in different ways. Despite the fact that violence against women is an issue debated at EU level, there is as yet no common EU-wide strategy aimed specifically at protecting women from violence. In its debates Parliament has repeatedly called for a strategy to counter violence, including a legally binding instrument. The Istanbul Convention (Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence) and the 2012 EU directive on victims of crime have laid down minimum standards of legal protection, but in many cases these are neither suitable nor sufficient.

Following on from its 2010 opinion on an EU strategy on violence against women and girls and from Parliament’s efforts to strengthen EU policy in this area, and given the shockingly high number of abused women, what practical steps will the Commission take to further consolidate the legal framework to protect women subjected to violence? Are there any plans for European programmes to raise awareness of the harm that abuse does and to educate people on that point from the earliest age? Will a common European strategy be adopted for the express purpose of combating violence against women and protecting them?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2014)

The Commission is actively assisting Member States with guidance on implementing the recently adopted comprehensive legal framework for victims of crime.

The directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime will ensure that all victims of violence, including women and girls, benefit from common minimum standards on procedural rights, support and protection. It also aims to ensure that needs of victims are individually assessed and that the most vulnerable victims, among them victims of domestic violence, receive treatment appropriate to their requirements.

The regulation 606/2013/EU (for mutual recognition of civil protection measures) and Directive 2011/99/EU (for mutual recognition of criminal protection measures) will be applicable as of January 2015 and will enable a protection measure issued against a perpetrator in one EU country to be recognised and enforced in another EU country.

One of the specific objectives of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship programme is to ‘prevent and combat all forms of violence against children, young people and women, as well as violence against other groups at risk, in particular groups at risk of violence in close relationships, and to protect victims of such violence’ (184). This will allow the funding of awareness-raising activities targeted at children, young people and women in the coming years.

The measures undertaken by the Commission to support the Member States in preventing and eliminating all forms of violence against women complement each other and constitute a solid and comprehensive framework for concrete action, bringing tangible results. The Commission sees no need to adopt any further specific policy document in this field.

(Hrvatska verzija)

Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-002663/14

upućeno Komisiji

Tonino Picula (S&D)

(6. ožujka 2014.)

Predmet: Dostupnost portala EURES na hrvatskom jeziku

Od trenutka ulaska u Europsku uniju Hrvatska je postala i dio EURES-a, mreže javnih službi za zapošljavanje u članicama Europske unije, Europskog gospodarskog prostora i Švicarske, koju koordinira Europska komisija. Portal EURES pokrenut je 1994. godine kao rezultat suradnje između Europske komisije i javnih službi za zapošljavanje država članica EGP-a (zemlje članice EU-a i Norveška, Island i Lihtenštajn) i drugih partnerskih organizacija.

Svrha portala EURES je pružanje informacija, savjeta i oglasa za zapošljavanje za opću dobrobit radnika i poslodavaca te svakog građanina Unije koji želi imati koristi od slobodnog kretanja ljudi.

Radna mjesta pokrivaju širok spektar zanimanja i obuhvaćaju mogućnosti stalnog i sezonskog zapošljavanja. Svako radno mjesto sadrži informacije o tome kako se prijaviti i kome se obratiti. Baza podataka EURES-a ažurira se svakodnevno u skladu s europskim službama za zapošljavanje, a natječaj ostaje u sustavu dok god je aktivan. Ipak na portalu EURES oglasi su dostupni na 25 stranih jezika, uključujući sve službene jezike EU-a, osim na hrvatskom jeziku.

Budući da su europske potrebe za radnom snagom velike te da se svakodnevno na portalu EURES nudi preko milijun poslova koje bi hrvatski građani mogli kvalitetno obavljati, kada je predviđeno prevođenje portala EURES na hrvatski jezik kako bi njegov sadržaj postao dostupniji zainteresiranim građanima?

Odgovor g. Andora u ime Komisije

(24. travnja 2014.)

Trenutačno su u tijeku radovi na znatnom poboljšanju i nadogradnji portala EURES u sklopu kojih će se uvesti potpuno nova elektronička aplikacija za podnošenje životopisa te drugi sadržaji, kao i poboljšano korisničko sučelje. Kako bi se izbjegli visoki troškovi prijevoda na hrvatski tekstova i drugih elemenata koje neće biti moguće koristiti nakon nadogradnje, odlučeno je da se s uvođenjem hrvatske jezične verzije pričeka do pokretanja novog portala. U planu je stoga da hrvatska verzija postane dostupna tijekom mjeseca travnja 2014.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002663/14

to the Commission

Tonino Picula (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Availability of the EURES portal in Croatian

From the moment of its accession to the European Union, Croatia became part of EURES, a network comprising public employment agencies in the EU Member States, the European Economic Area and Switzerland, which is coordinated by the Commission. The EURES portal was launched in 1994 and is the fruit of cooperation between the Commission and public employment agencies in the Member States of the EEA (EU Member States alongside Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and other partner organisations.

The objective of the EURES portal is to provide information, advice and job adverts for the benefit of workers, employers and all citizens of the EU who wish to take advantage of the free movement of people.

The jobs advertised cover a wide range of vocations and professions, and they also include opportunities for permanent and seasonal employment. All of the job adverts featured include information on how to apply and to whom. The EURES database is updated every day to include vacancies from European employment agencies, and a vacancy will remain on the system until it is filled. Job adverts on EURES are available in 25 languages, including all of the EU's official languages, but with the exception of Croatian.

Given that Europe has a great need for workers and that the EURES portal features over one million jobs that could be carried out to a very high standard by Croatian citizens, when does the Commission plan to have the EURES portal translated into Croatian in order to make its contents more accessible to Croatians who may wish to apply for vacancies?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2014)

The EURES Portal is currently undergoing a major enhancement and upgrade that will add a completely new CV online application and other features as well as a revamped user interface. In order to avoid costly translations into Croatian of texts and other elements that would not be possible to use after this upgrade, it was decided to wait until the launch of the new portal to introduce the Croatian language version. The Croatian version is therefore planned to be available during the month of April 2014.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002664/14

alla Commissione

Guido Milana (S&D)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Action Plan

Vista la decisione C(2013) 8635 della Commissione, del 6 dicembre 2013, che istituisce un piano d'azione per ovviare alle carenze del sistema italiano di controllo della pesca;

visto che la suddetta decisione prevede che ogni sei mesi l'Italia trasmetta alla Commissione un rapporto di valutazione sull'attuazione delle misure, a norma dell'articolo 2, paragrafo 3, e che entro un mese dal ricevimento i servizi della Commissione trasmettano osservazioni sul rapporto italiano;

visto che il medesimo articolo 2, paragrafo 3, prevede che il primo rapporto dell'Italia sia trasmesso entro il 1° febbraio 2014.

Si chiede:

di conoscere le osservazioni della Commissione relative al primo rapporto dell'Italia sull'efficacia delle azioni intraprese al fine di garantire un efficace controllo delle attività di pesca.

Risposta di Maria Damanaki a nome della Commissione

(12 maggio 2014)

La Commissione sta monitorando attentamente il processo di attuazione, da parte dell'Italia, del piano di azione approvato a norma dell'articolo 102 del regolamento (CE) n. 1224/2009 del Consiglio e adottato dalla decisione della Commissione del 6 dicembre 2013 (C(2013) 8635 final).

La prima relazione di attuazione, pervenuta il 17 febbraio 2014, indica che le azioni più importanti sono in fase di attuazione, in particolare quelle relative al miglioramento dei meccanismi di controllo e alla gestione della flotta, e individua inoltre dei ritardi nell'attuazione di determinate misure. La Commissione segue attentamente la situazione ed è in contatto con le autorità italiane per garantire che i possibili effetti di tali ritardi sull'attuazione generale del piano di azione siano ridotti al minimo.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002664/14

to the Commission

Guido Milana (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Action plan

In view of the Commission’s decision of 6 December 2013, notified under document C(2013) 8635, which sets out an action plan for solving the deficiencies in the Italian fisheries control system;

In view of the fact that Article 2(3) of the above-cited decision stipulates that Italy shall submit to the Commission, every six months, an assessment report on how well the measures have been implemented, and that the services of the Commission shall submit their observations on this report within one month of receiving it;

In view of the fact that Article 2(3) also stipulates that Italy shall submit its first report by 1 February 2014,

Can the Commission please give its observations on the first report submitted by Italy on the effectiveness of the actions that have been taken in order to ensure that fishing activities are properly controlled?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2014)

The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation by Italy of the action plan agreed in accordance with Article 102 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and adopted by Commission decision on 6 December 2013 (C(2013)8635 final).

The first implementation report was received on 17 February 2014. The report indicates that the most critical actions are being implemented, in particular those related to the improvement of the control mechanisms and the management of the fleet. The report also identifies some delays in the implementation of certain measures. The Commission is closely monitoring the situation and is in contact with the Italian authorities to ensure that the possible impacts of these delays on the overall implementation of the Action plan are minimised.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-002665/14

aan de Commissie

Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)

(6 maart 2014)

Betreft: Oekraïne ontvangt 11 miljard van de EU

1.

Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat zij voornemens is om de komende jaren 11 miljard euro aan Oekraïne uit te keren?

2.

Kan de Commissie uiteenzetten waar zij deze 11 miljard aan toezeggingen aan Oekraïne vandaan gaat halen?

3.

Hoe kan de Commissie garanderen dat deze 11 miljard niet in de zakken belandt van de corrupte elite in Oekraïne?

4.

Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat het absurd is dat in deze tijden van keiharde bezuinigingen, waarin de lidstaten de eigen broek niet eens op kunnen houden, de EU wel 11 miljard euro toezegt aan Oekraïne? Zo neen, waarom niet?

Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie

(19 mei 2014)

Op 5 maart gaf de Commissie haar goedkeuring aan een steunpakket van 11 miljard euro voor Oekraïne voor de periode 2014-2020, waarin de belangrijkste concrete maatregelen worden beschreven die moeten bijdragen tot de economische en financiële stabiliteit van het land. Het doel van het pakket is om Oekraïne bij te staan tijdens de overgangsperiode, politieke en economische hervormingen aan te moedigen, en inclusieve ontwikkeling voor alle inwoners van Oekraïne te ondersteunen.

Deze steunmaatregelen combineren leningen en subsidies uit de EU-begroting met bijdragen van in de EU gevestigde internationale financiële instellingen (IFI). Ongeveer 3 miljard euro van dit bedrag komt van de EU-begroting, waarvan 1,6 miljard aan macrofinanciële bijstandsleningen (MFB) en 1,5 miljard euro ontwikkelingshulp. De Europese Investeringsbank en de Europese Bank voor Wederopbouw en Ontwikkeling zouden dan weer tot 8 miljard euro kunnen vrijmaken voor leningen. (185)

EU-steun is onderworpen aan een reeks subsidiabiliteitscriteria en onderling afgesproken voorwaarden, waaronder het beheer van overheidsfinanciën en doorzichtigheid van de begroting. Tijdens een bezoek aan Oekraïne op 25 en 26 maart door de commissarissen Füle en Lewandowski werd daarnaast afgesproken dat OLAF zijn expertise  ter beschikking te stellen voor de oprichting van een autoriteit  ter bestrijding van fraude en corruptie, die toezicht zal uitoefenen op de effectieve uitbetaling van de EU-steun.

Tijdens hun buitengewone bijeenkomst op 6 maart verwelkomden de staatshoofden en regeringsleiders van de EU het steunpakket van 11 miljard euro dat de Commissie op 5 maart had goedgekeurd. Het engagement van de EU om Oekraïne te steunen bij het herstellen van de interne stabiliteit en het doorvoeren van cruciale hervormingen werd bevestigd in de conclusies van de Europese Raad van 20 maart 2014. De voorziene EU-begrotingsmiddelen zijn afkomstig uit rubriek 4 van het akkoord over het meerjarig financieel kader voor 2014-2020, waardoor er geen nieuwe financiële middelen voor nodig zijn.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002665/14

to the Commission

Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Ukraine to receive EUR 11 billion from the EU

1.

Can the Commission confirm that it intends to pay out EUR 11 billion to Ukraine over the coming years?

2.

Can the Commission explain where it plans to get this EUR 11 billion that it is pledging to Ukraine?

3.

How can the Commission guarantee that this 11 billion will not end up in the pockets of Ukraine’s corrupt elite?

4.

Does the Commission agree with the PVV that it is absurd in these times of extreme cutbacks, in which the Member States cannot even look after their own interests, that the EU is pledging EUR 11 billion to Ukraine? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2014)

On 5 March the Commission agreed a EUR 11 billion support package, for the 2014-2020 period, identifying the main concrete measures to help stabilise the economic and financial situation in Ukraine, assist with the transition, encourage political and economic reforms and support inclusive development for the benefit of all Ukrainians.

These support measures combine loans and grants from the EU budget with the contributions of EU based international financial institutions (IFIs). In particular, some EUR 3 billion would come from the EU budget, including EUR 1.6 billion in macro financial assistance loans (MFA) and EUR 1.5 billion in development assistance, while up to EUR 8 billion in loans could be mobilised by the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (186).

EU assistance is conditioned to a set of eligibility criteria and mutually agreed conditions, including on Public Finance Management and budget transparency. In addition to these conditions, during a visit to Ukraine by Commissioners Füle and Lewandowski on 25-26 March, OLAF agreed to provide expertise for the establishment of an anti-fraud/anti-corruption authority, which will focus on the effective disbursement of the EU aid.

The EUR 11 billion package adopted by the Commission on 5 March was welcomed by the EU Heads of State and Government during their extraordinary meeting on 6 March. The EU commitment to support Ukraine in its efforts to stabilise the country and undertake key reforms was confirmed in the European Council conclusions of 20 March 2014. Funds from the EU budget come from heading 4 agreed in the framework for the 2014-2020 Multi-annual Financial Framework and do not require the mobilisation of new financial resources.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-002666/14

aan de Commissie

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(6 maart 2014)

Betreft: Ontwikkelingshulp aan Congo

Dinsdag 4 maart waarschuwde Commissaris Lewandowski de Begrotingscommissie voor het tekort van EUR 23,4 miljard waar de begroting van de Unie mee te kampen heeft als gevolg van de vele aanvragen op de beleidsterreinen van cohesie en ontwikkeling.

Terwijl Commissaris Lewandowski de noodklok luidt over het gapende gat tussen inkomsten en uitgaven voor dit jaar kondigt Commissaris Piebalgs vandaag, 5 maart, doodleuk aan onder andere EUR 620 miljoen in de bodemloze put Congo te gaan storten.

1.

Heeft de Commissie niets geleerd van de fiasco’s in de voorgaande programmaperiode (187)?

2.

Waarom neemt de Commissie de zorgen van de Europese Rekenkamer niet serieus en blijft men ongebreideld geld steken in één van de meest corrupte landen  ter wereld (188)?

3.

Heeft de Commissie al een excuus achter de hand voor het geval over een aantal jaren blijkt dat het zuurverdiende geld van de belastingbetaler wederom niet goed is besteed? Zo ja, welk excuus?

Antwoord van de heer Piebalgs namens de Commissie

(27 mei 2014)

In december vorig jaar keurde het Europees Parlement het meerjarig financieel kader en de rechtsgrondslag goed voor het ontwikkelingssamenwerkingsbeleid voor de periode 2014-2020. Het Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds, dat instaat voor de voorgestelde 620 miljoen euro voor de Democratische Republiek Congo, houdt dezelfde beleidslijnen aan als de ontwikkelingssamenswerkingsprojecten die door het Europees Parlement worden goedgekeurd. De Commissie wijst erop dat het Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds (EOF) niet met middelen uit de algemene begroting van de EU wordt gefinancierd, maar met directe bijdragen van de lidstaten.

De Commissie verwijst het geachte Parlementslid naar haar antwoord op de schriftelijke vragen E‐11284/2013 en E-11700/2013 (189).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002666/14

to the Commission

Lucas Hartong (NI)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Development aid to Congo

On Tuesday 4 March, Commissioner Lewandowski warned the Committee on Budgets of the deficit of EUR 23.4 billion which is being faced by the budget of the Union as a result of the high numbers of applications in the areas of cohesion and development policy.

While Commissioner Lewandowski is sounding the alarm bells on the gaping hole between income and expenditure for this year, Commissioner Piebalgs coolly announced today, 5 March, among other things that EUR 620 million is to be paid into the bottomless pit that is Congo.

1.

Has the Commission not learnt from the fiascos in the previous programming period (190)?

2.

Why is the Commission failing to take seriously the concerns of the European Court of Auditors and why are we continuing to pump money with wanton abandon into one of the most highly corrupt countries in the world (191)?

3.

Does the Commission already have an excuse in reserve if it emerges a few years down the line that the taxpayer’s hard-earned money has once again not been spent wisely? If so, what is this excuse?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2014)

The European Parliament approved last December the Multiannual Financial Framework and the legal basis for the Development Cooperation policy for the period 2014-2020. The European Development Fund, providing the proposed EUR 620 million for the Democratic Republic of Congo, follows the same policy line as the Development Cooperation initiatives approved by the European Parliament. The Commission would like to highlight that the European Development Fund (EDF) is not funded from the EU's general budget, but rather from direct contributions from EU Member States.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written questions E‐11284/2013 and E-11700/2013 (192)

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002667/14

to the Commission

Derek Vaughan (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: NOx infraction measures

Aberthaw power station in Wales safely and efficiently uses Welsh coal and has successfully reduced NOx and CO2 emissions since the early 2000s. Aberthaw wants to invest more money to bring about environmental improvements, but it would like the Commission's NOx infraction measures removed in order for it to be able to do so. Aberthaw would also like to be included in the Transitional National Plan (TNP).

Could the Commission provide information as soon as possible on whether it will be possible to remove the NOx infraction measures and whether or not Aberthaw can be included in the TNP?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2014)

The Aberthaw power plant was included in the draft Transitional National Plan (TNP) submitted by the UK. However, the Commission could not agree to this draft TNP (193) inter alia because an excessive emission value had been used to calculate the contribution of the Aberthaw power plant to the yearly NOx emission ceilings under the TNP.

The Commission expects the UK to submit a revised TNP addressing this issue and provide a detailed planning for investments at the Alberthaw plant in order to reduce its NOx emissions. If Aberthaw is included in TNP and approved by the Commission, this would resolve the infringement procedure.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-002668/14

alla Commissione

Salvatore Caronna (S&D)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Presunta violazione della normativa europea sulla mediazione da parte dell'Italia

Considerando la direttiva 2013/11/UE sulla risoluzione alternativa delle controversie dei consumatori (ADR), che stabilisce norme comuni sulla mediazione come risoluzione extragiudiziale delle controversie in materia civile e commerciale, e la direttiva 2008/52/CE relativa a determinati aspetti della mediazione in materia civile e commerciale, nonché la legge della Repubblica italiana del 9 agosto 2013 n. 98, conversione del decreto-legge del 21 giugno 2013 n. 69, che ripristina il procedimento di mediazione quale condizione di procedibilità della domanda giudiziale in materie stabilite dalla legge, considerando inoltre la direttiva 2005/29/CE, considerandi 5 e 7, nonché l'articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea,

può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

l'obbligo della legge italiana di prevedere sempre la presenza di un avvocato (articolo 8, comma 1) non pregiudica il senso stesso della mediazione poiché rischia semplicemente di farne un nuovo processo giudiziale, svolto in altra sede, e quindi di lasciare la volontà delle parti in secondo piano?

La disposizione della legge italiana circa l'esenzione dal pagamento all'organo di mediazione in caso di fallimento della stessa (articolo 17, comma 5 ter), non rischia di indurre l'organo a trovare una risoluzione positiva, non nell'interesse delle parti bensì nel proprio interesse pecuniario?

La disposizione della legge italiana secondo cui gli avvocati iscritti all'albo diventano mediatori di diritto (articolo 16, comma 4 bis) non va contro la previsione europea del requisito di «conoscenze giuridiche generali sufficienti» per le persone fisiche incaricate dell'ADR, che non può presumersi dalla semplice iscrizione ad un albo, considerando, oltretutto, la diversa funzione che il mediatore ha rispetto ad un difensore di parte? Questa disposizione non rappresenta inoltre una pericolosa barriera al commercio transfrontaliero, poiché le imprese europee (e i consumatori) sarebbero scoraggiate ad avanzare una richiesta di mediazione transfrontaliera in Italia non avendo garantita la professionalità del mediatore ed essendo obbligate a farsi assistere da un legale (vedasi anche il primo punto)?

Ciò premesso, intende la Commissione procedere ad una verifica della presunta violazione del diritto europeo da parte della norma italiana, ed eventualmente prendere i necessari provvedimenti affinché tale presunta violazione venga a cessare?

Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione

(16 aprile 2014)

La direttiva 2008/52/CE non contiene alcuna disposizione relativa al ruolo degli avvocati nella mediazione, al compenso dei mediatori, né nessun'altra norma che impedirebbe agli avvocati di lavorare come mediatori.

La direttiva 2013/11/UE è entrata in vigore l'8 luglio 2013 e dovrà essere recepita negli ordinamenti giuridici nazionali degli Stati membri entro il 9 luglio 2015. Tale direttiva non impone che tutti i procedimenti di risoluzione extragiudiziale delle controversie rispettino i requisiti di qualità di cui al suo Capo II. La direttiva 2013/11/UE stabilisce che gli Stati membri debbano garantire l'accesso almeno ad un «organismo di risoluzione alternativa delle controversie» che rispetti questi principi per le «controversie dei consumatori» che coinvolgano un professionista stabilito sui loro territori. Ai sensi della direttiva, gli «organismi ADR» possono anche essere organismi che propongono procedimenti extragiudiziali non considerati come «mediazione» ai sensi della legge italiana. Pertanto, la questione se la legge italiana sulla mediazione rispetti tutti i principi di cui al Capo II della direttiva 2013/11/UE non incide, in sé, sulla questione del corretto recepimento della direttiva da parte dell'Italia.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002668/14

to the Commission

Salvatore Caronna (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Presumed infringement by Italy of EU legislation on mediation

With reference to the following: Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes (ADR), which lays down common rules on mediation as an alternative, out-of-court way of settling disputes in civil and commercial matters; Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters; Italian Law No 98 of 9 August 2013, converted from Italian decree-law No 69 of 21 June 2013, which restores the mediation process as a prerequisite for the admissibility of claims in matters established by law; with reference also to recitals 5 and 7 of Directive 2005/29/EC and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, can the Commission answer the following questions:

Does the Italian legal requirement that a lawyer must always be present (Article 8(1)) not run counter to the very purpose of mediation, since it is likely to simply establish a new judicial process, carried out elsewhere, thus attaching minor importance to the will of the parties concerned?

