Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 33 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 57**
##### English edition Information and Notices 5 February 2014

_Notice to reader_

This publication contains written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers
given by a European Union institution.
For each question and answer, the original language version is presented before a possible translation.
In some cases, it is possible that the answer is given in a language other than the question. This depends
on the working language of the committee requested to provide the answer.
These questions and answers are published in accordance with Rules 117 and 118 of the Rules of
Procedure of the European Parliament.
All questions and answers can be accessed via the website of the European Parliament (Europarl) under
the heading ‘Parliamentary questions’:
_http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html_

_ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR POLITICAL GROUPS_
PPE Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)
S&D Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the
European Parliament
ALDE Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
Verts/ALE Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
ECR European Conservatives and Reformists Group
GUE/NGL Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left
EFD Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group
NI Non-attached Members

### **EN**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

**Written questions by Members of the European Parliament and their answers given**

**by a European Union institution**

(2014/C 33 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-004011/13** by Artur Zasada to the Commission
_Subject:_ Establishing a rail freight corridor based on a comprehensive network

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 25
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 26

**E-004012/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Eliminating the excessive red tape involved in negotiating future rural development programmes with
Member States

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 27
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 28

**P-004013/13** by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU financing for the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in the Baltic region

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 29
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 30

**E-004015/13** by Jiří Maštálka to the Commission
_Subject:_ Precautionary principle

České znění ........................................................................................................................................................................ 31
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 33

**E-004016/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Montecatini Terme: possible funding in the tourism sector

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 35
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

**E-004017/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Budget constraints as a consequence of the Stability Pact: the case of the municipality of Montale (Pistoia)

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 37
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 38

C 33 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004018/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Worrying levels of pesticide contamination of Italy's surface waters and groundwater

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 39
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 41

**E-004019/13** by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission
_Subject:_ Chinese bird flu

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

**E-004020/13** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal and dangerous carriage of trailers on commercial vehicles

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 45
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 46

**E-004021/13** by Rebecca Taylor to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Falsified Medicines Directive and potential future shortages of medicines in the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 47

**E-004024/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rimborsi di eccedenza IVA: possibile violazione della normativa dell'Unione

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 48
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

**E-004025/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Excess VAT refunds: clear breach of EC law by Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 48
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

**P-004027/13** by Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public consultations — definition of target group

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 52
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 53

**E-004029/13** by Philip Claeys to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Dye packs’ not allowed at Munich Airport

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 54
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 55

**E-004030/13** by Paweł Robert Kowal and Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in the Central African Republic

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 56
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 57

**E-004031/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ The problem of access to healthcare in different EU Member States

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 58
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 59

**E-004032/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding of the EU forest monitoring scheme

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 60
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 61

**E-004033/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Harmonisation of public procurement legislation in the Member States

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 62
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 63

**E-004231/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Alleged fuel price-fixing by the main oil companies in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 64
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 3

**E-004233/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Security of Christian communities in Nigeria

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 66
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 67

**E-004234/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trafficking of human beings and infringement of human rights in Egypt

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 68
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 69

**E-004235/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of the Fiscal Compact and consequences for Italian enterprises of a possible block on old
payments by the public administration

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 70
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 71

**E-004236/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 on the electronic identification of bovine animals and
deleting the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 72
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 73

**E-004237/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Distortions in the Italian third-party vehicle insurance market and effects on Italian drivers

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 74
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 76

**E-004238/13** by Emer Costello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Preparatory action ‘Youth Guarantee’

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 78

**P-004239/13** by Mário David to the Commission
_Subject:_ Prohibition of pilot training on passenger flights

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 79
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 80

**P-004240/13** by Santiago Fisas Ayxela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Catalan trade regulation

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 81
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 82

**E-004241/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU withdrawal from Syria

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 83

**E-004242/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syrian child soldiers

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 84

**E-004243/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding to NGOs in the Middle East

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 85

**E-004244/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Iranian nuclear ambitions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 86

**E-004246/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU funding for regions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 87

**E-004247/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Zimbabwean referendum

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 88

C 33 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004248/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instability in the Central African Republic

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 89

**E-004708/13** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ First Russian organisation convicted under law on ‘foreign agents'

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 90
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 91

**E-004249/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Russian tax inspectors

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 91

**E-004609/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Turkish pianist receives suspended sentence for blasphemy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 92
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-004250/13** by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Turkish pianist sentenced for insulting Islam

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 93
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-004251/13** by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Turkish Government launches a ‘rescue campaign’ for Turkish children fostered by
Christian/homosexual families (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 96
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 97

**E-004252/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Support for Iraq

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 98

**E-004253/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — North Korea

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 99

**E-004255/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Settlement between the European Investment Bank and Siemens

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 100
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 102

**E-004256/13** by François Alfonsi, Jean-Jacob Bicep, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Jill Evans, Kinga Gál, Alajos
Mészáros, Ana Miranda, Ulrike Rodust, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Nils Torvalds, László Tőkés,
Giommaria Uggias and Edit Bauer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission support for the Liet International festival

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 104
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 105
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 106
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 107
Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 108
Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 109
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 110

**P-004257/13** by Peter van Dalen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Hacking of aircraft

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 111
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 112

**E-004258/13** by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Council
_Subject:_ Progress in the fight against tax havens — the tax agreement with Liechtenstein

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 113
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 114

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 5

**E-004260/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Google Android: abuse of dominant position

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 115
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 116

**E-004261/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fiscal aid for Belgian football clubs

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 117
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 118

**E-004263/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ MasterCard abusing its dominant position

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 119
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 121

**E-004264/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Making the most of environmental measures

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 122
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 123

**E-004265/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Multiannual framework regarding the financing of EU cooperation for ACP States

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 124
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 125

**E-004266/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Adaptation of the Structural Funds for gender equality

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 126
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 127

**E-004267/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 128
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 129

**E-004268/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Financial fair play in football

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 130
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 131

**E-004269/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cases of _force majeure_ for EU air passengers

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 132
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 133

**E-004270/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Council
_Subject:_ Integration of migrants

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 134
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 136

**E-004271/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statute for a European mutual society

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 138
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 139

**E-004272/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Products for combating alcohol addiction

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 140
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 141

**E-004273/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sports agents

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 142
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 143

C 33 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004274/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free movement of players

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 144
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 145

**E-004275/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation of the functioning of the food supply chain

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 146
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 147

**E-004276/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Failure of the European rapid alert system for food

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 148
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 149

**E-004277/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Carbon footprint of online activities

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 150
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 151

**E-004278/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future energy mix of the EU

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 152
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 153

**E-004279/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Endocrine disruptors: follow-up to the European Food Safety Authority report

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 154
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 156

**E-004280/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Gibraltar and its tax concessions for online gambling operators

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 158
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 159

**P-004281/13** by Sophia in 't Veld to the Council
_Subject:_ Relocation of Vilnius march for equality

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 160
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 161

**P-004282/13** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 162

**E-004283/13** by Sophia in 't Veld to the Commission
_Subject:_ Relocation of Vilnius march for equality

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 163
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 164

**E-004284/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — US Secretary of State John Kerry talks in Turkey

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 165
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 166

**E-004285/13** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Hamas damages to Unesco world heritage site

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 167
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 168

**E-004286/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Failure to investigate the murder of so-called Gaza ‘collaborators’

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 169
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 170

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 7

**E-004287/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — The role of so-called ‘morality brigades’ in Gaza

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 171
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 172

**E-004288/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Beheadings in Papua New Guinea and sorcery-related violence

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 173
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 174

**E-004289/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Spring quail and turtle dove hunting in Malta and new and repeated infringements of
Directive 147/2009/EC (Birds Directive)

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 175
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 176

**E-004290/13** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Erosion of the Gargano coastline

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 177
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 178

**E-004291/13** by Mitro Repo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Is Apple restricting competition in Europe?

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 179
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 180

**P-004292/13** by Marita Ulvskog to the Commission
_Subject:_ Standards for horse-riding helmets

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 181
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 182

**E-004293/13** by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Economic crisis and health

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 183
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 185

**E-004294/13** by Liam Aylward and Pat the Cope Gallagher to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ending roaming charges in Europe

Leagan Gaeilge ................................................................................................................................................................... 186
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 187

**E-004295/13** by Glenis Willmott to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dementia care

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 188

**E-004296/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Serious adverse effects on the biotope of Lake Frassino in Peschiera del Garda (Verona), an SCI and SPA
area protected as part of the Natura 2000 network

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 189
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 191

**E-004297/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Child abduction and international arrest warrants

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 193
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 195

**E-004302/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of the ‘Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment
agreements’

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 196
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 197

C 33 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004304/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ UN proposal on environmental standards applicable to agricultural products

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 198
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 199

**E-004305/13** by Lara Comi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Further campaigns in Switzerland to denigrate cross-border workers from Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 200
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 201

**P-004306/13** by Sophocles Sophocleous to the Commission
_Subject:_ Organisation of a teachers' conference in the occupied territories of Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 202
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 203

**E-004307/13** by Lara Comi to the Council
_Subject:_ Further campaigns in Switzerland to denigrate cross-border workers from Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 204
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 205

**E-004308/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Young Europeans taking up arms in Syria

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 206
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 207

**E-004309/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trade and investment as a driving force for the development of developing countries

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 208
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 209

**E-004310/13** by Sophocles Sophocleous to the Commission
_Subject:_ Festival in Karpasia

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 210
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 211

**E-004311/13** by Kyriacos Triantaphyllides to the Commission
_Subject:_ Haircuts on savings

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 212
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 213

**E-004312/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Europe 2020 strategy

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 214
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 215

**E-004314/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Change to the rules on the designation of origin ‘Roncal’

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 216
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 217

**E-004315/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Integration of migrants

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 218
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 220

**E-004316/13** by Bernd Lange to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU free trade agreement with South Korea

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 222
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 223

**E-004324/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tendering of the municipality of Alicante's municipal cleaning and waste services

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 224
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 226

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 9

**E-004325/13** by Michael Theurer to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU competition and antitrust law

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 228
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 229

**E-004326/13** by Sophocles Sophocleous to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Execution of hostages in Nigeria

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 230
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 231

**P-004327/13** by Nigel Farage to the Council
_Subject:_ Premature disclosure of inside information on the Cyprus bailout

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 232

**E-004329/13** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restoration and institutional strengthening of the social dialogue in Member States facing the most
serious economic and social threats

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 233
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 235

**E-004330/13** by Catherine Stihler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reserved contracts

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 236

**E-004332/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Problems with the application of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 238
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 239

**E-004333/13** by Francesco De Angelis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future of the steel industry and protection of jobs

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 240
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 241

**E-004334/13** by Sabine Wils to the Commission
_Subject:_ Financial resources for ‘Amazon’

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 242
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 243

**E-004335/13** by Marian Harkin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Airline fuel surcharges

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 244

**E-004336/13** by Arlene McCarthy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of MIFID I

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 245

**E-004337/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legislative proposals on food labelling and the relevant timetable

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 246
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 247

**E-004338/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Agenda for discussions with Turkey regarding the export conditions for live animals

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 248
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 249

**E-004339/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ukraine bans meat imports from certain European countries

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 250
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 251

C 33 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004340/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Placing conditions on livestock aid in Romania

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 252
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 253

**E-004341/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Stage of examination of Romania's application for implementing a temporary state aid scheme

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 254
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 255

**P-004342/13** by Sampo Terho to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation on public passenger transport services

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 256
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 257

**E-004343/13** by Keith Taylor and Jean Lambert to the Commission
_Subject:_ The control of bovine tuberculosis in the United Kingdom — follow up on Written Question E010251/2012

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 258

**E-004344/13** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Joint deposit guarantee system in the eurozone

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 259
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 260

**E-004345/13** by Sir Graham Watson to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Possible use of torture in the case of Hoang Van Ngai

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 261

**E-004346/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lobbying in support of pesticides

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 262
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 263

**E-004347/13** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Protection of the Fundamental Rights of Oswaldo Payá and Harol Cepeda

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 264
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 265

**E-004348/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Preferred shares in Bankia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 266
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 267

**E-004349/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Death of Samba Martine in an immigrant detention centre in Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 268
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 269

**E-004350/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syrian rebels becoming part of al-Qaeda

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 270
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 271

**E-004351/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Artificial maintenance of property rental prices in Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 272
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 274

**E-004352/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Slave labour practices by the Inditex group in Argentina

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 275
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 277

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 11

**E-004353/13** by Willy Meyer to the Council
_Subject:_ United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 279
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 281

**E-004354/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of the crisis on the Sahrawi camps

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 283
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 284

**E-004355/13** by Herbert Reul to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of flexible cooperation mechanisms according to Directive 2009/28/EC

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 285
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 286

**E-004356/13** by Gay Mitchell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation 883/2004 and access to non-contributory benefits for EU migrants

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 287

**E-004357/13** by Hannu Takkula to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transparency of EU funding received by the Palestinian Authority

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 288
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 289

**P-004358/13** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ Memorandum on construction of a second branch of the Yamal-Europe pipeline

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 290
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 291

**E-004359/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Racism and xenophobia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 292
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 293

**E-004360/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Youth unemployment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 294
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 295

**E-004361/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Drug trafficking

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 296
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 297

**E-004362/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Public Prosecutor's Office

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 298
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 299

**E-004364/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Europol — European Public Prosecutor's Office

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 300
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 301

**E-004365/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Cybercrime Centre EC3

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 302
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 303

**E-004366/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Europol

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 304
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 305

C 33 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004367/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Combating drug trafficking

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 306
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 307

**E-004368/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Integration of third-country nationals

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 308
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 309

**E-004369/13** by Jürgen Creutzmann, Andreas Schwab and Heide Rühle to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of the Late Payments Directive

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 310
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 311

**E-004370/13** by Keith Taylor to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU commitments to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 312

**E-004371/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Human rights in Ukraine

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 313
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 314

**E-004372/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Proposal on the European Railway Agency

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 315
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 316

**E-004373/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Budget of the European Supervisory Authorities

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 317
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 318

**E-004374/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Suspicious death of the Christian leader of the ‘Evangelical Church of South Vietnam’

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 319
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 320

**E-004375/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support measures for fishermen in the Venetian Lagoon

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 321
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 322

**E-004376/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Electronic cigarettes and misleading advertising

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 323
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 324

**E-004377/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible stricter penalties for ‘atheist bloggers’ in Bangladesh

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 325
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 326

**E-004378/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food safety

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 327
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 328

**E-004379/13** by Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission proposal to reduce direct payments to farmers by 5%

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 329
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 330

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 13

**E-004380/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Burma — the EU must not abandon human rights benchmarks

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 331
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 332

**E-004381/13** by Ashley Fox to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cardiff airport and EU state aid rules

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 333

**E-004382/13** by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Commission
_Subject:_ Capital controls

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 334

**E-004383/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU-India agreements, a threat to the future of generic medicinal products

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 335
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 336

**E-004384/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Liberalisation of state aid

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 337
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 338

**E-004385/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Central Bank (ECB) — annual report

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 339
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 340

**E-004386/13** by Marielle Gallo to the Council
_Subject:_ Transatlantic trade and investment partnership — exclusion of audiovisual services

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 341
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 342

**E-004387/13** by Marielle Gallo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transatlantic trade and investment partnership — exclusion of audiovisual services

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 343
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 344

**E-004388/13** by Sergio Gaetano Cofferati and Guido Milana to the Commission
_Subject:_ Concession of State-owned property for conducting aquaculture business

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 345
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 346

**E-004389/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Questions concerning delegated acts and implementing acts

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 347
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 348

**E-004390/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Defending minority rights

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 349
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 350

**E-004391/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food aid 2014-2020

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 351
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 352

**E-004392/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future measures to tackle unemployment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 353
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 355

C 33 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004394/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future measures for tackling unemployment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 353
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 355

**E-004393/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Abolition of the death penalty, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 356
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 357

**E-004395/13** by Fiorello Provera to the Council
_Subject:_ Iranian agents operating in Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 358
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 359

**E-004396/13** by Patrice Tirolien to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up to the ‘BEST’ preparatory action

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 360
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 361

**E-004397/13** by Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revision of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of
aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 362
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 363

**E-004398/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — geographical balance in the selection and appointment of staff

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 364
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 365

**E-004399/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Prospective legislative proposals regarding agricultural machinery used for spreading pesticides and/or
fertilisers

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 366
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 367

**E-004400/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future measures to combat unemployment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 368
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 369

**E-004401/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Youth unemployment: future measures

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 370
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 372

**E-004402/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Youth unemployment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 370
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 372

**E-004403/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fighting against homophobia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 374
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 375

**E-004404/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recognition of disability certificates

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 376
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 377

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 15

**E-004405/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recognition of European qualifications

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 378
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 379

**E-004406/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Female unemployment

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 380
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 381

**E-004407/13** by Ole Christensen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Interpretation of driving licence rules for drivers with epilepsy

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 382
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 383

**E-004408/13** by Peter van Dalen, Charles Tannock and Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Sectarian violence against Copts in Egypt

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 384
Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 386
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 388

**E-004409/13** by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Authorisation for the use of meat and bone meal to feed ruminants and non-ruminants, excluding
aquaculture animals

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 389
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 391

**E-004410/13** by Riikka Manner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Visa-free travel between Russia and the EU

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 392
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 393

**E-004411/13** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Council
_Subject:_ Total expenditure on lump-sum allowances for travel by Council officials to their place of origin

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 394
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 395

**E-004412/13** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Total expenditure on flat rates for travel by Commission officials to their place of origin

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 396
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 397

**E-004413/13** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Total expenditure on lump sum allowances for travel by officials of the European External
Action Service (EEAS) to their place of origin

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 398
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 399

**E-004414/13** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Council
_Subject:_ Officials with their principal residence in Luxembourg

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 400
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 401

**E-004415/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compatibility of the Spanish Criminal Code with EU directives on intellectual property

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 402
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 404

**E-004416/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of the Cabrera Archipelago Maritime-Terrestrial National Park

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 405
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 406

C 33 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004417/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Coexistence of wolves and livestock farming

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 407
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 408

**E-004418/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pigs

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 409
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 410

**E-004419/13** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal framework for the device-specific licensing of software

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 411
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 412

**E-004420/13** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Council
_Subject:_ The Council's position on the security of European computer systems

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 413
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 414

**E-004421/13** by Ingeborg Gräßle to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recipients and readers of Opinion 2/2012 of the OLAF Supervisory Committee

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 415
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 416

**E-004422/13** by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sustainable supply of phosphorus

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 417
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 418

**E-004423/13** by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission
_Subject:_ Collapse of Thermphos

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 419
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 420

**E-004424/13** by Ana Gomes, Marietje Schaake, Franziska Katharina Brantner, Barbara Lochbihler, Pier Antonio
Panzeri and Elmar Brok to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arrest warrants issued against political and human rights activists by the Egyptian government

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 421
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 422

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 423

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 424
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 425

**E-004425/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bacteriophages: an outstanding discovery in the treatment of bacterial infections

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 426
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 427

**E-004426/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Progress report for Turkey reveals failed reforms and political/institutional deadlock: what is the future
for the negotiations?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 428
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 429

**E-004427/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ailing Greek healthcare system: what measures should be taken?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 430
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 431

**E-004428/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sandblasting and silicosis: what measures can be taken to protect workers?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 432
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 434

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 17

**E-004429/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fly ash zeolites to purify the environment: a new option for a cleaner environment and health benefits for

everyone

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 435
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 436

**P-004430/13** by Elena Băsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Progress recorded in Serbia in 2012

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 437
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 439

**E-004431/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Agreement

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 440
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 442

**E-004432/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Agreement

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 440
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 442

**E-004433/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Geographical dispersion

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 443
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 444

**E-004434/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Geographical depopulation

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 443
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 444

**E-004435/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Council Directive 2004/113/EC

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 445
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 446

**E-004436/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Council Directive 2004/113/EC

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 447
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 448

**E-004437/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Respect for fundamental rights online

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 449
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 450

**E-004438/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its
victims

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 451
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 452

**E-004439/13** by Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Data retention

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 453
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 454

**E-004441/13** by Sajjad Karim to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Violence against minority Muslim populations in Burma/Myanmar

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 455

**E-004442/13** by Corina Creţu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Death penalty for juveniles

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 456
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 457

C 33 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004443/13** by Isabelle Thomas to the Commission
_Subject:_ Blue whiting in EU waters

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 458
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 459

**E-004444/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Youth unemployment in Italy and Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 460
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 461

**E-004445/13** by Peter van Dalen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Inland waterways crisis

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 462
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 463

**E-004446/13** by Corina Creţu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tackling unemployment in the EU

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 464
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 465

**P-004447/13** by Claude Moraes to the Council
_Subject:_ EU Environment Ministers meeting in Dublin — clean air and environmental policy

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 466

**E-004448/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at NCG Banco

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 467
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 471

**E-004449/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at Catalunya Banc

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 467
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 471

**E-004450/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at BFA-Bankia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 468
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 472

**E-004451/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at Banco Gallego

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 469
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 473

**E-004452/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and subordinated debt at Liberbank

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 469
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 473

**E-004453/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reinhart and Rogoff's misleading article

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 475
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 476

**E-004454/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — The trial of Efraín Ríos Montt

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 477
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 479

**E-004455/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Suspension of the José Efraín Ríos Montt trial

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 477
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 479

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 19

**E-005453/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ríos-Montt verdict and possible link with President Molina Pérez

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 478
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 480

**E-004456/13** by Pablo Zalba Bidegain, María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora and Francisco José Millán Mon to the
Commission
_Subject:_ Negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with Thailand

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 481
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 483

**E-004457/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Youth Guarantee’ programme and disability

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 485
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 487

**E-004458/13** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fight against tax havens

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 488
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 489

**E-004459/13** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ The risks of the Bitcoin market

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 490
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 491

**E-004462/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Cybercrime Centre

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 492
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 493

**E-005262/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Combating trafficking in human beings

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 494
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 496

**E-005493/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of 2011 Directive against human trafficking

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 496

**E-004463/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Failure to arrest and imprison traffickers in human beings

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 495
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 496

**E-004464/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Inequitable distribution of wealth among European households

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 498
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 499

**E-004465/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Violent extremism in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 500
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 501

**E-004466/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Estimates of bad loans in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 502
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 503

**E-004467/13** by Roger Helmer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Religious conflict in Egypt

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 504

C 33 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004468/13** by Arlene McCarthy and Linda McAvan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal bird hunting in Malta

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 505

**E-004469/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Croatia's accession to the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 506

**E-004470/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Assistance package for Palestine

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 507

**E-004471/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU free trade deal with Japan

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 508

**E-004472/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Forced child labour in Uzbekistan's cotton industry

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 509

**E-004473/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arming Syrian rebels

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 510

**E-004792/13** by Diane Dodds to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU support for Syrian rebels

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 510

**E-004474/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Labour shortages in EU health and technology industries

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 511

**E-004475/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Innovation in the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 512

**E-004476/13** by James Nicholson to the Council
_Subject:_ PCE/PEC — Allocation of rural development top-ups during February's budget negotiations

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 513

**E-004477/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reallocating reclaimed CAP expenditure

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 514

**E-004478/13** by Reinhard Bütikofer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free trade agreement between China and Iceland

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 515
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 516

**E-004479/13** by Vicky Ford to the Commission
_Subject:_ SME ‘TOP 10’ consultation

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 517

**E-004480/13** by Vicky Ford to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission, European Consumer Centres and ‘Leaseurope’ — developments with regard to Written
Question E-007987/2012

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 518

**E-004481/13** by Sophia in 't Veld to the Commission
_Subject:_ US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the refusal by Swedbank to accept US citizens as
clients

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 519
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 521

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 21

**E-004482/13** by Agnès Le Brun to the Commission
_Subject:_ Animal welfare and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 523
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 524

**E-004483/13** by Agnès Le Brun to the Commission
_Subject:_ Flat-rate VAT scheme for agriculture

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 525
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 526

**E-004484/13** by Agnès Le Brun to the Commission
_Subject:_ Social dumping in the agri-food sector

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 527
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 528

**E-004486/13** by Liam Aylward to the Commission
_Subject:_ Availability of bilateral cochlear implants

Leagan Gaeilge ................................................................................................................................................................... 529
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 530

**E-004487/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rules for electronic cigarettes

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 531
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 532

**E-004488/13** by Claude Moraes to the Commission
_Subject:_ London job creation — single market

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 533

**E-004489/13** by Rachida Dati to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protecting consumers by ensuring that EU rules are applied: the situation of foreign energy operators in
Hungary

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 534
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 535

**E-004490/13** by Constance Le Grip to the Commission
_Subject:_ Biodegradable waste management policy

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 536
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 537

**E-004491/13** by Alain Cadec to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fishing effort ceilings — fishing for scallops in the Seine estuary

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 538
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 539

**E-004492/13** by Matteo Salvini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reducing the digital divide between northern and southern Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 540
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 541

**E-004493/13** by Francesco Enrico Speroni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increased cost of vehicle insurance policies on the grounds of age

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 542
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 543

**E-004494/13** by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Rise in religious violence against Christians in Uzbekistan

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 544
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 545

**E-004495/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funds disbursed to pre-accession countries through the IPA

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 546
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 547

C 33 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**E-004496/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funds disbursed to pre-accession countries between 2000 and 2006

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 546
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 547

**E-004497/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ EIB loans granted to pre-accession countries

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 548
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 549

**E-004498/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding for the timber industry in the municipality of Lariano

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 550
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 551

**E-004499/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding for the leather goods sector in Tuscany

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 552
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 553

**P-004500/13** by Marek Siwiec to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU rules on freedom of movement

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 554
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 555

**E-004501/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ New seed regulation threatens diversity in flora

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 556
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 558

**E-004502/13** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up to Written Question E-002473/2013

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 559

**E-004503/13** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Growing persecution of Christians in Nigeria

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 560
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 561

**E-004504/13** by Janusz Wojciechowski to the Commission
_Subject:_ The fight against illegal alcohol in the European Union

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 562
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 563

**E-004505/13** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Magnitsky case

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 564
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 565

**E-004506/13** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ Payment for medical services abroad

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 566
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 567

**E-004507/13** by Riikka Manner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up question concerning the Habitats Directive

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 568
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 570

**E-004539/13** by Hannu Takkula to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation of populations of large predators

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 568
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 570

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 23

**P-004508/13** by Isabella Lövin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal exports of Baltic salmon caught by Swedish fishermen to France

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 572
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 573

**E-004509/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tetrafluorpropene refrigerant (R1234yf) — concerns in the automobile industry

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 574
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 576

**E-004510/13** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Council
_Subject:_ Child health strategy

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 578
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 579

**E-004511/13** by Phil Prendergast to the Commission
_Subject:_ Requirements for EU couples in instances where a spouse moves abroad

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 580

**E-004512/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sale of counterfeit wine worth EUR 10 million in Italy and the United Kingdom

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 582
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 583

**E-004513/13** by Mariya Gabriel to the Commission
_Subject:_ Measures featuring in the proposal for revising the Tobacco Products Directive

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 584
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 585

**E-004514/13** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Community resources for tackling illegal immigration

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 586
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 587

**E-004515/13** by George Lyon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cohesion funds package and rural areas (Scotland)

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 588

**E-004516/13** by George Lyon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regional state aid guidelines for the period 2014-2020 — SME intervention levels — Scotland

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 589

**E-004517/13** by George Lyon to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU budget — 2012 outstanding commitments ( _reste à liquider_ (RAL)) — Commission estimates

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 590

**E-004518/13** by George Lyon to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU budget — postponement of EUR 2.6 billion and suspended payments

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 591

**E-004519/13** by George Lyon to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU budget — outstanding commitments (RAL) at the end of 2012 — funding programmes

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 592

**E-004520/13** by George Lyon to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU budget — draft amending budget (DAB) 2/2013 — justification

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 593

**E-004521/13** by George Lyon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regional state aid guidelines for the period 2014-2020 — large enterprise intervention support —
Scotland

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 594

C 33 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

**P-004522/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ General Data Protection Regulation — impact on trade

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 595

**E-004523/13** by Herbert Reul to the Commission
_Subject:_ Time shift in the EU from 2015 onwards

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 596
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 597

**E-004524/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of birds and 2020 biodiversity targets

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 598
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 599

**E-004525/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up question to Question E-002356/2012 — unemployed young people

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 600
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 601

**E-004526/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Supplementary question in relation to unemployment in Portugal

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 602
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 603

**E-004527/13** by Sabine Wils to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU funding for the Fehmarn Belt railway axis

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 604
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 605

**E-004528/13** by Sabine Wils to the Commission
_Subject:_ Radioactive waste containers in the Atlantic

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 606
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 607

**E-004529/13** by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU position regarding Muslim Brotherhood backlash in Egypt against recent UN declaration on women's
rights

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 608
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 610

**E-004530/13** by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU position regarding Muslim Brotherhood backlash in Egypt against recent UN declaration
on women's rights

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 608
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 610

**E-004531/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU aid to Darfur

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 612

**E-004532/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Renewable energy consumption in the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 613

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 25

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004011/13**

**do Komisji**
**Artur Zasada (PPE)**
_(10 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Utworzenie kolejowego korytarza towarowego w oparciu o sieć kompleksową

Z uwagą odnoszę się do wszelkich inicjatyw Komisji mających na celu zwiększenie przepustowości oraz poprawę
jakości transportu kolejowego w Unii Europejskiej. Kwestią o szczególnym dla mnie znaczeniu jest kolejowy
transport towarowy i poprawa jego efektywności poprzez ułatwienie i przyspieszenie przejazdów, zwiększenie
bezpieczeństwa oraz zmniejszenie zatłoczenia.

W związku z powyższym mam konkretne pytanie: czy według Komisji jest dopuszczalne utworzenie kolejowego
korytarza towarowego w oparciu o linie kolejowe, które nie należą do sieci bazowej (core network), ale są wpisane do
sieci kompleksowej (comprehensive network) w ramach jednolitej sieci transportowej TEN-T i tym samym
rozszerzenie korytarza towarowego numer 5 o linię C-E-59 od granicy z Czechami do portu w Szczecinie w Polsce?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Siima Kallasa w imieniu Komisji**

_(23 maja 2013 r.)_

W załączniku do rozporządzenia 913/2010 ( [1] ) wymieniono główne trasy kolejowych korytarzy towarowych,
wskazując najważniejsze węzły w obrębie każdej z nich. Te główne trasy należy rozumieć jako ogólny opis
geograficzny korytarzy, który _nie_ określa dokładnego przebiegu tych korytarzy na poziomie konkretnych linii
kolejowych.

Wyznaczenie linii kolejowych korytarzy w ramach szeroko rozumianych głównych tras w oparciu o analizę rynku
transportowego jest zadaniem rady zarządzającej każdego z kolejowych korytarzy towarowych, jak określono
w przedmiotowym rozporządzeniu ( [2] ). W stosownych przypadkach wyznaczone linie kolejowe muszą również
obejmować trasy objazdowe i łączące je odcinki ( [3] ).

Zważywszy, że proponowana podstawowa sieć kolejowa transeuropejskiej sieci transportowej (TEN-T) dla
przewozów towarowych obejmuje linie kolejowe ważne dla europejskiego kolejowego transportu towarowego,
Komisja uważa za naturalne, że odpowiednie linie kolejowe, które będą należeć do podstawowej sieci kolejowej TENT dla przewozów towarowych, będą wyznaczane w odniesieniu do kolejowych korytarzy towarowych i będą
stanowić rdzeń tych korytarzy. Jednak nawet linie kolejowe spoza podstawowej sieci kolejowej (a w niektórych
przypadkach nawet spoza kompleksowej sieci kolejowej) mogą zostać wyznaczone jako kolejowe korytarze
towarowe, w szczególności – choć nie tylko – w przypadku tras objazdowych. Wyznaczenie linii kolejowych
korytarzy towarowych powinno być dyktowane potrzebami rynku.

W odniesieniu do linii kolejowej CE-59 do Szczecina należy zauważyć, że obecnie nie jest ona uwzględniona
w głównej trasie RFC 5; jej włączenie wymagałoby modyfikacji głównej trasy, której można by dokonać w związku
z dostosowaniem korytarzy kolejowego transportu towarowego oraz korytarzy sieci bazowej będącym obecnie
przedmiotem dyskusji w ramach negocjacji międzyinstytucjonalnych poświęconych TEN-T ( [4] ) i wnioskowi
w sprawie instrumentu „Łącząc Europę” ( [5] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 913/2010 z dnia 22 września 2010 r. w sprawie europejskiej sieci kolejowej

ukierunkowanej na konkurencyjny transport towarowy, Dz.U. L 276 z 20.10.2010, s. 22–32.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Art. 2 lit. a) w związku z art. 9.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Art. 2 lit. a).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 665 final.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

C 33 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004011/13**

**to the Commission**
**Artur Zasada (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Establishing a rail freight corridor based on a comprehensive network

I pay careful attention to every measure proposed by the Commission to increase the capacity and improve the
quality of rail transport in the European Union. One aspect which is particularly important to me is rail freight
transport and ways to make it more efficient by making journeys easier and faster, increasing safety and reducing
congestion.

I would like to ask the Commission if it is possible to establish a rail freight corridor based on railway lines which are
not part of the core network but are included in the comprehensive network as part of the TEN-T single transport
network, which would also mean extending freight corridor number 5 by line C-E-59 from the border with the Czech
Republic to the port of Szczecin in Poland?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

Regulation 913/2010 ( [1] ) comprises in its Annex the Principal Routes of the Rail Freight Corridors (RFCs) by
indicating major nodes along each corridor. These Principal Routes have to be understood as a general geographical
description of the corridors, _not_ outlining an exact alignment of the corridors on the level of specific railway lines.

It is the task of the Management Board of each RFC to designate railway lines to the corridor within the (wider) scope
of the Principal Route, based on a transport market study as stipulated by the regulation ( [2] ). The designation also has
to comprise, where appropriate, diversionary routes and connecting sections ( [3] ).

Taking into account that the proposed TEN-T Core Rail Network for Freight reflects railway lines of major
importance for European rail freight, the Commission considers it as natural that relevant railway lines which will
belong to the TEN-T Core Rail Network for Freight will become designated to the RFCs and form the backbone of
these corridors. However, even railway lines outside the Core Rail Network (and in certain cases possibly even outside
the Comprehensive Rail Network) may become designated to RFCs, in particular in — but not limited to — the case
of diversionary routes. The designation of lines to the RFCs should be driven by market needs.

Concerning railway line CE-59 to Szczecin it has to be noted that Szczecin is currently not included in the Principal
Route of RFC 5; its inclusion would require a modification of the Principal Route, which could be done in connection
with the alignment of Rail Freight Corridors and Core Network Corridors currently under discussion in the
interinstitutional negotiations of the TEN-T ( [4] ) and Connecting Europe Facility ( [5] ) proposal.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 concerning a European rail network for

competitive freight, OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 22‐32.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Art 2(a) in combination with Art 9.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Art 2(a).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2011)665 final.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 27

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004012/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(10 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Eliminarea birocrației excesive în cadrul procesului de negociere cu statele membre pe marginea viitoarelor
programe de dezvoltare rurală

Doresc să atrag atenția Comisiei asupra cazului unui inginer român, producător agricol și beneficiar al unei finanțări
în cadrul fondurilor europene pentru agricultură și dezvoltare rurală. Fermierul a solicitat cea de-a doua tranșă de
plată pentru Măsura 112 — „Instalarea tinerilor fermieri”, iar autoritatea competentă, APDRP, i-a comunicat că nu
este eligibil, întrucât în evidențele instituției de plată era în mod eronat înregistrat ca persoană fizică și nu ca persoană
fizică autorizată. Fermierul a depus documente justificative, fără niciun rezultat. Autoritatea a sistat plata de 10 000
de euro și a solicitat restituirea sumei de 15 000 de euro, reprezentând prima tranșă. APDRP a recunoscut că a făcut o
greșeală, dar a continuat procesul pentru obligarea beneficiarului la restituirea sumei încasate. Acesta este numai unul
dintre cazurile de cetățeni români nemulțumiți de birocrația impusă de autoritățile române în accesarea fondurilor
europene pentru agricultură.

Comisia este rugată să răspundă la următoarea întrebare: în situația în care un cetățean, beneficiar al unei finanțări din
fondurile europene, epuizează toate căile de atac pe plan intern împotriva unei decizii pe care o consideră incorectă,
cărei instituții europene trebuie să i se adreseze pentru reglementarea situației?

De asemenea, Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă va avea în vedere eliminarea birocrației excesive în cadrul
procesului de negociere cu statele membre pe marginea viitoarelor programe de dezvoltare rurală.

**Răspuns dat de dl Cioloș în numele Comisiei**

_(14 iunie 2013)_

Legislația care reglementează aprobarea Programelor de dezvoltare rurală pentru perioada 2014-2020 este dezbătută
în prezent de către legislator. În comparație cu perioada de programare 2007-2013, această legislație prezintă o serie
de propuneri de simplificare. De exemplu, cadrul de reglementare va fi, în mare măsură, folosit în comun de mai
multe fonduri UE, inclusiv Fondul european agricol pentru dezvoltare rurală. Acest lucru va facilita atât adoptarea
Programului de dezvoltare rurală, cât și punerea sa în aplicare. Cu toate acestea, Comisia va continua să aplice
legislația în mod sistematic și riguros, în vederea reducerii ratei de eroare.

În ceea ce privește protecția drepturilor garantate de legislația UE, inclusiv cele care reglementează fondurile UE,
Comisia atrage atenția asupra articolului 47 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene, care prevede că
orice persoană ale cărei drepturi și libertăți garantate de legislația Uniunii Europene sunt încălcate, are dreptul la o cale
de atac eficientă în fața unei instanțe judecătorești. Protecția drepturilor garantate de legislația UE trebuie să fie
garantată în fața instanțelor naționale independente, în cooperare cu Curtea de Justiție a UE.

C 33 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004012/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Eliminating the excessive red tape involved in negotiating future rural development programmes with
Member States

I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the case of a Romanian engineer and agricultural producer, who is
also a beneficiary of funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. This farmer applied for the
second payment instalment for Measure 112 — ‘Setting up of young farmers’ — but the relevant authority, the
Payments Agency for Rural Development and Fisheries (APDRP), advised him that he was not eligible as he had been
mistakenly registered in the records of the payments agency as a natural person and not as an authorised natural
person. The farmer submitted supporting documentation, but to no avail. The authority stopped the payment of
EUR 10 000 and requested that he refund the sum of EUR 15 000, equivalent to the first instalment. The APDRP
acknowledged that it had made an error, but continued the process of forcing the beneficiary to refund the sum paid.
This is just one of a number of cases where Romanian citizens are unhappy with the red tape imposed by the
Romanian authorities when accessing European agricultural funds.

Can the Commission reply to the following question? In a situation where a citizen, who is a beneficiary of resources
from European funds, exhausts every means of redress in his own country against a decision deemed incorrect, which
European institution should he contact to resolve the situation?

Can the Commission also specify whether it is going to consider eliminating the excessive red tape involved in
negotiating future rural development programmes with Member States?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The legislation governing the approval of the Rural Development Programmes 2014-2020 is currently being
discussed by the legislator. In comparison to the programming period 2007-2013, this legislation puts forward a
number of simplification proposals. As an example, the regulatory framework will be shared to a large extent by
several EU Funds, including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. This will facilitate both the
adoption of the Rural Development Programme as well as its implementation. Nevertheless, the Commission will
continue to apply the legislation consistently and rigorously with a view to decreasing the error rate.

With regard to the protection of rights under EC law, including those governing the EU funds, the Commission draws
attention to Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides that everyone whose rights and
freedoms guaranteed by EC law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. The protection of
rights under EC law must be ensured before independent national courts, in cooperation with the Court of Justice of
the EU.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 29

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. P-004013/13**

**Komisijai**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(2013 m. balandžio 10 d.)_

_Tema:_ Suskystintų gamtinių dujų terminalo statybos Baltijos regione finansavimas ES lėšomis

Lietuva pradėjo statyti nacionalinį suskystintų gamtinių dujų terminalą (SGDT), kuris pradės veikti jau 2014 m.
Pastačius tokį terminalą suskystintų gamtinių dujų (SGD) už konkurencingą rinkos kainą būtų galima gauti iš kitų
šalių, pvz., iš Norvegijos, todėl prognozuojama, kad SGD kaina Lietuvoje galėtų sumažėti ketvirtadaliu ar penktadaliu.
Lietuva per metus vidutiniškai suvartoja apie 3 mlrd. kubinių metrų dujų; jos gaunamos iš vienintelio išorės tiekėjo –
įmonės „Gazprom“.

Europos Sąjunga yra įsipareigojusi užtikrinti, kad po 2015 m. nė viena ES valstybė narė neliktų atskirta nuo Europos
dujų ir elektros energijos tinklų ir turėtų prieigą bent prie dviejų skirtingų alternatyvių energijos išteklių tiekimo
šaltinių. Vienas iš Komisijos pateiktų pagrindinių projektų Baltijos regione yra vieno didelio visam regionui skirto
SGDT statyba ir jo dalinis finansavimas ES biudžeto lėšomis. Remiantis atliktu tyrimu, regioniniam terminalui
parinkta statybos vieta yra Suomijos įlankoje; šiuo metu tai žiemą užšąlanti vietovė, o baigti statyti terminalą
numatoma ne anksčiau kaip 2030 m. Tai reiškia, kad Baltijos regiono valstybės narės – tarp jų ir Lietuva – dar 17 m.
liktų priklausomos nuo monopolistinio išorės tiekėjo. Per ateinančius 17 metų vien Lietuva įmonei „Gazprom“ už
dujas permokėtų apie 5 mlrd. JAV dolerių, o išaugus dujų poreikiui ši suma galėtų siekti ir 8,5 mlrd. dolerių. Todėl
17 m. truksianti tokio regioninio terminalo statyba netenka prasmės, prasilenkia su ekonomine ir politine logika ir
lemia dar didesnę šio regiono energetinę priklausomybę nuo išorės tiekėjo.

Ar Komisija nemano, kad būtų tikslinga peržiūrėti šį sprendimą ir regioninio terminalo statybai skirtą finansavimą
paskirstyti valstybėms narėms, savo jėgomis ir lėšomis statančioms ar statysiančioms SGDT Baltijos regione? Taip
būtų galima žymiai greičiau užtikrinti saugų ir patikimą energijos tiekimą Baltijos regione ir pirkti dujas
konkurencingomis rinkos kainomis – šito mes siekiame jau ne vienus metus.

**G. Oettingerio atsakymas Komisijos vardu**

_(2013 m. gegužės 17 d.)_

Komisija mano, kad visas rytines Baltijos jūros regiono šalis aptarnaujantis regioninis terminalas yra naudingiausias
sprendimas žvelgiant iš ES perspektyvos. Tačiau tai nereiškia, kad dėl to ES parama negali būti skiriama tokiems
projektams kaip Klaipėdos SGD terminalas, kuriais pavienės valstybės narės siekia kuo greičiau užtikrinti tiekimo
saugumą. Parama tokiems projektams gali būti teikiama, jei jie atitinka ES politinius tikslus, ES _aquis_ reikalavimus ir
ES finansavimo priemonių reikalavimus. Tokios priemonės galėtų būti, pavyzdžiui, Europos regioninės plėtros fondo
(ERPF) lėšos arba Europos investicijų banko (EIB) ar Europos rekonstrukcijos ir plėtros banko (ERPB) paskolos.

C 33 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004013/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU financing for the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in the Baltic region

Lithuania has begun to construct a national liquefied natural gas terminal (LNGT), which will become operational as
early as 2014. Once such a terminal has been constructed, it will be possible to obtain liquefied natural gas (LNG) at a
competitive market price from other countries such as Norway and it is therefore predicted that the price of LNG in
Lithuania could fall by 20-25%. On average, Lithuania consumes around three billion cubic metres of gas a year,
which is obtained from one external supplier: Gazprom.

The European Union is committed to ensuring that from 2015, no Member State should remain isolated from
European gas and electricity networks, and that they all should have access to at least two different sources of
alternative energy resources. One of the main projects in the Baltic region submitted by the Commission is the
construction of a single large LNGT for the entire region partially financed by funds from the EU budget. According to
a survey carried out, the location chosen for the construction of the regional terminal is in the Gulf of Finland;
currently this area is ice-bound in winter and it is expected that the construction of the terminal will not be completed
until 2030. This means that Member States in the Baltic region — including Lithuania — would remain dependent on
a monopolistic external supplier for another 17 years. Over the next 17 years, Lithuania alone would pay Gazprom
around USD 5 billion for gas, and with increased gas demand, this amount could even reach USD 8.5 billion. It is
therefore devoid of purpose to construct a regional terminal that lasts 17 years, that defies economic and political
logic and increases this region’s energy dependence on an external supplier even more.

Does the Commission not feel that it would be appropriate to review this decision and to allocate financing for the
construction of a regional terminal to those Member States that are currently constructing or that will be constructing
a LNGT in the Baltic region on their own with their own funds? It would thus be possible to ensure a secure and
reliable energy supply in the Baltic region and to buy gas at competitive market prices much sooner, something we
have been aiming to do for years.

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

The Commission believes a regional terminal serving all Eastern Baltic countries is the solution that provides most
benefits from the EU perspective. This does not preclude the possibility of EU assistance also to projects, such as the
Klaipeda LNG terminal, that address immediate security of supply concerns of an individual Member State, provided
they support the EU policy objectives, comply with the EU _acquis_ and are eligible for EU funding instruments. Such
instruments could be for instance the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) or EIB/EBRD loans.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 31

_(České znění)_

**Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-004015/13**

**Komisi**
**Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL)**

_(10. dubna 2013)_

_Předmět:_ Zásada obezřetnosti

Zásada obezřetnosti je popsána v článku 191 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie (SFEU). Přijímáním preventivních
opatření v případě ohrožení má zajišťovat vysokou úroveň ochrany životního prostředí. Vztahuje se rovněž na
spotřebitelskou politiku a právní předpisy EU v oblasti potravin a v oblasti zdraví lidí, zvířat a rostlin. Zásadu
obezřetnosti lze uplatnit, neumožňují-li vědecké údaje objektivní, definitivní vyhodnocení rizika, které představuje
určitý jev, výrobek nebo proces.

Z tohoto důvodu byla zásada obezřetnosti zahrnuta do směrnice o obecné bezpečnosti výrobků (bod odůvodnění 1
a čl. 8 odst. 2 směrnice 2001/95/ES) a do směrnice o bezpečnosti hraček (bod odůvodnění 38 a článek 39 směrnice
2009/48/ES), a členské státy jsou tedy povinny tuto zásadu zohledňovat při posuzování rizika výrobků. Ačkoli se
jedná o klíčový pilíř stávajících právních předpisů EU v oblasti bezpečnosti, není zásada obezřetnosti zmíněna ani
v návrhu nařízení o bezpečnosti spotřebních výrobků (COM(2013)0078) ani v návrhu nařízení o dozoru nad trhem
(COM(2013)0074). Vzhledem k tomu, že nařízením o dozoru nad trhem se rovněž změní směrnice o bezpečnosti
hraček, zanikla by v budoucnu i zásada obezřetnosti.

Zachování této zásady je nezbytné, neboť evropští spotřebitelé a jejich sdružení potřebují nejčastěji prokázat
nebezpečí spojená se spotřebními výrobky, které nespadají do potravinářského průmyslu. V případě přijetí opatření
v rámci zásady obezřetnosti však mohou mít hospodářské subjekty povinnost prokázat neexistenci nebezpečí.
Odstranění této zásady proto představuje problém nejen pro bezpečnost spotřebitelů, ale také pro orgány dozoru nad
trhem, které podnikají preventivní kroky. Bez zásady obezřetnosti, která umožňuje odpovídající řízení rizik, mohou
vznikat problémy při provádění efektivních opatření dozoru.

1. Proč byla zásada obezřetnosti, uvedená v čl. 8 odst. 2 směrnice o obecné bezpečnosti výrobků, odstraněna
a vypuštěna z návrhu nařízení o bezpečnosti spotřebních výrobků (2013/0049(COD))?

2. Proč nebyla zásada obezřetnosti zahrnuta do návrhu nařízení o dozoru nad trhem?

3. Proč má Komise v úmyslu odstranit zásadu obezřetnosti ze směrnice o bezpečnosti hraček?

**Odpověď komisaře Borga jménem Komise**

_(24. června 2013)_

Zásada předběžné opatrnosti je obecná zásada v EU, která nemusí být nutně v právních textech výslovně uvedena,
avšak je třeba ji při rozhodování zohledňovat, zejména pokud jde o řízení rizik v oblasti zdraví lidí, zvířat a rostlin
nebo při ochraně životního prostředí ( [1] ). Návrh nařízení o dozoru nad trhem ( [2] ) stanoví pravidla pro provádění
zásady předběžné opatrnosti ve všech oblastech, kde by měla být uplatňována, zejména v čl. 6 odst. 1 a článcích 12
a 13, které upravují řízení rizik na úrovni EU.

Ustanovení týkající se dozoru nad trhem uvedená ve směrnici 2001/95/ES ( [3] ) o obecné bezpečnosti výrobků,
konkrétně v článcích 6 až 18, byla převedena do návrhu nového nařízení o dozoru nad trhem, v němž byla rovněž
zapracována a dále rozvedena ustanovení kapitoly III nařízení (ES) č. 765/2008 ( [4] ). Komise navrhuje, aby budoucí
nařízení o dozoru nad trhem bylo jediným právním nástrojem, který bude regulovat dozor nad trhem pro
harmonizované i neharmonizované nepotravinářské výrobky.Z toho důvodu neobsahuje návrh nařízení
o bezpečnosti spotřebních výrobků ( [5] ) pravidla pro dozor nad trhem.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Sdělení o zásadě předběžné opatrnosti z února 2000, KOM(2000) 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 75.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Úř. věst. L 218, 13.8.2008.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Úř. věst. L 11, 15.1.2002, s. 4.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 78.

C 33 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Jedním z cílů návrhu nařízení o dozoru nad trhem je propojit, zjednodušit a posílit ustanovení týkající se dozoru nad
trhem uvedená v nařízení (ES) č. 765/2008, směrnici 2001/95/ES o obecné bezpečnosti výrobků a několika dalších
nařízeních a směrnicích, včetně směrnice 2009/48/ES ( [6] ) o bezpečnosti hraček, s cílem stanovit společná pravidla pro
dozor nad trhem týkající se spotřebních a průmyslových výrobků.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Úř. věst. L 170, 30.6.2009.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 33

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004015/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Precautionary principle

The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventive decision-taking in the case of risk. It
also covers consumer policy and EU legislation concerning food and human, animal and plant health. The
precautionary principle may be invoked where scientific data do not allow for an objective, definitive evaluation of
the risk posed by a given phenomenon, product or process.

For this reason, the precautionary principle has been incorporated in the General Product Safety Directive (Recital 1
and Article 8.2 of Directive 2001/95/EC) and the Toy Safety Directive (Recital 38 and Article 39 of
Directive 2009/48/EC), thereby requiring Member States to take this principle into account when assessing the risk of
products. Despite being a crucial pillar of current EU safety legislation, the precautionary principle is neither
mentioned in the draft Regulation on Consumer Product Safety (COM(2013)0078) nor in the draft Regulation on
Market Surveillance (COM(2013)0074). As the regulation on Market Surveillance will also amend the Toy Safety
Directive, the precautionary principle would also be superseded in the future.

Keeping this principle is crucial because, most often, European consumers and consumer associations need to
demonstrate the dangers associated with consumer products which lie outside of the food industry. However, in the
case of action being taken under the precautionary principle, economic operators may be required to prove the
absence of danger. Likewise, its removal poses a problem not only for consumer safety but also for market
surveillance authorities acting on a preventive basis as well. Without the precautionary principle, which allows for
adequate risk management, problems may be encountered in implementing effective surveillance measures.

1. Why has the precautionary principle, referred to in Article 8.2 of the General Product Safety Directive, been
removed and omitted from the draft Regulation on Consumer Product Safety (2013/0049(COD))?

2. Why has the precautionary principle not been included in the draft Regulation on Market Surveillance?

3. Why is the Commission planning to remove the precautionary principle from the Toy Safety Directive?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 June 2013)_

The precautionary principle is a general principle in the EU that, also without explicit mention in a legal text, needs to
be taken in consideration by decision-makers, especially for risk-management in the area of human, animal, plant
health or environmental protection ( [1] ). The proposal for a regulation on Market Surveillance ( [2] ) lays down rules for
implementing the precautionary principle wherever it should be applied, essentially in Articles 6(1), 12 and 13 in
which the risk management is organised at EU level.

The provisions on market surveillance contained in the General Product Safety Directive 2001/95/EC ( [3] ), namely its
Articles 6 to 18, were moved to the proposal for a new Regulation on Market Surveillance which also integrates and
further develops provisions of Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 ( [4] ). The Commission proposes that the
future Regulation on Market Surveillance is a single legal instrument which regulates market surveillance for
harmonised and non-harmonised non-food products. The proposal for a regulation on Consumer Product Safety ( [5] )
has therefore no rules on market surveillance.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication on the precautionary principle of February 2000, COM(2000)1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013)75.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 11/4, 15.1.2002.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 218, 13.8.2008.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 78.

C 33 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

One of the objectives of the proposal for a regulation on Market Surveillance is to merge, streamline and strengthen
the market surveillance provisions of Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, the General Product Safety
Directive 2001/95/EC and several other Regulations and Directives, including Directive 2009/48/EC ( [6] ) on the safety
of toys, in order to achieve common rules on market surveillance for consumer and industrial products.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) OJ L 170, 30.6.2009.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 35

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004016/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Montecatini Terme: possibili finanziamenti nel comparto del turismo

Montecatini Terme è una località termale con una forte vocazione turistica: quasi 200 hotel distribuiti in 2 km [2] con
una capacità ricettiva pari a 14mila posti letto.

La città vorrebbe promuovere programmi volti a diversificare e destagionalizzare l'offerta turistica, sia per soddisfare
le molteplici esigenze dei turisti che si recano a Montecatini, garantendo un servizio migliore e su misura, sia per
venire incontro alle aspettative delle attività imprenditoriali coinvolte.

A tal fine, la città e le realtà imprenditoriali avvertono forte l'esigenza di dotarsi di uno strumento unico, secondo il
modello DMO-Destination Management Organization, che sappia legare le esigenze e le aspettative dei soggetti
pubblici e privati del territorio e che sia soprattutto in grado di pensare, progettare e realizzare gli specifici prodotti
turistici collegati all'offerta turistica ed economica del territorio.

Tale soggetto avrebbe poi il compito di predisporre e gestire i necessari servizi relativi all'accoglienza turistica, gestire
l'organizzazione di eventi complessi sul territorio e svolgere attività formativa a vantaggio di tutti quei soggetti facenti
parte della filiera turistica, secondo una gestione globale e strategica del territorio.

Considerando che il turismo è un settore chiave per l'economia dell'UE, generando oltre il 10 % del PIL e occupando
circa il 12 % della forza lavoro complessiva, può la Commissione:

—
fornire un quadro dei finanziamenti a cui la città di Montecatini potrebbe accedere per promuovere attività e
progetti che rientrano nel settore della cultura e del turismo sostenibile per sviluppare un'offerta turistica
diversificata e di qualità, in grado di valorizzare il suo patrimonio naturale e culturale, anche con riferimento al
futuro programma «Europa creativa»;

—
fornire un quadro dei finanziamenti a cui la città di Montecatini potrebbe accedere per promuovere attività
imprenditoriali, con particolare riferimento alle PMI, anche in vista del nuovo programma COSME 2014-2020;

—
far sapere se esistono forme di sostegno per la creazione della struttura sopra descritta (in particolare per la fase
di start-up);

—
fornire un quadro della situazione?

**Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(11 giugno 2013)_

Una rassegna degli strumenti di finanziamento offerti dall'UE per i periodi 2007-2013 e 2014-2020 ai quali possono
accedere gli operatori pubblici e privati del settore turistico è disponibile all'indirizzo:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7652.

Le attività connesse al turismo potrebbero essere cofinanziate dal Fondo europeo per lo sviluppo regionale nel quadro
dell'asse prioritario V del programma della regione Toscana. Per ulteriori informazioni, la Commissione suggerisce
all'onorevole parlamentare di contattare direttamente l'autorità di gestione del programma:
Autorità di gestione del Programma Operativo Regionale Toscana
Direzione Generale «Competitività del sistema regionale e sviluppo delle competenze»
Via Luca Giordano, 13, 50132 FIRENZE
autoritagestionecreo@regione.toscana.it

[Il sito web www.opencoesione.gov.it del Ministero per la Coesione Territoriale offre inoltre informazioni su tutti gli](http://www.opencoesione.gov.it/)
investimenti ammessi al cofinanziamento a carico dei fondi strutturali europei nel periodo 2007-2013.

C 33 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004016/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Montecatini Terme: possible funding in the tourism sector

Montecatini Terme is a spa resort and popular tourist attraction: there are nearly 200 hotels spread over 2 km [2 ]

providing accommodation for 14 000 guests.

The city would like to promote programmes aimed at diversifying its tourism services all year round, both to meet the
various requirements of the tourists who visit Montecatini — by providing an improved and tailor-made service —
and to meet the expectations of the businesses involved.

To achieve these goals, the city and its businesses say there is an urgent need for a single agency, based on the
Destination Management Organisation (DMO) model, capable of meeting the requirements and expectations of
public and private entities in the region and, above all, of devising, planning and creating specific tourism products
linked to the region’s tourism and business offer.

The agency would therefore have the task of organising and managing the services required to welcome tourists, as
well as overseeing the organisation of complex events in the region and running training courses to benefit everyone
working in the tourism sector, based on an overall management strategy for the region.

Tourism is a key sector for the EU economy, generating over 10% of GDP and employing around 12% of the total
workforce.

— Can it provide details of the funding that the city of Montecatini could access in order to promote activities and
projects in the field of culture and sustainable tourism so as to develop diversified, high-quality tourism facilities that
capitalise on its natural and cultural heritage, including with reference to the future ‘Creative Europe’ programme?

— Can it provide details of the funding that the city of Montecatini could access in order to promote businesses, with
specific reference to SMEs, including in the light of the new Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and
SMEs (COSME) 2014-2020?

— Can it state whether any forms of support exist for the creation of the abovementioned agency (particularly for the
start-up phase)?

— Can it provide an overview of the situation?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

An overview of EU financial instruments for the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 periods for possible use by the tourism
sector's public and private stakeholders can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7652

Tourism related activities could be co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund under priority 5 of the
Tuscany programme. For more information, the Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact directly
the managing authority of the programme:
Managing Authority of the Regione Toscana Programme
Direzione Generale Competitività del sistema regionale e sviluppo delle competenze
Via Luca Giordano, 13, 50132 Firenze
autoritagestionecreo@regione.toscana.it

[The www.opencoesione.gov.it website of the Ministry for Territorial Cohesion provides information on all](http://www.opencoesione.gov.it/)
investments co-financed by the Structural Funds in the 2007-2013 period.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 37

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004017/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Vincoli di bilancio a causa del patto di stabilità: il caso del comune di Montale (Pistoia)

Nel Comune di Montale, in provincia di Pistoia, è stata avviata nel 2011 la costruzione di un asilo nido. Il
finanziamento per la costruzione di tale struttura è stato ottenuto dalla regione Toscana attraverso un bando relativo
al PAR FAS 2007-2013 intitolato «Bando per gli investimenti nei servizi per la prima infanzia — servizi per
l'educazione non formale dell'infanzia, degli adolescenti e dei giovani», indetto nel 2009, con l'erogazione del
finanziamento nel maggio 2010. Come previsto dalla legge, la restante copertura finanziaria del progetto è stata
finanziata da un ente privato. Purtroppo nel corso del primo anno di lavori, la ditta aggiudicatrice del bando di gara,
ha cominciato ad accusare forti difficoltà finanziarie compromettendo il proseguimento dei lavori, con successivo
scioglimento del contratto. In seguito il progetto iniziale è stato modificato e affidato a un'altra impresa edile.

Il proseguimento dei lavori è attualmente ostacolato dai vincoli imposti dal patto di stabilità, i quali, oltre a impedire
al comune di Montale di procedere alla realizzazione del progetto, di fatto aggravano la posizione debitoria del
comune verso le imprese per le opere già realizzate.

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione:

1. riferire se intende esaminare la possibilità per le amministrazioni locali di aumentare il disavanzo, distinguendo
tra spese correnti e spese per investimenti, per finanziare e completare i pagamenti relativi gli investimenti di
pubblica utilità;

2. far sapere in che modo e in base a quali tempistiche introdurrà un meccanismo che permetta di escludere il
debito arretrato contratto dalle amministrazioni locali per opere pubbliche verso le imprese dal calcolo dei
parametri di stabilità;

3. fornire un quadro generale della situazione?

**Risposta data da Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione**

_(4 giugno 2013)_

L'onorevole parlamentare fa riferimento a restrizioni di bilancio imposte alle autorità locali italiane dal patto di
stabilità interno dell'Italia, patto che rientra nella responsabilità nazionale.

C 33 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004017/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Budget constraints as a consequence of the Stability Pact: the case of the municipality of Montale (Pistoia)

In 2011, work began on the construction of a day nursery in the municipality of Montale, in the province of Pistoia.
Funding for the construction of that facility was obtained from the Tuscany region through a tender procedure
relating to the Regional Implementation Programme for Underutilised Areas Fund (PAR FAS) 2007-2013 entitled
‘Tender for investment in early childhood services — services for the non-formal education of children, adolescents
and young people’, published in 2009, with the funds being released in May 2010. As stipulated by law, the
remaining funding for the project was provided by a private entity. Unfortunately, during the first year of
construction, the company awarded the contract began to run into significant financial difficulties, jeopardising the
continuation of the works, and the contract was subsequently terminated. The initial project was later modified and
entrusted to another construction company.

The continuation of the works is currently being held up by the constraints imposed by the Stability Pact. Not only are
they preventing the municipality of Montale from completing the project, they are actually increasing the amount it
owes to its contractors for the works already carried out.

Can the Commission therefore:

1. say whether it intends to examine the possibility of local authorities increasing the deficit, with a distinction
made between current expenditure and investment expenditure, in order to finance and supplement payments
relating to investment of public interest;

2. say how and when it will introduce a mechanism for excluding the outstanding debt owed by local authorities
to contractors for public works from the calculation of stability parameters;

3. provide an overview of the situation?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The Honourable member refers to budgetary constraints on Italian local authorities imposed by Italy's Domestic
Stability Pact, which falls under national responsibility.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 39

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004018/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(10 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Preoccupanti livelli di contaminazione da pesticidi delle acque superficiali e sotterranee in Italia

Il rapporto nazionale pesticidi nelle acque 2013 ( [1] ), realizzato dall'ISPRA ( [2] ) e pubblicato di recente, ha accertato il
grave stato di contaminazione delle acque italiane superficiali e sotterranee. Nel 2010 sono stati rinvenuti residui nel
55,1 % dei 1 297 punti di campionamento delle acque superficiali e nel 28,2 % dei 2 324 punti di quelle sotterranee,
per un totale di 166 tipologie di pesticidi — a fronte dei 118 del biennio 2007-2008 — individuati nella rete di
controllo ambientale delle acque italiane. Si tratta, per la maggior parte, di residui di prodotti fitosanitari usati in
agricoltura — solo in questo campo si utilizzano circa 350 sostanze — ma anche di biocidi impiegati in altri settori.
Anche se spesso basse, le concentrazioni rilevate indicano una diffusione molto ampia della contaminazione.

Nel 34,4 % dei punti delle acque superficiali e nel 12,3 % dei punti di quelle sotterranee, i livelli risultano superiori ai
limiti delle acque potabili. Le concentrazioni sono state confrontate anche con i limiti di qualità ambientale,
recentemente introdotti, basati sulla tossicità delle sostanze per gli organismi acquatici. In questo caso il 13,2 % dei
punti delle acque superficiali e il 7,9 % di quelli delle acque sotterranee hanno concentrazioni superiori al limite.

La contaminazione appare più diffusa nella pianura padano-veneta, a causa delle caratteristiche idrologiche di tale
area, del suo intenso utilizzo agricolo e del fatto che le indagini sono sempre più complete nelle regioni del Nord
Italia. A causa dell'assenza di dati sperimentali sugli effetti combinati delle miscele e di adeguate metodologie di
valutazione, esiste la possibilità che il rischio derivante dall'esposizione ai pesticidi sia attualmente sottostimato.

I pesticidi più rilevati nelle acque superficiali sono: glifosate, AMPA, terbutilazina, terbutilazina-desetil, metolaclor,
cloridazon, oxadiazon, MCPA, lenacil, azossistrobina. Nelle acque sotterranee le sostanze presenti in quantità
maggiore sono: bentazone, terbutilazina e terbutilazina-desetil, atrazina e atrazina-desetil, 2,6-diclorobenzammide,
carbendazim, imidacloprid, metolaclor, metalaxil. Continua a essere diffusa la contaminazione da erbicidi triazinici,
come la terbutilazina, ma sono ancora largamente presenti anche sostanze fuori commercio da tempo, come
l'atrazina e la simazina.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. È la Commissione è a conoscenza del rapporto summenzionato?