Is the Italian legal provision regarding exemption from paying the mediation body should it fail (Article 17(5)(b)), not likely to induce that body to reach a positive resolution that is not in the interests of the parties concerned but rather in its own financial interest?

Does the Italian legal provision under which registered lawyers automatically become mediators (Article 16(4)(a)) not run counter to the EU requirement that natural persons in charge of ADR must have ‘sufficient general knowledge of legal matters’, which cannot be assumed from the mere inclusion in a professional register, given the different role a mediator has to play compared to that of counsel for the defence? Is this provision not also a dangerous barrier to cross-border trade, given that EU companies (and consumers) would be discouraged from submitting a request for cross-border mediation in Italy if the professionalism of the mediator were not guaranteed and if they were forced to seek the assistance of a lawyer (see also paragraph 1)?

Accordingly, will the Commission ascertain whether the Italian law is actually compliant with EC law and, if not, take the necessary measures to ensure that such infringement ceases?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2014)

Directive 2008/52/EC does not contain any provisions concerning the role of lawyers in mediation, the compensation of mediators or any rule that would exclude lawyers from working as mediators.

Directive 2013/11/EU entered into force on 8 July 2013 and will have to be transposed by Member States into their national legal systems by 9 July 2015. Directive 2013/11/EU does not impose that all national out-of-court dispute resolution procedures respect the quality requirements set out in its Chapter II. According to Directive 2013/11/EU, Member States will have to ensure access to at least one ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution entity’ respecting these principles for the ‘consumer disputes’ involving a trader established on their territories. Under the directive, ‘ADR entities’ can also be entities that offer out-of-court procedures that do not qualify as ‘mediation’ under Italian law. Therefore, the question of whether the Italian law on mediation respects all the principles set out in Chapter II of Directive 2013/11/EU does not in itself prejudge the question of the correct transposition of the directive by Italy.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002669/14

to the Commission

George Lyon (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Geographical indication schemes

A number of Scottish agricultural products, for example Stornaway black pudding, currently benefit from EU geographical indication (GI) schemes. Against this background, could the Commission clarify the following:

Should Scotland vote to leave the UK, would Scottish GIs, which are currently protected within the EU, continue to enjoy this protection?

Would those Scottish GIs which also enjoy protection in non-EU countries through the EU’s bilateral trade agreements continue to enjoy protection under such trade agreements if Scotland were to vote for independence?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2014)

With regard to GI names registered and protected directly through the registration procedure under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (194), the regulation does not make a distinction in terms of protection between GI names from EU member states or third countries. Registered GI names continue to be protected as long as the applicable legislative provisions under the above Regulation (such as respect of the specification, labelling and control provisions) are fulfilled.

A possible vote for the independence of Scotland from the UK would not in itself trigger consequences for the protection currently enjoyed by Scottish GIs in non-EU countries through EU's bilateral agreements. Should a vote lead to Scottish independence the status of Scottish GIs in non-EU countries would depend on the subsequent legal arrangements made and it would not be appropriate for the Commission to speculate about these at this stage.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002670/14

to the Commission

George Lyon (ALDE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Geographical indication protection for Scottish tartan

The Commission has carried out a number of studies, as well as a public consultation on 22 April 2013, on the question of geographical indication protection for non-agricultural products.

What conclusions have been drawn by the Commission and what further action is proposed to protect distinct regional products, such as Scottish tartan, from copyright infringement or misrepresentations?

Can the Commission also provide any statistics on the estimated global trade in tartan produced outside Scotland?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2014)

The Study on Geographical Indication protection for non-agricultural products in the internal market and the feedback received from stakeholders at the public hearing organised in April 2013 provided instructive evidence on the potential benefits of a system protecting geographical indications (GI) for non-agricultural products at European Union level for European producers, consumers, the internal market as well as for European cultural heritage and diversity. Complementary evidence-gathering and consultations are still under way. As soon as they are finalised, the Commission will decide on appropriate follow-up action.

The Commission has no data concerning trade of the specific product Scottish tartan. The product is classified under the line, ‘woven fabrics of carded wool or fine animal hair’ and any existing EU data covers a larger variety of products complying with this definition.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002671/14

a la Comisión

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL) y Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL)

(6 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Grabación de los acontecimientos ocurridos el 6 de febrero de 2014 en la playa de El Tarajal en Ceuta (España)

El 6 de febrero de 2014, fuerzas de seguridad españolas se enfrentaron a un grupo de inmigrantes que intentaba cruzar la frontera entre la ciudad española de Ceuta y Marruecos, lo que dio lugar a la muerte de 15 inmigrantes. Los hechos fueron grabados por las cámaras de seguridad situadas en la valla de la frontera. Las organizaciones de la sociedad civil española temen que los guardas de fronteras españoles puedan intentar destruir el material grabado. Consideran que se debería adoptar una decisión judicial sobre la cuestión, dado que el material grabado podría utilizarse como prueba decisiva para las investigaciones.

De conformidad con el artículo 2 del Reglamento (CE) n° 2007/2004 del Consejo, de 26 de octubre de 2004, por el que se crea Frontex, la Agencia debe «coordinar la cooperación operativa entre los Estados miembros en materia de gestión de las fronteras exteriores; realizar análisis de riesgos»; y «seguir de cerca la evolución de la investigación en materia de control y vigilancia de las fronteras exteriores». Conforme al artículo 7, apartado 3, del Reglamento (UE) n° 1052/2013 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 22 de octubre de 2013, por el que se crea un Sistema Europeo de Vigilancia de Fronteras (Eurosur), «la Agencia intercambiará, tratará y almacenará información sensible no clasificada e información clasificada en la red de comunicación de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 11 quinquies del Reglamento (CE) n° 2007/2004». Se afirma asimismo que «la Agencia podrá adoptar todas las medidas necesarias para facilitar el intercambio con la Comisión y los Estados miembros de información pertinente para la ejecución de sus funciones». Además, la Resolución 1932(2013) de la Asamblea Parlamentaria del Consejo de Europa disponía que Frontex debe abordar una serie de problemas estructurales que tienen repercusiones en los derechos humanos mejorando la transparencia y la comunicación pública por lo que respecta a la naturaleza de las operaciones realizadas in situ y su impacto en los derechos humanos. La Asamblea Parlamentaria instaba asimismo a Frontex a respetar los derechos humanos reforzando la cooperación con organizaciones como el Consejo de Europa, el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos y la Agencia de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea.

¿Considera la Comisión que las agencias europeas anteriormente mencionadas son responsables del material grabado? ¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de la existencia de planes para destruir el material grabado o de la posibilidad de que haya sido destruido? ¿Tiene la Comisión la intención de instar a las autoridades españolas a que conserven el material grabado, dado que puede ser utilizado como prueba? En caso negativo, ¿por qué no? ¿Considera necesario la Comisión modificar el actual marco jurídico que sustenta Frontex y Eurosur con objeto de que asegurar que el material grabado en que se muestran las acciones de los guardias fronterizos en cuestión se conserve para fines de investigación penal?

Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión

(13 de mayo de 2014)

El centro nacional español de coordinación para la vigilancia de las fronteras, creado de conformidad con el artículo 5 del Reglamento Eurosur (195), tiene acceso directo a las cámaras de seguridad colocadas a lo largo de la valla que rodea la frontera con Ceuta. No obstante, ni el Reglamento Eurosur ni el Reglamento Frontex (196) otorgan a Frontex o a la Comisión acceso a esa clase de datos: la Comisión no tiene derecho a consultar ningún tipo de información operativa que sea objeto de intercambios nacionales y europeos a través de Eurosur. La agencia Frontex no está autorizada para procesar ningún dato personal procedente de Eurosur, salvo los números de identificación de buques (artículo 13, apartado 2, del Reglamento Eurosur).

Por esos motivos, ni la Comisión ni Frontex están en condiciones de determinar si el material grabado ha sido borrado, y si lo ha sido, en qué medida. Si bien lamenta profundamente la muerte de esos migrantes, la Comisión no puede interferir en las investigaciones en curso por parte de las autoridades responsables españolas.

La Comisión está considerando proponer a los Estados miembros una recomendación, que se incluiría en la Guía de Eurosur actualmente en fase de debate, para conservar el material de vídeo y otra información de vigilancia durante cierto tiempo.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002671/14

an die Kommission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL) und Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Aufzeichnungen der Ereignisse am Strand von El Tarajal in Ceuta, Spanien, vom 6. Februar 2014

Am 6. Februar 2014 wurden Migranten von spanischen Sicherheitskräften an der Überschreitung der Grenze zwischen Marokko und der spanischen Stadt Ceuta gehindert. Dabei kamen 15 Migranten ums Leben. Das Geschehen wurde durch am Grenzzaun installierte Sicherheitskameras aufgezeichnet. Spanische zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen befürchten nun, dass der spanische Grenzschutz versuchen könnte, die Aufzeichnungen zu löschen. Sie sind der Ansicht, dass über diese Angelegenheit ein Gericht entscheiden sollte und dass die Aufzeichnungen bei den betreffenden Ermittlungen als entscheidendes Beweismaterial dienen könnten.

Nach Artikel 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2007/2004 des Rates vom 26. Oktober 2004 zur Errichtung von Frontex obliegt der Agentur die „Koordinierung der operativen Zusammenarbeit der Mitgliedstaaten im Bereich des Schutzes der Außengrenzen“, die „Durchführung von Risikoanalysen“ und die „Verfolgung der Entwicklungen der für die Kontrolle und Überwachung der Außengrenzen relevanten Forschung“. Nach Artikel 7 Absatz 3 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1052/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 22. Oktober 2013 zur Errichtung eines Europäischen Grenzüberwachungssystems (Eurosur) „[erfolgen d]er Austausch, die Verarbeitung und die Speicherung von nicht als Verschlusssache eingestuften sensiblen Informationen und von Verschlusssachen im Kommunikationsnetz durch die Agentur […] im Einklang mit Artikel 11d der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2007/2004“. Außerdem heißt es in der Frontex-Verordnung: „Die Agentur kann alle erforderlichen Maßnahmen ergreifen, um den Austausch von Informationen, die für ihre Tätigkeit von Bedeutung sind, mit der Kommission und den Mitgliedstaaten zu erleichtern.“ Gemäß der Entschließung 1932(2013) der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarats muss Frontex auf die Lösung einer Reihe struktureller Probleme mit Auswirkungen auf die Menschenrechte hinwirken, indem für mehr Transparenz gesorgt und die Öffentlichkeit besser über die Art der vor Ort durchgeführten Maßnahmen und ihre Folgen für die Menschenrechte informiert wird. Die Parlamentarische Versammlung fordert auch, dass Frontex die Menschenrechte achtet und in diesem Zusammenhang stärker mit Organisationen wie dem Europarat, dem Menschenrechtsrat der Vereinten Nationen, dem Amt des Hohen Kommissars für Menschenrechte und der Agentur der EU für Grundrechte zusammenarbeitet.

Ist die Kommission der Ansicht, dass die genannten EU-Agenturen eine Verantwortung für die Aufzeichnungen tragen? Weiß die Kommission eventuell von Absichten, die Aufzeichnungen zu löschen, oder hat sie Informationen darüber, dass die Aufzeichnungen möglicherweise bereits gelöscht worden sind? Die Aufzeichnungen könnten als Beweismaterial dienen. Beabsichtigt die Kommission vor diesem Hintergrund, die spanischen Behörden zur Erhaltung dieser Aufzeichnungen aufzufordern, oder welche Gründe sprechen ihrerseits dagegen? Muss der geltende Rechtsrahmen, der die Grundlage für Frontex und Eurosur bildet, aus Sicht der Kommission dahin gehend geändert werden, dass sichergestellt ist, dass die Aufzeichnungen vom Einschreiten des Grenzschutzes im konkreten Fall zu Strafverfolgungszwecken aufbewahrt werden?

Antwort von Frau Malmström im Namen der Kommission

(13. Mai 2014)

Das spanische nationale Koordinierungszentrum für die Grenzüberwachung, das auf der Grundlage von Artikel 5 der Eurosur-Verordnung (197) eingerichtet worden ist, hat unmittelbaren Zugang zu den entlang des Grenzzauns von Ceuta angebrachten Sicherheitskameras. Weder die Eurosur- noch die Frontex-Verordnung (198) geben Frontex oder der Kommission eine Handhabe, um auf entsprechende Daten zugreifen zu können: Die Kommission hat keinerlei Recht auf Auskunft über operative Daten, die auf nationaler oder europäischer Ebene über Eurosur ausgetauscht werden. Frontex darf keine personenbezogenen Daten von Eurosur verarbeiten mit Ausnahme von Schiffsidentifizierungsnummern (Artikel 13 Absatz 2 der Eurosur-Verordnung).

Aus diesen Gründen ist weder die Kommission noch Frontex in der Lage, festzustellen, ob und in welchem Umfang die Aufzeichnungen möglicherweise gelöscht wurden. Die Kommission bedauert den Tod dieser Migranten zutiefst, hat aber keine Handhabe, um in die laufenden Untersuchungen der zuständigen spanischen Behörden eingreifen zu können.

Die Kommission erwägt einen Vorschlag für eine Empfehlung an die Mitgliedstaaten, die in das Eurosur-Handbuch, das zurzeit im Gespräch ist, aufgenommen werden sollte, um Videoaufnahmen und andere Überwachungsinformationen eine gewisse Zeitlang aufzeichnen zu können.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002671/14

to the Commission

Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL) and Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Record of the events of 6 February 2014 at Playa El Tarajal beach in Ceuta, Spain

On 6 February 2014, migrants who attempted to cross the border between the Spanish city of Ceuta and Morocco were confronted by Spanish security forces, resulting in the death of 15 migrants. The events were recorded by security cameras in place at the border fence. Spanish civil society organisations fear that Spanish border guards may attempt to delete the recorded material. They believe that a court decision should be taken on the matter, given that the recorded material could serve as crucial evidence for investigations.

Under Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing Frontex, the agency must ‘coordinate operational cooperation between Member States in the field of management of external borders, carry out risk analyses [and] follow up on the development of research relevant for the control and surveillance of external borders’. According to Article 7.3 of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur), ‘the Agency shall exchange, process and store non-classified sensitive and classified information in the communication network in accordance with Article 11(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004’. It is also stated that ‘the Agency may take all necessary measures to facilitate the exchange of information relevant for its tasks with the Commission and the Member States’. In addition, Resolution 1932 (2013) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that Frontex must ‘tackle a number of structural problems that have human rights implications by improving transparency and public communication regarding the nature of the operations carried out in the field and their impact on human rights’. The Parliamentary Assembly also called on Frontex to comply with human rights by strengthening cooperation with organisations such as the Council of Europe, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Fundamental Rights Agency.

Does the Commission believe that the European agencies mentioned above hold a responsibility towards the recorded material? Is the Commission aware of any plans to delete the recorded material or of any possibility that it may have already been deleted? Will the Commission call on the Spanish authorities to preserve the recorded material, owing to its potential for use as evidence? If not, why not? Does the Commission deem it necessary to change the existing legal framework underpinning Frontex and Eurosur in order to ensure that the recorded material showing the actions of the border guards in question is preserved for purposes of criminal investigation?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(13 May 2014)

The Spanish national coordination centre for border surveillance, established in line with Article 5 of the Eurosur Regulation (199), has direct access to the security cameras placed along the border fence around Ceuta. However, neither the Eurosur Regulation nor the Frontex Regulation (200) give Frontex or the Commission access to this kind of data: the Commission does not have any right to access any kind of operational information exchanged at national and European level via Eurosur. Frontex is not allowed to process any personal data from Eurosur except for ship identification numbers (Article 13(2) of the Eurosur Regulation).

For these reasons neither the Commission nor Frontex are in the position to determine whether and to which extent the recorded material may have been deleted. While deeply regretting the deaths of these migrants, the Commission has no possibility to interfere in the on-going investigations of the responsible Spanish authorities.

The Commission is considering proposing a recommendation to Member States, to be included into the Eurosur Handbook which is currently under discussion, to record video and other surveillance information for a certain period of time.

(Hrvatska verzija)

Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-002672/14

upućeno Komisiji

Ruža Tomašić (ECR)

(6. ožujka 2014.)

Predmet: Informiranje malih i srednjih poduzeća o mogućnostima financiranja preko programa EU-a

U sklopu zakonodavne rezolucije Europskog parlamenta od 21. studenog 2013. o prijedlogu Uredbe Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o uspostavi Programa za konkurentnost poduzeća te malih i srednjih poduzeća navedeno je da Europska poduzetnička mreža, uz potporu Europske komisije, pruža usluge informiranja i savjetovanja o inicijativama i pravu Unije te potporu jačanju upravljačkih kapaciteta i financijskog znanja, uključujući savjetovanje o pristupu financiranju, kako bi se ojačala konkurentnost malih i srednjih poduzeća.

Smatram da je takva inicijativa posebno važna za članice poput Hrvatske jer je u našoj zemlji informiranost malih i srednjih poduzeća o mogućnostima financiranja koju nude razni programi EU-a na prilično niskoj razini. Europska poduzetnička mreža u Hrvatskoj je organizirana u sklopu Hrvatske gospodarske komore, ali unatoč naporima te institucije i ureda državne uprave, informiranost malih i srednjih poduzetnika o mogućnostima financiranja koje pruža EU još uvijek je slaba.

Stoga bih ovim putem željela pitati postoji li dodatna potpora koju Komisija može pružiti Europskoj poduzetničkoj mreži u novim članicama poput Hrvatske kako bismo podigli informiranost malih i srednjih poduzetnika na višu razinu. Također, zanima me koje su se mjere poduzete na nacionalnoj razini u ostalim članicama pokazale najučinkovitijima po tom pitanju.

Odgovor g. Barniera u ime Komisije

(15. svibnja 2014.)

Komisija nastavlja podržavati Europsku poduzetničku mrežu i nastavit će s djelatnošću pomaganja MSP-ovima u razvoju njihovih poslovnih djelatnosti u okviru Programa za konkurentnost poduzeća te malih i srednjih poduzeća (COSME) te je dalje razvijati. Tijekom priprema za taj program naznačeno je da su usluge podrške u pristupu MSP-ova financijskim sredstvima prioritet za buduću mrežu. Poziv na podnošenje prijedloga koji je trenutačno u tijeku stoga kao jednu od ključnih djelatnosti za buduću mrežu sadržava savjetodavne usluge o pristupu financijskim sredstvima. To obuhvaća informacije o pristupu programu Obzor 2020. i europskim strukturnim i investicijskim fondovima.

Radna skupina prikupila je najbolje prakse partnera mreže iz drugih država članica o savjetodavnim uslugama za pristup financijskim sredstvima i europskim programima financiranja. Osim što daju savjete o financijskim instrumentima EU-a u okviru programa COSME ili Obzor 2020., svi bi konzorciji trebali informirati lokalne MSP-ove o regionalnim programima financiranja i drugim izvorima javnih financijskih sredstava. To obuhvaća i detaljno kartiranje financijskih sredstava dostupnih u toj regiji, upućivanje na odgovarajućeg pružatelja financijskih sredstava i davanje savjeta o programima poticanja ulaganja za MSP-ove. Za partnere mreže planirano je posebno usavršavanje 19. — 20. lipnja.

U pogledu pristupa financijskim sredstvima, za mobiliziranje zajmova i vlasničkog kapitala namijenjeno je 1,4 milijarde eura u okviru programa COSME i 2,7 milijardi eura u okviru programa OBZOR 2020. Dodatno će se promovirati portal Vaša Europa kojim se pruža sveobuhvatan pregled mogućnosti financiranja u svakoj državi članici (201).

Uz to se od organizacija koje su članice mreže zahtijeva pružanje usluga korisnicima instrumenta za MSP-ove programa Obzor 2020., što na kraju može rezultirati dodatnim mogućnostima financiranja u trećoj fazi (komercijalizacija) tog instrumenta.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002672/14

to the Commission

Ruža Tomašić (ECR)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Informing small and medium-sized enterprises about funding opportunities through EU programmes

As part of the European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 November 2013 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises, it was stated that the Enterprise Europe Network, with support from the European Commission, provides information and advice on Union initiatives and law as well as support for the strengthening of administrative capacity and financial knowledge, including advice on access to finance, in order to strengthen the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises.

I think that such an initiative is of particular importance for Member States like Croatia because awareness of small and medium-sized enterprises in our country about the funding opportunities offered by various EU programmes is at a fairly low level. The Enterprise Europe Network operates in Croatia as part of the Croatian Chamber of Commerce, but despite the efforts of these institutions and state administration offices the awareness of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs about funding opportunities provided by the EU is still limited.

Therefore, I would hereby like to ask whether there is some additional support that the Commission can provide for the Enterprise Europe Network in new Member States such as Croatia in order to raise the awareness of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs to a higher level. Also, I would be interested to know which of the measures taken at national level in other Member States have proven most effective in this respect.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2014)

The Commission continues to support the Enterprise Europe Network and will maintain and further develop its activities to help SMEs grow their business under the Competitiveness and SME Programme (COSME). During the preparations for this programme, support services on access to finance for SMEs were indicated as priority for the future Network. The on-going call for proposals therefore includes advisory services on access to finance as a core activity for the future Network. This includes information on access to the Horizon 2020 Programme and the European Structural and Investment Funds.

A working group gathered best practices of Network partners from other Member States on advisory services for access to finance and European funding programmes. In addition to providing advice on EU financial instruments of COSME or Horizon 2020, all consortia should ensure that local SMEs are advised on regional financial schemes and other sources of public funding. This includes a detailed mapping of the funding available in the region, signposting to the adequate financial provider and advice on SME investment readiness programmes. A special training session for Network partners is planned on 19-20 June.

On access to finance, EUR 1.4 billion of the COSME and EUR 2.7 billion of the Horizon 2020 programme budgets is earmarked for mobilising loans and equity financing. The Your Europe Portal, which provides a comprehensive overview of the financing possibilities in each Member State, will be further promoted (202).

Additionally, Network organisations are requested to provide services to the beneficiaries of the SME Instrument of Horizon 2020 which may eventually lead to additional funding opportunities in phase 3 (commercialisation) of this instrument.

(Hrvatska verzija)

Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-002673/14

upućeno Komisiji

Ruža Tomašić (ECR)

(6. ožujka 2014.)

Predmet: Utjecaj projekta „Gornji horizonti” na ekosustav rijeke Neretve i lokalno gospodarstvo

Gradnja triju hidroelektrana u BiH (HE Dabar, Nevesinje i Bileća) u sklopu projekta „Gornji horizonti” podrazumijeva drastično reguliranje međunarodnog vodotoka, što bi prema mišljenju stručnjaka moglo presušiti donji dio toka Neretve koji prolazi kroz Hrvatsku.