2. Come intende la Commissione intervenire affinché venga scongiurata la possibilità che, attraverso la catena
alimentare, i cittadini siano esposti indirettamente a questi contaminanti?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(4 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione ringrazia l'onorevole parlamentare di averla messa a conoscenza del rapporto dell'Ispra.

Nell'ambito della direttiva quadro in materia di acque, gli Stati membri sono tenuti a monitorare lo stato chimico dei
corpi idrici sotterranei e superficiali nei rispettivi paesi e a riferire in proposito. Tale stato è determinato in base a
norme stabilite a livello dell'Unione per alcune sostanze e nazionale per altre di interesse a quel livello. Entro il 2015 è
necessario conseguire uno stato chimico buono, per ottenere il quale occorre conformarsi a dette norme. Gli Stati
membri devono garantire, inoltre, che i corpi idrici usati per la produzione di acqua potabile in generale soddisfino,
secondo il regime di trattamento delle acque applicato, i requisiti della direttiva sull'acqua potabile, compreso lo
standard di 0,1 μg/l per singolo pesticida e di 0,5μg/l per il totale dei pesticidi.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rapporto-nazionale-pesticidi-nelle-acque-dati-2009-2010.-edizione-2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) L'Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale si è basato sulle informazioni fornite dalle regioni e dalle agenzie regionali e

provinciali per la protezione dell'ambiente.

C 33 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

La Commissione ha esaminato i dati forniti dall'Italia nei piani di gestione dei bacini idrografici del 2009 e ha iniziato
a esaminare la sua relazione sull'attuazione dei programmi di misure. Per quanto riguarda i dati comunicati dagli Stati
membri in base alla direttiva sull'acqua potabile, la Commissione sta elaborando i dati del periodo 2008-2010 e
intende pubblicare le proprie conclusioni nel dicembre 2013, tenendo conto del rapporto dell'Ispra per valutare se
l'Italia stia rispettando gli obblighi summenzionati e se, tra le altre cose, stia debitamente osservando i requisiti previsti
dalla direttiva sull'utilizzo sostenibile dei pesticidi in relazione alla tutela dell'ambiente acquatico.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 41

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004018/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Worrying levels of pesticide contamination of Italy's surface waters and groundwater

The National Report on Pesticides in Water 2013 ( [1] ), recently published by ISPRA ( [2] ), has established the serious state
of contamination of Italy’s surface waters and groundwater. In 2010, residues were found in 55.1% of the 1 297
surface-water points sampled and in 28.2% of the 2 324 groundwater points sampled. A total of 166 types of
pesticides — compared with 118 in the two-year period 2007-2008 — were identified in Italy’s environmental water
monitoring network. Most of the residues were from plant-protection products used in agriculture — around 350
substances are used in that field alone — but some were also from biocides used in other sectors. Although often low,
the recorded concentrations point to very widespread contamination.

The levels exceed drinking-water thresholds in 34.4% of the surface-water points and in 12.3% of the groundwater
points. The concentrations were also compared with the recently introduced environmental quality standard limits,
which are based on the toxicity of the substances to aquatic organisms. In this case, 13.2% of the surface-water points
and 7.9% of the groundwater points have concentrations above the limit.

Contamination appears to be more widespread in the Po/Veneto Valley, due to the hydrological characteristics of that
area, its intensive agriculture and the fact that the surveys carried out in the regions of northern Italy are increasingly
thorough. Because of the lack of empirical data on the combined effects of mixtures and the lack of suitable
assessment methods, it is possible that the risk from pesticide exposure is currently underestimated.

The pesticides most commonly found in the surface waters are: glyphosate, AMPA, terbuthylazine, desethylterbuthylazine, metolachlor, chloridazon, oxadiazon, MCPA, lenacil and azoxystrobin. In the groundwater, the
substances present in the highest concentrations are: bentazone, terbuthylazine and desethyl-terbuthylazine, atrazine
and desethyl-atrazine, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide, carbendazim, imidacloprid, metolachlor and metalaxyl.
Contamination from triazine herbicides such as terbuthylazine continues to be widespread, but substances that have
not been on sale for a long time — such as atrazine and simazine — are also still abundant.

1. Is the Commission aware of the abovementioned report?

2. What measures does it intend to take to ensure that the public is not indirectly exposed to these contaminants
via the food chain?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for making it aware of the ISPRA report.

Under the Water Framework Directive, Member States are required to monitor and report on the chemical status of
surface and groundwater bodies in their countries. The status is determined relative to standards set at Union level for
some substances and at national level for others of national concern. Good chemical status, which requires meeting
those standards, is to be reached by 2015. In addition, Member States must ensure that water bodies used for the
abstraction of drinking water generally allow, in view of the treatment regime applied, the requirements of the
Drinking Water Directive to be met. These include meeting a standard of 0.1 μg/l for individual pesticides and 0.5μg/l
for total pesticides.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti/rapporto-nazionale-pesticidi-nelle-acque-dati-2009-2010.-edizione-2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The Institute for Environmental Protection and Research has based its findings on the information provided by the regions and by the regional and

provincial environmental protection agencies.

C 33 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

The Commission has been reviewing the data provided by Italy in its 2009 River Basin Management Plans and has
begun reviewing its report on the implementation of its programmes of measures. As regards data provided by MS
under the Drinking Water Directive, the Commission is currently processing data from 2008-2010 and aims to
publish its findings in December 2013. It will take the ISPRA report into account in assessing whether Italy is on track
as regards meeting the abovementioned obligations. Among other things it will assess whether Italy is taking due
account of the requirements of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive in relation to the protection of the aquatic
environment.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 43

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004019/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(10 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Chinese vogelgriep

Het H7N9‐virus, beter bekend als de „Chinese vogelgriep”, heeft afgelopen zondag zijn zevende slachtoffer geëist. Het
aantal besmettingen was maandag (8 april) opgelopen tot 21. Het Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu
(RIVM) heeft laten weten dat deze vogelgriep in Nederland voorlopig niet aan de orde is.

Ingaande 2005 heeft de Commissie een programma opgezet ( [1] ) voor de beheersing van SARS en nieuwe opkomende
infectieziekten uit China. Dit programma duurde 39 maanden en liep af in 2008.

Het Europees Centrum voor ziektepreventie en ‐beheersing (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control,
ECDC) heeft inmiddels aangegeven ( [2] ) acht te slaan op de Chinese ontwikkelingen en de vinger aan de pols te houden.

1. Heeft het tot 2008 lopende beheersingsprogramma voor Chinese infecties adequate instrumenten en kennis
opgeleverd om een nieuwe epidemie te ondervangen? Wordt deze kennis aangewend?

2. Geven de ontwikkelingen aanleiding tot het verscherpen van acties rondom epidemiebestrijding, bijvoorbeeld
door een permanent infectiebeheersingsprogramma op te richten?

3. Is er sprake van voldoende openheid, transparantie en een toereikende uitwisseling met China en tussenliggende
landen met betrekking tot het H7N9‐virus?

**Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie**

_(11 juni 2013)_

1. De Chinese autoriteiten hebben in nauw contact met internationale organisaties en partners op de uitbraak van
influenza A (H7N9) gereageerd. China heeft onmiddellijk kennis gegeven van de eerste gevallen van influenza A
(H7N9) en blijft regelmatig verslag uitbrengen onder de bepalingen van de Internationale Gezondheidsregeling. De
Chinese gezondheidsautoriteit verklaart tevens regelmatig te voorzien in epidemiologische verslagen aan
internationale partners, waaronder de EU-delegatie in Beijing en het Europees Centrum voor ziektepreventie en ‐
beheersing. De beschikbare informatie toont aan dat er verscherpte maatregelen rondom epidemiebestrijding zijn
ingevoerd, mede dankzij de geleerde lessen van het ernstig acuut ademhalingssyndroom (SARS) in 2003.

2. Volgens de Chinese autoriteiten zal het door China ingevoerde systeem, dat een dergelijke reactie mogelijk
maakt, op lange termijn duurzaam zijn. Het Chinese Centrum voor ziektebeheersing is onlangs uitgeroepen tot
samenwerkingscentrum voor referentie en onderzoek op het gebied van influenza van de
Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie en houdt toezicht op de epidemiologie van overdraagbare ziekten om tijdelijke en
gepaste actie te ondernemen naar aanleiding van specifieke gevallen, waaronder influenza.

3. Naar aanleiding van de missie van het gemeenschappelijke onderzoeksteam inzake influenza A (H7N9) van
China en de Wereldhandelsorganisatie, die van 19 tot en met 24 april 2013 in China plaatsvond, blijkt dat er een
hoge mate van transparantie is bij de Chinese autoriteiten in de gezondheids‐ en landbouwsector.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/infectious-diseases/emerging-epidemics/projects/159_en.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/press/news/Lists/News/ECDC_DispForm.aspx?List=32e43ee8 %2De230 %2D4424 %2Da783 %2D85742124029a &

ID=883&RootFolder=%2Fen%2Fpress%2Fnews%2FLists%2FNews.

C 33 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004019/13**

**to the Commission**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Chinese bird flu

The H7N9 virus, commonly known as ‘Chinese bird flu’, claimed its seventh victim last Sunday. The number of
infected people stood at 21 on Monday 8 April. The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment
(RIVM) has announced that this strain of bird flu is currently not a concern in the Netherlands.

In 2005, the Commission launched a programme for the control ( [1] ) of SARS and new emerging infectious diseases in
China. This programme ran for 39 months and ended in 2008.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has already indicated that it is going to closely
monitor developments in China ( [2] ).

1. Has the programme for surveillance and control of infectious diseases in China, which ran until 2008, provided
appropriate tools and knowledge to respond to a new epidemic? Is this knowledge being implemented?

2. Will these developments give rise to stricter epidemic control measures, such as the establishment of a
permanent infection control programme?

3. Is there sufficient openness, transparency and an adequate exchange of information with China and transit
countries regarding the H7N9 virus?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

1. The Chinese authorities responded to the outbreak of influenza A(H7N9) in close contact with international
organisations and partners. China promptly notified the first cases of influenza A(H7N9) and continues to report
regularly under the provisions of International Health Regulations. The Chinese health authority also indicates that it
provides regular epidemiological reports to the international partners, including the European Union Delegation in
Beijing and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. The information available demonstrates that
strict epidemic control measures have been put in place, thanks also to the lessons learned from Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003.

2. According to the Chinese authorities, the system put in place by China allowing such a response will be
sustainable in the long term. The Chinese Centre for Disease Control has been recently designated as a World Health
Organisation Collaborating Centre for Reference and Research on Influenza, and it monitors the epidemiology of
communicable diseases to allow timely and appropriate actions to respond to specific events, including influenza.

3. Following the mission of the Chinese and World Health Organisation Joint Investigation Team on influenza
A(H7N9), that took place from 19 to 24 April 2013 in China, information has shown a good level of transparency by
the Chinese authorities in the health and agricultural sector.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/infectious-diseases/emerging-epidemics/projects/159_en.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/press/news/Lists/News/ECDC_DispForm.aspx?

List=32e43ee8%2De230%2D4424%2Da783%2D85742124029a&ID=883&RootFolder=%2Fen%2Fpress%2Fnews%2FLists%2FNews

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 45

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004020/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(10 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Παράνομη και επικίνδυνη η φόρτωση ρυμουλκουμένων σε φορτηγά οχήματα δημόσιας χρήσης

Σύμφωνα με την ελληνική νομοθεσία αναφορικά με τις μεταφορές, τα φορτηγά οχήματα δημόσιας χρήσης λαμβάνουν άδεια
όπου αναφέρεται ρητώς το είδος των μεταφερόμενων αγαθών-εμπορευμάτων, και η παράνομη αλλαγή κατηγορίας επισείει
για τον ιδιοκτήτη ή μισθωτή σημαντικό χρηματικό πρόστιμο με βάση τον νόμο υπ' αριθ. 3446/2006. Στις διατάξεις του
Ν. 383/76, μάλιστα, προβλέπεται ότι το μεταφορικό έργο των φορτηγών δημοσίας χρήσης (ΦΔΧ) αυτοκινήτων κοινού
φόρτου (συρμών ή αρθρωτών με ενιαία ή ξεχωριστή άδεια κυκλοφορίας) συνίσταται στη μεταφορά αγαθών για τα οποία δεν
απαιτείται ειδικοποιημένο όχημα, επομένως τα ΦΔΧ οχήματα κοινού φόρτου δεν προβλέπεται να μεταφέρουν άλλα οχήματα
(ρυμουλκούμενα — λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι το ρυμουλκούμενο είναι όχημα που έλκεται και δεν μπορεί να θεωρηθεί φορτίο
προς μεταφορά σύμφωνα με τον ορισμό του άρθρου 2 του Κώδικα Οδικής Κυκλοφορίας). Οι εν λόγω παραβάσεις θεωρείται
ότι εγκυμονούν κινδύνους για την οδική ασφάλεια. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, και ενώ είναι σαφές ότι η μεταφορά ρυμουλκούμενου
από ΦΔΧ είναι παράνομη και επικίνδυνη, διαφαίνεται να υπάρχει κενό ως προς το καθεστώς που πρέπει να ισχύει για την
κυκλοφορία εντός των λιμανιών, με αποτέλεσμα να παρατηρείται συχνά η εν λόγω παράβαση εντός των λιμένων, θέτοντας σε
κίνδυνο την ασφάλεια τόσο των εργαζομένων όσο και των λοιπών οχημάτων που κινούνται εντός των λιμανιών.

Με βάση τα παραπάνω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Υπάρχει κάποια σχετική πρόβλεψη για το εν λόγω θέμα σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο; Είναι συμβατό και σύννομο οι κανόνες
που ισχύουν αναφορικά με τις μεταφορές και την οδική ασφάλεια να μην εφαρμόζονται σε χώρους που υπάρχει έντονη
κυκλοφορία φορτηγών οχημάτων, όπως τα λιμάνια;

—
Τι ισχύει στα υπόλοιπα κράτη μέλη;

—
Έχουν καταγραφεί περιπτώσεις ατυχημάτων που προκλήθηκαν από τέτοιου είδους παραβάσεις;

**Απάντηση του κ. Kallas εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(30 Μαΐου 2013)_

Δεν υπάρχει νομοθεσία της ΕΕ σχετικά με το θέμα που περιγράφει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου και η Επιτροπή
μπορεί να αναφερθεί μόνο σε μη δεσμευτικές κατευθυντήριες γραμμές που δημοσιεύθηκαν το 2008 σχετικά με τη στοιβασία
των εμπορευμάτων στα βαρέα φορτηγά οχήματα ( [1] ), οι οποίες ενδεχομένως παρέχουν χρήσιμες ενδείξεις σχετικά με τις ορθές
πρακτικές που εφαρμόζονται στην κατάσταση που περιγράφει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει
υπόψη της κάποιο συγκεκριμένο παρόμοιο πρόβλημα οδικής ασφάλειας στα άλλα κράτη μέλη ούτε διαθέτει πληροφορίες
σχετικά με περιπτώσεις ατυχημάτων που προκλήθηκαν από τις παραβάσεις της ελληνικής νομοθεσίας.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/topics/vehicles/cargo_securing_loads/index_el.htm

C 33 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004020/13**

**to the Commission**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Illegal and dangerous carriage of trailers on commercial vehicles

Under Greek transport legislation, a licence must be obtained for commercial vehicles which explicitly states the type
of goods/merchandise which they are authorised to carry and owners or hirers who illegally change that category
must pay a large fine under Law 3446/2006. Law 383/76 states that ordinary commercial vehicles (trains or
articulated lorries with single or separate vehicle registration) are used to transport goods which do not require a
specialised vehicle; thus, ordinary commercial vehicles are not intended for the carriage of other vehicles (trailers,
given that a trailer is a vehicle which is towed and does be qualify as a load for carriage in accordance with the
definition in Article 2 of the Highway Code). Infringements of this legislation are considered to harbour dangers for
road safety. Within this framework and given that the carriage of trailers by commercial vehicles is illegal and
dangerous, there would appear to be a loophole in terms of the rules that should apply to traffic in ports. As a result,
such infringements are frequently seen in harbours, where they are putting both workers and other vehicles
circulating within the harbour in danger.

— Are there any provisions governing this issue at European level? Is it compatible and legal not to apply transport
and road safety rules in areas in which there is heavy goods traffic, such as in ports?

— What applies in the other Member States?

— Are there any accidents caused by such infringements on record?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

There is no EU legislation on the specific matter described by the Honourable Member and the Commission can only
refer to non-binding guidelines published in 2008 on the stowage of goods on heavy goods vehicles ( [1] ) which may
provide useful indications on good practices applicable in the situation described by the Honourable Member. The
Commission is not aware of any particular similar problem of road safety in the other Member States and does not
have any information on the accidents caused the infringements to the Greek legislation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/topics/vehicles/cargo_securing_loads/index_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 47

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004021/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rebecca Taylor (ALDE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The Falsified Medicines Directive and potential future shortages of medicines in the EU

Given that directive 2011/62/EU is due to come into force in July 2013, does the Commission think that, in order to
avoid shortages of some medicines, it will be necessary to exempt further third countries from rules governing
importation if:

—
The country’s regulatory framework for active substances is equivalent to that of the EU?

—
An exporting plant has been inspected by a Member State and found to be compliant?

What measures, if any, is the Commission taking to encourage third countries to apply for exemptions under these
criteria?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

Since the adoption of the Falsified Medicines Directive the Commission has pro-actively engaged with all relevant
stakeholders, first of all the regulatory authorities of exporting countries in order to raise their awareness of the
upcoming rules — including the possibility of ‘equivalence assessment’ — and facilitate third-country manufacturers'
compliance.

Concerning the equivalence assessment of a third country’s regulatory framework, the ultimate decision on whether
to apply for ‘listing’ under Article 111b of Directive 2001/83/EC is in the hands of the third countries. The
Commission is committed to a timely processing of the applications.

The Falsified Medicines Directive provides for the possibility, where necessary to ensure the availability of medicinal
products, of waiving the written confirmation if a Member State has inspected a specific plant and issued a Good
Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificate. Valid EU GMP certificates can be found in the EudraGDMP database ( [1] ). It is
up to the Member States, which are fully aware of this option, to decide whether to make use of it.

Finally, the Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question
E-010761/2012 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eudragmp.ema.europa.eu/inspections/displayWelcome.do
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004024/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Rimborsi di eccedenza IVA: possibile violazione della normativa dell'Unione

In Italia, una grande fetta del tessuto imprenditoriale lamenta la problematicità dei rimborsi in conto fiscale, in
particolar modo dei crediti IVA.

Tale fenomeno colpisce le aziende soggette al pagamento di differenti aliquote IVA tra la fase di acquisto delle materie
prime e la vendita del prodotto finito, che produce un accumulo costante di crediti da eccedenza IVA.

Il rimborso di tali importi, negli ultimi anni, è andato via via diminuendo, creando rischi finanziari per le imprese
dovuti a mancanza di liquidità.

Secondo gli ultimi dati disponibili, al 31.1.2012 era stato versato poco più del 30 % delle istanze presentate per crediti
risalenti all'anno 2010.

Recentemente, l'Agenzia delle entrate italiana, ente incaricato di effettuare i rimborsi e i relativi controlli, ha
comunicato la messa a disposizione di alcuni importi per i crediti vantati dalle aziende.

Premesso che la questione del rimborso IVA e i lunghi tempi di pagamento rischiano di compromettere il buon
andamento delle aziende coinvolte, come anche il mantenimento dei livelli occupazionali, può la Commissione
rendere noto:

1. Se tali ritardi, non ragionevoli, non costituiscano una violazione della direttiva 2006/112/CE relativa al sistema
comune d'imposta sul valore aggiunto, in particolare il suo articolo 183?

2. Se non consideri la liquidazione del pregresso dei crediti IVA delle aziende verso lo Stato una condizione che
potrebbe rientrare nei fattori significativi in sede di valutazione della conformità del bilancio di uno Stato
membro con i criteri di deficit e di debito del Patto di stabilità e crescita, analogamente alla fattispecie dei debiti
commerciali dello Stato verso le aziende?

3. Un quadro della situazione?

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004025/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Rimborsi di eccedenza IVA: palese violazione del diritto dell'UE da parte dell'Italia

In Italia, molte imprese vantano nei confronti dell'amministrazione dei crediti da eccedenza IVA. Tra queste vi è
l'Inalpi S.p.A. («Inalpi»), la quale opera nel settore lattiero-caseario ed è attiva tramite la sua rete distributiva in Italia e
all’estero. Al pari di altri imprese, Inalpi è soggetta al pagamento di differenti aliquote Iva tra la fase di acquisto delle
materie prime (Iva al 10 % o al 21 %) e la vendita del prodotto finito (Iva al 4 %). L'attività ordinaria di Inalpi comporta
quindi un costante accumulo di crediti da eccedenza Iva, dei quali l'impresa ha pacificamente il diritto di ottenere il
rimborso. Tale rimborso deve tuttavia essere garantito tempestivamente, onde evitare qualsiasi rischio finanziario per
le imprese e nel rispetto di quel principio di «perfetta neutralità» dell'Iva da sempre affermato a livello dell'UE. Nel
2001 l'Italia ha subito una condanna della Corte di giustizia per il ritardo nei rimborsi dei crediti Iva (sentenza del
25 ottobre 2001, causa C-78/00). Tuttavia, a partire dal 2010, tali rimborsi in Italia hanno subito un nuovo stallo,
richiedendo in media circa due anni. Lo stesso governo italiano, in risposta ad un'interrogazione parlamentare, ha
ammesso che al 31 gennaio 2012 era stato versato poco più del 30 % delle istanze presentate per crediti risalenti
all'anno 2010, e ha affermato che «gli importi relativi alle restanti richieste verranno erogati nel corso del 2012,
tenuto conto dell'effettiva disponibilità finanziaria». A causa di tali ritardi, Inalpi si trova oggi a dover gestire un
ammanco di liquidità superiore a 8 milioni di euro e, pertanto, la società si è vista costretta a intraprendere un'azione
civile per ottenere il rimborso dei crediti vantati nei confronti dello Stato. Nell'ambito di tale giudizio, l'Agenzia delle
Entrate, ente incaricato dell'effettuazione dei rimborsi e dei relativi controlli, ha ammesso che le pratiche relative alle
istanze di rimborso per l'anno 2012 non sono state ancora neppure avviate.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 49

In data 28 febbraio 2013, Inalpi ha denunciato la reiterata violazione da parte dell'Italia delle norme e dei principi
dell'UE in materia di Iva, depositando un formale esposto presso i Servizi della Commissione.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Può la Commissione confermare che gli odierni ritardi nel rimborso dei crediti Iva da parte dal governo italiano
costituiscono una nuova violazione del diritto dell'UE, e in particolare del principio di perfetta neutralità
dell'Iva?

2. Come intende procedere la Commissione per porre fine a tale reiterata violazione, considerando anche
l'adozione di provvedimenti urgenti alla luce dei gravi rischi che essa comporta?

3. Può la Commissione fornire un quadro della situazione?

**Risposta congiunta di Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione**

_(30 maggio 2013)_

Alla Commissione sono pervenute varie denunce nei confronti dell'Italia, tra cui quella menzionata
nell'interrogazione. Ciò che emerge è che, a partire dal 2010, i tempi di rimborso del credito IVA si sono allungati
sensibilmente. Rimborsi che richiedono in media due anni sono incompatibili con la direttiva IVA ( [1] ). A questo
proposito, la Commissione si riserva di prendere una decisione tempestiva sulla base dell'esame delle denunce
pervenute. Inoltre, la Commissione non ritiene di essere di fronte ad un'infrazione ripetuta in quanto l'ultima
infrazione di questo tipo risale a più di dieci anni fa. Considerato che l'analisi del fascicolo deve ancora essere ultimata,
è prematuro fornire un quadro generale della situazione.

Il quadro normativo europeo in tema di sorveglianza di bilancio pubblico non prevede nessun trattamento speciale
per specifiche voci di spesa che incidono sul debito e sul disavanzo. La liquidazione del debito commerciale pregresso
incide più sul livello del debito che sul livello del disavanzo ( [2] ). Ciò potrebbe essere in contrasto con il parametro di
riferimento per la riduzione del debito introdotto recentemente dal Patto di stabilità e crescita (PSC), che si applicherà
all'Italia non appena l'attuale procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi (PDE) verrà revocata.

Nonostante l'obbligo di rispettare tale parametro, il PSC concede un certo margine di flessibilità riguardante i «fattori
significativi» da considerare prima di avviare una procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi. La liquidazione del debito
commerciale pregresso potrebbe rientrare tra i fattori attenuanti.

Per quanto il rimborso dei crediti IVA delle aziende porti ad un aumento del disavanzo, ciò potrebbe anche
comportare una violazione del criterio del disavanzo del PSC, per il quale il ruolo dei «fattori significativi» ha un peso
minore (ad esempio, non si può evitare di avviare una PDE per uno Stato membro con un debito superiore al 60 % del
PIL, a meno che il disavanzo eccessivo non sia temporaneo, eccezionale e non rimanga vicino al valore di
riferimento).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2006/112/CE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Come indicato nella dichiarazione congiunta del 18 marzo 2013 dei Vicepresidenti Olli Rehn e Antonio Tajani.

C 33 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004024/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Rimborsi di eccedenza IVA: possibile violazione della normativa dell'Unione

In Italy, a large portion of the business sector has been complaining about the difficulties of obtaining tax refunds,
especially VAT receivables.

This affects companies subject to differing VAT rates between purchases of raw materials and sales of the finished
product, which produces a constant accumulation of excess VAT credits.

In recent years, refunds have gradually been decreasing, creating financial risks for companies due to a lack of
liquidity.

According to the latest data available, as of 31 January 2012 just over 30% of the claims applications dating back to
2010 had been paid.

Recently, Agenzia delle Entrate, the Italian Revenue Agency, the body responsible for processing refunds, announced
that certain amounts were available for credits payable to businesses.

Given that the issue of the long delays associated with VAT refunds may jeopardise the smooth running of the
businesses involved, as well as the maintenance of employment, can the Commission state:

1. Whether such unreasonable delays constitute an infringement of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common
system of value added tax, and in particular Article 183 thereof?

2. Whether it considers liquidation of companies VAT claims against the State might be one of the significant
factors to use in assessing a Member States tax compliance burden with the deficit and debt criteria of the
Stability and Growth Pact, similarly to the case of trade payables owed by the State to companies?

3. An overview of the situation?

**Question for written answer E-004025/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Excess VAT refunds: clear breach of EC law by Italy

Many businesses in Italy have outstanding claims for VAT refunds. One of these is Inalpi SpA, which operates in the
dairy sector and has an active distribution network in Italy and abroad. Like other businesses, Inalpi is subject to
differing VAT rates, with purchases of raw materials being charged at 10% or 21%, and sales of the finished product at
4%. Inalpi’s everyday business dealings therefore steadily accumulate excess VAT, which the company unquestionably
has a right to reclaim. Refunds must, however, be granted promptly to avoid any financial risk for businesses and in
compliance with the principle of VAT’s ‘absolute neutrality’ that has always been ensured at EU level. In 2001, Italy
was found guilty by the European Court of Justice of belatedly refunding VAT credits (judgment of 25 October 2001
in Case C-78/00). Since 2010, however, these refunds have once again slowed down in Italy and now take an average
of about two years. The Italian Government, in response to a parliamentary question, admitted that as of
31 January 2012 just over 30% of the applications submitted for claims dating back to 2010 had been paid, and
stated that ‘the amounts for the outstanding applications will be paid out during 2012, depending on the actual
availability of funds.’ Because of these delays, Inalpi is now having to deal with a shortfall of over EUR 8 million, and
was therefore forced to pursue a civil action to obtain payment of the claims against the State. During those
proceedings, Agenzia delle Entrate, the body responsible for processing refunds, admitted that procedures relating to
refund applications for the year 2012 have not yet even begun.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 51

On 28 February 2013, Inalpi reported Italy for repeated infringement of the EU principles and rules on VAT, filing a
formal complaint with the Commission services.

1. Can the Commission confirm that the Italian Government’s current delays in refunding VAT credits constitute a
fresh infringement of EC law, and in particular the principle of the absolute neutrality of VAT?

2. How does the Commission intend to put an end to this repeated infringement, including the adoption of urgent
measures, in light of the serious risks involved?

3. Can the Commission provide an overview of the situation?

**Joint answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

Several complaints against Italy have been filed with the European Commission, including the one referred to in the
question. The time required to obtain refunds of VAT credits is said to have increased significantly since 2010. Delays
in making refunds of two years on average are incompatible with the VAT Directive ( [1] ). Consequently, the
Commission reserves the right to take a decision shortly with reference to the complaints received. The Commission
does not view this as a repeat infringement, since the last infringement of this type took place over 10 years ago. As
analysis of the matter is in the process of finalisation, it is too early to provide an overview of the situation.

The EU framework for budgetary surveillance does not envisage any special treatment for specific debt and deficitincreasing items. Liquidation of overdue commercial debt affects the level of debt more than the level of deficit ( [2] ).
This may conflict with the debt reduction benchmark recently introduced in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP),
which will apply to Italy as from the repeal of the current Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP).

A breach of that benchmark should be avoided, but the SGP allows some leeway to take account of ‘relevant factors’
before considering opening a procedure for excessive deficit. Liquidation of overdue commercial debt would
represent a mitigating factor.

In so far as the refunding of firms' VAT credits leads to an increase in deficit, this could also imply breaching the
deficit criterion of the SGP, for which the role played by ‘relevant factors’ is lesser (i.e. they cannot prevent a Member
State with debt in excess of 60% of GDP from being put in EDP unless the deficit excess is temporary, exceptional and
remains close to the reference value).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2006/112/EC.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) As indicated in the joint statement by Vice-Presidents Olli Rehn and Antonio Tajani of 18 March 2013.

C 33 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-004027/13**

**do Komisji**
**Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE)**

_(10 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Konsultacje społeczne – definicja grupy docelowej

W wewnętrznych dokumentach Komisji Europejskiej dotyczących konsultacji społecznych zdefiniowano grupę
docelową, jako _„wszyscy udziałowcy zainteresowani danym problemem”._ Czy Komisja Europejska uznaje organizacje
regionalne za _„udziałowców”_ biorących czynny udział w konsultacjach społecznych? Pytanie jest o tyle zasadne, że
Komisja w ostatnim czasie stwierdziła, że tylko paneuropejskie organizacje mają mieć możliwość wzięcia udziału
w spotkaniach konsultacyjnych w celu przedyskutowania opcji dotyczących środków strukturalnych mających
wzmocnić Unijny System Handlu Uprawnieniami do Emisji (ETS).

Z praktyki można zaobserwować fakt odmówienia wzięcia udziału – a _de facto_ limitowanie udziałowców –
w przygotowywanych konsultacjach społecznych organizacjom regionalnym.

Jeżeli zainteresowani udziałowcy reprezentujący przedsiębiorstwa z co najmniej 6 krajów członkowskich nie są
dopuszczani do spotkań konsultacyjnych, czyż nie jest to podstawa do stwierdzenia naruszenia procesu
konsultacyjnego?

Jakie są formalne podstawy dotyczące rozgraniczenia rodzajów oraz typów organizacji, które mogą być uznane za
udziałowców (stronę konsultacji społecznych)?

W mojej niezależnej opinii zachodzi przypuszczenie stronniczości Komisji przy doborze uczestników.

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Connie Hedegaard w imieniu Komisji**

_(13 maja 2013 r.)_

Minimalne standardy Komisji dotyczące konsultacji określają, jakie strony powinny uczestniczyć w procesie
konsultacji, aby zapewnione zostało podejście integracyjne ( [1] ). Organizacje regionalne są uznane za zainteresowane
strony i mogą brać czynny udział w konsultacjach.

W przypadku wariantów dotyczących środków strukturalnych mających na celu wzmocnienie unijnego systemu
handlu uprawnieniami do emisji (ETS) wszystkie zainteresowane strony – w tym organizacje regionalne – miały
możliwość wyrażenia swoich opinii w trwających 12 tygodni otwartych konsultacjach internetowych ( [2] ) dostępnych
publicznie za pośrednictwem strony internetowej „Twój głos w Europie”. Oprócz konsultacji internetowych Komisja
zorganizowała dwa spotkania konsultacyjne poświęcone temu zagadnieniu. Niemożliwe byłoby zapewnienie
fizycznej obecności na spotkaniach konsultacyjnych setek podmiotów z licznych podgrup państw członkowskich
i sektorów, zainteresowanych unijnym ETS. Aby zapewnić obecność jak najszerszej i najbardziej reprezentacyjnej
grupy stron zainteresowanych unijnym ETS, pierwszeństwo przyznano organizacjom na poziomie UE,
reprezentującym wszystkie regiony, a nie organizacjom będącym przedstawicielami pojedynczych regionów. Chcąc,
aby reprezentowane były wszystkie interesy regionalne i krajowe, Komisja zaprosiła państwa członkowskie. Ponadto,
aby umożliwić wszystkim zainteresowanym stronom śledzenie przebiegu spotkań, Komisja udostępniła transmisje
internetowe na żywo, a wszystkie prezentacje umieściła w Internecie ( [3] ). Dla regionalnej organizacji sektorowej,
o której wspomina szanowny Pan Poseł, Komisja zorganizowała również dwustronne spotkanie, które odbyło się
w dniu 25 marca 2013 r. Z wymienionych wyżej powodów Komisja nie zgadza się, że proces konsultacji został
zakłócony.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ogólne zasady i minimalne standardy dotyczące konsultacji, opracowane przez Komisję, COM(2002) 704.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/0017/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0070/index_en.htm i http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0071/index_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 53

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004027/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Public consultations — definition of target group

In the Commission’s internal documents on public consultations the target group is defined as ‘all stakeholders with
an interest in a particular problem’. Does the Commission recognise regional organisations as ‘stakeholders’, and can
they be actively involved in public consultations? The question is justified in view of the Commission’s recent
pronouncement that only pan-European organisations are to be allowed to take part in consultation meetings for
discussing options for structural funds to strengthen the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

It can be seen in practice that regional organisations are being refused the opportunity to take part in the public
consultations which are being organised, which in fact means that stakeholders are being prevented from
participating.

If interested stakeholders representing enterprises from at least six Member States are not being admitted to the
consultation meetings, is this not a basis to conclude that the consultation process is being disrupted?

What are the formal grounds for determining which kinds or types of organisation can be recognised as stakeholders
(parties in public consultations)?

In my personal opinion it would appear the Commission is showing partiality in the selection of participants.

**Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The Commission's minimum consultation standards indicate which parties should be involved in the consultation
process to ensure an inclusive approach ( [1] ). Regional organisations are considered as stakeholders, and they can be
actively involved in the consultations.

In the case of the options for structural measures to strengthen the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), all interested
parties — including regional organisations — had an opportunity to express their views in a 12-week open Internet
consultation ( [2] ), publically accessible via the Your Voice in Europe website. In addition to an online consultation, the
Commission organised two consultation meetings on the subject. It would be impossible to have all hundreds of
stakeholders from many subsets of Member States and sectors with an interest in the EU ETS physically attending the
consultation meetings. To ensure the presence of an as broad and representative group of stakeholders with an
interest in the EU ETS as possible, priority had been given to EU-level organisations representing all regions, rather
than organisations representing individual regions. To ensure that any specific regional and national interests were
represented, the Commission invited Member States. Moreover, to ensure that all stakeholders could follow the
meetings, the Commission offered live webcasts of the meetings and posted all presentations online ( [3] ). The
Commission also offered a bilateral meeting to the regional sectoral organisation the Honourable Member refers to,
which took place on 25 March 2013. For all these reasons, the Commission does not agree that the consultation
process has been disrupted.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission's general principles and minimum standards for consultation, COM(2002) 704.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/0017/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0070/index_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0071/index_en.htm

C 33 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004029/13**

**aan de Commissie**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(10 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ „Plofkoffers” niet toegestaan op luchthaven van München

De veiligheid van de luchthaven in München laat niet toe dat er „plofkoffers” aan boord van een vliegtuig worden
genomen. In deze koffertjes kunnen een identiteitskaart en enkele kredietkaarten en bankbiljetten geborgen worden.
Ze worden vergrendeld met een cijferslot, en zijn voorzien van glazen inktpatronen die de inhoud onbruikbaar
maken wanneer ze opengebroken zouden worden. Dergelijke koffertjes zijn doorgaans ongeveer 15 x 10 cm groot
(dikte maximaal 3 cm).

Veiligheidsbeambten in München beweren dat een plofkoffer een veiligheidsprobleem vormt, hoewel het niet
duidelijk is waarom dat zou zijn.

Op andere luchthavens in de Europese Unie (zelfs andere luchthavens in Duitsland, zoals Frankfurt) vormt het bezit
van een plofkoffertje geen enkel probleem.

1. Is de Commissie op de hoogte van deze toestand?

2. Kunnen luchthavens zelf beslissen zaken te verbieden die elders in de Europese Unie wel toegelaten zijn, zonder
dat daar een plausibele motivering voor bestaat?

3. Eigenaars van plofkoffers kunnen voor problemen komen te staan wanneer ze niet weten dat ze niet toegelaten
zijn. Wordt er op EU-vlak niet gestreefd naar een zekere eenvormigheid wat de veiligheidsregels voor
luchtvaartpassagiers betreft?

4. Welke stappen overweegt de Commissie te nemen in dit concrete geval?

**Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie**

_(6 juni 2013)_

1. De Commissie was niet op de hoogte van situaties waarin passagiers plofkoffers mee aan boord van een
vliegtuig wensten te nemen.

2. Hoewel luchthavens in gerechtvaardigde omstandigheden strengere beveiligingsmaatregelen mogen opleggen,
lijken dergelijke maatregelen in dit geval onnodig. Plofkoffers kunnen explosieven, ontvlambare voorwerpen en
vloeistoffen (kleurstof) bevatten. Volgens de EU-wetgeving is het in beginsel verboden deze drie zaken mee te nemen
aan boord van een vliegtuig.

3 & 4. De Commissie is niet voornemens verdere actie te ondernemen. Overeenkomstig de EU-verordeningen is het
onder bepaalde omstandigheden wel toegelaten om verboden artikelen te vervoeren. Deze omstandigheden zijn
bepaald in punt 4.4.2 van de bijlage bij Verordening (EU) nr. 185/2010 van de Commissie van 4 maart 2010 tot
vaststelling van gedetailleerde maatregelen voor de tenuitvoerlegging van de gemeenschappelĳke basisnormen op het
gebied van de beveiliging van de luchtvaart ( [1] ). Eigenaars van plofkoffers nemen voor de vlucht het best contact op
met hun luchtvaartmaatschappij om zeker te zijn dat plofkoffers toegelaten zijn aan boord van het vliegtuig en om
passende maatregelen te nemen indien dat niet het geval is.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) PB L 55 van 5.3.2010.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 55

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004029/13**

**to the Commission**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ ‘Dye packs’ not allowed at Munich Airport

Munich Airport does not permit ‘dye packs’ to be taken on board an aircraft for security reasons. These packs may
contain an identity card and several credit cards and banknotes. They are locked with a combination lock and are
equipped with glass ink cartridges which make the contents unusable if the pack is forced open. Dye packs are usually
about 15 x 10 cm in size (with a maximum thickness of 3 cm).

Security officials in Munich claim that a dye pack represents a security problem, although it is not clear why that
should be the case.

At other airports in the European Union (even at other airports in Germany, such as Frankfurt) carrying a dye pack is
not a problem.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Can airports take independent decisions on banning items which are allowed elsewhere in the European Union
without any plausible justification?

3. Dye pack owners can find themselves in a difficult situation if they do not know that such packs are not
allowed. Are there no efforts at EU level to ensure some degree of uniformity with regard to safety regulations for air
travellers?

4. What steps does the Commission intend to take in this specific case?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

1. The Commission was not aware of situations where passengers wished to bring dye packs onto an aircraft.

2. While airports may impose more stringent security measures in justified circumstances, such measures seem
unnecessary in this case as dye packs may contain explosives or incendiary elements as well as liquids (dye), all three
of which are in principle banned from being brought on board an aircraft according to EU legislation.

3 and 4. The Commission does not intend to take any further action. EU regulations do permit the carriage of
prohibited articles provided certain conditions are met. These are defined in Point 4.4.2 of Commission Regulation
(EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic
standards on aviation security ( [1] ). Dye pack owners should contact their air carrier before flying to ensure they are
allowed and make suitable arrangements if they are not.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 55, 5.3.2010.

C 33 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004030/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**
**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR) oraz Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(10 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Sytuacja w Republice Centralnej Afryki

Od czasu wybuchu rebelii w Republice Środkowej Afryki, sytuacja ludności cywilnej z dnia na dzień pogarsza się. Na
porządku dziennym są grabieże, gwałty i głód. Ostatnie doniesienia prasowe mówią o załamaniu się krótkotrwałego
pokoju w stolicy kraju – Bangi. Rabowane są domy prywatne oraz siedziby organizacji międzynarodowych.

Unia Europejska jest największym partnerem i darczyńcą RŚA. Kraj ten korzysta z funduszy w ramach inicjatywy
Milenijnych Celów Rozwoju, Europejskiego Funduszu na rzecz Rozwoju czy Instrumentu na rzecz Pokoju w Afryce.

1. Jak w kontekście najnowszej sytuacji politycznej w kraju wyglądać będzie strategia Unii Europejskiej względem
RŚA?

2. Jakie działania zostały do tej pory podjęte prze misję UE w Republice Środkowej Afryki celem ochrony
obywateli Unii Europejskiej na tym terenie?

3. Czy pozycja UE w negocjacjach Umowy o Partnerstwie Gospodarczym z Unią Celną i Gospodarczą Afryki
Środkowej zmieni się?

4. Czy strategia Unii Europejskiej i jej plan pomocy humanitarnej względem Republiki Środkowej Afryki, który
w 2012 r. wyniósł 8 milionów euro, ulegną zasadniczej zmianie?

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

_(29 maja 2013 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca zwraca Szanownym Panom Posłom uwagę na swoje oświadczenie
z dnia 25 marca br., w którym potępiła niekonstytucyjną zmianę rządu w Republice Środkowoafrykańskiej i wezwała
do przywrócenia ładu konstytucyjnego.

UE popiera przejściowe porozumienie wynegocjowane przez Wspólnotę Gospodarczą Państw Afryki Środkowej
w ścisłej koordynacji z Unią Afrykańską. Wzywa wszystkie strony do podjęcia konkretnych środków mających na
calu przywrócenie porządku publicznego oraz wzywa rząd tymczasowy do przedstawienia szczegółowego
harmonogramu przywrócenia ładu konstytucyjnego.

UE monitoruje bieżącą sytuację we współpracy ze społecznością międzynarodową oraz z przedstawicielami regionu.
UE będzie bacznie przyglądać się przestrzeganiu postanowień porozumienia przejściowego oraz postępowi
w realizacji wspomnianego harmonogramu.

W ramach środków zapobiegawczych personel, który nie był niezbędny do utrzymania działalności delegatury UE
w Republice Środkowoafrykańskiej, został przeniesiony do Brukseli w dniu 26 marca br. Opiekę konsularną
obywatelom państw członkowskich UE przebywającym w Republice Środkowoafrykańskiej zapewnia Ambasada
Francji w Bangi.

Negocjacje dotyczące umów o partnerstwie gospodarczym ze Wspólnotą Gospodarczą i Monetarną Afryki
Środkowej (CEMAC) obejmują region jako całość. Mimo że CEMAC chwilowo przeniosła swoją siedzibę z Bangi do
Libreville, sytuacja kryzysowa nie ma na nie wpływu i będą one kontynuowane.

Strategia UE dotycząca Republiki Środkowoafrykańskiej, przedstawiona w krajowym dokumencie strategicznym
(2008‐2013), pozostaje w mocy, ponieważ koncentruje się na sposobie sprawowania rządów, odnowie
infrastruktury, gospodarki i społeczeństwa oraz na skuteczniejszym wyeliminowaniu różnic między centrum
a obrzeżami. W ramach reakcji na bieżącą sytuację kryzysową poziom pomocy humanitarnej w 2013 r. zwiększono
o 50 proc. – obecnie jej suma wynosi 12 mln euro.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 57

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004030/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR) and Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in the Central African Republic

Since the start of the rebellion in the Central African Republic, the situation of the civilian population has been
worsening daily. Looting, rape and hunger are a daily reality. Recent press reports have spoken of a breakdown of the
short-lived peace in its capital, Bangui. Private homes and the offices of international organisations are being looted.

The European Union is the Central African Republic’s biggest partner and main donor. The CAR benefits from
financial aid under the Millennium Development Goals, the European Development Fund and the African Peace
Facility.

1. In view of the current political situation there, what strategy will the EU adopt towards the country?

2. What action has so far been taken by the EU delegation in the CAR to protect citizens of European Union
Member States there?

3. Will there be a change in the EU’s position in negotiations over the Economic Partnership Agreement with the
Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa?

4. Will there be any substantial change to the European Union’s strategy and its programme of humanitarian aid to
the Central African Republic, which amounted to EUR 8 million in 2012?

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

_(29 May 2013)_

The HR/VP refers the Honourable Members to her statement of 25 March condemning the unconstitutional change of
government in the Central African Republic (CAR) and calling for the restoration of constitutional order.

The EU supports the transitional agreement mediated by the Economic Community of Central African States, in close
coordination with the African Union. It urges all parties to take concrete measures to re-establish public order, as well
as the transitional government to present a detailed roadmap for the restoration of constitutional order.

The EU monitors developments, in coordination with the international community and the region. It will remain
vigilant as regards the respect of the transitional agreement and the progress made in the implementation of the
roadmap.

As a precautionary measure, non-essential staff of the delegation of the EU in the CAR were relocated to Brussels on
26 March. The French Embassy in Bangui is ensuring the consular protection of citizens of EU Members States in the
CAR.

Negotiations over the Economic Partnership Agreements with the Economic and Monetary Community of Central
African (CEMAC) cover the region as a whole. Though CEMAC temporarily moved its headquarters from Bangui to
Libreville, negotiations are not affected by the crisis and will continue.

The EU's strategy for the CAR as laid down in the Country Strategy Paper (2008-2013), remains valid as it
concentrates on governance, social and economic rehabilitation and infrastructure as well as on improved
accessibility to reduce the divide between centre and periphery. In response to the current crisis situation, the
humanitarian aid available in 2013 has already been increased by 50% and now amounts to EUR 12 million.

C 33 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004031/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(10 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Problem dostępu do służba zdrowia w poszczególnych krajach UE

Zgodnie z ostatnim raportem Health Barometre przeprowadzonym przez Europ Assistance i instytut badawczy Cerle
Sant _é_ nagorzej w rankingu oceny dostępu do służby zdrowia wypada Polska.

Do najpoważniejszych wskazanych problemów w raporcie należą m.in. długie kolejki do szpitali oraz bardzo drogie
usługi medyczne.

W związku z powyższym bardzo proszę Komisję o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

1. Czy Komisja monitoruje, jak wygląda dostęp do służby zdrowia w poszczególnych krajach UE?

2. Jakie działania są podejmowane lub będą podejmowane przez Komisję, aby zniwelować nierówności
w dostępie do służby zdrowia w poszczególnych krajach UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(6 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja Europejska pragnie pomagać w zmniejszaniu znacznych nierówności zdrowotnych występujących na
obszarze UE. W związku z tym w 2009 r. Komisja przyjęła komunikat pt. „Solidarność w zdrowiu: zmniejszanie
nierówności zdrowotnych w UE” ( [1] ), aby wspierać zmniejszanie nierówności przy użyciu wszystkich funduszy
i środków politycznych, którymi Unia dysponuje w tej dziedzinie. W 2013 r. Komisja przedstawi sprawozdanie
z postępów na tym polu, poczynionych zarówno przez państwa członkowskie, jak i przez Komisję.

Unia może m.in. udzielać wsparcia z funduszy strukturalnych państwom członkowskim, które pragną poprawić
dostęp do opieki zdrowotnej i zmniejszyć nierówności między regionami. Inwestycje ze środków Europejskiego
Funduszu Rozwoju Regionalnego i Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego w sprzęt i technologie medyczne,
w infrastrukturę i szkolenia powinny przyczyniać się do rozwoju usług opieki zdrowotnej, w szczególności
w najuboższych regionach.

Co roku Komisja prowadzi europejskie badanie warunków życia ludności [1], obejmujące tematykę zdrowotną, oraz
zbiera dane na temat niezaspokojonego zapotrzebowania na badania lekarskie i stomatologiczne oraz na leczenie,
a także bada przyczyny nieudzielenia takich świadczeń. Za pomocą tego narzędzia Komisja Europejska monitoruje
dostęp do opieki zdrowotnej w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2009)567.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 59

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004031/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The problem of access to healthcare in different EU Member States

According to the latest Health Barometer report compiled by Europ Assistance and the Cercle Santé research institute,
Poland is the lowest-ranked country in terms of access to healthcare.

The most serious problems highlighted in the report include long waiting lists for hospital treatment and the very
high cost of medical services.

1. Does the Commission monitor the situation as regards access to healthcare in different Member States?

2. What action is being taken or will be taken by the Commission to eliminate inequalities in access to healthcare
in different Member States?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The European Commission is keen to help bridge the wide health inequalities that exist in health across the EU. In this
context, in 2009, the Commission adopted a communication on ‘Solidarity in Health: Reducing Health Inequalities in
the EU’ ( [1] ) to contribute to the reduction of inequalities by using all relevant Community funds and policies. The
Commission will report in 2013 on progress made in this area both by Member States and the Commission.

For example, the EU can support Member States wishing to improve access to healthcare and reduce regional
inequalities, through the use of the Structural Funds. Investments in health equipment and technology, in
infrastructure and in training by using the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund
should contribute to development of healthcare services, in particular in the most deprived regions.

The Commission gathers annual EU-Statistics on Income and Living Conditions which includes health and collects
data on unmet needs for medical and dental examination or treatment and the main reasons for not being able to
receive these services. This is the tool with which the European Commission monitors access to healthcare in different
Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2009) 567.

C 33 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004032/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(10 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Finansowanie programu monitoringu lasów w UE

Brak wsparcia na finansowanie w latach 2011-2013 programu monitoringu lasów w UE spowodował przerwanie
25-letniego ciągu obserwacji tj. dostarczania informacji potrzebnych do kształtowania polityki leśnej i ekologicznej
w poszczególnych krajach UE.

W związku z powyższym proszę Komisję o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

1. Czy Komisja przewiduje w przyszłości wsparcie finansowe na rozwój programu monitoringu lasów w UE?

2. Czy Komisja podejmuje działania zmierzające do wparcia programu monitoringu lasów w UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Janeza Potočnika w imieniu Komisji**

_(29 maja 2013 r.)_

Komisja przewidziała możliwość udzielenia wsparcia dla ustanowienia programu monitoringu lasów w ramach jej
działań objętych obowiązującym rozporządzeniem LIFE+ ( [1] ). Ponadto w motywie 14 wniosku Komisji w sprawie
nowego rozporządzenia LIFE, COM(2011) 874 wersja ostateczna ( [2] ) stwierdzono, że projekty leśne nadal będą miały
priorytetowe znaczenie w ramach finansowania z programu LIFE.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 614/2007 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 23 maja 2007 r. w sprawie instrumentu finansowego na rzecz

środowiska (LIFE+); Dz.U. L 149 z 9.6.2007, s. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Wniosek z dna 12 grudnia 2011 r. dotyczący rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady ustanawiającego Program działań na rzecz

środowiska i klimatu (LIFE), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/beyond2013.htm#proposal

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 61

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004032/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Funding of the EU forest monitoring scheme

The lack of financial support for the EU forest monitoring scheme from 2011 to 2013 has interrupted the 25-year
observation period and cut off the supply of information needed to shape forest and ecological policy in the European
Union’s Member States.

1. Does the Commission plan to provide financial support in the future for development of the EU forest
monitoring scheme?

2. Is the Commission taking action to support the EU forest monitoring scheme?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The Commission has foreseen the possibility to support the establishment of forest information systems within its
activities under the current LIFE+ regulation ( [1] ). In addition Recital 14 of the Commission proposal for the new LIFE
Regulation COM(2011)874 final ( [2] ) states that forest projects will continue to be a priority for LIFE funding.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 concerning the Financial instrument for the

Environment (LIFE+), OJ L 149, 9.6.2007, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2011 on the establishment of a Programme for the

Environment and Climate Action (LIFE), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/beyond2013.htm#proposal.

( **|**

C 33 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004033/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(10 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Ujednolicenie prawa o zamówieniach publicznych w krajach UE

W polskiej ustawie Prawo zamówień publicznych przewidziana została możliwość zastosowania kryteriów oceny
ofert zapewniających wybór oferty najkorzystniejszej, charakteryzującej się odpowiednio wysoką jakością usług
świadczonych przez wykonawcę na rzecz zamawiającego. W definicji (art. 2 pkt 5 ustawy Prawo zamówień
publicznych) sformułowane jest stanowisko, iż najkorzystniejsza oferta to oferta z najkorzystniejszym bilansem ceny
i innych kryteriów odnoszących się do przedmiotu zamówienia.

Przepisy ustawy Prawo zamówień publicznych nie zmuszają zamawiających do wybierania ofert o najniższej cenie,
co równałoby się faworyzowaniu ofert tanich kosztem ofert odpowiednich jakościowo. Jednakże, analizując
praktykę zamawiających to głównie cena decyduje o wyborze danej oferty, a nie jakość świadczonych usług.

W związku z powyższym bardzo proszę Komisję o odpowiedź na następujące pytania:

1. Czy Komisja dostrzega przedmiotowy problem w poszczególnych krajach UE?

2. Czy Komisja zamierza ujednolicić prawo o zamówieniach publicznych w krajach UE? Jeżeli tak, to kiedy?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Michela Barniera w imieniu Komisji**

_(19 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Dyrektywy 2004/18/WE i 2004/17/WE przewidują dwa kryteria udzielenia zamówienia: oferta najkorzystniejsza
ekonomicznie oraz wyłącznie najniższa cena. Oba kryteria są jednakowo umocowane i w związku z tym instytucje
zamawiające mają swobodę wyboru jednego z nich na potrzeby udzielenia zamówienia. Ze sprawozdania
oceniającego Komisji z 2011 r. na temat skutków i skuteczności przepisów dotyczących zamówień publicznych
wynika faktycznie, że kryterium oferty najkorzystniejszej ekonomicznie stosowane jest w odniesieniu do ok. 80 %
łącznej wartości zamówień.

Zgodnie z orzeczeniem Trybunału Sprawiedliwości w sprawie C-247/02 _Sintesi_, przy ustalaniu kryteriów udzielenia
zamówień publicznych instytucje zamawiające muszą brać pod uwagę charakter i specyfikę przedmiotowych
zamówień oraz zastosować kryterium, które z największym prawdopodobieństwem zapewni wybór najlepszej
oferty. Wyboru kryterium udzielenia zamówienia należy dokonywać na zasadzie indywidualnych przypadków,
uwzględniając między innymi przedmiot umów. Kryterium oferty najkorzystniejszej ekonomicznie może być
w wielu przypadkach właściwsze, natomiast w innych – nieodpowiednie. Dopóki przestrzegane są podstawowe
zasady prawa UE, to instytucja zamawiająca decyduje, co chce kupić i jakie kryterium udzielenia zamówienia będzie
odpowiednie do najlepszego zaspokojenia jej potrzeb.

W swoim wniosku dotyczącym reformy dyrektyw w sprawie zamówień publicznych Komisja nie zaproponowała
nałożenia na instytucje zamawiające obowiązku udzielania zamówień publicznych wyłącznie na podstawie
kryterium oferty najkorzystniejszej ekonomicznie. Wspomniany wniosek jest obecnie przedmiotem negocjacji
w Parlamencie Europejskim i Radzie.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 63

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004033/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(10 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Harmonisation of public procurement legislation in the Member States

Poland’s Public Procurement Act provides for tenders to be evaluated by applying criteria which ensure selection of
the most advantageous tender in terms of a suitably high quality of the services to be provided by the supplier for the
contracting authority. The definition contained in Article 2(5) of the Public Procurement Act states the position that
the most advantageous tender is the tender providing the most advantageous balance of price and other criteria
relating to the object of the contract.

The provisions of the Public Procurement Act do not force contracting authorities to select tenders with the lowest
price, which would be equivalent to favouring cheap tenders to the detriment of tenders which are suitable in terms of
quality. However, analysis of the practices of contracting authorities shows that it is mainly price which determines
the selection of a particular tender, and not the quality of services to be provided.

1. Is the Commission aware of this problem in the Member States?

2. Does the Commission intend to harmonise public procurement legislation in the Member States, and if so,
when would this be done?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC provide for two contract award criteria; the most economically
advantageous tender (‘MEAT’) and the lowest price only. Both criteria are placed on equal footing and therefore
contracting authorities remain free to choose any of them for awarding the contract. In fact, it results from the
Commission's Evaluation Report from 2011 on Impact and Effectiveness of Public Procurement Legislation that the
MEAT criterion is used for around 80% of total contract value.

As the Court of Justice ruled in Case C-247/02 _Sintesi_, when fixing the criteria for the award of public contracts,
contracting authorities must take into consideration the nature and specific characteristics of such contracts and
choose the criterion most likely to ensure that the best tender is chosen. The choice of award criteria must be done on
a case by case basis, taking into account, _inter alia_, the subject matter of the contracts. The MEAT criterion might be
more appropriate in many cases, but inadequate in others. As long as basic principles of EC law are respected, it is for
the contracting authority to decide what it wants to purchase and which award criteria would be suitable for best
satisfying its needs.

In its reform proposal for public procurement directives the Commission did not propose to impose on contracting
authorities the award of public contracts on the basis of the MEAT criterion only. This proposal is currently being
negotiated in the European Parliament and the Council.

C 33 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004231/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Presunto livellamento dei prezzi dei carburanti posto in essere dalle principali compagnie petrolifere in Italia

Un'indagine condotta dalla procura di Varese e dalla guardia di Finanza italiana, partita da una denuncia
dell'associazione Codacons, ha rilevato come le 7 principali compagnie petrolifere che operano in Italia, hanno posto
in essere accordi e manovre di natura finanziaria, atte a mantenere volontariamente livellati i prezzi dei carburanti alla
pompa nel nostro Paese, in danno dei consumatori e del principio di concorrenza.

La Commissione:

—
è a conoscenza dei fatti sopra descritti?

—
ritiene che negli altri 26 Stati membri siano in atto situazioni riconducibili a quella che emerge dalle evidenze
dell'indagine italiana?

—
intende aprire un'indagine su questa situazione?

**Risposta di Joaquin Almunia a nome della Commissione**

_(11 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è al corrente dell'indagine giudiziaria condotta dalla polizia tributaria e dalla procura di Varese in
merito al presunto comportamento fraudolento delle principali compagnie petrolifere che operano in Italia.

Per quanto riguarda gli altri Stati membri, la Commissione nota che diverse autorità nazionali garanti della
concorrenza (ANC), tra cui l' _Office of Fair Trading britannico_, la _Comisión Nacional de la Competencia_ spagnola e il
_Bundeskartellamt_ tedesco, hanno svolto di recente indagini nel settore petrolifero concentrandosi soprattutto sulle
presunte pratiche anticoncorrenziali a livello della vendita al dettaglio, ma non hanno rinvenuto prove di
comportamenti anticoncorrenziali. L'indagine tedesca, ad esempio, ha concluso che non è stato possibile riscontrare
elementi probatori in merito alla fissazione dei prezzi.

La Commissione segue da vicino gli sviluppi di mercato nel settore dei carburanti in Italia e negli altri Stati membri
dell'Unione. Se necessario, non esiterà a intervenire, autonomamente o coordinandosi con le autorità nazionali
garanti della concorrenza, contro comportamenti collusivi di imprese o l'abuso di posizione dominante nel settore.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 65

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004231/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Alleged fuel price-fixing by the main oil companies in Italy

An investigation by the Varese public prosecutor’s office and the Italian financial police, prompted by a complaint by
the association Codacons, has found that the seven main oil companies operating in Italy have put in place financial
agreements and manoeuvres in order to voluntarily maintain fuel pump prices in our country at the same level, at the
expense of consumers and the principle of competition.

— Is the Commission aware of the facts described above?

— Does it believe that in the other 26 Member States there are situations similar to that uncovered by the Italian
investigation?

— Does it intend to open an enquiry into this situation?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the criminal investigation of Varese's tax police and Public Prosecutor's Office into the
alleged fraudulent behaviour of major fuel companies operating in Italy.

As regards other Member States, the Commission notes that several National Competition Authorities (NCAs), most
recently the UK Office of Fair Trading, the Spanish _Comisión Nacional de la Competencia_, and the German
_Bundeskartellamt,_ have carried out investigations and enquiries in the oil sector. These recent NCA inquiries mainly
focused on alleged anticompetitive practices at retail level, but did not find evidence of anticompetitive conduct. The
German investigation, for instance, concluded that no evidence of price fixing could be found.

The Commission closely follows market developments in the fuel sector in Italy and in the other EU Member States. If
required, it will not hesitate to act, either by itself or in coordination with the national competition authorities, against
collusive behaviour of undertakings or abuse of a dominant position in the sector.

C 33 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004233/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sicurezza delle comunità cristiane in Nigeria

In Nigeria gli attacchi portati avanti da estremisti islamici contro fedeli cristiani continuano senza sosta.

Nello stato di Plateau fra il 27 e il 28 marzo ci sono stati almeno 40 morti; il 29 marzo, nel distretto di Bokkos, sono
stati colpiti due villaggi e 20 sono state le vittime. L'ultimo di questi attacchi terroristici è stato portato a termine nello
stato di Kaduna il 31 marzo, dove un gruppo armato musulmano di etnia Fulana ha colpito il villaggio di Afaka, a
maggioranza cristiano, uccidendo 19 persone.

— È la Commissione a conoscenza di questi fatti?

— Come valuta stia agendo il governo nigeriano per fermare questa situazione?

— Come intende agire nei confronti del governo della Nigeria affinché supporti le comunità cristiane di questo paese?

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

_(20 giugno 2013)_

L'Unione europea è a conoscenza dei casi di violenza che avvengono nella regione del Middle Belt in Nigeria.

Le autorità federali e statali, sostenute dalle organizzazioni della società civile, stanno cercando di risolvere questa
situazione preoccupante contrastando, tra le altre cose, le azioni di rappresaglia a seguito di scontri. I gruppi della
società civile hanno promosso anche azioni di pace, dialogo e mediazione, che dovrebbero contribuire in misura
significativa a ridurre il livello di violenza. Inoltre, è necessario affrontare le cause all'origine di tali tensioni in modo
duraturo, prendendo in considerazione, ad esempio, le pratiche discriminatorie a livello statale e l'impunità dei casi di
violenza tra le comunità.

L'Unione europea rimane impegnata nel dialogo e negli sforzi di cooperazione, anche nel campo della sicurezza. Il
21 marzo 2013 ad Abuja, si è svolta la prima sessione del dialogo locale sulla pace, la sicurezza e la stabilità tra la
Nigeria e l'Unione europea. L'UE ha sottolineato la necessità di affrontare le cause all'origine della violenza,
combattendo, ad esempio, la discriminazione e attuando riforme socioeconomiche che favoriscano in egual misura
tutta la popolazione. Entrambe le parti hanno convenuto sulla necessità di adottare una strategia globale che
comprenda il buon governo, lo Stato di diritto, il rispetto dei diritti umani, lo sviluppo economico inclusivo e la
creazione di posti di lavoro. Queste importanti problematiche sono state altresì evidenziate durante la riunione
ministeriale tra l'Unione europea e la Nigeria tenutasi lo scorso maggio. Recentemente, l'UE ha deciso di avviare
iniziative specifiche volte a contrastare la mancanza di sicurezza nello Stato di Plateau. A dicembre del 2012,
nell'ambito dello strumento per la stabilità, è stata adottata una decisione di finanziamento a sostegno della
costruzione della pace e della prevenzione dei conflitti. Nel quadro del FES, l'UE sostiene i settori sociali (sanità,
approvvigionamento idrico e strutture igienico-sanitarie) in diversi Stati, compreso il Middle Belt, così come anche la
giustizia e il buon governo.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 67

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004233/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Security of Christian communities in Nigeria

In Nigeria, Christians are being incessantly subjected to attacks by Islamic extremists.

In Plateau State, there were at least 40 deaths between 27 and 28 March; on 29 March, in the district of Bokkos, two
villages were attacked, with 20 victims. The most recent of these terrorist attacks took place in Kaduna State on
31 March, when an armed Muslim gang from the Fulani ethnic group attacked the village of Afaka, which is mainly
Christian, killing 19 people.

— Is the Commission aware of these facts?

— What is its view on the actions of the Nigerian Government to try to stop this situation?

— What action does it intend to take in relation to the Nigerian Government so that it supports the Christian
communities in the country?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The European Union is aware of the violence in the Middle Belt of Nigeria.

The Federal and State-level authorities, with the assistance of civil society organisations, are trying to address this
worrying situation, including by containing reprisal attacks whenever an incident took place. Civil society groups
have also been active in promoting peace, dialogue and mediation. This should significantly contribute to decreasing
the level of violence. The root causes of these tensions must also be durably addressed, including by tackling the
discriminatory practices at State level and the impunity for inter-communal violence.

The European Union remains engaged in dialogue and cooperation efforts, including in the security area. On
21 March 2013 in Abuja, Nigeria and the European Union held the first session of the local dialogue on peace,
security and stability. The European Union stressed the need to address the root causes of violence, including by
fighting discrimination and implementing socioeconomic reforms that equally benefit all groups. Both parties agreed
on the need to adopt a comprehensive strategy that includes good governance, the rule of law, respect of human
rights, inclusive economic development and job creation. These important issues were also raised during the EUNigeria Ministerial meeting held in May. The EU has recently decided to launch specific actions to address insecurity
in the Plateau State. Under the Instrument for Stability a financing decision to support peace building and conflict
pervention was adopted in December 2012. Under the EDF the EU supports social sectors (health, water and
sanitation) in several states including the Middle Belt, complemented by support to justice and good governance.

C 33 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004234/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Traffico di esseri umani e violazione dei diritti umani in Egitto

Nel Sudan orientale, al confine con l'Eritrea, è ubicato il campo di accoglienza di Shagarab per i richiedenti asilo ed i
rifugiati, all'interno del quale vivono circa 30.000 persone. Dal rapporto redatto da Amnesty International
«Egypt/Sudan — refugees and asylumseekers face brutal treatment, kidnapping for ransom, and human trafficking»
risulta che da almeno 2 anni, in questi campi di accoglienza, avvengono rapimenti sistematici dei rifugiati, che sono
trasportati nel deserto del Sinai, in Egitto e venduti a bande di criminali che li liberano solo nel caso le loro famiglie
paghino un riscatto.

Dalle testimonianze raccolte da Amnesty International risulta che i sequestrati sono sottoposti a torture e violenze
fino a che non viene pagato il riscatto richiesto; nel caso tale somma non venga corrisposta gli uomini sono venduti e
destinati a lavori forzati e le donne costrette alla prostituzione.

Può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

—
È a conoscenza dei fatti sopra descritti e del rapporto citato redatto da Amnesty International?

—
Considerando la politica di vicinato fra l'UE e l'Egitto e l'art. 2 del Trattato sull'Unione europea, come intende
agire per spingere il governo egiziano ad attivarsi concretamente per porre fine a tale situazione?

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

_(17 giugno 2013)_

L’UE segue attentamente la situazione della tratta di esseri umani e dei rifugiati in Egitto, in particolare nella regione
del Sinai. A tal proposito, l’UE intrattiene contatti regolari con il ministro degli Affari esteri e il ministro dell’Interno
egiziani, così come con gli uffici regionali dell’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni unite per i rifugiati (UNHCR) e
dell’Organizzazione internazionale per le migrazioni (OIM). L’UE ha espresso alle autorità competenti le sue
preoccupazioni in numerose occasioni.

L’Unione intende, inoltre, continuare a sollecitare le autorità egiziane affinché adottino le misure appropriate per
assicurare che i diritti umani dei migranti e dei rifugiati siano pienamente rispettati e le ha già esortate a consentire
consentissero all’UNHCR di eseguire il proprio mandato su tutto il territorio egiziano, compresa la regione del Sinai,
nel rispetto degli impegni internazionali del paese.

L’UE sta sostenendo finanziariamente il progetto dell’OIM «Progetto di protezione: aiutare i partner governativi e non
governativi a proteggere i “diritti umani” dei migranti lungo la rotta dell’Africa orientale». Gli obiettivi del progetto
consistono, tra l’altro, nel migliorare le capacità governative e non governative volte a sostenere e a monitorare i diritti
dell’uomo dei migranti in Egitto, e in particolare dei gruppi vulnerabili; nell’aumentare la consapevolezza di una
migrazione sicura e dei rischi dell’immigrazione irregolare presso le comunità vulnerabili nei paesi di origine e di
transito; nel fornire, infine, soluzioni sostenibili e rispettose ai migranti detenuti e/o rimasti bloccati in Egitto.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 69

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004234/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Trafficking of human beings and infringement of human rights in Egypt

The Shagarab camp for asylum-seekers and refugees, hosting approximately 30 000 people, is located in east Sudan,
at the border with Eritrea. A report by Amnesty International entitled ‘Egypt/Sudan — refugees and asylum-seekers
face brutal treatment, kidnapping for ransom, and human trafficking’ states that for at least two years systematic
kidnappings of refugees from the camps have been taking place. Those seized are transported into the Sinai desert in
Egypt and sold to criminal groups which only release them if their families pay a ransom.

The testimony gathered by Amnesty International indicates that those who have been kidnapped are subjected to
torture and violence until the ransom demanded has been paid; if the money is not paid, the men are sold into forced
labour and the women are forced into prostitution.

— Is the Commission aware of the facts described above and the report by Amnesty International?

— In view of the neighbourhood policy between the EU and Egypt and Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union,
how does the Commission intend to put pressure on the Egyptian Government to take concrete action to put an end
to this situation?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

The EU follows closely the situation of human trafficking and refugees in Egypt and in particular in the Sinai. The EU
keeps regular contacts with the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Interior as well as with the
regional offices of UNHCR and IOM on these matters. Our concerns have been expressed at numerous occasions to
the competent authorities.

The EU will continue to urge the Egyptian authorities to take the appropriate measures to ensure that the human
rights of migrants and refugees are fully respected. We have called on them to allow UNHCR to implement its
mandate on the entire territory of Egypt, including the Sinai region in compliance with Egypt's international
commitments.

The EU is financially supporting the IOM project ‘A Protection Project: Supporting governmental and
nongovernmental partners to protect migrants’ human rights along the East Africa Route’. The project’s objectives
include, _inter alia_, to strengthen governmental and non-governmental capacities to uphold and monitor migrants’
human rights in Egypt, with special consideration to vulnerable groups, and to raise awareness on safe migration and
the risks associated with irregular migration among vulnerable communities in origin and transit countries and
provide sustainable and humane solutions to detained and/or stranded migrants in Egypt.

C 33 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004235/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Attuazione del Fiscal compact e conseguenze per le imprese italiane di un eventuale blocco dei pagamenti
pregressi da parte della Pubblica amministrazione

Il 14 marzo 2013 il Commissario europeo all'industria e all'imprenditoria, Antonio Tajani, e il Commissario europeo
per gli affari economici e Monetari, Olli Rehn, hanno confermato con un comunicato congiunto la disponibilità della
Commissione europea a valutare con la massima flessibilità l'eventuale sforamento, da parte dell'Italia, del patto di
stabilità e crescita, che prevede un tetto del 3 % del rapporto deficit/Pil, laddove il superamento di detta soglia sia da
imputarsi al pagamento dei debiti commerciali delle Pubbliche amministrazioni verso le imprese.

Successivamente il Commissario Tajani, sollecitando le autorità italiane ad un pagamento in tempi brevi delle
esposizioni pregresse, ha affermato che l'entrata in vigore del Fiscal compact, prevista per la fine del 2013, e la
mancanza di dati certi sull'ammontare dell'esposizione della Pubblica amministrazione verso le imprese sono,
entrambi, fattori che potrebbero bloccare definitivamente il pagamento dei debiti pregressi della Pubblica
amministrazione.

Considerato che il Presidente dell'Abi, l'Associazione delle Banche Italiane, stima il debito della Pubblica
amministrazione in 100 miliardi di euro mentre, secondo la Banca d'Italia, tali debiti verso le imprese ammontano a
circa 90 miliardi, può la Commissione riferire:

—
se conferma le dichiarazioni secondo le quali i debiti della Pubblica amministrazione, se non saldati prima della
completa attuazione del Fiscal compact, verrebbero congelati definitivamente;

—
in caso affermativo, se ha valutato l'impatto che questo avrebbe sull'economia italiana?

—
se le autorità italiane hanno già provveduto a comunicare tempestivamente il dato univoco e certo del debito
effettivamente accumulato dalle amministrazioni pubbliche italiane verso le imprese;

—
in che modo essa intende garantire la sua disponibilità a ricercare soluzioni condivise per tutelare i crediti delle
imprese italiane esposte verso la Pubblica amministrazione?

**Risposta di Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione**

_(12 giugno 2013)_

Un rafforzamento della governance di bilancio europea ( [1] ) è entrato in vigore il 13 dicembre 2011. In base
all’andamento del debito pubblico nonché al disavanzo pubblico è possibile avviare una procedura per i disavanzi
eccessivi ( [2] ). Il criterio del debito definito nell'ambito del patto di stabilità e crescita ( [3] ) è stato reso operativo mediante
un parametro di riferimento per la riduzione del debito. Il patto sopra menzionato consente di prendere in
considerazione fattori pertinenti quando si intenda aprire una procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi in base ai criteri del
disavanzo e del debito. In tale ambito una soluzione realistica al debito commerciale italiano può essere rappresentata
da un piano di liquidazione mirante a riportare il debito a livelli non condizionati da ritardi nei pagamenti in tempi
relativamente brevi; la liquidazione dei debiti commerciali potrebbe rientrare tra i fattori attenuanti ( [4] ). Il cosiddetto
patto di bilancio ( _Fiscal Compact_ ) che rientra nel trattato intergovernativo sulla stabilità, sul coordinamento e sulla
governance in Europa non stabilisce norme più severe in materia.

L’8 aprile 2013 il governo italiano ha adottato un decreto legge ad effetto immediato che impegna l'Italia a pagare 40
miliardi di euro di arretrati durante il biennio 2013-2014. Tale decreto legge fornisce inoltre una quantificazione
ufficiale del debito commerciale ripartita per amministrazione debitrice e data di scadenza, consentendo così di
quantificare la percentuale in sofferenza. La Commissione seguirà con attenzione il processo di approvazione nel
Parlamento nazionale e la sua attuazione.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Il cosiddetto «six-pack».
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Stability and Growth Pact (SGP).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Cfr. MEMO/13/231.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 71

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004235/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of the Fiscal Compact and consequences for Italian enterprises of a possible block on old
payments by the public administration

On 14 March 2013 Antonio Tajani, European Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, and Olli Rehn,
European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, confirmed in a joint statement that the Commission
was prepared to take an extremely flexible approach to assessing any infringement by Italy of the Stability and
Growth Pact, which lays down a ceiling of 3% on the deficit/GDP ratio, where the breaching of the ceiling is due to the
payment of commercial debt owed by public administrations to enterprises.

Commissioner Tajani then called upon the Italian authorities to pay the outstanding exposure quickly and stated that
the entry into force of the Fiscal Compact, planned for the end of 2013, and the lack of clear data on the extent of the
public administration’s exposure to enterprises were both factors that could definitively block the payment of the
public administration’s debt overhang.

Since the president of the Association of Italian Banks (ABI) estimates that the public administration’s debt is
EUR 100 billion while, according to the Bank of Italy, these debts to enterprises amount to approximately
EUR 90 billion, can the Commission say:

—
whether it confirms the statements that the public administration’s debts, if not settled prior to full
implementation of the Fiscal Compact, would be definitively frozen?

—
If so, has it assessed the impact this would have on the Italian economy?

—
Have the Italian authorities already provided unambiguous and clear information, in a timely manner, on the
debt actually accumulated by the Italian public administrations to enterprises?

—
How does it intend to help find collective solutions in order to protect the claims of Italian enterprises with
financial exposure to the public administration?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The enhanced European budgetary governance ( [1] ) entered into force on 13 December 2011. Accordingly, an
Excessive Deficit Procedure ( [2] ) can now result from government debt developments as well as from government
deficit. The debt criterion of the Stability and Growth Pact ( [3] ) was made operational via a debt reduction benchmark.
However, the SGP allows for taking into account relevant factors when considering opening an EDP based on the
deficit and debt criteria. In this context, a realistic solution to the Italian commercial debt overhang is likely to involve
a liquidation plan with the objective of bringing such debt to levels not related to payment delays within a relatively
short timeframe and that the liquidation of overdue commercial debt would represent a mitigating factor ( [4] ). The socalled Fiscal Compact, i.e. part of the inter-governmental Treaty for Stability, Convergence and Governance in
Europe, does not provide for stricter rules in this respect.

On 8 April 2013, the Italian Government adopted an immediately-effective decree-law that provides for the payment
of EUR 40 billion of arrears over 2013-14. It also provides for an official quantification of trade debt, according to the
administration owing it and by date of expiry, thus allowing quantifying the proportion that is overdue. The
Commission will carefully monitor its approval process through the national Parliament and its implementation.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) So-called ‘six-pack’.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EDP.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) SGP.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) MEMO/13/231.

C 33 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004236/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Modifica del regolamento (CE) n. 1760/2000 sull'identificazione elettronica dei bovini e che sopprime le
disposizioni relative all'etichettatura facoltativa delle carni bovine

Il 10 settembre 2012 il Parlamento europeo ha votato la proposta di regolamento COM(2011)0525 che modifica il
regolamento (CE) n. 1760/2000, approvando la cancellazione del sistema di etichettatura facoltativa delle carni
bovine contenuta negli artt. 16, 17 e 18 del regolamento (CE) n. 1760/2000. Qualora la proposta fosse
definitivamente approvata anche dal Consiglio, i disciplinari di etichettatura volontaria e le loro eventuali modifiche
non sarebbero più soggetti ad un controllo ex ante da parte dell'autorità competente che potrebbe verificare solo a
posteriori, nel punto vendita, la veridicità delle informazioni facoltative fornite dal produttore al consumatore.

Le motivazioni addotte dalla Commissione ruotano intorno ai costi e alla burocrazia che gli Stati membri dovrebbero
sopportare per applicare l'attuale sistema che si rivelerebbe pertanto inutile. In Italia, i dati dimostrano invece che
soltanto nel 2011, secondo il Consorzio «L'Italia zootecnica», 618 000 bovini sono stati allevati secondo le regole dei
disciplinari di etichettatura facoltativa riconosciuti dal Mipaaf e controllate da organismi di certificazione. Si consideri
che USA e Canada, dove l'uso di ormoni è legale, stanno concertando un accordo con l'UE per il libero scambio di
carne bovina. Occorre inoltre prendere atto dei recenti scandali alimentari che hanno colpito il mercato europeo e
messo a rischio la salute dei consumatori europei.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

—
È a conoscenza della posizione delle associazioni italiane del settore che ritengono che gli articoli del
regolamento (CE) n. 1760/2000 rappresentino un'importante barriera contro le contraffazioni? Se sì, perché
non ne ha tenuto debitamente conto e quale strumento di tutela intende proporre?

—
Ha valutato che la soppressione di tali articoli potrebbe agevolare la distorsione e l'inganno dei consumatori
fuorviati con «autocertificazioni», quasi impossibili da controllare, soprattutto per la carne proveniente da paesi
extra-UE?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(14 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione era a conoscenza delle diverse posizioni assunte dalle parti interessate nel proporre la modifica al
regolamento (CE) n. 1760/2000. La proposta è stata presentata insieme ad una valutazione di impatto che esplorava
diverse opzioni di modifica del regolamento (SEC(2011)1009). La soppressione degli articoli relativi all'etichettatura
facoltativa delle carni bovine nel regolamento (CE) n. 1760/2000 non agevolerebbe la distorsione e l'inganno dei
consumatori in quanto nel regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 ( [1] ) relativo alle informazioni alimentari ai consumatori
sono state stabilite disposizioni orizzontali sull'etichettatura di tutte le carni. A norma dell'articolo 36 di quest'ultimo,
le informazioni sugli alimenti fornite su base volontaria non inducono in errore il consumatore. Per garantirne il
rispetto gli Stati membri effettuano controlli ufficiali conformemente al regolamento (CE) n. 882/2004 ( [2] ). Queste
disposizioni, applicabili a tutti i tipi di alimenti prodotti nell'Unione o all'estero, intendono proteggere gli interessi dei
consumatori e dare agli Stati membri gli strumenti per fare in modo che ciò avvenga.

Inoltre, l'abolizione dell'etichettatura facoltativa delle carni bovine era stata suggerita dal Gruppo di alto livello di parti
interessate indipendenti sui costi amministrativi (relazione Stoiber) e presentata nella comunicazione della
Commissione su un Programma d'azione per la riduzione degli oneri amministrativi nell'Unione europea
(COM(2007)23). Il Parlamento europeo ha appoggiato questo Programma d'azione nella sua risoluzione del 10 luglio
2007 sulla riduzione dei costi amministrativi imposti dalla legislazione (2005/2140 (INI)).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 304 del 22.11.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 165 del 30.4.2004.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 73

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004236/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Amendment of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 on the electronic identification of bovine animals and deleting
the provisions on voluntary beef labelling

On 10 September 2012 the European Parliament adopted the proposal for a regulation (COM(2011)0525) amending
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000, approving the abolition of the voluntary beef labelling system contained in
Articles 16, 17 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000. If the proposal is also definitively approved by the Council,
the measures governing voluntary labelling and any amendments to them would no longer be subject to _ex-ante_
scrutiny by the relevant authority; the authority would only be able to verify after the fact, at sales points, the truth of
the voluntary information provided by producers to consumers.

The reasons given by the Commission revolve around the costs and the administrative burden that the Member States
incur in applying the current system, which it says has therefore not proven to be helpful. In Italy, the data show, in
fact, that in 2011 alone, according to the _Italia zootecnica_ consortium, 618 000 bovine animals were reared in
accordance with the rules of the voluntary labelling measures recognised by the Italian Ministry for Food, Agriculture
and Forestry and checked by certification bodies. It should be noted that the United States and Canada, where the use
of hormones is legal, are concluding an agreement with the EU for free trade in bovine meat. It should also be noted
that recent food scandals have hit the European market and put European consumers’ health at risk.

— Is the Commission aware of the position of the Italian associations in the sector, which consider that the articles in
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 constitute a significant barrier to counterfeiting? If so, why has it not taken this into
due consideration, and what protection instrument does it intend to propose?

— Has it considered that the removal of these articles could facilitate distortion and the deception of consumers, who
could be misled by ‘self-certifications’, which are nigh on impossible to check, particularly for meat from countries
outside the EU?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission was aware of the different positions raised by the various stakeholders when presenting its proposal
amending Regulation (EC) 1760/2000. The proposal was presented together with an impact assessment exploring
different options to amend the regulation (SEC(2011)1009). The proposed deletion of the articles on voluntary beef
labelling in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 would not facilitate distortion and deception of consumers because
horizontal provisions concerning labelling of all meats have been laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 ( [1] ) on
food information to consumers. According to Article 36 of this regulation, food information provided on a voluntary
basis shall not mislead the consumer. In order to enforce compliance Member States carry out official controls in
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 ( [2] ). These provisions, applicable to all types of food, whether
produced in the Union or abroad, intend to protect the interest of consumers and give Member States the tools to
make sure that this is the case.

In addition, abolishing voluntary beef labelling had been suggested by the High Level Group of Independent
Stakeholders on Administrative costs (Stoiber report) and presented in the communication from the Commission on
an Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union (COM(2007)23). The European
Parliament supported this Action Programme in its resolution of 10 July 2007 on minimising administrative costs
imposed by legislation (2005/2140(INI)).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 304, 22.11.2011.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 165, 30.4.2004.

C 33 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004237/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Distorsioni nel mercato RC auto italiano e danni per gli automobilisti italiani

I dati raccolti dall'Antitrust sui costi della polizza «Responsabilità civile autoveicoli», la cosiddetta RC Auto, cioè il
contratto assicurativo obbligatorio associato a ogni veicolo immatricolato e circolante su strada, sono molto chiari. I
premi pagati dagli automobilisti italiani per acquistare una polizza RC auto sono in media più elevati e crescono più
velocemente rispetto a quelli dei principali paesi europei. Mentre in Europa questo prodotto costa circa 230 euro, in
Italia gli automobilisti spendono annualmente almeno 407 euro. Il premio medio pagato dagli italiani, secondo
l'Antitrust, corrisponde a più del doppio di quello pagato dai francesi e dai portoghesi, supera quello tedesco dell'80 %
circa e quello olandese di quasi il 70 %.

La denuncia dell'Antitrust arriva proprio quando due delle tre principali compagnie assicurative italiane, Fondiaria Sai
e Unipol, si apprestano a realizzare un fusione. A difesa degli automobilisti italiani, penalizzati da un mercato
assicurativo troppo rigido e sbilanciato a favore delle grandi compagnie, le associazioni dei consumatori Adusbef e
Federconsumatori chiedono il taglio delle tariffe, maggiore concorrenza nel settore e la garanzia di una maggiore
flessibilità.

Considerato che una ricerca effettuata dall'ACI, l'Automobile club italiano, ha stimato la presenza nel nostro paese di
circa 4 milioni di veicoli che circolano senza assicurazione anche per l'impossibilità da parte degli automobilisti di
sostenere il costo della polizza a causa della crisi, può la Commissione far sapere:

—
se è a conoscenza di questi dati che descrivono le dinamiche del settore RC auto italiano;

— se ritiene che in Italia sia in atto una distorsione di tale mercato con violazione della normativa Antitrust
vigente e, in caso affermativo, come intende intervenire;

—
se reputa che esista una correlazione fra i dati inerenti al mancato pagamento delle polizze auto su veicoli
circolanti e il prezzo delle stesse e se ha intenzione di indagare su questo fenomeno;

—
quanti veicoli sprovvisti di polizza RCA circolano secondo i dati in suo possesso nel territorio dell'UE e quali
sono gli Stati membri in cui il problema è più sentito;

—
come intende agire per contrastare questo fenomeno e riequilibrare la situazione degli automobilisti italiani su
quella della media europea?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(25 giugno 2013)_

1. La Commissione segue gli sviluppi nei mercati nazionali di assicurazioni di autoveicoli ed è a conoscenza delle
differenze di prezzo dei premi assicurativi nell’UE dovute a strutture di rischio e costi di risarcimento diversi tra gli
Stati membri e anche al loro interno.

2. La Commissione rinvia l’onorevole deputato all’indagine settoriale dell’Autorità italiana Garante per la
Concorrenza e il Mercato (AGCM) del 22 febbraio 2013 ( [1] ).

L’AGCM ha riscontrato che, in media, dal 2007 al 2010 i prezzi dei premi assicurativi RC Auto in Italia sono
aumentati notevolmente e che nello stesso tempo anche il costo del risarcimento dei sinistri ha avuto un incremento.

L’indagine non ipotizza che ci sia stata una violazione delle norme UE in materia di concorrenza.

Tuttavia l’AGCM ha identificato aree dove il funzionamento di questo mercato in Italia potrebbe essere migliorato e
ha consigliato alcune misure per incoraggiare gli automobilisti a cambiare assicuratore.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.agcm.it/trasp-statistiche/doc_download/3632-ic42-testo-indagine.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 75

3. Fondi di garanzia negli Stati membri provvedono a risarcire le vittime di incidenti automobilistici causati da
autoveicoli non coperti da assicurazione. Tali fondi sono sostenuti dalle compagnie di assicurazione che operano in
quel paese. I costi degli incidenti causati da veicoli non coperti da assicurazione gravano in ultima analisi sugli
automobilisti assicurati attraverso il rincaro dei premi di assicurazione e dei contributi ai fondi di garanzia per la
responsabilità civile. La lotta contro la guida senza copertura assicurativa è molto importante al fine di proteggere gli
interessi dei conducenti assicurati.

4.-5. La Commissione crede che sia di vitale importanza lottare contro la circolazione di veicoli sprovvisti di polizza
RCA. Ai sensi della direttiva 2009/103/CE, ( [2] ) gli Stati membri adottano tutte le opportune disposizioni al fine di
assicurare che tutti gli autoveicoli in circolazione nell’UE siano coperti da assicurazione obbligatoria.

In conclusione, la Commissione chiede regolarmente agli Stati Membri di fornire stime circa la circolazione di veicoli
sprovvisti di polizza RCA. Le ultime stime risalgono al 2010 e saranno fornite nuovamente in tempo utile.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 263 del 7.10.2009.

C 33 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004237/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Distortions in the Italian third-party vehicle insurance market and effects on Italian drivers

The data collected by the Antitrust Authority on the costs of third-party vehicle insurance policies, namely the
mandatory insurance contract for every vehicle that is registered and is driven on the roads, are very clear. The
premiums paid by Italian drivers to purchase a third-party vehicle insurance policy are on average higher and are
growing more rapidly than those in the other main European countries. Whereas in Europe this product costs
approximately EUR 230, in Italy drivers spend at least EUR 407 per year. According to the Antitrust Authority, the
average premium paid by Italians is more than double what is paid by the French and the Portuguese, it exceeds the
premium in Germany by approximately 80% and the premium in the Netherlands by nearly 70%.

The complaint by the Antitrust Authority has been issued just as two of the three main Italian insurance companies,
Fondiaria Sai and Unipol, are preparing to merge. To protect Italian drivers, who are penalised by an over-rigid
insurance market that is imbalanced in favour of the large companies, the consumer associations Adusbef and
Federconsumatori are calling for a cut in rates, greater competition in the sector and a guarantee of more flexibility.

A study carried out by the Italian Automobile Club (ACI) estimated that there are approximately 4 million vehicles on
our country’s roads without insurance, partly because it is impossible for drivers to afford policies as a result of the
crisis.

— Is the Commission aware of these data, describing the dynamics in the Italian third-party vehicle insurance sector?

— Does it consider that the market is being distorted in Italy, with infringement of the applicable antitrust legislation?
If so, what action does it intend to take?

— Does it believe there is a correlation between the data on failure to pay for insurance policies for vehicles on the
road and the price of the policies? Does it intend to investigate this phenomenon?

— How many vehicles without third-party vehicle insurance are in circulation on EU territory, according to the data it
possesses, and which Member States have the most acute problem?

— How does it intend to counteract this phenomenon and bring the situation of Italian drivers back into equilibrium
with the European average?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 June 2013)_

1. The Commission follows developments in the national motor insurance markets and is aware of price
differences in motor insurance premiums in the EU due to different risk structures and costs of claims between and
within Member States.

2. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the sectoral inquiry of the Italian competition
authority (AGCM) of 22 February 2013 ( [1] ).

The AGCM noted that, on average, from 2007 to 2010, prices of third-party motor insurance in Italy have increased
significantly. At the same time, the cost of reimbursing a claim for damages has also gone up.

The sectoral inquiry does not suggest that there is a violation of EU competition rules.

The AGCM, however, identified areas where the functioning of this market in Italy could be improved and
recommended certain measures to encourage drivers to switch from one insurer to another.

3. Guarantee funds in the Member States compensate victims of traffic accidents caused by uninsured vehicles.
These funds are supported by motor insurers operating in that country. Costs of accidents caused by uninsured
vehicles are ultimately borne by insured drivers through higher insurance premiums and higher contributions to the
third party liability guarantee funds. Combating uninsured driving is vital for protecting insured drivers’ interests.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.agcm.it/trasp-statistiche/doc_download/3632-ic42-testo-indagine.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 77

4-5. The Commission believes that it is essential to combat uninsured driving. According to
Directive 2009/103/EC ( [2] ), Member States shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that motor vehicles in the EU
are covered by compulsory insurance.

Finally, the Commission regularly asks the Member States to provide estimates of uninsured driving. This exercise was
last done in 2010 and will be repeated in due course.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 263, 7.10.2009.

C 33 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004238/13**

**to the Commission**
**Emer Costello (S&D)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Preparatory action ‘Youth Guarantee’

Further to its answer to my priority Written Question P-009857/2012 of 26 November 2012, when does the
Commission expect to be in a position to announce the results of the preparatory action ‘Youth Guarantee’, which is
aimed at ‘supporting partnerships for activation measures targeting young people through projects in the context of
Youth Guarantee schemes at national, regional or local level’ (Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion call for
proposals No VP/2012/012, Budget Heading 04.04.17)?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The evaluation procedure of this call for proposal ( [1] ) has received a very high number of replies (115) implying some
delays.

The results of the procedure should be available by mid-June 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Call for Proposals VP/2012/012: preparatory action to support partnerships for activation measures targeting young people through projects in
the context of Youth Guarantee schemes at national, regional or local level.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 79

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-004239/13**

**à Comissão**
**Mário David (PPE)**
_(15 de abril de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Interdição de treinos em voos com passageiros

A segurança aérea é um dos pilares da política de transporte da UE. Trata-se de algo em que não é permitido facilitar
nem improvisar, exigindo-se o cumprimento escrupuloso das regras. Pergunto à Comissão se uma empresa aérea da
UE, e no seu espaço aéreo, pode fazer voos de treino em voos comerciais, com passageiros? Em caso afirmativo, há ou
não a obrigação da concordância das autoridades dos países das rotas em que tais treinos são efetuados? E, se for
permitido, assiste ou não aos passageiros o direito de saber previamente da existência de tais treinos no seu voo? E é
ética e deontologicamente aceitável que o Comandante minta aos passageiros? E não pensa a Comissão que é de
proibir taxativamente esses voos com passageiros?

Porquê esta questão? No passado dia 19 de março, viajei de Paris para Lisboa no voo Air France 1924, com chegada
prevista às 17h25. Um voo sem história, uma aproximação normal e, surpresa, toque das rodas no chão e aterragem
abortada! O Comandante justifica a operação com um golpe de vento. Nova aproximação, calma, e … novo borregar!
Aí, o Comandante volta a anunciar «ventos traiçoeiros» e «garante» que «à terceira será de vez»! E foi, 40 minutos
depois da hora prevista … Há 24 anos no Parlamento Europeu e depois de mais de 1 000 aterragens em Lisboa, nunca
tinha borregado neste aeroporto! Mas, ao sair do avião, reparo na ficha de bordo e comento com a chefe de cabine a
coincidência de tal ter ocorrido num dia em que a tripulação incluía 2 copilotos chineses. A reação intempestiva dela,
arrancando a ficha afixada, fez-me indagar. Vamos aos factos: naquele dia, em Lisboa, nenhum outro voo abortou a
aterragem! Quando das duas tentativas «frustradas», o vento era de 10 nós contrários e de 350 graus, as condições
ideais para uma aterragem na pista principal de Lisboa, pelo que os controladores aéreos ficaram atónitos quando, e
por duas vezes, o Comandante comunicou à Torre que tinha borregado por se sentir «desconfortável» com um vento
inexistente! Consegui também apurar que a Air France tem um contrato de formação de pilotos chineses.

**Resposta dada por Siim Kallas em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

Antes de lhe poderem ser atribuídas funções aos comandos de uma aeronave de transporte de passageiros, a pessoa
responsável deve ter completado a formação obrigatória e ser titular de uma licença e qualificações, em conformidade
com a legislação aplicável.

Além disso, não é possível simular situações anormais ou de emergência no decurso de voos comerciais.

No entanto, a formação de familiarização ulterior (designada por formação de linha) realiza-se com passageiros a
bordo, a fim de formar o piloto na condução de operações normais. Tal formação é sempre ministrada por um
comandante devidamente qualificado para o efeito.

No que respeita, mais concretamente, ao incidente a que se refere o Senhor Deputado, a Comissão contactou a
transportadora aérea em causa e obteve confirmação dos dois procedimentos de aproximação falhada. A companhia
confirma igualmente que o sucedido está em conformidade com procedimentos operacionais normais, em que cabia
ao piloto decidir sobre os parâmetros para uma aterragem em condições de segurança.

Por último, foi confirmada a presença de dois tripulantes de voo da própria companhia na cabina, bem como de dois
pilotos chineses, devidamente qualificados para o tipo de avião em causa (Airbus 320), que efetuavam um voo de
familiarização com a rota. A companhia salientou que os dois procedimentos de aproximação falhada não estiveram,
de modo algum, relacionados com a presença destes dois pilotos chineses na cabina.

C 33 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004239/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mário David (PPE)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Prohibition of pilot training on passenger flights

I would like to know whether an EU airline operating in EU airspace can use commercial flights carrying passengers to
train pilots. If so, is approval required from the authorities in the countries through which such flights pass? Are
passengers entitled to be informed about such training in advance? Is it ethically and morally acceptable for a flight
captain to lie to passengers?

On 19 March 2013 I travelled from Paris to Lisbon on flight Air France 1924, which was scheduled to land at 17.25.
The flight passed uneventfully and we made a normal approach but then, to our surprise, the landing was aborted as
the wheels touched the ground! The reason given by the captain was a gust of wind. We made a fresh approach,
which appeared to go smoothly, and then the landing was again aborted! The captain informed us that there were
‘treacherous winds’ and ‘guaranteed’ that it would be a case of ‘third time lucky’! Which it was, 40 minutes after the
scheduled arrival time. I have been a Member of the European Parliament for 24 years and have landed at Lisbon
airport more than 1 000 times, but I had never before experienced an aborted landing at this airport. On leaving the
aircraft I noticed from the on-board information sheet that the crew included two Chinese co-pilots and commented
on this coincidence to the senior cabin crew member. Her abrupt reaction was to snatch the information sheet, which
prompted me to make enquiries.

It turns out that there were no other aborted landings in Lisbon that day. When the Air France flight made its two
failed attempts to land, there was a headwind at 350 degrees with a wind speed of 10 knots, ideal conditions for
landing at Lisbon’s main runway. Air traffic controllers were therefore astonished when the captain twice informed
the tower that he was aborting the landing because he felt ‘uncomfortable’ with a non-existent wind! I also discovered
that Air France has a contract to train Chinese pilots.

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

A person must have completed the required training and must have been issued a licence and ratings, according to the
applicable legislation, before this person can be assigned duties at the controls of an airplane carrying passengers.

Furthermore, abnormal or emergency situations cannot be simulated during commercial air transportation flights.

However, further familiarisation training (known as line training) is conducted with passengers on board in order to
train the pilot with the conduct of normal operations. This is always done with a qualified training captain as the
commander.

More specifically, in relation to the incident the Honourable Member mentions, the Commission was in contact with
the air carrier referred to. The Commission got confirmation of the initiation of the two missed approach procedures.
The company also confirms that what happened is in accordance with standard operating procedures, whereby the
pilot could make a judgment in relation to the parameters for a safety landing.

Finally, it was confirmed that on the flight deck were present two flight crew members of the company itself, as well
as two Chinese pilots, the latter being fully qualified pilots on the airplane type (Airbus 320), who were in a route
familiarisation flight. It was underlined by the company that the two missed approach procedures were in no way
linked to the presence of these two Chinese pilots in the flight deck.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 81

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-004240/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE)**

_(15 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Regulación comercial catalana

Uno de los mayores éxitos económicos de la Unión Europea es la creación de un mercado único europeo y la
liberalización de nuestras economías; sin embargo, aún queda mucho recorrido para lograr un verdadero mercado
único integrado, flexible y liberalizado.

Un ejemplo de regulación restrictiva y proteccionista lo sufrimos en Cataluña. La propia Autoridad Catalana de la
Competencia (ACCO), organismo independiente del Gobierno autonómico catalán, considera que la normativa
catalana de comercio es «injustificadamente restrictiva» y denuncia que tiene unos efectos adversos en la economía
catalana, los consumidores y, paradójicamente, también sobre los pequeños comerciantes a los que la ley quiere
defender.

La ACCO y muchos sectores empresariales y consumidores defienden que «en un momento de crisis como el actual,
es conveniente una regulación comercial flexible que no introduzca trabas en la actividad económica».

¿Tiene la Comisión alguna hoja de ruta para avanzar en la integración y flexibilidad comercial en nuestro continente?

¿Apoya la Comisión que se debe liberalizar la regulación comercial en casos como Cataluña donde la propia
regulación genera efectos adversos en la economía?

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(12 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión sigue desarrollando el mercado interior y aprovechando su potencial no explotado como motor para el
crecimiento. El informe de la Comisión sobre el ejercicio de supervisión del mercado del comercio y de la distribución
señaló la presencia de numerosos obstáculos al mercado único en el sector minorista. La importancia de estos
obstáculos se ha confirmado en el informe del Parlamento Europeo «Hacia un mercado interior del comercio y de la
distribución más justo y eficaz». Para abordar estos obstáculos fundamentales detectados y desarrollar todo el
potencial del sector minorista en Europa, el 31 de enero de 2013 la Comisión adoptó el Plan de Acción Europeo para
el Comercio Minorista.

La Comisión tiene la intención de crear un Grupo sobre Competitividad en el Comercio Minorista, que debe ayudar a
seguir desarrollando objetivos específicos para los ámbitos determinados, vigilar los progresos registrados, emitir
recomendaciones con el fin de garantizar la plena aplicación de las acciones incluidas en este Plan y, en caso
necesario, asesorar a la Comisión sobre posibles nuevas acciones. A este respecto, la Comisión seguirá supervisando
las cuestiones específicas relacionadas con el establecimiento comercial, teniendo en cuenta todas las novedades que
se produzcan en los Estados miembros, incluida España.

La Comisión ha seguido de cerca la aplicación de la Directiva de servicios en los Estados miembros. Está al corriente,
en particular, de la Ley del Mercado Único y reconoce el grado de ambición del anteproyecto. Por principio, es
importante que el ejercicio de una actividad económica no se tope con obstáculos internos entre diferentes regiones
de un Estado miembro, ni con obstáculos en otros Estados miembros.

C 33 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004240/13**

**to the Commission**
**Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Catalan trade regulation

One of the EU’s major economic success stories is the creation of a single European market and the liberalisation of
our economies. Nevertheless, there is still much to be done in order to achieve a real, integrated, flexible and
liberalised single market.

One example of restrictive and protectionist rules is the situation we find in Catalonia. The Catalan Competition
Authority (ACCO), which is independent of the Catalan autonomous regional government, itself considers the
Catalan trade regulations to be ‘unjustifiably strict’ and maintains that they have an detrimental effect on the Catalan
economy, consumers and, paradoxically, the small traders which the law aims to protect.

ACCO and many business and consumer sectors maintain that ‘a time of crisis such as the present calls for flexible
trade rules which do not create hurdles for economic activity’.

Does the Commission have any roadmap for making progress on commercial flexibility and integration on our
continent?

Does the Commission support the liberalisation of trade regulations in cases such as that of Catalonia, where the rules
themselves have an adverse impact on the economy?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The Commission continues to further develop the internal market and exploit its untapped potential as an engine for
growth. Numerous barriers to the Single Market in Retail were identified in the Commission's Retail Market
Monitoring Report. The importance of those barriers has been confirmed in the EP's Report ‘Towards a more efficient
and fair retail sector’. To address these key obstacles identified and to unleash the full potential of the retail sector in
Europe, the Commission has adopted on 31 January 2013 a European Retail Action.

The Commission intends to set up a Group on Retail Competitiveness that should help develop further specific
objectives for the areas identified, monitor progress achieved, issue recommendations to ensure full implementation
of the actions included in this Plan and, where necessary, will advise the Commission on possible new actions. In this
regard, the Commission will continue to monitor the specific issues related to commercial establishment, taking into
account all new developments which occur in the Member States, including Spain.

The Commission has followed the implementation of the Services Directive in Member States. It is particularly aware
of the Ley del Mercado Unico and acknowledges the level of ambition of the first draft. As a matter of principle, it is
important that the exercise of an economic activity does not face internal obstacles between different regions of a
Member State as well as obstacles with other Member States.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 83

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004241/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU withdrawal from Syria

With the recent death of a member of the EU Syria Delegation in a Damascus suburb, what protection is being given
to EU staff based in war zones?

Additionally, with the withdrawal of all EU international staff and the closure of its Damascus office in
December 2012, how is the EEAS ensuring that efforts are made to allow for a swift and peaceful ending to the
conflict in Syria?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

The fatal incident in Damascus involved an off-duty member of our local staff. Although a deeply regrettable incident,
the EEAS had no duty of care in these circumstances.

The EEAS takes its duty of care responsibilities for staff, local and international, extremely seriously in all
environments. In war zones a range of measures are used to protect staff including hardened accommodation,
armoured vehicles, close protection teams and special security risk management measures.

The EU supports the joint Russian-US call for a peace conference on Syria. The EU stands ready to assist in any way
possible and urges both sides of the conflict to enter into negotiations without preconditions. The EU continues its
support for the mission of the Joint Special Representative of the UN and the League of Arab States to Syria, and
demands, in this regard, that all Syrian parties work with his Office to implement rapidly the transition plan set forth
in the final communiqué issued by the Action Group for Syria on 30 June 2012. The EU also supports the efforts of
the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) towards strengthening its structures, making them more inclusive and
ensuring that the new SOC leadership continues with the political dialogue initiative of SOC's former President M. alKhatib.

The EU has stepped up its assistance — both humanitarian and non-humanitarian, including support to the local
population in rebel-contested areas. The overall support amount, including pledges, now reaches EUR 800 million.
The Council has recently adopted a sanctions decision to further support to the Syrian civilian population. The EU
agreed to review the sanctions regime regularly, taking into account the objective of helping the Syrian civilian
population.

C 33 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004242/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syrian child soldiers

With the continuation of the war in Syria, where over 70 000 people have been killed, there is now evidence which
suggests that children are increasingly being used as porters, guards, informers and fighters, according to Childhood
Under Fire. Unicef reports that there is a lost generation emerging in Syria, with three in every four children having
lost a loved one during the course of the conflict.

With a growing pattern of children under the age of 18 being used by armed groups on both the opposition and
government sides of the conflict, what is being done by the international community to ensure that the lives of
children caught in the conflict are protected?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The EU is working closely with the Office of the Special Representative for children and armed conflict, Ms L.
Zerrougui, including as regards the situation of children in Syria. The EU updated its priority list of countries for the
implementation of the EU Guidelines on children and armed conflict after the last year's decision of the UN Security
Council to include Syria on the UN ‘black-list’ of perpetrators of grave violations against children.

As noted recently by Ms Zerrougui (http://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/press-releases/sc-must-ensure-an-end-tothe-violence-against-children-in-syria/), several grave violations against children are continuing to take place in Syria,
including killing and maiming, attacks on schools and hospitals and direct use of children in hostilities: ‘Children as
young as ten are recruited and used by armed opposition groups for military purposes, including as porters,
messengers and combatants. Children are allegedly also being used as human shields by Governments forces.’ The
Security Council will address this issue latest during its annual debate on children and armed conflict in the Summer
2013.

The EU is also currently supporting Unicef’s and other actors’ efforts in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with
EUR 30 million to provide adequate education and psychosocial services to affected Syrian children, and is currently
examining ways to scale up this support.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 85

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004243/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Funding to NGOs in the Middle East

According to NGO Monitor, the Commission provides millions of euros annually in funding to political advocacy
NGOs operating in the Arab-Israeli conflict, with many of the groups engaging in campaigns and activities that are
not consistent with EU foreign policy objectives.

An example of this is the Gaza-based Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Oxfam Novib securing a
EUR 298 339.08 grant from the EU to ‘contribute to the abolition of the death penalty in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, applied by the Palestinian National Authority via judicial death sentences’ by the Israeli military.

How does the Commission respond to these claims, and how does it ensure that advocacy work engages in purely
legitimate activities?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The project ‘Awareness-rasing and lobbying against the death penalty in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’ was
financed from ‘European initiative for democracy and human rights’ funds in 2005. The action’s objectives were the
following:

—
to advocate and raise public awareness for the abolition of laws allowing for the death penalty; specifically
Article 37 of the Palestinian Penal Law 74 of 1936 applicable to the Gaza Strip; Article 14 of the Jordanian
Penal Law 16 of 1960 applicable to the West Bank and Palestine Liberation Organisation Revolutionary Penal
Code of 1979 applicable to both areas;

—
to contribute to the abolition of the Palestinian State Security Court;

—
to provide legal aid to people charged with an offence which may result in the death penalty under Palestinian
Law and to commute or abrogate death sentences by lobbying the Office of the President to issue a general
moratorium on the death penalty or secure such a moratorium on a case by case basis.

—
to raise international awareness with respect to extra-judicial executions committed by the Israeli military.

The grant awarded for this action was consistent with EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty and supported this specific
project and not the general operations of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in question.

More generally, the EU monitors advocacy work in the same way as other funded activities-through visits, the
implementation of visibility guidelines (including use of disclaimers), reviewing of field reports and through eligibility
analyses.

C 33 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004244/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Iranian nuclear ambitions

Recently the situation in Iran was discussed in the Delegation for Relations with Israel. According to the Director of
the Transatlantic Institute, Iran is only six weeks away from having enriched uranium weapons. With this increasing
evidence of Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons, how does the EU respond to such claims?

Additionally, is the EU taking part in the sanctions imposed against Iran, and will the EU take further action against
the regime if it threatens the stability of the region?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

The European Council has repeatedly stressed its serious and deepening concerns over Iran's nuclear programme and
the lack of progress in talks between Iran and the IAEA. Together with the E3+3 (CHN, FR, GER, RF, UK, US), the
HR/VP continues to be engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts aimed at seeking a negotiated solution to address
international concerns over the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme. Iran is being requested
to bring its nuclear activities in full compliance with its international obligations under various UNSC and IAEA
Board of Governors resolutions and to refrain from actions that increase the concerns of the international community
about the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme. The EU strongly supported the adoption of
all relevant UNSC or IAEA Board of Governors' resolutions, calling on Iran to comply with all of its international
obligations.

The EU sanction policy regarding Iran is part of the E3/EU+3's dual track approach consisting of diplomacy and
sanctions. In response to Iran's ongoing violations of its international commitments, the EU adopted in 2012 two
rounds of additional strong sanctions, beyond the ones imposed on Iran by UNSC Resolutions. The first round
included a complete ban on the import of Iranian oil on the part of the EU, which took full effect on 1 July 2012.
Another package decided in October includes additional measures in the areas of finance, trade, energy, transport, as
well as additional designations. These measures, in particular the oil ban, are having a significant effect on Iran. The
EU’s sanctions target the nuclear, military and ballistic programmes of Iran directly and revenues that the Iranian
government uses for these programmes.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 87

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004246/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU funding for regions

According to recent reports, under the new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) the poorest regions of richer
Member States are going to receive major cuts to their regional funding. In the UK this will affect Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales the most.

Can the Commission state whether money will be allocated to ensure that those less well-off regions continue to
receive adequate EU funds?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

Although the allocation distribution methodology proposed for the 2014-2020 period takes into account elements
of national prosperity, it is primarily based on indicators related to the NUTS level 2 regions. This approach ensures
that regional characteristics, measured in a comparable and harmonised way, determine the level of support.

In addition, on 26 March the UK Government published a proposal for the provisional distribution of the MFF
allocation to the different UK regions. This would entail a 5% across-the-board reduction vis-à-vis 2007-2013
national allocations.

C 33 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004247/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Zimbabwean referendum

Following the successful referendum in Zimbabwe, the EU has announced that it will be suspending sanctions against
most Zimbabwean officials.

Will the lifting of the sanctions be revoked with immediate effect if these officials misuse power in the future?

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

_(3 June 2013)_

Following the holding of a peaceful and credible referendum on a new constitution on 16 March 2013 in Zimbabwe,
the EU has agreed to immediately suspend the application of EU restrictive measures against 81 individuals and eight
entities. The suspension will be subject to a three month review, assessing the validity of the conditions for the
suspension. Should the situation on the ground seriously deteriorate, the EU could decide to immediately reactivate
the measures.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 89

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004248/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instability in the Central African Republic

With the recent reports of the death of 13 South African soldiers fighting militants in the Central African Republic,
could the Commission state what support, if any, is being given to the Central African Republic Government in their
fight against those trying to destabilise the region?

Additionally, does the EU plan to assist in the elections in the Central African Republic, to ensure that they remain
free and fair?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

The European Union is strongly concerned about the deteriorating security situation in the Central African Republic
(CAR). The HR/VP refers the Honourable Member to her statements issued respectively on 21 April and 25 March.

The European Union has continued to provide support to the political process that led to the adoption, under
mediation of the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), of a transitional agreement to stabilise the
country and restore the constitutional order.

Noting that security is a precondition for recovery, the EU has supported MICOPAX, an ECCAS-led peace support
operation, since its inception in 2008. For 2013, the EU already provided a contribution of EUR 6.3 million.

As the delivery of all support to the country is currently extremely difficult, and since the needs — especially
humanitarian — are rapidly growing, the EU is currently reviewing its strategy and support for CAR. In this context,
the EU is also examining a possible support to assist the transitional authorities in the elections to ensure that will be
free and fair. However, such assistance can only be mobilised at a later stage as a minimum level of security must be
re-established first. The restoration of public order and security further conditions the recovery of the administrative
activity in the CAR which is essential for any progress on the electoral process.

C 33 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004708/13**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(26 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Pierwsza rosyjska organizacja skazana jako „zagraniczny agent”

25 kwietnia 2013 r. sąd w Moskwie wydał wyrok w sprawie organizacji „Gołos”, monitorującej przebieg wyborów
w Rosji. Sąd skazał organizację na karę grzywny w wysokości 300 tys. rubli za to, że nie zarejestrowała się ona jako
„zagraniczny agent”, czego wymaga ustawa o organizacjach otrzymujących finansowanie z zagranicy. Karę grzywny
w wysokości 100 tys. rubli otrzymała również dyrektor wykonawcza „Gołosu”, Lilia Szibanowa.

Jest to pierwszy wyrok dla organizacji pozarządowej podjęty na podstawie ustawy o „agentach zagranicznych”,
jednak takich spraw w ciągu ostatnich tygodni zostało wszczętych więcej. Jak alarmują obrońcy praw człowieka,
sytuacja rosyjskiego społeczeństwa obywatelskiego jest obecnie najgorsza w całej postsowieckiej historii Federacji
Rosyjskiej. W całym kraju trwają rewizje organizacji pozarządowych, które paraliżują ich działalność.

W związku z tym, pragnę zapytać, czy Komisja posiada informacje na temat skali rewizji, które odbywają się
w biurach rosyjskich organizacji pozarządowych i czy ma zamiar podjąć interwencję w sprawie prześladowania
organizacji „Gołos” i jej pracowników?

**Wspólna odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton**

**w imieniu Komisji**
_(26 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Zgodnie z oświadczeniem Wysokiej Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącej z dnia 26 marca 2013 r., UE jest
poinformowana o kontrolach i inspekcjach wymierzonych w organizacje pozarządowe w Federacji Rosyjskiej. Dnia
28 kwietnia 2013 r. rzecznik Wysokiej Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącej wydał oświadczenie, w którym wyraził
zaniepokojenie UE związane ze skazaniem na karę grzywny organizacji pozarządowej Golos i jej dyrektor na
podstawie przedmiotowej ustawy.

Trwające akcje, którym towarzyszy wprowadzenie ostatniego pakietu ustaw, prześladowania działaczy
społeczeństwa obywatelskiego oraz zaniechanie działania w kilku głośnych przypadkach naruszeń praw człowieka
składają się na niepokojącą tendencję. Inspekcje i przeszukiwania wymierzone w rosyjskie organizacje pozarządowe
zagrażają działaniom społeczeństwa obywatelskiego w Rosji i dyskredytują wielu beneficjentów zagranicznych
środków finansowych, niezależnie od ich działalności, poprzez nazywanie ich „zagranicznymi agentami”.

W ostatnim czasie UE wyrażała swoje opinie na ten temat podczas różnych dwustronnych kontaktów ze stroną
rosyjską oraz wezwała Rosję do wywiązania się ze swoich zobowiązań międzynarodowych w zakresie wolności
zrzeszania się, w szczególności wynikających z europejskiej konwencji praw człowieka. Szef delegatury Unii
w Federacji Rosyjskiej przekazał władzom rosyjskim w dwustronnych kontaktach ten jasny sygnał ze strony UE.

Także konsultacje UE-Rosja dotyczące praw człowieka, które odbyły się 17 maja 2013 r., były okazją dla UE do
uzyskania informacji dotyczących przyczyny tych bezprecedensowych kontroli oraz wyjaśnienia definicji
„działalności politycznej”, jak i kryteriów, według których organizacje pozarządowe zmuszone są do rejestracji jako
„zagraniczni agenci”. Z racji, iż wiele organizacji zostało postawionych przed sądem na skutek tych kontroli, a wiele
innych otrzymało oficjalne „upomnienia”, UE będzie uważnie śledzić rozwój wydarzeń w zakresie przedmiotowej
ustawy za pośrednictwem swojej delegatury w Moskwie.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 91

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004249/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Russian tax inspectors

With EU officials voicing concern over Russian tax inspectors carrying out checks on foreign‐funded NGOs, could the
Commission state what action will be taken against the Russian authorities?

Additionally, will Vice-President/High Representative Ashton speak to the relevant Russian authorities to explain why
such action has taken place?

**Question for written answer E-004708/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(26 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ First Russian organisation convicted under law on ‘foreign agents'

On 25 April 2013, a court in Moscow passed sentence in a case brought against the Russian election monitoring
organisation _Golos_ (Voice). The court imposed a fine of RUB 300 000 on the organisation for its failure to register as a
‘foreign agent’, as required by a law on organisations receiving foreign funding. A fine of RUB 100 000 was also
imposed on Lilya Shibanova, Executive Director of _Golos_ .

This is the first judgment passed against a non‐governmental organisation under the law on ‘foreign agents’. However,
many more such cases have been brought in recent weeks. Human rights defenders are alarmed that conditions for
civil society in Russia are now worse than at any other point in the country's post‐Soviet history. Raids are being
conducted against NGOs throughout Russia, effectively paralysing their activities.

Does the Commission have information on the scale of the raids being conducted on the offices of Russian NGOs,
and does it intend to make representations with regard to the persecution of _Golos_ and its workers?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

As expressed by the HR/VP in a statement on 26 March 2013, the EU is aware of the checks and inspections affecting
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the Russian Federation. On 28 April 2013, the spokesperson of the
HR/VP issued a statement expressing the EU's concerns on the fact that the NGO Golos and her director were fined on
the basis of this law.

The ongoing raids, taken together with the recent package of legislation, the prosecution of civil society activists and
the lack of action in some prominent cases of human rights abuses, constitute a troubling trend. The inspections and
searches launched against the Russian NGO community undermine civil society activities in the country and discredit
many recipients of foreign funds, regardless of their activities, by labelling them as foreign agents.

The EU has recently voiced its concerns in different bilateral contacts with the Russian side and has called on Russia to
live up to its international commitments on freedom of association, notably the European Convention on Human
Rights. The Head of the EU Delegation to the Russian Federation has conveyed the EU’s strong message to the Russian
authorities in bilateral contacts

The EU-Russian Human Rights Consultations which took place on 17 May 2013 gave the EU the opportunity to
enquire why those unprecedented checks have taken place, clarify the definition of ‘political activity’ as well as the
criteria applied to force an NGO to register as ‘foreign agent’. As a number of organisations have been brought to
court on the basis of those checks, and many others received official ‘warnings’, the EU will follow closely the
developments in the implementation of this law through its Delegation in Moscow.

C 33 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004609/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(24 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Pianista turco condannato con la condizionale per blasfemia

Il 15 aprile 2013, vari siti di informazione hanno riferito che il famoso pianista turco Fazil Say è stato condannato a
10 mesi di carcere con la condizionale con l'accusa di blasfemia, dopo aver inviato una serie di tweet, in cui si è detto
avesse criticato l'Islam. La corte ha ritenuto Say colpevole di insulti «ai valori religiosi di una parte della popolazione».

Say non era in tribunale, quando la sentenza è stata pronunciata. È convinto che la causa sia stata istigata dal partito di
governo AK. Say ha ammesso apertamente di essere ateo, e ha criticato il partito AK, dicendo che al loro ordine del
giorno figura la promozione dei valori conservatori in Turchia. La BBC dichiara che altri critici all'interno della
Turchia sono preoccupati che il partito AK voglia minare i valori laici tradizionali turchi. Crescono i timori che in
Turchia si inaspriscano le restrizioni alla libertà di espressione.

1. Qual è la posizione della Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante quanto alla condanna del pianista turco Fazil Say?

2. Qual è la valutazione dei funzionari UE in Turchia con riferimento al trattamento delle personalità di spicco,
come Say, e altri, che vengono accusati di blasfemia?

**Risposta congiunta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(7 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza del caso sollevato dagli onorevoli deputati e continua a seguire attentamente l’azione
legale contro Fazıl Say.

Dopo essere stato condannato a dieci mesi di carcere con la condizionale, Fazıl Say ha chiesto un nuovo processo. La
causa è stata rinviata al primo giudice di Istanbul che non si è ancora pronunciato sul caso. La Commissione attende la
decisione del tribunale.

Essa si aspetta che la Turchia rispetti pienamente la libertà di espressione, in linea con la Convenzione europea dei
diritti dell’uomo e con la giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 93

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004250/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(15 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Turkse pianist beledigd voor beledigen islam

De Turkse pianist Fazil Say is door een rechtbank in Istanbul veroordeeld tot een gevangenisstraf van tien maanden
voorwaardelijk voor het beledigen van de islam.

1. Is de Commissie bekend met het bericht „Turkse pianist Fazil Say veroordeeld voor beledigen islam” ( [1] )?

2. Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie de veroordeling van Fazil Say? Verwerpt de Commissie deze? Zo ja, is zij ertoe
bereid Turkije, kandidaat-lidstaat, hierop aan te spreken? Zo neen, waarom niet?

In antwoord op schriftelijke vraag E-005624/2012 schreef de Commissie naar aanleiding van de aanklacht jegens
Fazil Say: „De vrijheid van meningsuiting en de vrijheid van gedachte, geweten en godsdienst, die ook de vrijheid om
niet te geloven omvat, zijn grondrechten waarop de Commissie toezicht houdt in het kader van haar beoordeling van
de vorderingen van Turkije bij het voldoen aan de politieke criteria. De Commissie heeft bij diverse gelegenheden
gewezen op de dringende noodzaak dat Turkije tekortkomingen in dit verband aanpakt. De Commissie zal deze zaak
op de voet blijven volgen.”

3. Is de Commissie, naar aanleiding van de veroordeling van Fazil Say, voornemens voorts nog iets te ondernemen,
behalve de situatie in Turkije „op de voet te volgen”? Is de Commissie ertoe bereid de daad bij het woord te voegen en
consequenties te verbinden aan de veroordeling van Fazil Say? Zo ja, wat gaat zij doen? Zo neen, waarom niet?

4. Acht de Commissie de veroordeling van Fazil Say in strijd met de vrijheid van meningsuiting en derhalve ook
met de Criteria van Kopenhagen? Is de Commissie derhalve ertoe bereid de toetredingsonderhandelingen met Turkije
te beëindigen? Zo neen, hoezeer dient de situatie in Turkije verder te verslechteren voordat de Commissie tot de
conclusie komt dat Turkije nóóit tot de EU zal willen of kunnen toetreden?

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(7 juni 2013)_

De Commissie is op de hoogte van de door het geachte Parlementslid gesignaleerde kwestie. Zij blijft de rechtszaak
tegen Fazil Say op de voet volgen.

Deze laatste heeft na zijn veroordeling tot een voorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf van tien maanden, om
heroverweging verzocht. De zaak is teruggewezen naar de oorspronkelijke rechter in Istanboel, die daarover nog
geen uitspraak heeft gedaan. De Commissie wacht op de beslissing van de rechter.

Zij verwacht van Turkije de volledige eerbiediging van de vrijheid van meningsuiting overeenkomstig het Europees
Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens en de rechtspraak van het Europees Hof voor de rechten van de mens.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/04/15/turkse-pianist-fazil-say-veroordeeld-voor-beledigen-islam/.

C 33 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004250/13**

**to the Commission**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Turkish pianist sentenced for insulting Islam

A court in Istanbul has given the Turkish pianist Fazıl Say a ten-month suspended sentence for insulting Islam.

1. Is the Commission aware of the report ‘Turkish pianist Fazıl Say convicted of insulting Islam’? ( [1] )

2. How does the Commission view Fazıl Say’s conviction? Does the Commission reject it? If so, is it prepared to
tackle Turkey, a candidate country, about this? If not, why not?

In its answer to Written Question E-005624/2012, the Commission wrote in response to the criminal charge against
Fazıl Say: ‘Freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which also includes the freedom
not to believe, are fundamental rights monitored by the Commission in its appreciation of Turkey’s progress towards
meeting the political criteria. The Commission has on various occasions underlined the urgent need for Turkey to
address shortcomings in this regard. The Commission will continue to closely follow this case.’

3. Does the Commission intend to take any additional action following the conviction of Fazıl Say besides just
‘closely following’ the situation in Turkey? Is the Commission prepared to translate words into actions and to
highlight the consequences of Fazıl Say’s conviction? If so, what is it going to do? If not, why not?

4. Does the Commission view Fazıl Say’s conviction as contrary to freedom of expression and, therefore, contrary
to the Copenhagen Criteria? Is the Commission therefore prepared to terminate accession negotiations with Turkey?
If not, how much does the situation in Turkey have to continue to deteriorate before the Commission reaches the
conclusion that Turkey will never want or be able to join the EU?

**Question for written answer E-004609/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(24 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Turkish pianist receives suspended sentence for blasphemy

On 15 April 2013, various news sites reported that the famous Turkish pianist Fazil Say was given a 10-month
suspended jail sentence on a charge of blasphemy, after he posted a series of tweets, in which he was said to have
criticised Islam. The court found Say guilty of ‘insulting religious values of a part of the population’.

Say was not in the court when the sentence was handed out. He believes that the case was instigated by the ruling AK
Party. Say has openly admitted that he is an atheist, and has criticised the AK party by saying that they have an agenda
to promote conservative values inside Turkey. The BBC says that other critics inside Turkey are concerned that the AK
Party wants to undermine traditional Turkish secular values. There are growing fears that increased restrictions to
freedom of speech are being imposed inside Turkey.

1. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the sentencing of Turkish pianist Fazil
Say?

2. What is the assessment of EU officials in Turkey regarding the treatment of prominent individuals, such as Say,
and others who are charged with blasphemy?

**Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the issue the Honourable Member raised. It continues to closely follow the lawsuit
against Fazıl Say.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/04/15/turkse-pianist-fazil-say-veroordeeld-voor-beledigen-islam/.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 95

Fazıl Say, after having received a 10-month suspended prison sentence, has requested a retrial. The case was sent back
to the first court in Istanbul, which has yet to decide on the matter. The Commission awaits the decision of the court.

It expects Turkey to fully respect freedom of expression in line with the European Convention on Human rights and
the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

C 33 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004251/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)**

_(15 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Turkse regering start „reddingsactie” voor Turkse kinderen in christelijke/homoseksuele gezinnen
(vervolgvraag)

De Turkse regering begint een „reddingsactie” voor Turkse kinderen die onder meer bij Nederlandse en Belgische
pleeggezinnen zijn ondergebracht. De Turken vinden het maar niets dat de kinderen bij christelijke/homoseksuele
gezinnen zijn geplaatst.

Op 15 april 2013 heeft de heer Füle namens de Commissie antwoord gegeven op schriftelijke vraag E-001846/2013
over voornoemde kwestie. Daarin schrijft hij: „De Commissie wijst erop dat deze specifieke kwestie onder de
bevoegdheid van de lidstaten valt en door het nationale recht wordt geregeld, met name door de wijze waarop in het
nationale recht het begrip „het belang van het kind” wordt uitgelegd. Om die reden vindt de Commissie het niet
passend om uitspraken te doen over de concrete zaak die in de door het geachte Parlementslid aangehaalde
persberichten wordt vermeld.”

1. Als de Commissie stelt dat deze specifieke kwestie onder de bevoegdheid van de lidstaten valt, impliceert zij daar
dan mee dat Turkije zich onterecht bemoeit met de Nederlandse en Belgische pleeggezinnen? Zo ja, is de Commissie
aldus van mening dat Turkije zijn boekje te buiten gaat? Zo neen, wat bedoelt de Commissie dan wél te zeggen?

2. Is de Commissie ertoe bereid Turkije, als kandidaat-lidstaat, op zijn ongepaste gedrag aan te spreken? Zo neen,
hoe serieus neemt de Commissie dan het feit dat Turkije zich onterecht mengt in nationale aangelegenheden van
lidstaten?

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(27 juni 2013)_

De Commissie kan het geachte Parlementslid op deze vervolgvraag geen ander antwoord geven dan op de eerdere
schriftelijke vraag E-001846/2013 ( [1] ), waarnaar zij het geachte Parlementslid derhalve verwijst.