Naime, vode koje teku podzemnim kraškim kanalima manjih rijeka i prirodno se ulijevaju u Neretvu i dalje u more preusmjeravale bi se u slijevno područje Trebišnjice i dalje prema novosagrađenim akumulacijama. Neretva bi time izgubila znatan dio svog hidropotencijala, a povećani salinitet onemogućio bi uzgoj povrća i voća u dolini Neretve južno od Čapljine, što predstavlja velik udarac za lokalno gospodarstvo.

Članci 10. i 11. u poglavlju 3. Berlinskih pravila o vodnim resursima jasno govore o pravu Hrvatske da sudjeluje u upravljanju bazenom Neretve te obvezuju države da upravljaju međunarodnim riječnim bazenima u dobroj vjeri, što ovdje nije slučaj.

Zanima me je li Komisija upoznata s tim slučajem i hoće li stati u zaštitu prava država članica da sudjeluju u upravljanju riječnim bazenima koje dijele s trećim zemljama. Također, želim znati hoće li Komisija ustrajati na rješavanju takvih otvorenih pitanja s državama iz susjedstva, konkretno u ovom slučaju BiH, tijekom njihovih pregovora za članstvo u EU-u.

Odgovor g. Potočnika u ime Komisije

(28. travnja 2014.)

Komisija je svjesna tog slučaja i mogućih utjecaja na sliv rijeke Neretve u kontekstu odnosa između EU-a i Bosne i Hercegovine. Kao potencijalna država kandidatkinja Bosna i Hercegovina nije obvezana zakonodavstvom EU-a, no dužna je postići napredak u usklađivanju s propisima EU-a o okolišu te njihovoj provedbi. Komisija taj proces podržava i nadzire na redovnim sastancima o suradnji. Na sljedećem će se sastanku s predstavnicima tijela vlasti Bosne i Hercegovine pružiti prilika za iznošenje tog pitanja i na temelju toga Komisija će razmotriti odgovarajuće daljnje postupke.

Nadalje, Komisija je spremna podržati Hrvatsku ako joj se to pitanje podastre u skladu s člankom 12. Okvirne direktive o vodama (203).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002673/14

to the Commission

Ruža Tomašić (ECR)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Impact of the Upper Horizons project on the ecosystem of the river Neretva and the local economy

The construction of three hydroelectric power plants in Bosnia and Herzegovina (the Dabar, Nevesinje and Bileća power plants) as part of the Upper Horizons project implies drastic regulation of international waterways which, according to experts, could dry up the lower course of the river Neretva, which runs through Croatia.

Water flowing through underground karst channels of smaller rivers that naturally flows into the Neretva and then on into the sea would be rerouted to the Trebišnjica drainage area and further to the newly built reservoirs. The Neretva would thereby lose much of its hydropower potential, and increasing salinity would prevent the growing of fruit and vegetables in the Neretva valley south of Čapljina, which would represent a major blow to the local economy.

Under the Berlin Rules on Water Resources (Chapter III), Articles 10 and 11 clearly demonstrate that Croatia has a right to participate in the management of the Neretva basin, and they also oblige states to manage international river basins in good faith, which is not the case here.

Is the Commission is aware of this case and will it defend the right of Member States to participate in the management of river basins shared with third countries? Will it continue its efforts to resolve outstanding issues of this kind with neighbouring countries, specifically, in this case, with Bosnia and Herzegovina, as they negotiate for EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

The Commission is aware of this case and the potential impacts on the River Neretva Basin in the context of EU — Bosnia and Herzegovina relations. While as a potential candidate country Bosnia and Herzegovina is not bound by the EU legislation it is committed to make progress towards alignment with and implementation of EU environment law. This process is supported by the Commission and monitored at regular cooperation meetings. The next meeting with the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities will provide an opportunity to raise this issue and on this basis the Commission will consider an appropriate course of action.

In addition, the Commission stands ready to support Croatia, if the issue is brought to its attention in accordance with Art. 12 of the Water Framework Directive (204).

(Hrvatska verzija)

Pitanje za pisani odgovor E-002674/14

upućeno Komisiji

Ruža Tomašić (ECR)

(6. ožujka 2014.)

Predmet: Krivolov zaštićenih vrsta životinja na hrvatskom teritoriju

Rezolucijom od 15. siječnja 2014. o kriminalu povezanim s divljom florom i faunom Parlament je naglasio kako takva vrsta kriminala može biti ozbiljna prijetnja vladavini prava i održivom razvoju te pozvao države članice da potpuno provedu Preporuku Komisije br. 2007/425/EZ kojom se određuje paket mjera za provedbu Uredbe (EZ) br. 338/97 o zaštiti vrsta divljih biljaka i životinja uređenjem trgovine njima. Među ostalim, navedena Preporuka određuje da države članice moraju osigurati odgovarajuće informiranje javnosti i zainteresiranih strana kako bi se podigla svijest o negativnim posljedicama ilegalne trgovine divljom faunom.

U Hrvatskoj postoji značajan problem krivolova, kojim se na njezinom teritoriju bave krivolovci iz drugih članica, naročito Italije, radi trgovanja u njihovoj matičnoj državi. Ti su krivolovci aktivni i u državama iz hrvatskog susjedstva, tako da se Hrvatska nalazi i na krijumčarskoj ruti.

Unatoč uspostavi odgovarajućeg zakonskog okvira i edukaciji kadrova, Hrvatska nema utjecaj na stanje svijesti u drugim članicama, prije svega Italiji iz koje dolazi većina krijumčara, pa tako ni na mjere protiv sprječavanja krivolova u susjednim državama.

Stoga bih željela znati koje bi dodatne mjere Komisija mogla preporučiti nadležnim tijelima RH kako bismo u suradnji s tijelima država članica i trećih zemalja iz susjedstva stali na kraj ovom gorućem problemu.

Odgovor g. Potočnika u ime Komisije

(28. travnja 2014.)

Države članice nadležne su za provedbu zakonodavstva EU-a u vezi s lovom na divlje životinje (npr. članak 7. Direktive o pticama (205) ili članci 12., 14., 15. i 16. Direktive o staništima (206)) te za suzbijanje krivolova na svojem državnom području.

Komisija blisko surađuje s državama članicama u cilju jačanja provedbe mjerodavnog zakonodavstva. Suradnja na suzbijanju nezakonite trgovine divljom faunom i florom odvija se i putem skupine za provedbu zakona EU-a, u okviru koje se službenici odgovorni za provedbu zakona iz svih država članica EU-a i mjerodavnih organizacija sastaju dva puta godišnje pod predsjedanjem Europske komisije.

Nedostatak svijesti i dalje predstavlja veliku prepreku učinkovitoj provedbi zakona u tom području. To je istaknuto i u nedavnoj Komunikaciji o pristupu EU-a suzbijanju krijumčarenja divlje faune i flore (207) na temelju koje se Komisija savjetuje s dionicima i razmatra potrebu za revizijom pristupa EU-a.

Hrvatske bi vlasti mogle iskoristiti te postojeće mehanizme i tijela za suradnju na razini EU-a, primjerice Provedbenu skupinu CITES, Eurojust i Europol u cilju podizanja svijesti o problemu i jačanja suradnje sa susjednim državama članicama.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002674/14

to the Commission

Ruža Tomašić (ECR)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Poaching of protected animal species in Croatia

In its resolution of 15 January 2014 on wildlife crime, Parliament drew attention to the fact that this kind of crime can be a serious threat to the rule of law and to sustainable development and urged Member States to fully implement Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC identifying a set of actions for the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. The above recommendation calls for Member States to provide the necessary information to the public and stakeholders in order to raise awareness about the harmful consequences of the trade in wild fauna.

Poaching, a significant problem in Croatia, is engaged in by poachers from other Member States, especially Italy, for trading in their home countries. The fact that these poachers are also active in countries neighbouring Croatia means that Croatia is also on a trafficking route.

Despite the establishment of an appropriate legal framework and the training of personnel, Croatia has no influence on the state of awareness in other Member States, especially Italy, where most of the traffickers come from, or on anti-poaching measures in neighbouring countries.

What additional measures could the Commission could recommend to the proper authorities in Croatia to enable them, in cooperation with bodies in Member States and other neighbouring countries to put an end to this pressing problem.

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

Member States are responsible for enforcing EU legislation related to wildlife hunting (e.g. Article 7 of the Birds Directive (208) or Articles 12, 14-16 of the Habitats Directive (209)) and to address poaching on their territory.

The Commission works closely with Member States to strengthen the enforcement of relevant legislation. Cooperation on illegal wildlife trade issues also takes place through the EU enforcement group, where law enforcement officials from all EU Member States and relevant organisations meet twice a year under the chairmanship of the European Commission.

Lack of awareness remains a major obstacle to effective enforcement in the area. This is also highlighted in the recent Communication on the EU approach against wildlife trafficking (210) on the basis of which the Commission is consulting stakeholders and considering the need for a review of the EU approach.

The Croatian authorities could take advantage of these existing cooperation mechanisms and bodies at EU level, such as the CITES Enforcement Group, Eurojust and Europol to raise awareness about the problem and to strengthen cooperation with neighbouring Member States.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002675/14

alla Commissione

Matteo Salvini (EFD)

(6 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Problemi relativi al funzionamento del CONAI e alla determinazione dei contributi

Il Consorzio Nazionale Imballaggi (CONAI) è il consorzio privato senza fini di lucro istituito in Italia dal decreto legislativo 22 del 1997 e ora disciplinato dal decreto legislativo 152 del 2006.

Il CONAI è costituito dai produttori e utilizzatori italiani di imballaggi, che sono obbligati ad aderirvi allo scopo di perseguire gli obiettivi di recupero e riciclo dei materiali d'imballaggio previsti dalla direttiva 94/62/CE e dalle successive direttive 2004/12/CE e 2013/2/UE.

L'Istituto superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale del governo italiano afferma che nel 2013 la percentuale di raccolta differenziata per aree geografiche in Italia è la seguente: 52,6 % al Nord, 32,9 % al Centro e 26,7 % al Sud.

Le somme percepite dal CONAI risultano però inversamente proporzionali al tasso di riciclaggio: le aziende delle regioni del Nord sono indubbiamente quelle che più di tutte versano contributi al consorzio.

Per questa ragione, il contributo CONAI è percepito, specialmente nel settore dell'abbigliamento, non certo come un contributo utile per l'ambiente, ma come una tassa che si trasforma di fatto in un ostacolo alla competitività. Le aziende in regola subiscono infatti la concorrenza di laboratori tessili che in alcune aree italiane operano frodando il fisco, usufruendo di manodopera in nero o clandestina, violando le norme ambientali e risultando quindi sconosciuti al CONAI e alle autorità italiane che dovrebbero vigilare.

Questo organismo opera poi con metodi che non convincono gli imprenditori: le aziende devono anticipare al CONAI il contributo ancor prima di incassare le fatture; se cessano l'attività, le quote versate sono perse e non vengono restituite; gli adempimenti per il calcolo degli importi risultano assai complicati.

È la Commissione al corrente di questa situazione?

Può la Commissione chiarire se il governo italiano provvede a inviare periodicamente i dati sugli imballaggi e i rifiuti di imballaggio così come previsto dall'articolo 220, comma 8, del decreto legislativo 152 del 2006?

Ritiene la Commissione che il contributo pagato al CONAI in maniera inversamente proporzionale alla percentuale di raccolta differenziata per area geografica sia coerente con gli obiettivi delle normative europee in materia?

Quali misure intende quindi adottare la Commissione per obbligare il governo italiano a migliorare i controlli, specialmente nelle aree dove sono numerose le aziende che operano in totale clandestinità?

Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione

(19 maggio 2014)

La Commissione desume che il citato consorzio funge in Italia da piattaforma per l'applicazione del principio della responsabilità estesa del produttore (EPR), a sostegno della direttiva sugli imballaggi e i rifiuti di imballaggio. La Commissione riconosce la validità dell'EPR quale strumento fondamentale per l'attuazione della politica in materia di rifiuti e per il conseguimento degli obiettivi giuridicamente vincolanti dell'UE.

Le autorità italiane comunicano regolarmente alla Commissione le informazioni che sono tenute a trasmetterle in ossequio agli obblighi della direttiva sugli imballaggi e i rifiuti di imballaggio (211), ivi comprese le relazioni triennali sull'attuazione e i dati statistici annuali per ulteriori informazioni si veda:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/key_waste_streams/packaging_waste

La normativa UE in materia di rifiuti non precisa le condizioni cui devono attenersi i sistemi nazionali che traducono nella pratica il principio dell'EPR. Spetta agli Stati membri stabilire come attuare il principio dell'EPR, ossia decidere la struttura del sistema, nonché come controllarlo e monitorarlo.

Pur tuttavia, viste le grandi differenze in termini di prestazioni, trasparenza e rapporto costi-efficacia che si sono constatate tra i sistemi nazionali EPR, la Commissione, in base alle conclusioni dello studio Development of guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility  (212), sta vagliando alcuni requisiti minimi che tutti i sistemi dovrebbero rispettare.

La Commissione può anche fornire agli Stati membri orientamenti tecnici che illustrino esempi di buone pratiche e linee guida per l'applicazione dell'EPR.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002675/14

to the Commission

Matteo Salvini (EFD)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Problems relating to the functioning of CONAI and the determination of contributions

CONAI, the Italian national packaging consortium, is a private non-profit consortium established in Italy by Legislative Decree No 22 of 1997 and now governed by Legislative Decree 152 of 2006.

CONAI consists of Italian producers and users of packaging, who are obliged to join the consortium in order to achieve the targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging materials laid down in Directive 94/62/EC and subsequent directives 2004/12/EC and 2013/2/EU.

According to the Italian Government’s Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, in 2013 the percentage of recycling in Italy by geographical area was as follows: 52.6% in the North, 32.9% in the Centre and 26.7% in the South.

The amounts received by CONAI are, however, inversely proportional to the rate of recycling: companies in the northern regions of Italy are undoubtedly those which pay the most contributions to the consortium.

For this reason, the CONAI contribution is seen, especially in the clothing industry, not as a useful contribution to the environment, but rather as a tax which, in actual fact, hampers competitiveness. Companies that operate lawfully have to endure competition from textile laboratories that, in some parts of Italy, operate by defrauding the Italian revenue authorities, taking advantage of illegal or undeclared labour and infringing environmental rules, and are therefore unknown to CONAI and to the Italian authorities which are supposed to supervise them.

CONAI, moreover, operates using methods which entrepreneurs find somewhat dubious: companies have to make advance contributions to CONAI even before their bills have been paid; if their business closes down, the fees paid are lost and not returned. The procedures relating to the calculation of the amounts to be paid are also very complicated.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Can the Commission clarify whether the Italian Government periodically sends its data on packaging and packaging waste as provided for in Article 220(8) of Legislative Decree 152 of 2006?

Does the Commission believe that the contribution paid to CONAI, which is inversely proportional to the rate of recycling by geographical area, is consistent with the objectives of the relevant EU rules?

What measures will it therefore take to force the Italian Government to improve its monitoring, especially in areas where there are many companies operating in total secrecy?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2014)

The Commission understands that this packaging consortium is being used in Italy as the platform to implement the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) principle in support of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive. The Commission acknowledges that EPR is a key instrument to support the implementation of waste policy and the achievement of EU legal targets.

The Italian authorities report periodically to the Commission in respect of the requirements of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (213), including the triennial implementation reports and the annual statistical data (see: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/key_waste_streams/packaging_waste for more information).

EU waste legislation does not establish conditions which have to be met by national EPR systems. Member States are responsible for the implementation of the EPR principle, including the design of the system, its control, and its monitoring.

However, due to important difference between national EPR systems in terms of their performance, transparency, and cost-effectiveness, the Commission is examining some minimum requirements which all such systems should be required to meet, based on the conclusions of a study on the ‘Development of guidance on Extended Producer Responsibility’ (214).

Some technical guidance may also be provided by the Commission, to present good practices and guidelines for the implementation of EPR by the Member States.

(Wersja polska)

Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-002676/14

do Komisji

Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE)

(6 marca 2014 r.)

Przedmiot: Rynek mleka w UE

W ostatnim czasie obserwujemy rosnącą dynamikę dostaw mleka w większości państw członkowskich UE. Widać wyraźnie, że rolnicy przygotowują się do liberalizacji rynku mleka, zwiększając stada i inwestując w budynki i urządzenia. Sprzyja temu sytuacja na rynku światowym, ponieważ wzrasta popyt na produkty mleczarskie. Wszystko wskazuje na to, że wiele krajów przekroczy swoje krajowe limity dostaw w ostatnich dwóch latach funkcjonowania kwot.

W związku z powyższym apeluję o przyjęcie skutecznych rozwiązań, które spowodują ograniczenie sankcji za przekroczenie kwot i pozwolą przygotować producentów mleka do prowadzenia działalności po zniesieniu systemu kwotowego. Nie ma sensu karać rolników za to, że rozpoczęli przygotowania do nowej rzeczywistości po 2015 r., gdy nie będzie już kwot.

Jedną z decyzji, jaką Komisja Europejska możne podjąć w dość krótkim czasie, a która może uchronić rolników przed płaceniem wysokich kar finansowych za przekroczenie kwot, jest korekta współczynnika tłuszczowego. Wystarczy dokonać zmiany rozporządzenia Komisji (WE) nr 595/2004.

Czy Komisja podejmie jakieś działania, które uchronią rolników przed płaceniem wysokich kar za przekroczenie kwot?

Czy Komisja dokona korekty współczynnika tłuszczowego dla dwóch ostatnich lat kwotowych, tj. dla bieżącego roku kwotowego (2013/2014) oraz roku kwotowego 2014/2015?

Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Daciana Cioloșa w imieniu Komisji

(29 kwietnia 2014 r.)

Komisja uprzejmie prosi szanownego Pana Posła o zapoznanie się z odpowiedzią na pytanie pisemne nr E‐014095/2013 (215).

W ciągu ostatnich kilku tygodni miały miejsce dalsze dyskusje na temat korekty zawartości tłuszczu; zwłaszcza w Radzie, gdzie brakuje większości kwalifikowanej do zmiany elementów porozumienia w sprawie oceny funkcjonowania reformy WPR z 2008 r. w zakresie „miękkiego lądowania” w kontekście zniesienia kwot mlecznych. W związku z powyższym Komisja nie zamierza zmienić obecnych przepisów w odniesieniu do korekty zawartości tłuszczu.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002676/14

to the Commission

Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: EU milk market

Milk production is currently on the rise in most EU Member States. Farmers are clearly preparing themselves for the liberalisation of the milk market, expanding their herds and investing in buildings and equipment. The situation on the world market also reflects this trend, with demand for dairy products on the increase. All this suggests that many countries will exceed their national limits in the final two years of quotas.

With the above in mind I should like to call for effective action to be taken to reduce the penalties for exceeding quotas and allow milk producers to make preparations with a view to taking their businesses forward after the quota system has ceased to apply. It makes no sense to punish farmers for starting to prepare for the new situation after 2015, when quotas will no longer exist.

One decision that the Commission could take fairly swiftly and which might prevent farmers from having to pay stiff financial penalties for exceeding quotas would be to change the fat correction factor. All it would take would be to amend Commission Regulation (EC) No 595/2004.

Will the Commission be taking any steps to prevent farmers from having to pay stiff fines for exceeding quotas?

Will the Commission be adjusting the fat correction factor for the final two years of quotas, i.e. for the current quota year (2013-14) and for the quota year 2014-15?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2014)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐014095/2013 (216).

Further discussions on the issue of fat correction have taken place in the last few weeks, in particular at Council level where there is no qualified majority to change elements of the 2008 Health Check agreement on a soft landing in the context of the abolition of dairy quota. In that light, the Commission does not intend to alter current provisions as regards fat correction.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-002677/14

adresată Comisiei

Minodora Cliveti (S&D)

(6 martie 2014)

Subiect: Reglementare separată privind traficul de persoane în scopul exploatării sexuale

Având în vedere raportul privind traficul de ființe umane, ediția 2013 al Eurostat, care constată în partea sa introductivă că 62% dintre victime sunt traficate în scopul exploatării sexuale, procent care este în creștere în perioada analizată în acest raport, în timp ce numărul victimelor traficate pentru munca forțată este în scădere;

Având în vedere faptul că 96% din aceste victime sunt femei și că 61 % dintre aceste victime identificate provin din state membre ale UE, cele mai multe din România și Bulgaria;

Având în vedere faptul că 75% dintre traficanții de persoane sunt bărbați și că 84% dintre aceștia sunt implicați în traficul în vederea exploatării sexuale;

Având în vedere faptul că adunarea datelor privind traficul de persoane are în vedere, pe lângă exploatarea sexuală (care reprezintă 62% din trafic), munca forțată, servitutea domestică, cerșetoria forțată, exploatarea în procesul traficului de droguri sau terorismului, traficul de organe și alte activități, precum căsătorii forțate, adopții forțate etc., toate acestea împreună reprezentând 38% din traficul de persoane,

Nu consideră Comisia că se impune reglementarea separată a traficului în scopul exploatării sexuale, care este în mod evident cea mai importantă parte a traficului de ființe umane, care folosește în imensă majoritate femei, este practicat în imensă majoritate de bărbați și are caracteristici specifice care nu pot fi analizate, monitorizate și controlate decât prin legislație, metode, mijloace și soluții specifice?

Răspuns dat de dna Malmström în numele Comisiei

(23 aprilie 2014)

Comisia împărtășește preocupările stimatei doamne deputat cu privire la tendința ascendentă înregistrată de traficul de persoane în scopul exploatării sexuale în perioada 2008-2010, care a fost identificată în documentul de lucru din 2013 al Eurostat (217).

Forma de trafic de persoane cea mai frecvent raportată este traficul în scopul exploatării sexuale (66 % din cazurile raportate în 2010), majoritatea covârșitoare a victimelor acestui tip de trafic fiind femei și fete (96 % în 2010). Traficul de persoane în scopul exploatării prin muncă reprezintă 23 % din cazurile raportate în 2010, majoritatea victimelor acestui tip de trafic fiind bărbați și băieți (77 % în 2010).