Kwesties waarvoor de lidstaten bevoegd zijn, moeten, waar nodig en passend, worden besproken tussen Turkije en de
desbetreffende lidstaat.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004251/13**

**to the Commission**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The Turkish Government launches a ‘rescue campaign’ for Turkish children fostered by Christian/homosexual
families (follow-up question)

The Turkish Government is launching a ‘rescue campaign’ for Turkish children who have been put into the foster care
of, amongst others, Dutch and Belgian families. The Turks do not like the fact that the children have been put into the
foster care of Christian/homosexual families.

On 15 April 2013, Mr Füle replied on behalf of the Commission to Written Question E-001846/2013 on the
aforementioned issue. In his answer, he writes: ‘The Commission would like to point out that this specific matter falls
under Member States’ competence and is governed by national law, in particular the way the latter interprets the
notion of best interest of the child. Therefore, the Commission considers it not appropriate to express views on the
concrete case mentioned in the press reports the Honourable Member referred to.’

1. If the Commission considers that this specific case falls within the competence of the Member States, is it
implying that Turkey is interfering unjustifiably with Dutch and Belgian foster families? If so, does the Commission
thus take the view that Turkey is going beyond its remit? If not, what is it then that the Commission is trying to say?

2. Is the Commission prepared to tackle Turkey, as a candidate country, about its inappropriate behaviour? If not,
how seriously does the Commission take the fact that Turkey is interfering unjustifiably in the domestic affairs of
Member States?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

The Commission can offer no further comment on the issue raised by the Honourable Member in her follow-up
question and would like to refer the Honourable Member to the answer to previous Written Question
E-001846/2013 ( [1] ).

Matters falling under Member States' competence need to be discussed, as necessary and appropriate, between Turkey
and Member States concerned.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004252/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Support for Iraq

Ten years after the beginning of the war in Iraq, could the EEAS give an update on what support is currently being
given to the administration in terms of humanitarian assistance?

**Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

Ten years after the beginning of the war in Iraq, humanitarian assistance is still necessary as some people, especially in
rural areas, suffer from a lack of access to basic services such as safe water or quality healthcare. Indeed, ongoing
sectarian violence continues to hinder the capacity of local authorities to provide such services.

EU humanitarian support to Iraq in 2013 is threefold: (i) Provision of water/sanitation and protection services to over
1 million vulnerable people inside Iraq through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (ii) Support to
registration services and provision of cash assistance to 125 183 Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon through
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other implementing partners (iii) Multisectoral
assistance (registration, shelter, non-food items distribution, food assistance) to 137 657 Syrian refugees in Iraq
through UNHCR and World Food Programme (WFP).

Planned EU humanitarian support to Iraq in 2013 totals EUR 13.35 million.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 99

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004253/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — North Korea

With the increase in hostility on the part of North Korea in recent weeks, could High Representative Ashton state
what the EEAS is doing to ensure that the threats which are being made by Pyongyang do not escalate into further
instability in the region?

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

_(30 May 2013)_

The EU is in contact with its key partners in the region. The EU is a strong supporter of a unified response by the the
international community notably through the UN Security Council and works actively for that. In addition, the EU
has kept its communication channels with DPRK open; urging the leadership there to take a constructive path and to
reengage with the international community, including in the framework of the Six Party Talks.

C 33 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004255/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(15 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Διακανονισμός Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων (ΕΤΕπ) και εταιρίας Siemens

Στις 15.3.2013 ανακοινώθηκε ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων και η εταιρία Siemens κατέληξαν σε διακανονισμό για
«εικαζόμενες παραβιάσεις της πολιτικής καταπολέμησης απάτης της ΕΤΕπ» σε σχέση με έργα που χρηματοδοτήθηκαν από την
τράπεζα. «Ο διακανονισμός έγινε έπειτα από έρευνα από την ΕΤΕπ και τον OLAF για συμπεριφορά “επιχειρησιακού
τμήματος” (business unit) της Siemens σε διαγωνισμό της ΕΤΕπ. Η εταιρία Siemens δεσμεύτηκε ότι συγκεκριμένο
επιχειρησιακό τμήμα θα απέχει από την υποβολή προσφορών για έργα που χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΤΕπ και από κάθε
είδους σχέση με την τράπεζα ως πλειοδότης, επιχειρηματίας, σύμβουλος ή προμηθευτής, για 18 μήνες. Επιπλέον η Siemens
συμφώνησε να παρέχει χρηματοδότηση συνολικού ύψους 13,5 εκατομμύριων ευρώ σε διάστημα πέντε ετών σε διεθνείς
οργανισμούς, διακυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις και επαγγελματίες ή ακαδημαϊκούς φορείς που
υποστηρίζουν σχέδια ή άλλες πρωτοβουλίες για την ενθάρρυνση της χρηστής διακυβέρνησης και την καταπολέμηση της
διαφθοράς». Σε σχέση με το μέγεθος της εταιρίας, τον αριθμό των σκανδάλων στα οποία έχει εμπλακεί παγκοσμίως αλλά και
τα τεράστια ποσά που έχουν επιδικαστεί από δικαστήρια της Αμερικής για αποζημιώσεις, ο παραπάνω διακανονισμός, με την
«ποινή» 18μηνης αποχής μόνο του συγκεκριμένου επιχειρησιακού τμήματος από έργα της ΕΤΕπ και την υποχρέωση παροχής
13,5 εκατομμυρίων ευρώ σε ΜΚΟ κ.ά., βεβαίως δεν φαίνεται να αποτελεί «ισχυρό χτύπημα στην διαφθορά».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Μπορεί να δώσει ακριβή στοιχεία σχετικά με την έρευνα της ΕΤΕπ και της OLAF; Για ποια ακριβώς έργα υπήρξαν
παραβιάσεις που οδήγησαν σε αυτό τον διακανονισμό, τι είδους παραβιάσεις ήταν και ποιος ο οικονομικός τους
αντίκτυπος;

—
Είναι νόμιμος ο επιχειρησιακός «διαμελισμός» μιας εταιρίας από τους θεσμούς της ΕΕ για παραβιάσεις των κανονισμών
περί δημοσίων συμβάσεων; Σε ποιον κανονισμό αναφέρεται αυτή η πρακτική; Υπάρχει προηγούμενο; Ποιο; Ποιο
ακριβώς είναι το «επιχειρησιακό τμήμα» της εταιρίας στο οποίο αναφέρεται η ανακοίνωση;

—
Θα απαιτήσει η Επιτροπή την επιστροφή των δημόσιων πόρων που, με δωροδοκίες και άλλες αθέμιτες πρακτικές,
απέσπασε η Siemens για τη συγκεκριμένη υπόθεση; Τι δεσμεύσεις ανέλαβε η ΕΤΕπ έναντι της εταιρίας στον εν λόγω
διακανονισμό; Συνεχίζονται οι έρευνες για άλλες υποθέσεις της Siemens; Για ποιες;

**Απάντηση του κ. Šemeta εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(4 Ιουλίου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή ενημερώθηκε από την Ευρωπαϊκή Υπηρεσία Καταπολέμησης της Απάτης (OLAF) ότι η έρευνα σχετικά με την
εταιρία Siemens έχει κλείσει με διακανονισμό μεταξύ των εμπλεκόμενων μερών: της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων
(ΕΤΕπ) και της Siemens. Η ΕΤΕπ εξέδωσε δελτίο τύπου σχετικά με την εν λόγω συμφωνία ( [1] ) στις 15 Μαρτίου 2013.

Η OLAF δεν μπορεί να γνωστοποιήσει λεπτομερή στοιχεία σχετικά με την έρευνα για λόγους προστασίας των ανθρωπίνων
δικαιωμάτων.

Οι πλειοδότες οι οποίοι αποτέλεσαν αντικείμενο οριστικής καταδικαστικής απόφασης για λόγους απάτης, κατά την έννοια
του άρθρου 1 της σύμβασης σχετικά με την προστασία των οικονομικών συμφερόντων της ΕΕ, πρέπει να αποκλείονται της
συμμετοχής σε δημόσια σύμβαση ( [2] ).

Η συμφωνία που επιτεύχθηκε στο πλαίσιο του διακανονισμού περιλαμβάνει δέσμευση από μέρους της Siemens ότι το
συγκεκριμένο επιχειρησιακό τμήμα θα απέχει οικειοθελώς από την υποβολή προσφορών για έργα που χρηματοδοτούνται από
την ΕΤΕπ και από κάθε είδους σχέση με την τράπεζα για 18 μήνες.

Στο πλαίσιο της συμφωνίας αυτής, η Siemens δεσμεύτηκε επίσης να παρέχει χρηματοδότηση συνολικού ύψους 13,5
εκατομμύριων ευρώ σε διάστημα πέντε ετών σε διεθνείς οργανισμούς, διακυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, μη κυβερνητικές
οργανώσεις, επαγγελματικές ενώσεις ή/και ακαδημαϊκούς φορείς που υποστηρίζουν σχέδια ή άλλες πρωτοβουλίες για την
ενθάρρυνση της χρηστής διακυβέρνησης και την καταπολέμηση της διαφθοράς.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/news/all/eib-and-siemens-settlement-agreement.htm?lang=en&
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Άρθρο 45 παράγραφος 1 στοιχείο γ) της οδηγίας 2004/18/ΕΚ.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 101

Επιπλέον, η Siemens έχει συμφωνήσει να συνεργάζεται εκ του σύνεγγυς και να βοηθά την ΕΤΕπ στην προώθηση των
προσπαθειών της για διερεύνηση εικαζόμενων απαγορευμένων συμπεριφορών σε κάθε χρηματοδοτούμενο από την ΕΤΕπ
σχέδιο. Και τα δύο μέρη συμφώνησαν επίσης να ανταλλάσσουν βέλτιστες πρακτικές σε σχέση με τα πρότυπα συμμόρφωσης
και την καταπολέμηση της απάτης και της διαφθοράς.

Η Επιτροπή ενημερώθηκε από την OLAF σχετικά με δύο άλλες εν εξελίξει έρευνες που αφορούν τη Siemens. Δεδομένου ότι
οι υποθέσεις αυτές είναι σε εξέλιξη, η OLAF δεν δύναται να δώσει περαιτέρω πληροφορίες για το θέμα στο παρόν στάδιο.

C 33 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004255/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Settlement between the European Investment Bank and Siemens

On 15 March 2013, it was announced that the European Investment Bank (EIB) and Siemens had reached an
agreement over ‘alleged violations of the EIB Anti-Fraud Policy’ in connection with projects financed by the EIB. ‘The
settlement was reached following investigations by both the EIB and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into the
conduct of a Siemens business unit in relation to an EIB tender. Siemens has made a commitment that the business
unit will refrain from bidding on EIB-financed projects or enter into any relationship with the EIB as a tenderer,
contractor, consultant or supplier for a period of 18 months. Siemens also commits to provide funds totalling
EUR 13.5 million over five years to international organisations, intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and entrepreneurs or academic institutions that support projects or other initiatives that
promote good governance and the fight against corruption’. In relation to the size of the company, the number of
scandals it has been involved in worldwide, and also the very large fines imposed on it by US courts as compensation,
the above settlement involving an 18-month ‘sanction’ against the specific business unit from EIB projects and the
obligation to provide EUR 13.5 million to NGOs and others, hardly looks like a ‘powerful blow against corruption’.

In view of the above, can the Commission state:

—
Can it provide accurate data in relation to the EIB and OLAF investigations? In relation to which projects
exactly did the violations that led to this settlement take place? What sort of violations were they and what was
their financial impact?

—
Is it legitimate to ‘cut off’ a business unit of a company from EU institutions in relation to violations of public
procurement regulations? What is the regulation that applies to this practice? Is there a precedent? What is the
precedent? Which exactly is the ‘business unit’ of the company to which the statement refers?

—
Will the Commission request or demand reimbursement of the public funds obtained by Siemens in this
specific affair through bribery and other unlawful practices? What undertaking has the EIB made in the
settlement in relation to the company? Are investigations under way in relation to other Siemens cases? What
are these cases?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 July 2013)_

The Commission has been informed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that the investigation on Siemens has
been closed with a settlement between the parties involved: the European Investment Bank (EIB) and Siemens. EIB
issued a press release on this agreement ( [1] ) on 15 March 2013.

OLAF cannot disclose any details concerning that investigation for the reasons of the protection of human rights.

Tenderers which have been subject to a final conviction for reason of fraud within the meaning of Article 1 of the
Convention relating to the protection of the financial interests of the EU, have to be excluded from participation in a
public contract ( [2] ).

The agreement found in the settlement includes a commitment by Siemens that the concerned business unit will
voluntarily refrain from bidding on EIB financed projects or enter into any relationship with the EIB for a period of
18 months.

As part of this Settlement, Siemens also commits to provide funds, totaling EUR 13.5 million over five years, to
international organisations, inter-governmental organisations, non-governmental organisations, business
associations, and/or academic institutions that support projects or other initiatives that promote good governance
and the fight against corruption.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/news/all/eib-and-siemens-settlement-agreement.htm?lang=en&.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article 45(1)(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 103

Furthermore, Siemens has agreed to closely cooperate and assist the EIB going forward in its efforts to investigate
alleged prohibited conduct in any EIB-financed project. Both parties also agreed to exchange best practices in relation
to compliance standards and the fight against fraud and corruption.

The Commission has been informed by OLAF that it has two other ongoing investigation involving Siemens. Given
that these cases are ongoing OLAF can give no further information on the matter at this stage.

C 33 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004256/13**

**a la Comisión**
**François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE), Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Jill Evans**
**(Verts/ALE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Rodust (S&D), Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), Nils Torvalds (ALDE), László Tőkés (PPE),**

**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) y Edit Bauer (PPE)**

_(15 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Festival Liet International, solicitud de apoyo de la Comisión

Desde hace varios años, la Asociación Liet International organiza un festival de canto dedicado a artistas procedentes
de las minorías lingüísticas de Europa.

Ampliamente difundido por televisión, este espectáculo se inspira en el festival anual de Eurovisión. Se celebra en una
sala grande, se moviliza el voto del público a través de Internet, y el ganador se determina por una decisión de un
jurado proveniente de todas las identidades culturales que compiten.

Por él han pasado artistas sami, asturianos, corsos, bretones, galeses… con lo que se ha rendido homenaje a la
diversidad cultural y lingüística europea con demasiada frecuencia ignorada por los festivales oficiales.

Al consagrar a estas lenguas y culturas, que están entre las más amenazadas en Europa, un evento cultural y mediático
de alto nivel y de resonancia internacional, se motiva cultural y lingüísticamente a los más jóvenes para que recuperen
dichas lenguas europeas en peligro de extinción y vuelvan a utilizarlas.

Entonces surge la pregunta: los organizadores de este festival europeo sólo han recibido respuestas negativas a sus
reiteradas solicitudes de apoyo financiero de la Comisión. ¿Por qué tanto rechazo?

¿Podemos esperar una actitud más positiva para la edición 2013 que se celebrará en diciembre?

Los diputados abajo firmantes sostienen que se trata de un evento cultural de gran interés europeo, que reúne todos
los requisitos para recibir apoyo financiero, tanto para su organización como para la transmisión televisiva.

**Respuesta de la Sra. Vassiliou en nombre de la Comisión**

_(29 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión está de acuerdo en que eventos culturales como el que organiza Liet International pueden contribuir
notablemente a la promoción de las lenguas minoritarias y la diversidad lingüística en la EU. Liet International solicitó
en 2012 financiación en el marco del Programa Cultura ( [1] ) para su festival «Liet International 2012 Asturias». La
solicitud no cumplía los requisitos de subvencionabilidad del capítulo correspondiente a festivales del Programa
Cultura, como se especifica en la guía del programa, y no fue seleccionado, por tanto, para recibir financiación.

Puesto que el Programa Cultura termina en 2013, ya no es posible solicitar subvenciones para festivales con cargo al
programa. La Comisión ha propuesto el establecimiento del Programa Europa Creativa para el periodo 2014-2020 en
sustitución de los programas Cultura y Media. Tras la adopción de la propuesta por el Consejo y el Parlamento, las
convocatorias de propuestas y las condiciones de participación se publicarán en el sitio web de la Comisión ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisión n° 1855/2006/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 12 de diciembre de 2006, por la que se establece el programa Cultura

(2007-2013), DO L 372 de 27.12.2006, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 105

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004256/13**

**an die Kommission**
**François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE), Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Jill Evans**
**(Verts/ALE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Rodust (S&D), Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), Nils Torvalds (ALDE), László Tőkés (PPE),**

**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) und Edit Bauer (PPE)**

_(15. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Das Festival Liet International — Plädoyer für eine Unterstützung durch die Kommission

Seit einigen Jahren organisiert die Vereinigung Liet International ein Gesangsfestival für Künstler aus den sprachlichen
Minderheiten Europas.

Als Vorlage für die über zahlreiche Fernsehkanäle übertragene Veranstaltung diente das alljährliche Festival
„Eurovision“. Veranstaltungsort ist eine große Halle, das Publikum wird zur Abstimmung über das Internet aufgerufen
und der Gewinner durch eine Jury (aus Vertretern sämtlicher kultureller Identitäten, die bei dem Festival
zusammenkommen) bestimmt.

Das Festival ist samischen, asturischen, korsischen, bretonischen und walisischen Künstlern gewidmet und erweist
dergestalt einer kulturellen und sprachlichen Vielfalt in Europa die Ehre, die bei offiziellen Festivals häufig nicht
beachtet wird.

Indem diesen Sprachen und Kulturen unter den in ganz Europa am meisten bedrohten eine kulturelle Veranstaltung
mit hoher Medienwirkung und internationalem Echo gewidmet wird, werden Kultur‐ und Sprachakteure unter den
jüngsten Menschen motiviert, sich diese bedrohten europäischen Sprachen wieder anzueignen und ihre Verwendung
wiederzubeleben.

Daher stellt sich eine Frage: Bislang wurden die wiederholten Anträge der Veranstalter dieses europäischen Festivals
auf finanzielle Unterstützung von der Kommission samt und sonders abschlägig beschieden. Warum ist dies der Fall?

Besteht Hoffnung, dass sich diese Haltung für die Ausgabe 2013, die im Dezember stattfinden wird, zum Positiven
wendet?

Die Unterzeichneten (Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments) machen sich dafür stark, dass es sich um ein
Kulturereignis von hohem europäischem Interesse handelt, das sämtliche Voraussetzungen für eine finanzielle
Unterstützung sowohl im Hinblick auf seine Organisation als auch seine Übertragung im Fernsehen erfüllt.

**Antwort von Frau Vassiliou im Namen der Kommission**

_(29. Mai 2013)_

Die Kommission teilt die Ansicht, dass kulturelle Veranstaltungen wie das Festival der Vereinigung Liet International
einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Förderung der Minderheitensprachen und der sprachlichen Vielfalt in der EU leisten
können. Liet International hat 2012 eine Finanzhilfe aus dem Programm „Kultur“ ( [1] ) für das Festival „Liet International
2012 Asturias“ beantragt. Da der Antrag nicht den Förderkriterien des für Festivals geltenden Aktionsbereichs gemäß
dem Programmleitfaden genügte, wurde die Veranstaltung nicht für eine Finanzhilfe ausgewählt.

Das Programm „Kultur“ läuft 2013 aus, so dass keine Finanzhilfen für Festivals mehr in diesem Rahmen beantragt
werden können. Für den Zeitraum 2014-2020 hat die Kommission das Programm „Kreatives Europa“ vorgeschlagen,
das an die Stelle der Programme „Kultur“ und MEDIA treten soll. Sobald das Programm „Kreatives Europa“ vom
Europäischen Parlament und vom Rat angenommen wurde, werden die Aufforderungen zur Einreichung von
Vorschlägen sowie die Bedingungen für die Gewährung einer Finanzhilfe auf der Website der Kommission ( [2] )
veröffentlicht.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Beschluss Nr. 1855/2006/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 12. Dezember 2006 über das Programm „Kultur“ (2007‐2013)

(ABl. L 372 vom 27.12.2006, S. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_de.htm

( **|**

C 33 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004256/13**

**à la Commission**
**François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE), Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE),**

**Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE),**
**Ulrike Rodust (S&D), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), Nils Torvalds (ALDE),**

**László Tőkés (PPE), Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) et Edit Bauer (PPE)**

_(15 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Festival LIET International, pour un soutien par la Commission

Depuis plusieurs années l'association LIET International organise un festival de chant dédié aux artistes issus des
minorités linguistiques de l'Europe.

Largement diffusé sur les télévisions, ce spectacle s'inspire du festival annuel Eurovision. Il se déroule dans une grande
salle, mobilise le vote du public par Internet, et le vainqueur est désigné par décision d'un jury issu de toutes les
identités culturelles qui concourent.

Il a ainsi consacré des artistes sami, asturien, corse, breton, gallois… mettant ainsi à l'honneur une diversité culturelle
et linguistique européenne bien trop souvent ignorée des festivals officiels.

En donnant à ces langues et cultures parmi les plus menacées en Europe un évènement culturel et médiatique de haut
niveau et à résonnance internationale, il motive les acteurs culturels et linguistiques parmi les plus jeunes à se
réapproprier ces langues européennes menacées et à en relancer l'usage.

Aussi une question se pose: les organisateurs de ce festival européen n'ont eu que des réponses négatives à leurs
demandes répétées de soutien financier auprès de la Commission. Pourquoi un tel refus?

Peut-on espérer une attitude plus positive pour l'édition 2013 qui aura lieu en décembre?

Les députés européens soussignés soutiennent en effet qu'il s'agit d'un évènement culturel d'un grand intérêt
européen, qui réunit toutes les conditions pour recevoir un soutien financier, tant pour son organisation que pour sa
diffusion télévisée.

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Vassiliou au nom de la Commission**

_(29 mai 2013)_

La Commission reconnaît que les événements culturels comme ceux qu'organise Liet International peuvent présenter
un grand intérêt pour la promotion des langues minoritaires et de la diversité linguistique dans l'UE. Liet International
a demandé, en 2012, à bénéficier d'un soutien financier au titre du programme «Culture» ( [1] ) pour son festival «Liet
International 2012 Asturias». Cette demande ne répondait pas aux critères d'admissibilité énoncés dans le volet du
programme Culture consacré aux festivals, tels que définis dans le guide du programme, et n'a donc pas été retenue.

Le programme Culture s'achevant en 2013, il n'est plus possible de solliciter des subventions pour l'organisation de
festivals au titre de ce programme. La Commission a proposé la mise en place du programme «Europe créative» pour
la période 2014-2020, qui remplacera à la fois le programme Culture et le programme MEDIA. Lorsque cette
proposition aura été adoptée par le Conseil et le Parlement, les appels à propositions et les conditions de participation
seront publiés sur le site web de la Commission ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Décision n° 1855/2006/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 12 décembre 2006 établissant le programme Culture (2007-2013) —

JO L 372 du 27.12.2006, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_fr.htm

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 107

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004256/13**

**alla Commissione**
**François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE), Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Jill Evans**
**(Verts/ALE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Rodust (S&D), Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), Nils Torvalds (ALDE), László Tőkés (PPE),**

**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) e Edit Bauer (PPE)**

_(15 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sostegno finanziario della Commissione al Festival LIET INTERNATIONAL

L'associazione LIET INTERNATIONAL organizza da vari anni un festival di canto dedicato agli artisti provenienti
dalle minoranze linguistiche dell'Europa.

Ampiamente trasmesso dalle televisioni, questo spettacolo si ispira al festival annuale dell'Eurovisione: si svolge in
una grande sala, mobilita il voto del pubblico su Internet e il vincitore viene scelto da una giuria composta dai
rappresentanti di tutte le identità culturali in gara.

Il festival ha visto la partecipazione di artisti sami, asturiani, corsi, bretoni, gallesi, rendendo così omaggio a una
diversità culturale e linguistica europea fin troppo spesso ignorata dai festival ufficiali.

Offrendo a queste lingue e culture, fra le più minacciate in Europa, un avvenimento culturale e mediatico di alto livello
e con una risonanza internazionale, si motivano i giovani, attivi in campo culturale e linguistico, a riappropriarsi di
queste lingue europee minacciate e a rilanciarne l'uso.

Tuttavia, gli organizzatori di questo festival europeo si sono visti sistematicamente rifiutare le ripetute domande di
sostegno finanziario da parte della Commissione. Perché un tale rifiuto?

É possibile confidare in un atteggiamento più positivo per l'edizione 2013, che si svolgerà in dicembre?

I sottoscritti deputati europei ribadiscono che si tratta di un avvenimento culturale di grande interesse europeo, il
quale riunisce tutte le condizioni per ricevere un sostegno finanziario, sia per la sua organizzazione che per la relativa
trasmissione televisiva.

**Risposta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

La Commissione riconosce che eventi culturali come quelli organizzati da Liet International possono essere utili per la
promozione delle lingue minoritarie e della diversità linguistica nell'UE. Nel 2012 Liet International ha chiesto un
finanziamento a valere sul programma Cultura ( [1] ) per il suo festival «Liet International 2012 Asturias». La candidatura
non soddisfaceva i criteri di ammissibilità di cui al capitolo «festival» del programma Cultura, quali indicati nella guida
del programma, e non è stata quindi selezionata per un finanziamento.

Poiché il programma Cultura giunge a scadenza nel 2013, non è più possibile chiedere sovvenzioni per festival in
forza di tale programma. La Commissione ha proposto di istituire per il periodo 2014-2020 il programma «Europa
creativa», che sostituirà i programmi Cultura e MEDIA. Una volta adottata la proposta di Europa Creativa da parte del
Consiglio e del Parlamento, gli inviti a presentare proposte e le condizioni di partecipazione verranno pubblicati sul
sito web della Commissione ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisione n. 1855/2006/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 12 dicembre 2006, che istituisce il programma Cultura (2007-2013), GU

L 372 del 27.12.2006, pagg. 1‐11.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm

( **|**

C 33 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-004256/13**

**a Bizottság számára**
**François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE), Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Jill Evans**
**(Verts/ALE), Gál Kinga (PPE), Mészáros Alajos (PPE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Rodust (S&D), Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Tabajdi Csaba Sándor (S&D), Nils Torvalds (ALDE), Tőkés László (PPE),**

**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) és Bauer Edit (PPE)**

_(2013. április 15.)_

_Tárgy:_ Bizottsági támogatás a Liet International fesztivál számára

A Liet International egyesület már több éve szervez olyan dalfesztiválokat, melyeken Európa nyelvi kisebbségeihez
tartozó művészek lépnek fel.

A rendezvényt, melyet számos televízió is közvetít, az évente megrendezett Eurovíziós Dalfesztivál inspirálta. A
verseny egy nagy előadóteremben zajlik, a közönség az interneten keresztül adhatja le szavazatait, a győztest pedig a
részt vevő kultúrközösségek tagjaiból összeálló zsűri választja ki.

A résztvevők között szerepeltek már többek között számik, asztúriaiak, korzikaiak, bretonok és walesiek, tisztelegve
Európa kulturális és nyelvi sokszínűsége előtt, melyet a hivatalos fesztiválok sokszor figyelmen kívül hagynak.

Az, hogy e legveszélyeztetettebbek közé tartozó európai nyelvek és kultúrák egy ilyen magas színvonalú és
nemzetközi visszhangot kiváltó kulturális és médiaesemény középpontjává válnak, arra ösztönzi e kulturális és nyelvi
közösségeket, és többek között azok legfiatalabb tagjait, hogy újraélesszék e veszélyeztetett európai nyelveket, és újra
használni kezdjék azokat.

Ezzel kapcsolatban felmerül egy kérdés: ezen európai fesztivál szervezői többször kértek pénzügyi támogatást a
Bizottságtól, ám eddig kizárólag elutasító választ kaptak. Mi az oka ennek a visszautasításnak?

A 2013. évi, decemberben megrendezésre kerülő esemény kapcsán számíthatunk-e pozitívabb hozzáállásra?

Az aláíró európai képviselők véleménye szerint jelentős európai érdekű kulturális eseményről van szó, amely – akár a
megrendezés, akár a televíziós közvetítés tekintetében – a pénzügyi támogatás odaítélésének valamennyi feltételét
kielégíti.

**Androulla Vassiliou válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 29.)_

A Bizottság egyetért azzal, hogy a Liet International által szervezettekhez hasonló kulturális rendezvények hasznosak
lehetnek a kisebbségi nyelvek és a nyelvi sokszínűség támogatására az EU-ban. A Liet International a Kultúra
program ( [1] ) keretében 2012-ben támogatásért folyamodott a „Liet International 2012 Asturias” elnevezésű
fesztiváljának finanszírozására. A kérelem nem felelt meg a Kultúra programban a fesztiválokra vonatkozóan – a
program útmutatójában – meghatározott jogosultsági feltételeknek, és így nem részesült támogatásban.

Mivel a Kultúra program 2013-ban lezárul, a program keretében már nem lehet fesztiváltámogatásra pályázni. A
Bizottság javasolta a 2014–2020-as időszakra szóló „Kreatív Európa” program létrehozását, amely felváltja mind a
Kultúra, mind a MEDIA programot. Amint a Tanács és az Európai Parlament elfogadja a „Kreatív Európa” programra
vonatkozó javaslatot, a Bizottság honlapján ( [2] ) közzétételre kerülnek a pályázati felhívások és a részvételi feltételek.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Az Európai Parlament és a Tanács 2006. december 12-i 1855/2006/EK határozata a Kultúra program (2007–2013) létrehozásáról (HL L 372.,

2006.12.27., 1. o.)

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 109

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-004256/13**

**till kommissionen**
**François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE), Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Jill Evans**
**(Verts/ALE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Rodust (S&D), Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), Nils Torvalds (ALDE), László Tőkés (PPE),**

**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) och Edit Bauer (PPE)**

_(15 april 2013)_

_Angående:_ Stöd till Liet International-festivalen från kommissionen

I många år har föreningen Liet International organiserat en melodifestival för artister från språkliga
minoritetsområden i Europa.

Evenemanget, som sänds i ett stort antal tv-kanaler, har inspirerats av den årliga Eurovisionsschlagerfestivalen.
Festivalen hålls i en stor sal och allmänheten kan rösta via internet. Segraren utses av en jury bestående av personer
från alla de kulturer som deltar.

Således har bland annat samiska, asturiska, korsikanska, bretonska och gäliska artister deltagit och därmed hyllat den
kulturella och språkliga mångfald i Europa som ofta ignoreras vid många officiella festivaler.

Dessa språk och kulturer tillhör Europas mest hotade, men ett sådant kulturellt evenemang som ges stort
mediautrymme och internationell uppmärksamhet, kan fungera som motivation för unga människor från dessa
kulturer och språkområden att lära sig dessa hotade europeiska språk och åter börja använda dem.

Till detta har vi en fråga: Organisatörerna av denna europeiska festival har alltid fått avslag på sina ansökningar om
ekonomiskt stöd från kommissionen. Varför har dessa ansökningar avslagits?

Finns det förhoppningar om en mer positiv inställning rörande 2013 års evenemang, som kommer att äga rum i
december?

De undertecknande Europaparlamentsledamöterna anser att detta är ett kulturellt evenemang av stort europeiskt
intresse, som uppfyller alla krav för att få ekonomiskt stöd för såväl organisationen som tv-sändningarna.

**Svar från Androulla Vassiliou på kommissionens vägnar**

_(29 maj 2013)_

Kommissionen instämmer att kulturevenemang, till exempel som sådana som anordnas av Liet International, kan
vara av värde för att främja EU:s minoritetsspråk och språkliga mångfald. Liet International ansökte om bidrag
år 2012 inom ramen för programmet Kultur ( [1] ) till sin festival ”Liet International 2012 Asturias”. Ansökan
överensstämde inte med kriterierna i Kultur-programmets festivaldel, vilka anges i programhandledningen, och fick
därför inte bidrag.

Eftersom programmet Kultur avslutas 2013 är det inte längre möjligt att ansöka om bidrag till festivaler inom det
programmet. Kommissionen har lagts fram ett förslag om att inrätta programmet Kreativa Europa för åren 2014–
2020, vilket skulle ersätta både Kultur‐ och Media-programmen. När väl förslaget om Kreativa Europa har antagits av
rådet och Europaparlamentet kommer inbjudningar att lämna förslag och villkor för deltagande att offentliggöras på
kommissionens webbplats ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Europaparlamentets och rådets beslut nr 1855/2006/EG av den 12 december 2006 om inrättande av programmet Kultur (2007–2013)

(EUT L 372, 27.12.2006, s. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm

( **|**

C 33 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004256/13**

**to the Commission**
**François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE), Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Jill Evans**
**(Verts/ALE), Kinga Gál (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Rodust (S&D), Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), Nils Torvalds (ALDE), László Tőkés (PPE),**

**Giommaria Uggias (ALDE) and Edit Bauer (PPE)**

_(15 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Commission support for the Liet International festival

For a number of years, the Liet International association has organised a song festival dedicated to artists who sing in
European minority languages.

The event is widely broadcast on television and takes its inspiration from the annual Eurovision Song Contest. It is
held in a large hall, the public vote via the Internet and the winner is decided by a jury made up of representatives of
all the cultural identities taking part.

It has given a platform to Sami, Asturian, Corsican, Breton and Welsh artists, to name but a few, thus showcasing a
European cultural and linguistic diversity that is all too often missing from official festivals.

Devoting a major cultural and media event, which strikes an international chord, to some of the most endangered
languages and cultures in Europe inspires some of the youngest cultural and language stakeholders to reclaim these
endangered European languages and revive them.

There is one question: the organisers of this European festival have only had their repeated requests to the
Commission for financial support turned down. Why have they been turned down?

Can they expect a more positive attitude towards the 2013 festival, which will be held in December?

The undersigned Members of the European Parliament maintain that the festival is a cultural event of great interest for
Europe, which meets all the conditions to receive financial support, both for arranging the festival and for
broadcasting it on television.

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The Commission agrees that cultural events like the ones organised by Liet International can be valuable for the
promotion of minority languages and linguistic diversity in the EU. Liet International applied for funding under the
Culture Programme ( [1] ) in 2012 for its ‘Liet International 2012 Asturias’ festival. The application did not comply with
the eligibility criteria of the festival strand of the Culture Programme, as specified in its programme guide, and was
hence not retained for funding.

As the Culture Programme comes to its end in 2013, it is no longer possible to apply for grants for festivals under this
programme. The Commission has proposed to establish the Creative Europe Programme for the period 2014-2020,
replacing both the Culture and the MEDIA Programmes. Once the Creative Europe proposal has been adopted by the
Council and the Parliament, the calls for proposals and conditions for participation will be published on the
Commission website ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decision No 1855/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 establishing the Culture Programme (2007
2013), OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 1‐11.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/index_en.htm

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 111

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-004257/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(16 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Hacken van vliegtuigen

Tijdens de Hack-in-the-box conferentie in Amsterdam op 12 april is een applicatie gepresenteerd waarmee een hacker
de controle over vliegtuigsystemen kan overnemen. Met deze app kon de hacker een simulatievliegtuig bewust laten

neerstorten.

1. Heeft de Commissie kennis genomen van de presentatie van de genoemde applicatie tijdens de Hack-in-the-box
conferentie?

2. Staan de Commissie en EASA in nauw contact met de ontwikkelaar van de applicatie?

3. Is het in de praktijk mogelijk de controle over vliegtuigsystemen over te nemen door middel van de
gepresenteerde applicatie? Zo nee, waarom niet?

4. Heeft de Commissie aanwijzingen dat (terroristische) organisaties al applicaties ontwikkelen om via deze
methode aanslagen te plegen?

5. Hoe gaat de Commissie voorkomen dat pogingen slagen om met dergelijke applicaties aanslagen te plegen?

6. Geldt deze bedreiging ook voor andere vervoersmodaliteiten zoals het spoorvervoer en de zeevaart? Zo ja, zal
de Commissie alles in het werk stellen om ook die modaliteiten te beschermen tegen mogelijke overname van de
besturingssystemen door (terroristische) hackers?

**Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie**

_(17 mei 2013)_

1 en 2. De Commissie en het EASA zijn goed bekend met deze presentatie. Het EASA heeft het bedrijf uitgenodigd om
de technische achtergrond van de applicatie voor te stellen.

3. Het EASA en andere autoriteiten die verantwoordelijk zijn voor de veiligheid van de luchtvaart,
vliegtuigbouwers en systeemaanbieders onderzoeken dit al sinds maart 2013. De resultaten van het onderzoek naar
deze applicatie worden momenteel onderzocht. Voorlopig wordt betwijfeld of de applicatie in staat is om in de
realiteit de boordapparatuur van een vliegtuig over te nemen. Deze is immers beveiligd op basis van protocollen en
luchtvaartrichtsnoeren.

Botsingen tussen vliegtuigen of tussen een vliegtuig en de grond worden voorkomen aan de hand van
bewakingssystemen aan boord en radarsystemen op de grond.

Het EASA zal zijn onderzoek echter voortzetten en de Commissie zal het van nabij volgen.

4. De Commissie beschikt niet over aanwijzingen van lidstaten over een onmiddellijke bedreiging door het
gebruik/misbruik van dergelijke instrumenten.

5. De Commissie is voornemens om haar optreden op dit gebied te versterken door het EASA nauwer te betrekken
bij de cyberveiligheid van luchtverkeersbeheer ( _Air Traffic Management_ — ATM). Dit optreden maakt eveneens deel uit
van het SESAR-programma.

6. De Commissie zet zich ten volle in om alle wijzen van vervoer tegen cyberdreiging te beschermen.

C 33 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004257/13**

**to the Commission**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Hacking of aircraft

During the ‘Hack in the Box’ conference in Amsterdam on 12 April 2013, an application enabling hackers to take
control of aircraft systems was presented. With this app, the hacker is able to deliberately crash a simulation plane.

1. Is the Commission aware of the presentation of the said application during the ‘Hack in the Box’ conference?

2. Are the Commission and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in close contact with the application’s
developer?

3. Is it possible in practice to take control of aircraft systems by means of the presented application? If not, why
not?

4. Does the Commission have any indications that (terrorist) organisations are already developing applications in
order to carry out attacks using this method?

5. What plans does the Commission have in order to thwart attempts at carrying out attacks with such
applications?

6. Does this threat also apply to other modes of transport, such as rail and maritime transport? If so, does the
Commission intend to make every effort to protect these modes of transport, too, against possible takeover of control
systems by (terrorist) hackers?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

1-2. The Commission and EASA are well aware of this presentation. EASA has invited the company to present the
technical background of the presentation.

3. The claim has been investigated by EASA and other aviation safety authorities, manufacturers and system
suppliers since March 2013. The current results in relation to this application are being analysed but as it stands there
are doubts about its capacity to affect the real equipment on board of an aircraft which is protected, based on
protocols and aeronautical guidance.

On-board surveillance systems and ground based radar safety nets prevent the risk of collision between aircrafts and
between aircraft and the ground.

EASA will however continue its investigation and the Commission will follow this closely.

4. The Commission has no indications from Member States of immediate threat stemming from the potential
use/abuse of such devices.

5. The Commission plans to reinforce its action in this field with a closer involvement of EASA in cyber security
protection in relation to Air Traffic Management (ATM). This action is also part of the SESAR programme.

6. The Commission is fully committed to protect all modes of transport from cyber threat.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 113

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004258/13**

**an den Rat**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(16. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Bewegung im Kampf gegen Steueroasen — das Steuerabkommen mit Liechtenstein

1. Was ist der aktuelle Stand des Entwurfs des Steuerabkommens mit Liechtenstein?

2. Woran liegt es, dass dieses vor Jahren ausgehandelte Steuerabkommen vom Rat noch nicht verabschiedet
wurde?

3. Wann fanden im Rat die letzten Beratungen über den Entwurf dieses Steuerabkommens statt?

4. Wann wird der Rat die Beratungen über den Entwurf dieses Steuerabkommens wieder aufnehmen?

5. Österreich und Luxemburg haben in der Presse angekündigt, einem automatischen Informationsaustausch über
Zinserträge zustimmen zu wollen. Beurteilt der Rat diese Erklärungen im Hinblick auf die Wiederaufnahme der
Beratungen für hilfreich?

6. Denkt der Rat über eine Neuverhandlung des Entwurfs des Steuerabkommens mit Liechtenstein nach?

**Antwort**
_(24. Juli 2013)_

Der Rat hat sich bereits mehrfach mit der Zusammenarbeit mit Liechtenstein in Steuersachen befasst.

Zum einen hat der Rat im Jahr 2006 einen Beschluss angenommen, mit dem die Kommission ermächtigt wurde,
Verhandlungen mit Liechtenstein über ein Betrugsbekämpfungsabkommen aufzunehmen. Im Laufe der
Verhandlungen wurden die zuständigen Gruppen des Rates angehört, und im Februar 2009 hat der Rat die
Kommission ersucht, die Verhandlungen mit Liechtenstein fortzuführen, um eine effektive Amtshilfe und einen
tatsächlichen Zugriff auf Informationen sicher‐zustellen ( [1] ). Im Dezember 2009 hat die Kommission dem Rat die
Entwürfe für Ratsbeschlüsse über die Unterzeichnung bzw. über den Abschluss des Abkommens ( [2] ) vorgelegt; diese
Dokumente werden seitdem im Rat aktiv erörtert.

Zum anderen hat die Gruppe „Verhaltenskodex“ des Rates im Jahr 2010 mit der Verbreitung der Grundsätze des
Verhaltenskodex (Unternehmensbesteuerung) in Drittländern begonnen. Dies betrifft mehrere Drittländer, wobei der
Schwerpunkt der Arbeiten auf Beratungen mit Liechtenstein liegt. Die Gruppe analysiert derzeit mehrere Fragen im
Zusammenhang mit dem neuen Steuergesetz Liechtensteins.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dok. 6116/09.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dok. 16989/09 und 16990/2/09 REV 2.

C 33 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004258/13**

**to the Council**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Progress in the fight against tax havens — the tax agreement with Liechtenstein

1. What is the current status of the draft tax agreement with Liechtenstein?

2. Why has this tax agreement, which was negotiated several years ago, still not been adopted by the Council?

3. When was this draft tax agreement last discussed in the Council?

4. When will the Council resume discussions of this draft tax agreement?

5. Austria and Luxembourg have announced in the press that they wish to agree to an automatic exchange of
information on interest income. Does the Council consider these statements to be helpful in relation to the
resumption of discussions?

6. Is it considering renegotiating the draft tax agreement with Liechtenstein?

**Reply**
_(22 July 2013)_

The Council has on several occasions addressed the issue of cooperation with Liechtenstein on tax matters.

Firstly, in 2006 the Council adopted a decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations for an anti-fraud
agreement with Liechtenstein. During the negotiations relevant working parties of the Council were consulted and in
February 2009 the Council invited the Commission to continue the negotiations in order to ensure effective
administrative assistance and access to information ( [1] ). In December 2009 the Commission presented to the Council
the draft decisions on signature and conclusion of the agreement and these documents have been and are actively
discussed in the Council ( [2] ).

Secondly, in 2010 the Council's Code of Conduct Group started work on promotion of the principles of the Code of
Conduct (Business Taxation) in third countries. Among other countries, the work concentrates on discussions with
Liechtenstein. The Group is currently involved in the analysis of several issues regarding Liechtenstein's new Tax Act.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 6116/09.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 16989/09 and 16990/2/09 REV 2.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 115

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004260/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Android de Google: abus de position dominante

Selon un récent rapport, Google utiliserait son système d'exploitation pour téléphones mobiles Android comme un
cheval de Troie pour tromper ses partenaires, monopoliser le marché des téléphones mobiles et contrôler les données
des consommateurs. Google obligerait les constructeurs qui utilisent Android à proposer quasi exclusivement les
applications phares de Google, comme Maps, YouTube ou Play, et à accepter aussi toute une gamme d'autres
applications Google. Ces applications sont proposées par défaut à l'utilisateur au détriment des offres concurrentes.
Par ailleurs, cette politique met Android en mesure de contrôler les données des consommateurs dans un marché
mobile qu'il domine largement.

1. La Commission a-t-elle eu vent de telles pratiques?

2. Ne s'agit-il pas, une fois encore, d'un abus de position dominante via les plates-formes mobiles, vers lesquelles
les consommateurs se tournent de plus en plus et qui sont dominées par le système d'exploitation Android de Google?

3. Comment la Commission compte-t-elle réagir?

**Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission**

_(28 mai 2013)_

La Commission a pris connaissance des problèmes que posent les pratiques commerciales de Google liées à son
système d'exploitation Android. Au cours des derniers mois, plusieurs acteurs du marché ont porté ces mêmes
questions à l'attention de la Commission. Elles font également l'objet d'une plainte formelle introduite par
l'association professionnelle FairSearch auprès de la Commission à la fin mars 2013.

La Commission examine actuellement les problèmes évoqués dans la plainte de FairSearch afin d'établir s'il peut s'agir
d'une infraction au droit de la concurrence de l'UE. Cette décision dépend d'une série d'éléments factuels, juridiques et
économiques qui doivent être pris en considération au regard du cas d'espèce.

La Commission est déterminée à appliquer les règles de concurrence de l'UE de manière à garantir la concurrence,
l'innovation et des conditions équitables pour tous les acteurs du marché.

C 33 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004260/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Google Android: abuse of dominant position

According to a recent report, Google is using its Android mobile operating system as a Trojan horse to deceive
partners, monopolise the mobile market and control consumer data. Smartphone makers who use Android are
apparently required by Google to include flagship Google apps such as Maps, YouTube or Play on an almost exclusive
basis, and also to agree to a whole range of other Google apps being given default placement, which puts competing
providers at a disadvantage. This policy also allows Android to control consumer data in the mobile market which it
dominates.

1. Is the Commission aware of such practices?

2. Is this not another example of abuse of a dominant position via mobile platforms, which are used ever more
frequently by consumers and which are dominated by Google’s Android operating system?

3. How does the Commission intend to respond?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the issues raised with regard to Google's business practices in relation to its Android
operating system. During the past months, a number of market players have brought the very same issues to the
Commission's attention. These issues are also part of a formal complaint filed by the industry association FairSearch
with the Commission at the end of March 2013.

The Commission is currently looking into the issues raised in the FairSearch complaint with a view to establishing
whether they may amount to an infringement of EU competition law. This depends on a range of factual, legal and
economic factors which need to be considered with regard to the particular case.

The Commission is committed to enforcing EU competition rules in a way which ensures that competition,
innovation and a level playing field are preserved amongst all market players.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 117

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004261/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Aide fiscale aux clubs belges

La Commission s'est penchée sur l'aide fiscale accordée aux clubs belges de football.

1. Quels sont les motifs de l'enquête?

2. Quel fut l'élément déclencheur? Est-ce bien une plainte de l'Allemagne qui a incité les autorités européennes à de
nouveaux devoirs d'enquête?

3. Quelles en sont les conclusions (partielles ou totales)?

**Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission**

_(12 juin 2013)_

Dans sa réponse à une lettre de la Commission du 1 [er] octobre 2012 adressée à tous les États membres, la Belgique a
informé celle-ci des modalités de son régime fiscal applicable aux clubs de football. L'objet de la lettre de la
Commission était de lui permettre d'avoir un aperçu du financement du football professionnel au sein de l'UE et de
l'incidence éventuelle des règles du traité relatives aux aides d'État sur ce financement.

Cette lettre a été motivée par le fait que, ces dernières années, la Commission a reçu des plaintes de la part de citoyens
de plusieurs États membres à propos de mesures d'aide présumées en faveur de clubs de football professionnels.
Cependant, seules quelques rares mesures d'aide en faveur de clubs de football professionnels ont été notifiées à la
Commission pour approbation en application de l'article 108, paragraphe 3, du TFUE.

À ce jour, la Commission n'a encore reçu aucune plainte en matière d'aides d'État au sujet du régime fiscal belge.

C 33 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004261/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fiscal aid for Belgian football clubs

The Commission has looked into fiscal aid granted to Belgian football clubs.

1. Why did the Commission investigate this?

2. What prompted the investigation? Was it a complaint from Germany that led the EU authorities to conduct a
new investigation?

3. What partial or full conclusions have been drawn from it?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

Belgium informed the Commission of its fiscal regime regarding football clubs in the reply to a letter from the
Commission of 1 October 2012 to all Member States. The purpose of this letter was to enable the Commission to get
an overview of the financing of professional football in the EU and the possible impact of the state aid rules of the
Treaty on this financing.

The reason for the letter was that the Commission has in the past years received complaints from citizens in several
Member States concerning alleged aid measures favouring professional football clubs. But only very few aid measures
to professional football clubs have been notified to the Commission for approval pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.

No state aid complaints have so far been received regarding the Belgian fiscal regime.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 119

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004263/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Abus de position dominante Mastercard

Les paiements par carte revêtent une importance capitale au sein du marché intérieur de l'UE, en particulier pour les
achats transfrontières ou par internet. Les entreprises et les consommateurs européens réalisent annuellement plus de
40 % de leurs paiements scripturaux par carte. Il est donc capital pour la Commission d'empêcher les distorsions de
la concurrence qui pourraient découler des dispositions interbancaires relatives aux commissions ou d'autres
conditions.

Certaines rumeurs, provenant de ceux qui avaient déjà interdit certaines commissions interbancaires de MasterCard
en 2007 et examinent actuellement les pratiques de Visa, laisseraient penser que Mastercard, géant américain des
cartes de crédit, a dépassé les limites une fois encore.

1. Mastercard entrave-t-il la concurrence, en violation des règles de l'UE en matière d'ententes et d'abus de position
dominante, sur le marché des paiements par carte dans l'Espace économique européen?

2. Les commissions interbancaires et pratiques connexes appliquées par l'entreprise ne sont-elles pas
anticoncurrentielles?

**Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission**

_(21 juin 2013)_

La Commission est en effet préoccupée par les commissions multilatérales d'interchange («CMI»).

Les commissions interbancaires transfrontalières appliquées par MasterCard au sein de l'EEE ont déjà fait l'objet d'une
décision d'interdiction par la Commission en 2007 ( [1] ). Le 24 mai 2012, le Tribunal a rejeté le recours formé par
MasterCard à l'encontre de cette décision ( [2] ). MasterCard a ensuite formé un pourvoi contre cet arrêt devant la Cour de
justice de l'UE. En 2009, MasterCard a offert des engagements unilatéraux prévoyant le plafonnement de ses CMI
appliquées aux cartes de débit et de crédit ( [3] ) à 0,20 % et 0,30 % respectivement ( [4] ).

En mars 2008, la Commission a également engagé une procédure en application de l'article 101 du TFUE à l'égard de
Visa ( [5] ). Visa Europe a proposé de limiter les CMI appliquées aux cartes de débit ( [6] ) à 0,20 % ( [7] ).

La procédure à l'encontre des CMI appliquées par Visa aux opérations par cartes de crédit s'est poursuivie ( [8] ).
Récemment, Visa Europe a offert des engagements consistant à plafonner les CMI qu'elle applique aux cartes de
crédit ( [9] ) à 0,30 %, ainsi qu'à modifier ses règles ( [10] ) en matière d'acquisition transfrontalière ( [11] ). Cette proposition sera
soumise aux acteurs du marché.

La procédure Visa couvre également les CMI interrégionales ( [12] ) et l'acquisition transfrontalière. La Commission a
engagé récemment une nouvelle procédure à l'encontre de MasterCard afin de pouvoir examiner ces aspects
également dans ce cadre ( [13] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Voir IP/07/1959 et MEMO/07/590. Cette interdiction a été prononcée en raison non pas d'un abus de position dominante, mais d'une violation de

l'article 101 du TFUE résultant d'une décision d'association d'entreprises anticoncurrentielle.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Voir le communiqué de presse n° 69/2012 du Tribunal de l'UE.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Pour les opérations transfrontalières effectuées au moyen de cartes de paiement «consommateurs» au sein de l'EEE.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) MasterCard a déclaré publiquement qu'elle maintiendrait les mêmes niveaux de commissions jusqu'à ce que la Cour se prononce, en dépit de

l'expiration formelle des engagements. Voir le formulaire transmis le 1 [er] août 2012 par MasterCard à la Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), p. 19 (http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC.Enhanced/SecCapsule.aspx?c=148835&fid=8305374).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) La communication des griefs a été adressée en avril 2009. Voir MEMO/09/151.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Pour les opérations transfrontières au sein de l'EEE et les transactions nationales dans 10 États membres de l'UE ou pays de l'EEE.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Ces engagements ont été rendus contraignants par la Commission en décembre 2010. Voir IP/10/1684.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Une communication des griefs complémentaire a été adressée aux entités de Visa en 2012 et 2013. Voir IP/12/871.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Pour les opérations transfrontières au sein de l'EEE et les transactions nationales dans 10 États membres de l'UE ou pays de l'EEE.
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) Cette réforme permettra aux banques d'appliquer des CMI transfrontières moins élevées lorsqu'elles se font concurrence pour l'obtention de

clients (commerçants) à l'échelle transfrontière.

( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) Voir MEMO/13/431.
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) Ces commissions s'appliquent par exemple lorsqu'un touriste américain utilise une carte dans une boutique située dans l'EEE.
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) Voir IP/13/314.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

**|** )

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

C 33 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Outre l'application des règles en matière d'ententes et d'abus de position dominante, la Commission entend proposer,
avant l'été, une réglementation sur les commissions interbancaires appliquées aux cartes de paiement. Par ailleurs,
plusieurs autorités nationales de concurrence ont ouvert des enquêtes ou ont déjà adopté des décisions à l'encontre de
banques et des systèmes de paiement de Visa et de MasterCard en ce qui concerne les CMI nationales pratiquées dans
le cadre de ces mécanismes.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 121

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004263/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ MasterCard abusing its dominant position

Card payments are vitally important in the EU internal market, particularly for cross-border or online purchases.
Every year, European businesses and consumers make over 40% of their non-cash payments by card. It is thus vital
for the Commission to prevent distortions of competition that could be caused by inter-bank arrangements on fees or
other conditions.

According to rumours from those who had already banned some of MasterCard’s inter-bank fees in 2007 and are
currently looking into Visa’s practices, MasterCard, the US credit card giant, has overstepped the mark once again.

1. Is MasterCard hindering competition in the card payment market in the European Economic Area, in breach of
EU antitrust rules?

2. Are the inter-bank fees and related practices applied by MasterCard anti-competitive?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

Multilateral inter-bank fees ((Multilateral Interchange Fees or MIFs) are indeed a concern for the Commission.

MasterCard's cross-border inter-bank fees within the EEA have already been prohibited by a Commission decision in
2007 ( [1] ). On 24 May 2012, the General Court rejected MasterCard's challenge against the Commission decision ( [2] ).
MasterCard has appealed this judgment to the ECJ. In 2009, MasterCard offered unilateral Undertakings to cap its
debit and credit card MIFs ( [3] ) at 0.20% and 0.30% respectively ( [4] ).

The Commission also opened proceedings under Article 101 TFEU against Visa in March 2008 ( [5] ). Visa Europe
offered commitments to cap its debit card MIFs ( [6] ) at 0.20% ( [7] ).

The proceedings against Visa's credit card MIFs continued ( [8] ). Recently, Visa Europe proposed commitments to cap its
credit card MIFs ( [9] ) at 0.30% as well as to reform its cross-border acquiring ( [10] ) rules ( [11] ). This proposal will be market
tested.

The scope of the Visa proceedings also includes inter-regional MIFs ( [12] ) and cross-border acquiring. The Commission
recently opened new proceedings against MasterCard to investigate these aspects also within this scheme ( [13] ).

In addition to its antitrust enforcement, the Commission intends to propose a regulation on inter-bank fees for card
payments before the summer. At the same time several national competition authorities are investigating or have
already adopted decisions against banks and the payment schemes Visa and MasterCard for the domestic MIFs of
these schemes.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See IP/07/1959 and MEMO/07/590. This prohibition was not for abuse of dominance but for the breach of Article 101 TFEU through an

anticompetitive decision of an association.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See press release no 69/2012 of the General Court of the EU.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) For cross-border transactions with consumer cards within the EEA.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) MasterCard publicly said it would maintain the same levels of fees until the ECJ's judgment, despite the formal expiration of the Undertakings. See

MasterCard's SECfiling of 1 August 2012, p. 19 (http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC.Enhanced/SecCapsule.aspx?c=148835&fid=8305374).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The Statement of Objections was issued in April 2009. See MEMO/09/151.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) For cross-border transactions within the EEA and domestic transactions in 10 EU Member States or EEA countries.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) These commitments were made binding by the Commission in December 2010. See IP/10/1684.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) A Supplementary Statement of Objections was sent to the Visa entities in 2012 and 2013. See IP/12/871.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) For cross-border transactions within the EEA and domestic transactions in 10 EU Member States or EEA countries.
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) This reform will allow banks to apply reduced cross-border MIFs when they compete for clients (merchants) cross-border.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) See MEMO/13/431.
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) Such fees apply, for example, when a US tourist uses a card at a shop in the EEA.
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) See IP/13/314.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

C 33 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004264/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Tirer le meilleur parti des mesures environnementales

1. La Commission compte-t-elle reconsidérer, comme l'y exhorte le Parlement, les demandes relatives à la création
d'une base de données sur les meilleures pratiques permettant de diffuser les meilleures pratiques de mise en œuvre
parmi les États membres et parmi les entités régionales et locales?

2. La Commission va-t-elle étudier comment déployer les technologies de l'information et de la communication
afin de fournir le plus d'informations possible sur la façon dont la législation environnementale doit être mise en
œuvre?

3. Pourquoi la Commission ne crée-t-elle pas, en collaboration avec les autorités nationales et avec le concours
approprié de l'AEE, une commission des plaintes à laquelle les citoyens pourront communiquer les problèmes liés à la
mise en œuvre de la législation environnementale?

**Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission**

_(12 juin 2013)_

1. Bien que la Commission n'envisage pas d'établir une base de données générale sur les meilleures pratiques
environnementales, elle promeut déjà et est déterminée à promouvoir et encourager les meilleures pratiques par
l'intermédiaire de divers autres moyens, notamment la publication de documents d'orientation et le soutien aux
réseaux professionnels tels que les services d'inspection ou les juges.

2. Les stratégies globales de mise en œuvre (telles que la communication COM(2012)95 ( [1] )) et certaines législations
environnementales spécifiques existantes de l'Union européenne, notamment la directive 2003/4/CE ( [2] ) et la
directive 2007/2/CE ( [3] ), reconnaissent le rôle essentiel des technologies de l'information et de la communication dans
la diffusion d'informations aux citoyens. Cette législation jette les bases pour la mise à disposition de renseignements
en ligne sur la mise en œuvre des législations environnementales de l'Union européenne. La Commission étudie les
moyens de poursuivre la réalisation de ses objectifs.

3. La Commission exploite déjà un système général de gestion des plaintes permettant aux citoyens de déposer des
plaintes concernant des violations de la législation environnementale de l'Union. Les caractéristiques de ce système
sont détaillées dans la communication de la Commission COM(2002)141 ( [4] ) actualisée par COM(2012)154 ( [5] ). Il
n'existe actuellement aucun cadre général similaire permettant de déterminer la manière dont les autorités nationales
compétentes devraient traiter les plaintes déposées au niveau national. Dans sa communication COM(2012)95, la
Commission a considéré qu'il serait intéressant d'examiner la manière dont la gestion des plaintes peut être améliorée
dans les États membres. La proposition d'un 7 [e] programme d'action en matière d'environnement formulée par la
Commission ( [6] ) envisage de mettre en place des mécanismes de gestion des plaintes cohérents et efficaces au niveau
national. Dix études concernant la gestion des plaintes ont déjà été effectuées dans plusieurs États membres ( [7] ) et
d'autres sont prévues (pour un bref aperçu, voir l'annexe).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 7.3.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 41 du 14.2.2003, p. 26.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) JO L 108 du 25.4.2007, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 20.3.2002.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 2.4.2012.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 710 final du 29.11.2012.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/mediation_and_complaint-handling.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 123

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004264/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Making the most of environmental measures

1. Is the Commission planning to reconsider Parliament’s demand for the introduction of a database of best
practices, allowing best implementation practices to be disseminated across Member States and across regional and
local entities?

2. Does the Commission intend to carry out any studies into ways in which information and communication
technology can be deployed to provide as much information as possible on how environmental legislation should be
implemented?

3. Why does the Commission not work together with national authorities, and with the involvement of the EEA as
appropriate, to create a complaint unit where citizens can communicate problems related to the implementation of
environmental legislation?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

1. Whilst the Commission has no plans to introduce a general database of environmental best practices, it is
already promoting and committed to promote best practices through a variety of other means, including publication
of guidance documents and support for professional networks such as inspectorates and judges.

2. The crucial role of information and communication technology in disseminating information to citizens is
recognised in the overall implementation strategies (such as Communication COM(2012)95 ( [1] )) and in specific
existing EU environment legislation, notably Directive 2003/4/EC ( [2] ) and Directive 2007/2/EC ( [3] ). This legislation lays
the basis for the provision of online information on how EU environment legislation is being implemented. The
Commission is looking at ways to further achieve its objectives.

3. The Commission already operates a general complaint-handling system allowing citizens to submit complaints
about breaches of EU environment legislation. The features of the system are set out in the Commission
Communication COM(2002) 141 ( [4] ) as updated by COM(2012) 154 ( [5] ). There is currently no similar general
framework on how the competent national authorities should respond to complaints submitted at national level. In
its communication COM(2012) 95, the Commission considered it worthwhile to explore how complaint-handling
can be improved in the Member States. The Commission's proposal for a 7th Environmental Action Programme ( [6] )
envisages setting up consistent and effective complaint-handling mechanisms at national level. 10 studies on
complaint-handling in various Member States were already completed ( [7] ) and others are being planned (for a short
overview, see the annex).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 7.3.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 20.3.2002.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 2.4.2012.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 710 final, 29.11.2012.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/pdf/mediation_and_complaint-handling.pdf

C 33 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004265/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Cadre pluriannuel sur le financement de la coopération de l'Union européenne en faveur des États ACP

Concernant le cadre financier pluriannuel sur le financement de la coopération de l'Union en faveur des États
d'Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique et des pays et territoires d'outre‐mer pour la période 2014-2020, les nouvelles
modalités de financement, comme la combinaison de subventions et de prêts, comportent des avantages certains dans
un contexte de raréfaction des ressources publiques.

1. Néanmoins, la Commission compte-t-elle réaliser des études d'impact approfondies et indépendantes afin de
mesurer l'impact de ces nouvelles modalités de financement sur la réduction de la pauvreté, sur l'environnement, etc.?

2. La Commission va-t-elle publier des lignes directrices et des critères précis clarifiant les principes devant guider
la sélection des projets dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre de ces nouveaux types d'outils?

3. Comment la Commission compte-t-elle renforcer les synergies et les complémentarités entre les activités de la
Commission, de la BEI et des autres institutions financières bilatérales européennes, telles que les banques de
développement?

**Réponse donnée par M. Piebalgs au nom de la Commission**

_(7 juin 2013)_

1. La combinaison de subventions de l'UE et d'autres modes de financement peut permettre de mobiliser
d'importants investissements dans les pays partenaires de l'UE. Le financement mixte constitue l'un des outils utilisés
par la Commission pour atteindre des objectifs stratégiques et, par conséquent, les exigences standard en matière de
contrôle et d'évaluation s'appliquent également. Cette évaluation mesure entre autres l'impact de ces nouvelles
modalités de financement sur la réduction de la pauvreté et sur l'environnement. En outre, des évaluations sont
effectuées à mi-parcours. Celle qui porte sur le Fonds fiduciaire UE-Afrique pour les infrastructures peut être consultée
librement.

2. Le financement mixte est mis en œuvre dans le cadre du champ d'action et des priorités stratégiques définis dans
la programmation stratégique et régionale. Des critères de sélection sont définis sur cette base. Le processus d'examen
et d'approbation concernant chaque opération de financement mixte comporte également des critères techniques qui
servent à vérifier, entre autres, la valeur ajoutée de la subvention de l'UE et la soutenabilité de la dette.

En décembre 2012, une plate-forme européenne de financement mixte pour la coopération extérieure a été mise en
place en vue de tirer le meilleur parti possible des mécanismes mixtes disponibles dans le domaine de l'action
extérieure. La plate-forme (au sein de laquelle le Parlement a le statut d'observateur) réexamine actuellement les
mécanismes mixtes existants. Les meilleures pratiques et les enseignements tirés du passé (par exemple en ce qui
concerne la sélection des projets) fourniront des indications quant à la mise en œuvre des actions correspondantes.

3. Le financement mixte permet une meilleure coordination entre bailleurs de fonds et financiers, renforçant ainsi
la cohérence des politiques, l'efficacité de l'aide et la visibilité de l'UE. La plate-forme européenne est également en
train de réfléchir à la manière d'accroître davantage les synergies entre les institutions financières européennes et les
banques de développement régionales.

Comme pour toutes les interventions de la Commission, le fait que cette dernière joue un rôle de premier plan dans le
processus d'examen et d'approbation et soit pleinement engagée tout au long du cycle du projet garantit la cohérence
du financement mixte avec les objectifs stratégiques et d'autres activités.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 125

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004265/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Multiannual framework regarding the financing of EU cooperation for ACP States

New funding arrangements, such as combined grant/loan funding under the 2014‐2020 multiannual financial
framework regarding the financing of EU cooperation for the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and Overseas
Countries and Territories have definite advantages in a context of ever more scarce public resources.

1. Nevertheless, does the Commission intend to carry out detailed and independent impact studies in order to
measure the impact of these new funding arrangements on poverty reduction, the environment, etc.?

2. Is the Commission planning to publish guidelines and precise criteria clarifying the principles that should
inform the selection of projects when these new arrangements are implemented?

3. How does the Commission intend to boost synergy and complementarity between the activities of the
Commission, the EIB and other European bilateral financial institutions, such as the development banks?

**Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

1. By blending EU grants with additional non-grant resources, important investments in EU partner countries can
be catalysed. Blending is one of the tools used by the Commission to achieve policy objectives and thus standard
monitoring and evaluation requirements also apply. This assessment includes impact on poverty reduction and the
environment. Furthermore, mid-term reviews are carried out. That of the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund is
publicly available.

2. Blending is carried out within the scope and policy priorities as defined in strategic and regional programming.
On this basis selection criteria are defined. The screening and approval process for individual blending operations also
includes technical criteria that check _inter alia_ the added value of the EU grant and debt sustainability.

In December 2012 an EU Platform for Blending in External Cooperation was set up to optimise the use of blending in
external action. The Platform (Parliament is an observer) is currently reviewing existing blending mechanisms. Best
practice and lessons learned (e.g. project selection) will inform the implementation of corresponding actions.

3. Blending increases coordination among donors and financiers, enhancing policy coherence, aid effectiveness
and EU visibility. The EU Platform is currently also analysing how synergy between European financial institutions
and regional development banks can be further increased.

As with all Commission interventions, the consistency of blending with policy objectives and other activities is
ensured by the Commission playing a leading role in the screening and approval process and being strongly engaged
throughout the project cycle.

C 33 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004266/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Adaptation des Fonds structurels pour l'égalité des genres

Dans son rapport sur les répercussions de la crise économique sur l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes et les
droits des femmes (2012/2301(INI); P7_TA(2013)0073), le Parlement européen demande à la Commission
d'envisager une nouvelle adaptation des Fonds structurels de sorte à renforcer le soutien aux domaines concentrant
l'emploi féminin qui sont susceptibles d'être touchés par la crise, ainsi que l'aide aux services de garde d'enfants, à la
formation et à l'accès à l'emploi.

Quelles actions concrètes la Commission compte-t-elle prendre pour faire suite à la demande des parlementaires
européens?

**Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission**

_(12 juin 2013)_

Les propositions de la Commission concernant de nouveaux règlements sur les Fonds structurels et d'investissement
européens (Fonds ESI) promeuvent le principe de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes ( [1] ).

La proposition de règlement portant dispositions communes (RPDC) ( [2] ) contient plusieurs dispositions concrètes
visant à mettre en pratique le principe de l'intégration de la dimension d'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes dans
l'ensemble du processus de financement, parmi lesquelles une obligation de tenir compte de ce principe dans la
préparation et la mise en œuvre des programmes, la prise en considération de la dimension «hommes-femmes» en
tant que principe clé dans les procédures et critères de sélection, ainsi que des évaluations ex ante portant également
sur le caractère adéquat de toutes les mesures prévues pour promouvoir l'égalité des chances entre les femmes et
les hommes.

En ce qui concerne le Fonds social européen (FSE) ( [3] ), la proposition de règlement du FSE affirme clairement
l'obligation pour les États membres d'intégrer effectivement la dimension «hommes-femmes» dans leurs politiques et
programmes. L'article 7 souligne l'obligation d'appliquer une double méthode: la prise en compte systématique de la
dimension d'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes, comme indiqué brièvement ci-dessus, et des actions spécifiques.
Ces dernières peuvent être programmées dans le cadre de n'importe laquelle des priorités d'investissement du FSE,
telles que «l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes et la conciliation de la vie professionnelle et de la vie privée» ou
«l'amélioration de l'accès à des services abordables, durables et de qualité».

Les nouveaux Fonds ESI seront directement liés à la Stratégie Europe 2020, dans laquelle la dimension «hommesfemmes» est un facteur important pour atteindre l'objectif d'un taux d'emploi de 75 % tant pour les femmes que pour
les hommes.

Enfin, la Commission cofinance depuis 2009 un réseau d'apprentissage FSE axé sur le principe de l'égalité entre les
femmes et les hommes. Ce réseau compte actuellement des partenaires de 17 États membres; il se concentrera sur les
effets de la crise dans le domaine de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes lorsqu'il présentera à la Commission des
recommandations relatives à l'intégration de cette dimension dans le FSE.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=62&langId=fr
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil portant dispositions communes relatives au Fonds européen de développement régional, au

Fonds social européen, au Fonds de cohésion, au Fonds européen agricole pour le développement rural et au Fonds européen pour les affaires
maritimes et la pêche relevant du Cadre stratégique commun, portant dispositions générales applicables au Fonds européen de développement
régional, au Fonds social européen et au Fonds de cohésion, et abrogeant le règlement (CE) n° 1083/2006.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=231&langId=fr

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 127

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004266/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Adaptation of the Structural Funds for gender equality

In its report on the impact of the economic crisis on gender equality and women’s rights (2012/2301(INI);
P7_TA(2013)0073), Parliament calls on the Commission to consider a further adaptation of the Structural Funds, in
order to ensure additional support for areas of women’s employment likely to be affected by the crisis, as well as
support for childcare, training and access to employment.

What concrete action does the Commission plan to take in response to Parliament’s request?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The Commission's proposals for new Regulations on European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) promote
the principle of gender equality ( [1] ).

The proposed Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) ( [2] ) contains several concrete provisions to make concrete the
principle of the gender mainstreaming in the whole funding process, such as an obligation to ensure it in the
preparation and implementation of programmes; gender perspective as a key principle in selection procedures and
criteria; _ex ante_ evaluations also covering the adequacy of all planned measures to promote equal opportunities
between men and women.

As regards the European Social Fund (ESF) ( [3] ), the proposed ESF Regulation clearly states the obligation for MS to
effectively integrate the gender dimension into their policies and programmes. Article 7 stresses the obligation to
pursue a dual approach: by gender mainstreaming, as briefly mentioned, and by specific actions. The latter may be
programmed under any ESF investment priority, such as ‘equality between men and women and reconciliation
between work and private life’ or ‘enhancing access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services’.

The new ESI Funds will be directly linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, where the gender dimension is an important
factor to achieve the target of the 75% employment rate for women and men.

Finally, and since 2009, the Commission has co-financed an ESF Learning Network which focuses on Gender
Mainstreaming. This network currently has partners from 17 MS and will focus on the impact of the crisis on gender
when providing recommendations to the Commission on Gender Mainstreaming in the ESF.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=62&langId=en
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the

European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund
and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=231&langId=en

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 33 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004267/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Interdiction des expérimentations du secteur cosmétique sur les animaux

L'interdiction des tests de produits cosmétiques sur les animaux prise par l'Union européenne prend effet aujourd'hui,
décision dont la majorité du Parlement européen se réjouit à juste titre. Cette mesure est en accord avec ce que
beaucoup de citoyens européens croient fermement: le développement des cosmétiques ne justifie pas les tests sur les
animaux.

Le principal grief des industries cosmétiques est, je cite, «que la science n'est pas encore prête à combler le manque de
connaissances et que les alternatives aux tests sur les animaux ne répondent pas à toutes les questions de sécurité», et
que «de plus, cette interdiction est un frein à l'innovation pour l'industrie cosmétique européenne et améliore très peu
le bien-être global de l'animal».

L'Union européenne prévoit de financer le développement de méthodes alternatives aux tests sur les animaux.
309 millions de dollars y ont déjà été consacrés entre 2007 et 2011.

1. Quels sont les résultats de ces premiers investissements et qu'en est-il ressorti?

2. Quelles sont les alternatives imaginées par la Commission ou, du moins, quelles sont les pistes explorées?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Geoghegan-Quinn au nom de la Commission**

_(4 juin 2013)_

Les travaux de recherche visant à mettre au point des méthodes d'essai de substitution financée au titre du septième
programme-cadre de recherche, de développement technologique et de démonstration (7 [e] PC, 2007-2013) ont pour
but de pallier l'important déficit de connaissances dans le domaine, à savoir le manque de connaissances scientifiques
de base en matière d'essais toxicologiques et de sciences biomédicales. Ces connaissances sont essentielles pour
pouvoir déterminer avec certitude tous les éventuels effets indésirables d'une substance chimique sur un organisme et
être ainsi en mesure d'évaluer correctement la validité des méthodes d'essai de remplacement.

Ces travaux ont également pour objectif de mettre au point de nouvelles méthodes d'essai ne nécessitant pas
l'utilisation d'animaux, reposant sur les technologies en «-omique», la biologie systémique et l'informatique, ainsi que
les systèmes d'essai in vitro (cellulaire). Un exemple actuel de cette recherche au titre du 7 [e] PC est le consortium
public-privé SEURAT-1 ( [1] ). Le laboratoire de référence de l'Union européenne pour la promotion des méthodes de
substitution à l'expérimentation animale (LRUE CEVMA) du Centre commun de recherche de la Commission suit de
près la validation des méthodes de remplacement, qui sera au centre de ces travaux. De plus amples informations sur
les résultats et les progrès des projets en cours bénéficiant d'un soutien de l'Union sont disponibles sur le site web de
l'action de coordination à l'échelle de l'UE intitulée AXLR8 ( [2] ). Les activités de recherche soutenues par l'UE ont
produit un volume considérable de connaissances scientifiques, qui ont été publiées dans de grandes revues
scientifiques.

La proposition de la Commission pour Horizon 2020, à savoir le programme-cadre pour la recherche et l'innovation
(2014-2020), prévoit de poursuivre le soutien à l'amélioration des méthodes d'essai garantissant la sécurité des
personnes, y compris des méthodes de substitution à l'expérimentation animale ( [3] ). À ce stade de la procédure
législative, cependant, il n'est pas possible de prévoir l'affectation des fonds en faveur de ce domaine de la recherche.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.seurat-1.eu
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.axlr8.eu
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0811:FIN:fr:PDF](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0811:FIN:fr:PDF)

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 129

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004267/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ban on animal testing in the cosmetics sector

The EU’s ban on animal testing for cosmetics enters into force today. This decision has rightly been welcomed by a
majority in Parliament. This ban is in line with what many EU citizens firmly believe: that the development of
cosmetics does not warrant animal testing.

The main complaint of the cosmetics industry is, and I quote, ‘that science is not yet ready to bridge existing
knowledge gaps and that non-animal alternatives cannot address all ingredient safety questions’, and that
‘[f]urthermore, the ban acts as a brake on innovation for the European cosmetics industry while achieving little to
improve global animal welfare.’

The EU plans to fund the development of alternative methods to animal testing. USD 309 million have already been
channelled into such development between 2007 and 2011.

1. What results have these initial investments had and what has been achieved?

2. What alternatives does the Commission have in mind or, at least, what possibilities have been explored?

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

_(4 June 2013)_

Research into alternative methods funded through the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological
Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007-2013) aims to address the important knowledge gaps in the
field, namely the lack of basic scientific knowledge in toxicological and biomedical sciences. Such knowledge is
essential to be able to ascertain with confidence all possible adverse effects that a chemical could have on an organism
and thus to be able to properly assess the validity of alternative testing methods.

This research also has the objective of developing potential new animal-free testing methods, based on ‘omics’
technologies, systems biology and computational approaches, and _in vitro_ (cell based) test systems. A current example
of such research under FP7 is the public-private consortium SEURAT-1 ( [1] ). The key aspect of the validation of
alternative methods is closely followed by the European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal
Testing (EURL ECVAM) of the Commission's Joint Research Centre. Further details on results and current progress in
EU-supported projects are available at the website of the EU coordination action AXLR8 ( [2] ). EU-supported research
has produced a large body of scientific knowledge, which has been published in mainstream scientific journals.

The Commission proposal for Horizon 2020 — the framework Programme for Research and Innovation (20142020), envisages further support for the development of methods for better human safety testing, including
alternatives to animal testing. ( [3] ) At this stage of the legislative process, however, it is not possible to predict the
possible allocation of funds to this area of research.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.seurat-1.eu
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.axlr8.eu
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0811:FIN:en:PDF

C 33 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004268/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Fairplay financier dans le monde du football

Cette saison, Lionel Messi est l'auteur de 39 buts en Liga et de 5 réalisations en Ligue des champions. Une prestation
hors du commun. Une autre performance mérite cependant d'être soulignée: son club, le FC Barcelone, est endetté à
hauteur de 578 millions d'euros. Salaires mirobolants, déséquilibre financier, iniquité entre les clubs… la situation est
partout la même en Europe.

1. Comment se positionne la Commission vis-à-vis de la proposition Platini d'une nouvelle réglementation portant
sur le fairplay financier des clubs des tops européens?

2. La Commission travaille-t-elle à mettre en place des textes législatifs afin d'appuyer cette proposition?

3. Chaque année, les clubs de football dépensent trois milliards d'euros en transferts de joueurs. Entre 1995 et
2011, les sommes dépensées ont été multipliées par sept. Pourtant, moins de 2 % des indemnités de transfert profitent
aux clubs plus modestes qui jouent un rôle essentiel dans la formation de nouveaux talents. Dès lors, pourquoi la
Commission ne créerait-elle pas une redevance sur les indemnités de transfert avec pour objectif d'améliorer la
redistribution des fonds entre les clubs riches et les clubs moins fortunés?

4. Les salaires des joueurs évoluant dans des clubs affiliés à l'UEFA augmentent en effet plus rapidement que les
recettes de ces mêmes clubs. Dans 15 championnats affiliés à l'UEFA, la masse salariale dépasse 70 % des revenus des
clubs. Une situation, à terme, intenable. La Commission va-t-elle encourager par des actes le système de «salary cap»,
que le championnat anglais de rugby a mis en place dès 1999?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Vassiliou au nom de la Commission**

_(20 juin 2013)_

Comme indiqué dans sa communication «Développer la dimension européenne du sport» ( [1] ), la Commission se
félicite de l'adoption de mesures visant au renforcement du fair-play financier dans le football européen, tout en
rappelant que ces mesures doivent respecter les règles de la concurrence et du marché intérieur. Le 21 mars 2012, le
vice‐président de la Commission Joaquín Almunia et le président de l'UEFA Michel Platini ont publié une déclaration
commune sur l'interaction entre l'application des règles de fair-play financier par l'UEFA et le contrôle des aides d'État
assuré par la Commission, en soulignant que l'objectif commun était de parvenir à une situation où les clubs de
football professionnel évoluent en fonction de leurs moyens. La Commission n'entend pas proposer de législation à
l'appui des mesures de fair-play financier édictées par l'UEFA.

L'idée d'introduire une redevance sur les indemnités de transfert afin d'accroître la solidarité entre les clubs de football
a été émise dans une étude indépendante sur les transferts de joueurs ( [2] ). L'étude sera présentée et examinée au sein du
groupe d'experts de l'UE «Bonne gouvernance» qui a été créé sur la base de la résolution du Conseil instaurant un plan
de travail de l'UE en faveur du sport pour 2011-2014 ( [3] ). Ce groupe d'experts, avec l'aide de la Commission, doit
présenter des recommandations au Conseil sur les transferts et les agents sportifs, d'ici la fin de 2013. Sur cette base, le
Conseil assurera un suivi politique approprié.

En ce qui concerne le plafonnement des salaires, la Commission renvoie l'Honorable Parlementaire à la réponse
qu'elle a donnée à la question écrite E-6876/2008 ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)12 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/cons-study-transfers-final-rpt.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 2011/C 162/01.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 131

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004268/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Financial fair play in football

This season, Lionel Messi has scored 39 goals in La Liga, and 5 in the Champions League. This is an extraordinary
record. However, there is another record that deserves to be highlighted: his club, FC Barcelona, is in debt to the tune
of EUR 578 million. The same situation is seen throughout Europe: extravagant salaries, financial imbalance,
inequality between clubs, and so on.

1. What is the Commission’s position on Michel Platini’s proposal for a new financial fair play regulation for the
top European clubs?

2. Is the Commission working on drafting legislation in support of this proposal?

3. Every year, football clubs spend EUR 3 billion on player transfers. Between 1995 and 2011, the amount spent
increased seven-fold. However, less than 2% of transfer fees trickle down to smaller clubs, which play a vital role in
developing new talent. In view of this, why does the Commission not introduce a levy on transfer fees with the aim of
improving the redistribution of funds between rich clubs and less wealthy clubs?

4. The salaries of players playing for UEFA-affiliated clubs are increasing at a faster rate than the revenue of those
clubs. In 15 UEFA-affiliated leagues, the wage bill exceeds 70% of clubs’ revenue. This situation is unsustainable in the
long run. Will the Commission take action to encourage a ‘salary cap’ system, as introduced in top-flight English
rugby in 1999?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 June 2013)_

As stated in its communication ‘Developing the European Dimension in Sport’ ( [1] ), the Commission welcomes the
adoption of measures aimed at enhancing financial fair play in European football while recalling that such measures
have to respect Internal Market and competition rules. On 21 March 2012, Commission Vice-President Joaquín
Almunia and UEFA President Michel Platini issued a joint statement on the interaction between the application of
Financial Fair Play rules by UEFA and the control of state aid by the Commission, highlighting that the joint intention
was to achieve a situation in which professional football clubs live within their own means. The Commission does not
intend to propose legislation in support of UEFA's Financial Fair Play measures.

The idea of introducing a levy on transfer fees to increase solidarity amongst football clubs was presented in the
independent study on the transfers of players ( [2] ). The study will be presented and discussed within the EU Expert
Group ‘Good Governance’, set up on the basis of the Council Resolution establishing an EU Work Plan for Sport for
2011-2014 ( [3] ). The Expert Group, with the assistance of the Commission, is expected to make recommendations in
the area of transfers and sports agents to the Council by the end of 2013. On this basis, the Council will ensure
appropriate political follow-up.

With regard to salary caps, the Commission wishes to refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written
Question E-6876/2008 ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)12 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/cons-study-transfers-final-rpt.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 2011/C 162/01.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004269/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Cas de force majeure pour le passager aérien européen

La Commission veut renforcer les droits des passagers face aux compagnies aériennes lorsqu'ils demandent des
remboursements ou des compensations en cas de retard.

Elle envisage d'établir une liste des conditions qui définissent les cas de «force majeure», une expression qui sert
souvent d'argument aux compagnies aériennes pour excuser les retards. En contrepartie, les délais donnant droit à
une compensation seraient allongés: 5 heures pour un trajet de 1 500 kilomètres et 9 heures pour 3 500 kilomètres.

1. Quels sont les critères pris en compte pour créer la liste des cas de force majeure?

2. Quel est cette liste?

3. À combien se montent les indemnités globales versées aux consommateurs européens dans ce cadre ces
dernières années?

4. Quelle a été la base de calcul pour proposer ou décider des nouveaux délais pour l'octroi d'une compensation?

**Réponse donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission**

_(23 mai 2013)_

1 et 2. Dans la proposition de règlement modifiant les droits des passagers aériens ( [1] ), la définition proposée par la
Commission pour la notion de «circonstances extraordinaires» découle directement de l'interprétation donnée par la
Cour de justice de l'Union européenne (CJUE) dans l'arrêt _Wallentin-Hermann (_ _[2]_ _)._ Pour plus de clarté, une liste non
exhaustive de circonstances à considérer comme extraordinaires et de circonstances à considérer comme non
extraordinaires figure à l'annexe 1 de la proposition. Cette liste reprend les cas ayant le plus fréquemment conduit, par
le passé, à des divergences d'interprétation et renforce la sécurité juridique.

3. Aucune statistique n'est disponible sur les montants des indemnisations. Le droit à une indemnisation en cas de
retard important découle de l'interprétation donnée par la CJUE dans l'arrêt _Sturgeon (_ [3] _)_, selon laquelle les passagers de
vols retardés devraient avoir le même droit à une indemnisation que les passagers de vols annulés. La CJUE a confirmé
ce point en octobre 2012, lorsqu'elle a maintenu son interprétation dans l'arrêt _Nelson (_ _[4]_ _)._

4. La proposition de définition de la notion de circonstances extraordinaires exclut la plupart des problèmes
techniques. La Commission a proposé des seuils de déclenchement qui se fondent sur des délais raisonnables
permettant aux transporteurs aériens de régler les problèmes techniques et qui reposent sur des données relatives aux
retards et sur des calculs de coûts. Le seuil de déclenchement proposé est de 5 heures pour l'ensemble des trajets au
sein de l'UE, quelle que soit la distance de vol. Pour les trajets hors-UE, les seuils de déclenchement proposés sont de
5 heures pour les vols inférieurs ou égaux à 3 500 km, de 9 heures pour les vols entre 3 500 et 6 000 km et de
12 heures pour les vols supérieurs ou égaux à 6 000 km. Le seuil de 5 heures a par ailleurs été choisi pour garantir la
cohérence interne du règlement, puisque le seuil ouvrant le droit des passagers à un remboursement est, lui aussi,
d'une durée minimale de 5 heures de retard.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil modifiant le règlement (CE) n [o] 261/2004 établissant des règles communes en

matière d'indemnisation et d'assistance des passagers en cas de refus d'embarquement et d'annulation ou de retard important d'un vol, ainsi que le
règlement (CE) n [o] 2027/97 relatif à la responsabilité des transporteurs aériens en ce qui concerne le transport aérien de passagers et de leurs
bagages, COM(2013)130 final.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Affaire C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Affaires jointes C-402/07 et C-432/07, Sturgeon e.a., arrêt du 19 novembre 2009.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Affaires jointes C-581/10 et C-629/10, Nelson e.a., arrêt du 23 octobre 2012.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 133

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004269/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cases of _force majeure_ for EU air passengers

The Commission wants to strengthen passengers’ rights when they ask airlines for refunds or compensation in the
event of delays.

It plans to draw up a list of conditions for establishing when _force majeure_, an expression which airlines often use to
justify delays, applies. In return, passengers would have to be delayed for longer before being entitled to
compensation: five hours for a journey of 1 500 kilometres and nine hours for 3 500 kilometres.

1. What criteria were considered when the list of cases of _force majeure_ was drawn up?

2. What is this list?

3. How much compensation of this kind has been paid out in total to European consumers in recent years?

4. What calculation was used as a basis for proposing or deciding the new delay times entitling passengers to
compensation?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

1 and 2. In the revision of air passenger rights ( [1] ), the Commission has proposed a definition of the term
‘extraordinary circumstances’ that is directly inspired from the interpretation given by the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU) in the Wallentin-Hermann judgment ( [2] ). For further clarification, a non-exhaustive list of
circumstances considered as extraordinary or as non-extraordinary is given in Annex 1 of the proposal. It addresses
the most common cases that have led to divergent interpretations in the past and enhances legal certainty.

3. There are no statistics available on the paid amounts of compensation. Such right to compensation stems from
the interpretation made by the CJEU in the _Sturgeon_ judgment ( [3] ), according to which passengers of delayed flights
should have the same right to compensation as passengers of cancelled flights. This was confirmed in October 2012
when the CJEU maintained its interpretation in the _Nelson_ ( [4] ) judgment.

4. The definition proposed for extraordinary circumstances excludes most technical defaults. The Commission
proposed time thresholds that take into account realistic delays within which airlines can cope with technical defaults
and which are based on delay data and cost calculations. The proposed threshold would be 5 hours for all intra-EU
journeys, irrespective of their distance. For extra-EU journeys, the proposed thresholds are 5 hours for journeys of
3 500 km or less, 9 hours for journeys between 3 500 and 6 000 km and 12 hours for journeys of 6 000 km and
more. The five-hour threshold was also chosen to ensure the internal coherence of the regulation, as a passenger's
right to reimbursement also arises after five hours' delay.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 0130 final, ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 261/2004

establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of
flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air’.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Case C-549/07 _Wallentin-Hermann_ .
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Joined cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 _Sturgeon and Others_, 19 November 2009.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Joined cases C-581/10 and C-629/10 _Nelson and Others_, 23 October 2012.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

C 33 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004270/13**

**au Conseil**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Intégration des migrants

L'Union européenne se trouve à un moment charnière de sa politique de l'emploi. Depuis 2012, et pour la première
fois en temps de paix aux XX [e] et XXI [e ] siècles, sa population en âge de travailler est en recul. Sans une augmentation de
l'immigration, elle diminuera de 14 millions de personnes dans les dix prochaines années.

Ce phénomène a non seulement des effets négatifs à long terme sur l'équilibre des systèmes de retraite européens,
mais il entraîne aussi, à moyen et à court terme, une pénurie de main-d'œuvre. Malgré un taux de chômage d'environ
10 % (23,8 millions de personnes) à l'échelle de l'Union européenne, cette pénurie est déjà perceptible aujourd'hui et
s'accentuera dans les prochaines années. À titre d'exemple, en 2015, entre 380 000 et 700 000 emplois ne seront pas
pourvus dans les technologies de l'information.

L'immigration qualifiée constitue une approche importante pour résoudre ce double problème — recul de la
population en âge de travailler et pénurie de main-d'œuvre. Les citoyens européens l'ont compris, et les sondages de
l'Eurobaromètre montrent que 70 % d'entre eux considèrent l'immigration comme étant nécessaire pour l'économie
européenne.

Le Conseil compte-t-il établir un cadre juridique garantissant aux femmes immigrantes le droit de détenir leur propre
passeport et leur propre permis de séjour, et permettant de tenir pour criminellement responsable toute personne qui
leur soustrait ces documents?

**Réponse**
_(1_ _[er]_ _juillet 2013)_

En application de l'article 17, paragraphe 2, du TUE, un acte législatif de l'Union ne peut être adopté que sur
proposition de la Commission (droit d'initiative de la Commission européenne) et, en vertu des dispositions de
l'article 79 du TFUE, le Parlement européen et le Conseil ne peuvent que statuer conformément à la procédure
législative ordinaire pour adopter des mesures.

En outre, l'attention de l'Honorable Parlementaire est attirée sur le fait que, en ce qui concerne l'immigration légale, un
certain nombre d'instruments législatifs adoptés récemment traitent des problèmes auxquels il est fait référence dans
sa question. Il s'agit notamment de la directive 2009/50/CE du 25 mai 2009 établissant les conditions d'entrée et de
séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers aux fins d'un emploi hautement qualifié ( [1] ) et de la directive 2011/98/UE du
Parlement européen et du Conseil du 13 décembre 2011 établissant une procédure de demande unique en vue de la
délivrance d'un permis unique autorisant les ressortissants de pays tiers à résider et à travailler sur le territoire d'un
État membre et établissant un socle commun de droits pour les travailleurs issus de pays tiers qui résident légalement
dans un État membre ( [2] ).

En outre, deux propositions de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil, présentées par la Commission, l'une
établissant les conditions d'entrée et de séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers dans le cadre d'un détachement
intragroupe et l'autre établissant les conditions d'entrée et de séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers aux fins d'un
emploi saisonnier, font actuellement l'objet de négociations entre les deux colégislateurs. Une troisième proposition
de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative aux conditions d'entrée et de séjour des ressortissants de
pays tiers à des fins de recherche, d'études, d'échange d'élèves, de formation rémunérée et non rémunérée,
de volontariat et de travail au pair (refonte) a été soumise par la Commission en mars 2013, au sujet de laquelle les
travaux ont débuté dans les instances compétentes du Conseil. Ces trois propositions visent à renforcer le cadre des
droits conférés aux ressortissants de pays tiers qui viennent séjourner et travailler dans l'Union.

Il convient, à cet égard, de signaler également que le Conseil est pleinement conscient des dangers auxquels sont
exposées les femmes victimes de la traite des êtres humains.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 155 du 18.6.2009, p. 17.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 343 du 23.12.2011, p. 1.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 135

Dans ses conclusions sur l'éradication de la violence à l'égard des femmes dans l'Union européenne, le Conseil a
demandé instamment aux États membres «de veiller à identifier le plus tôt possible, autant que faire se peut, toutes les
victimes de la traite des êtres humains, y compris les ressortissants de pays tiers et de l'UE, et à leur accorder une aide
et un soutien, d'assurer notamment que les ressortissants de pays tiers se voient accorder un délai de réflexion et un
titre de séjour, conformément à la directive 2004/81/CE ( [3] ) ou, selon le cas, aux règles nationales, et qu'il leur soit
permis de retourner en toute sécurité dans leur pays d'origine s'ils le souhaitent».

Dans le Pacte européen pour l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes (2011-2020), le Conseil a invité à prendre des
«mesures destinées à lutter contre toutes les formes de violence à l'égard des femmes», et notamment à «renforcer la
prévention de la violence à l'égard des femmes et la protection des victimes et des victimes potentielles, y compris des
femmes issues des groupes défavorisés ( [4] )».

Il y a également lieu de rappeler que, dans le domaine de la lutte contre l'immigration illégale, la directive 2009/52/CE
du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 18 juin 2009 prévoyant des normes minimales concernant les sanctions et
les mesures à l'encontre des employeurs de ressortissants de pays tiers en séjour irrégulier ( [5] ) vise à apporter des
réponses aux problèmes mentionnés dans la question. Toutefois, en ce qui concerne les sanctions pénales applicables
en cas de rétention de passeport, le Conseil n'a pas reçu de proposition de la Commission.

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/81/CE du Conseil du 29 avril 2004 relative au titre de séjour délivré aux ressortissants de pays tiers qui sont victimes de la

traite des êtres humains ou ont fait l'objet d'une aide à l'immigration clandestine et qui coopèrent avec les autorités compétentes;
JO L 261 du 6.8.2004, p. 19.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) JO C 155 du 25.5.2011, p. 10.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) JO L 168 du 30.6.2009, p. 24.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

C 33 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004270/13**

**to the Council**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Integration of migrants

The EU is at a turning point in its employment policy. Since 2012, and for the first time in the 20th and 21st centuries
during peacetime, the EU working age population has been declining. Without increased immigration, the working
population will shrink by 14 million in the next decade.

This phenomenon not only has a long-term impact on the balance of European pension systems, but it also entails a
shortage of manpower in the medium and short terms. Despite EU unemployment sitting at around 10%
(23.8 million people), this shortage is already being felt and it will become more noticeable in the coming years. By
way of example, between 380 000 and 700 000 vacancies in IT services will go unfilled in 2015.

Skilled immigrants are essential for resolving this dual problem of a shrinking workforce and a shortage of
manpower. EU citizens understand this, and Eurobarometer surveys show that 70% of them believe that immigration
is vital for the EU economy.

Will the Council draw up a legal framework guaranteeing the right of female immigrants to keep their own passport
and their own residence permit, and making it a criminal offence for anyone to take those documents away?

**Reply**
_(1 July 2013)_

In accordance with Article 17(2) TEU, Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission
proposal (the right of initiative of the European Commission), and Article 79 TFEU provides that the European
Parliament and the Council may act only and adopt measures in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

The attention of the Honourable Member is also drawn to the fact that, in the context of legal immigration, a series of
recently adopted legislative instruments address the issues to which he refers in his Question. These instruments
include Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009, on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country
nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment ( [1] ) and Directive 2011/98 EU of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country
nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country
workers legally residing in a Member State ( [2] ).

Furthermore, Commission proposals for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions of
entry and residence of third-country nationals in the framework of an intra-corporate transfer, as well as for a
directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country
nationals for the purposes of seasonal employment are currently being negotiated between the two co-legislators. A
third proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions of entry and residence of
third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated
training, voluntary service and au pairing (recast) was submitted by the Commission in March 2013 and the work has
begun in the competent Council bodies. These three proposals aim at enhancing the framework of rights attributed to
third-country nationals who come to reside and work in the Union.

In this context, it should also be noted that the Council is fully aware of the dangers faced by women who are
the victims of human trafficking.

In its Conclusions on the Eradication of Violence Against Women in the European Union, the Council urged the
Member States to ‘Ensure early identification as far as possible, and assistance and support, to all victims of trafficking
in human beings including third-country and EU nationals. In particular, ensure that third-country nationals are
granted a reflection period and a residence permit in conformity with Directive 2004/81/EC ( [3] ), or, where applicable,
national rules, and are enabled to return safely to their countries of origin if they wish to do so.’

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, p. 17.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 343, 23.12.2011, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human

beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities; OJ L 261,
6.8.2004, p. 19.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 137

In the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011-2020), the Council called for ‘Measures to tackle all forms of violence
against women,’ including strengthening ‘the prevention of violence against women and the protection of victims and
potential victims, including women from all disadvantaged groups ( [4] ).’

It should also be recalled that, with regard to the fight against illegal immigration, Directive 2009/52/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, providing for minimum standards on sanctions and
measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals ( [5] ), aims to address the issues described in the
Question. However, as regards criminal sanctions for withholding passports, the Council has not received any
proposal from the Commission in this respect.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ C 155, 25.5.2011, p. 10.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24.

C 33 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004271/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Statut de la mutualité européenne

Le Parlement a adopté plusieurs résolutions appelant à l'adoption d'un règlement sur le statut de la mutualité
européenne. Il est regrettable que, ayant retiré la proposition de statut européen pour les mutualités en 2006, la
Commission n'ait fait aucune nouvelle proposition qui doterait les mutualités d'un instrument juridique adéquat pour
faciliter leurs activités transfrontalières. Par conséquent:

1. La Commission compte-t-elle, comme demandé par le Parlement européen, présenter une nouvelle proposition
de statut pour les mutualités européennes?

2. Quels sont les résultats de l'étude commandée par la Commission sur la situation actuelle et les perspectives des
mutualités dans l'Union européenne, qui analyse les difficultés rencontrées par les mutualités du fait de
l'absence de cadres juridiques dans certains États membres pour la création de nouvelles mutualités, en raison
des critères en matière de capitaux et de l'absence de solutions de regroupement?

3. Que propose la Commission comme solutions appropriées pour résoudre ces problèmes afin de mieux
reconnaître les contributions apportées par les mutualités à l'économie sociale, notamment un statut?

4. La Commission va-t-elle réellement introduire dans la proposition de règlement, sur la base de l'article 352 du
traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne, les principales caractéristiques des mutualités basées sur
des personnes, à savoir le principe de non‐discrimination en ce qui concerne la sélection des risques et celui de
l'orientation démocratique de leurs membres, en vue d'améliorer les conditions sociales des communautés
locales et de la société au sens large dans un esprit de mutualité?

**Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission**

_(11 juillet 2013)_

La Commission partage entièrement l'avis du Parlement quant à la nécessité d'accroître le mutualisme en Europe,
compte tenu, en particulier, de la conjoncture économique.

C'est dans cette optique que la Commission a financé une étude, publiée en octobre 2012, sur la situation actuelle et
les perspectives des mutualités dans l'Union européenne, et, notamment, sur les problèmes juridiques et
administratifs qu'elles peuvent rencontrer dans leurs activités transfrontalières; l'idée d'adopter un statut de mutualité
européenne, qui permettrait aux mutuelles de s'étendre à toute l'Europe, a également été examinée. ( [1] )

En mars 2013, la Commission a publié un questionnaire dans le contexte d'une consultation publique ( [2] ), l'objectif
étant de recueillir l'avis des parties prenantes sur les conclusions de l'étude précitée; la consultation a été clôturée à la
mi-juin. Ses résultats, qui seront disponibles au troisième trimestre 2013, serviront à un nouvel examen approfondi
des initiatives à prendre dans ce domaine. La contribution de M. Berlinguer, récemment adoptée par le Parlement
européen, sera également prise en considération.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/mutuals/prospects_mutuals_fin_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/mutuals/prospects_mutuals_annex_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/mutuals/public-consultation/index_en.htm

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 139

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004271/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Statute for a European mutual society

Parliament has adopted several resolutions calling for the adoption of a regulation on the statute for a European
mutual society. It is regrettable that the Commission, having withdrawn its proposal for a statute for a European
mutual society in 2006, has not brought forward any new proposals which would give mutual societies a suitable
legal instrument to facilitate their cross-border activities. Therefore:

1. Will the Commission submit a new proposal for a statute for European mutual societies, as Parliament has
requested?

2. What is the outcome of the study commissioned by the Commission on the current situation and prospects of
mutuals in the European Union, which explores the difficulties mutuals have due to the lack of existing legal
frameworks in some Member States for the creation of new mutuals due to capital requirements and the lack of
solutions for grouping?

3. What adequate solutions does the Commission propose in order to resolve these problems so as to better
recognise the contributions of mutuals to the social economy, and do they include a statute in particular?

4. Will the Commission actually include in the proposal for a regulation, on the basis of Article 352 of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union, the main characteristics of person-based mutuals, namely the
principle of non-discrimination with regard to risk selection and the democratic orientation of their members,
with a view to improving social conditions of local communities and of wider society in a spirit of mutuality?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 July 2013)_

The Commission fully shares the Parliament's view of the need for more mutualism in Europe, particularly in the
current economic situation.

It is in this context that the Commission financed a study (published in October 2012) analysing the current situation
and prospects of mutual societies in Europe, including _inter alia_ the legal and administrative problems that they
encounter during cross-border activities; the idea of adopting a Statute for a European Mutual Society, allowing
mutual societies to expand across Europe, was also examined ( [1] ).

In March 2013 a questionnaire was published by the Commission for a public consultation ( [2] ), seeking views of
stakeholders on the findings of the above study, which closed in mid-June. The results of the consultation, which will
become available in the third quarter of 2013, will be the basis for a further thorough examination of the appropriate
policy initiatives to be taken in the area. The input of Mr Berlinguer’s, recently adopted by the European Parliament,
will also be taken into consideration.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/mutuals/prospects_mutuals_fin_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/mutuals/prospects_mutuals_annex_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/social-economy/mutuals/public-consultation/index_en.htm

( **|**

C 33 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004272/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Produits pour lutter contre l'addiction à l'alcool

Peut-être un espoir pour les alcooliques: un nouveau traitement vient d'être autorisé par l'Agence européenne du
médicament. Le Selincro coupe l'envie de boire et le plaisir ressenti, en agissant directement au niveau du cerveau.

Selon une étude réalisée sur 2 000 patients pendant 6 mois, 60 % des personnes ont réduit de manière importante
leur consommation.

1. Comment se positionne la Commission sur la demande de spécialistes d'effectuer des études supplémentaires
pour connaître ses effets sur la durée et lorsqu'il est combiné avec d'autres molécules?

2. Que dit la Commission sur le fait que 10 à 15 % des patients traités souffrent de nausées, parfois de coups de
fatigue, qui durent rarement au-delà du 3 [e ] jour de traitement?

3. Même si ce médicament a un intérêt à être autorisé sur le marché, ne faut-il pas le tester en association avec
d'autres médicaments, contre d'autres médicaments et s'assurer qu'il y a une balance acceptable en termes d'efficacité
et de tolérance?

4. Ce médicament ne devrait-il pas être accompagné d'un étiquetage dissuadant les malades de croire que ce
produit pourrait les sortir de l'alcoolodépendance, ce qui serait à la fois irréaliste et dangereux?

5. Sera-t-il prévu un soutien automatique (suivi ou psychothérapie) aux patients qui se verraient prescrire ce
médicament?

**Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission**

_(7 juin 2013)_

La Commission a délivré une autorisation de mise sur le marché pour le Selincro en février 2013 ( [1] ).

1. Comme indiqué dans le rapport européen public d'évaluation ( [2] ), l'efficacité à long terme du Selincro a été
évaluée sur la base d'une étude de tolérance et d'une durée de sûreté d'un an. L'autorisation de mise sur le marché
oblige son titulaire à mener des activités de pharmacovigilance, dont une étude sur le mode d'emploi du Selincro et la
fréquence de certains effets indésirables dans la pratique clinique.

2. La notice accompagnant le Selincro [1] apporte une réponse aux préoccupations évoquées par l'auteur de la
question, notamment dans les sections consacrées aux effets indésirables et à la capacité de conduire un véhicule et
d'utiliser des machines.

3. Un placebo a servi de comparateur lors de la mise au point du Selincro, puisqu'il n'existe actuellement aucun
médicament approuvé pour réduire la consommation d'alcool chez les patients alcooliques. Aucune étude _in vivo_ des
interactions entre médicaments n'a été conduite [2] . Toutefois, des informations utiles sur les interactions avec d'autres
médicaments et sur d'autres formes d'interactions sont fournies dans la notice [1] . L'évaluation scientifique a conclu que
le rapport bénéfice/risque du produit était favorable [2] .

4. La notice [1] contient les informations suivantes: «Le Selincro est indiqué dans la réduction de la consommation
d'alcool chez les patients adultes dépendants avec une consommation à haut risque…»

5. Conformément à son indication autorisée [1], le Selincro «… ne doit être prescrit qu'en association avec un soutien
psychosocial continu mettant l'accent sur l'observance du traitement et la réduction de la consommation d'alcool».

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/alfregister.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?

curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002583/human_med_001620.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 141

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004272/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Products for combating alcohol addiction

A new treatment that has just been authorised by the European Medicines Agency may offer hope to alcoholics:
Selincro takes away the desire to drink and stops the pleasure felt, by acting directly on the brain.

According to a six-month study carried out on 2 000 patients, 60% of those tested significantly reduced their intake.

1. What is the Commission’s position on the request by specialists to carry out additional studies in order to
understand the treatment’s effects in the long term and when it is combined with other molecules?

2. What is the Commission’s response to the fact that 10-15% of the patients treated suffer from nausea and
sometimes from bouts of fatigue, which rarely last beyond the third day of treatment?

3. Although there are advantages to be gained from authorising the marketing of this drug, should it not be tested
in combination with, and against, other drugs, and should an acceptable balance in terms of effectiveness and
tolerance not be ensured?

4. Should this drug not come with a label dissuading patients from believing that it could cure their alcohol
dependence, something which would be both unrealistic and dangerous?

5. Will automatic support (counselling or psychotherapy) be offered to patients who are prescribed this drug?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The Commission granted the marketing authorisation for Selincro in February 2013 ( [1] ).

1. As stated in the European Public Assessment Report ( [2] ), the long-term efficacy of Selincro was evaluated on the
basis of a one-year safety and tolerability study. The authorisation obliges the marketing authorisation holder to
perform pharmacovigilance activities, which include a study to investigate the pattern of use of Selincro and
frequency of selected adverse reactions in routine clinical practice.

2. The product information of Selincro ( [1] ) addresses the safety concerns mentioned by the Honourable Member,
particularly in the sections on undesirable effects and on ability to drive and use machines.

3. The chosen comparator in the development programme of Selincro was placebo, as there is currently no
approved medicinal product for the reduction of alcohol consumption in patients with alcohol dependence. No _in_
_vivo_ drug-drug interaction studies have been conducted ( [2] ). However, relevant information on interaction with other
medicinal products and other forms of interaction is provided in the product information. The scientific evaluation
concluded that benefit-risk balance of the product is positive ( [2] ).

4. The package leaflet ( [1] ) contains the following information: ‘Selincro is used for the reduction of alcohol
consumption in adult patients with alcohol dependence who still have a high level of alcohol consumption …’

5. The authorised indication ( [1] ) of Selincro foresees that the product ‘… should only be prescribed in conjunction
with continuous psychosocial support focused on treatment adherence and reducing alcohol consumption’.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/alfregister.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?

curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002583/human_med_001620.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124

C 33 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004273/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Agents de joueurs

L'encadrement juridique de la profession d'agent au sein de l'Union européenne est hétérogène.

1. Que propose la Commission?

2. Quand est-il prévu de mettre en place des normes à l'échelle de l'Union pour réglementer ce métier?

3. La Commission estime-t-elle qu'il faut améliorer la transparence concernant les revenus des agents et veiller à
une harmonisation minimale de leurs contrats, à la mise en place d'un système disciplinaire et de contrôle ainsi qu'à la
création d'un registre d'agents de joueurs?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Vassiliou au nom de la Commission**

_(14 juin 2013)_

La Commission reconnaît les différentes réglementations applicables à la profession d'agent sportif dans les États
membres de l'UE. «L'Étude sur les agents sportifs dans l'Union européenne» ( [1] ) livre une analyse détaillée de ces
réglementations. Il en ressort que l'encadrement juridique actuel au niveau de l'UE permet de garantir aux agents la
liberté d'établissement et la libre prestation de services.

La conférence européenne sur les agents sportifs organisée par la Commission en novembre 2011 a confirmé ces
conclusions. Les participants à cette conférence en ont retiré qu'une autorégulation du mouvement sportif constituait
la meilleure démarche pour aller de l'avant, tout en n'excluant pas la possibilité d'une intervention de l'UE si cette
approche se révélait inefficace. L'harmonisation de la profession d'agent sportif et le dialogue avec les acteurs du
football professionnel ont été retenus comme futurs cadres de travail éventuels.

La Commission suit de près les travaux menés par la FIFA afin de mettre à jour les réglementations actuellement en
vigueur applicables à la profession d'agent de joueurs de football, notamment en vue d'améliorer la transparence de
leurs activités.

Ces travaux sont également analysés par le groupe d'experts de l'UE sur la bonne gouvernance dans le sport, qui doit
formuler des propositions en ce sens d'ici fin 2013. Dans cette optique, la Commission poursuit son dialogue avec les
acteurs du secteur sportif et les États membres.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/etude_agents_sportifs_rapport_final_novembre_2009_fr.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 143

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004273/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sports agents

The profession of agent is regulated within the European Union in different ways.

1. What does the Commission propose?

2. When will rules be adopted at EU level in order to regulate this profession?

3. Does the Commission believe there is a need for more transparency regarding agents’ incomes, for minimum
harmonisation of their contracts, for the implementation of a disciplinary and monitoring system, and for the
creation of a register of sports agents?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission acknowledges the different regulations applicable to the profession of sports agent in the EU
Member States. A detailed analysis of these regulations is available in the Study on Sports Agents in the EU ( [1] ).
According to the study, the current regulatory framework at EU level is appropriate to ensure the agents' freedom of
establishment and freedom to provide services.

These findings were confirmed at the EU Conference on Sports Agents organised by the Commission in
November 2011. The participants in the conference concluded that a self-regulatory approach by the sports
movement was the most appropriate way forward, albeit while maintaining the option of EU action if self-regulation
fails to deliver the expected results. The standardisation of agents' activities and the social dialogue on professional
football were retained as possible frameworks for further work.

The Commission is following the work carried out by FIFA in order to update the current regulations applicable to
players' agents in football, notably with a view to increasing transparency in the activities of agents. This topic is also
being examined by the Expert Group on Good Governance who is expected to make proposals in this respect by the
end of 2013. The Commission is pursuing its dialogue with sports stakeholders and Member States in this context.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/f-studies/study_on_sports_agents_in_the_eu_en.pdf

C 33 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004274/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Libre circulation des joueurs

Quelle est votre appréciation globale de la jurisprudence de l'Union européenne concernant la liberté de circulation
des sportifs, en l'occurrence les arrêts Bosman, Kolpak, Simutenkov et Olivier Bernard?

**Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission**

_(14 juin 2013)_

Le sport relève du droit de l'Union européenne dans la mesure où il constitue une activité économique.

Lorsqu'une activité sportive prend la forme d'un emploi rémunéré ou d'une prestation de services contre
rémunération, ce qui est le cas des activités des sportifs semi-professionnels ou professionnels, elle entre dans le
champ d'application de l'article 45 ou de l'article 46 du TFUE.

D'après la jurisprudence de la Cour, il est clair que l'article 45 du TFUE concerne les restrictions à la libre circulation
des travailleurs de toute nature visant à régler, de façon collective, le travail salarié, y compris les règles d'une
association sportive. Un individu peut invoquer ledit article devant une juridiction nationale pour lui demander
de supprimer des dispositions discriminatoires, sans qu'il soit besoin de mesures d'application supplémentaires à
cette fin.

Une mesure qui constitue un obstacle à la libre circulation des travailleurs ne peut être acceptée que si elle poursuit un
but légitime compatible avec le traité et est justifiée par des raisons impérieuses d'intérêt public. Même si ces
conditions étaient remplies, cette mesure devrait tout de même être appliquée de telle manière qu'elle garantisse la
réalisation de l'objectif en question et qu'elle n'excède pas ce qui est nécessaire à cette fin.

Concernant le sport professionnel, la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de statuer que, compte tenu de l'importance sociale
considérable que revêtent l'activité sportive et, plus particulièrement, le football dans l'Union européenne, il convient
de reconnaître que l'objectif consistant à encourager le recrutement et la formation des jeunes joueurs est légitime (cf.
arrêt _Bosman_, point 106).

Les services de la Commission suivent de très près les évolutions dans ce domaine et les règles limitant la libre
circulation des sportifs (objectifs clairs, pas de mesures de substitution, proportionnalité, etc.).

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 145

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004274/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Free movement of players

What is the Commission’s overall assessment of EU case-law on the free movement of sportspeople, with specific
reference to the Bosman, Kolpak, Simutenkov and Olivier Bernard rulings?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

Sport is subject to European Union law in so far as it constitutes an economic activity.

Where a sporting activity takes the form of gainful employment or the provision of services for remuneration, which
is true of the activities of semi-professional or professional sportsmen, it falls within the scope of Article 45 TFEU or
Article 56 TFEU.

It is clear from the Court's case-law that Article 45 TFEU does cover restrictions to free movement of workers of any
nature aimed at regulating gainful employment in a collective manner, including sport association rules. Article 45
TFEU can be relied on by an individual before a national court as a basis for requesting that court to disapply
discriminatory provisions without any further implementing measures being required to that end.

A measure which constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers can be accepted only if it pursues a
legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. Even if that
were so, application of that measure would still have to be such as to ensure achievement of the objective in question
and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose.

In regard to professional sport, the Court has already had occasion to hold that, in view of the considerable social
importance of sporting activities and in particular football in the European Union, the objective of encouraging the
recruitment and training of young players must be accepted as legitimate (see _Bosman_, paragraph 106).

The Commission services follow very closely the development in this field and the rules limiting free movement of
sportspeople (clear objectives, no alternative measures, proportionality etc.).

C 33 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004275/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Réglementation du fonctionnement de la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire

Le 5 décembre 2012, quatre membres de la Commission ont demandé, après la réunion du Forum à haut niveau sur
l'amélioration du fonctionnement de la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire, de «dégager le plus rapidement
possible un accord sur le cadre volontaire relatif à la lutte contre les pratiques commerciales déloyales».

Par ailleurs, selon la Copa-Cogeca qui représente les agriculteurs européens, «un système mixte combinant des codes
volontaires et une législation définissant les pratiques déloyales et abusives peut en effet contribuer à un meilleur
fonctionnement de la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire».

Face aux récents scandales liés à la circulation intracommunautaire de viande de cheval en violation flagrante de
toutes les pratiques commerciales, la Commission n'estime‐t‐elle pas que les codes de conduite volontaires sont
désormais insuffisants et qu'elle doit sans délai prendre les initiatives menant à une législation de niveau européen
pour lutter enfin contre les pratiques commerciales déloyales dans la chaîne alimentaire?

**Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission**

_(29 mai 2013)_

L'application de la législation relative à la chaîne alimentaire relève de la compétence des États membres ( [1] ); ceux-ci
sont tenus d'instaurer un système de contrôle officiel pour s'assurer du respect des exigences légales par les opérateurs
et sanctionner les défauts de conformité. La Commission assure un suivi régulier de l'exécution par les États membres
de leurs fonctions de contrôle, notamment par des vérifications sur le terrain.

Dans les scandales évoqués par l'auteur de la question, le système évoqué plus haut a bien fonctionné et a permis de
déceler des violations des règles en vigueur. Néanmoins, la proposition relative aux contrôles officiels ( [2] ) vise à le
renforcer encore, et de trois manières en particulier: en obligeant les États membres à punir de sanctions dissuasives
les violations délibérées de la réglementation, en exigeant que les plans de contrôle nationaux comprennent des
inspections régulières et inopinées destinées à repérer les éventuelles infractions intentionnelles, et en autorisant la
Commission à imposer des programmes d'essai coordonnés.

Des discussions sont engagées avec les États membres autour d'actions spécifiques pour lutter contre la fraude
alimentaire, améliorer les programmes d'essai et modifier les règles actuelles, dont celles qui régissent les passeports
pour les chevaux.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Règlement (CE) n° 882/2004 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 29 avril 2004 relatif aux contrôles officiels effectués pour s'assurer de la

conformité avec la législation sur les aliments pour animaux et les denrées alimentaires et avec les dispositions relatives à la santé animale et au
bien-être des animaux (JO L 165 du 30.4.2004, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil concernant les contrôles officiels et les autres activités officielles servant à assurer le

respect de la législation sur les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux ainsi que des règles relatives à la santé et au bien-être des
animaux, à la santé et au matériel de reproduction des végétaux et aux produits phytopharmaceutiques, et modifiant les règlements (CE)
n° 999/2001, (CE) n° 1829/2003, (CE) n° 1831/2003, (CE) n° 1/2005, (CE) n° 396/2005, (CE) n° 834/2007, (CE) n° 1099/2009, (CE)
n° 1069/2009, (CE) n° 1107/2009, (UE) n° 1151/2012, (UE) n° [….]/2013 ainsi que les directives 98/58/CE, 1999/74/CE, 2007/43/CE,
2008/119/CE, 2008/120/CE et 2009/128/CE (règlement sur les contrôles officiels), COM(2013) 265.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 147

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004275/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regulation of the functioning of the food supply chain

On 5 December 2012, following the meeting of the High-Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain,
four Members of the Commission made calls ‘to reach without further delay an agreement on a voluntary framework
for tackling unfair trading practices’.

In addition, according to Copa-Cogeca, which represents European farmers, ‘a mixed system with the operation of
voluntary codes backed by legislation that defines unfair and abusive practices can indeed contribute to a better
operation of the food supply chain’.

In view of the recent scandals relating to the circulation of horsemeat within the EU in flagrant violation of all trading
practices, does the Commission not believe that voluntary codes of conduct are now insufficient and that it must,
without further delay, take initiatives towards European-level legislation to tackle unfair trading practices in the food
chain once and for all?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The responsibility for enforcing food chain legislation lies with Member States ( [1] ), which are required to establish a
system of official controls to verify compliance by operators with requirements deriving therefrom and sanction noncompliances. The Commission regularly monitors delivery by the Member States of their control duties, including
through on-the-spot audits.

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the official controls systems established by the Member States have
worked well and have allowed them to identify violations of applicable rules. Notwithstanding this, the proposal on
official controls ( [2] ) aims at further strengthening the existing system, especially in three areas: to require Member
States to impose dissuasive penalties in case of intentional violation of the rules; to require that national control plans
include regular, unannounced inspections directed at identifying possible intentional violations; and to allow the
Commission to impose coordinated testing programmes.

Specific actions for fighting food fraud, improving testing programmes or modifying the current rules for example
about horse passports are being discussed with the Member States.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the

verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation on official controls and other official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on animal

health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material, plant protection products and amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001,
1829/2003, 1831/2003, 1/2005, 396/2005, 834/2007, 1099/2009, 1069/2009, 1107/2009, Regulations (EU) No 1151/2012, [...]/2013, and
Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC, 2008/120/EC and 2009/128/EC (Official controls Regulation), COM(2013) 265.

( **|**

C 33 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004276/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Faillite du système européen d'alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires

Le 20 juillet 2012, la Commission publiait un communiqué de presse vantant les mérites du système européen
d'alerte rapide pour les denrées alimentaires et les aliments pour animaux (RASFF), communiqué selon lequel ce
système «écarte ou atténue de nombreux risques en matière de sûreté alimentaire» et «les contrôles effectués nous
garantissent une alimentation sans danger».

1. À la lumière de la situation chaotique et totalement incontrôlée lors des récents scandales relatifs aux plats
préparés à base de viande de cheval, qui ont circulé sans aucun contrôle ou analyse à l'intérieur de l'Union, la
Commission peut-elle faire savoir si elle assume encore ce communiqué de presse?

2. Dans le cas contraire, quelles mesures urgentes la Commission compte-t-elle prendre pour mettre en place dans
les plus brefs délais les mesures, analyses et contrôles qu'elle prétendait déjà en vigueur et détaillait dans son
communiqué de presse de 2012?

**Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission**

_(7 juin 2013)_

Les mesures mentionnées dans le communiqué de presse intitulé «Alimentation: Les contrôles de l'Union européenne
nous garantissent une alimentation sans danger» ont bien été prises. Il a notamment été procédé au lancement de
l'iRASFF, plate-forme de notification en ligne permettant au RASFF de fonctionner avec plus de rapidité et d'efficacité
que jamais. Tous les membres du RASFF sont promptement informés des risques graves touchant à l'alimentation
humaine ou animale et peuvent ainsi réagir d'une manière coordonnée pour protéger la santé des citoyens de l'Union.

La décision de recourir au RASFF lors du récent scandale de la découverte, dans des produits à base de bœuf, de viande
de cheval faussement étiquetée «bœuf» a donné d'excellents résultats. Par conséquent, l'une des mesures prévues dans
le plan d'action mis en place à la suite de ce scandale consiste à garantir un échange rapide d'informations et d'alertes
en cas de violation susceptible de constituer une fraude; c'est là une démarche analogue à celle qu'adopte le RASFF en
cas de risque grave.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 149

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004276/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Failure of the European rapid alert system for food

On 20 July 2012, the Commission published a press release extolling the virtues of the European Rapid Alert System
for Food and Feed (RASFF), which stated that ‘many food safety risks have been averted or mitigated’ thanks to this
system and ‘safety controls ensure our food is safe’.

1. In view of the chaotic and completely uncontrolled situation during the recent scandal relating to ready meals
containing horsemeat, which have circulated without any controls or analysis within the EU, can the Commission
state whether it still supports this press release?

2. If not, what urgent measures does the Commission intend to take in order to put in place as soon as possible the
measures, analyses and controls which it claimed were already in force and which were described in its 2012 press
release?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The actions mentioned in the press release ‘Food: Latest Report shows EU Controls ensure our food is safe’ have been
implemented, such as the launching of the platform iRASFF, an online notification platform which helps RASFF work
faster and more efficiently than ever. All members of the RASFF system are swiftly informed of serious risks found in
food or feed so that together they can react to food safety threats in a coordinated way to protect the health of EU
citizens.

In reference to the recent fraud scandal with the discovery of horse meat in beef products, on which the presence of
horse meat was not labelled, it was decided to call in the RASFF, with excellent result. Therefore one of the actions in
the action plan following the horse meat scandal is to ensure a procedure for rapid exchange of information and alerts
in cases of violations which may constitute a fraud, similar to what RASFF does in case of serious risks.

C 33 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004277/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Empreinte carbone des activités online

Selon certaines estimations, à chaque minute, 48 heures de nouveaux contenus vidéo sont téléchargées sur YouTube,
700 000 utilisateurs de Facebook partagent des contenus, plus de 2 millions de requêtes de recherche sont traitées par
Google et plus de 200 millions de courriels sont envoyés, sans parler des tweets, des blogs, etc. Si l'on songe qu'une
seule requête peut produire entre quelques dixièmes de grammes et quelques grammes d'émissions de CO 2, selon le
type d'énergie assurant le fonctionnement des appareils utilisés, il est clair que les rejets de CO 2 résultant de ces usages
peuvent être substantiels. Les estimations actuelles de ces émissions, provenant notamment du secteur, varient
fortement et sont étroitement liées aux différentes méthodes utilisées.

1. Les produits et services TIC consommeraient aujourd'hui 8 à 10 % de l'électricité dans l'Union européenne et
produisent jusqu'à 4 % de ses émissions de carbone. Sur quoi se basent ces mesures?

2. Que propose la Commission pour une meilleure transparence dans la mesure de l'impact des TIC sur
l'environnement?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Kroes au nom de la Commission**

_(27 mai 2013)_

Ces estimations tiennent compte de la consommation d'électricité des réseaux de télécommunications fixes et
mobiles, des centres de données, des serveurs et des équipements destinés aux utilisateurs finaux tels que les modems,
les ordinateurs portables, les ordinateurs de bureau, les téléviseurs, les téléphones mobiles et les tablettes.

Les mesures sont fondées sur des inventaires des équipements, la consommation électrique des produits et la palette
énergétique de chaque État membre pour déterminer les émissions de carbone des différents produits.

Comme l'Honorable Parlementaire l'a fait observer dans la question, la variabilité des résultats est trop importante.
Étant donné que de nombreux rapports mettent en avant le potentiel des TIC pour améliorer l'efficacité énergétique et
pour réduire les émissions de carbone dans d'autres secteurs, la Commission a estimé qu'il était prioritaire d'accroître
la transparence sur l'empreinte écologique de ce secteur. Dans sa stratégie numérique pour l'Europe, la Commission a
invité le secteur des TIC à élaborer un cadre pour mesurer son empreinte énergétique et son empreinte carbone. En
réponse à cet appel, des normes ont été élaborées, notamment par l'UIT, l'IENT et la CEI ( [1] ). Ensuite, plus de
25 entreprises du secteur des TIC ont expérimenté les méthodes afin de vérifier si elles sont bien cohérentes et
réalistes. Et le résultat est encourageant ( [2] ). En parallèle, une évaluation d'impact est en cours concernant d'éventuelles
mesures de suivi.

Les parties prenantes sont encouragées à utiliser les méthodes développées et, lorsque les données sont disponibles, à
baser les estimations sur l'analyse du cycle de vie complet des produits, y compris l'extraction de matières premières,
la fabrication, l'utilisation et le traitement en fin de vie.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) UIT (Union internationale des télécommunications), IENT (Institut européen de normalisation des télécommunications), CEI (Commission

électrotechnique internationale).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Voir http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-231_fr.htm

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 151

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004277/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Carbon footprint of online activities

According to some estimates, every minute, 48 hours of new video content is uploaded onto YouTube, 700 000
Facebook users share content, more than 2 million searches are performed using Google and more than 200 million
emails are sent, not to mention tweets, blogs, etc. If we suppose that a single query can produce between several
tenths of a gram and several grams of CO 2 emissions, depending on the kind of energy used to power the appliances
used, the release of CO 2 as a result of this activity could be substantial. The current estimates of these emissions, which
mostly come from the sector itself, vary wildly and are closely linked to the different methods used.

1. Today, IT products and services are thought to consume 8 to 10% of the EU’s electricity and produce up to 4%
of its carbon emissions. What are these measurements based on?

2. What does the Commission propose for greater transparency with regard to the impact of IT on the
environment?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

These estimates include the electricity consumption of Telecommunication networks, both landline and mobile, Data
centres, servers and end user equipment like modems, laptops, computers, TVs, mobile handsets, tablet.

The measurements are based on inventories of equipment, electricity consumption of the products and the energy
mix of every Member State to derive the carbon emission of the different products.

As pointed out in the question, the variability of results is too broad. Given numerous reports highlighting the
potential of ICT to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions in other sectors the Commission has made
better transparency around the sector's environmental footprint a priority. In its Digital Agenda for Europe, the
Commission called on the ICT industry to develop a framework to measure its energy and carbon footprint. In
response to this call standards have been developed notably by the ITU, ETSI and the IEC ( [1] ). As a next step over 25
ICT companies have piloted the methodologies to establish whether they are coherent and workable and the result is
encouraging ( [2] ). In parallel, an impact assessment is ongoing on possible follow-up measures.

Stakeholders are encouraged to use the developed methodologies and, where data is available, to base the estimates
on full Life Cycle Analysis of the products including mining of raw materials, manufacturing, use and end of life

treatment.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ITU (International Telecommunication Union), ETSI ( European Telecommunication Standardisation Institute), IEC ( International Electrotecnical

Committee).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-231_en.htm

( **|**

C 33 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004278/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Bouquet énergétique du futur de l'Union européenne

La feuille de route pour l'énergie à l'horizon 2050 de la Commission pour une économie faible en carbone a été
publiée en décembre 2011. Elle propose plusieurs scénarios pour la future structure de l'approvisionnement
énergétique en Europe afin d'atteindre l'objectif de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

L'Union européenne est en bonne voie pour atteindre ses objectifs en matière d'énergie renouvelable d'ici à 2020,
déclarent les députés européens dans la résolution adoptée le jeudi 14 mars. Ils ajoutent que les énergies renouvelables
constitueront, à long terme, le cœur du bouquet énergétique européen.

1. La Commission soutient-elle le passage vers les biocarburants de 3 [e] génération, basés sur des déchets des
cultures vivrières, et l'imposition de conditions semblables aux biocarburants importés?