Directiva 2011/36/UE (218) prevede o definiție armonizată a infracțiunii de trafic de persoane și a sancțiunilor aplicabile, precum și dispoziții în materie de protecție, asistență și sprijin pentru victime și în materie de prevenire. Directiva prevede, de asemenea, că traficul de persoane este un fenomen care afectează în mod diferit femeile și bărbații, pentru combaterea acestuia solicitându-se adoptarea de măsuri diferențiate în funcție de sex.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002677/14

to the Commission

Minodora Cliveti (S&D)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Separate rules on people trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation

The executive summary of Eurostat's 2013 report on trafficking in human beings notes that 62% of victims are trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation and that this percentage has increased each year over the period analysed in the report, whereas the number of victims of trafficking for labour exploitation is falling.

96% of these victims are female and 61% of the identified victims come from EU Member States, the majority of them from Romania and Bulgaria. 75% of traffickers are men, and 84% of them are involved in trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

The collection of data on people trafficking concerns other aspects as well as the sexual exploitation which accounts for 62% of victims. The remaining 38% are victims of forced labour, domestic servitude, forced begging, exploitation for the purpose of drug trafficking or terrorism, organ trafficking, and other activities such as forced marriage, forced adoption, etc.

Does the Commission not believe that separate rules need to be introduced on trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, which is clearly the most significant aspect of trafficking in human beings, where the vast majority of victims are women and the vast majority of traffickers are men, and which has specific features that can be analysed, monitored and controlled only through specific legislation, methods, tools and solutions?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2014)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member over the increasing trend in trafficking of human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation between 2008 and 2010 identified in the 2013 Eurostat Working Paper (219).

The most reported form of trafficking in human beings is trafficking for sexual exploitation (66% of reported victims in 2010) and the overwhelming majority of victims of this form of trafficking are women and girls (96% in 2010). Trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation accounts for 23% of reported victims in 2010 and the majority of victims of trafficking for labour exploitation are men and boys (77% in 2010).

Directive 2011/36/EU (220) provides for a harmonised definition of the criminal offence of trafficking in human beings and the applicable penalties, as well as provisions for the protection, assistance and support of victims and prevention. The directive further stipulates that human trafficking is a gendered phenomenon, and calls for gender specific measures to address it.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002678/14

an die Kommission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: EU-Vogelschutzrichtlinie umsetzen — 2,5 Millionen tote Zugvögel sind zu viel

1.

Wie bewertet die Kommission die stetige Zunahme getöteter Zugvögel in der Republik Zypern auch nach 10 Jahren EU-Mitgliedschaft?

2.

Wie bewertet die Kommission die Umsetzung der EU-Vogelschutzrichtlinie in der Republik Zypern, insbesondere seit 2013?

3.

Welche konkreten Maßnahmen wird die Kommission gegenüber der zyprischen Regierung ergreifen, um eine effiziente Umsetzung der EU-Vogelschutzrichtlinie sicherzustellen und die weitere Verschleierung von Tatsachen und Verstößen gegen EU-Recht zu verhindern?

Antwort von Herrn Potočnik im Namen der Kommission

(24. April 2014)

Die Kommission hat vor kurzem einen Monitoring-Bericht mit Daten über die illegale Fangjagd auf Wildvögel erhalten, die im Herbst 2013 in Zypern stattfand. Die Kommission hat diese Daten geprüft. Außerdem hat sie auf einer Paketsitzung (221) am 25. Februar 2014 die Fangjagd in der Republik Zypern bei den zuständigen zyprischen Behörden zur Sprache gebracht. Darüber hinaus wird die Kommission die Fangjagd im souveränen britischen Stützpunkt Dhekelia mit den zuständigen britischen Behörden erörtern.

Die Verantwortung für die Durchsetzung der Bestimmungen der Vogelschutzrichtlinie (222), einschließlich Maßnahmen gegen die Vogelwilderei und der Mobilisierung von Freiwilligen für solche Maßnahmen, liegt bei den zuständigen Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten. In Fällen, in denen das illegale Töten oder Fangen von Wildvögeln anhält, prüft die Kommission zusammen mit den nationalen Behörden die Wirksamkeit der zur Bekämpfung derartiger Praktiken getroffenen Maßnahmen. In diesem Zusammenhang hat die Kommission auch einen Fahrplan (223) erstellt, in dem konkrete Maßnahmen zur Beseitigung der illegalen Tötung von Wildvögeln, der Fangjagd auf Wildvögel und des Handels mit Wildvögeln in der EU aufgezeigt werden. Sie überwacht die Durchführung dieses Fahrplans in Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten und den Interessenträgern.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002678/14

to the Commission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Time to implement the Birds Directive — 2.5 million dead migratory birds is too many

1.

How does the Commission view the steady increase in the killing of migratory birds in Cyprus, even though that country has been an EU Member State for 10 years now?

2.

How does the Commission view the implementation of the Birds Directive in Cyprus, particularly since 2013?

3.

What practical measures will the Commission take vis-à-vis the Government of Cyprus to ensure that the Birds Directive is properly implemented, to prevent further obfuscation and to stop EC law being broken?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2014)

The Commission received recently the monitoring report with data of illegal bird trapping during autumn 2013 in Cyprus. The Commission has analysed these and further raised the matter, as regards trapping activities taking place in the Republic of Cyprus, with the competent Cypriot authorities during a package meeting (224) on 25 February 2014. The Commission will also raise this issue with the competent British authorities as regards trapping activities within the Dhekelia Sovereign British Base area.

The enforcement of the provisions of the Birds Directive (225), including action against bird poaching and the mobilisation of volunteers for such action, is a responsibility of the competent authorities of Member States. Where illegal killing or trapping of birds persists, the Commission investigates with the national authorities the effectiveness of the measures taken to combat these practices. In that regard the Commission has also produced a Roadmap (226) identifying specific measures aimed at eliminating illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU, and is monitoring its implementation in cooperation with Member States and stakeholders.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002679/14

an die Kommission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Pestizide: Verlängerung der Fristen für laufende Genehmigungsanträge

Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass mit der Industrie vereinbart wurde, nicht zugelassene Pestizide einer nochmaligen Bewertung zu unterziehen, und des als „Verlängerung“ bekannten einschlägigen Verfahrens verzögern sich die Fristen für Anträge auf Genehmigung auf EU-Ebene. Eine Reihe sehr wichtiger Pestizide, wie Glyphosat, Amitrol und Diquat, sollen zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt nochmals geprüft werden.

1.

Für wie viele in Pestiziden enthaltene Wirkstoffe ist die Neubewertung verschoben worden?

2.

Wie werden die neu bewerteten Wirkstoffe (d. h. die in der Neufassung von Anhang I) auf etwaige endokrinschädigende Eigenschaften überprüft?

3.

Warum wurden keine unabhängigen Studien in das Dossier aufgenommen?

4.

Teilt die Kommission die Auffassung, dass von der Industrie geförderte Studien und Sicherheitstests — vor allem jene chronischen Studien, auf deren Grundlage die zulässige Tagesdosis festgelegt wird — generell überprüft werden sollten?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(22. April 2014)

Wir nehmen Bezug auf die in der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1141/2010 (227) aufgeführten Wirkstoffe.

1.

Mit der Richtlinie 2010/77/EU der Kommission (228) wurden die Fristen für 31 Stoffe bis zum 31. Dezember 2015 verlängert. Für zwei Wirkstoffe wurde kein Antrag gestellt, so dass der Ablauf der Frist wieder auf das ursprüngliche Datum zurückverlegt wurde.

2.

Bis zur Festlegung von Kriterien für endokrinschädigende Eigenschaften werden Stoffe anhand der vorläufig geltenden Kriterien bewertet, die in Anhang II Nummer 3.6.5 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 (229) aufgeführt sind.

3.

Gemäß Artikel 13 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1141/2010 können unabhängige Studien von Dritten innerhalb einer bestimmten Zeit übermittelt werden. Für mehrere Stoffe haben die Antragsteller von Fachleuten überprüfte frei verfügbare Literatur vorgelegt, bei der die Leitlinien der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit für die Einreichung wissenschaftlicher und von Fachleuten überprüfter frei verfügbarer Literatur im Hinblick auf die Zulassung von Pestizidwirkstoffen nach der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 (EFSA Journal 2011;9(2):2092) beachtet wurden. Für die betroffenen Wirkstoffe war das nicht vorgeschrieben.

4.

Auf Anfrage können als Antragsunterlagen vorgelegte Studien und Sicherheitstests zur Verfügung gestellt werden, sofern nicht um vertrauliche Behandlung der betreffenden Informationen gebeten wurde und diese gerechtfertigt ist.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002679/14

to the Commission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Pesticides: prolongation of all deadlines for requests for ongoing approval

Owing to an existing agreement with industry to reassess non-authorised pesticides, all deadlines for requests for approval at EU level are delayed in a process known as ‘prolongation’. Several very important pesticides such as glyphosate, amitrole and diquat are to be reassessed at a later stage.

1.

For how many active substances contained in pesticides has reassessment been delayed?

2.

How are the reassessed active substances (i.e. those in the AIR groups) assessed for endocrine-disrupting properties?

3.

Why have all independent studies been omitted from the dossier?

4.

Does the Commission agree that industry-sponsored studies and safety tests should be made available for general scrutiny, in particular those chronic studies establishing the basis for acceptable daily intake?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2014)

Reference is made to active substances listed in Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 (230).

1.

The expiry dates of 31 substances have been extended till 31 December 2015 by Commission Directive 2010/77/EU (231). For two active substances no application was received and the expiry date has been set back to the original expiry date.

2.

Pending the adoption of criteria for endocrine-disrupting properties substances are assessed in accordance with the interim criteria as listed in Annex II point 3.6.5 to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (232).

3.

According to the provisions of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 independent studies can be submitted by third parties within a set timeframe.

For a number of substances peer-reviewed open literature has been submitted for which the applicant has followed the recommendations included in the European Food Safety Authority guidance on the submission of scientific peer-reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (EFSA Journal 2011;9(2):2092). This was not mandatory for the active substances referred to.

4.

Upon request studies and safety tests which are submitted as part of the application will be made available, excluding any information for which confidentiality treatment has been requested and is justified.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002680/14

an die Kommission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Pestizide: Verhindert die Industrie die Veröffentlichung der Liste der zu ersetzenden Stoffe?

Nach Artikel 80 Absatz 7 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 gilt: „Die Kommission erstellt bis zum 14. Dezember 2013 eine Liste der in Anhang I der Richtlinie 91/414/EWG aufgeführten Wirkstoffe, die die Kriterien von Anhang II Nummer 4 der vorliegenden Verordnung erfüllen und für die Artikel 50 der vorliegenden Verordnung gilt.“

Die GD Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz hat eine Liste der zu ersetzenden Wirkstoffe zusammengestellt, dafür aber von der Industrie viel Kritik geerntet, weil die Liste als „Schwarze Liste der zu ersetzenden Stoffe“ verwendet werden könnte.

1.

Warum wurde die Liste der zu ersetzenden Wirkstoffe nicht fristgemäß zum 14. Dezember 2013 veröffentlicht?

2.

Warum findet sich unter den zur Festlegung der zu ersetzenden Stoffe herangezogenen Quellen keine unabhängige wissenschaftliche Fachliteratur?

3.

Warum zählt Entwicklungsneurotoxizität nicht zu den Kriterien für die Ermittlung zu ersetzender Stoffe?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(16. April 2014)

1.

Die Vorarbeiten zur Erstellung der Liste von Stoffen, die die in Artikel 80 Absatz 7 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 (233) festgelegten Kriterien erfüllen, wurden im Ständigen Ausschuss für die Lebensmittelkette und Tiergesundheit mit den Mitgliedstaaten und in der entsprechenden Arbeitsgruppe seiner Beratungsgruppe mit den Interessenträgern erörtert. Im Verlauf dieser Erörterungen erhielt die Kommission mehrere Anregungen für Verbesserungen und Korrekturen. Da die Bewertung und gegebenenfalls Umsetzung dieser Anregungen Zeit in Anspruch nahmen, verzögerte sich die Veröffentlichung der Liste.

2.

Die Bewertung von Stoffen unter dem Gesichtspunkt ihrer etwaigen Aufnahme in die Liste der Stoffe, die die in Artikel 80 Absatz 7 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 festgelegten Kriterien erfüllen (sogenannte „zu ersetzende Stoffe“) basiert auf einvernehmlich festgelegten Endpunkten, die als Grundlage ihrer Zulassung als Wirkstoffe in Pflanzenschutzmitteln dienen. Unabhängige wissenschaftliche Fachliteratur wurde insoweit berücksichtigt, als sie im Rahmen des Zulassungsverfahrens vorgelegt wurde und deshalb den Status eines Stoffs berührt haben könnte.

3.

Die Entwicklungsneurotoxizität wird bei der Zulassung berücksichtigt und berührt den Status eines Stoffes auf der Liste der zu ersetzenden Stoffe. Das dritte unter Nummer 4 des Anhangs II der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 aufgeführte Kriterium schreibt die Berücksichtigung der Entwicklungsneurotoxizität bei der Ermittlung der Stoffe vor, die in die Liste aufgenommen werden sollen, allerdings in Kombination mit anderen Faktoren.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002680/14

to the Commission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Pesticides: is the publication of a list of candidates for substitution being prevented by industry?

Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 provides that: ‘By 14 December 2013, the Commission shall establish a list of substances included in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC which satisfy the criteria set out in point 4 of Annex II to this regulation and to which the provisions of Article 50 of this regulation shall apply.’

DG SANCO drew up a list of active substance candidates for substitution, but received much criticism from industry on the grounds that it could be used as a substitute black list.

1.

Why was the list of candidates for substitution not published on 14 December 2013, as required?

2.

Why is independent scientific literature not being used as a source for candidates?

3.

Why is developmental neurotoxicity not being used as a criterion for the identification of candidates?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2014)

1.

The preparatory work to establish a list of substances that fulfil the provisions set out in Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (234) was discussed with the Member States in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and with stakeholders in the Working Group of its Advisory Group. In the course of these discussions, the Commission received several suggestions for improvement and correction. The time required to assess the suggestions and implement them, where appropriate, led to a delay in the publication of the list.

2.

The assessment of substances as regards the possible inclusion in the list of substances that fulfil the provisions set out in Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (the so-called ‘candidates for substitution’) is based on agreed endpoints that form the basis of their approval as active substances in plant protection products. Independent scientific literature was taken into account insofar it has been submitted as part of the approval process and therefore can have affected the status of a substance.

3.

Developmental neurotoxicity is taken into account for the approval and affects the status of a substance on the list of candidates for substitution. The third criterion listed under point 4 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 requires the consideration of developmental neurotoxicity for the identification of substances to be included in the list, however in combination with other factors.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002681/14

an die Kommission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Kriterien für die endokrindisruptive Wirkung von Pestiziden

2009 entschieden die Dienststellen der Kommission, dass Kriterien für die endokrindisruptive Wirkung von Pestiziden unter der Führung der GD Umwelt erarbeitet werden sollten. Die GD Umwelt arbeitete daraufhin über mehrere Jahre mit Sachverständigenteams unter der Führung der Gemeinsamen Forschungsstelle (JRC) und mit Interessengruppen zusammen und legte schließlich Anfang 2013 einen Entwurf der Kriterien vor. Dann veranlasste der Generalsekretär auf massives Betreiben der Lobby der Pestizidindustrie die Einstellung des Verfahrens, wobei er die GD Umwelt völlig überging. Jetzt muss eine Folgenabschätzung durchgeführt werden. Die dafür festgelegte Frist wurde missachtet. 2012 gab die GD Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz bei der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) einen Entwurf der Kriterien in Auftrag, ohne die GD Umwelt einzubeziehen. In Bezug auf die durchzuführende Folgenabschätzung arbeitete die GD Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz anschließend mit anderen Generaldirektionen zusammen.

1.

Warum hat die Kommission die auf Dezember 2013 festgelegte Frist missachtet?

2.

Warum hat der Generalsekretär erst so spät eingegriffen? (Er wusste schließlich, woran die GD Umwelt arbeitete.)

3.

Welche Agentur oder Stelle der EU (die EFSA, die JRC, der Wissenschaftliche Ausschuss „Gesundheits- und Umweltrisiken“ (SCHER) o. a.) sollte mit der wissenschaftlichen Bewertung der Kriterien betraut werden?

4.

An welcher Stelle werden in der Verordnung über Pflanzenschutzmittel wirtschaftliche Folgen als ein Aspekt genannt, den es bei der Festlegung von Kriterien für eine endokrindisruptive Wirkung zu beachten gilt?

5.

Wie oft haben Treffen zwischen den Dienststellen der Kommission und Vertretern der Branche stattgefunden, in denen es um endokrin aktive Substanzen ging? Liegen Protokolle dieser Treffen vor, in die Einsicht genommen werden kann?

6.

Warum hat die Kommission zur Erarbeitung der Kriterien keine unabhängigen Wissenschaftler herangezogen? (Die Endocrine Society zählt 40 000 Endokrinologen zu ihren Mitgliedern.)

7.

Wie viele Pestizide werden aufgrund der vorläufig geltenden Kriterien für eine endokrindisruptive Wirkung verboten werden?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(24. April 2014)

In den Rechtsvorschriften über Pflanzenschutzmittel und Biozidprodukte wird die Kommission ermächtigt, Kriterien zur Identifizierung endokrin wirksamer Stoffe zu erarbeiten. Die vorläufigen Kriterien sind in diesen Instrumenten festgelegt und gelten so lange, bis die neuen Kriterien vorliegen.

Für die Festlegung der Kriterien stehen verschiedene Optionen zur Verfügung. Schwierig wird es dadurch, dass in der Wissenschaft nicht unbedingt Einigkeit besteht, wie endokrine Disruptoren zu definieren sind, und dass in den einschlägigen Rechtsvorschriften unterschiedliche Entscheidungsverfahren festgelegt sind. Aus diesen Gründen hat die Kommission 2013 entschieden, eine Folgenabschätzung durchzuführen, um ihre Entscheidung bezüglich der Kriterien zu untermauern. Es ist Kommissionspolitik, eine Folgenabschätzung vorzunehmen, wenn die geplanten Maßnahmen erhebliche Auswirkungen haben; dies gilt auch für Durchführungsrechtsakte und delegierte Rechtsakte. Um eine solide Entscheidungsgrundlage zu schaffen, werden die potenziellen wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und ökologischen Auswirkungen der möglichen Kriterien bewertet.

Die Folgenabschätzung umfasst außerdem eine öffentliche Anhörung, an der sich alle Interessengruppen beteiligen können. Mit relevanten Interessengruppen einschließlich privaten Unternehmen zu sprechen, ist gängige Praxis und ein integraler Bestandteil der Agenda der Kommission für intelligente Regulierung.

Die Kommission hat bereits — hauptsächlich in der „Endocrine Disrupters Expert Advisory Group“ („beratende Expertengruppe zu endokrinen Disruptoren“) (235) und über ein Mandat für die EFSA (236) — unabhängige Wissenschaftler miteinbezogen. Während der Folgenabschätzung werden weitere Anhörungen stattfinden.

Sobald die Kriterien festgelegt sind, sind sie gemäß den übergeordneten Rechtsvorschriften anzuwenden. Wie viele Pflanzenschutzmittel und Biozidprodukte aufgrund vorläufiger oder neuer Kriterien verboten werden, ist noch nicht bekannt. Dies wird in der Folgenabschätzung bewertet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002681/14

to the Commission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Pesticides: criteria for endocrine disruption

In 2009, Commission departments agreed that DG ENV had the lead on criteria. DG ENV worked for several years with expert groups led by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and stakeholder groups, and finally drafted criteria in early 2013. Then the Secretary-General stopped the process and sidelined DG ENV, after a massive lobby by the pesticide industry. Now an impact analysis needs to be performed. The deadline has been disregarded. In 2012, SANCO mandated the European Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) to draft criteria without involving DG ENV. Next, DG SANCO collaborated with other DGs on the need to perform an impact assessment.

1.

Why did the Commission disregard the deadline of December 2013?

2.

Why did the Secretary-General intervene at such a late stage (when he knew very well what DG ENV was doing)?

3.

Which EU agency or body (the EFSA, the JRC, the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), etc.) should be carrying out a scientific assessment of the criteria?

4.

Where does the text of the pesticide regulation on endocrines mention economic impact as an element for establishing criteria?

5.

How many times did the Commission departments meet industry representatives regarding endocrines? Do transparent minutes of these meetings exist?

6.

Why did the Commission not involve independent scientists in drawing up the criteria (the Endocrine Society has 40 000 endocrinologists amongst its members)?

7.

How many pesticides will be banned because of the interim criteria on endocrines?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2014)

In the legislation on plant protection products and biocidal products, the Commission is empowered to develop criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances. Interim criteria are defined in these instruments and will apply until the new criteria are established.

Different options are available for the choice of criteria. This is further complicated by the divergent scientific opinions on how to define endocrine disruptors and by the different regulatory decision making processes in the sectoral legislation. For these reasons, the Commission decided in 2013 to carry out an Impact Assessment (IA) to inform its decision on the criteria. Existing Commission policy on Impact Assessments requires assessments to be made where the envisaged measures entail significant impacts and applies also to the development of implementing and delegated acts. The potential economic, social and environmental impacts of the various possible criteria will be evaluated in order to provide a solid basis for decision making.

The IA will also be supported by a public consultation where all stakeholders will be able to contribute. Meeting relevant stakeholders including private companies is normal practice and an integral part of the Commission's smart regulation agenda.

The Commission has already involved independent scientists mainly via the ‘Endocrine Disruptors Expert Advisory Group’ (237) and via a mandate to EFSA (238). Further consultations will be made during the IA process.

Once established, the criteria will be applied pursuant to the parent legislation. It is not known yet how many plant protection products and biocides will be banned because of the interim criteria or by application of any new criteria. This will be assessed in the impact assessment.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002682/14

an die Kommission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Pestizide: Daten‐ und Studienanforderungen

Artikel 84 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 verpflichtet die Kommission zum Erlass folgender Verordnungen bis zum 14. Juni 2011:

„… b) eine Verordnung gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b über die Datenanforderungen für Wirkstoffe;

d) eine Verordnung gemäß Artikel 36 über einheitliche Grundsätze für die Risikobewertung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln“.

Die Datenanforderungen, die vor 2009 schon alt und veraltet waren, sind immer noch gültig, und einige Sicherheitsprüfungen wurden infolge einer massiven Lobbykampagne der Industrie, die Kostensenkungen zum Ziel hatte, gestrichen.

1.

Warum wird die pränatale Exposition in den erforderlichen Sicherheitsprüfungen für chronische Krebserkrankungen nicht berücksichtigt?

2.

Warum erfolgt die Prüfung für chronische Krebserkrankungen nicht lebenslang?

3.

Warum ist die Prüfung auf Entwicklungsneurotoxizität keine Standardanforderung für alle Pestizide?

4.