2. La Commission partage-t-elle l'opinion du Parlement sur le fait que l'énergie nucléaire devrait rester à terme une
source importante, que le gaz naturel jouera également un rôle important, sur le court à moyen terme, puisqu'il
représente une manière rapide et bon marché de diminuer notre dépendance aux autres combustibles fossiles, plus
polluants, et que le pétrole devrait lui aussi continuer à faire partie de notre bouquet énergétique en 2050, de manière
plus faible qu'aujourd'hui, et qu'il devrait être principalement utilisé pour les transports longue distance de passagers
et de marchandises?

3. La Commission considère **-** t-elle, comme le Parlement, que le taux et la qualité actuels de rénovation des
bâtiments doivent être considérablement élargis, afin de permettre à l'Union européenne de réduire la consommation
d'énergie de son parc immobilier d'ici 2050 de 80 % par rapport aux niveaux de 2010?

**Réponse donnée par M. Oettinger au nom de la Commission**

_(12 juin 2013)_

1. La Commission a souligné l'importance des biocarburants pour la décarbonisation du secteur des transports de
l'Union Européenne dans la feuille de route vers une économie à faible intensité de carbone [COM(2011)112 final],
dans la feuille de route pour l'énergie à l'horizon 2050 [COM(2011)885 final] et dans les documents
d'accompagnement correspondants. Au sujet des émissions de gaz à effet de serre résultant des changements indirects
d'affectation des sols provoqués par l'augmentation de la demande de biocarburants dans l'Union européenne, la
Commission a suggéré, dans sa proposition [COM(2012)595 final], de limiter la part des biocarburants
conventionnels produits à partir de cultures alimentaires pouvant être comptabilisée dans l'objectif en matière
d'énergies renouvelables de la directive sur les énergies renouvelables (2009/28/CE) et de renforcer les incitations en
faveur des biocarburants avancés en améliorant la comptabilisation de leur contribution à ce même objectif. Les règles
comptables et les critères de durabilité fixés par la directive sur les énergies renouvelables s'appliquent aussi bien aux
matières premières énergétiques et aux biocarburants nationaux qu'à ceux qui sont importés.

2. Comme elle l'a reconnu dans sa communication intitulée «Feuille de route pour l'énergie à l'horizon 2050»
(COM/2011/885), la Commission estime que l'énergie nucléaire est appelée à jouer un rôle déterminant dans la
transformation du système énergétique; le gaz sera également essentiel à cet égard puisque, grâce aux technologies
existantes, le remplacement du charbon (et du pétrole) par le gaz pourrait contribuer à la réduction des émissions; par
ailleurs, le pétrole sera probablement encore présent dans le bouquet énergétique en 2050 et sera surtout utilisé pour
certains transports de passagers et de marchandises à longue distance.

3. La Commission estime en effet qu'il faut considérablement améliorer le rythme et le degré de rénovation des
bâtiments pour pouvoir exploiter pleinement le potentiel d'économies d'énergie réalisables avec un bon rapport coûtefficacité dans le parc immobilier européen. L'Union européenne pourra ainsi atteindre ses objectifs à long terme en
matière d'efficacité énergétique et de lutte contre le changement climatique.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 153

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004278/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Future energy mix of the EU

The Commission’s energy roadmap for 2050 for a low carbon economy was published in December 2011. It
proposes several scenarios for the future structure of Europe’s energy supply in order to meet the target of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.

The European Union is on track to meet its targets in terms of renewable energy by 2020, according to MEPs in the
resolution adopted on Thursday 14 March. They add that renewables will, in the long term, move to the centre of the
energy mix in Europe.

1. Does the Commission support the move towards third generation biofuels based on food crop waste products,
and does it believe that similar conditions should be imposed on imported biofuels?

2. Does the Commission share Parliament’s opinion that nuclear energy should remain an important contributor
in the long term, that natural gas will also play an important role in the short to medium term since it represents a
quick and cost-efficient way of reducing reliance on other more polluting fossil fuels, and that oil should also remain
in the energy mix in 2050, albeit with a lower share than today, and that it should be used mainly in long-distance
passenger and freight transports?

3. Does the Commission believe, as Parliament does, that the current rate and quality of building renovation needs
to be substantially scaled up, in order to allow the EU to reduce the energy consumption of its building stock by 80%
in relation to 2010 levels between now and 2050?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

1. The Commission underlined the importance of biofuels in decarbonising the EU transport sector in its LowCarbon Economy (COM(2011) 112 final) and the Energy Roadmap 2050 (COM(2011) 885 final) and their
supporting documents. In its proposal on how to address the issue of emissions from indirect land use change caused
by additional demand for biofuels in the EU (COM(2012) 595 final), the Commission proposes to limit the
contribution of conventional food crop based biofuels that can be counted towards the renewable energy target of the
Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) and strengthen the incentives for advanced biofuels through improved
multiple counting towards this same target. Accounting rules and sustainability requirements contained in the
Renewable Energy Directive apply equally to domestic and imported feedstocks and biofuels.

2. As acknowledged by the Commission's Communication ‘Energy Roadmap 2050’ (COM(2011) 885), the
Commission considers that nuclear energy will be needed to provide a significant contribution in the energy
transformation process; that gas will be critical for the transformation of the energy system as substitution of coal
(and oil) with gas could help to reduce emissions with existing technologies; and that oil is likely to remain in the
energy mix even in 2050 and will mainly fuel parts of long distance passenger and freight transport.

3. The Commission indeed considers that the rate and depth of building renovation needs to be substantially
improved to ensure that the cost-effective savings potential in the European building stock is fully exploited. This will
allow the EU to meet its long-term climate and energy efficiency objectives.

C 33 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004279/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Perturbateurs endocriniens: suite à donner au rapport de l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments

L'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) a rendu public, le mercredi 20 mars, l'un de ses rapports les
plus attendus. L'agence, basée à Parme, avait été saisie à l'automne 2012 par la direction générale de la santé et des
consommateurs de la Commission européenne afin de rendre un avis scientifique sur les perturbateurs endocriniens
— ces substances chimiques interférant avec le système hormonal et suspectées de jouer un rôle important dans la
multiplication des troubles et des pathologies.

L'EFSA devait en particulier répondre à plusieurs questions. Comment définir un perturbateur endocrinien? Comment
distinguer les effets indésirables imputables à cette classe de molécules? Selon l'agence européenne, «il n'existe pas de
critère scientifique spécifique défini pour distinguer les effets nocifs potentiels des perturbateurs endocriniens par
rapport à une régulation normale des fonctions corporelles (appelées réponses adaptatives)».

1. Faut-il en conclure que la distinction entre un effet acceptable et un effet indésirable devra être établie pour
chaque substance?

2. Même si l'EFSA évoque, dans son rapport, le «potentiel d'activité» des perturbateurs endocriniens, toute
substance ayant une activité endocrinienne ne doit-elle pas être considérée comme un perturbateur?

3. Que répond la Commission au rapport de l'EFSA, sachant que le Parlement a pris position et qu'il est en total
désaccord avec les tentatives visant à introduire le critère d'activité en tant que seuil de définition des perturbateurs
endocriniens? Ces derniers se trouvent dans les emballages alimentaires, les produits de soins de la peau, les produits
cosmétiques, les matériaux de construction, les produits électroniques, les meubles et les sols.

4. Quelles sont les mesures que la Commission entend prendre pour protéger efficacement la santé humaine, dès
lors qu'un nombre croissant d'études scientifiques laisse entendre que les perturbateurs endocriniens jouent un rôle
tant dans les maladies chroniques, notamment les cancers hormono-dépendants, l'obésité, le diabète et les maladies
cardiovasculaires, que dans les problèmes de procréation?

**Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission**

_(7 juin 2013)_

Conformément à l'avis scientifique publié en mars 2013 ( [1] ) par l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments sur les
perturbateurs endocriniens, un jugement d'expert au cas par cas est actuellement nécessaire pour déterminer le seuil
biologique entre modulation endocrinienne et effet indésirable.

Dans son avis, l'Autorité souscrit à la définition de perturbateur endocrinien que donne l'OMS dans son programme
international sur la sécurité chimique (2002) ( [2] ), laquelle requiert un lien de cause à effet entre le mode d'action et
l'effet indésirable. Une substance ayant une activité endocrinienne peut avoir des effets sur le système endocrinien,
mais seul un perturbateur endocrinien peut avoir des effets indésirables.

La définition de perturbateur endocrinien de l'OMS est également entérinée dans le «State of the art assessment on
endocrine disruptors» (Kortenkamp, janvier 2012) ( [3] ), dans la résolution du Parlement européen sur la protection de
la santé publique contre les perturbateurs endocriniens (janvier 2013) ( [4] ), dans le rapport de l'OMS et du PNUE sur les
substances chimiques perturbant les fonctions endocriniennes (février 2013) ( [5] ) ainsi que dans le rapport du groupe
consultatif d'experts sur les perturbateurs endocriniens (CCR, mars 2013) ( [6] ). Aucun désaccord ne semble donc exister
entre l'Autorité et le Parlement européen au sujet de cette définition.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3132.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/endocrine_disruptors/en/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/studies_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2013-0027+0+DOC+PDF+V0//E
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/endocrine/en/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&dt_code=NWS&obj_id=16530&ori=RSS

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 155

Plusieurs textes législatifs de l'Union [comme le règlement (CE) n° 1107/2009 ( [7] ), le règlement (UE) n° 528/2012 ( [8] ), la
directive 2000/60/CE ( [9] ) et le règlement (CE) n° 1907/2006 ( [10] )] proposent des mesures pour contrôler les
perturbateurs endocriniens. La Commission entend mettre au point une stratégie conforme aux définitions
internationales exposées au point 3 et scientifiquement étayée pour garantir que la santé humaine et l'environnement
jouissent d'une protection maximale.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

**|** )

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) JO L 309 du 24.11.2009, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) JO L 167 du 27.6.2012, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) JO L 327 du 22.12.2000, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) JO L 396 du 30.12.2006, p. 1.

C 33 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004279/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Endocrine disruptors: follow-up to the European Food Safety Authority report

On 20 March, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published one of its most eagerly anticipated reports. In
autumn 2012, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Consumers asked the authority, based in Parma,
to deliver a scientific opinion on endocrine disruptors — chemical substances which interfere with the hormone
system and which are thought to play a significant role in the development of disorders and pathologies.

EFSA was supposed to respond to several questions in particular. What is the definition of an endocrine disruptor?
How can we distinguish the adverse effects linked to this class of molecules? According to the European authority,
‘there are no specific scientific criteria defined to distinguish potential adverse effects of endocrine disruptors from
normal regulation of body functions (so-called “adaptive responses”)’.

1. Should we conclude that the distinction between an acceptable effect and an adverse effect ought to be
established for each substance?

2. Although EFSA mentions the ‘potential activity’ of endocrine disruptors in its report, should all substances with
endocrine activity not be considered disruptors?

3. How would the Commission respond to EFSA’s report, given that Parliament has taken a position and is
completely opposed to the attempts to introduce the activity criterion as a threshold for the definition of endocrine
disruptors? These substances are found in food packaging, skincare products, cosmetic products, building materials,
electronic products, furniture and flooring.

4. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure effective protection for human health, given that
a growing number of scientific studies are showing that endocrine disruptors play a role in both chronic illnesses,
including hormone-dependent cancers, obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, and in fertility problems?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

According to the European Food Safety Authority's Scientific Opinion on endocrine disruptors issued in
March 2013 ( [1] ), for the time being a case-by-case expert judgment is required to assess when a biological threshold
between endocrine modulation and adverse effect is crossed.

The European Food Safety Authority's Scientific Opinion endorses the WHO/IPCS (2002) ( [2] ) definition of endocrine
disruptor, which requires a causal link between the endocrine-mediated mode of action and the adverse effect. A
substance with endocrine activity may result in effects on the endocrine system, but only an endocrine disruptor may
cause adverse effects.

The WHO/IPCS (2002) definition of endocrine disruptor has also been endorsed by the ‘State of the art assessment on
endocrine disruptors’ (Kortenkamp, January 2012) ( [3] ), by the ‘European Parliament Resolution on the protection of
public health by endocrine disruptors’ (January 2013) ( [4] ), by the WHO/UNEP report on endocrine disrupting
chemicals (February 2013) ( [5] ) and by the report of the Endocrine Disrupters Expert Advisory Group (JRC,
March 2013) ( [6] ). Therefore, it seems that there is no disagreement between the European Food Safety Authority and
the European Parliament on the definition of endocrine disruptor.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3132.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/endocrine_disruptors/en/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/endocrine/documents/studies_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2013-0027+0+DOC+PDF+V0//E.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/endocrine/en/.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&dt_code=NWS&obj_id=16530&ori=RSS.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 157

In several EU pieces of legislation (e.g. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 ( [7] ), Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 ( [8] ),
Directive 2000/60/EC ( [9] ), Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 ( [10] )) there are measures to control endocrine disrupters. An
approach consistent with international definitions outlined in point 3 and science based will be developed by the
Commission to ensure the highest level of protection to human health and to the environment.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

**|** )

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1‐50.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1‐123.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1‐73.
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1‐849.

C 33 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004280/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Gibraltar et ses faveurs fiscales envers les opérateurs de jeux en ligne

Bien qu'ayant des atouts touristiques, ce ne sont pas vraiment ceux-ci qui rendent Gibraltar intéressant pour les
opérateurs de jeux d'argent. Effectivement, sans les faveurs fiscales que l'île propose aux investisseurs, elle serait
certainement une banale destination touristique.

En se basant à Gibraltar, les sites de poker et de casinos en ligne peuvent à la fois servir ceux qui marchent déjà vers
l'approbation des jeux et ceux qui sont encore enclavés par les mesures restrictives. Certes, d'autres endroits comme
Antigua ou les réserves de Kahnawake sont à leurs dispositions, mais ils préfèrent rester sur Gibraltar qui a l'avantage
d'être proche de l'Europe, et qui reste pour l'instant, l'endroit le plus lucratif pour leurs affaires.

Avec un taux de 15 % d'imposition sur les bénéfices, il est tout à fait compréhensible que les opérateurs décident de
s'y installer.

1. Que compte faire la Commission, qui dans le même temps se bat contre l'évasion fiscale et les paradis fiscaux,
concernant Gibraltar et ses opérateurs de jeux en ligne établis dans l'île pour ses largesses fiscales?

2. N'y-a-t-il pas concurrence déloyale de la part des entreprises de jeux en ligne basées à Gibraltar par rapport aux
entreprises effectuant les mêmes prestations au sein d'États membres qui ne sont pas des paradis fiscaux?

3. La Commission a-t-elle commandité ou compte-t-elle commanditer une analyse d'impact du gambling business
à Gibraltar en terme, par exemple, de création et suppression d'emplois en Europe?

**Réponse donnée par M. Šemeta au nom de la Commission**

_(3 juin 2013)_

1 et 3. La Commission ne prend actuellement aucune mesure dans le domaine de la fiscalité directe visant
spécialement les opérateurs de jeux en ligne établis à Gibraltar; elle ne prévoit pas non plus de réaliser une analyse
d'impact sur les opérations de jeux d'argent à Gibraltar.

Les États membres sont autorisés à établir les régimes fiscaux qu'ils jugent appropriés, dès lors que ceux-ci sont
conformes à la législation de l'Union européenne.

2. Le groupe «Code de conduite» établi par les États membres pour lutter contre la concurrence fiscale déloyale a
récemment passé en revue la loi relative à l'impôt sur le revenu à Gibraltar, adoptée en 2010. Dans son rapport au
Conseil daté du 23 novembre 2012 ( [1] ) le groupe a conclu que certains aspects de cette loi, qui ne concernent pas les
jeux en ligne, étaient dommageables. Le Royaume-Uni a déjà informé le groupe sur les travaux qu'il a déjà entamés
pour assurer le respect des principes énoncés dans ce code de conduite.

Les autres États membres sont libres d'instaurer des mesures visant à prévenir les abus, s'ils les estiment nécessaires
pour préserver leur assiette d'imposition, du moment que ces mesures sont conformes à la législation de l'UE.

Quant à la fiscalité indirecte, bien que Gibraltar ne soit pas couvert par le champ d'application territorial de la TVA, les
jeux en ligne relèvent des règles sur la fiscalité des entreprises fournissant des services en ligne à des clients. Il n'existe
pas d'exonération en bloc de la TVA pour les entreprises de jeux et une taxe peut être perçue en fonction du pays dans
lequel les clients résident ainsi que des modalités de mise en œuvre de toute exonération éventuelle par les États
membres.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Document 16488/12 FISC 173.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 159

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004280/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Gibraltar and its tax concessions for online gambling operators

Gibraltar’s appeal to gambling operators has little to do with its tourist attractions. There would be nothing to
distinguish the island from other tourist destinations were it not for the tax concessions it grants to investors.

Online poker and casino sites which base their operations in Gibraltar can provide services both to countries which
are already moving towards more relaxed gambling laws and to those which still impose restrictive measures. They
could of course choose other locations such as Antigua or the Kahnawake reserve, but they prefer to stay in Gibraltar,
which has the advantage of being close to Europe and is at present the most lucrative site for their operations.

With a 15% tax rate on profits, it is not hard to see why companies decide to set up operations there.

1. In view of the fact that the Commission is currently working to combat tax evasion and tax havens, what action
is it planning to take in respect of Gibraltar and the online gambling operators which have established themselves on
the island in order to enjoy its tax breaks?

2. Are the Gibraltar-based online gambling companies not engaging in unfair competition against companies
providing the same services in Member States which are not tax havens?

3. Has the Commission commissioned, or is it planning to commission, an impact analysis of gambling operations
in Gibraltar, in terms of job creation or losses in Europe, for example?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

1 and 3. The Commission is not currently taking any actions in the area of direct taxation specifically targeting online
gambling operators established in Gibraltar, nor is the Commission planning to undertake an impact analysis of
gambling operations in Gibraltar.

Member States are entitled to establish the tax regimes they see fit, so long as these comply with EC law.

2. The Code of Conduct Group, established by Member States to combat unfair tax competition, has recently
reviewed Gibraltar's 2010 Income Tax Act. In its report to the Council dated 23 November 2012 ( [1] ) the Group
concluded that certain aspects of the Act, which do not relate to online gambling, were harmful. The United Kingdom
has already informed the Group about work already begun to ensure compliance with the principles of the Code.

Other Member States are free to introduce such anti-abuse measures as they think are necessary to defend their tax
bases, so long as they comply with EC law.

Regarding indirect tax, although Gibraltar is outside the territorial scope of VAT, online gambling falls within rules
for tax on business to customers electronically supplied services. There is no blanket exemption from VAT for
gambling and tax may be due depending on where customers are located and how Member States implement any
exemption.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Document 16488/12 FISC 173.

C 33 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-004281/13**

**aan de Raad**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(16 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Verplaatsing van de mars voor gelijkheid door Vilnius

De gemeentelijke autoriteiten van Vilnius hebben besloten de mars voor gelijkheid door de centrale Gediminas-straat
van de Litouwse hoofdstad te verbieden. Volgens de gemeentelijke autoriteiten van Vilnius is de mars verplaatst naar
de minder centraal gelegen Upės-straat naar aanleiding van informatie die erop zou wijzen dat „tijdens de mars een
bedreiging voor de openbare veiligheid kan ontstaan”. De politie heeft verklaard dat niet objectief kan worden
aangetoond dat de doelstellingen van de mars niet kunnen worden verwezenlijkt wanneer het evenement op een
andere locatie dan de Gediminas-straat wordt gehouden.

Is de Raad op de hoogte van het feit dat de autoriteiten van Vilnius hebben geweigerd toestemming te verlenen om de
Baltische Gay Pride in juli 2013 langs de door de organisatoren gevraagde route te laten plaatsvinden?

Is de Raad op de hoogte van het feit dat deze weigering werd gerechtvaardigd op grond van veiligheidsoverwegingen,
aangezien de politie van Vilnius niet gelooft in staat te zijn de Baltische Gay Pride naar behoren te beschermen indien
deze op de gevraagde locatie plaatsvindt?

Is de Raad van mening dat indien de autoriteiten van Vilnius niet in staat zijn adequate bescherming te bieden bij een
evenement als de Baltische Gay Pride, zij zeker niet in staat zullen zijn adequate bescherming te bieden bij
evenementen op hoog niveau tijdens het Litouwse voorzitterschap van de EU van juli tot en met december van dit
jaar?

Deelt de Raad de mening dat indien de Litouwse autoriteiten in staat zijn bescherming te bieden bij een EU-evenement
op hoog niveau, zij ook in staat zouden moeten zijn adequate bescherming te bieden bij de Baltische Gay Pride?

**Antwoord**
_(22 juli 2013)_

De Raad heeft deze aangelegenheid noch besproken, noch daarover een standpunt ingenomen. De Raad herinnert
eraan dat de lidstaten verantwoordelijk zijn voor de handhaving van de openbare orde en de bescherming van de
binnenlandse veiligheid.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 161

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004281/13**

**to the Council**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Relocation of Vilnius march for equality

The Vilnius municipal authorities have decided to ban the march for equality through the Lithuanian capital’s central
Gediminas Avenue. According to the Vilnius municipal authorities, the march has been relocated to the less centrally
located Upės Street, due to information leading to believe that ‘a threat to public security may arise during the march’.
The police department has stated that there are no objective arguments which prove that the goals of the march could
not be achieved if the event was held in a location other than Gediminas Avenue.

Is the Council aware that the Vilnius authorities have refused to authorise the Baltic Gay Pride in July 2013 to take
place along the route requested by the organisers?

Is the Council aware of the fact that this refusal has been justified by security concerns, given that the Vilnius police do
not believe that they can adequately protect the Baltic Gay Pride at the preferred location?

Is the Council of the opinion that if the Vilnius authorities are unable to provide adequate protection for an event such
as the Baltic Gay Pride, it will certainly not be capable of providing adequate security for high-level events during the
Lithuanian Presidency of the EU from July to December of this year?

Would the Council agree that if the Lithuanian authorities are capable of providing protection for a high-level EU
event, they would also be capable of ensuring adequate protection for the Baltic Gay Pride?

**Reply**
_(22 July 2013)_

The Council has neither discussed nor taken a view on this matter. The Council recalls that maintaining law and order
and safeguarding internal security are the responsibility of Member States.

C 33 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004282/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Syed Kamall (ECR)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar

Following my Written Question E-006691/2011, I have been contacted by a constituent informing me that the
Indian Supreme Court has confirmed that Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar is to receive the death penalty.

Could the Vice-President/High Representative clarify what actions are being taken, in response to this declaration by
the Indian authorities, to try to prevent the sentence from being carried out?

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

_(21 May 2013)_

The European Union has used all opportunities to convey to the Indian authorities its principled opposition to the
death penalty under all circumstances, including in recent weeks. A statement was issued by the HR/VP on
11 February 2013 on the execution of Mr Afzal Guru.

The EU has been following closely the case of Professor Davinderpal Singh Bhullar and those of several other
individuals recently sentenced to death. Certain modalities of Professor Bhullar's process have come under scrutiny in
India and outside the country and we hope that full light will be shed, as rapidly as possible, on alleged shortcomings.

The EU looks forward to continuing discussing these issues with the Indian authorities, including at the next sessions
of the EU-India Human Rights Dialogue and through appropriate diplomatic contacts in the country.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 163

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004283/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(16 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Verplaatsing van de mars voor de gelijkheid in Vilnius

De gemeentelijke autoriteiten van Vilnius hebben besloten om de mars voor de gelijkheid uit de Gediminas-laan in het
centrum van de hoofdstad van Litouwen te weren. Volgens de gemeentelijke autoriteiten is de mars verplaatst naar de
minder centraal gelegen Upes-straat omdat zij heeft vernomen dat de openbare veiligheid tijdens de mars in gevaar
zou kunnen worden gebracht. Volgens de politie kan niet objectief worden aangetoond dat de doelen van de mars
niet kunnen worden bereikt als het evenement niet in de Gediminas-laan wordt gehouden.

Is de Commissie op de hoogte van het feit dat de autoriteiten van Vilnius geen toestemming hebben gegeven om de
Baltische Gay Parade in juli 2013 langs de door de organisatoren gekozen route te houden?

Is de Commissie ervan op de hoogte dat deze weigering om veiligheidsredenen heeft plaatsgevonden, aangezien de
politie van Vilnius van mening is dat zij de Baltische Gay Parade op de voorkeurslocatie niet toereikend kan
beschermen?

Is de Commissie van mening dat indien de autoriteiten van Vilnius niet in staat zijn om voldoende bescherming te
bieden aan een evenement als de Baltische Gay Parade, zij zeker niet staat zullen zijn de veiligheid van evenementen
op hoog niveau tijdens het Litouwse EU-voorzitterschap van juli tot december van dit jaar te garanderen?

Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat als de Litouwse autoriteiten in staat zijn om EU-evenementen van hoog niveau te
beveiligen, zij ook in staat moeten worden geacht om de veiligheid tijdens de Baltische Gay Pride te garanderen?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(12 juni 2013)_

Kwesties met betrekking tot de organisatie van openbare bijeenkomsten in de lidstaten en de veiligheid van de
aanwezigen bij dergelijke evenementen, vallen onder de bevoegdheid van de lidstaten. De Commissie is niet bevoegd
om zich te mengen in de manier waarop lidstaten openbare bijeenkomsten organiseren. Het is dus aan de lidstaten
om ervoor te zorgen dat hun verplichtingen met betrekking tot de grondrechten — die voortkomen uit internationale
overeenkomsten en uit hun nationale wetgeving — in dat verband worden nageleefd.

De Commissie blijft de strijd tegen homofobie en discriminatie op grond van seksuele geaardheid steunen met volle
inzet van al haar bevoegdheden uit hoofde van de Verdragen.

C 33 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004283/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Relocation of Vilnius march for equality

The Vilnius municipal authorities have decided to ban the march for equality through the Lithuanian capital’s central
Gediminas Avenue. According to the Vilnius municipal authorities, the march has been relocated to the less centrally
located Upės Street, due to information leading to believe that ‘a threat to public security may arise during the march’.
The police department has stated that there are no objective arguments which prove that the goals of the march could
not be achieved if the event was held in a location other than Gediminas Avenue.

Is the Commission aware that the Vilnius authorities have refused to authorise the Baltic Gay Pride in July 2013 to
take place along the route requested by the organisers?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that this refusal has been justified by security concerns, given that the Vilnius
police do not believe that they can adequately protect the Baltic Gay Pride at the preferred location?

Is the Commission of the opinion that if the Vilnius authorities are unable to provide adequate protection for an event
such as the Baltic Gay Pride, it will certainly not be capable of providing adequate security for high-level events during
the Lithuanian Presidency of the EU from July to December of this year?

Would the Commission agree that if the Lithuanian authorities are capable of providing protection for a high-level EU
event, they would also be capable of ensuring adequate protection for the Baltic Gay Pride?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

Issues pertaining to the organisation of public meetings in the Member States and to the safety of the individuals
during those events fall under the competence of the Member States. The Commission has no power to intervene in
how Member States organise public meetings. In that matter, it is thus for Member States to ensure that their
obligations regarding fundamental rights — as resulting from international agreements and from their domestic laws
— are respected.

The Commission reiterates its commitment to combating homophobia and discrimination based on sexual
orientation to the full extent of the powers conferred on it by the Treaties.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 165

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004284/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Visita in Turchia del Segretario di Stato statunitense, John Kerry

Il 7 aprile 2013 diversi quotidiani hanno riferito in merito alla visita in Turchia del Segretario di Stato statunitense,
John Kerry. Egli ha annunciato che la Turchia può contribuire in modo importante alla ripresa dei dialoghi di pace tra
israeliani e palestinesi, sostenendo che «la Turchia può svolgere un ruolo chiave, dare un importante contributo al
processo di pace in tanti modi».

Secondo diverse fonti, sembra che il primo ministro turco, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, sarà invitato a fungere da
mediatore e a chiedere che Hamas riconosca Israele e rinunci alla sua lotta armata. È prevista una visita in Turchia di
una delegazione israeliana guidata da Yaakov Amidror, consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale, allo scopo di avviare
colloqui ad alto livello. Un funzionario israeliano ha affermato che «l'obiettivo è di migliorare le relazioni tra i due
paesi. Noi speriamo sia possibile».

1. Qual è la posizione del VP/HR in merito alle notizie di un possibile ruolo di mediatore della Turchia nel quadro
del ripristino dei dialoghi di pace tra Palestina e Israele?

2. Quali provvedimenti è disposto ad adottare il VP/HR al fine di sostenere gli sforzi di Turchia, Israele e
dell'Autorità palestinese intesi a portare alla negoziazione di un accordo di pace effettivo?

3. Il VP/HR si è tenuto in contatto con John Kerry durante la visita di quest'ultimo in Medio Oriente e Turchia? In
caso affermativo, quali conclusioni sono state raggiunte in relazione al ruolo di mediatore della Turchia con Hamas?

4. Ha il VP/HR trattato con John Kerry la questione dell'Iran e, in particolare, la curiosa contraddizione per cui, da
un lato, si presume che le banche turche stiano finanziando il commercio con l'Iran, mentre dall'altro la Turchia sta
chiaramente fornendo un deciso sostegno ai ribelli siriani che cercano di far cadere il più stretto alleato dell'Iran, il
presidente al Assad, e si dice che stia addirittura armando, assieme al Qatar, il gruppo salafita siriano legato ad alQaida, il Fronte al Nusra?

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

_(18 giugno 2013)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente non commenta le notizie riportate dalla stampa. Si è tenuta in contatto
frequente con il segretario di stato statunitense John Kerry, relativamente agli interessi comuni dell’UE e degli USA in
Medio Oriente.

Il recente riavvicinamento tra Israele e la Turchia può solo risultare d’aiuto per affrontare le numerose sfide che
affliggono attualmente la regione del Medio Oriente, tra cui la situazione nella Striscia di Gaza; l’UE è disposta, con
tutti i suoi partner nella regione, ad avviare un dialogo che porti a un cambiamento radicale della situazione nella
Striscia di Gaza in linea con la risoluzione 1860/2009.

C 33 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004284/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — US Secretary of State John Kerry talks in Turkey

On 7 April 2013, various newspapers reported on US Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Turkey. He announced
that Turkey can play an important role in helping revive peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He
mentioned that ‘Turkey can be a key, an important contribution to the process of peace in so many ways’.

According to a number of reports, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will be asked to mediate and ask
that Hamas recognise Israel and abandon its armed struggle. An Israeli delegation headed by the country’s National
Security Advisor, Yaakov Amidror, is due to spend time in Turkey in order to engage in high-level talks. One Israeli
official said that ‘the goal is to improve the relationship between the two countries. We hope it’s possible’.

1. What is the position of the VP/HR regarding the news of a possible mediation role by Turkey in renewing peace
talks between the Palestinians and Israelis?

2. What steps is the VP/HR prepared to take in order to help support efforts between Turkey, Israel and the
Palestinian Authority to work on negotiating an effective peace agreement?

3. Has the VP/HR been in touch with Mr Kerry during his visit to the Middle East and Turkey? If so, what
conclusions have been reached on the subject of Turkey’s mediating role with Hamas?

4. Did the VP/HR raise the issue of Iran with Mr Kerry and, in particular, the curious contradiction whereby, on the
one hand, Turkish banks are allegedly financing trade with Iran yet, on the other hand, Turkey is clearly in strong
support of the Syrian rebels who aim to overthrow Iran’s closest ally, President al Assad, and, allegedly, is even —
along with Qatar — arming the Salafist al Quaeda-linked group, Jabhat al Nusra, in Syria?

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

_(18 June 2013)_

The HR/VP does not comment on press reports. She has been in frequent contact with Mr Kerry as regards the
common interests of the EU and the US in the Middle East region.

The recent Israeli-Turkish rapprochement can only help in tackling the wide range of challenges which the region
currently faces. The situation in the Gaza Strip is one of these — the EU is willing to engage with all its partners in the
region to work towards a fundamental change in the situation of the Gaza Strip, in line with UNSCR 1860/2009.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 167

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004285/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Danni provocati da Hamas al patrimonio mondiale dell'UNESCO

Il 14 aprile 2013 il giornale online _Al-Monitor_ ha riportato che le brigate Ezzedin al Qassam, il braccio militare di
Hamas, hanno distrutto una parte dell'antico porto di Antedone a Gaza allo scopo di ampliare il proprio campo di
addestramento militare. Il porto marittimo di Antedone è stato dichiarato patrimonio mondiale dell'umanità
dall'UNESCO nel 2012.

Il vice ministro del Turismo di Gaza, Muhammad Khela, ha spiegato che il sito è stato occupato per usi militari e non a
fini civili, affermando che «non possiamo essere [sic] d'ostacolo alla resistenza palestinese; siamo tutti parte di un
progetto di resistenza, promettiamo comunque che il sito sarà utilizzato in modo limitato e che non subirà alcun
danno». Egli ha inoltre chiesto fondi supplementari, sostenendo che «se nella zona fossero già stati compiuti degli
scavi, non credo sarebbe stato possibile per nessuno occuparla», e che «questo dovrebbe essere compito dell'UNESCO
e degli altri gruppi di donatori».

La riunione semestrale dell'UNESCO, che si protrarrà fino al 26 aprile, prevede cinque punti all'ordine del giorno
relativi alle questioni palestinesi, tuttavia non viene menzionata la distruzione del sito archeologico da parte di Hamas
per destinarlo a campo di addestramento per terroristi. L'ambasciatore statunitense, David T. Killion, l'ha descritta
come «altamente politicizzata» e intesa a «isolare Israele».

1. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in merito all'ampliamento dei campi terroristici di
Hamas nell'antico porto di Antedone?

2. Quali provvedimenti intende adottare per impedire al braccio armato di Hamas di estendere le proprie attività in
questo sito dichiarato patrimonio mondiale dell'umanità?

3. Ha intenzione di discutere la questione con le autorità competenti in seno all'UNESCO?

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

_(26 giugno 2013)_

Secondo le informazioni ottenute dal SEAE, Hamas ha effettivamente costruito una serie di sbarramenti di sabbia e
rifugi lungo il sito, che è stato anche colpito da un missile israeliano in novembre, durante l'escalation della violenza
nella Striscia di Gaza. L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente invita tutti a rispettare la Convenzione dell’Aia per la
protezione dei beni culturali in caso di conflitto armato. Tuttavia, poiché la politica dell'Unione europea è di non
avere contatti con Hamas, l’Unione europea ha ridotto i mezzi per prevenire qualsiasi attività del braccio armato di
Hamas nel sito.

L’Unione europea è a conoscenza dei chiarimenti richiesti dall’UNESCO in merito al porto di Antedone a Gaza e
accoglie con favore l’accordo raggiunto durante la 191 [a] sessione del Consiglio esecutivo dell'UNESCO di inviare una
missione dell’UNESCO a Gerusalemme est.

C 33 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004285/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Hamas damages to Unesco world heritage site

On 14 April 2013, the online journal _Al-Monitor_ reported that Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of
Hamas, bulldozed a part of the ancient Anthedon harbour in Gaza in order to expand its military training zone. The
Anthedon seaport was designated a world heritage site by Unesco in 2012.

The Deputy Minister for Tourism in Gaza, Muhammad Khela, has explained that the location was taken over for
military use and not civic purposes, stating that ‘we can’t stand [sic] as an obstacle in the way of Palestinian resistance;
we are all a part of a resistance project, yet we promise that the location will be limitedly used without harming it at
all’. Moreover, he has requested additional funds, saying that ‘if the location was excavated already, I don’t think it
would have been possible for anyone to take it over’, and that ‘it should be Unesco and other donating groups’ job to
do so’.

The biannual Unesco meeting, which runs until 26April, lists five items on its agenda concerning Palestinian issues,
yet there is no mention of Hamas bulldozing the heritage site for use as a terrorist training camp. The US
Ambassador, David T. Killion, described it as ‘highly politicised’ and designed to ‘single out Israel’.

1. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the expansion of Hamas terrorist
camps on the ancient Anthedon harbour?

2. What steps is the Vice-President/High Representative going to take to stop Hamas’ military wing from
expanding its activities onto this cultural heritage site?

3. Is the Vice-President/High Representative going to discuss the issue with the relevant Unesco authorities?

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

_(26 June 2013)_

According to the information which the EEAS has obtained, Hamas has indeed constructed a range of sand barriers
and huts alongside the site, which was also hit by an Israeli missile during the November escalation in the Gaza Strip.
The HR/VP calls on all to respect the Hague Convention for the protection property in the event of armed conflict.
However, given the EU's no-contact policy vis-à-vis Hamas, the EU has limited means to prevent any activities by
Hamas' military wing there.

The EU is aware of clarifications sought on the Anthedon harbour in Gaza within Unesco. It does, however, welcome
the agreement reached during the 191th session of Unesco’s Executive Board to send a Unesco mission to East
Jerusalem.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 169

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004286/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Mancata indagine sull'omicidio dei cosiddetti «collaboratori» di Gaza

L'11 aprile 2013 Human Rights Watch (HRW) riferisce che l'organizzazione Hamas a Gaza evidentemente non ha
iniziato l'indagine promessa sul brutale assassinio avvenuto a novembre 2012 di sette prigionieri palestinesi accusati
di collaborazionismo con Israele, nonostante Hamas abbia anche fissato il termine dell'11 aprile 2013 perché i
sospetti collaboratori si consegnino alla polizia con la certezza che sarà concessa l'amnistia.

I sette uomini in questione sono stati uccisi in pieno giorno con la sospetta collusione di membri dell'apparato di
sicurezza. Tuttavia, finora Hamas non ha fatto alcun serio tentativo di indagare sugli omicidi. Il direttore di HRW per
il Medio Oriente dichiara che «l'incapacità o la mancanza di volontà da parte di Hamas di indagare sugli esecrandi
omicidi di sette uomini svuota di significato le sue affermazioni secondo cui a Gaza vige l'autorità del diritto».

Il 25 novembre 2012, il primo ministro di Gaza Ismail Hanniyeh dichiara che Hamas ha istituito una commissione
indipendente per indagare sulle uccisioni e che la commissione indipendente per i diritti umani a Gaza ha redatto
alcune raccomandazioni che Hamas dichiara di prendere in considerazione. Tuttavia la maggior parte delle famiglie
dei defunti dichiara di non essere stata contattata dalla commissione. In almeno quattro casi risulta che le autorità
giudiziarie hanno ignorato le dichiarazioni secondo cui agli uomini è stato negato l'accesso ai familiari o l'assistenza
giuridica.

Secondo la commissione indipendente per i diritti umani, i tribunali militari hanno emesso almeno 13 condanne a
morte nei confronti di presunti collaboratori a Gaza e il ministro dell'interno è responsabile di almeno sei di queste
esecuzioni da quando Hamas è salita al poter nel 2007.

1. Quali misure è disposto a prendere il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per chiedere al governo di Hamas di
condurre un'indagine adeguata sull'uccisione illegale di sette sospetti collaboratori a novembre 2012?

2. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per quanto riguarda l'annuncio di Hamas
dell'11 aprile 2013 circa l'amnistia per i sospetti collaboratori con Israele?

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

_(13 agosto 2013)_

Dato che Hamas figura nell’elenco delle organizzazioni terroristiche, e considerata l’attuale separazione politica tra la
Cisgiordania e la Striscia di Gaza, i mezzi di cui l’UE dispone per affrontare direttamente i problemi con le autorità de
facto della Striscia di Gaza sono molto limitati. Tuttavia, in una serie di dichiarazioni locali, i capimissione dell’UE a
Gerusalemme e Ramallah hanno regolarmente condannato le sentenze capitali pronunciate ed eseguite nella Striscia
di Gaza nel 2012.

In merito a questo specifico incidente, il 21 novembre 2012, in una dichiarazione al Parlamento europeo, l’AR/VP ha
deplorato le esecuzioni sommarie di sette palestinesi nella Striscia di Gaza come la più palese violazione dei diritti
umani. L’AR/VP ha inoltre sottolineato la necessità che tutte le parti rispettino pienamente il diritto umanitario
internazionale.

Nella sua relazione sui progressi della politica europea di vicinato per il 2012, l’UE ha ancora una volta rilevato che i
sospetti collaboratori erano stati giustiziati in maniera sommaria, senza alcun procedimento giudiziario.

C 33 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004286/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Failure to investigate the murder of so-called Gaza ‘collaborators’

On 11 April 2013, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that the Hamas organisation in Gaza has apparently failed
to begin a promised investigation into the brutal killing in November 2012 of seven Palestinian prisoners accused of
collaborating with Israel. Hamas has even set a deadline of 11 April 2013 for suspected collaborators to turn
themselves in, with the assurance that they will be granted amnesty.

The seven men in question were killed in broad daylight with the suspected collusion of members of the security
apparatus. However, so far Hamas has not made any serious attempts to investigate the murders. HRW’s Middle East
director has said that ‘Hamas’s inability or unwillingness to investigate the brazen murders of seven men makes a
mockery of its claims that it’s upholding the rule of law in Gaza.’

On 25 November 2012, Gaza’s Prime Minister Ismail Hanniyeh stated that Hamas had established an independent
committee to investigate the killings and the Independent Commission for Human Rights in Gaza drafted some
recommendations, which Hamas said they would take into consideration. However, most of the families of the
deceased say that they have not been contacted by the committee. In at least four cases, the judicial authorities appear
to have ignored claims that the men had been denied access to family members or legal assistance.

According to the Independent Commission for Human Rights, military courts have issued at least 13 death sentences
against alleged collaborators in Gaza, with the Interior Ministry being responsible for six of these executions since
Hamas came to power in 2007.

1. What steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to take to call for the Hamas government to
conduct a proper investigation into the illegal killing of the seven suspected collaborators in November 2012?

2. What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s position regarding Hamas’ announcement on 11 April 2013
of an amnesty for suspected collaborators with Israel?

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

_(13 August 2013)_

Given the fact that Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation, and given the current political schism between the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip, the EU's means to directly address issues with the de-facto authorities in the Gaza Strip are
very limited. Yet in a number of local statements, EU Heads of Mission in Jerusalem and Ramallah have regularly
condemned the death sentences issued and carried out in the Gaza Strip in 2012.

Concerning this specific incident, on 21 November 2012, in a statement delivered to the EP, HR/VP deplored the
summary executions of seven Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the grossest violation of human rights. She also
stressed the need for all sides to fully respect international humanitarian law.

In its European Neighbourhood Policy Progress report for 2012, the EU once again noted that suspected
collaborators were summarily executed without any resort to judicial process.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 171

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004287/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Ruolo della cosiddetta «polizia morale» a Gaza

Habitat

Secondo quanto riferito il 9 aprile 2013 dal quotidiano londinese _Times_, le strade di Gaza sono percorse da «squadre
della modestia» o «ronde della moralità» che cercano di prelevare gli uomini che sfoggiano tagli di capelli ritenuti
«anti-islamici» per rasarli a zero. Gli uomini presi di mira portano i capelli lunghi, scolpiti o modellati con il gel,
secondo la moda occidentale. Un imbianchino fermato ha raccontato che le guardie lo hanno caricato a forza in un
veicolo e che, prima di liberarlo, gli hanno rasato a zero i capelli, che gli arrivavano alle spalle. La stessa persona
avrebbe dichiarato che la gente viene prelevata per strada senza alcuna ragione, aggiungendo che nessuno sa cosa
succederà ancora.

A partire dal 2007 Hamas ha preso provvedimenti per applicare i dettami più rigorosi della legge coranica. Vi sono
stati numerosi tentativi di dare un giro di vite su tutti gli aspetti della vita quotidiana ritenuti contrari all'islam, con
misure che comprendono la rigida separazione dei sessi e il controllo dell'abbigliamento. Nel 2010, ad esempio,
Hamas ha vietato agli uomini di lavorare nei saloni di parrucchieri per donna e anche i pantaloni stretti e a vita bassa
sono finiti nell'occhio del ciclone. Il vice Primo ministro, Ziad al-Zaza, afferma tuttavia che si tratta di episodi isolati.

1. Può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante indicare qual è la sua posizione in merito alle segnalazioni sempre
più numerose secondo cui, a Gaza, le «ronde della moralità» stando usando la mano pesante contro i giovani che, a
loro giudizio, adottano un comportamento «contrario all'islam»?

2. Quali misure è disposto il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante ad adottare per far comprendere chiaramente
alle autorità di Gaza che la Commissione non intende sostenere o tollerare l'introduzione nella Striscia di Gaza di
controlli di polizia di matrice religiosa?

3. I rappresentanti dell'UE nella regione si stanno già attivando per affrontare la questione e sono impegnati in un
dialogo con i funzionari competenti a Gaza?

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

_(28 giugno 2013)_

Pur non essendo in grado di costatare il verificarsi degli eventi specifici riferiti dall'onorevole deputato, l'UE è a
conoscenza di altri casi (di cui all'interrogazione scritta e-004008/2013) che mostrerebbero una tendenza
preoccupante delle autorità a imporre la propria ideologia alla società di Gaza.

Fino a quando la Striscia di Gaza rimarrà politicamente separata dalla Cisgiordania, l'UE avrà scarsi mezzi per
affrontare direttamente questo o qualsiasi altro problema con le autorità _de facto_ che controllano il territorio. Poiché la
sua politica esclude contatti diretti con Hamas, l'UE non potrà avviare pertanto un dialogo su questa o altre questioni
con le autorità competenti.

C 33 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004287/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — The role of so-called ‘morality brigades’ in Gaza

On 9 April 2013, the _Times_ of London reported that so called ‘modesty gangs’ or ‘morality brigades’ are roaming the
streets of Gaza seeking to kidnap men with what they consider to be ‘un-Islamic’ haircuts and shaving them. Men are
targeted if they have western-style, long, slicked back or stylised hair. A painter who was captured said that the
vigilantes bundled him into a vehicle and shaved his shoulder-length hair before releasing him. He is quoted as saying
‘they take you off the street for no reason. I don’t know what they are going to do next’.

Since 2007, Hamas has taken steps to implement strict aspects of Islamic law. There have been numerous attempts to
crack down on all aspects of daily life deemed un-Islamic, with measures including the rigid separation of the sexes
and inspection of civilian clothing. In 2010, for example, Hamas banned men from working in women’s hair salons
and there was also a crack-down on tight low-waisted trousers. However, Deputy Prime Minister, Ziad al-Zaza, claims
that the reports refer to isolated incidents.

1. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the growing number of reports inside
Gaza that militant ‘morality brigades’ are imposing a rigid crack-down on young people who they consider to be
engaging in ‘un-Islamic’ behaviour?

2. What steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to take to clearly state to the Gazan authorities
that the Commission will not support or condone the introduction of religious policing in the Gaza Strip?

3. Are EU authorities in the region already taking steps to address this issue, and are they engaged in dialogue with
the relevant Gazan officials?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

While not being in a position to verify the occurrence of the specific incidents referred to by the Honourable
Members, the EU is aware of a number of other instances (also referred to in Written Question E-004008/2013) that
seem to be part of a worrying trend whereby the authorities appear to be imposing their ideology on Gaza society.

As long as the Gaza Strip remains politically separated from the West Bank, the EU has limited means to directly
address this or any other issue with the de-facto authorities in Gaza. The EU has a no-contact policy vis-à-vis Hamas
and will therefore not engage in dialogue on this, or other, issues with the relevant authorities.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 173

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004288/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — decapitazioni a Papua Nuova Guinea e violenza legata alla stregoneria

L'8 aprile 2013 una serie di fonti di informazione ha riferito della decapitazione, a Papua Nuova Guinea, di due
anziane donne che sarebbero state altresì precedentemente torturate per tre giorni a titolo di punizione in quanto
sospettate di stregoneria. La polizia locale non è stata in grado di intervenire. Prima di essere decapitate le due donne
sono state brutalmente ferite a colpi di coltello e accetta. Gli assassini sono stati descritti da un ispettore di polizia
come un'assurda barbarie.

Le decapitazioni fanno seguito a un altro episodio in cui, secondo quanto riportato, sei donne sarebbero state
accusate di stregoneria e torturate con ferri roventi nell'ambito di un «sacrificio» pasquale nella provincia degli
Altopiani del Sud. A febbraio un'altra donna è stata accusata di stregoneria, denudata e arsa viva da un gruppo di
criminali. L'organizzazione per i diritti umani _Amnesty International_ è preoccupata per l'escalation della violenza legata
alla stregoneria e ha esortato il governo a debellare le pratiche in questione dal paese.

L'UE fornisce attualmente a Papua Nuova Guinea 104 milioni di EUR a titolo del documento di strategia nazionale
per il periodo 2008-2013. Tra le principali aree di intervento figurano lo sviluppo economico finalizzato a migliorare
i mezzi di sussistenza in ambito rurale attraverso piani di sviluppo distrettuali, il potenziamento delle risorse umane
volto a incrementare l'istruzione di base nelle regioni remote e la gestione del sistema di istruzione, nonché il buon

governo.

1. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante consapevole del fenomeno della violenza legata alla stregoneria a Papua
Nuova Guinea?

2. In che modo i contributi dell'UE a Papua Nuova Guinea sono sfruttati per migliorare il livello di istruzione delle
comunità rurali e quindi debellare il problema della violenza legata alla stregoneria?

3. Qual è la posizione dei funzionari dell'UE presenti nella regione in merito ai possibili provvedimenti da adottare
per tutelare i singoli e affrontare il problema della violenza legata alla stregoneria, anche per quanto concerne gli
sforzi volti ad assicurare alla giustizia i responsabili dei delitti in questione?

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

_(29 maggio 2013)_

È un crimine orrendo che sconcerta e per atti di violenza tanto abominevoli non può esservi alcuna giustificazione.
L'Unione europea confida nel cambiamento generazionale introdotto dal governo del primo ministro O'Neill per
l'adozione di misure concrete e tempestive volte a migliorare la condizione delle donne in Papua Nuova Guinea e
continuerà a sostenere tutti gli sforzi per combattere la violenza di genere, compresa qualsiasi forma di violenza
commessa con l'accusa pretestuosa di stregoneria. Sin dal suo insediamento, il governo di O'Neill ha condannato
apertamente tali reati promettendo indagini accurate e sentenze severe avviando, inoltre, l'iter legislativo di
abrogazione della legge sulla stregoneria del 1971. L'Unione europea sta anche sollecitando le autorità a
intraprendere azioni ulteriori in termini di istruzione e sensibilizzazione, di iniziative politiche e legislative e per la
protezione e l'assistenza delle vittime. Inoltre, l'UE continua a sostenere iniziative concrete volte a migliorare le
condizioni di vita delle donne in Papua Nuova Guinea attraverso programmi di cooperazione e lavorando con la
società civile. Ad esempio, la seconda fase del nostro programma di sviluppo delle risorse umane (26 milioni di euro)
garantirà che l'equilibrio tra i generi sia tenuto in debito conto per quanto riguarda le opportunità di formazione e
l'offerta di corsi di qualificazione professionale. L'emancipazione delle donne è essenziale, poiché a essere accusate di
stregoneria e di altri reati sono spesso i più deboli e indigenti.

In occasione della Giornata internazionale della donna 2013, svoltasi l'8 marzo, sui principali giornali del paese è
stata pubblicata una dichiarazione dell'UE contro la violenza sulle donne e i bambini.

C 33 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004288/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Beheadings in Papua New Guinea and sorcery-related violence

On 8 April 2013, a number of news sources reported that two elderly women in Papua New Guinea were beheaded
after being tortured for three days as punishment for suspected sorcery. The local police were not able to intervene.
The two women were brutally subjected to knife and axe wounds before being beheaded. The murders were described
by a police inspector as ‘barbaric and senseless’.

The beheadings follow another report of six women also being accused of sorcery and tortured with hot irons in an
Easter ‘sacrifice’ in the Southern Highlands. In February, another woman was accused of sorcery, stripped naked and
burned to death by a mob. The human rights organisation, Amnesty International, is concerned about the rise in
sorcery-related violence. It has urged the government to stamp out the practice in the country.

The EU currently provides Papua New Guinea with EUR 104 million through its Country Strategy Paper for 20082013. The main focus areas include rural economic development to improve rural livelihoods through district
development plans, human resource development to improve basic education in remote regions and management of
the education system, and good governance.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the phenomenon of sorcery-related violence in Papua New
Guinea?

2. What efforts are being made through EU contributions to Papua New Guinea to improve education in rural
communities in order to stamp out the problem of sorcery-related violence?

3. What is the assessment of EU officials in the region regarding steps that could be adopted to protect individuals
and tackle the problem of sorcery-related violence, including efforts to bring the perpetrators of such crimes to
justice?

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

_(29 May 2013)_

This horrific crime is shocking and there can be no justification whatsoever for such abhorrent acts of violence. The
EU is counting on the generational change brought by the government of PM O'Neill to take concrete and swift
measures to improve the situation of women in the country. The EU will continue to support all efforts in the fight
against gender based violence including any form of violence committed under the pretext of alleged sorcery. Since it
took office, the O'Neill government has been outspoken in denunciating these crimes while promising thorough
investigations and severe sentences. The legislative process to repeal the Sorcery Act of 1971 has also been initiated.
The EU is also urging the authorities to take further actions in terms of education/awareness raising, legislative &
policy initiatives and with respect to victims' protection and treatment. Besides, the EU continues through its
cooperation programmes and its work with the civil society to support concrete initiatives aiming at improving
women's life in Papua New Guinea. For instance, the second phase of our Human Resources Development
Programme (EUR 26 million) will ensure that gender balance is duly taken into account in terms of training
opportunities and trade classes offer. Women's empowerment is essential as sorcery and other crimes often target the
weakest and the poorest.

On the occasion of International Women's Day 2013 on 8 March 2013, an EU local statement on violence against
women and children has been published in the main papers of the country.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 175

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004289/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Caccia primaverile di quaglie e tortore a Malta e nuove ripetute violazioni della direttiva Uccelli 147/2009/CE

L'associazione BirdLife Malta ha denunciato in questi giorni ( [1] ) che le autorità maltesi hanno approvato delle norme ( [2] )
con le quali si consente nell'isola la caccia in deroga ai sensi dell'articolo 9 della direttiva «Uccelli» ( [3] ) a complessivi 5
000 capi di quaglia (Coturnix coturnix) e 11 000 capi di tortora (Streptopelia turtur) nel periodo compreso tra il
10 aprile 2013 e il 30 aprile 2013. La deroga è stata concessa a tutti i possessori di licenza di caccia pari a 9 487
cacciatori; il carniere per cacciatore è di 2 uccelli al giorno e 4 nell'intera stagione primaverile. Per ciascun cacciatore
maltese nell'arco della stagione di caccia primaverile risulterà quindi una media di 0,5 quaglie e 1,1 tortore. In
entrambi i casi, si tratta di un carniere che ciascun cacciatore raggiunge facilmente già nelle prime ore di caccia del
10 aprile.

È chiaro che la norma non rispetta le condizioni di cui ai commi 1 e 2 dell'art. 9 della direttiva e in particolare non vi
saranno i rigidi controlli richiesti, perché la norma maltese prevede solo 7 agenti ogni 1000 cacciatori. Inoltre l'unità
ALE ( [4] ) addetta ai controlli sulla caccia conta solo 18 unità, alle quali si aggiungono per la stagione di caccia poche
unità della polizia locale, non disponendo pertanto delle complessive 66 unità previste dalla norma.
Conseguentemente, i carnieri complessivi stabiliti risultano non veritieri dato che non saranno garantiti da alcun
rigido controllo ed è logico supporre che il carniere reale sarà superiore rispetto a quanto previsto di diversi ordini di
grandezza.

Può la Commissione intervenire con urgenza affinché si determini un intervento straordinario per reagire alla nuova
infrazione, dando avvio al procedimento speciale di sospensione, tramite ricorso alla Corte di giustizia europea, ai
sensi degli articoli 83 e 84 del regolamento di procedura della Corte di giustizia?

Può la Commissione avviare, ai sensi dell'articolo 260 del TFUE e secondo i criteri della comunicazione della
Commissione (SEC(2005)1658), il procedimento volto a far dichiarare dalla Corte di giustizia europea che la
Repubblica maltese non ha preso le misure che l'esecuzione delle sentenze della Corte comporta, per far fissare dalla
stessa Corte l'importo di una somma forfettaria o di una penalità adeguata alle circostanze?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(4 giugno 2013)_

La sentenza della Corte ( [5] ) ha statuito che tra il 2004 e il 2007 Malta ha consentito la caccia primaverile in modo
sproporzionato. Tuttavia la Corte ha lasciato aperta la possibilità di una deroga limitata per la caccia primaverile alla
tortora e alla quaglia in condizioni rigidamente controllate, in considerazione delle particolari circostanze prevalenti a
Malta. Le misure relative a una limitata stagione venatoria primaverile sono previste dai pertinenti regolamenti
nazionali ( [6] ) che sembrano tenere adeguatamente conto del principio di proporzionalità invocato dalla Corte.

Per quanto concerne l’apertura di una stagione venatoria primaverile nell’anno in corso, Malta ha informato la
Commissione che, dopo aver valutato le informazioni rese disponibili dal comitato Ornis di Malta e i dati del carniere
della precedente stagione venatoria autunnale, si è ritenuto che le condizioni per l’applicazione di una deroga
venatoria primaverile dal 10 al 30 aprile 2013 fossero state soddisfatte.

Al fine di verificare se nell’applicare la deroga siano state rispettate le condizioni rigorose poste dalla direttiva Uccelli
dell’UE ( [7] ), la Commissione esaminerà attentamente la dettagliata relazione presentata in proposito dal governo
maltese unitamente alle relazioni eventualmente presentate da altri portatori di interesse. In caso di mancato rispetto
delle condizioni suddette, la Commissione potrebbe vedersi costretta a proseguire l’azione finalizzata all’esecuzione
della normativa UE.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunicati BirdLife Malta del 09/04/2013, 13/04/2013 e 15/04/2013: http://www.birdlifemalta.org/media/press/hunting/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) L.N. 122 e 123 del 2013 pubblicate nel supplemento alla gazzetta del governo di Malta n°19.062 del 28 marzo 2013.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direttiva 147/2009/CE.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Administrative Law Enforcement.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) C-76/08 Commissione contro Malta.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Avviso legale 221 del 2010, come modificato dagli avvisi legali 83 e 113 del 2011, e 122 del 2013.
( ⋅7∙ ) GU L 20 del 26.1.2010.

C 33 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004289/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Spring quail and turtle dove hunting in Malta and new and repeated infringements of Directive 147/2009/EC
(Birds Directive)

The association BirdLife Malta recently reported ( [1] ) that the Maltese authorities have approved regulations, ( [2] ) by way
of derogation from Article 9 of the Birds Directive, ( [3] ) permitting the hunting of a total of 5 000 common quail
(Coturnix coturnix) and 11 000 turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur) across the island between 10 April 2013 and
30 April 2013. The derogation has been granted to all 9 487 licensed hunters; the bag limit for each hunter is two
birds a day and four throughout the spring season. This will therefore equate to an average of 0.5 quail and 1.1 turtle
doves for every Maltese hunter during the spring hunting season. In both cases, each hunter will easily be able to reach
the bag limit as soon as hunting begins, in the early hours of 10 April.

Clearly, the regulation does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 9(1) and (2) of the directive and, in
particular, the strict controls requested will not be carried out, because the Maltese regulation provides for only
7 agents per 1 000 hunters. Furthermore, the ALE unit ( [4] ) responsible for performing the hunting controls has only
18 units, which are supplemented by a few local police units during the hunting season. This figure therefore falls
short of the 66 units in total stipulated by the regulation. Consequently, the total bag limits laid down are inaccurate
since they will not be guaranteed by any strict controls. It is logical to assume that the actual bag limit will exceed that
stipulated by various orders of magnitude.

Can the Commission urgently intervene so that extraordinary action is taken in response to the new infringement,
through the launch of a special suspension procedure, via the Court of Justice of the European Union, pursuant to
Articles 83 and 84 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure?

Can the Commission launch, under Article 260 TFEU and in accordance with the criteria in Commission
communication (SEC(2005)1658), the procedure by which the Court of Justice of the European Union may rule that
the Republic of Malta has failed to take the measures required in order to comply with the Court’s judgment, so that
the Court sets the amount of a lump sum or penalty payment that is appropriate in the circumstances?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The Court's judgment ( [5] ) held that Malta had disproportionately permitted spring hunting between 2004 and 2007.
However the judgment left open the possibility of a limited spring hunting derogation of Turtle Dove and Quail under
strictly supervised conditions in view of the specific circumstances prevalent in Malta. The measures related to a
limited spring hunting season are provided for in the relevant national regulations ( [6] ) which appear to take properly
into consideration the principle of proportionality invoked by the Court.

With regard to the opening of a spring hunting season this year, Malta informed the Commission that following the
assessment of the information made available by the Malta Ornis Committee and the autumn bag data for the
previous autumn hunting season, it was considered that the conditions for applying a Spring hunting derogation
from 10 April to 30 April 2013 were met.

The Commission will carefully analyse the detailed derogation report to be submitted by the Maltese Government,
together with any other reports that may be submitted by the relevant stakeholders, with a view to see whether the
derogation has been applied in line with the strict conditions of the EU's Birds Directive ( [7] ). If this is not the case, the
Commission may have to continue the enforcement action.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) BirdLife Malta press releases from 9 April 2013, 13 April 2013 and 15 April 2013: http://www.birdlifemalta.org/media/press/hunting/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) L.N. 122 and 123 of 2013 published in the supplement to Malta Government Gazette No 19.062 of 28 March 2013.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 147/2009/EC.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Administrative Law Enforcement.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) C-76/08 Commission v Malta.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Legal Notice 221 of 2010, as amended by Legal Notices 83 and 113 of 2011, and 122 of 2013.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) OJ L 20, 26.1.2010.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 177

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004290/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Erosione delle coste del Gargano

Imponenti mareggiate hanno eroso recentemente le dune delle coste del Gargano, in provincia di Foggia. Soltanto
tramite la realizzazione di una barriera in blocchi di pietra si è evitata la distruzione di una pista ciclabile e del
lungomare della frazione di Foce Varano.

Gli esperti non sono riusciti a stabilire con precisione la motivazione del fenomeno naturale. Potrebbe trattarsi di una
variazione delle correnti sotto costa e della inconsueta violenza dei fenomeni atmosferici. Le amministrazioni
comunali di Rodi e Cagnano Varano, nel frattempo, mostrano preoccupazione per la pericolosità dell'erosione e
hanno chiesto un intervento da parte della Regione Puglia.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. È a conoscenza del fenomeno erosivo lungo le coste del Gargano?

2. Quali ulteriori iniziative intende assumere al fine di tutelare i cittadini dei centri garganici e preservare
l'ambiente?

3. È possibile ricorrere a specifici fondi dell'UE per arginare i danni ambientali con la costruzione di frangiflutti?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(4 giugno 2013)_

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza delle pressioni ambientali cui è sottoposta la costa adriatica, incluse le coste del
Gargano.

2. La Commissione ha già preso provvedimenti con l'adozione, nel 2002, della raccomandazione relativa
all'attuazione della gestione integrata delle zone costiere in Europa (ICZM) ( [1] ) che ha successivamente promosso,
nonché con la ratifica, nel 2010, del protocollo ICZM alla convenzione di Barcellona per il Mar Mediterraneo ( [2] ).
Entrambi gli strumenti asseriscono che l'erosione delle coste è una minaccia importante da prendere in
considerazione nella gestione integrata delle zone costiere.

Nel 2013 la Commissione ha adottato una proposta ( [3] ) di direttiva che istituisce un quadro per la pianificazione dello
spazio marittimo e la gestione integrata delle zone costiere. La proposta prescrive agli Stati membri di sviluppare
strategie di gestione integrata delle coste che tengano conto delle pressioni sulle risorse costiere, ivi compresa
l'erosione delle coste. Inoltre, il 16 aprile 2013 la Commissione ha adottato una strategia che promuove azioni di
adattamento ai cambiamenti climatici, nella quale l'erosione costiera è considerata un importante fattore di rischio
legato a tali cambiamenti. È tuttavia responsabilità degli Stati membri attuare queste misure.

3. I progetti potrebbero beneficiare del sostegno finanziario dei fondi strutturali. Il programma per la Puglia,
cofinanziato dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale, prevede uno stanziamento di 60 milioni di EUR per la
«prevenzione dei rischi naturali per il periodo in corso». Per quanto riguarda il periodo 2014-2020, questi progetti
potrebbero beneficiare della priorità di investimento 6 (b) del FESR ( [4] ), legata all'obiettivo tematico 6 ( [5] ). In linea con il
principio della gestione concorrente, le autorità nazionali sono responsabili della selezione e dell'attuazione dei
progetti. La Commissione suggerisce all'onorevole deputato di contattare direttamente l'autorità di gestione ( [6] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raccomandazione 2002/413/CE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Decisione 2009/89/CE del Consiglio.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013)133 def.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) «Promuovendo l'efficienza energetica e l'uso dell'energia rinnovabile nelle piccole e medie imprese».
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) «Promuovere l'adattamento al cambiamento climatico, la gestione e la prevenzione dei rischi».
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia: Viale Japigia, 145, 70126 BARI, adgfesr@regione.puglia.it.