Warum enthalten die Datenanforderungen keine Prüfungen für Chemikalien mit endokriner Wirkung?

5.

Warum werden die Prüfungen nicht in unabhängigen Labors in Blindversuchen durchgeführt?

Antwort von Tonio Borg im Namen der Kommission

(8. April 2014)

Die Datenanforderungen für die Genehmigung von Wirkstoffen und die Zulassung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln wurden 2013 durch zwei Verordnungen im Wege des Regelungsverfahrens mit Kontrolle erlassen (1). Zuvor hatte eine breit angelegte Konsultation aller betroffenen Stakeholder stattgefunden, und mehrere Gutachten der EFSA waren berücksichtigt worden. In den Fällen, in denen keine neuen Methoden zur Verfügung standen, die eine bessere Datenbasis gebildet hätten, wurden geltende Datenanforderungen nicht ersetzt.

1)

Die pränatale Exposition fällt unter die Studien, die im Rahmen der Reproduktionstoxizität vorgeschrieben sind. Dazu zählen auch Entwicklungstoxizitätsstudien, die immer verlangt werden (239)  (240).

2)

Die Langzeit-Toxizitäts‐ und Carcinogenitätsprüfung erfolgt nach Leitlinien, die auf europäischer und internationaler Ebene (z. B. OECD) vereinbart wurden (2).

3)

Neurotoxizitätsstudien in vivo werden nur vorgeschrieben, wenn sie durch Toxizitätsstudien oder für bestimmte Wirkstoffgruppen gerechtfertigt sind. Damit wird dem Erwägungsgrund 40 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 (241) Rechnung getragen, nach dem Tierversuche auf ein Minimum zu beschränken sind.

4)

Prüfungen für Chemikalien mit endokriner Wirkung sind in den neuen Datenanforderungen unter den Punkten 5.8.3, 8.1.5 und 8.2.3 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 283/2013 (1) vorgeschrieben.

5)

Die Prüfungen müssen nach der Guten Laborpraxis gemäß den Grundsätzen der Richtlinie 2004/10/EG (242) durchgeführt werden. Damit wird eine unabhängige Qualitätssicherung des Prozesses und der Bedingungen garantiert, unter denen Sicherheitsstudien geplant, durchgeführt und wiedergegeben werden.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002682/14

to the Commission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Pesticides: data and study requirements

Article 84 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 required the Commission to adopt the following by 14 June 2011:

‘… (b) a regulation on data requirements for active substances, as referred to in Article 8(1)(b);

(d) a regulation on uniform principles for risk assessment for plant protection products, as referred to in Article 36;’.

Data requirements that were already old and outdated before 2009 are still maintained, and some safety tests have even been removed as a result of a major industry lobbying campaign aimed at cutting costs.

1.

Why is in utero exposure not taken into account in the required chronic cancer safety test?

2.

Why is the chronic cancer test not lifelong?

3.

Why is the developmental neurotoxicity test not a standard requirement for all pesticides?

4.

Why are tests for endocrine-disrupting chemicals not included in the data requirements?

5.

Why are the tests not performed in independent laboratories, using blind testing?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2014)

The data requirements for the approval of active substances and the authorisation of plant protection products were updated in 2013 by two regulations adopted under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (243). This was preceded by a wide consultation of all concerned stakeholders and the consideration of several EFSA’s opinions. In cases where no new methods which would provide a better data basis were available, the existing data requirements were not replaced.

1.

In utero exposure is covered by studies requested under reproductive toxicity. This includes developmental toxicity studies, which are always requested (244).

2.

The long term toxicity and carcinogenicity testing follow guidelines agreed at European and international level (e.g. OECD).

3.

Neurotoxicity studies in vivo are only requested if justified by toxicity studies or for certain groups of active substances. This is in line with Recital 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (245) which requests that animal testing should be minimised.

4.

Tests for endocrine disruption chemicals are requested in the new data requirements under points 5.8.3, 8.1.5 and 8.2.3 of Regulation (EU) No 283/2013.

5.

Tests have to be performed under Good Laboratory Practice in accordance with the principles laid down in Directive 2004/10/EC (246). This guarantees an independent quality assurance of the process and the conditions under which safety studies are planned, performed and reported.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002683/14

an die Kommission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Pestizide: unabhängige Literatur und Begutachtung der EFSA-Stellungnahme durch unabhängige Wissenschaftler

Laut der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 wurde die Europäische Behörde für die Lebensmittelsicherheit (EFSA) mit der Aufgabe befasst, festzulegen, was als unabhängige, von Fachleuten überprüfte Literatur gilt. Sie kam dieser Pflicht in einer Art und Weise nach, dass ausschließlich von der Industrie gesponserte Studien für geeignet befunden worden, wissenschaftliche Studien hingegen nicht. Das ist genau das Gegenteil dessen, was mit der Verordnung erreicht werden sollte.

Bei den ersten Bewertungen, die nach dieser Anforderung durchgeführt wurden (Glyphosat, Diquat, 2,4-D usw.) hat die Industrie die EFSA-Stellungnahme für ihre Zwecke genutzt und eine „Überprüfung“ durchgeführt, mit dem Ergebnis, dass aufgrund der Lücke bei den Zuverlässigkeitskriterien nach Klimisch keine einzige wissenschaftliche Studie für die Entscheidungsfindung relevant ist. Dadurch wird die in der Verordnung festgelegte Anforderung komplett ausgehöhlt.

1.

Sind nach Auffassung der Kommission wissenschaftliche Studien für die Entscheidungsfindung in Brüssel absolut irrelevant?

2.

Stimmt die Kommission mit der Auffassung der EFSA überein, dass von der Industrie gesponserte Studien stets zuverlässig und relevant sind?

3.

Wäre es nicht an der Zeit, die EFSA-Stellungnahme zu revidieren und neu zu konzipieren, zumal jetzt klar ist, dass unabhängige Studien überhaupt nicht berücksichtigt werden?

4.

Was hält die Kommission davon, unabhängige Wissenschaftler hinzuzuziehen, damit sie die Ergebnisse der EFSA-Stellungnahme einer kritischen Prüfung unterziehen?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(24. April 2014)

Die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1107/2009 (247) sieht die weltweit strengste Risikobewertung für Wirkstoffe zur Verwendung in Pflanzenschutzmitteln vor. Antragsteller müssen umfangreiche Angaben machen.

Das System basiert auf wissenschaftlicher Strenge und unterscheidet nicht a priori zwischen Studien, die vom Antragsteller selbst finanziert wurden, und Studien, die aus anderen Quellen stammen, z. B. aus der öffentlichen Literatur.

Die OECD/EU-Prüfungsrichtlinien enthalten sehr strenge Standards für die Festlegung der Art und Weise der Gewinnung von Erkenntnissen durch die Industrie; entsprechen akademische Studien nicht diesem Standard, so sollte dies eindeutig angegeben werden, damit eine transparente Beurteilung frei verfügbarer Literatur seitens der Öffentlichkeit, der EFSA und aller Stakeholder möglich ist.

Leider enthalten frei verfügbare Studien oft nicht die Rohdaten, sondern lediglich Sekundärinformationen. Dadurch wird die Reproduzierbarkeit der Ergebnisse beeinträchtigt, was eine unabhängige und transparente wissenschaftliche Bewertung solcher Daten unmöglich macht.

Im EFSA-Leitfaden (248) sind die Anforderungen an eine Qualitätsbewertung, bei der sichergestellt ist, dass alle vorgelegten Informationen mit derselben wissenschaftlichen Strenge geprüft werden, eindeutig festgelegt.

Die Kommission würde es begrüßen, wenn mehr von Dritten finanzierte Studien bei der Risikobewertung berücksichtigt werden könnten.

Es ist Aufgabe der EFSA, die Kommission mit unabhängiger wissenschaftlicher Beratung zu unterstützen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002683/14

to the Commission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Pesticides: independent literature and scientists to scrutinise European Food Safety Authority opinion

Under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was given the task of defining independent peer-reviewed literature. It did this in such a way that, generally, only industry-sponsored studies qualified and academic studies did not. This is exactly the opposite of what the regulation was intended to achieve.

In the first cases of assessment with this requirement (Glyphosate, Diquat, 2,4-D, etc.), industry took advantage of this EFSA opinion and did a ‘review’, with the result that no academic study is relevant for decision-making, owing to the Klimisch loophole. This means the requirement of the regulation is completely undermined.

1.

Does the Commission think academic studies are completely useless for Brussels decision-making?

2.

Does the Commission agree with the EFSA opinion that industry-sponsored studies are always reliable and relevant?

3.

Now that it is clear that no independent studies are taken into account, is it not time to revise and redesign the EFSA opinion?

4.

What does the Commission think about involving independent scientists to scrutinise the results of the EFSA opinion?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2014)

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (249) provides for the most restrictive risk assessment for active substances to be used in plant protection products worldwide. Applicants have to provide a substantial amount of information.

The system is based on scientific rigorousness and does not distinguish a priori between studies financed by the applicant itself, or studies coming from other sources, e.g. from public literature.

There is a high standard set by the OECD/EU test guidelines in determining the way information is generated by industry and when academic studies do not adhere to this standard this should be transparent in the information provided in order to allow a transparent judgment of the open literature by the public, EFSA, and all stakeholders.

Studies published in open literature unfortunately do often not contain the raw data, but only secondary information. This jeopardises the reproducibility of the results and an independent and transparent scientific evaluation of such data is not possible.

The EFSA guidance document (250) clearly sets out the requirements for a quality assessment which makes sure that all information submitted is subject to the same scientific rigor.

The Commission would welcome if more studies financed by third parties could be taken into account in the risk assessment.

It is the role of EFSA to provide independent scientific advice to the Commission.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002684/14

an die Kommission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6. März 2014)

Betrifft: Überwachung des Verbrauchs antimikrobieller Mittel in der Veterinärmedizin: Sicherstellung der Beteiligung aller Interessengruppen, damit alle etwaigen Risikofaktoren identifiziert werden

Im Rahmen des Europäischen Projekts zur Überwachung des Verbrauchs antimikrobieller Mittel in der Veterinärmedizin (ESVAC) werden Information darüber gesammelt, wie in der EU antimikrobielle Wirkstoffe bei Tieren angewendet werden.

1.

Wann werden die Berichte über den Absatz von antimikrobiellen Mitteln in der Veterinärmedizin mit Angaben für 2012 veröffentlicht?

2.

Wann findet das nächste Treffen der Interessengruppen statt?

3.

Welche Interessengruppen werden dazu eingeladen?

4.

Wie wird dafür gesorgt, dass alle Interessenten daran teilnehmen und ihre Kenntnisse teilen können, damit alle etwaigen Risikofaktoren identifiziert werden, die zur Entwicklung und Ausbreitung von Resistenzen gegen antimikrobielle Mittel bei Tieren führen könnten?

Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission

(16. April 2014)

Im Jahr 2009 hat die Kommission die Europäische Arzneimittel-Agentur (EMA) gebeten, bei der Erhebung von Daten über den Absatz antimikrobieller Mittel in den Mitgliedstaaten die Leitung zu übernehmen. Im selben Jahr hat die EMA das Europäische Projekt zur Überwachung des Verbrauchs antimikrobieller Mittel in der Veterinärmedizin (ESVAC) gestartet. Die Jahresberichte und Protokolle der Sitzungen der Interessengruppen können von der Website der EMA (251) abgerufen werden. Der Bericht mit Daten aus dem Jahr 2012 wird 2014 veröffentlicht. Die nächste Sitzung der Interessengruppen findet 2015 statt.

Die Kommission gewährleistet die Beteiligung aller Interessengruppen, indem sie regelmäßige Sitzungen der Beratungsgruppen (252), öffentliche Konsultationen (253), Konferenzen (254) und andere Möglichkeiten zur Weitergabe von relevanten Kenntnissen organisiert.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002684/14

to the Commission

Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption: Ensuring participation of all stakeholders to make sure all possible risk factors are identified

The European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) project collects information on how antimicrobial medicines are used in animals across the EU.

1.

When will the reports on sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents with data for 2012 be published?

2.

When will the next stakeholder meeting take place?

3.

Which stakeholders will be invited?

4.

How is it ensured that all interested parties are able to participate and share their knowledge, to make sure all possible risk factors that could lead to the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance in animals are identified?

Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2014)

In 2009 the Commission asked the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to take the lead in the collection of data on sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in the Member States. The European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC) project was launched by EMA in 2009. Annual reports and minutes of the ESVAC stakeholders meeting are published at the EMA website (255). The report with data for 2012 will be published in 2014. The next stakeholder meeting will be held in 2015.

The Commission ensures the involvement of all concerned stakeholders through the organisation of regular meetings of the consultative groups (256), public consultations (257), conferences (258), and other relevant knowledge-sharing activities.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-002685/14

aan de Commissie

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(6 maart 2014)

Betreft: Herziening van de berekeningsmethode voor het bbp

Eurostat heeft zijn methode voor de berekening van het bbp (bruto binnenlands product) gewijzigd. Volgens de nieuwe methode valt het bbp van Nederland bijna 45 miljard hoger uit (plus 7,6 %) (259). Er wordt voortaan ook rekening gehouden met illegale activiteiten zoals drugshandel, piraterij en smokkel. 2,4 van de 45 miljard zijn afkomstig van dit soort activiteiten.

Gezien het bovenstaande wilde ik de Commissie het volgende vragen:

Wat zijn de financiële gevolgen van de nieuwe berekeningsmethode van Eurostat voor Nederland en de overige 27 lidstaten? Moet de financiële bijdrage van Nederland aan de EU-begroting worden opgetrokken?

Op welke rechtsgrond kan het aandeel van illegale activiteiten in het bbp worden geïntegreerd in de berekeningsmethode van Eurostat?

Waarom maakt Eurostat een onderscheid tussen illegale activiteiten — die in de berekening van het bbp in overweging worden genomen — en de zogenaamde „zwarte” en „grijze” economie? Hoe kan de Commissie de omvang van de „zwarte” en de „grijze” economie in de lidstaten ramen?

Antwoord van de heer Šemeta namens de Commissie

(22 mei 2014)

1.

Pas nadat de lidstaten gegevens hebben verstrekt ingevolge de nieuwe ESR 2010 (260)-normen kan de Commissie de volledige impact van de methodologische en statistische wijzigingen bekendmaken. Volgens ramingen bedraagt de waarschijnlijke impact van de methodologische veranderingen op het bruto binnenlands product (bbp) van de EU 2,4 %. Voor Nederland was de aanpassing van het bbp van 2010 naar boven toe grotendeels te wijten aan de herevaluatie van nieuwe bronnen.

De bijdragen van de lidstaten aan de EU-begroting bestaan uit verschillende elementen (261). Hoe de Nederlandse financiële bijdrage zich in de toekomst zal ontwikkelen, zal dus afhangen van verschillende factoren, waaronder de mate waarin het bruto nationaal inkomen (bni) kan veranderen.

2.

De vereiste om de waarde van de illegale of verborgen productieactiviteiten mee te tellen, is reeds door alle lidstaten overeengekomen in de ESR 95 (262)-normen om een strikte vergelijkbaarheid van de dekking van de nationale rekeningen te waarborgen. De Commissie heeft voorbehoud gemaakt bij de lidstaten betreffende het bni om deze wetten toe te passen tegen 22 september 2014.

3.

Eurostat moet ervoor zorgen dat de bni-ramingen van alle lidstaten alle economische activiteiten omvatten. Daarom moeten correcties worden aangebracht voor de niet-gecontroleerde delen van de economie, door bijvoorbeeld ramingen te maken van „grijze” en „zwarte” (illegale) activiteiten. De lidstaten zijn momenteel niet verplicht om afzonderlijk te rapporteren over de ramingen die zijn gemaakt voor de correctie van activiteiten die illegaal zijn, verborgen zijn, of die niet in de statistische gegevens zijn opgenomen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002685/14

to the Commission

Auke Zijlstra (NI)

(6 March 2014)

Subject: Revision of the GDP calculation method

Eurostat has revised the gross domestic product (GDP) calculation method. According to the new method, the Dutch GDP is almost EUR 45 billion (7.6%) higher (263). The new methodology takes into account illegal activities such as drug trafficking, piracy and smuggling. Out of the EUR 45 billion increase, EUR 2.4 billion come from illegal activities.

In the light of this:

Can the Commission state what the financial consequences of the new calculation method adopted by Eurostat will be for the Netherlands and for the other 27 Member States? Will the Dutch financial contribution to the EU budget have to be increased as well?

Can the Commission explain on what legal grounds the percentage of GDP generated by illegal activities can be included in the calculation carried out by Eurostat?

Can the Commission clarify why Eurostat differentiates between illegal activities — which are taken into account for the sake of GDP calculations — and the so-called black economy and grey economy? How can the Commission estimate the different sizes of the black and grey economies in the Member States?

Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2014)

1.

Only after the transmission of data by Member States according to the new ESA 2010 (264) standards will the Commission be able to present the full impact of methodological and statistical changes. According to estimations, the likely impact of the methodological changes on EU gross domestic product (GDP) is an increase of 2.4%. For the Netherlands, the upward adjustment of GDP for 2010 was mainly due to the re-evaluation of new sources.

The contributions of Member States to the EU budget consist of different elements (265). The future development of the Dutch financial contribution to the EU budget will thus depend on various factors, including the extent to which the gross national income (GNI) may change.

2.

The requirement to include the value of production activities that are illegal or hidden has already been agreed by all Member States for the ESA 95 (266) standards to ensure strict comparability of coverage of the national accounts. The Commission has issued GNI reservations for Member States to apply these rules by 22 September 2014.

3.

It is Eurostat's task to ensure that Member States’ GNI estimates include all economic activities. This is done by correcting for the non-observed parts of the economy, for example by making estimates for ‘grey’ as well as for ‘black’ (illegal) activities. There is currently no obligation for Member States to report separately estimates made for the correction for activities that are illegal, hidden or not covered by statistical collections.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-002688/14

a la Comisión

Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)

(7 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Horizonte 2020: Ciencia con y para la sociedad en el presupuesto UE 2014

Estamos ante la revisión del presupuesto de la UE para el año 2014 con el fin de incluir, entre otras, las modificaciones que requiere la versión aprobada del programa Horizonte 2020. Efectivamente, la propuesta sobre la mesa refleja los acuerdos entre Parlamento y Consejo, incluida la nueva sección de Horizonte 2020 «Ciencia con y para la sociedad».

El Programa de Trabajo de «Ciencia con y para la sociedad» ya ha sido aprobado formalmente, y se han publicado las convocatorias para implementarlo.

Sin embargo, en la citada propuesta de revisión del presupuesto para el año 2014, la Comisión no compromete ningún montante para esta sección de Horizonte 2020. ¿Podría informarnos la Comisión de las razones que subyacen a este hecho? ¿No impedirá esta falta de presupuesto la implementación adecuada del programa de trabajo de la sección «Ciencia con y para la sociedad»?

Respuesta del Sr. Lewandowski en nombre de la Comisión

(1 de abril de 2014)

La nueva base jurídica del Programa Horizonte 2020, adoptada después del Presupuesto 2014, contempla una serie de cambios en las líneas presupuestarias, nomenclatura e importes correspondientes al Programa. La Comisión no puede integrar las modificaciones requeridas (tales como la creación de una línea presupuestaria o la modificación de su nomenclatura) mediante transferencia, lo que ha motivado la presentación del Proyecto de Presupuesto Rectificativo no 1 (PPR 1). Solo algunos de los ajustes de compromisos entre líneas presupuestarias necesarios pueden hacerse, con mayor facilidad y rapidez, mediante transferencias, ya sean internas o de la autoridad presupuestaria [DEC 3/2013]. Sin embargo, no es posible transferir importes a una línea todavía inexistente.

La base jurídica del Programa Horizonte 2020 ha introducido dos nuevas actividades de investigación: Ciencia con y para la sociedad y Ampliación de la participación. En sus enmiendas al Proyecto de Presupuesto 2014, el Parlamento Europeo solo creó la línea presupuestaria Ciencia con y para la sociedad, pero con el rango de artículo presupuestario (08 02 04) y sin consignar importe alguno en la misma. Por lo tanto, fue preciso recurrir al PPR 1 para crear la línea Ampliación de la participación y ascender Ciencia con y para la sociedad al nivel de partida presupuestaria (08 02 04 01).

Están previstas otras transferencias para asignar los importes correspondientes a la partida presupuestaria 08 02 04 01 Ciencia con y para la sociedad en cuanto se haya aprobado el PPR 1.

Se adoptarán cuantas medidas sean necesarias para evitar retrasos en la ejecución del programa de trabajo Ciencia con y para la sociedad, lo que incluye la posibilidad de efectuar transferencias conforme al artículo 26.1 del Reglamento Financiero.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002688/14

to the Commission

Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Horizon 2020 — ‘Science with and for society’ in the 2014 EU budget

The EU budget for 2014 is currently under review. The changes that are to be made to the budget include those made necessary as a result of the adoption of the Horizon 2020 programme. The proposal under discussion reflects the agreements concluded between Parliament and the Council, including the new ‘Science with and for society’ section of Horizon 2020.

The ‘Science with and for society’ work programme has now been formally approved, and calls for proposals have been published with a view to implementing it.

However, in the proposal for the review of the 2014 budget, the Commission does not put forward any figure for this section of Horizon 2020. Could the Commission state why this is? Will the fact that no budget is put forward not hinder the proper implementation of the work programme relating to the ‘Science with and for society’ section?

Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2014)

The new legal basis of H2020, adopted only after the Budget 2014, foresees a number of changes for H2020 both in terms of budget lines, nomenclature and amounts. The Commission cannot integrate the required changes, such as create a budget line or change its nomenclature by transfer, and so Draft Amending Budget 1 (DAB 1) was presented. Only some of the necessary adjustments of appropriations between budget lines can more easily and quickly be done by transfers — either internal transfer or Budgetary Authority Transfer [i.e. DEC 3/2013]. However, no amounts can be transferred to a line which does not yet exist.

The adopted legal basis of H2020 created two new research activities, i.e. ‘Science with and for society and Widening participation’. In its amendments to Draft Budget 2014, the European Parliament only created the budget line for ‘Science with and for society’, but at the level of budget article (08 02 04) and no amounts were placed on the line. Therefore, DAB 1 was needed to create the line for Widening Participation, and to move ‘Science with and for society’ to the level of a budget item (08 02 04 01).

Further transfers are planned to place the amounts on the budget item 08 02 04 01 ‘Science with and for society’, as soon as the DAB 1 has been adopted.

All necessary action will be taken to avoid any delay in the implementation of the ‘Science with and for society’ work programme, including the possibility for transfers in accordance with Article 26.1 of the Financial Regulation.

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002690/14

a la Comisión

Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)

(7 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Compromisos contraídos y pagos efectuados del FEDER en Baleares

Llegados al inicio de la nueva política regional europea para el período 2014-2020, estamos en un buen momento para analizar el grado de ejecución del gasto de los fondos comprometidos para el período 2007-2013, siendo conscientes de que parte de ese gasto aún puede realizarse en los próximos años.

La inversión del FEDER en las Islas Baleares durante el período 2007-2013 estaba orientada a aumentar la competitividad económica, impulsar la economía del conocimiento, mejorar la accesibilidad territorial, promover una mayor integración social y el desarrollo local y rural, así como consolidar un modelo de desarrollo sostenible.

¿Podría informarnos la Comisión acerca de las cifras de los compromisos contraídos en las Islas baleares por el FEDER durante el período 2017-2013? Asimismo, ¿nos podría informar acerca de los pagos efectuados hasta el presente?

Respuesta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión

(24 de abril de 2014)

Para el período 2007-2013, la situación del Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) en las Islas Baleares es la siguiente:

Total FEDER decidido: 102 676 038 EUR

Total FEDER comprometido para proyectos: 76 849 827 EUR

Total FEDER pagado: 59 154 042 EUR

Pagado/comprometido: 76,97 %

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002690/14

to the Commission

Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) commitments and payments in the Balearic Islands

The start of the new programming period for European regional policy (2014-2020) seems a good time to analyse the extent to which commitment appropriations for the period 2007-2013 were actually disbursed, bearing in mind that some of these monies may in fact be spent over the next few years.

The purpose of ERDF investment in the Balearic Islands during the period 2007-2013 was to increase economic competitiveness, boost the knowledge economy, improve transport links , promote greater social cohesion and local and rural development, and consolidate a sustainable development model.

Could the Commission provide figures for ERDF appropriations committed in the Balearic Islands during the period 2007-2013 and for the payments made to date?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2014)

For the 2007-2013 period, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) state of play in the Balearic Islands is the following:

Total ERDF decided : EUR 102 676 038

Total ERDF committed to projects : EUR 76 849 827

Total ERDF paid : EUR 59 154 042

Paid/committed : 76,97%

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002691/14

a la Comisión

Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)

(7 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Fondos Estructurales y de Inversión 2014-2020 en Baleares

Entrados en el primer año de la nueva política regional europea 2014-2020 sería ya un buen momento para conocer el montante de Fondos Estructurales y de Inversión que recibirán las regiones europeas.

1.

¿Puede facilitar la Comisión la cifra exacta de fondos europeos que recibirá la Comunidad Autónoma de Baleares en el período 2014-2020?

2.

¿Para cuándo cree la Comisión que estarán aprobados los programas operativos para cada Fondo necesarios para empezar a invertir?

Respuesta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión

(24 de abril de 2014)

Las autoridades nacionales españolas aún no han comunicado oficialmente a la Comisión las cifras de los fondos de la UE asignados a los distintos programas para el período 2014-2020.

Los programas correspondientes a cada Fondo deberán presentarse a la Comisión dentro de un plazo de tres meses a partir de la fecha de la presentación del Acuerdo de Asociación, es decir, a más tardar el 22 de julio de 2014, a excepción del programa en el marco del Fondo Europeo Marítimo y de Pesca (FEMP), cuyo plazo de presentación depende de la fecha de adopción del FEMP. La Comisión tiene seis meses para adoptar una decisión sobre los programas, siempre y cuando se haya tenido debidamente en cuenta cualquier observación formulada por la Comisión.

Si la Comisión formula observaciones durante el proceso de negociación, el Estado miembro deberá facilitar toda la información necesaria y, cuando proceda, revisar el programa correspondiente y presentar una nueva versión. En tal caso, el plazo de seis meses no incluye el período en que el programa está en el Estado miembro para su revisión.

A partir del 1 de enero de 2014, los Fondos Estructurales y de Inversión Europeos pueden aportar una contribución al gasto. Las cifras exactas relativas a los importes de cada programa deben indicarse en las propuestas de programas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002691/14

to the Commission

Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Structural and Investment funds for 2014-2020 in the Balearic Islands

As we are now in the first year of the new European regional policy for 2014-2020, it would seem a good time to know the amount of the Structural and Investment funds that the European regions are to receive.

1.

Can the Commission provide the exact figure for the EU funds that the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands will receive in the period 2014-2020?

2.

When does the Commission think the operative programmes for each Fund, which are required for investment to begin, will be approved?

Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2014)

The Spanish national authorities have not yet communicated officially to the Commission the figures for the EU funds allocated to the different programmes for the period 2014-2020.

The programmes for each Fund should be submitted to the Commission within three months of the presentation of the Partnership Agreement, i.e. by 22 July 2014 at the latest, with the exception of the programme under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), as, for this case, the deadline for submission of the programme depends on the date of adoption of the EMFF. The Commission has 6 months to adopt a decision on the programmes, provided that any Commission observations made have been satisfactorily taken into account.

If the Commission formulates observations during the negotiation process, the Member State will need to provide all necessary information and where appropriate revise the corresponding programme and submit a new version. In such a case, the time limit of 6 months does not include the period when the programme is with the Member State for revision.

Expenditure is eligible for a contribution from the ESI Funds as from 1 January 2014. Exact figures as regards the amounts under each programme need to be indicated in the programme proposals.

(Deutsche Fassung)

Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-002692/14

an die Kommission

Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL)

(7. März 2014)

Betrifft: Eubam Libyen

Eubam bildet paramilitärische Grenztruppen „Border Guards“ aus, die auch „kritische Infrastrukturen“ bewachen sollen und den Fall von Geiselnahmen trainieren. Die „Border Guards“ bestehen zu großen Teilen aus Angehörigen von Milizen. Gleichzeitig befinden sich ca. 8 000 Inhaftierte (größtenteils ohne Gerichtsverfahren) in von Milizen geführten Haftanstalten. Es wird von Folter und Misshandlungen „teilweise mit Todesfolge“ berichtet. Während der libysche Polizei- und Militäraufbau von der EU unterstützt wird, gibt es keine Projekte zum Schutz von Grundrechten. Zudem weigert sich die libysche Regierung im EU-Projekt Saharamed mitzuarbeiten, da dort auch der italienische Flüchtlingsrat beteiligt ist.

1.

Welche Vertreter welcher libyschen zivilen und militärischen Behörden nahmen am Besuch von Frontex im Juni 2013 in Warschau teil?

2.

Welchen Beitrag im Bereich Risikoanalyse und grenzpolizeiliches Training könnte Frontex leisten, und was ist der Bedarfsanalyse von Eubam Libyen hierzu bereits zu entnehmen?

3.

Inwieweit ist die direkte Zusammenarbeit/Unterstützung der Agentur Frontex mit dem Grenzschutz Libyens anvisiert, und welchen Stand hat ein entsprechendes Arbeitsabkommen hierzu?

4.

Inwieweit war Frontex auch an der Ausarbeitung der Conops Plus (267) beteiligt und zu welchen Aspekten wurden die Verfasser durch Frontex beraten?

5.

Welche Abgangsstellen für Flüchtlinge aus Libyen nach Europa sind der Kommission bekannt?

6.

Welche Erkenntnisse hat die Kommission über die rund 8 000 Internierten, die größtenteils ohne Gerichtsverfahren in Haftanstalten sitzen, welche von Milizen geführt werden, und die dort von Folter und Misshandlungen betroffen sind (268)?

7.

Wie fließen diese Erkenntnisse in die Politik der Kommission, aber auch in die finanzielle Unterstützung bestimmter Vorhaben gegenüber Libyen ein?

8.

Wer sind die Organisatoren und anvisierten Teilnehmenden einer beim JI-Rat im März vorgestellten „Konferenz zur Bekämpfung des Menschenhandels in Ostafrika“, die für den Herbst vorgesehen ist, und wo soll diese stattfinden?

Antwort von Frau Malmström im Namen der Kommission

(12. Juni 2014)

1.-4. Die Kommission hat Frontex um Informationen ersucht, die es ermöglichen, sobald wie möglich die Fragen der Frau Abgeordneten zu beantworten.

Die Zusammenarbeit von Frontex und Drittstaaten sollte der Förderung der europäischen Grenzschutznormen dienen, einschließlich der Achtung der Grundrechte.

5.

Angaben von Migranten zufolge, die allerdings nicht überprüfbar sind, waren die wichtigsten Abgangsstellen Zuwara, Gasr Garabulli, Tripoli und Sabratah.

6.

Die EU hat die libyschen Behörden wiederholt aufgefordert, alle Hafteinrichtungen unter ihre Kontrolle zu bringen und mutmaßliche Verletzungen der Rechte von Gefangenen zu untersuchen. Die libysche Regierung hat erklärt, dass sie Maßnahmen eingeleitet hat, um den Milizen die Kontrolle der Hafteinrichtungen zu entziehen. Da eine politische Lösung fehlt, kommt es allerdings zu Verzögerungen.

7.

Es gibt mehrere von der EU geförderte Schutzprogramme, die z. B. bessere Lebensbedingungen für die Inhaftierten, Rehabilitation und die Integration benachteiligter Menschen zum Gegenstand haben. 2014 läuft ein neues EU-finanziertes Schutzprogramm (2,4 Millionen EUR) für schutzbedürftige, marginalisierte und gefährdete Gruppen, darunter Migranten an.

8.

Die Konferenz, die derzeit noch in Vorbereitung ist, wird von der Afrikanischen Union unter Beteiligung weiterer Akteure organisiert. Der Veranstaltungsort ist noch nicht bekannt. Als Teilnehmer werden verschiedene Interessengruppen, die sich aktiv gegen den Menschenhandel einsetzen, aus den Ziel-, Transit‐ und Herkunftsländern erwartet.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002692/14

to the Commission

Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: EUBAM Libya

EUBAM trains paramilitary ‘Border Guards’ that are also intended to guard ‘critical infrastructures’ and train for hostage‐taking scenarios. The ‘Border Guards’ largely consist of members of militia groups. At the same time, approximately 8 000 detainees are incarcerated (without legal process, for the most part) in prisons run by militia groups. There are reports of torture and mistreatment ‘resulting, in some cases, in death’. While the reconstruction of the Libyan police and military is supported by the EU, there are no projects on the protection of fundamental rights. In addition, the Libyan Government refuses to cooperate in the EU project SAHARA‐MED, as the Italian Council for Refugees also participates in it.

1.

Which representatives of which civil and military Libyan authorities participated in the visit to Frontex in Warsaw in June 2013?

2.

What contribution could Frontex make in the area of risk analysis and border police training, and what can already be gathered from the requirement analysis of EUBAM Libya in this respect?

3.

To what extent is the Frontex agency intended to directly cooperate in/support the protection of the Libyan border, and what is the status of a corresponding working agreement in this respect?

4.

To what extent did Frontex also participate in drafting Conops Plus (269), and on which aspects did Frontex advise those drafting it?

5.

Which offices of departure for refugees travelling from Libya to Europe is the Commission aware of?

6.

What knowledge does the Commission have of the approximately 8 000 internees who are incarcerated — without legal process, for the most part — in prisons run by militia groups and are subjected to torture and mistreatment in them (270)?

7.

How does this knowledge affect not only Commission policy, but also the financial support of specific projects concerning Libya?

8.

Who are the organisers and prospective attendees of the ‘Anti-Human Trafficking Conference in Eastern Africa’, which was proposed in the JHA Council in March and is scheduled for the autumn, and where is this intended to take place?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2014)

1 and 4. The Commission has requested Frontex to provide the information to allow for the Commission to respond to the questions raised by the Honourable Member as soon as possible.

Frontex’s cooperation with any third country should promote European border management standards, including respect for fundamental rights.

5.

According to non-verifiable information obtained from the migrants, the main departure points have been Zuwara, Gasr Garabulli, Tripoli and Sabratah.

6.

The EU has repeatedly urged the Libyan authorities to bring all places of detention under their control and to investigate allegations of violations of detainees’ rights. The Libyan government has declared that it is implementing measures aiming at transferring the control of detention facilities away from the militias. However, the lack of a political settlement is delaying the implementation.

7.

Several EU supported programmes are addressing protection issues, e.g. improving living conditions of detainees, rehabilitation and integration of vulnerable people. A new EU-funded programme on protection amounting to EUR 2.4 million will start in 2014. It will address the protection needs of vulnerable, marginalised and at-risk groups, including migrants.

8.

The Conference will be organised by the African Union, with involvement of other actors. It is currently under preparation but the venue is not yet known. As for the attendees, different stakeholders, active in the field of anti-trafficking, from the countries of destination, transit and origin, are expected.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002693/14

à la Commission

Alain Cadec (PPE) et Tokia Saïfi (PPE)

(7 mars 2014)

Objet: Guerre du hareng — Organe de règlement des différends de l'OMC

Le 12 septembre 2012, le Parlement européen a adopté par 659 voix pour, 11 voix contre et 7 abstentions, une résolution législative concernant les mesures relatives aux pays autorisant une pêche non durable, aux fins de la conservation des stocks halieutiques. L'adoption de ce texte permet à la Commission européenne de sanctionner les pays autorisant une pêche non durable s'ils ne coopèrent pas à la gestion d'un stock d'intérêt commun en conformité avec les dispositions du 10 décembre 1982 de l'Unclos et s'ils ne coopèrent pas à tout accord international visant à la préservation d'un stock halieutique commun à un niveau de biomasse au-dessus de celui capable de produire le rendement maximal durable.

Les îles Féroé se sont retirées de l'accord côtier permettant l'établissement de quotas de pêche de hareng atlantico-scandinave qui réunissait habituellement les cinq États côtiers. Le 26 mars 2013, les autorités féringiennes ont annoncé une augmentation unilatérale de leurs quotas de 145  % pour l'année 2013. En application du règlement (CE) n1026/2012, la Commission a donc proposé à l'encontre des îles Féroé dès août 2013 les sanctions commerciales suivantes: d'une part, l'interdiction d'importer dans l'Union du hareng et du maquereau du stock atlantico-scandinave capturés sous contrôle féringien et, d'autre part, l'accès restreint aux ports de l'Union européenne pour les navires féringiens.

Le Danemark a indiqué qu'il était inquiet des mesures économiques coercitives imposées par l'Union européenne à l'encontre des îles Féroé, en application du règlement d'exécution n793/2013 sur un territoire autonome faisant partie intégrante du Danemark. Il considère que ces mesures sont incompatibles avec le droit de l'OMC et a demandé à l'Organe de règlement des différends de l'OMC d'établir un groupe spécial d'experts pour régler le conflit qui oppose les îles Féroé et l'Union européenne.

En qualité de membres du Parlement européen, nous souhaitons déclarer que la résolution de ce conflit est nécessaire à la préservation du stock de hareng de l'Atlantique nord-est à des niveaux au-delà de ceux capables de produire le rendement maximum durable. À ce titre, nous n'accepterons pas que la Commission faiblisse face aux autorités féringiennes qui déclarent que les sanctions commerciales sont contraires au droit de l'OMC.

Les sanctions prises en vertu du règlement d'exécution n793/2013 sont-elles en conformité avec le droit de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce?

La Commission européenne prévoit-elle d'annuler les sanctions prises à l'encontre desîles Féroé?

Quelle est la position que l'Union européenne défendra devant le panel d'experts de l'OMC afin de résoudre ce conflit?

Réponse donnée par Mme Damanaki au nom de la Commission

(10 avril 2014)

La Commission est d'avis que le règlement (UE) no 1026/2012 tout autant que les mesures prises en application de ce règlement et au moyen du règlement (UE) no 793/2013 en ce qui concerne les îles Féroé afin d'assurer la préservation du stock de hareng atlantico-scandinave sont parfaitement conformes aux règles pertinentes de l'OMC. La Commission prévoit de défendre cette position devant le groupe d'experts mis en place par l'Organe de règlement des différends de l'OMC à la demande du Danemark afin d'examiner la compatibilité des mesures susmentionnées avec les règles pertinentes de l'OMC en ce qui concerne les îles Féroé (271).

La Commission est également prête à résoudre le conflit par des moyens autres qu'une procédure judiciaire, pour autant que les îles Féroé acceptent une solution satisfaisante pour les deux parties.

En vertu de l'article 7 du règlement (UE) no 1026/2012, les mesures prises au moyen du règlement (UE) no 793/2013 cesseront de s'appliquer à la suite d'un changement dans les circonstances ayant conduit à identifier les îles Féroé comme un pays autorisant une pêche non durable, et, plus particulièrement, lorsque les îles Féroé auront adopté les mesures correctives appropriées nécessaires pour la conservation et la gestion du stock de hareng atlantico-scandinave et que ces mesures correctives:

auront été soit adoptées de manière autonome, soit convenues dans le cadre de consultations avec l'Union et, le cas échéant, d'autres États côtiers; et

ne compromettront pas l'impact des mesures prises par l'Union et d'autres États côtiers aux fins de la conservation du stock de hareng atlantico-scandinave.

L'article 7 du règlement (UE) no 1026/2012 prévoit également qu'il reviendra à la Commission d'adopter des actes d'exécution établissant si les conditions susmentionnées ont été remplies et, s'il y a lieu, que les mesures en cause cessent de s'appliquer.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002693/14

to the Commission

Alain Cadec (PPE) and Tokia Saïfi (PPE)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Herring war — WTO Dispute Settlement Body

On 12 September 2012, Parliament adopted by 659 votes to 11, with seven abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain measures in relation to countries allowing non‐sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks. Following the adoption of the regulation, the Commission may impose sanctions on countries allowing non‐sustainable fishing if they fail to cooperate in the management of a stock of common interest in compliance with the provisions of the Unclos of 10 December 1982 and if they fail to cooperate in any international agreement that has the aim of maintaining a common fish stock at a biomass level above that which can produce the maximum sustainable yield.

The Faroe Islands withdrew from the coastal agreement under which fishing quotas for Atlanto‐Scandian herring are set by the five ‘coastal states’. On 26 March 2013, the Faroese authorities announced that they had unilaterally increased their quotas by 145% for the year 2013. Under Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012, the Commission therefore proposed that the following trade sanctions be imposed on the Faroe Islands from August 2013: firstly, a ban on imports into the Union of herring and mackerel from the Atlanto‐Scandian stocks that have been caught under the control of the Faroe Islands, and, secondly, restricted access to European Union ports for Faroese vessels.

Denmark has expressed concern over the coercive economic measures imposed on the Faroe Islands — an autonomous territory forming an integral part of Denmark ‐by the European Union under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2013. It considers those measures to be incompatible with WTO law and has asked the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to set up a special panel of experts to settle the dispute between the Faroe Islands and the European Union.

In our capacity as Members of the European Parliament, we wish to assert that the resolution of this dispute is essential to maintaining the herring stock in the North‐East Atlantic at levels above those that can produce the maximum sustainable yield. In light of this, we consider that it would be inadmissible for the Commission to show any signs of weakening in the face of the Faroese authorities’ assertion that the trade sanctions are contrary to WTO law.

Are the sanctions imposed under Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2013 compatible with WTO law?

Does the Commission intend to repeal the sanctions imposed on the Faroe Islands?

What position will the European Union be defending before the WTO panel of experts with a view to resolving this dispute?

Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2014)

The Commission is of the opinion that both Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 and the measures taken in application of that regulation and by means of Regulation (EU) No 793/2013 in respect of the Faroe Islands to ensure the conservation of the Atlanto-Scandian herring stock, are fully consistent with relevant WTO rules. The Commission intends to defend this position before the panel established by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body at the request of Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands to examine the compatibility of the abovementioned measures with relevant WTO rules (272).

The Commission is also ready to resolve the dispute by means other than litigation, provided the Faroe Islands agree to a mutually satisfactory solution.

Pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012, the measures taken by means of Regulation (EU) No 793/2013 shall cease to apply following a change in the circumstances that led to the identification of the Faroe Islands as a country allowing unsustainable fishing and more particularly when the Faroe Islands adopt appropriate corrective measures necessary for the conservation and management of the stock of Atlanto-Scandian herring and those corrective measures:

have either been adopted autonomously or have been agreed in the context of consultations with the Union and other coastal States, and

do not undermine the effect of measures taken by the Union and other coastal States for the purpose of the conservation of the stock of Atlanto-Scandian herring.

Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1026/2012 also provides that it will be for the Commission to adopt implementing acts determining whether the said conditions have been complied with and, where necessary, providing that the measures in issue cease to apply.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002695/14

à la Commission

Philippe de Villiers (EFD)

(7 mars 2014)

Objet: Érosion des sols

La lutte contre l'érosion est un enjeu majeur. Pour la protection des milieux naturels, des biens et des personnes et celle du potentiel agricole.

La Commission européenne estime que l'érosion des sols est la principale menace pesant sur les sols. 26 millions d'hectares, soit 17 % des sols européens sont concernés en Europe.

Les dernières tempêtes et catastrophes naturelles ayant eu lieu dans le nord et l'ouest de la France montrent l'ampleur des dégâts dont elle est responsable, notamment à cause du remembrement.

La Commission dispose-t-elle de chiffres montrant l'importance du remembrement dans l'érosion des sols?

Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission

(22 avril 2014)

La Commission n'a pas connaissance d'études ou de rapports qui abordent explicitement les incidences du remembrement sur l'érosion des sols à l'échelle de l'UE.

Le processus de modification du parcellaire (remembrement) pour augmenter l'efficacité de l'agriculture et permettre l'utilisation de machines plus grandes et plus spécialisées va normalement de pair avec une atténuation des particularités topographiques (haies, rangées d'arbres, fossés, murs en pierres, etc.) qui constituent des obstacles naturels au ruissellement des eaux et à l'érosion éolienne. En France, selon des données récentes d'Eurostat (2012) (273), les exploitations de plus de 50 hectares (soit moins de 40 % de l'ensemble des exploitations), ayant donc des parcelles de plus grande taille, gèrent environ 85 % de la superficie agricole utilisée totale. Deux projets de recherche menés en Allemagne (274) ont abordé les conséquences négatives sur l'environnement des parcelles de grande taille et ont proposé un certain nombre de mesures pour y faire face, y compris des recommandations quant à la longueur maximale des parcelles, puisqu'il existe un lien entre la taille et la forme d'une parcelle et l'ampleur de l'érosion.

Pour ce qui est de l'érosion des sols, il n'existe pas de chiffres précis au niveau européen, du fait de l'absence de programmes de suivi et de séries de données harmonisées. D'après un modèle récent d'érosion des sols par l'eau élaboré par le Centre commun de recherche de la Commission européenne, la superficie concernée dans l'UE-27 est estimée à 1,3 million de km2, dont près de 20 % soumis à une érosion annuelle des sols de plus de 10 tonnes par hectare (275). Selon les évaluations de l'Institut national de la recherche agronomique, près de 18 % des sols présentent un aléa d'érosion moyen à très fort en France métropolitaine (276).