C 33 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004290/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Erosion of the Gargano coastline

Heavy sea storms recently eroded the dunes along the coast of Gargano, in the province of Foggia. The destruction of
a bicycle path and of the promenade in the hamlet of Foce Varano was only prevented by the construction of a
boulder barrier.

Experts have been unable to establish the exact cause of the natural phenomenon. It could be due to a change in the
inshore currents and to unusually violent weather conditions. Meanwhile, the local authorities of Rodi and Cagnano
Varano are voicing concern about the erosion hazard, and have called for the Apulia region to act.

1. Is the Commission aware of the erosion along the Gargano coast?

2. What further action does it intend to take in order to protect Gargano’s citizens and preserve the environment?

3. Can specific EU funds be used to reduce environmental damage through the construction of breakwaters?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the environmental pressures on the Adriatic Sea Coast, including the coast of
Gargano.

2. The Commission has already taken action, including the adoption of the recommendation on Integrated Coastal
Zone Management ( [1] ) (ICZM) in 2002 and its subsequent promotion, and the ratification of ICZM Protocol ( [2] ) to the
Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean in 2010. Both instruments refer to coastal erosion as an important
threat to be considered for the integrated management of coastal areas.

In 2013 the Commission adopted a proposal ( [3] ) for a directive establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial
Planning and Integrated Coastal Management. The proposal requires Member States to develop integrated coastal
management strategies that should consider the pressures on coastal resources, including coastal erosion. In addition,
the Commission adopted on 16 April 2013 a strategy to advance action on adaptation to climate change, which
recognises coastal erosion as an important climate change related risk. It is, however, for Member States, to
implement these measures.

3. The projects could be eligible for financial support from the Structural Funds. The programme for Puglia, which
is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, provides for an allocation of EUR 60 million for
‘prevention of natural risk for the current period’. As regards the 2014-2020 period, these projects could be
potentially eligible under investment priority 6(b) of the ERDF ( [4] ), related to Thematic Objective No 6 ( [5] ). In line with
the shared management principle, project selection and implementation is the responsibility of the national
authorities. The Commission suggests that the Honourable Member contact directly the managing authority ( [6] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Recommendation 2002/413/EC.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council 2009/89/EC.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013)133 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ‘Promoting investment to address specific risks, ensuring disaster resilience and developing disaster management systems’.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) ‘Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management.’
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Autorità di Gestione POR Puglia: Viale Japigia, n. 145. 70126 BARI. adgfesr@regione.puglia.it

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 179

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-004291/13**

**komissiolle**
**Mitro Repo (S&D)**
_(16. huhtikuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Rajoittaako Apple kilpailua Euroopassa?

Applen tuotteiden hinnat asettuvat kaupoissa usein tarkkaan sille tasolle, jonka Apple ilmoittaa verkkosivuillaan.
Jälleenmyyjien kesken ei Applen laitteiden hinnoilla ole Euroopan unionin jäsenmaissa juurikaan kilpailua.
Hintaeroja ei esiinny myöskään eri EU-maiden välillä.

Kauppojen välistä hintakilpailua ei juuri ole, sillä Applen vähittäiskauppiailta perimät hinnat Applen tuotteista eivät
jätä paljoa alennusvaraa.

Joidenkin eurooppalaisten kauppiaiden ja operaattoreiden mukaan Apple myös tosiasiallisesti määrää laitteiden
kuluttajahinnat ja tukahduttaa kilpailua.

Hintakilpailun puute ei välttämättä johdu laittomasta hintakartellista, mutta määrähinnoittelu on laitonta.

1. Onko komissio tutkinut epäilyjä, joiden mukaan Apple määrää eurooppalaisille kauppiaille kuluttajille
myytävien tuotteiden alimmat myyntihinnat?

2. Aikooko komissio aloittaa kilpailunrajoitustutkinnan, joka koskee kuluttajille kaupoissa myytävien tuotteiden
hinnoittelua?

3. Komissio selvittää parhaillaan, rajoittavatko Applen eurooppalaisille operaattoreille asettamat sopimusehdot
kilpailua. Aikooko komissio aloittaa tapauksessa kilpailunrajoitustutkinnan, joka koskee Applen operaattoreille
asettamia sopimusehtoja?

**Joaquín Almunian komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(6. kesäkuuta 2013)_

Komissio seuraa älypuhelinten jakelumarkkinoita tiiviisti ja tarkastelee parhaillaan Applen älypuhelinten
jakelukäytäntöjä. Komissiolla ei ole tällä hetkellä tiedossaan viitteitä siitä, että Apple määrittäisi vähittäiskaupassa
myytäville iPhone-puhelimille vähimmäishinnat. Vaikuttaa siltä, että iPhone-puhelinten suhteellisen yhdenmukainen
hinnoittelu kaikkialla ETA-alueella johtuu niiden suhteellisen korkeasta tukkuhinnasta eikä niinkään siitä, että Apple
määrittelisi vähimmäishintoja.

C 33 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004291/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mitro Repo (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Is Apple restricting competition in Europe?

Shop prices for Apple’s products are often the same as those on Apple’s own website. There is hardly any competition
among retailers in the Member States of the European Union with regard to the prices of Apple devices, nor are there
any differences in prices between different countries in the EU.

There is barely any price competition between shops, because the prices charged for Apple products by its retail
outlets do not leave much room for discounts.

Some European traders and operators are suggesting that Apple actually fixes the consumer prices of its equipment
and is stifling competition.

The absence of price competition is not necessarily due to the actions of an illegal price-fixing cartel, but price-fixing
itself is illegal.

1. Has the Commission investigated suspicions that Apple is dictating minimum retail prices for its products to
European retailers?

2. Does the Commission intend to launch an investigation into the restriction of competition with respect to the
prices of products sold to consumers in shops?

3. The Commission is currently looking into the question of whether the contractual terms and conditions
imposed on Apple’s European operators effectively restrict competition. Does the Commission intend to launch an
investigation into the restriction of competition in this case, which concerns the contractual terms and conditions
imposed on Apple’s operators?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission is monitoring the market for the distribution of smartphones closely and is currently examining
Apple's smartphone distribution practices. The Commission has at this stage no indication of minimum retail prices
for iPhones being fixed by Apple. It appears that the relatively uniform pricing of the iPhone throughout the EEA is
due to the relatively high wholesale price of the iPhone rather than to the setting of minimum retail prices by Apple.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 181

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-004292/13**

**till kommissionen**
**Marita Ulvskog (S&D)**

_(16 april 2013)_

_Angående:_ Standard för ridhjälmar

De grundkrav för säkerhet som skyddsutrustning (däribland ridhjälmar) ska uppfylla fastställs i direktiv 89/686/EEG.
Det faller på kommissionen att uppnå de säkerhetskrav som fastställs i direktivet. Standarden för ridhjälmar som
tagits fram för att uppnå dessa säkerhetskrav heter EN1384 och är framtagen av Europeiska
standardiseringskommittén (CEN).

Kommissionen hade vetskap om att EN1384 inte var tillräckligt säker redan år 1999 när de i ett mandat (M/281) till
CEN ställde kravet på dem att revidera EN1384.

Kommissionen har också gett CEN anslag för att utveckla en högre säkerhet för ridhjälmar. Detta skedde i
arbetsgrupp 5 i den tekniska kommittén 158 och arbetet planerades vara avslutat senast den 30 april 2003.

Den nya standarden som togs framkallades EN 14572 – Ridhjälmar med extra hög skyddsförmåga. Men inga nya
hjälmar har certifierats enligt den nya säkrare standarden. Kunskapen om att hjälmarna inte producerats fick
kommissionen att dra tillbaka riktlinjerna för EN 14572 till fördel för fortsatt produktion av EN1384.

Det har nu passerat femton år sedan bristerna med EN1384 belystes. Kommissionen fortsätter låta dessa hjälmar
säljas. Detta sätter europeiska medborgare i fara. Konsumenter blir förda bakom ljuset då de tror att de köper säkra
hjälmar.

Mot denna bakgrund vill vi fråga kommissionen:

1. Hur kommer det sig att trots kunskap så har kommissionen inte vidtagit åtgärder för säkrare ridhjälmar?

2. När kommer kommissionen att påbörja framtagandet av en säker standard som lever upp till europeiska
skyddsdirektiv?

**Svar från Antonio Tajani på kommissionens vägnar**

_(17 maj 2013)_

Harmoniserade standarder utarbetas inte av kommissionen, utan av Europeiska standardiseringskommittén ( [1] ) på
begäran av kommissionen. När bristerna i standarden för ridhjälmar EN 1384 påtalades i en framställning till
Europaparlamentet 1998 utfärdade kommissionen uppdrag M/281 med en begäran om att CEN skulle förbättra
standarden. Efter detta beslutade CEN att inte ändra standarden EN 1384, utan att utarbeta en ny standard för hjälmar
med extra hög skyddsförmåga. Inga invändningar gjordes mot denna standard och hänvisningar till standarden
offentliggjordes därför i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning ( [2] ).

Under 2008 informerade framställaren kommissionen om att inga hjälmar tillverkades enligt den nya standarden.
Det uppdrag som kommissionen utfärdade ledde därför inte till något bättre skydd för ryttarna. Kommissionen
beställde en oberoende undersökning, i vilken det konstaterades att standarden med extra hög skyddsförmåga inte var
genomförbar och det bekräftades att den befintliga allmänna standarden skulle förbättras. Kommissionen bad CEN att
dra tillbaka standarden med extra hög skyddsförmåga och begärde på nytt en ändring av standarden EN 1384.

Standarden med extra hög skyddsförmåga har nu dragits tillbaka och arbetet med att ändra standarden EN 1384 har
inletts. Kommissionen anser dock att arbetet framskrider alltför långsamt. Den befintliga standarden, som utgjorde en
väsentlig förbättring av skyddet för ryttare när den antogs, är nu föråldrad och kan inte längre anses ge den
skyddsnivå som krävs enligt direktivet om personlig skyddsutrustning ( [3] ). Kommissionen har därför framfört en
formell invändning mot standarden EN 1384 i syfte att dra tillbaka hänvisningen till den i Europeiska unionen
officiella tidning. Ärendet lämnades till arbetsgruppen för personlig skyddsutrustning i april 2013. Yttranden
kommer att inkomma inom de närmaste tre månaderna.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) CEN.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EUT.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direktiv 89/686/EEG.

C 33 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004292/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marita Ulvskog (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Standards for horse-riding helmets

The basic safety requirements which must be met by protective equipment (including horse-riding helmets) are laid
down in Directive 89/686/EEC. It is up to the Commission to ensure compliance with the safety requirements laid
down in the directive. The standard for horse-riding helmets which has been drawn up to satisfy these requirements is
known as EN 1384 and was developed by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

The Commission already knew in 1999 that EN 1384 was not safe enough, and it was in that year that the
Commission issued a mandate (M/281) to the CEN calling on it to revise EN 1384.

The Commission has also given CEN funding to improve the safety of horse-riding helmets. It did so in Working
Group 5 of Technical Committee 158, and it was planned that the work should be completed, at the latest, by
30 April 2003.

The new standard which was compiled was given the title ‘EN 14572 — High Performance Helmets’. But no helmets
have been certified under the new, safer standard. When it found that no helmets had been produced, the
Commission withdrew the guidelines for EN 14572 in favour of continued production of EN 1384.

15 years have now passed since the shortcomings of EN 1384 were identified. The Commission continues to allow
these helmets to be sold. This places European citizens at risk. Consumers are led up the garden path in the belief that
they are buying safe helmets.

1. Why, despite its knowledge of the situation, has the Commission not taken measures to make horse-riding
helmets safer?

2. When will the Commission begin work on the preparation of a safe standard which complies with the
requirements of the European directive on protective equipment?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

Harmonised standards are not made by the Commission but by the European Committee for Standardisation ( [1] ) on
the basis of requests from the Commission. When a petition to the European Parliament drew attention to the
inadequacy of the standard for horse-riding helmets EN 1384 in 1998, the Commission issued mandate M/281
asking CEN to improve the standard. In response, CEN decided not to revise standard EN 1384 but to develop a new
standard for ‘high performance’ helmets. No objection was made to this standard and its reference was therefore
published in the Official Journal of the EU ( [2] ).

In 2008, the petitioner informed the Commission that no helmets were being manufactured to the new standard. The
Commission mandate had thus failed to improve the protection afforded to horse riders. The Commission ordered an
independent enquiry which concluded that the ‘high performance’ standard was not practicable and confirmed that
the existing general purpose standard should be improved. It asked CEN to withdraw the ‘high performance’ standard
and reiterated its request to revise EN 1384.

The ‘high performance’ standard has now been withdrawn and work has started on revision of EN 1384. However the
Commission considers that the work is progressing too slowly. The existing standard, which represented a significant
improvement of the protection of horse riders when it was adopted, is now out of date and can no longer be
considered to afford the level of protection required by the directive on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) ( [3] ). The
Commission has therefore launched a formal objection against EN 1384 in order to withdraw its reference from the
OJEU. This matter was brought to the Working Group on PPE in April 2013. Opinions will be received within the
next three months.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) CEN.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJEU.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 89/686/EEC.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 183

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004293/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)**

_(16 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Οικονομική κρίση και υγεία

Οικονομική κρίση, ανεργία, ανασφάλεια, βίαιη απώλεια εισοδήματος έχουν επιπτώσεις στην υγεία των πολιτών ( [1] ). Όσοι/ες
αντιμετωπίζουν σοβαρά προβλήματα επιβίωσης διατρέχουν διπλάσιο κίνδυνο πρόωρου θανάτου ή αυξημένης νοσηρότητας
εξαιτίας προβλημάτων που δρουν αθροιστικά ( [2] ). Η ανεργία οδηγεί σε ψυχικές διαταραχές, καρδιαγγειακά νοσήματα ( [3] ),
αύξηση φαινομένων εθισμού-εξάρτησης από ουσίες, καπνίσματος, θνησιμότητας και επιδείνωση της υγείας εξαιτίας κακής
διατροφής. Μεγάλα τμήματα της κοινωνίας οδηγούνται σε φτώχεια, υψηλή νοσηρότητα και ταυτόχρονα κοινωνικό
αποκλεισμό ενώ καταγράφεται αύξηση αυτοκτονιών. Μαζί με τα εισοδήματα πλήττονται και τα δημόσια συστήματα υγείας,
εντείνεται η ανισοτιμία στις συνθήκες κοινωνικής προστασίας της υγείας, επιδεινώνονται οι συνθήκες υγιεινής κι ασφάλειας.
Μεγάλες κοινωνικές ομάδες (άνεργοι, άστεγοι, συνταξιούχοι, ΑΜΕΑ, ορφανά παιδιά, άτομα με σοβαρές ασθένειες,
πρόσφυγες κ.ά.) στερούνται πρόσβασης σε κοινωνικές πολιτικές και συστήματα υγείας. Στα δημόσια νοσοκομεία μειώνεται η
οικονομική στήριξη και το προσωπικό, ενώ δέχονται μεγαλύτερο αριθμό ασθενών με σοβαρότερες ασθένειες. Ορισμένα, όπως
το Γενικό Νοσοκομείο Πατησίων, που εξυπηρετεί περιοχή 1 000 000 κατοίκων, μένουν χωρίς γιατρούς σε βασικούς
τομείς ( [4] ).

Παρόλα αυτά δεν υπάρχει ολοκληρωμένη αξιολόγηση για την επίδραση της οικονομικής κρίσης και των πολιτικών
προσαρμογής στην υγεία και τις υπηρεσίες υγείας στις χώρες της κρίσης. Η Ελλάδα είχε διαχρονικά δυσλειτουργίες και
στρεβλώσεις του συστήματος δημόσιας υγείας. Αντί για εξορθολογισμό δαπανών και αναβάθμιση υπηρεσιών, η
αλληλεπίδραση οικονομικού σοκ, λιτότητας και ασθενών κοινωνικών δικτύων προστασίας κλιμακώνει την κρίση στον τομέα
της υγείας ( [5] ).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Σκοπεύει να ζητήσει ανεξάρτητη έρευνα για τις επιπτώσεις της κρίσης και των πολιτικών λιτότητας στην υγεία και στις
υπηρεσίες υγείας σε Ελλάδα, Πορτογαλία και Ισπανία;

—
Πώς προτίθεται να βοηθήσει τα κράτη μέλη που βιώνουν την κρίση να πετύχουν τον στόχο του Πολυετούς
Προγράμματος Δράσης της ΕΕ στον τομέα της υγείας 2014-2020 για πρόσβαση ΟΛΩΝ των πολιτών στις υπηρεσίες
υγείας;

—
Ποιους τρόπους βελτίωσης της υγείας και της αποτελεσματικότητας των υπηρεσιών υγείας με στόχο και τη βελτίωση
των δημοσιονομικών της χώρας, προτείνει ο εκπρόσωπός της στην Τρόικα;

**Απάντηση του κ. Borg εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(29 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί τα στοιχεία που συγκεντρώνει η Eurostat για την υγεία και έχει αναθέσει την εξέταση των
δημοσιευμένων εκθέσεων για τον αντίκτυπο της κρίσης στην υγεία, η οποία αναμένεται να ολοκληρωθεί το 2014. Επιπλέον, η
Επιτροπή εκτέλεσε μερικές διερευνητικές αποστολές σε κράτη μέλη.

Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής για το πρόγραμμα για την υγεία την περίοδο 2014-2020 αποσκοπεί, μεταξύ άλλων, στην
υποστήριξη της βιωσιμότητας των συστημάτων υγείας. Οι δράσεις που προτείνει η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή μέσα σε αυτό το
πλαίσιο αναμένεται να αντιμετωπίσουν απευθείας τα ζητήματα που έθιξε ο κύριος βουλευτής.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.vima-asklipiou.gr 11oς τόμος, 1ο τεύχος, Ιαν-Μαρτ 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Η Υγεία στη Δίνη της Οικονομικής κρίσης.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://gr.voanews.com/content/greece-crisis-health/1620450.html
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.chrysogelos.gr/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1637:hospital-patision&Itemid=67&lang=el
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60102-6/fulltext#article_upsell,

http://www.ecogreens-gr.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4290:2013-03-19-14-04-06&catid=10:health&Itemid=25

C 33 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Ο κύριος βουλευτής μπορεί να βρει σχετικές πληροφορίες στην κοινή έκθεση του 2010 για τα συστήματα υγείας που
εκπονήθηκε από τις υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής (Γενική Διεύθυνση Οικονομικών και Χρηματοδοτικών Υποθέσεων) και την
Επιτροπή Οικονομικής Πολιτικής το 2010 ( [6] ). Η παρούσα έκθεση παρουσιάζει τις προκλήσεις πολιτικής στις οποίες
καλούνται να αντεπεξέλθουν τα κράτη μέλη, ορισμένες εκ των οποιων στοχεύουν ειδικά στην αξιοποίηση δυνητικών οφελών
αποδοτικότητας. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, οι εν λόγω προκλήσεις επικεντρώνονται στο πώς μπορούν να καταστούν τα συστήματα
υγείας πιο αποτελεσματικά με μικρότερο κόστος βελτιώνοντας τον τρόπο παροχής υγειονομικής περίθαλψης, καθώς και τον
τρόπο με τον οποίο λαμβάνονται οι αποφάσεις για τις επιστροφές χρημάτων. Η έκθεση απευθύνει επίσης σαφή έκκληση για
την προώθηση της υγείας και την πρόληψη των ασθενειών, καθώς και για την αποτελεσματική χρήση των πηγών
πληροφόρησης για θέματα υγείας.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Βλέπε http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/joint_healthcare_report_en.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004293/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Economic crisis and health

The economic crisis, unemployment, insecurity and cruel loss of income have repercussions on people’s health ( [1] ).
Anyone facing serious problems of survival incurs the double risk of premature death or increased morbidity due to
cumulative problems ( [2] ). Unemployment leads to mental disorders, cardiovascular disease ( [3] ), increased substance
addiction and dependency, smoking, mortality and the deterioration of health due to malnutrition. Large sections of
society are driven to poverty, experiencing high morbidity and social exclusion, and increases in the number of
suicides have been recorded. Along with incomes, public health systems are affected, with rising inequality in
conditions for the social protection of health, and a deterioration of health and safety conditions. Large groups within
society (the unemployed, homeless, pensioners, people with special needs, orphans, persons with serious illnesses,
refugees, etc.) are denied access to social policies and health systems. In state hospitals, funding and staff numbers fall,
whilst the number of patients with more serious illnesses rises. Some hospitals, like the General Hospital of Patissia,
which serves an area with 1 000 000 inhabitants, are left without doctors in basic sectors ( [4] ).

In spite of all this, no integrated assessment has been made of the impact of the economic crisis and adjustment
policies on health and health services in the crisis-hit countries. Greece already had chronic malfunctions and
distortions in its public health system. Instead of rationalising expenditure and upgrading services, the combination
of financial shock, austerity and weak social protection networks is escalating the crisis in the health sector ( [5] ).

Will the Commission answer the following:

—
Does it intend to demand independent research into the impact of the crisis and austerity policies on health and
health services in Greece, Portugal and Spain?

—
How does it intend to help the crisis-hit Member States achieve the aim of the multiannual programme of EU
action in the field of health for the period 2014‐2020 in terms of access for ALL citizens to health services?

—
What methods does the Commission representative to the Troika propose for improving health and the
efficiency of health services at the same time as improving national budgets?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The Commission monitors health data collected by Eurostat and has commissioned a review of published reports on
the health impact of the crisis, which is expected to be completed during 2014. In addition, it has carried out a
number of fact finding missions to Member States.

The Commission's proposal for the Health Programme 2014-2020 aims ‘ _inter alia_ ’ at supporting the sustainability of
health systems. The actions proposed by the European Commission within this context are expected to address
directly the issues raised by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member can find relevant information in the 2010 Joint Report on Health Systems prepared by the
Commission services (Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs) and the Economic Policy Committee
in 2010 ( [6] ). This report presents policy challenges to be addressed by Member States, some of which specifically aim
to tap into potential efficiency gains. More precisely, these challenges focus on how to make health systems more
cost-effective by addressing the way healthcare is delivered, as well as how reimbursement decisions are taken. The
report includes a clear call for health promotion and disease prevention as well as effective use of health information

resources.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.vima-asklipiou.gr, volume 11, issue 1, Jan-March 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Health in the Maelstrom of the Economic Crisis.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://gr.voanews.com/content/greece-crisis-health/1620450.html
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.chrysogelos.gr/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1637:hospital-patision&Itemid=67&lang=el
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60102-6/fulltext#article_upsell,

http://www.ecogreens-gr.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4290:2013-03-19-14-04-06&catid=10:health&Itemid=25

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) See http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/joint_healthcare_report_en.pdf

( **|**

C 33 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(An t-eagrán Gaeilge)_

**Ceist i gcomhair freagra scríofa E-004294/13**

**chuig an gCoimisiún**
**Liam Aylward (ALDE) agus Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE)**

_(16 Aibreán 2013)_

_Ábhar:_ Ag fáil réidh le táillí fánaíochta san Eoraip

Cuirtear seirbhísí fánaíochta ar fáil faoi mhargadh léirscaoilte do ghutháin phóca ina bhfuil sé faoi na comhlachtaí
teileachumarsáide iad féin táillí fánaíochta a shocrú agus a ghearradh sna Ballstáit éagsúla.

Faoin Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 531/2012 ‘maidir le fánaíocht a dhéanamh ar líonraí poiblí cumarsáide soghluaiste’ tá
laghduithe le teacht ar an uaschostas gur féidir a ghearradh ar sheirbhísí fánaíochta san AE agus na laghduithe sin le
cur i bhfeidhm faoi na blianta 2012 agus 2014. Tá sásra i gceist leis an Rialachán freisin lena mbeidh ar an
gCoimisiún athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar fheidhmiú an Rialacháin agus é sin a chur faoi bhráid Pharlaimint na
hEorpa agus na Comhairle faoin mbliain 2016.

An bhféadfadh an Coimisiún a mhíniú conas atá sé i gceist aige córas fánaíochta comhtháite comhchuibhithe a chur i
bhfeidhm san AE agus, ag an am céanna, a chinntiú go mbeidh iomaíocht chothromasach ann i margadh na nguthán
póca?

Tá éirithe ag an Rialachán seo agus ag rialacháin eile an AE uaschostas na dtáillí fánaíochta a laghdú, ach céard atá
déanta nó á dhéanamh ag an gCoimisiún chun deireadh iomlán a chur le táillí fánaíochta san Eoraip?

**Freagra ón gCoimisinéir Kroes thar ceann an Choimisiúin**

_(28 Bealtaine 2013)_

Sa Chlár Oibre Digiteach don Eoraip, tá sprioc leagtha amach go mbeidh an difríocht idir taraifí fánaíochta agus taraifí
náisiúnta ag laghdú i dtreo is nach mbeidh tada de dhifríocht eatarthu. Tá an Coimisiún an-tiomanta don chuspóir seo
a bhaint amach trí dhálaí iomaíocha margaidh a atreisiú.

Tá cosaint do thomhaltóirí sa Rialachán Fánaíochta nua, i bhfoirm uasteorainneacha praghais a bheidh ag laghdú
agus a choinneofar go dtí Meitheamh 2017. Cé go ndéantar a áirithiú le huasteorainneacha praghais nach ngearrtar
praghsanna iomarcacha ar chustaiméirí, tugadh isteach roinnt bearta struchtúracha leis an rialachán nua, amhail
seirbhísí fánaíochta a dhíol ar leithligh agus oibleagáidí rochtana mórdhíola. Tá sé mar aidhm ag na bearta seo, in
éineacht le muirir mhórdhíola atá ag laghdú, iomaíocht a fheabhsú sa mhargadh fánaíochta agus ba cheart go
laghdófaí praghsanna na n-úsáideoirí deiridh a thuilleadh mar thoradh orthu, le bheith faoi bhun na nuasteorainneacha praghais a fheidhmíonn mar líontán sábhála. Tá sé mar aidhm ag an gcur chuige seo aghaidh a
thabhairt ar fhadhb na fánaíochta ar bhealach marthanach, trí dhálaí a chruthú do mhargadh iomaíoch fánaíochta.

D’fhonn na saincheisteanna seo a threorú chun cinn agus cur chun feidhme comhsheasmhach comhuaineach a
áirithiú ar fud an Aontais, ghlac an Coimisiún rialacha mionsonraithe teicniúla in 2012 agus bhunaigh sé, i gcomhar
le Comhlacht na Rialtóirí Eorpacha um Chumarsáid Leictreonach (BEREC), córas um chomhar do na rannpháirtithe
sa mhargadh agus na geallsealbhóirí ábhartha. Déanann an Coimisiún dlúthfhaireachán ar chomhlíonadh na rialacha
fánaíochta, i gcomhar le BEREC, agus ní bheidh aon drogall air dul i mbun gnímh a thuilleadh más gá.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 187

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004294/13**

**to the Commission**
**Liam Aylward (ALDE) and Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ending roaming charges in Europe

Roaming services are available under the liberalised market for mobile phones where it is up to the
telecommunications companies themselves to set and charge roaming fees and in different Member States.

Under the European Regulation ‘on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (EU)
No 531/2012’ reductions are to be made on the maximum cost that can be charged on roaming services in the EU
and those reductions shall be applied by 2012 and 2014. The regulation contains a mechanism by which the
Commission shall revise the application of the regulation and submit it to the European Parliament and the Council
by 2016.

Could the Commission explain how it intends to implement a harmonised integrated roaming system in the EU and,
at the same time, to assure equitable competition in the mobile phone market?

This regulation and other EU regulations have succeeded in reducing the high cost of roaming charges, but what has
been done or is being done by the Commission in order to completely eliminate roaming charges in Europe?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The Digital Agenda for Europe sets the target for the difference between roaming and national tariffs to approach
zero. The Commission is strongly determined to pursue this objective by reinforcing competitive market conditions.

The new Roaming Regulation contains a safeguard for consumers in the form of decreasing price caps that are
maintained until June 2017. While price caps ensure that consumers are not charged excessive prices, the new
regulation introduced a number of structural measures, such as separate sale of roaming services and wholesale access
obligations. These measures, coupled with the decreasing wholesale charges, aim at enhancing competition in the
roaming market and should lead to further reductions in end-user prices below the proposed safety-net price caps.
This approach aims to address the roaming problem in a durable way, by creating the conditions for a competitive
roaming market.

In order to drive these issues forward and to ensure consistent and simultaneous implementation across the Union,
the Commission has adopted detailed technical rules in 2012 and established, together with BEREC, a cooperation
platform for market players and relevant stakeholders. The Commission monitors closely compliance with the
roaming rules, together with BEREC and will not hesitate to take further action if necessary.

C 33 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004295/13**

**to the Commission**
**Glenis Willmott (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Dementia care

In a recent study carried out by the Alzheimer’s Society in the UK, 70% of respondents said that they fear the prospect
of moving into a care home in the future, and 53% reported that their biggest concern about a relative going into care
would be abuse.

The ageing population is a challenge faced by countries across the EU, and we must ensure that people can feel secure
and truly cared-for in care homes. The study also found that 80% of care-home residents suffer from dementia or
other significant memory problems, so we must also ensure that we have the right expertise to deal with these
medical conditions.

What action is currently being taken at EU level to address the problems of ageing populations, Alzheimer’s and
dementia, and standards of care? What more can be done in terms of European cooperation on these issues, utilising
the Health Programme budget?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

Under the European Innovation Partnership for Active and Healthy Ageing, stakeholders have put forward over 500
commitments to contribute to the target of increasing the average healthy lifespan in the EU by two years by 2020.
This will be realised through developing and up-scaling innovative solutions in three areas: prevention and health
promotion, care and cure, and active and independent living of elderly people.

With a focus on improving the care for people living with dementias, the Commission has co-financed from the EUHealth Programme the Joint Action ‘ALzheimer Cooperative Valuation in Europe (ALCOVE)’ ( [1] ), which involved
19 Member States from 2010 to 2013. The Joint Action was part of a ‘European initiative on Alzheimer's Disease and
other dementias’ ( [2] ) from 2009. The synthesis report resulting from the Joint Action was published in March 2013
and includes recommendations for improving care for people with dementia.

The Commission has also implemented the pilot project on preventing elder abuse allowing it to fund action for
better monitoring and prevention of elder abuse including a quality framework translated into 11 languages ( [3] ).

Funds from the EU-Health Programme to support measures in this field continue to be available. For example, the call
for 2013 ( [4] ) under this programme included an invitation to submit proposals to set up a ‘Joint Action addressing
chronic diseases and promoting healthy ageing across the life cycle’. The proposals received are at present being
evaluated.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.alcove-project.eu/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_information/dissemination/documents/com2009_380_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) www.wedo-partnership.eu/.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ec.europa.eu/eahc/health/index.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 189

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004296/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Grave compromissione del biotopo del lago del Frassino a Peschiera del Garda (Verona), area tutelata quale
SIC e ZPS all'interno di Rete Natura 2000

A Peschiera del Garda (VR) è ubicato il lago morenico del Frassino, lungo 770 m e largo 380 m, biotopo di
fondamentale importanza tutelato all'interno di Rete Natura 2000 quale SIC e ZPS ai sensi delle direttive «Habitat»
92/43/CEE e «Uccelli» 2009/147/CE ( [1] ).

Trattasi, infatti, di un'area umida di straordinario valore naturale floristico (con presenza di arbusti paludicoli e
canneti, nonché di un bosco planiziale con antichi pioppi e salici) e faunistico (vi dimora la rara specie della rana di
Lataste «Rana Latastei»; singolarmente ricca, in particolare, è l'avifauna locale, comprensiva di moltissime specie di
uccelli che nidificano sulle sponde, a esempio il moriglione «Aythya ferina"e la moretta» Aythya fuligula ( [2] ).

Il sito, tuttavia — come riferito dall'associazione ambientalista Legambiente di Verona ( [3] ) — attualmente è interessato
da una serie di vicende che stanno portando alla progressiva distruzione del biotopo stesso.

Riassumendo i fatti più gravi, innanzitutto l'area è a rischio di eccessiva cementificazione e antropizzazione, essendo
in atto la costruzione di un complesso residenziale di 11.000 m [3] sulla sponda est del lago e di una struttura
turisticoricettiva sulla sponda ovest. La società che sta realizzando quest'ultima, inoltre, ha effettuato drastici
interventi di falciatura/potatura della flora autoctona con successiva piantumazione di specie ornamentali alloctone
quali, a esempio, l'alloro e il bambù. Infine, all'inizio del mese di marzo l'area ha subito una serie di gravi incendi di
probabile origine dolosa ( [4] ).

Tali vicende hanno portato alla distruzione in alcuni punti della quasi totalità della flora autoctona spontanea attorno
al lago, con evidenti gravissime conseguenze sulla fauna ivi presente.

Tutto ciò premesso, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. se è a conoscenza della situazione sopra descritta di grave compromissione in atto di tale biotopo facente parte
di Rete Natura 2000;

2. quali iniziative intende intraprendere al fine di verificare il rispetto della normativa comunitaria di settore da
parte delle competenti autorità onde evitare ulteriori danni?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(12 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione non è al corrente delle specifiche questioni riferite dall'onorevole deputato. Il lago del Frassino è
effettivamente uno degli oltre 26 000 siti selezionati dagli Stati membri e protetti ai sensi delle direttive «Uccelli» ( [5] ) e
«Habitat» ( [6] ) (siti Natura 2000).

Questa normativa non vieta lo sviluppo di attività umane nei siti Natura 2000, purché esse siano compatibili con gli
obiettivi di conservazione dei siti stessi.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SIC — ZPS IT3210003.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) L'area, inoltre, è stata proclamata «patrimonio dell'umanità» da parte dell'UNESCO nel 2011 (decisione 35 COM B.35) in ragione della presenza di

vestigia di palafitte preistoriche, con conseguente assunzione da parte dell'Italia di precisi vincoli di tutela.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cfr. comunicato stampa in argomento presente nel sito della Legambiente di Verona di cui al link http://goo.gl/y3sSz.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Cfr. articolo de «L’Arena» di Verona presente a pag. n. 3 della rassegna stampa di cui al link http://goo.gl/TLS1E.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2009/147/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 30 novembre 2009, concernente la conservazione degli uccelli selvatici

(GU L 20 del 26.1.2010).

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Direttiva 92/43/CEE del Consiglio, del 21 maggio 1992, relativa alla conservazione degli habitat naturali e seminaturali e della flora e della fauna

selvatiche (GU L 206 del 22.7.1992).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

C 33 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

È compito delle autorità competenti degli Stati membri assicurare che le attività umane non provochino il degrado
degli habitat dei siti e una perturbazione significativa delle specie per cui le zone sono state designate. Gli Stati
membri devono inoltre garantire che qualsiasi piano o progetto suscettibile di incidere in modo significativo sui siti
Natura 2000 sia oggetto di valutazione, a norma dell'articolo 6, paragrafo 3, della direttiva «Habitat». In caso di
conclusioni negative della valutazione dell'incidenza e in mancanza di soluzioni alternative, un progetto può essere
autorizzato per motivi imperativi di rilevante interesse pubblico, a norma dell'articolo 6, paragrafo 4, della suddetta
direttiva, purché si adottino misure compensative adeguate.

Alla luce delle informazioni disponibili, la Commissione non ravvisa una violazione delle direttive.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 191

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004296/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Serious adverse effects on the biotope of Lake Frassino in Peschiera del Garda (Verona), an SCI and SPA area
protected as part of the Natura 2000 network

Lake Frassino, 770 metres long and 380 metres wide, is a glacial lake located in Peschiera del Garda (province of
Verona). It is a biotope of fundamental importance, protected as a site of Community importance (SCI) and special
protection area (SPA) within the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and
the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) ( [1] ).

It is, in fact, a wetland of extraordinary natural floral value (containing marsh shrubs and reed beds, as well as a
lowland forest with ancient poplars and willow trees) and faunal value (home to the rare species of Italian agile frog,
_Rana latastei_ ); the local bird population is particularly rich, including many bird species which nest on the lake shores,
for example, the common pochard, _Aythya ferina_, and the tufted duck, _Aythya fuligula (_ [2] _)_ .

However, as reported by the Verona branch of the environmental association Legambiente ( [3] ), the area is currently
being affected by various situations which are gradually destroying the biotope.

To summarise the most critical facts, firstly, the area is at risk of excessive concreting and anthropisation, since
construction of an 11 000 m [3] residential complex on the eastern shore of the lake, and tourist accommodation on the
western shore, is under way. Moreover, the company building the latter has carried out drastic cutting/pruning of the
indigenous flora, subsequently planting non-indigenous ornamental species such as laurel and bamboo. Lastly, at the
beginning of March, there were several major fires in the area, probably started deliberately ( [4] ).

In some parts, these situations have destroyed almost all the spontaneous indigenous flora around the lake, which
clearly has severe consequences for the local fauna.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above state of affairs which is seriously affecting this biotope, part of the
Natura 2000 network?

2. What action will it take to ensure that the competent authorities comply with EU legislation in this sector in
order to prevent further damage?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The Commission was not aware of the specific issues mentioned by the Honourable Member. Lake Frassino is indeed
one of the over 26 000 sites selected by Member States and protected under the Birds ( [5] ) and Habitats ( [6] ) Directives
(Natura 2000 sites).

Such legislation does not prevent human activities or developments in Natura 2000 sites, as long as they are
compatible with the conservation objectives of the sites themselves.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SCI — SPA IT3210003.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Furthermore, the area was designated a ‘world heritage’ site by Unesco in 2011 (Decision 35COMB35) owing to the presence of remains of

prehistoric pile dwellings, with Italy consequently assuming specific obligations to protect it.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See the relevant press release on the website of the Verona branch of Legambiente: http://goo.gl/y3sSz.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See the article from the Verona newspaper L’Arena on page 3 of the press review: http://goo.gl/TLS1E.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. OJ L 20,

26.1.2010.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Council Directive 92/43//EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

C 33 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

It is up to the relevant authorities in the Member States to ensure that human activities do not cause the deterioration
of the sites' habitats or any significant disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated.
Furthermore Member States shall ensure that any plan or project likely to have significant effects on Natura 2000 sites
are subject to an assessment under Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive. In case of a negative assessment and in the
absence of alternative solutions, the project can be authorised only for imperative reasons of overriding public
interest under Article 6.4 and if adequate compensatory measures are adopted.

On the basis of available information, the Commission does not identify a breach of the directives.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 193

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004297/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sottrazione di minori e mandato di arresto internazionale

Il Mediatore del Parlamento europeo per i casi di sottrazione internazionale di minori riceve richieste di aiuto
concernenti casi in cui il genitore che ha originariamente sottratto il minore viene sottoposto a mandato di arresto
internazionale dall'autorità giudiziaria del Paese membro cui è stato segnalato l'allontanamento da parte dell'altro
genitore. In alcuni Stati membri, la procedura che porta all'emissione del mandato di arresto internazionale viene
espletata in contumacia e «inaudita altera parte» dall'autorità giudiziaria, che notifica la documentazione all'ultimo
indirizzo conosciuto sul suo territorio nazionale. In tal caso, spesso il genitore che ha sottratto il minore non è a
conoscenza della procedura in corso e quindi non prende parte al procedimento. Ne risulta che, al momento in cui la
sottrazione viene meno, il genitore che ha originariamente commesso la sottrazione viene di fatto a trovarsi nella
posizione di non poter avere più alcun contatto con il proprio figlio a causa del mandato di arresto internazionale
pendente a suo carico, che ne determinerebbe l'arresto immediato al momento di una sua visita. In alcuni Stati
membri, le autorità giudiziarie non provvedono a notificare all'imputato il procedimento che lo riguarda al nuovo
indirizzo. Tali procedure sembrerebbero non essere uniformi in tutti gli Stati membri.

La mancata notifica degli atti del procedimento a un indirizzo non più valido e la prosecuzione in contumacia del
procedimento ai fini del mandato di arresto internazionale sembrerebbero essere in questi casi in contrasto con
l'articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali. D'altra parte, al momento in cui la sottrazione viene meno, il
perdurare del mandato di arresto internazionale a carico del genitore che ha originariamente commesso la sottrazione
sembrerebbe essere in contrasto con l'articolo 24, paragrafi 2 e 3, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali.

Al fine di un ravvicinamento delle disposizioni legislative degli Stati membri e alla luce di quanto sopra esposto, non
ritiene la Commissione che sia necessario proporre iniziative legislative:

1) ai sensi dell'articolo 82, paragrafo 2, lettera b), per definire norme minime volte a tutelare i diritti della persona
nella procedura penale, in linea con quanto previsto dall'articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali;

2) ai sensi dell'articolo 82, paragrafo 2, lettera c), per definire norme minime volte a tutelare i diritti del minore
vittima, in linea con quanto previsto dall'articolo 24, paragrafi 2 e 3, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(25 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione ha rafforzato sia i diritti procedurali degli indagati, definendo disposizioni specifiche per il
procedimento di esecuzione del mandato di arresto europeo (MAE), sia la protezione delle vittime nei procedimenti
penali. Sono già state adottate due direttive ( [1] ) ed è stato concordato il testo di una direttiva relativa al diritto di
accesso a un difensore nel procedimento penale. Sono in corso anche i lavori relativi alle garanzie procedurali per i
minori e le persone vulnerabili, all’assistenza legale e alla presunzione di innocenza.

La decisione di promuovere un’azione penale in materia di sottrazione dei minori è una questione di diritto interno.
Qualora siano soddisfatti i criteri di emissione del MAE, gli Stati membri possono utilizzarlo per avviare un
procedimento penale. Mentre un indagato beneficia di tutte le garanzie procedurali disposte nelle misure di cui sopra,
la Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee ha confermato che, come nel caso dei mandati d’arresto nazionali, gli
Stati membri non sono tenuti ad avvisare un indagato dell’emissione di un MAE ( [2] ).

Nell’ottobre del 2012, è stata adottata una direttiva sui diritti, l’assistenza e la protezione delle vittime di reato ( [3] ). Essa
richiede esplicitamente che tutte le autorità competenti adottino un approccio rispettoso delle esigenze del minore,
che consideri innanzitutto l’interesse superiore del minore. Essa prevede, inoltre, diritti procedurali specifici, sostegno
e misure di protezione per le vittime minorenni nei procedimenti penali.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Le direttive sul diritto all’interpretazione e alla traduzione (direttiva 2010/64/UE, del 20 ottobre 2010, GU L 280 del 26.10.2010, pag. 1) e sul

diritto all’informazione nei procedimenti penali (direttiva 2012/13/UE del 22 maggio 2012, GU L 142 dell’1.6.2012, pag. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Caso C-396/11 Radu (sentenza 29 gennaio 2013).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2012/29/UE del 25 ottobre 2012 (GU L 315 del 14.11.2012).

( **|**
( **|**

C 33 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

L’avvio di un procedimento penale può, in talune circostanze, portare ad un rifiuto di riportare indietro il minore.
Molte autorità centrali sconsigliano alle istituzioni di ricorrere a tali procedimenti. La _Central Authority Practice Guide_,
in conformità alla convenzione dell’Aia del 1980, stabilisce che l’impatto di un’azione penale per sottrazione di
minori sulla possibilità di ottenere il ritorno del minore dovrebbe essere considerato dalle autorità giudiziarie per
avviare, sospendere o ritirare le accuse.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 195

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004297/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Child abduction and international arrest warrants

The European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction receives requests for help with cases
where the parent who originally abducted the child is subject to an international arrest warrant issued by the legal
authority of the Member State to which the other parent reported the abduction. In some Member States, the
procedure which leads to the issue of an international arrest warrant is carried out _in absentia_ and _ex parte_ by the legal
authority, which serves the papers at the last known address on national territory. In this case, the parent who
abducted the child is often not aware of the procedure which is under way and therefore does not participate in the
proceedings. Consequently, when the abduction ends, in practice the parent who originally abducted the child is
unable to have any further contact with their child due to the outstanding international arrest warrant in their name,
which would result in their immediate arrest if they visited the child. In certain Member States, the legal authorities do
not notify the accused of the proceedings against them at their new address. These procedures do not appear to be
uniform in all the Member States.

The failure to serve the papers relating to the proceedings at an address that is no longer valid and the execution _in_
_absentia_ of the international arrest warrant proceedings appear, in these cases, to run counter to Article 47 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights. Moreover, once the abduction is over, the continued validity of the international
arrest warrant for the parent who originally abducted the child appears to runs counter to Article 24(2) and (3) of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In order to approximate the laws of the Member States and in light of the above, does the Commission not consider it
necessary to propose legislative initiatives:

1. pursuant to Article 82(2)(b), so as to define minimum standards to safeguard a person’s rights during the
criminal procedure, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

2. pursuant to Article 82(2)(c), so as to define minimum standards to safeguard the rights of the child victim, in
accordance with Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 June 2013)_

The Commission has strengthened both the procedural rights of suspects, with specific provisions for European arrest
warrant (EAW) proceedings, and the protection of victims in criminal proceedings. Two Directives have already been
adopted ( [1] ) and the text of a directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings is agreed. Work is
ongoing on safeguards for children and vulnerable persons, legal aid and the presumption of innocence.

The decision to institute criminal proceedings, i.e. for child abduction is a matter for national law. Where the criteria
for issuing an EAW are met, Member States can use it to pursue a criminal case. While a suspect benefits from all the
procedural safeguards in the above measures, the ECJ has confirmed that, as with domestic arrest warrants, Member
States are not obliged to give a suspect notice of the issuing of an EAW ( [2] ).

A Directive on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime ( [3] ) was adopted in October 2012. It explicitly
requires that all competent authorities take a child-sensitive approach with the best interests of the child as a primary
concern. It includes specific procedural rights, support and protection measures for child victims in criminal
proceedings.

The institution of criminal proceedings may, in certain cases, lead to a refusal to return the child. Many Central
Authorities discourage the institution of such proceedings. The Central Authority Practice Guide under the 1980
Hague Convention states that the impact of a criminal prosecution for child abduction on the possibility of achieving
the child's return is a matter which should be capable of being taken into account in the exercise of any discretion that
the prosecuting authorities have to initiate, suspend or withdraw charges.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directives on the right to interpretation and translation (Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010, OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1) and on the right

to information in criminal proceedings (Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012, OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Case C-396/11 Radu (Judgment 29 January 2013).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/29/EU of 25 October 2012, OJ L 315 14.11.20012.

( **|**
( **|**

C 33 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004302/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Mise en œuvre des «Guiding Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade and Investment
Agreements»

1. La Commission compte-t-elle mettre en œuvre le document d'orientation préparé par le rapporteur de
l'Organisation des Nations unies sur le droit à l'alimentation, intitulé «Guiding Principles on Human Rights Impact
Assessments of Trade and Investment Agreements» (principes directeurs des Nations unies applicables aux études de
l'impact des accords de commerce et d'investissement sur les Droits de l'homme), qui invite à procéder à des
évaluations des répercussions sur les droits humains lors de la conclusion d'accords commerciaux et d'investissement,
afin de s'assurer que ces derniers satisfont bien aux obligations souscrites en vertu des instruments internationaux
relatifs aux Droits de l'homme?

2. Quels éléments compte-t-elle mettre en avant dans cette stratégie?

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

_(30 mai 2013)_

1. Avant de proposer de nouvelles initiatives, la Commission européenne procède à une analyse d'impact. Un autre
instrument à sa disposition est l'évaluation de l'impact du commerce sur le développement durable réalisée au cours
d'une négociation commerciale. Ces deux instruments sont fondamentaux dans la formulation de politiques
commerciales étayées sur des données probantes. La Commission utilise une approche intégrée afin de pouvoir
présenter dans un document unique une analyse équilibrée des avantages et des coûts de l'ensemble des incidences sur
la situation économique, sociale et environnementale ainsi que sur les Droits de l'homme. Dans le cadre de cette
approche, et en conformité avec le Plan d'action de l'UE en faveur des Droits de l'homme et de la démocratie ( [1] ), toutes
les évaluations d'impact des accords sur le commerce et l'investissement comportent un volet consacré aux Droits de
l'homme, par souci de cohérence avec les obligations inscrites dans les instruments internationaux en la matière. La
méthodologie utilisée est décrite dans les Orientations opérationnelles sur la prise en compte des droits
fondamentaux dans les analyses d'impact de la Commission ( [2] ).

2. Conformément à ces Orientations (et au document d'orientation rédigé par le rapporteur des Nations unies sur
le droit à l'alimentation), la Commission recense les Droits de l'homme (tels qu'ils sont définis dans les conventions
applicables des Nations unies) qui pourraient être spécialement lésés par des mesures particulières prévues dans un
accord commercial; elle analyse jusqu'à quel point lesdites mesures particulières peuvent améliorer ou compromettre
l'exercice des droits en question ou renforcer ou affaiblir la capacité des pays partenaires à s'acquitter de leurs
obligations en matière de Droits de l'homme ou à progressivement en prendre conscience.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Plan d'action de l'UE en faveur des Droits de l'homme et de la démocratie, Conseil de l'UE 11855/12, 25 juin 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Orientations opérationnelles sur la prise en compte des droits fondamentaux dans les analyses d'impact de la Commission, SEC(2011) 567 final,

6 mai 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/sec_2011_0567_en.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 197

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004302/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of the ‘Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment
agreements’

1. Will the Commission implement the guidance document drafted by the UN Rapporteur on the right to food,
entitled ‘Guiding principles on human rights impact assessments of trade and investment agreements’, which calls for
the human rights impact of trade and investment agreements to be assessed in order to ensure that those agreements
are consistent with obligations under international human rights instruments?

2. Which points will it emphasise in this strategy?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

1. The European Commission carries out an impact assessment before proposing new initiatives. Another
instrument is the trade sustainability impact assessment carried out during a trade negotiation. Both are instrumental
in the formulation of sound, evidence-based trade policies. The Commission uses an integrated approach to allow all
relevant economic, social, environmental, and human rights impacts in terms of benefits and costs to be analysed and
presented together in one single document in a balanced outcome. Under this approach, and in line with the EU
Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy ( [1] ), all impact assessments concerning trade and investment
agreements study the potential human rights impact of those agreements, for consistency with obligations under
international human rights instruments. The methodology used is developed in the Operational Guidance on taking
account of Fundamental Rights in Commission Impact Assessments ( [2] ).

2. In line with such Guidance (and with the guidance document drafted by the UN Rapporteur on the right to
food), the Commission identifies the specific human rights (as set out in relevant UN Conventions) liable to be
affected by particular measures considered in a trade agreement; analyses the extent to which the particular measures
may enhance or impair the enjoyment of the relevant rights; and/or may strengthen or weaken the ability of partner
countries to fulfil or progressively realise their human rights obligations.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, CEU 11855/12, 25 June 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Operational Guidance on taking account of Fundamental Rights in Commission Impact Assessments, SEC(2011) 567 final, 6 May 2011.

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/key_docs/docs/sec_2011_0567_en.pdf

C 33 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004304/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Proposition de l'ONU concernant des normes environnementales applicables aux produits agricoles

Suite à la demande formulée par le rapporteur spécial de l'ONU sur l'accès à l'alimentation que soit mis en place un
système d'incitations positives, que propose concrètement la Commission pour encourager l'importation dans
l'Union de produits agricoles répondant à des normes définies en matière environnementale, sociale et de Droits de
l'homme, notamment en garantissant des revenus équitables pour les producteurs et des salaires justes pour les
travailleurs agricoles?

**Réponse donnée par M. Cioloş au nom de la Commission**

_(7 juin 2013)_

La mise en place et l'application de réglementations environnementales et sociales sont en premier lieu du ressort des
autorités du pays concerné. Les systèmes de certification volontaires qui tiennent compte des normes
environnementales et sociales ainsi que des droits de l'Homme peuvent bénéficier aux producteurs et aux
consommateurs, en offrant une incitation commerciale au respect des normes. En 2010, la Commission a élaboré des
lignes directrices sur les meilleures pratiques afin d'aider à améliorer la transparence, la crédibilité et l'efficacité des
systèmes de certification volontaires pour les produits agricoles et les denrées alimentaires ( [1] ), et de réduire la charge
administrative et financière pour les agriculteurs et les producteurs.

Dans le cadre de plusieurs programmes, la Commission soutient le renforcement des capacités des administrations
des pays en développement afin de permettre une meilleure gestion des réglementations environnementales et
sociales. De plus, la Commission soutient les programmes de renforcement des capacités visant à permettre aux
producteurs de satisfaire aux normes officielles et à celles appliquées dans le cadre de programmes volontaires ( [2] ).

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:341:0005:0011:fr:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) La Phase 2 du programme PIP-COLACP (http://pip.coleacp.org/en/pip/17400-objectives-pip-phase-2) et le programme StandardsMap

(http://www.standardsmap.org/) sont des exemples de programmes qui permettent de renforcer les capacités pour répondre aux exigences du
marché, y compris les normes environnementales et sociales.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 199

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004304/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ UN proposal on environmental standards applicable to agricultural products

In response to the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food to put in place a system of positive
incentives, what exactly does the Commission propose in order to encourage the import into the EU of agricultural
products that comply with specified environmental, social and human rights standards, in particular by ensuring fair
incomes for producers and fair wages for agricultural workers?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

Setting and enforcing social and environmental regulations is in the first place a matter for the authorities in the
country concerned. Voluntary certification schemes that address environmental and social standards and human
rights can bring benefits to producers and consumers by providing a market incentive for adherence to the standards.
In 2010, the Commission developed best practice guidelines to help improve the transparency, credibility and
effectiveness of voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( [1] ), and to reduce the
administrative and financial burden on farmers and producers.

Through various programmes, the Commission supports the capacity-building of developing country
administrations to be able to manage better social and environmental regulation. In addition, the Commission
supports capacity-building schemes for producers to be able to meet official standards and those applied under
voluntary schemes ( [2] ).

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:341:0005:0011:en:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Examples of schemes that provide capacity building to meet market requirements including environmental and social standards include PIP
COLACP Programme Phase 2 (http://pip.coleacp.org/en/pip/17400-objectives-pip-phase-2) and StandardsMap (and
http://www.standardsmap.org/).

C 33 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004305/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Lara Comi (PPE)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Ulteriori campagne denigratorie nei confronti dei lavoratori italiani transfrontalieri in Svizzera

Come già segnalato precedentemente alla Commissione e al Consiglio, la sezione ticinese del partito politico svizzero
dell'Unione Democratica di Centro (UDC) continua a fare propaganda gettando discredito sui lavoratori
transfrontalieri italiani.

Considerato che:

—
la Regione Lombardia, dove risiedono quasi tutti questi lavoratori, ha istituito un'apposita commissione in seno
al proprio Consiglio Regionale per affrontare i problemi dei lavoratori transfrontalieri (vedasi il punto 7
dell'ordine del giorno della seduta del 9 aprile u.s.);

—
tra la Confederazione Elvetica e diversi Stati membri dell'Unione europea sono in corso negoziati su diversi
settori in virtù dell'accordo bilaterale Svizzera-UE;

—
la libertà di movimento dei lavoratori deve essere salvaguardata come elemento competitivo irrinunciabile,
mentre il bacino elettorale dell'UDC nel Canton Ticino risulta ancora, dalla tornata elettorale del 7 aprile u.s.,
corposo a conferma di quanto tali accuse siano radicate;

—
già in altre occasioni (interrogazioni E-8144/2010, E-011025/2010, E-010902/2010, E-000312/2011, P000920/2012 solo per citarne alcune) la Commissione ha ritenuto tali fenomeni «iniziative individuali, sia pur
deplorevoli», mentre il Consiglio si è definito «preoccupato» (E-000311/2011),

può la Commissione, per quanto di sua competenza, precisare:

—
cosa intende essa fare per ripristinare le condizioni competitive di libertà e equità stante che tali campagne
pubblicitarie, fomentando i pregiudizi nei confronti dei lavoratori italiani, hanno un impatto sulla concorrenza
fra questi e i lavoratori locali;

—
ritiene che tali tentativi, già altre volte portati all'attenzione delle istituzioni europee, debbano essere tenuti in
considerazione in sede di negoziazioni bilaterali;

—
in che modo intende tutelare questi cittadini italiani che, oltre a sostenere dei costi per trasferirsi
quotidianamente in Svizzera, devono subire anche angherie e frustrazioni alla luce del sole?

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

_(3 luglio 2013)_

La Commissione non è a conoscenza dei fatti citati dall’onorevole parlamentare e rimanda alle risposte alle
interrogazioni E-011025/2010 e E-010902/2010 ( [1] ).

La Commissione rimane a disposizione dell’onorevole parlamentare qualora intenda trasmettere informazioni
supplementari.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 201

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004305/13**

**to the Commission**

**Lara Comi (PPE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Further campaigns in Switzerland to denigrate cross-border workers from Italy

As has already been brought to the notice of the Commission and the Council, the Ticino branch of the Swiss People’s
Party (UDC) is continuing its propaganda campaign against cross-border workers from Italy.

The regional authorities in Lombardy, which is where almost all of the workers live, have set up a special committee
to address the problems faced by cross-border workers (see item 7 of the agenda for the regional council meeting of
9 April 2013).

Negotiations are currently being conducted in a number of areas between various Member States and Switzerland
under the Switzerland-EU bilateral agreement.

Freedom of movement for workers is of essential importance to fair competition and must therefore be preserved. In
this connection, the results of the elections of 7 April 2013 clearly show that the views espoused by the Ticino branch
of the UDC continue to have a broad constituency in the canton.

In replies to earlier questions (including E-8144/2010, E-011025/2010, E‐010902/2010, E-000312/2011 and P000920/2012) the Commission has taken the view that, although these incidents are deplorable, the responsibility
lies with private individuals, while the Council has said that it is ‘concerned’ (E-000311/2011).

Given the above, will the Commission say:

—
how it intends to ensure that a free and fair competitive environment is re-established, given that, by stoking
prejudice against Italian workers, these advertising campaigns are affecting their ability to compete with local
workers?

—
whether these incidents, which have already been brought to the attention of the European institutions, should
be raised during bilateral negotiations with Switzerland?

—
how it intends to protect these Italian citizens who, in addition to bearing the cost of travelling to work in
Switzerland each day, are openly targeted once they get there?

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

_(3 July 2013)_

The Commission is not aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member and refers to previous replies to
questions E-011025/2010 and E‐010902/2010 ( [1] ).

The Commission is at the disposal of the Honourable Member if she wishes to transmit additional information.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm.

C 33 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-004306/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(16 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Διοργάνωση συνεδρίου εκπαιδευτικών στα κατεχόμενα

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Συνδικαλιστική Επιτροπή Εκπαιδευτικών ETUCE πραγματοποιεί στις 17-18 Μαΐου 2013 διεθνές συνέδριο
στην κατεχόμενη Αμμόχωστο με θέμα «Peace education in schools: The role of teachers in promoting peace through
awareness raising and information on conflict prevention and conflict resolution in divided societies». Σημειώνεται πως
το ξενοδοχείο SALAMIS BAY, στο οποίο θα πραγματοποιηθεί το συνέδριο, είναι ιδιοκτησία ελληνοκύπριου πρόσφυγα.

Η διοργάνωση του εν λόγω συνεδρίου στα κατεχόμενα εδάφη της Κύπρου παραβιάζει το διεθνές δίκαιο και τα ψηφίσματα
του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ, ενώ αποτελεί έμμεση αναγνώριση του παράνομου καθεστώτος και της τουρκικής
εισβολής.

Παράλληλα, για τη μεταφορά των συνέδρων στην Κύπρο θα χρησιμοποιηθεί το παράνομο αεροδρόμιο «Ερτσάν», γεγονός που
παραβιάζει τις συνθήκες του Διεθνή Οργανισμού Πολιτικής Αεροπορίας και του Eurocontrol.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Θα ασκήσει επιρροή προς την ETUCE, ώστε να αποφευχθεί η διεξαγωγή του συνεδρίου στα κατεχόμενα;

—
Καταδικάζει τη διεξαγωγή του συνεδρίου στα κατεχόμενα εδάφη της Κύπρου;

—
Έχει δοθεί ποτέ οποιαδήποτε χρηματοδότηση από την Επιτροπή στην ETUCE; Εάν έχει δοθεί, σκοπεύει να θέσει τέλος
στην χρηματοδότηση της ETUCE, η οποία παραβιάζει σειρά κανονισμών και ψηφισμάτων που υποστηρίζονται από
την ΕΕ;

—
Σκοπεύει να αποθαρρύνει τέτοιες ανεπίτρεπτες δραστηριότητες από οποιοδήποτε οργανισμό που συνδέεται με τα
θεσμικά όργανα της ΕΕ;

**Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(3 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Το συνέδριο αυτό, στο οποίο αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου, αποτελεί πρωτοβουλία της ευρωπαϊκής
οργάνωσης εργαζομένων, που εξ ορισμού είναι εντελώς ανεξάρτητη από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και από κάθε άλλη δημόσια
αρχή. Σύμφωνα με τους βασικούς κανόνες εργασίας της ΔΟΕ, τον Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής
Ένωσης και το άρθρο 152 της ΣΛΕΕ, η Επιτροπή οφείλει να σέβεται την ανεξαρτησία και την αυτονομία οργανώσεων των
κοινωνικών εταίρων και απέχει από κάθε παρέμβαση στις δραστηριότητές τους.

Η Επιτροπή δεν χορηγεί επιχειρησιακή χρηματοδότηση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Συνδικαλιστική Επιτροπή Εκπαιδευτικών (ETUCE), ή
χρηματοδότηση γι' αυτήν τη συγκεκριμένη εκδήλωση. Στο παρελθόν, η ETUCE έλαβε επανειλημμένως ενωσιακή
χρηματοδότηση σχετική με συγκεκριμένα προγράμματα.

Τα ζητήματα που ανακινεί το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου υπογραμμίζουν μια ακόμη φορά τη σημασία που έχει η
συνολική διευθέτηση του κυπριακού προβλήματος.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 203

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004306/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Organisation of a teachers' conference in the occupied territories of Cyprus

On 17-18 May 2013 the European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) is holding an international
conference in occupied Ammochostos on ‘Peace education in schools: The role of teachers in promoting peace
through awareness raising and information on conflict prevention and conflict resolution in divided societies’. It
should be noted that the SALAMIS BAY Hotel, where the conference is taking place, is the property of a Greek
Cypriot refugee.

The organisation of this conference in the occupied part of Cyprus constitutes a breach of international law and UN
Security Council resolutions and also constitutes implicit recognition of the illegal regime and the Turkish invasion.

Furthermore, delegates will be flying to Ercan airport, an illegal airport, which violates the International Civil Aviation
Organisation and Eurocontrol agreements.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Will it bring pressure to bear on the ETUCE with a view to ensuring that this conference is not held in the
occupied territories?

—
Does it condemn the holding of the conference in the occupied part of Cyprus?

—
Has it ever given any funding to the ETUCE? If so, will it cease doing so given that the ETUCE is infringing a
number of regulations and resolutions supported by the EU?

—
Does it intend to discourage such unauthorised activities by any organisation associated with the EU
institutions?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

This conference referred to by the Honourable Member is an initiative of a European workers' organisation, which is
by definition totally independent from the European Commission and any other public authority. In accordance with
Core Labour Standards of the ILO, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and with
Article 152 TFEU, the Commission must respect the independence and autonomy of social partner organisations and
shall refrain from any interference in their activities.

The Commission does not provide operational funding to the European Trade Union Committee for Education
(ETUCE), or funding for this particular event. ETUCE has in the past, on several occasions, benefited from specific
project-related EU funding.

The issues raised by the Honourable Members once again emphasise the importance of reaching a comprehensive
settlement of the Cyprus problem.

C 33 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004307/13**

**al Consiglio**
**Lara Comi (PPE)**

_(16 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Ulteriori campagne denigratorie nei confronti dei lavoratori italiani transfrontalieri in Svizzera

Come già segnalato precedentemente alla Commissione e al Consiglio, la sezione ticinese del partito politico svizzero
dell'Unione Democratica di Centro (UDC) continua a fare propaganda gettando discredito sui lavoratori
transfrontalieri italiani.