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002695/14

to the Commission

Philippe de Villiers (EFD)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Soil erosion

The fight against erosion is a major issue, affecting the preservation of natural environments, assets and people as well as the preservation of farming potential.

The European Commission regards soil erosion as the single greatest threat to farmland. The problem affects 26 million hectares, that is, 17% of the agricultural land in Europe.

The recent storms and natural disasters that have occurred in northern and western France illustrate the extent of the damage that soil erosion causes, in particular as a result of land consolidation.

Does the Commission have any figures that show the significance of land consolidation as a factor in soil erosion?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2014)

The Commission is not aware of any studies or reports that explicitly address the effects of land consolidation on soil erosion at EU level.

The process of re-organisation of land (land consolidation) to allow more efficient farming and use of larger and more specialised machinery normally goes along with a reduction of landscape features (e.g. hedges, tree lines, ditches, stone walls) which are natural barriers to water runoff and wind erosion. In the case of France, according to recent Eurostat data (2012) (277), holdings with more than 50 hectares (less than 40% of all holdings), and thus larger field sizes, are responsible for the management of some 85% of the total Utilized Agricultural Area. Two research projects (278) conducted in Germany have addressed negative environmental consequences of large field sizes and proposed a number of measures to deal with it, including recommendations as to the maximum length of parcels, as there is a relation between the size and shape of a parcel and the extent of erosion.

Concerning soil erosion, due to a lack of monitoring schemes and harmonised data sets, there are no exact figures at European level. A recent model of soil erosionby water produced by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has estimated the surface area affected by water erosion in EU-27 at 1.3 million km2 with almost 20% of these subjected to an annual soil loss in excess of 10 tonnes per hectare (279). For France, the National Institute for Agricultural Research has assessed the annual soil erosion hazard as medium to very high on 18% of the countryside (mainland) (280).

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002696/14

à la Commission

Philippe de Villiers (EFD)

(7 mars 2014)

Objet: Augmentation des stocks de sucre

Le 13 février 2014, la Commission européenne a repoussé d'un mois sa prise de décision en faveur des importations supplémentaires de sucre et de requalification de sucres hors quota en sucres du quota. Elle veut augmenter les stocks du sucre européen qu'elle juge insuffisants et estime que les prix européens du sucre sont trop élevés par rapport au prix mondial.

Pourtant, la Confédération internationale des betteraviers européens (CIBE), affirme: «le marché de l'UE est sur-approvisionné et la baisse des prix est drastique». Pour la campagne 2013-2014, le stock final de sucre du quota de l'Union devrait être de 2,3 Mt au 1er octobre 2014 et 230 000 t de sucre hors quota européen devrait être reportées sur la période 2014‐2015, annonce la Confédération générale des planteurs de betteraves (CGB). Quant au prix du sucre, une baisse de 24 euros/t en décembre s'est ajoutée aux 100 euros/t perdus depuis janvier 2013.

Alors même que la baisse des cours est sensible, dans un contexte difficile pour la production agricole et le raffinage du sucre européen, la Commission européenne souhaite pousser plus loin la libéralisation et l'ouverture des marchés sucriers.

Dans quelle mesure, dans un contexte de sur-approvisionnement, cette décision peut-elle avoir un impact positif alors qu'elle est dénoncée par l'ensemble de la filière sucrière européenne?

Réponse donnée par M. Cioloş au nom de la Commission

(29 avril 2014)

La Commission européenne gère le marché du sucre au cours de la campagne de commercialisation. Après trois années de tension au niveau de l'offre de sucre, la Commission constate que les stocks et l'offre semblent avoir atteint un niveau suffisant à la fin de la campagne de commercialisation 2012/13.

Pour l'heure, compte tenu de la dernière situation connue sur le marché et du niveau actuel des stocks, une augmentation de l'offre n'est pas jugée nécessaire. Par conséquent, lors de la réunion du comité de gestion de l'organisation commune des marchés agricoles qui s'est tenue le 27 mars, en accord avec la majorité des États membres, la Commission a décidé de ne pas demander l'avis de ces derniers sur des mesures visant à autoriser un renforcement de l'offre.

La Commission continuera à surveiller étroitement le marché et proposer des mesures si nécessaire.

Lorsqu'elle élabore des mesures, la Commission tient dûment compte des intérêts de tous les acteurs de la chaîne d'approvisionnement: producteurs, transformateurs, raffineurs, utilisateurs et consommateurs.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002696/14

to the Commission

Philippe de Villiers (EFD)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Increase in sugar stocks

On 13 February 2014, the European Commission postponed by one month its decision to permit additional sugar imports and reclassify non-quota sugar as quota sugar. The Commission wants to increase Europe’s sugar stocks, which it regards as insufficient, and takes the view that European sugar prices are too high in comparison to prices globally.

The International Confederation of European Beet Growers (CIBE), however, has stated that ‘the EU market is oversupplied and prices have fallen drastically.’ The French General Confederation of Sugar-Beet Planters (CGB) has announced that the Union’s final stock of quota sugar for the 2013-14 growing season is expected to reach 2.3 million tonnes by 1 October 2014 and 230 000 tonnes of sugar outside the European quota will have to be carried over into the 2014-15 period. Sugar prices dropped by a further 24 EUR/tonne in December, having already fallen by 100 EUR/tonne since January 2013.

Notwithstanding this considerable drop in prices and a difficult economic climate for European farming and sugar refining, the European Commission wants to extend its liberalisation of the sugar markets.

Against a background of oversupply, and bearing in mind that it has been decried by the whole of the European sugar industry, in what way can this decision have a positive effect?

Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2014)

The European Commission manages the sugar market during the marketing year. After three years of tight sugar supply, the Commission notes that stocks and supply seem to have reached a sufficient level at the end of marketing year 2012/13.

For the moment and with a view to the most recent market situation and current stock levels, additional supplies are not considered necessary. Therefore, in the Committee for the Common Organisation of the Agricultural Markets held on 27 March, in agreement with a majority of the Member States, the Commission decided not to ask the opinion of the Member States on measures to allow additional supplies.

The Commission will continue to monitor the market closely and propose measures in case necessary.

When designing measures the Commission takes due account of the interests of all different stakeholders in the supply chain: growers, processors, refiners, users and consumers.

(Version française)

Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-002697/14

à la Commission

Philippe de Villiers (EFD)

(7 mars 2014)

Objet: Initiative «Garantie pour la jeunesse»

La «garantie pour la jeunesse» est une nouvelle initiative qui vise à lutter contre le chômage des jeunes en proposant à tous les jeunes de moins de 25 ans, qu'ils soient inscrits au chômage ou non, une offre de qualité, dans les 4  mois suivant la fin de leur scolarité ou la perte de leur emploi.

Avec plus de 5,5 millions de jeunes chômeurs en Europe en janvier 2014, dont 3,5 millions dans la zone euro, le coût total de ce dispositif est estimé à 21  milliards d'euros par an, soit 0,22 % du PIB par an. Le financement se fera via les budgets nationaux, le Fonds social européen et une enveloppe de 6 milliards d'euros alloués au titre de l'initiative pour l'emploi des jeunes.

Lors d'une conférence organisée le 4 mars 2014, le commissaire européen chargé de l'emploi, des affaires sociales et de l'inclusion, László Andor, a estimé que les régions d'Europe ont, et conserveront à l'avenir, un rôle crucial dans l'application de l'initiative «Garantie pour la jeunesse».

1.

Passé l'effet d'annonce, de quelles garanties d'efficacité la Commission dispose-t-elle pour ce programme européen?

2.

Dans son application, cette initiative respecte-t-elle vraiment la subsidiarité?

Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission

(2 mai 2014)

1.

Il dépendra en premier lieu de chaque État membre concerné que la «garantie pour la jeunesse» soit un succès. Il faut reconnaître que les États membres se trouvent dans des situations très diverses, en fonction de l'ampleur des défis, de l'existence et de la sophistication des dispositifs et mesures concernés et de leur situation budgétaire. C'est pourquoi la «garantie pour la jeunesse» sera instaurée progressivement dans certains États membres, comme cela est envisagé dans la recommandation du Conseil (281). Pour sa part, la Commission se limite à mobiliser tout le savoir‐faire et les instruments de financement disponibles pour réussir sa mise en œuvre. Elle évalue actuellement les plans de mise en œuvre qui ont été soumis jusqu'à présent (à ce jour par presque tous les États membres). Des contacts bilatéraux sont en cours afin de fournir une assistance technique visant à renforcer encore l'ensemble de réformes envisagé. La conférence «Youth Guarantee: Making It Happen» qui s'est tenue le 8 avril a aussi donné une impulsion supplémentaire à la mise en œuvre des engagements. Les progrès seront suivis régulièrement, dans le cadre tant des semestres européens que de forums spécialisés, tels que le comité de l'emploi.

2.

Avec la recommandation du Conseil sur l'établissement d'une «garantie pour la jeunesse», les États membres ont approuvé les principales caractéristiques des dispositifs envisagés. La recommandation précise que cette garantie doit «être adaptée aux circonstances nationales, régionales et locales». L'instauration d'approches de partenariat est mise en avant comme un critère horizontal déterminant pour une mise en œuvre réussie. Les niveaux national, régional et local de gouvernement ont tous un rôle essentiel à jouer pour faire de la «garantie pour la jeunesse» une réalité, et ces efforts seront soutenus par l'UE.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002697/14

to the Commission

Philippe de Villiers (EFD)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Youth Guarantee scheme

The Youth Guarantee scheme is a new approach to tackling youth unemployment which ensures that all young people under the age of 25, whether they are registered with employment agencies or not, receive a good-quality job, apprenticeship, traineeship or continued education offer within four months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed.

With more than 5.5 million young people unemployed in Europe (as at January 2014) — 3.5 million of them in eurozone countries — the annual cost of the scheme has been put at EUR 21 billion (0.22% of GDP). The funding will come from national budgets and the European Social Fund, and EUR 6 billion will also be provided under the Youth Employment initiative.

During a conference held on 4 March 2014, the Commissioner with responsibility for employment, social affairs and inclusion, László Andor, said that Europe’s regions played a key role in the implementation of the Youth Guarantee scheme and would continue to do so in future.

1.

Although this all sounds very positive, can the Commission guarantee that the scheme will be effective?

2.

Is the scheme really being implemented in accordance with the subsidiarity principle?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2014)

1.

Making the Youth Guarantee a success will first and foremost depend on each Member State concerned. It has to be recognised that Member States face highly diverse situations. This relates to the scope of the challenge, the existence and sophistication of relevant schemes and measures, and the budgetary situation. For this reason, the Youth Guarantee will be phased in gradually in some Member States, which is recognised in the Council Recommendation (282). For its part the Commission is only mobilising all available know-how and funding tools to support successful implementation. It is at present assessing the Implementation Plans which have so far been submitted (to date by nearly all Member States). Bilateral contracts are on-going to provide technical assistance to further enhance the envisaged set of reforms. A conference '‘Youth Guarantee — Making it Happen’' on 8 April also helped to further galvanise commitment. Progress will be monitored continuously, both as part of the European Semesters and in specialised fora such as the Employment Committee.

2.

With the Council Recommendation on Establishing a Youth Guarantee, Member States agreed on the key features of the envisaged schemes. The recommendation stipulates that the Youth Guarantee needs to be ‘geared to national, regional and local circumstances’. Building up partnership approaches is highlighted as a major horizontal criterion for successful implementation. Local, regional and national levels of government all have their crucial role to play in making the Youth Guarantee a reality, with the EU level supporting these efforts.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002699/14

alla Commissione

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(7 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Finanziamenti per il sito archeologico di Pompei

L'Italia ha ricevuto finanziamenti europei per un totale di 105 milioni di euro per salvaguardare il sito archeologico di Pompei, finanziamenti che dovranno essere impiegati entro un anno nella percentuale più alta possibile. Secondo diversi tecnici, il problema della tutela del sito è però legato anche a problemi di natura amministrativa, in quanto non solo le autorità competenti dovranno indire gare d'appalto in brevissimo tempo, ma inoltre le stesse gare vengono poi bloccate in seguito a denunce mosse da ditte che vi partecipano con esito negativo, ostacolando l'assegnazione e l'avvio dei lavori. I lavori inoltre, una volta iniziati, vengono costantemente rallentati da ispezioni volte a monitorare l'eventuale infiltrazione del crimine organizzato nelle ditte appaltanti.

Alla luce di questa peculiare situazione, la Commissione non ritiene che la scadenza per l'impiego dei fondi, fissata al 2015, rischi di andare contro gli obiettivi stessi per cui i finanziamenti sono stati accordati allo Stato italiano? Non ritiene che l'utilizzo possa essere effettuato in maniera più proficua dando maggiore libertà d'azione nel tempo alle autorità appaltatrici e alle ditte appaltanti?

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-002872/14

alla Commissione

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(11 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Maggiori interventi per la salvaguardia di Pompei

Considerando che

— la Commissione europea riconosce che, trattandosi di uno dei siti archeologici più importanti al mondo, la conservazione di Pompei non è soltanto una responsabilità dell'Italia, ed è per questo motivo che dal 2007 sono stati erogati per Pompei 74 milioni di euro di finanziamenti a valere sul Fondo regionale dell'UE;

— anche la commissaria europea Androulla Vassiliou sollecita un maggiore coordinamento tra le autorità locali, regionali e nazionali in Italia per assicurare che «Pompei sia conservata per le generazioni future»;

— il finanziamento di 74 milioni di euro per Pompei fa parte di un investimento complessivo di 105 milioni di euro, gestito dalle autorità italiane, destinato a lavori strutturali di alta tecnologia da condurre nel lungo periodo nelle zone a maggiore rischio e ai sistemi di drenaggio delle acque pianificati per la parte del sito non scavata che sovrasta gli antichi edifici;

— il cedimento delle mura di Pompei e le condizioni delle rovine archeologiche della Campania, aggravate dalle piogge che hanno colpito il sito negli ultimi giorni, hanno suscitato nella collettività il malcontento generale e la speranza di interventi straordinari più mirati e immediati in aiuto di Pompei, tra l'altro dichiarata dall'UNESCO patrimonio mondiale dell'umanità;

— la situazione di degrado ha fatto sì che l'UNESCO, preoccupata per lo stato di conservazione del sito vesuviano, rischi di inserirlo nella lista dei «beni in pericolo» (si vedano gli ulteriori tre crolli negli ultimi giorni, che portano a 29 il numero di cedimenti strutturali verificatesi negli ultimi cinque anni);

può la Commissione indicare:

quali misure intende adottare per monitorare in maniera approfondita e coordinare i nuovi fondi, in modo da evitare le inefficienze passate e migliorare la gestione dell'importante sito archeologico?

se intende inoltre adottare un piano speciale che incentivi i gestori del sito e l'utilizzo dei nuovi fondi per l'assunzione di manodopera qualificata ed interventi strutturali che impediscano eventuali crolli futuri?

Risposta congiunta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione

(25 aprile 2014)

Per quanto concerne le misure finalizzate alla conservazione del sito di Pompei, la Commissione ha approvato nel 2012 l'omonimo grande progetto del Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR) con una dotazione finanziaria complessiva di 105 milioni di euro e un contributo del FESR di 78 milioni. Il progetto concerne le misure urgenti di conservazione del sito. La scadenza per la spesa a valere sul progetto è il 31 dicembre 2015, in linea con la scadenza generale di spesa dei finanziamenti per il periodo 2007-2013 quale stabilita all'articolo 56, paragrafo 1, del regolamento (CE) n. 1083/2006 (283). Se il progetto in corso dimostrerà di aver raggiunto risultati tangibili, non è escluso tuttavia che vi faccia seguito un progetto di follow-up finanziato a valere sul periodo 2014-2020.

In linea con il principio della gestione concorrente, la responsabilità dell'esecuzione del progetto, compresa l'assunzione del necessario personale qualificato e l'esecuzione dei lavori, oltre al monitoraggio e alla valutazione delle attività, rientra nelle attribuzioni dell'autorità nazionale competente che, nel presente caso, sono il Ministero italiano della Cultura e la Sovrintendenza di Napoli e Pompei. La Commissione riceve regolarmente aggiornamenti sui progressi del progetto che sono discussi con le autorità italiane.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002699/14

to the Commission

Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Funding for the archaeological site of Pompeii

Italy has received European funding totalling EUR 105 million for the preservation of the archaeological site of Pompeii, with as much of this funding as possible having to be used within a year. According to various experts, administrative problems also come into play when it comes to the preservation of the site. Not only do the competent authorities have to issue invitations to tenders within an extremely short space of time, but these tenders then come to a standstill due to complaints from companies that are unsuccessful in these tender proceedings. This impedes the assignment of work and means that the start date is delayed. In addition, once work has begun it is subject to constant delays as a result of inspections to monitor any infiltration of organised crime into the contractor companies.

In the light of this unique situation, does the Commission not think that the deadline for using the funds, which is fixed for 2015, risks opposing the very objectives for which Italy was granted the funding? Does it not think that the funds could be used more cost-effectively by giving the contracting authorities and contractor companies more freedom to carry out their work?

Question for written answer E-002782/14

to the Commission

Diane Dodds (NI)

(10 March 2014)

Subject: Preserving Pompeii

Italy has announced it will unblock EUR 2 million in emergency funding to save the ancient city of Pompeii, after flooding caused walls to collapse.

A number of structures, including the Temple of Venus and Roma, were damaged by heavy rainfall. The site, where volcanic ash smothered a Roman city in AD 79, has suffered slow degradation for many years. It is one of the world’s greatest archaeological treasures.

What actions are currently being taken by the EU to ensure that this archaeological treasure will be preserved for generations to come?

Question for written answer E-002872/14

to the Commission

Aldo Patriciello (PPE)

(11 March 2014)

Subject: Doing more for Pompeii

The Commission acknowledges that, as Pompeii is one of the world’s greatest archaeological treasures, the site’s conservation is not a matter for Italy alone, which is why the EU has provided EUR 74 million from its regional funds since 2007.

The Commissioner responsible, Androulla Vassiliou, has called for closer coordination between local, regional and national authorities in Italy, in order to ensure that ‘Pompeii is saved for future generations’.

The EUR 74 million in EU funding for Pompeii forms part of an overall budget of EUR 105 million administered by the Italian authorities. The funds are to be spent on long-term, high-tech structural works in the highest risk areas and on water drainage systems for the non-excavated area overlooking the ancient buildings.

The collapse of an ancient wall in Pompeii and the generally poor state of repair of the ruins, which has been exacerbated by heavy rainfall at the site, has led to public anger and calls for more effective action to be taken without delay to preserve the site.

The degradation of this World Heritage site (three more structures have collapsed over recent days, bringing the total number of such incidents over the last five years up to 29) is such that Unesco is considering placing it on its at-risk list.

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the fresh funding is properly monitored and coordinated, in order to put the inefficiencies of the past behind us and make sure that this valuable archaeological site is looked after better than has been the case hitherto?

Does it intend to introduce a special plan that will encourage the people in charge of the site to use the new funds to take on properly qualified workers and carry out the structural works required in order to prevent any further collapses?

Joint answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2014)

As regards conservation measures for Pompeii, the Commission approved the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) major project ‘Pompeii’ in 2012 with an overall financial envelope of EUR 105 million and an ERDF contribution of EUR 78 million. This project focuses on urgent conservation measures for the site. The deadline for expenditure under the project is 31 December 2015, in line with the general deadline for spending the funds of the 2007-2013 period set in Article 56, paragraph 1, of Council Regulation (EC) No1083/2006 (284). Provided the current project demonstrates tangible results, it is not excluded, however, that there could be a follow-up project with funding from the 2014-2020 period.

In line with the principle of shared management, the responsibility for project implementation, including the hiring of the necessary qualified personnel and carrying out the works, as well as monitoring and evaluation activities lie with the competent national authorities, which is the Italian Ministry for Culture and the Superintendence for Naples and Pompeii. The Commission receives regular updates on the progress of the implementation of the project, which are discussed with the Italian authorities.

(Nederlandse versie)

Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-002700/14

aan de Commissie

Esther de Lange (PPE)

(7 maart 2014)

Betreft: Wederzijdse erkenning van rijbewijzen in Portugal

Een man met de Nederlandse nationaliteit woont in Portugal. Hij is in het bezit van een geldig Portugees rijbewijs. Hij is in 2013 beboet voor het rijden met een Portugees rijbewijs in een auto met een Nederlands kenteken die van een vriend was. De hoogte van de boete was 288 euro. Op 19 januari 2009 heb ik eenzelfde situatie aangekaart bij de Europese Commissie (E-0096/09). Het antwoord van de heer Tajani namens de Commissie was destijds dat de zaak op basis van Richtlijn 91/439/EEG een mogelijke inbreuk betrof op de regel van wederzijdse erkenning van rijbewijzen door de Portugese autoriteiten. Op basis van dit advies heeft de man besloten om een klacht in te dienen bij de bevoegde Portugese autoriteit om de zaak recht te zetten. Helaas, tot nu toe zonder resultaat. Omdat de kwestie van wederzijdse erkenning van rijbewijzen in Portugal na 5 jaar nog altijd voorkomt, stel ik de volgende vragen:

Is de Commissie van mening dat er hier wederom sprake is van een inbreuk op de regel van wederzijdse erkenning van rijbewijzen door de Portugese autoriteiten?

Erkent de Commissie dat er in Portugal ten opzichte van 5 jaar geleden nog geen verbeteringen hebben plaatsgevonden op het gebied van wederzijdse erkenning van rijbewijzen door de Portugese autoriteiten?

Is de Commissie voornemens alsnog stappen tegen Portugal te ondernemen om het recht op vrij verkeer te waarborgen?

Is de Commissie zich ervan bewust dat dit probleem zeer schadelijk is voor het beeld dat Europese burgers zich van Europa vormen?

Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie

(12 mei 2014)

Op basis van de informatie van het geachte Parlementslid gaat de Commissie ervan uit dat de boete werd opgelegd door de Portugese autoriteiten. Aangezien de betrokkene over een Portugees rijbewijs beschikte, zijn de vragen over de wederzijdse erkenning van rijbewijzen zonder voorwerp.

De Commissie voert momenteel evenwel een grondig onderzoek uit naar de nationale wetgeving tot omzetting van Richtlijn 2006/126/EG betreffende het rijbewijs (285). Als er sprake zou zijn van inconsistenties, zal de Commissie — als hoedster van het Verdrag — de nodige stappen zetten om de juiste omzetting en toepassing van bovengenoemde richtlijn te waarborgen.

Wat betreft het rijden in eigen land met voertuigen die in een andere lidstaat zijn ingeschreven, zou de betrokkene informatie moeten inwinnen bij de Portugese autoriteiten. Zo kan hij nagaan of en onder welke voorwaarden de nationale wetgeving hem ertoe verplicht het voertuig in Portugal te registreren en of hij eventueel registratie‐ en motorrijtuigenbelasting moet betalen.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002700/14

to the Commission

Esther de Lange (PPE)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Mutual recognition of driving licences in Portugal

A man who is a Netherlands national lives in Portugal. He is in possession of a valid Portuguese driving licence. In 2013, he was fined EUR 288 for driving a Dutch-registered car belonging to a friend while holding a Portuguese driving licence. On 19 January 2009, I had raised a similar situation with the Commission (E-0096/09). The answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission at the time was that, in the light of Directive 91/439/EEC, the case in question suggested a possible infringement of the rule on mutual recognition of driving licences by the Portuguese authorities. On the basis of that opinion, the man decided to complain to the competent authority in Portugal in order to set matters right. Regrettably, this has not so far yielded any result. As mutual recognition of driving licences in Portugal remains an issue five years on, I wish to put the following questions:

Does the Commission consider that, here again, the Portuguese authorities have infringed the rule on mutual recognition of driving licences?

Does the Commission acknowledge that, in the past five years, there has been no improvement in Portugal with regard to mutual recognition of driving licences by the Portuguese authorities?

Will the Commission take steps against Portugal in order to safeguard freedom of movement?

Is the Commission aware that this problem is very damaging to European citizens’ image of Europe?

Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2014)

The Commission assumes from the information provided by the Honourable Member that the fine was imposed by Portuguese authorities. Since the person concerned held a Portuguese driving licence any questions on mutual recognition of driving licences should therefore be excluded.

Nevertheless, the Commission is currently undertaking an in-depth assessment of the national legislations transposing Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences (286). Should there be any inconsistencies, the Commission will — in its quality of a guardian of the treaty‐ undertake the necessary steps to ensure the correct transposition and application of the abovementioned Directive.

As regards the driving in a Member State by residents of this Member State with vehicles registered in another Member State, the person concerned should verify with the Portuguese authorities whether it is required, and under what conditions, according to national legislation, to register the vehicle in Portugal and pay any possible registration and circulation tax.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-002701/14

à Comissão

Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL) e Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL)

(7 de março de 2014)

Assunto: Incumprimento pelo Estado Português da legislação relativa à identificação dos riscos da exposição ao amianto para os trabalhadores

Na sequência da pergunta E-012695-13, e respetiva resposta, vimos colocar as seguintes questões à Comissão:

1. Já agiu junto das autoridades portuguesas de modo a apurar se estas cumprem as disposições relativas à proteção dos trabalhadores do sector público contra os riscos ligados à exposição ao amianto durante o trabalho? Se não o fez, quando tenciona dar início a essa análise?

Mais esclarecemos que é/foi precisamente o Estado Português, enquanto empregador, que não promoveu o cumprimento do artigo 3.°, n.° 2, da Diretiva 2009/148/CE, que exige a avaliação de riscos «relativamente às atividades suscetíveis de apresentar um risco às poeiras provenientes do amianto ou materiais contendo amianto», de forma a determinar a natureza e o grau de exposição.

Existem situações em que os funcionários públicos desconhecem estes riscos, exercendo atividades em que estão expostos às fibras de amianto, sem que o seu empregador — neste caso o Estado Português — os proteja das mesmas.

2. Corrobora a Comissão a opinião de que esta situação, a confirmar-se, constitui uma violação da legislação europeia por parte do Estado Português? Se sim, tem ou não entre as suas competências a obrigação de assegurar que o enunciado nas diretivas europeias é cumprido, constitua ou não um requisito formal?

Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão

(28 de abril de 2014)

1.

Na sequência da análise de uma denúncia apresentada relativa à aplicação, em Portugal, de várias disposições da Diretiva 2009/148/CE (287) no que diz respeito aos funcionários públicos, a Comissão elaborou um pedido de informação que será transmitido às autoridades portuguesas em breve.

2.

A informação recolhida na sequência desse pedido permitirá à Comissão determinar se Portugal aplica essa diretiva corretamente aos trabalhadores do setor público.

Se houver elementos de prova que mostrem que Portugal não cumpriu as obrigações que lhe incumbem por força da diretiva, a Comissão tomará todas as medidas necessárias para corrigir a situação, incluindo, se necessário, recorrendo à instauração de um processo por infração, em conformidade com o artigo 258.° do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002701/14

to the Commission

Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL) and Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Infringement by Portugal of legislation on identifying the risks to workers of exposure to asbestos

Following up on Written Question E-012695/13 and the answer thereto, could the Commission answer the following:

1. Has the Commission already taken action vis-à-vis the Portuguese authorities to determine their compliance with the rules on protecting public sector workers from the risks associated with exposure to asbestos in the workplace? If not, when does it intend to start this process?

We wish to highlight the fact that the Portuguese Government has itself failed, as an employer, to comply with the terms of Directive 2009/148/EC, Article 3(2) of which requires an assessment of the ‘risk of exposure to dust arising from asbestos or materials containing asbestos’ in order to determine the nature and degree of workers’ exposure.

In some cases, civil servants are unaware of the dangers and continue to be exposed to asbestos fibres during the course of their work, without receiving any protection from their employer — in this case the Portuguese Government.

2. Does the Commission share the view that this situation, if confirmed, is an infringement of European legislation by the Portuguese State? If so, does it have the power to ensure that the terms of European directives are complied with, regardless of whether or not they constitute a formal requirement?

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

1.

Further to its analysis of a complaint lodged with it and relating to the application in Portugal of several provisions of Directive 2009/148/EC (288) as regards public-sector employees, the Commission has drafted a request for information, to be forwarded to the Portuguese authorities soon.

2.

The information gathered in connection with that request will allow the Commission to determine whether Portugal applies that directive correctly to public-sector employees.

Should evidence show that Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive, the Commission will take all measures necessary to redress the situation, including, if necessary, through an infringement procedure in accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(Versão portuguesa)

Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-002702/14

à Comissão

Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL) e Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL)

(7 de março de 2014)

Assunto: Abate ilegal de árvores no Alqueva e incumprimento de legislação comunitária

No último ano foram abatidas «ilegalmente» 11 500 árvores protegidas no Alqueva, entre azinheiras, oliveiras e sobreiros, situação que levou a Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) a pedir esclarecimentos a várias entidades portuguesas, exigindo que fossem tomadas medidas contra os envolvidos.

De acordo com a legislação existente, para se cortar árvores (protegidas), deve-se pedir uma autorização e as mesmas têm de ser marcadas, o que não se verificou. Além disso, o contrato de execução foi adjudicado sem concurso, nem autorização.

Aparentemente, este abate deve-se ao facto de as árvores estarem mortas, o que poderá ser parcialmente verdade, tendo em conta que se permitiu subir o nível da água para o limite máximo. No entanto, o procedimento (ilegal) levado a cabo, atendendo à inexistência de um pedido de autorização e de marcação das árvores, impediu que se verificasse quantas árvores estavam realmente mortas.

Segundo a LPN, desde o início, desmontaram-se fábricas de papel sem cuidados ambientais, várias áreas foram desbravadas e desflorestadas, ameaçando espécies protegidas, já que era um espaço que servia de apoio a projectos de introdução de águias-pesqueiras, num claro desprezo pela legislação ambiental e por várias directivas comunitárias.

Face a estas considerações, solicita-se à Comissão que se pronuncie sobre esta situação, e se, de acordo com a legislação comunitária existente, considera legal este abate de árvores protegidas no Alqueva.

Solicita-se ainda que nos esclareça:

O anexo 3 da Directiva-quadro da Água foi cumprido (preços estabelecidos pelo Governo para a água para rega)?

O alargamento da zona de rega previsto no novo plano de Avaliação de Impacte Ambiental (AIA) respeita a Rede Natura e as espécies protegidas?

Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão

(28 de abril de 2014)

Nem todas as zonas circundantes da albufeira de Alqueva são zonas protegidas da rede Natura 2000. A menos que façam parte da rede, as azinheiras e os sobreiros não beneficiam das salvaguardas de proteção estabelecidas no artigo 6.° da Diretiva que cria a rede Natura 2000, embora possam beneficiar de um regime de proteção estabelecido por legislação nacional. Por conseguinte, a Comissão não parece ter base para intervir no abate das árvores em questão.

1.

Da avaliação efetuada pela Comissão do cumprimento, por Portugal, dos requisitos prévios em matéria de recursos hídricos aos quais a legislação da União Europeia subordina os financiamentos da UE, verifica-se que, para efeitos da análise económica prevista no anexo III da Diretiva-Quadro Água (289), Portugal apenas teve em conta o abastecimento de água e a recolha e tratamento das águas residuais. A expectativa da Comissão é que a análise económica contemple todos os serviços hídricos e todos os setores pertinentes.

2.

Como todos os planos ou projetos que afetem espécies ou sítios protegidos pela legislação da União Europeia, qualquer extensão da zona de rega relacionada com a barragem de Alqueva terá de respeitar as disposições específicas das diretivas relativas à proteção da natureza (290). A Comissão não foi informada de nenhum projeto de rega com impacto potencial em espécies ou habitats protegidos, pelo que irá pedir às autoridades portuguesas informações adicionais acerca da avaliação do impacto ambiental das novas zonas de rega e sobre as condições em que estas foram autorizadas.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002702/14

to the Commission

Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL) and Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Unlawful felling of trees in Alqueva and failure to comply with EU legislation

Last year 11 500 protected holm oak, olive, and cork oak trees were felled ‘unlawfully’ in Alqueva. The Portuguese Nature Conservation League (LPN) responded by asking for explanations from a number of authorities and calling for action to be taken against the persons involved.

The current legislation allows (protected) trees to be felled only when authorisation been requested and the trees themselves have been marked, neither of which happened in this case. Furthermore, the contract for the felling work was awarded without a call for tenders, again without authorisation.

Apparently, the reason for the felling was that the trees were dead. This might have been true in part, given that the water level had been allowed to rise up to the maximum limit. However, because of the way of proceeding, which was unlawful to the extent that no authorisation was sought and the trees were not marked, it was impossible to ascertain how many trees were actually dead.

According to the LPN, it has been the case from the outset that paper mills have been dismantled with no environmental precautions and several areas have been cleared and deforested, posing a threat to protected species, bearing in mind that the site concerned was being used to support osprey introduction projects; all this has been done in blatant disregard of environmental legislation and EU directives.

In the light of the foregoing, can the Commission comment on this situation and can it say, having regard to the EU legislation in force, whether it considers the felling of protected trees in Alqueva to have been carried out legally?

In addition:

Has Annex III of the Water Framework Directive been complied with (as regards the prices set by the Government for irrigation water)?

What is the position regarding the extension of the irrigation zone under the new environmental impact assessment (EIA) plan, taking into account the Natura network and protected species?

Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2014)

Not all areas around the Alqueva ‘reservoir’ are protected in Natura 2000 network. Unless they are included in the network, oak trees do not benefit from the protective safeguards set out in its Article 6. However, they may benefit from a protection regime under national legislation. Therefore the Commission would not appear to have a basis to intervene in this matter in relation to the felling of the trees.

1.

From the Commission's assessment of Portugal's fulfilment of the ‘water ex-ante conditionality’ provided for in EU legislation for the entitlement to EU funding, it appears that Portugal has only taken into account water supply and wastewater collection and treatment for the purpose of the economic analysis under Annex III of the Water Framework Directive (291). The Commission expects Member States to include all water services and all relevant sectors in that analysis.

2.

Any extension of the irrigation zone linked to the Alqueva dam, like any other plan or project affecting species or sites protected under the EU legislation, has to abide by specific provisions of the Nature Directives (292). The Commission has not been informed of irrigation projects with potential impacts on protected species and habitats and it will seek further information from the Portuguese authorities on the EIA for new irrigation areas and conditions under which they were authorised.

(Versiunea în limba română)

Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-002703/14

adresată Comisiei

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D)

(7 martie 2014)

Subiect: Echilibrarea ratelor de angajare pe perioada extrasezonului în turismul european

Analizele Eurostat pentru determinarea ratelor de ocupare a unităților de cazare pentru 2012-2013 în Europa au înregistrat o creștere de 0,6% în timpul sezonului de vară 2013, cele două luni de vârf fiind iulie și august. În aceste două luni, toate statele membre, în afară de Danemarca, Letonia, Estonia și Finlanda au avut cele mai mari rate de ocupare anuale. Croația, Cipru, Malta și Grecia sunt țările cu cea mai mare rată de ocupare a unităților de cazare, cu 96,7%, 89,7%, 84% și 81,9%.

Comisia are ca strategie reducerea sezonalității, dar și promovarea turismului în extra-sezon prin programe precum Calypso, Low-Season Tourism și Tourism for Seniors. Având în vedere faptul că provocările în acest sector sunt legate de îmbunătățirea calității locurilor de muncă și de echilibrarea ratelor de angajare din timpul sezonului și din extra-sezon, doresc să întreb Comisia cum își propune să abordeze aceste provocări, împreună cu statele membre, și care sunt măsurile prevăzute?

Răspuns dat de dl Barnier în numele Comisiei

(22 aprilie 2014)

Comisia recunoaște că intensificarea fluxurilor de turiști în extrasezon poate consolida creșterea economică, poate stimula productivitatea și poate contribui la menținerea și eventual la crearea de noi locuri de muncă.

Începând din 2009, în cadrul inițiativei „Calypso — turismul pentru toți” (293), Comisia a cofinanțat zece proiecte transnaționale care au implicat 17 state membre (plus Serbia și Muntenegru), un studiu referitor la turismul social și a sprijinit crearea unei platforme web (294). Platforma facilitează echilibrarea cererii și a ofertei, având ca scop sprijinirea organizațiilor și grupurilor de operatori care intenționează să organizeze și să asigure experiențe de călătorie pentru anumite grupuri țintă, oferindu-le un acces ușor și rapid la pachete turistice în întreaga Europă.

Începând cu 2012, Comisia a pus accentul într-o mai mare măsură pe grupul persoanelor mai în vârstă (Calypso+), recunoscând marele potențial turistic al acestui segment de populație. Până în prezent în 2014, Comisia a oferit cofinanțare pentru patru proiecte care ar trebui să instituie și/sau să consolideze parteneriatele publice și private la nivel european, național și/sau regional și să faciliteze schimburile turistice transnaționale în extrasezon pentru persoanele în vârstă pe teritoriul Europei. De asemenea, Comisia intenționează să exploreze mai în profunzime piața tineretului, cu același scop de a facilita mobilitatea transnațională și de a promova parteneriatele public-privat.

În cele din urmă, dar nu mai puțin important, recent, Comisia a inițiat un amplu proces de consultare cu actorii din sectorul public și privat privind inițiativa „Europa, destinația cea mai bună pentru persoanele în vârstă”, care, în continuitate cu inițiativa Calypso, vizează crearea unor mecanisme de coordonare pentru intensificarea fluxurilor de turiști persoane în vârstă în extrasezon pe teritoriul Europei, turiști provenind și din țări terțe.

(English version)

Question for written answer E-002703/14

to the Commission

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Balancing employment rates in the European tourism sector to cover off-season periods

Eurostat data regarding accommodation occupancy rates for the period 2012-2013 in Europe revealed a 0.6% rise in the summer of 2013, peaking in July and August, the two months in which all Member States (aside from Denmark, Latvia, Estonia and Finland) registered the highest percentages for the year, headed by Croatia, Cyprus, Malta and Greece with 96.7%, 89.7%, 84% and 81.9% respectively.

The Commission is currently seeking to reduce seasonal variations, for example through the Calypso initiative designed to promote off-season tourism and tourism for seniors and provide more stable employment by levelling out the disparities between peak and off-season periods. In view of this, can the Commission indicate how it intends to achieve these objectives in cooperation with the Member States and what specific measures are being envisaged?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2014)

The Commission acknowledges that enhancing low and medium season tourism flows can reinforce economic growth, boost productivity, help maintain and possibly generate new jobs.

Since 2009, in the framework of the initiative ‘Calypso — tourism for all’ (295), the Commission has co-financed ten transnational projects, involving 17 Member States (plus Serbia and Montenegro), a study on social tourism, and has supported the creation of a web platform (296). The platform facilitates the match of demand and supply, aiming at supporting organisations and groups of operators who plan to organise and provide travel experiences to the specific target groups, by offering them quick and easy access to tourism packages across Europe.

Since 2012, the Commission has focused more extensively on the senior group (Calypso+), recognising the great tourist potential of this population segment. So far in 2014, the Commission provided co-funding to four projects which should set up and/or strengthen public and private partnerships at European, national and/or regional levels, and facilitate transnational tourism exchanges for seniors in the low season within Europe. The Commission also intends to explore more in depth the youth market, with the same aim of facilitating transnational mobility and fostering public-private partnerships.

Last but not least, the Commission has recently engaged in a broad consultation process with various public and private actors on the initiative ‘Europe, the best destination for seniors’, which, in continuity with the Calypso initiative, aims at setting up coordination mechanisms to increase low/medium seasons flows for senior tourists within Europe and from third countries.

(Versione italiana)

Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-002705/14

alla Commissione

Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)

(7 marzo 2014)

Oggetto: Protezione delle indicazioni geografiche

Può la Commissione fornire una stima del valore aggiunto per le economie locali rappresentato dal riconoscimento delle indicazioni geografiche europee (IG) negli accordi commerciali esterni dell'Unione?

Quanti accordi commerciali dell'Unione proteggono le IG italiane e quanti prodotti italiani sono esplicitamente protetti dalle IG?

Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione

(29 aprile 2014)

In base a uno studio del 2012 (297), nel 2010 le vendite nei paesi terzi di prodotti protetti da indicazioni geografiche dell'UE (IG) sono state stimate a 11,5 miliardi di EUR, pari al 15 % della totalità degli scambi extra-UE di alimenti e bevande. Le suddette esportazioni di prodotti IG dell'UE erano costituite per circa la metà da vini (51 %), da bevande spiritose IG (40 %) e da prodotti agricoli e alimentari (9 %).

Con un valore complessivo pari a circa 5 miliardi di EUR nel 2010, i vini protetti da indicazione geografica hanno rappresentato il 74 % del valore complessivo delle esportazioni extra-UE di vino (6,7 miliardi di EUR). Nel 2010 il valore dei vini italiani IG venduti nei paesi terzi ha totalizzato 1,6 miliardi di EUR. Sempre nel 2010 le vendite di prodotti agricoli e alimentari sono state pari a circa 1 miliardo di EUR, circa il 2 % del valore complessivo delle esportazioni alimentari extra-UE (57 miliardi di EUR). Nell'ambito di queste esportazioni extra-UE la quota di gran lunga più significativa era costituita da prodotti italiani (62 %). Le prime cinque denominazioni hanno rappresentato il 55 % della totalità delle esportazioni extra-UE (Grana Padano, Parmigiano Reggiano, Aceto Balsamico di Modena, Prosciutto di Parma, Scottish Farmed Salmon). Con un valore complessivo pari a 4,6 miliardi di EUR nel 2010, le bevande spiritose IG hanno rappresentato circa il 64 % del valore complessivo delle esportazioni extra-UE (7 miliardi di EUR).

Una maggiore protezione delle IG rappresenta un forte interesse offensivo dell'UE in tutti i suoi negoziati commerciali. Negli ultimi anni l'UE ha garantito un elevato livello di protezione di molte delle sue IG nei mercati di alcuni dei principali partner commerciali. Tutti gli accordi commerciali conclusi dall'UE che prevedono la protezione delle sue indicazioni geografiche contemplano IG originarie dell'Italia. In ciascun accordo è definito l'elenco delle indicazioni geografiche protette nel territorio di ciascuna parte contraente. Le IG italiane specifiche protette nell'ambito di ciascun accordo sono disponibili al seguente indirizzo internet: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gi-international/index_en.htm.

(English version)

Question for written answer P-002705/14

to the Commission

Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)

(7 March 2014)

Subject: Protection of Geographical Indications

Can the Commission provide an estimate of the value added to local economies through the recognition of European Geographical Indications (GIs) in the Union’s external trade agreements?

How many of the Union’s trade agreements protect GIs originating in Italy, and how many Italian products are explicitly protected by GIs?

Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2014)

According to a 2012 study (298), in 2010 the sales of EU Geographical Indications (GI) products to third countries were estimated EUR 11.5 billion, representing 15% of all extra-EU trade for food and beverages. Nearly half of those exports of GI products were wines (51%), the value of GI spirits exports amounted to 40% and agricultural products and foodstuffs represented 9% of the EU GI exports.

With a total value around EUR 5 billion in 2010, GI wines represented 74% of the total value of extra-EU exports of wine (EUR 6.7 billion). Italian GI wines sold in third countries accounted for EUR 1.6 billion in 2010. GI agricultural products and foodstuffs represented around EUR 1 billion in 2010, about 2% of the total value of extra-EU food exports (EUR 57 billion). Italian products represented by far the largest share of those extra-EU exports (62%). The first five designations represented 55% of all extra-EU exports (Grana Padano, Parmigiano Reggiano, Aceto Balsamico di Modena, Prosciutto di Parma, Scottish Farmed Salmon). With a total value of EUR 4.6 billion in 2010, GI spirits represented about 64% of the total value of extra-EU spirit exports (EUR 7 billion).

Enhanced GI protection is an important offensive interest of the EU in all its trade negotiations. Over the last few years the EU has ensured a high level of protection of many EU GIs in the markets of some key trade partners. All EU trade agreements providing protection for EU GIs do include GIs originating in Italy. The list of the geographical indications protected in each contracting party is defined in each agreement. The specific Italian GIs protected under each agreement can be found at the following address: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gi-international/index_en.htm

(Versión española)

Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-002706/14

a la Comisión

Andrés Perelló Rodríguez (S&D)

(7 de marzo de 2014)

Asunto: Incompatibilidad de una Ley española con la nueva legislación europea sobre cigarrillos electrónicos

Actualmente se encuentra en trámite de aprobación en el Senado español la nueva Ley para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios que debe regular, entre otros aspectos, el consumo y la publicidad de los cigarrillos electrónicos.

Por lo que respecta a la publicidad en medios audiovisuales, el texto del proyecto de Ley permitiría la publicidad de estos dispositivos en medios audiovisuales, siempre que