Considerato che:

—
la Regione Lombardia, dove risiedono quasi tutti questi lavoratori, ha istituito un'apposita commissione in seno
al proprio Consiglio Regionale per affrontare i problemi dei lavoratori transfrontalieri (vedasi il punto 7
dell'ordine del giorno della seduta del 9 aprile u.s.);

—
tra la Confederazione Elvetica e diversi Stati membri dell'Unione europea sono in corso negoziati su diversi
settori in virtù dell'accordo bilaterale Svizzera — UE;

—
la libertà di movimento dei lavoratori deve essere salvaguardata come elemento competitivo irrinunciabile,
mentre il bacino elettorale dell'UDC nel Canton Ticino risulta ancora, dalla tornata elettorale del 7 aprile u.s.,
corposo a conferma di quanto tali accuse siano radicate;

—
già in altre occasioni (interrogazioni E-8144/2010, E-011025/2010, E-010902/2010, E-000312/2011,
P-000920/2012 solo per citarne alcune) la Commissione ha ritenuto tali fenomeni «iniziative individuali, sia
pur deplorevoli», mentre il Consiglio si è definito «preoccupato» (E-000311/2011),

può il Consiglio, per quanto di sua competenza, precisare:

—
cosa intendono fare esso e la Commissione per ripristinare le condizioni competitive di libertà e equità stante
che tali campagne pubblicitarie, fomentando i pregiudizi nei confronti dei lavoratori italiani, hanno un impatto
sulla concorrenza fra questi e i lavoratori locali;

—
ritiene che tali tentativi, già altre volte portati all'attenzione delle istituzioni europee, debbano essere tenuti in
considerazione in sede di negoziazioni bilaterali;

—
in che modo intende tutelare questi cittadini italiani che, oltre a sostenere dei costi per trasferirsi
quotidianamente in Svizzera, devono subire anche angherie e frustrazioni alla luce del sole?

**Risposta**
_(17 giugno 2013)_

Il Consiglio non ha discusso il problema specifico, tuttavia per quanto riguarda il funzionamento dell'accordo sulla
libera circolazione delle persone tra l'UE e la Confederazione svizzera e le relazioni UE-Svizzera in generale, esso tiene
a richiamare l'attenzione dell'onorevole parlamentare sulle conclusioni del Consiglio del 20 dicembre 2012 sulle
relazioni dell'UE con i paesi dell'EFTA ( [1] ), in cui ha manifestato qualche preoccupazione per quanto riguarda il
funzionamento dell'accordo sulla libera circolazione delle persone tra l'UE e la Confederazione svizzera. Il Consiglio
ha osservato con rammarico che la Svizzera ha adottato alcune misure che non sono compatibili con la lettera e lo
spirito dell'accordo sulla libera circolazione delle persone e che ne compromettono l'attuazione.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Doc. 17151/12.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 205

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004307/13**

**to the Council**

**Lara Comi (PPE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Further campaigns in Switzerland to denigrate cross-border workers from Italy

As has already been brought to the notice of the Commission and the Council, the Ticino branch of the Swiss People’s
Party (UDC) is continuing its propaganda campaign against cross-border workers from Italy.

The regional authorities in Lombardy, which is where almost all of the workers live, have set up a special committee
to address the problems faced by cross-border workers (see item 7 of the agenda for the regional council meeting of
9 April 2013).

Negotiations are currently being conducted in a number of areas between various Member States and Switzerland
under the Switzerland-EU bilateral agreement.

Freedom of movement for workers is of essential importance to fair competition and must therefore be preserved. In
this connection, the results of the elections of 7 April 2013 clearly show that the views espoused by the Ticino branch
of the UDC continue to have a broad constituency in the canton.

In replies to earlier questions (including E-8144/2010, E-011025/2010, E‐010902/2010, E-000312/2011 and
P-000920/2012) the Commission has taken the view that, although these incidents are deplorable, the responsibility
lies with private individuals, while the Council has said that it is ‘concerned’ (E-000311/2011).

Given the above, will the Council say:

—
how, with the Commission’s assistance, it intends to ensure that a free and fair competitive environment is reestablished, given that, by stoking prejudice against Italian workers, these advertising campaigns are affecting
their ability to compete with local workers?

—
whether these incidents, which have already been brought to the attention of the European institutions, should
be raised during bilateral negotiations with Switzerland?

—
how it intends to protect these Italian citizens who, in addition to bearing the cost of travelling to work in
Switzerland each day, are openly targeted once they get there?

**Reply**
_(17 June 2013)_

The Council has not discussed this specific issue, but with regard to the functioning of the Agreement on the Free
Movement of Persons between the EU and the Swiss Confederation and EU-Swiss relations in general, it would draw
the Honourable Member's attention to the Council conclusions of 20 December 2012 on EU relations with EFTA
States ( [1] ), in which it expressed a number of concerns regarding the functioning of the Agreement on the Free
Movement of Persons between the EU and the Swiss Confederation. The Council noted with regret that Switzerland
had taken a number of measures, which are not compatible with the provisions and the spirit of the Agreement on
the Free Movement of Persons and which undermine its implementation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Doc. 17151/12.

C 33 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004308/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Des jeunes Européens les armes à la main en Syrie

De nombreuses familles s'inquiètent de voir leurs enfants partir combattre en Syrie. Parmi ceux-ci, il y a des convertis,
des idéalistes souvent manipulés et enrôlés dans des causes plus radicales, d'autres encore au passé lourd et suivis,
voire poursuivis, par la justice et enfin ceux qui veulent soutenir l'opposition classique.

En Belgique, ils sont déjà une centaine à avoir pris les armes, ils seraient au moins un millier au niveau européen.

1. Quelles sont les mesures prises par l'Europe pour contrôler ce flux de futurs jeunes combattants de l'Europe vers
la Syrie?

2. Sur internet, des équipes s'occupent-elles spécifiquement des sites prônant l'émergence de phénomènes comme
le terrorisme isolé ou propageant des messages poussant nos jeunes à prendre les armes en Syrie?

3. L'Europe compte-t-elle mettre en place un numéro vert ou une adresse électronique pour soutenir les familles
des enfants partis au combat?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me ]** **Malmström au nom de la Commission**

_(25 juillet 2013)_

La Commission est très préoccupée par la menace que pourraient faire peser sur la sécurité de l'UE les citoyens
européens qui rentrent chez eux après être partis combattre en Syrie.

Elle a pris à cet égard plusieurs initiatives avec l'aide du Réseau européen de sensibilisation à la radicalisation (RSR).
Des groupes de travail du RSR ont participé à des actions visant à prévenir et à dissuader les départs en Syrie comme
combattants étrangers, ainsi qu'à aider les États membres face à la menace que pourraient poser ces combattants
une fois rentrés. Les mesures à prendre consistent notamment à nouer des contacts avec les communautés à risque,
y compris les diasporas, à diffuser des contre-discours, à mener des actions de réinsertion associant les acteurs locaux,
les communautés et les familles, à former de manière appropriée les forces de police en première ligne, ainsi
qu'à sensibiliser les professionnels de la santé. Les États membres doivent également utiliser les instruments existants,
tels que le système d'information Schengen de deuxième génération, pour mieux suivre les mouvements des
combattants étrangers.

Les sites web diffusant des contenus radicaux sont surveillés par les autorités des États membres. Il n'est pas prévu
pour l'instant de mettre en place une ligne d'assistance téléphonique ou une adresse électronique à l'échelle de l'UE.

Le Conseil (JAI) s'est penché sur cette question le 7 juin 2013, en se fondant sur un rapport élaboré par le
coordinateur de la lutte contre le terrorisme de l'UE. Ce document présente les mesures que l'UE et les États membres
pourraient prendre dans le domaine de la surveillance, de la législation, de la diplomatie, de la communication et du
travail avec les communautés locales. La Commission a accepté de soumettre, d'ici à la fin de l'année, une analyse des
risques pour déterminer les menaces que font peser les combattants étrangers sur la sécurité de l'UE et les mesures qui
pourraient être prises pour atténuer ces risques.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 207

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004308/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Young Europeans taking up arms in Syria

There are many anxious families because their children have gone to fight in Syria. Some of these children are
converts and idealists who have often been manipulated and signed up to more radical movements, whereas others
have a chequered past and are being watched or pursued by the law, and others wish to support the traditional
opposition.

Some 100 Belgians have already taken up arms, and the figure for Europeans as a whole is alleged to be at least 1 000.

1. What measures has Europe taken to monitor this flow of future young fighters from Europe to Syria?

2. Are there any teams dealing specifically with websites which promote trends such as lone terrorism or which
spread messages encouraging our young people to take up arms in Syria?

3. Is Europe planning to set up a hotline or e-mail address to support the families of children who have gone to
fight?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 July 2013)_

The Commission is deeply concerned by the possible threat to EU security of EU citizens travelling to Syria as foreign
fighters and returning to Europe.

Different initiatives have been intiated by the Commission with the support of the Radicalisation Awareness Network
(RAN). Working groups of the RAN have been involved in supporting action aiming at preventing and discouraging
people departing from Europe to Syria as foreign fighters, and offering assistance to Member States on the possible
threat posed by returnees. Specific actions identified include reaching out to the communities at risk including to
diasporas, construct counter messages and rehabilitation actions involving local actors, communities and families;
appropriate training to frontline police, and increasing awareness of the health sectors. Member States should also
make use of existing instruments to better monitor the movements of foreign fighters, such as the Second Generation
of the Schengen Information System.

Websites spreading radical content are monitored by Member States' authorities. There are currently no plans to set
up a related hotline or an e-mail address at the EU level.

The issue was discussed at the Council (JHA) on 7 June 2013, based on a paper prepared by the EU Counter Terrorism
Coordinator, outlining possible actions by the EU and Member States in the fields of monitoring, legislation,
diplomacy, work with local communities and communication. The Commission has agreed to present, by the end of
the year, a risk analysis exercise to identify the major security risks for the EU from foreign fighters and possible
mitigation measures.

C 33 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004309/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Commerce et investissement comme moteur de développement des PVD

1. La Commission compte-telle développer une politique européenne des investissements internationaux qui
assure la protection adéquate des investissements, renforce la sécurité juridique et traduit la capacité des États à
produire des normes et des règles communes, tout en prenant en considération les besoins sociaux, économiques et
environnementaux particuliers, tels que ceux définis notamment dans le cadre de la politique d'investissement pour
un développement durable de la Cnuced?

2. Quand la Commission va-t-elle produire des données ventilées sur les investissements directs étrangers (IDE) de
l'Union vers les pays en développement et les pays les moins avancés, tout en tenant compte des catégories
d'investissements suivantes: fusions et acquisitions, redistributions des actifs au sein des entreprises, investissements
spéculatifs et investissements verts?

3. Quelles solutions concrètes la Commission propose-t-elle afin de renforcer son soutien à une intégration
régionale plus rapide et plus approfondie entre les pays en développement, en vue de développer les marchés
régionaux et de créer des chaînes de valeurs régionales?

4. À cette fin, comment la Commission compte-t-elle promouvoir l'intégration régionale dans ses accords
commerciaux bilatéraux et régionaux?

5. La Commission envisage-t-elle la simplification et l'harmonisation des règles d'origine, ainsi que des moyens
permettant d'en faciliter l'utilisation par les petits exportateurs?

6. Quand la Commission présentera-t-elle un rapport sur les conséquences du changement de régime sur les pays
bénéficiaires, et en particulier du retrait des préférences pour les pays concernés, conformément aux dispositions de
l'article 40 du nouveau règlement?

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

_(5 juin 2013)_

Depuis l'entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne, la Commission poursuit une politique européenne d'investissement,
dans laquelle s'inscrit la communication «Vers une politique européenne globale en matière d'investissements
internationaux». Son objectif est de garantir que les investisseurs étrangers dans l'UE bénéficient d'une protection
fondée sur les meilleures pratiques appliquées par les États membres dans leurs traités bilatéraux d'investissement. Les
accords d'investissement de l'UE sont élaborés de façon à être cohérents par rapport aux autres politiques de l'UE.

Les statistiques concernant les investissements directs étrangers sont recueillies chaque année conformément au
règlement relatif à la balance des paiements, en vertu duquel les États membres doivent fournir des données ventilées
par pays partenaire, avec une classification générique par instrument, notamment le capital social, les titres de
créances et les bénéfices réinvestis. Les éléments d'information plus précis mentionnés par l'auteur de la question ne
figurent pas au nombre de ces exigences. Eurostat envisage néanmoins de lancer une collecte volontaire de données
sur les fusions et acquisitions en 2013.

L'UE est l'un des principaux fournisseurs d'aide au développement en matière d'intégration régionale. De plus, les
accords commerciaux de l'UE contribuent à l'intégration régionale et aident les pays en développement à s'intégrer
aux chaînes de valeurs mondiales.

L'UE a simplifié et assoupli ses règles d'origine pour les pays en développement au moyen du système de préférences
généralisées. Un assouplissement supplémentaire est prévu pour les pays les moins avancés. Cette démarche est à
présent appliquée également lors des négociations sur les accords de libre-échange et pour les règles d'origine de la
Convention paneuroméditerranéenne.

La Commission présentera, d'ici au 1 [er] janvier 2016, un rapport sur les conséquences du nouveau système de
préférences généralisées. En outre, un rapport sera remis au Parlement et au Conseil, le 21 novembre 2017 au plus
tard, concernant l'application du système et l'éventuelle nécessité de l'adapter.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 209

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004309/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Trade and investment as a driving force for the development of developing countries

1. Is the Commission planning to develop a European international investment policy which will ensure adequate
protection for investments, boost legal certainty and reflect the Member States’ capacity to establish common
standards and rules, while taking account of individual social, economic and environmental needs, in particular those
defined in UNCTAD’s Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development?

2. When will the Commission produce disaggregated data on foreign direct investment (FDI) from the EU to
developing countries and least-advanced countries, incorporating the following categories of investment: mergers
and acquisitions, redistribution of assets within companies, speculative investments and green investments?

3. What specific solutions is the Commission proposing to boost its support for more rapid and deeper regional
integration between developing countries, with a view to developing regional markets and creating regional value
chains?

4. With this in mind, how does the Commission intend to promote regional integration in its bilateral and regional
trade agreements?

5. Is the Commission planning to simplify and harmonise rules of origin and the arrangements which make it
easier for small exporters to benefit from them?

6. When will the Commission present a report, in line with Article 40 of the new regulation, on the consequences
for beneficiary countries of a change in the scheme, and in particular of a withdrawal of preferences?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 June 2013)_

The Commission has been developing an EU investment policy since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty,
including the communication ‘Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy’. It aims to ensure
that EU investors abroad enjoy protection based on Member States' best practices in their Bilateral Investment
Treaties. EU investment agreements are designed to be consistent with other EU policies.

Statistics on Foreign Direct Investment are collected annually following the Balance of Payments Regulation whereby
Members States must deliver data broken down by partner country and with a generic breakdown by instrument that
includes equity, debt instruments and reinvested earnings. These data requirements do not include the more detailed
categories mentioned in the question. However, Eurostat is considering launching a voluntary collection of data on
mergers and acquisitions during 2013.

The EU is one of the biggest providers of development assistance to support regional integration. Moreover, EU trade
agreements contribute to regional integration and help developing countries integrate into global value chains.

The EU has simplified and relaxed its rules of origin for developing countries under the Generalized Scheme of
Preferences. Further relaxation for Least Developed Countries is provided for. This approach is now used also in the
negotiations on Free Trade Agreements and in the revision of the rules of origin of the Pan Euro Med Convention.

The Commission will present, by 1 January 2016, a report on the effects of the new Generalised Scheme of
Preferences. By 21 November 2017, a report will be addressed to Parliament and the Council on the application of the
scheme and on the possible need to review it.

C 33 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004310/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(16 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Φεστιβάλ στην Καρπασία

Η χερσόνησος της Καρπασίας αποτελεί έναν από τους περιβαλλοντικούς θησαυρούς της Μεσογείου. Η παραλία της «Χρυσής
Αμμουδιάς» χαρακτηρίζεται ως προστατευόμενη ζώνη, και αποτελεί μέρος του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικτύου Natura 2000.

Στις 26 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013 προγραμματίζεται να γίνει στην εν λόγω παραλία τριήμερο μουσικό φεστιβάλ, στο οποίο
αναμένεται να παραστούν περισσότεροι από 80 000 θεατές.

Το λεγόμενο «Υπουργείο Τουρισμού» του ψευδοκράτους ενέκρινε την πραγματοποίηση του φεστιβάλ και προσπαθεί να το
αναγάγει ως το πιο μεγάλο μουσικό φεστιβάλ στην Μεσόγειο, αδιαφορώντας για τυχόν οικολογική καταστροφή της
περιοχής.

Υπογραμμίζω ότι εάν πραγματοποιηθεί το φεστιβάλ στη «Χρυσή Αμμουδιά», θα έχει καταστροφικές συνέπειες για το
περιβάλλον. Ως εκ τούτου, επιβάλλεται να γίνουν άμεσες ενέργειες από όλες τις πλευρές με στόχο την ακύρωση του
τριήμερου φεστιβάλ ούτως ώστε να προστατευθεί η περιοχή.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Γνωρίζει για την πραγματοποίηση του φεστιβάλ;

—
Συμμερίζεται την άποψη ότι η περιοχή διατρέχει μεγάλο περιβαλλοντικό κίνδυνο;

—
Ποια μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει η Επιτροπή για να αποφευχθεί η πραγματοποίηση του φεστιβάλ;

**Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(31 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος στην απάντησή της στη γραπτή ερώτηση E-002937/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/el/parliamentary-questions.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 211

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004310/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Festival in Karpasia

The Karpasian peninsula is one of the Mediterranean’s environmental treasures. The ‘Golden Beach’ is a protected
area, forming part of the Natura 2000 European network.

On 26 September 2013, a three-day music festival is planned at the beach, with an audience of over 80 000 people
expected.

The pseudo-state’s so-called ‘Ministry of Culture’ has given its approval for the festival to go ahead, and is attempting
to promote it as the biggest music festival in the Mediterranean, ignoring any possible ecological destruction to the
region.

I would like to emphasise that if the festival goes ahead at ‘Golden Beach’, it will have catastrophic consequences for
the environment. As a result, it is imperative that action be taken immediately by all sides, with a view to cancelling
the three-day festival and protecting the region.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Whether it is aware that this festival is going ahead?

—
Does it share the view that there is a major environmental risk to the area?

—
What measures is the Commission intending to take to avoid the festival being staged?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-002937/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004311/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(16 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Κούρεμα καταθέσεων

Με ποιο σκεπτικό υποστηρίζει η Επιτροπή ότι και οι καταθέτες πέραν των 100 000 ευρώ, και δεν εννοώ τους
εκατομμυριούχους, αλλά απλούς ανθρώπους μεροκαματιάρηδες που αποταμιεύουν μια ολόκληρη ζωή για να
δημιουργήσουν ένα απόθεμα 200 000 ή 300 000 ευρώ για τα γηρατειά τους ή για να βοηθήσουν τα παιδιά τους να
σπουδάσουν ή για έκτακτες ανάγκες, οφείλουν να συμμετάσχουν στη διάσωση των τραπεζών; Δεν είναι το κούρεμα αυτού
του αποθεματικού καθαρή ληστεία και παραβίαση του ανθρωπίνου δικαιώματος της κατοχής ιδιωτικής περιουσίας;

Αν η απάντηση είναι ότι επειδή ο πολίτης αυτός επέλεξε μια επισφαλή τράπεζα άρα πρέπει να πληρώσει, η επόμενη ερώτηση
είναι πώς η Επιτροπή ρεαλιστικά αναμένει από τον πολίτη να γνωρίζει ποιες είναι οι επισφαλείς τράπεζες, όταν η Ευρωπαϊκή
Κεντρική Τράπεζα ως Εποπτεύουσα Αρχή, όχι μόνο δεν ενημερώνει τους πολίτες περί τούτου, αλλά αντιθέτως τις
συγκαλύπτει αφού τις τροφοδοτεί αντικαταστατικά με «Emergency Liquidity Assistance», ακόμα κι όταν αυτές δεν είναι
φερέγγυες!

**Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(7 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Οι κυπριακές αρχές ενέκριναν μέτρα σύμφωνα με τα οποία οι ανασφάλιστες καταθέσεις στην Τράπεζα Κύπρου
χρησιμοποιήθηκαν για να ανακεφαλαιοποιηθούν οι τράπεζες καταθέσεων, ενώ οι ανασφάλιστες καταθέσεις στη Λαϊκή
Τράπεζα Κύπρου αντιμετωπίστηκαν με τη συνήθη διαδικασία αφερεγγυότητας. Σε ουδεμία των ως άνω διαδικασιών εθίγησαν
ασφαλισμένες καταθέσεις κάτω των 100 000 ευρώ.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 213

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004311/13**

**to the Commission**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Haircuts on savings

What is the reasoning behind the Commission’s view that savers with more than EUR 100 000 — and that does not
mean millionaires, but simple, hardworking people who save their whole lives to build up a fund of EUR 200 000 or
EUR 300 000 for their old age, to help their children study, or for emergencies — have an obligation to participate in
bailing out the banks? Does the haircut imposed on these savings not amount to daylight robbery and violation of the
human right to ownership of private property?

If the answer to this is that a citizen must pay if he or she has chosen a risky bank, the next question is how can the
Commission realistically expects citizens to know which banks are risky when the European Central Bank, as the
supervisory authority, not only fails to inform people about this, but, on the contrary, covers the banks, since it
replenishes them with ‘Emergency Liquidity Assistance’, even when they are not solvent.

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The Cypriot authorities adopted measures according to which uninsured deposits within Bank of Cyprus have been
used to recapitalise the deposit holders' bank, whilst uninsured deposits within Cyprus Popular Bank went through
the normal insolvency procedure. In neither operation were insured deposits below EUR 100 000 touched.

C 33 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004312/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(16 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Estrategia Europa 2020

«Uno de cada cuatro trayectos del AVE solo tiene un pasajero al día». Ese era el impactante titular de una noticia sobre
el balance del funcionamiento de las líneas ferroviarias de alta velocidad (AVE) en el Reino de España. Según datos
facilitados por Renfe, en 48 rutas de las 206 para las que la operadora ofreció horarios y vendió billetes, viajaron un
viajero o menos por día. Más aún, diez de ellas fueron utilizadas por menos de diez pasajeros a lo largo de los
12 meses ( [1] ). La cifra de 48 rutas infrautilizadas se eleva hasta 88 si ponemos el listón un poco más alto y
contabilizamos la relaciones que tuvieron cinco o menos de cinco pasajeros al día en 2012. Únicamente dieciséis
trayectos cuentan con más de 100 000 pasajeros a lo largo del año y, entre ellos, solo dos superaron el millón de
viajeros en el ejercicio. Estas rutas son Barcelona-Madrid (con 1 309 862 pasajeros) y Madrid-Barcelona
(1 304 697 pasajeros). Sólo los Fondos Estructurales —cerca de 140 mil millones de euros en 25 años— han
financiado cerca del 50 % de las grandes obras públicas, por ejemplo las líneas de Alta Velocidad como el
AVE Madrid-Sevilla, aeropuertos y carreteras ( [2] ).

¿Cree la Comisión que los 70 mil millones de euros europeos ejecutados en infraestructuras en el Reino de España
están bien invertidos, siguiendo criterios de eficiencia y retorno económico?

Una de las iniciativas emblemáticas de la Estrategia Europa 2020 es que Europa utilice eficazmente sus recursos. La
inversión española más importante en 2013 es la ejecución de la obra del AVE Madrid-Galicia. ¿Cree la Comisión que
el Reino de España está en la línea europea del cumplimiento de la Estrategia 2020, para garantizar el crecimiento y el
empleo, generando grandes oportunidades económicas, mejorando la productividad e incrementando la
competitividad?

**Respuesta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(19 de junio de 2013)_

1. La inversión en infraestructuras de transporte en España ha sido ampliamente cofinanciada por la Unión
Europea en el marco de su política de cohesión. España ha mejorado notablemente sus sistemas de transporte en
términos de accesibilidad y conectividad entre sus regiones y con el resto de Europa. Se han logrado importantes
avances en los distintos modos de transporte: red de autopistas ( [3] ), red ferroviaria ( [4] ), red ferroviaria de alta velocidad,
puertos y aeropuertos. No solamente habría que evaluar esa inversión en términos de eficiencia y rentabilidad
económica, sino también en términos de cohesión territorial (uno de los objetivos clave del Tratado de la UE).

El AVE Madrid-Galicia constituye un proyecto de envergadura que forma parte del programa para 2007-2013 que
financia en Galicia el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional. Sin embargo, hasta la fecha la Comisión no ha recibido
la correspondiente solicitud. Todo gran proyecto está sujeto a un sólido análisis de sus costes y beneficios como
condición para su cofinanciación.

2. Durante el período 2014-2020 la Comisión se ha propuesto seguir una nueva política por lo que se refiere al
uso de los Fondos Estructurales y de Inversión Europeos con el fin de modular dicho uso en función de las prioridades
de la estrategia Europa 2020 y potenciar el crecimiento sostenible, el empleo y la competitividad. Dado que ya se han
subsanado las graves carencias en infraestructuras, a partir de ahora habrá que limitar relativamente toda futura
inversión en el sector del transporte y centrarla en la racionalización del sistema actual. Los principales objetivos
serán la potenciación del transporte multimodal, la realización de los enlaces pendientes y el fomento del transporte
urbano limpio con el fin de mejorar la productividad y de incrementar de la competitividad.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eldiario.es/economia/Renfe-AVE-Tardienta-Puente_Genil_0_121438139.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20100612/espana-recibido-europa-anos-mas-dinero-que-toda-europa-con-plan-marshall/335058.shtml
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) La red de autopistas ha pasado de los 4 976 km de 1990 a los 14 021 km de 2009. EU Transport in figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2012

[«Cuaderno estadístico 2012. El transporte de la UE en cifras»].

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) La red ferroviaria en funcionamiento ha pasado de los 14 539 km de 1990 a los 15 837 km de 2010. EU Transport in figures, Statistical

Pocketbook 2012 [«Cuaderno estadístico 2012. El transporte de la UE en cifras»].

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 215

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004312/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Europe 2020 strategy

‘One in every four trips by AVE (high-speed train) has only one passenger a day’. That was the striking headline of an
article on the state of high-speed rail (AVE) in Spain. According to data provided by the rail operator Renfe, 48 routes
of the 206 for which the operator offered timetables and sold tickets had one passenger per day or no passengers at
all. Even worse, 10 of them were used by fewer than 12 passengers over the 12-month period ( [1] ). The figure of 48
under-used routes rises to 88 if we place the bar a little higher and include connections with five or fewer than five
passengers per day in 2012. Only 16 routes carried over 100 000 passengers in the course of the year and, of these,
only two exceeded a million travellers during the year. Those two routes are Barcelona-Madrid (with 1 309 862
passengers) and Madrid-Barcelona (1 304 697 passengers). The Structural Funds alone — to the tune of
approximately EUR 140 billion over 25 years — have financed around 50% of major public works, such as highspeed lines including the Madrid-Seville AVE, airports and roads. ( [2] )

Does the Commission believe that the EUR 70 billion spent by Europe on infrastructure in Spain has been a good
investment, in terms of efficiency and economic return?

One of the flagship initiatives in the Europe 2020 strategy is for Europe to make efficient use of its resources. The
largest amount of Spanish investment in 2013 is for the implementation of the Madrid-Galicia AVE works. Does the
Commission believe that Spain is in line with the rest of Europe in fulfilling the Europe 2020 strategy, in order to
deliver growth and jobs, by creating major economic opportunities, improving productivity and increasing
competitiveness?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

1. In the framework of EU cohesion policy, transport infrastructure investments in Spain have been widely cofinanced by the European Union. Spain has clearly improved its transport systems in terms of accessibility and
connectivity with its regions and with the rest of Europe. Significant achievements have been made in the different
transport modes: network of motorways ( [3] ); railway lines ( [4] ); high-speed railway lines, airports and ports. These
investments should not only be assessed in terms of efficiency and economic return, but also in terms of territorial
cohesion (a key objective of the EU Treaty).

The Madrid-Galicia AVE is included as a major project in the 2007-2013 Galicia European Regional Development
Fund programme. Nevertheless, the application has not been sent to the Commission so far. All major projects are
subject to a sound cost-benefit analysis as a condition for co-financing.

2. For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission has proposed a new approach to the use of the European Structural
and Investment Funds with a strong alignment with Europe 2020 priorities in order to contribute to sustainable
growth, employment and competitiveness. Since major infrastructure gaps have already been addressed, future
transport investments should be relatively limited and focused on rationalisation of the existing transport system. The
main objectives will be the development of multimodal transport, key missing links and clean urban transport with
the objective of improving productivity and increasing competitiveness.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eldiario.es/economia/Renfe-AVE-Tardienta-Puente_Genil_0_121438139.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20100612/espana-recibido-europa-anos-mas-dinero-que-toda-europa-con-plan-marshall/335058.shtml.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The length of motorways increased from 4 976 km in 1990 to 14 021 km in 2009. EU Transport in figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) The length of railways lines in use increased from 14 539 km in 1990 to 15 837 km in 2010. EU Transport in figures, Statistical Pocketbook

2012.

C 33 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004314/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(16 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Cambio en la normativa de la D.O. Roncal

El 29 de septiembre de 2012, el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea _(DO C 294 de 29.9.2012) publicó un documento_
_relativo a la denominación de origen protegida Roncal. Esta D.O., existente en la Comunidad Foral de Navarra (España), fue_
_modificada con arreglo al artículo 6, apartado 2, del Reglamento (CE) n° 510/2006 del Consejo de la UE para permitir la_
_introducción de la leche de la oveja de raza foránea_ « _Assaf_ » _._

Este tipo de oveja no posee ningún vínculo con el territorio donde se produce este queso, sino que se trata de una
especie de producción intensiva que permite un abaratamiento de los costes de producción. El queso tradicional
producido en el Valle de Roncal, está vinculado a las razas Latxa y Rasa, adaptadas a las condiciones ecológicas del
terreno _gracias a su uso histórico. Se tratan de especies vinculadas a la actividad del pastoreo, lo que ha permitido vincular la_
_producción tradicional de este queso con la conservación del territorio, manteniendo los usos tradicionales de su paisaje y su_
_ecosistema. La raza Assaf, además de tratarse de una raza foránea, se trata de un tipo de oveja vinculada a la explotación_
_intensiva, con un manejo estabulado y una alimentación basada en el concentrado energético, por tanto esta especie incumple los_
_requisitos de alimentación animal del pliego de condiciones de la denominación de origen._

Las razas Latxa y Rasa resultan menos rentables para los ganaderos, pero con la autorización del uso de otras ovejas,
se las somete al riesgo de ser sustituidas por especies más rentables y así poner en riesgo el vínculo tradicional entre
estas razas, el territorio y el producto. La raza Assaf es capaz de producir más del doble de litros de leche por cabeza
de ganado y supone un importante ahorro para las explotaciones _, en detrimento del sistema de producción pastoril_
_tradicionalmente ligado a este queso. Sin embargo, esta raza no tiene ningún vínculo con la historia, con el medio natural, ni con_
_el sistema de producción del valle de Roncal, por tanto los argumentos presentados en la solicitud aceptada por la Comisión son_
_falsos._

¿Ha considerado la Comisión el sistema de alimentación de la raza Assaf, a la hora de aprobar la modificación
propuesta sobre la D.O. Roncal?

¿Considera que la introducción de una especie con alimentación intensiva incumple las condiciones de la D.O
Roncal?

_¿Considera que la sustitución con leche de especies de producción intensiva en este queso podría suponer competencia desleal con_
_otras D.O. de otros países que compitan en el mismo segmento de mercado?_

_¿Estima pertinente reconsiderar la modificación ante la falsedad de los argumentos expuestos para la introducción de la raza Assaf_
_en la D.O. Roncal?_

**Respuesta del Sr. Cioloş en nombre de la Comisión**

_(23 de mayo de 2013)_

Invito a Su Señoría a consultar la respuesta de la Comisión a la pregunta E-003713/2013 ( [1] ).

Puedo añadir que la oposición recibida por la Comisión y mencionada en dicha respuesta ha sido considerada
admisible y transmitida a las autoridades españolas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/es/parliamentary-questions.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 217

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004314/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Change to the rules on the designation of origin ‘Roncal’

On 29 September 2012, the _Official Journal of the European Union_ (OJ C 294, 29.9.2012) published a document on the
protected designation of origin ‘Roncal’. This designation of origin, which exists in the Autonomous Community of
Navarre (Spain), was amended pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 to permit the
inclusion of milk from ewes of the Assaf breed, which comes from outside the area.

This type of ewe has no connection whatsoever with the region where the cheese is produced, but is an intensive
production species which makes it possible to lower production costs. The traditional cheese produced in the Valle de
Roncal is connected to the Latxa and Rasa breeds, which have adapted to the ecological conditions of the region
through their historic use. These species are linked to the activity of grazing, which has made it possible to establish a
tie between the traditional production of the cheese and the conservation of the region, retaining the traditional uses
of its countryside and ecosystem. The Assaf breed, as well as being a breed from outside the area, is a type of ewe
linked to intensive farming, with the animals being kept indoors and fed on a concentrated form of energy, and thus
this species does not meet the animal feeding requirements of the specifications for the designation of origin.

The Latxa and Rasa breeds are less profitable for livestock farmers, but permitting the use of other ewes puts them at
risk of being replaced by more profitable species, thus jeopardising the traditional link between these breeds, the
region and the product. The Assaf breed is capable of producing more than twice as many litres of milk per head of
flock, generating significant savings for farms at the expense of the pastoral production system traditionally linked to
this cheese. However, this breed does not have any connection with the history, natural environment or production
system of the Valle de Roncal, and therefore the arguments put forward in the application granted by the Commission

are erroneous.

Did the Commission consider the feeding system for the Assaf breed when approving the proposed amendment to
the designation of origin ‘Roncal’?

Does it believe that the introduction of a species fed using an intensive system meets the conditions of the designation
of origin ‘Roncal’?

Does it believe that replacing milk with milk from intensive production species in this cheese could lead to unfair
competition with other designations of origin from other countries competing in the same market sector?

Does it think that the amendment should be reviewed, given the erroneous nature of the arguments put forward for
the introduction of the Assaf breed into the designation of origin ‘Roncal’?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Commission's answer to Question E-003713/2013 ( [1] ).

Please note that the opposition received by the Commission, mentioned therein, was deemed admissible and
forwarded to the Spanish authorities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004315/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Intégration des migrants

L'immigration qualifiée constitue une approche importante pour résoudre ce double problème — recul de la
population en âge de travailler et pénurie de main-d'œuvre. Les citoyens européens l'ont compris, et les sondages de
l'Eurobaromètre montrent que 70 % d'entre eux considèrent l'immigration comme étant nécessaire pour l'économie
européenne.

1. La Commission va-t-elle, comme le lui recommande le Parlement, mettre en place un groupe interservices pour
l'intégration, qui soit consacré aux thèmes de l'intégration, de l'immigration (économique) et de l'intégration sur le
marché du travail, et qui comprenne toutes les directions générales concernées, le Service européen pour l'action
extérieure ainsi que les parties prenantes concernées?

2. La Commission envisage-t-elle de prendre des mesures pour renforcer considérablement la position juridique et
sociale des femmes, et ce afin d'empêcher les discriminations dans l'ensemble des domaines d'action politiques et de
tirer parti de la contribution potentielle des femmes notamment au développement économique et social?

3. Que pense la Commission sur la possibilité d'introduire un système européen commun d'entrée, fondé sur des
critères transparents et conforme à l'idée du cadre européen des certifications en matière d'accumulation et de
transfert de crédits, auquel les États membres pourraient participer sur une base volontaire? Un tel système devrait
pouvoir être adapté aux conditions du marché du travail afin de faciliter la venue d'une main-d'œuvre qualifiée
attendue de toute urgence.

4. La Commission compte-t-elle établir un cadre juridique garantissant aux femmes immigrantes le droit de détenir
leur propre passeport et leur propre permis de séjour et permettant de tenir pour criminellement responsable toute
personne qui leur soustrait ces documents?

5. Que compte faire la Commission pour résoudre la question de la coordination de la sécurité sociale pour les
ressortissants de pays tiers, et en particulier à maintenir leurs droits lorsqu'ils quittent l'Union ou y reviennent, et à
accompagner la politique migratoire de l'Union de mesures adéquates concernant les droits de sécurité sociale acquis
par les migrants concernés?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Malmström au nom de la Commission**

_(19 juin 2013)_

Vu le caractère transversal des questions d'intégration, la Commission s'assure qu'elles soient prises en compte dans
les autres politiques concernées. Cette coordination est assurée par le recours à différents moyens, notamment la
participation à des groupes interservices.

La Commission est consciente de la dimension hommes-femmes que comportent les politiques d'immigration et
d'intégration et s'efforce, dans différents domaines d'action, de régler les problèmes particuliers auxquels font face les
femmes migrantes.

En vue d'attirer les migrants hautement qualifiés, la Commission a lancé la carte bleue ( [1] ), qui est en cours de mise en
œuvre par les États membres et que la Commission évalue actuellement. La Commission ne prévoit aucune initiative à
court terme pour l'instauration d'un système fondé sur des critères.

Dans le cadre de tous les instruments relatifs à la migration légale, chacun bénéficie d'un droit de séjour indépendant.
Il existe toutefois une exception, la directive «regroupement familial» ( [2] ), en vertu de laquelle le bénéficiaire du
regroupement dépend initialement du statut juridique du regroupant mais cette dépendance doit cesser au plus tard
après cinq ans de résidence ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/50/CE du 25 mai 2009 établissant les conditions d'entrée et de séjour des ressortissants de pays tiers aux fins d'un emploi

hautement qualifié.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/86/CE relative au droit au regroupement familial pour les ressortissants de pays tiers résidant sur le territoire des États membres.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Voir l'article 15 de la directive 2003/86/CE. De plus, conformément à l'article 15, paragraphe 3, en cas de veuvage, de divorce, de séparation ou de

décès d'ascendants ou de descendants directs au premier degré, un titre de séjour autonome peut être délivré, au besoin sur demande, aux
personnes entrées au titre du regroupement familial. Les États membres arrêtent également des dispositions garantissant l'octroi d'un titre de
séjour autonome en cas de situation particulièrement difficile.

( **|**
( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 219

En ce qui concerne les victimes de la traite des êtres humains dépourvues de documents d'identité, la directive
2011/36/EC ( [4] ) et la stratégie intégrée de l'UE ( [5] ) reconnaissent que la traite des êtres humains a une dimension liée au
sexe et que les femmes constituent un groupe vulnérable ( [6] ).

La Commission a déjà mis en place un mécanisme d'échange, entre États membres, d'informations et de pratiques en
matière de conclusion d'accords bilatéraux concernant la sécurité sociale. Bien qu'elle ne soit pas en mesure d'imposer
une conduite ou de donner des instructions aux États membres qui concluent des accords bilatéraux, la Commission
peut encourager la coopération et l'échange des bonnes pratiques, recueillir et publier des informations sur les accords
bilatéraux, la législation et les mesures adoptées au niveau national concernant le paiement des pensions dans les
pays tiers ( [7] ).

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/36/UE concernant la prévention de la traite des êtres humains et la lutte contre ce phénomène ainsi que la protection des victimes

et remplaçant la décision-cadre 2002/629/JAI du Conseil.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) La stratégie de l'UE en vue de l'éradication de la traite des êtres humains pour la période 2012-2016, COM(2012)286 final.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) En outre, les victimes de la traite des êtres humains coopérant avec les autorités compétentes sont susceptibles de recevoir un titre de séjour,

conformément aux conditions prévues par la directive 2004/81/CE.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) COM(2012)0153.

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

C 33 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004315/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(16 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Integration of migrants

Skilled immigration is a key means of addressing the dual problem of a shrinking workforce and a shortage of
manpower. EU citizens understand this, and Eurobarometer surveys show that 70% of them believe that immigration
is an economic necessity for the EU.

1. Does the Commission intend to act on Parliament's recommendation and set up a cross-departmental
integration group to tackle the issues of integration, (labour) migration and integration into the labour market,
involving all the relevant directorates-general and the European External Action Service, as well as the relevant
stakeholders?

2. Does it intend to take steps to significantly strengthen the legal and social position of women, with a view to
preventing discrimination in all policy areas and harnessing women’s potential to contribute to economic and social
development in particular?

3. How feasible does it think it would be to introduce a common European entry system, based on transparent
criteria and in line with the European Qualifications Framework approach of accumulating and transferring credits,
which would be open to the Member States on a voluntary basis? It would need to be possible to adjust such a system
to labour-market conditions so as to make it easier to attract urgently needed skilled workers.

4. Does it intend to establish a legal framework guaranteeing immigrant women the right to keep their own
passports and residence permits and making it a criminal offence to take those documents away from them?

5. How does it intend to address the issue of social security coordination for third-country nationals, with
particular regard to the retention of rights when leaving or re-entering the EU, and to ensure that appropriate action is
taken in connection with the EU's migration policy to address the acquired social security rights of migrants?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

Given its cross-cutting nature, the Commission ensures that integration issues are mainstreamed throughout other
relevant policies. This coordination is ensured through different means, including participating in Interservice
Groups.

The Commission is aware of the gender dimension of immigration and integration policies and addresses the specific
challenges faced by migrant women in different policy areas.

In view of attracting high qualified migrants the Commission has introduced the Blue Card ( [1] ), still in phase of
implementation by the Member States and evaluation by the Commission. On the introduction of a criteria-based
system the Commission does not foresee any policy initiative in the short term.

Under all legal migration instruments each person has an independent residence right except for the Family
Reunification Directive ( [2] ) where the initial dependence of the reunited person on the legal status of the sponsor has to
cease not later than after five years of residence ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly-qualified

employment.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification of third-country nationals living in the European. Union.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See art. 15 of Directive 2003/86/EC. In addition, according to Article 15(3), in the event of widowhood, divorce, separation, or death of first
degree relatives in the direct ascending or descending line, an autonomous residence permit may be issued, upon application, if required, to
persons who have entered by virtue of family reunification. Member States shall also lay down provisions ensuring the granting of an autonomous
residence permit in the event of particularly difficult circumstances.

( **|**
( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 221

For those who are deprived of identity documents as victims of trafficking, Directive 2011/36/EC ( [4] ) and the
integrated EU Strategy ( [5] ) acknowledge the gender specific nature of trafficking in human beings and recognise
women as a vulnerable group ( [6] ).

The Commission has already established a mechanism of exchange between Member States of information and
practice in concluding bilateral agreements on social security. Whereas the Commission is not in a position to impose
guidance or instructions for Member States entering into bilateral agreement, it can promote cooperation and
exchange of best practices, gather and publish information about bilateral agreements, legislation and measures at
national level concerning the payment of pensions in third countries ( [7] ).

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework

Decision 2002/629/JHA.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012‐2016 COM(2012) 286 final.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) In addition, victims of trafficking who cooperate with the competent authorities can be granted a residence permit, in accordance with conditions

set by Directive 2004/81/EC.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 0153.

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

C 33 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004316/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(17. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit Südkorea

Seit über einem Jahr ist das Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit Südkorea in Kraft.

1. Welche Erkenntnisse hat die Kommission über nach wie vor bestehende nichttarifäre Handelshemmnisse in

Südkorea?

2. Welche weiteren Probleme mit der Umsetzung des Abkommens sind der Kommission bekannt und wie reagiert
die Kommission auf diese Probleme?

3. Ist die Kommission über die beabsichtigte Einführung von Zertifizierungen für importierte Kfz-Ersatzteile in
Südkorea informiert, wie bewertet sie diese und wie wird die Kommission reagieren?

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(3. Juni 2013)_

Im Rahmen der Marktzugangsstrategie erhält die Kommission von den Industrieverbänden und den Mitgliedstaaten
regelmäßig Informationen zu Fragen, die den Marktzugang betreffen. Beiträge gehen der Kommission über den
Beratenden Ausschuss für den Marktzugang, die sektorspezifischen Arbeitsgruppen für Marktzugang (z. B.
Kraftfahrzeuge, Reifen und Teile, Chemikalien und Arzneimittel), die im Rahmen des Beratenden Ausschusses für den
Marktzugang in Brüssel zusammentreten, sowie über die EU‐Delegation in Seoul zu. Infolgedessen verfügt die
Kommission über Informationen zu einer Reihe von Handelshemmnissen in verschiedenen Sektoren.

Bei jeder Handelsübereinkunft können die darin enthaltenen Bestimmungen je nach den Interessen der jeweiligen
Handelspartner unterschiedlich ausgelegt werden. Im Falle des Freihandelsabkommens zwischen der EU und
Südkorea war die Kommission in dieser Hinsicht mit einigen Schwierigkeiten konfrontiert (z. B. bei Kfz‐Ersatzteilen).
Außerdem erkannte sie, dass in einigen Bereichen noch Verbesserungen möglich waren (z. B. Bestimmung über die
unmittelbare Beförderung). Mit den institutionellen Bestimmungen des Freihandelsabkommens wurden ein
Handelsausschuss sowie zahlreiche Sonderausschüsse und Arbeitsgruppen der beiden Vertragsparteien eingesetzt, die
die Durchführung des Abkommens überwachen sollen. Darüber hinaus erörtert die Kommission diese Fragen in
Abstimmung mit der EU‐Delegation in Seoul regelmäßig mit ihren südkoreanischen Amtskollegen.

Die Kommission ist sich des Problems der Zertifizierung von Kfz‐Ersatzteilen bewusst und hat Südkorea ihre
Besorgnis bereits mehrfach schriftlich dargelegt. Am 20. März 2013 führte die Kommission im Einklang mit
Anhang 2-C Artikel 9 des Freihandelsabkommens informelle Gespräche mit dem Ministerium für Land, Transport
und Meeresangelegenheiten in Südkorea. Sie wird die Angelegenheit auch künftig auf bilateraler Ebene mit Südkorea
verfolgen, unter anderem auf der nächsten Sitzung der mit dem Freihandelsabkommen eingesetzten Arbeitsgruppe
für Kraftfahrzeuge und Teile davon.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 223

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004316/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bernd Lange (S&D)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU free trade agreement with South Korea

The EU free trade agreement with South Korea has been in force for more than a year.

1. What information does the Commission have concerning any non-tariff barriers to trade that still exist in South
Korea?

2. What additional problems with the agreement’s implementation is the Commission aware of and what is it
doing about them?

3. Is the Commission aware of the intention to introduce certification for imported spare parts for vehicles in
South Korea, what is its view of this and how will it respond?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

Under the Market Access Strategy, information on market access issues is provided to the Commission regularly, by
industry associations and Member States. The Commission receives input via the Market Access Advisory Committee
(MAAC), via the sectorial Market Access Working Groups (e.g. automobiles, tyres and parts, chemicals and
pharmaceuticals) which meet under the MAAC, in Brussels, as well as via the EU Delegation in Seoul. As a result, the
Commission has information relating to a number of barriers to trade in different sectors.

As with any trade agreement, there are potentially different interpretations of provisions therein, depending on the
interests of the trading parties concerned. The Commission has faced some difficulties in this regard in the case of the
EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) (e.g. car parts) and also identified areas for further improvements
(e.g. the direct transport provision). The institutional provisions of the FTA established a Trade Committee and a
significant number of specialised committees and working groups between the two parties to monitor the
implementation of the agreement. In addition, the Commission raises these issues regularly with its South Korean
counterparts, in coordination with the EU delegation in Seoul.

The Commission is aware of the issue of certification of car parts and has written to South Korea raising its concerns
on several occasions. On 20 March 2013 the Commission held informal consultations under Article 9 of Annex 2-C
of the FTA, with the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs in South Korea, and will continue to pursue the
issue bilaterally with South Korea, _inter alia_ during the next meeting of the Working Group on Motor Vehicles and
Parts under the FTA.

C 33 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004324/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(17 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Licitación del servicio municipal de limpieza y residuos del Ayuntamiento de Alicante

El Ayuntamiento de Alicante está tramitando la licitación de la gestión del servicio público de limpieza viaria y de
recogida, tratamiento, valorización y eliminación de residuos domésticos. El valor estimado del contrato para los doce
años de duración máxima es de 435 millones de euros, IVA incluido. El anuncio de licitación del servicio únicamente
se ha publicado en el Boletín Oficial de la Provincia de Alicante de fecha 19 de febrero de 2013, no habiéndose
insertado anuncio alguno en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea y, por tanto, incumpliendo la Directiva
2004/18/CE.

De dicho proceso de licitación ha resultado que únicamente se ha presentado una oferta por parte de la empresa que
actualmente gestiona dicho servicio, aunque fuera de contrato desde el pasado mes de octubre, la mercantil INUSA
(Ingeniería Urbana S.A.). La falta de publicidad de dicha licitación podría ser una de las causas de que únicamente se
haya recibido una oferta para gestionar este importante servicio municipal.

La contrata incluye la gestión del centro de tratamiento de residuos urbanos de Alicante, situado en la partida rural de
Fontcalent, que contó con una ayuda de los Fondos de Cohesión europeos de un 80 % de los 17 millones de euros de
su coste total. La gestión de los residuos en dicho centro por parte de INUSA ha sido denunciada en los últimos años
por diversos colectivos, y el pasado mes de diciembre se registraron ante la Comisión de Peticiones del Parlamento
Europeo en torno a 1 500 quejas en las que se denunciaba la pésima gestión de unos residuos que son masivamente
eliminados mediante enterramiento y que sólo son recuperados en un ínfimo porcentaje, generando problemas de
malos olores y vertidos de lixiviados.

Los datos oficiales de 2011 son elocuentes: de 135 000 toneladas tratadas se han destinado a vertedero 105 000
(78 %) y tan sólo se han recuperado un total de 1 507 toneladas de diversos materiales, un ridículo 1,1 %. Pese a ello,
los criterios para adjudicar la gestión del servicio no contemplan ningún objetivo de minimización de los derechos o
de recogida selectiva en origen de la materia orgánica, una recogida selectiva que continúa sin implantarse en la
ciudad de Alicante pese a lo dispuesto en la normativa comunitaria.

¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de la situación arriba descrita? ¿Considera la Comisión que la licitación del servicio
público antes mencionado cumple lo dispuesto en la Directiva 2004/18/CE? ¿Considera la Comisión que los criterios
para adjudicar el contrato cumplen la Directiva 2008/98/CE? ¿Qué medidas adoptará la Comisión para garantizar la
aplicación de la normativa europea en este caso?

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(15 de julio de 2013)_

La Comisión considera que los hechos planteados por Su Señoría merecen una mayor atención. Por consiguiente, la
Comisión se propone poner en marcha una investigación para proceder a una evaluación de hecho y de derecho y, en
caso necesario, adoptará las medidas adecuadas.

En relación con las obligaciones establecidas en la Directiva 2008/98/CE sobre los residuos, el artículo 4, apartado 1,
dispone que los Estados miembros apliquen la jerarquía de residuos y, por lo tanto, la adopción de medidas para
fomentar las opciones de gestión de residuos que arrojen los mejores resultados medioambientales globales. Esto se
reflejará en los planes de gestión de residuos y los programas de prevención de residuos pertinentes, que deben
someterse a consulta pública. La Comisión está analizando los planes de gestión de residuos de los Estados miembros
que realizan una gestión de residuos deficiente. De conformidad con el artículo 11, junto con el artículo 10,
apartado 2, de la citada Directiva, los residuos de papel, metales, plástico y vidrio como mínimo deberán recogerse
por separado de aquí a 2015, si ello resulta viable técnica, medioambiental y económicamente.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 225

La Comisión no ha cofinanciado la licitación de los servicios de limpieza y residuos del ayuntamiento de Alicante. Por
lo tanto, la empresa INUSA ( [1] ) no ha recibido ninguna financiación del FEDER ( [2] ) o del Fondo de Cohesión. La
Comisión cofinanció al amparo del Fondo de Cohesión el contrato de obras públicas del centro de tratamiento de
residuos urbanos de Alicante en la zona rural de Fontcalent durante el período entre 2000 y 2006. El ayuntamiento
de Alicante era el responsable de la gestión de las obras de construcción. La empresa encargada de las obras fueron
UTE: Intersa Levante, S.A., y OBRUM: Urbanismo y Construcciones, S.L. La Comisión cofinanció este proyecto por un
importe de 11 521 079 euros. El contrato público de obras no incluía ninguna condición relativa a la gestión del

centro.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ingeniería urbana S.A.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional.

C 33 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004324/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tendering of the municipality of Alicante's municipal cleaning and waste services

The municipality of Alicante is running a tender procedure for the management of the public street cleaning service
and for collection, treatment, recovery and disposal of household waste. The estimated value of the contract over its
maximum duration of 12 years is EUR 435 million, including VAT. The notice of invitation to tender for the service
was only published in the Official Journal of the Province of Alicante on 19 February 2013, and no notice was
inserted in the _Official Journal of the European Union_ . This omission is in contravention of Directive 2004/18/EC.

Only one tender was submitted as a result of the tendering process, by the enterprise which is currently managing the
service, although it has been operating outside of any contract since last October. This company is INUSA (Ingeniería
Urbana S.A.). The lack of publicity for the tendering process could be one reason why only one tender has been
received for the management of this major municipal service.

The contract includes the management of the Alicante urban waste treatment centre, located in the rural area of
Fontcalent, which received aid from the European Cohesion Fund amounting to around 80% of the total cost of
EUR 17 million. In recent years various groups have complained about INUSA’s management of waste in the centre,
and in December 2012 around 1 500 complaints were registered by the European Parliament’s Committee on
Petitions. These alleged that the waste was managed extremely badly, the vast majority being disposed of through
landfill, with only a very low percentage being recovered, giving rise to problems of bad odours and leachate
discharges.

Official data from 2011 speak volumes: of 135 000 tonnes processed, 105 000 tonnes (78%) were sent to landfill,
and only 1 507 tonnes in total of various materials were recovered, amounting to an absurd 1.1%. Despite this, the
criteria for awarding the contract for management of the service do not include any objective for minimising duties or
the selective collection at source of organic matter. Selective collection has still not been established in the city of
Alicante, in spite of the provisions of EC law.

Is the Commission aware of the situation described above? Does the Commission consider that the way the public
service was put out to tender complies with Directive 2004/18/EC? Does the Commission consider that the criteria
for awarding the contract comply with Directive 2008/98/EC? What measures will the Commission take to ensure
that European legislation is applied in this case?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 July 2013)_

The Commission considers that the facts raised by the Honourable Member deserve further attention. Therefore, the
Commission intends to launch an investigation to make a factual and legal assessment and, if necessary, take
appropriate actions.

Concerning the obligations under Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, Article 4(1) requests Member States (MS) to apply
the waste hierarchy, thus taking measures to encourage the waste management options that deliver the best overall
environmental outcome. This shall be reflected in the relevant waste management plans and waste prevention
programmes which are subject to public consultation. The Commission is in the process of analysing the waste
management plans in MS with poor waste management performance. Pursuant to Article 11 combined with
Article 10(2) of the cited Directive, by 2015 waste — at least, paper, metal, plastic and glass — shall be collected
separately if technically, environmentally and economically practicable.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 227

The Commission has not co-financed the tender of the municipality of Alicante's municipal cleaning and waste
services. Hence, the company INUSA ( [1] ) has not received any funding from the ERDF ( [2] ) and/or the European
Cohesion Fund. The Commission co-financed the works public contract of the Alicante urban waste treatment centre
in the rural area of Fontcalent by the Cohesion Fund during the period 2000-2006. The municipality of Alicante was
responsible for the management of the construction works. The company responsible for the construction works was
UTE: INTERSA LEVANTE SA, y OBRUM, URBANISMO Y CONSTRUCCIONES SL. The Commission co-financed this
project with EUR 11.521.079. The works public contract did not include any conditions with regard to the
management of the centre.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ingeniería Urbana S.A.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Regional Development Fund.

C 33 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004325/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Theurer (ALDE)**

_(17. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-Wettbewerbs‐ und Kartellrecht

Ein Bürger hat sich mit folgendem Problem an uns gewandt: Ein deutscher Großhändler vertreibt Produkte einer
dänischen Firma im europäischen Binnenmarkt. Die Firma wollte zunächst den Vertrieb durch diesen Großhändler
auf Deutschland und Österreich beschränkt sehen und suchte sich eigene Großhändler in den anderen
EU-Mitgliedstaaten. Parallel dazu vertrieb der deutsche Großhändler die Produktpalette auch über
Partner-Großhändler in den Benelux-Staaten und Italien.

Ist es mit dem EU-Wettbewerbs‐ und Kartellrecht vereinbar, dass die dänische Firma dem deutschen Großhändler
untersagen kann, ihre Produkte außerhalb von Deutschland und Österreich über andere Großhändler zu vertreiben?

Inwieweit kann sich der deutsche Großhändler auf die EU-Gesetzgebung, z. B. Art. 101 AEUV, berufen und die
Produkte der dänischen Firma über eigene Partner in EU-Mitgliedstaaten außerhalb Deutschlands und Österreichs
vertreiben?

**Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission**

_(30. Mai 2013)_

Zunächst möchte die Kommission dem Herrn Abgeordneten erläutern, dass gemäß Artikel 101 AEUV Anbieter den
Vertrieb durch Großhändler an Abnehmer in anderen EU‐Mitgliedstaaten generell nicht beschränken sollten.

Es gibt jedoch eine Reihe von Ausnahmen von diesem Grundsatz. Erstens kann beispielsweise gemäß Artikel 4 der
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 330/2010 der Kommission ( [1] ) ein Anbieter mit einem selektiven Vertriebssystem den aktiven
Verkauf durch einen Großhändler an Abnehmer in anderen Mitgliedstaaten untersagen. Zweitens kann der Anbieter,
wenn er ein selektives Vertriebssystem hat, einem Großhändler verwehren, an Groß- oder Einzelhändler zu
verkaufen, die nicht selbst Mitglieder dieses Systems sind, einschließlich Groß- oder Einzelhändler in anderen
Mitgliedstaaten. Drittens kann es in Einzelfällen gerechtfertigt sein, dass ein Anbieter, der in der gesamten EU nach
und nach ein neues Produkt einführen möchte, Ausfuhren in Mitgliedstaaten unterbindet, in denen das Produkt noch
nicht eingeführt ist ( [2] ).

Leider geht aus den übermittelten Informationen nicht hervor, ob die Beschränkungen, die der von Ihnen genannten
Person auferlegt wurden, einen Verstoß gegen das Wettbewerbsrecht der EU darstellen.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EU) Nr. 330/2010 der Kommission vom 20. April 2010 über die Anwendung von Artikel 101 Absatz 3 des Vertrags über die

Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union auf Gruppen von vertikalen Vereinbarungen und abgestimmten Verhaltensweisen (ABl. L 102
vom 23.4.2010, S. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Leitlinien für vertikale Beschränkungen, Randnr. 61 (ABl. C 130 vom 19.5.2010, S. 1).

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 229

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004325/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Theurer (ALDE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU competition and antitrust law

A citizen has come to us with the following problem. A German wholesaler sells products produced by a Danish
company on the European internal market. The company initially wanted to see sales via this wholesaler restricted to
Germany and Austria and looked for its own wholesalers in the other EU Member States. At the same time, the
German wholesaler also marketed this range of products via partner wholesalers in the Benelux countries and Italy.

Is it compatible with EU competition and antitrust law for the Danish company to refuse to allow the German
wholesaler to sell its products outside of Germany and Austria via other wholesalers?

To what extent can the German wholesaler invoke EC law, e.g. Article 101 TFEU, and sell the Danish company’s
products via its own partners in EU Member States other than Germany and Austria?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission would begin by explaining to the Honourable Member that, in application of Article 101 of the
Treaty, suppliers should generally not restrict wholesalers from selling to buyers in other EU Member States.

However, there are a number of exceptions to this principle. For instance, firstly, pursuant to Article 4 of Commission
Regulation 330/2010 ( [1] ), a supplier that operates an exclusive distribution system may prevent a wholesaler from
selling actively to buyers in other Member States. Secondly, if a supplier operates a selective distribution system, it
may prevent a wholesaler from selling to wholesalers or retailers that are not themselves members of that system,
including wholesalers or retailers in other Member States. Thirdly, a supplier that wishes to phase-in the launch of a
new product across the EU may be justified on an individual basis in preventing exports to Member States in which
the product has not yet been launched ( [2] ).

Unfortunately, on the basis of the information provided, it is not possible to tell if the restrictions imposed on your
constituent breach the EU competition rules.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EU) No 330/2010 of 20 April 2010 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices — OJ L 102/1, 23.4.2010.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Paragraph 61, Guidelines on Vertical Restraints — OJ C 130/01, 19.5.2010.

( **|**

C 33 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004326/13**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(17 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Εκτέλεση ομήρων στην Νιγηρία

Στις 18 Φεβρουαρίου 2013 ένοπλοι τρομοκράτες επιτέθηκαν σε κατασκευαστική εταιρία στη Νιγηρία και απήγαγαν
7 ξένους εργαζόμενους από την Ελλάδα, την Βρετανία, την Ιταλία και τον Λίβανο, ενώ σκότωσαν τον φρουρό ασφαλείας της
εταιρίας.

Τα Υπουργεία Εξωτερικών των χωρών απ' όπου κατάγονται οι 7 όμηροι προέβησαν αμέσως στη σύσταση Ειδικής Ομάδας με
εξειδικευμένα στελέχη για τον εντοπισμό των ομήρων. Η οργάνωση Ansar al-Muslimeen, ευρέως γνωστή ως Ansaru, η
οποία ανέλαβε την ευθύνη για την απαγωγή των εργαζομένων, δεν επικοινώνησε, ούτε διατύπωσε αιτήματα για απελευθέρωση
των ομήρων.

Στις 9 Μαρτίου η τρομοκρατική οργάνωση Ansaru έδωσε στη δημοσιότητα φωτογραφίες από κάποια πτώματα και
ανακοίνωσε μέσω οπτικογραφικού υλικού ότι εκτέλεσε τους 7 ομήρους ως αντίποινα για μια επιχείρηση απελευθέρωσής τους
από νιγηριανές και βρετανικές αρχές.

Πρόκειται για εν ψυχρώ δολοφονίες, οι οποίες καταδικάζονται όχι μόνο από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αλλά από όλους τους
διεθνείς οργανισμούς.

—
Ποια μέτρα προτίθεσθε να λάβετε ώστε να διερευνηθεί η υπόθεση απαγωγής και δολοφονίας των 7 εργαζομένων;

—
Πώς θα αντιδράσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σε αυτό το τραγικό γεγονός; Θα προβεί σε συγκεκριμένες ενέργειες σε
συνεργασία με τα Υπουργεία Εξωτερικών της Βρετανίας, της Ελλάδας και της Ιταλίας;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(14 Ιουνίου 2013)_

1. Η έρευνα για την απαγωγή και τη δολοφονία των επτά εργαζομένων είναι ευθύνη της κυβέρνησης της Νιγηρίας.
Ωστόσο, η ΕΕ συνεργάζεται με την κυβέρνηση της Νιγηρίας ώστε να καταπολεμηθεί ο σημερινός κύκλος βίας και
τρομοκρατίας μέσω συνεχούς πολιτικού διαλόγου σχετικά με τις προσεγγίσεις των προβλημάτων, καθώς και στοχευμένων
παρεμβάσεων και αναπτυξιακής συνεργασίας στη βόρεια Νιγηρία που αποσκοπούν στη βελτίωση της ποιότητας ζωής του
πληθυσμού της περιοχής.

2. Το εν λόγω γεγονός υπογραμμίζει περαιτέρω την ανάγκη για ενίσχυση της στήριξης της κυβέρνησης και του λαού της
Νιγηρίας με σκοπό την καταπολέμηση της τρομοκρατίας. Αποστολή της ΕΕ μετέβη στη Νιγηρία στα τέλη του 2012 για να
εξετάσει ειδικές μορφές στήριξης των αρχών της Νιγηρίας στη δημιουργία περιβάλλοντος διαρκούς ασφαλείας
(αντιτρομοκρατική υποστήριξη) και την αντιμετώπιση των παραγόντων που οδηγούν στη ριζοσπαστικοποίηση. Ο στόχος της
ΕΕ είναι να βοηθήσει τις αρχές της Νιγηρίας να εξασφαλίσουν ειρήνη, ασφάλεια, σταθερότητα και ανάπτυξη, καθώς και
σεβασμό του κράτους δικαίου και των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων.

3. Η ΕΥΕΔ συνεργάζεται στενά με όλα τα κράτη μέλη, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των Υπουργείων Εξωτερικών του ΗΒ, της
Ελλάδας και της Ιταλίας. Δεδομένου ότι οι υποθέσεις ομηρίας χαρακτηρίζονται από ιδιαίτερη ευαισθησία, η ΕΥΕΔ θα
μπορούσε να διεξαγάγει ειδικές δράσεις με τα εμπλεκόμενα κράτη μέλη μόνο κατόπιν αιτήματός τους και με την απαραίτητη
διακριτικότητα.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 231

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004326/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Sophocles Sophocleous (S&D)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Execution of hostages in Nigeria

On 18 February 2013, armed terrorists attacked a construction company in Nigeria, abducting seven foreign workers
from Greece, the UK, Italy and Lebanon, and killing the company’s security guard.

The Foreign Ministries of the seven hostages’ respective countries immediately established a special team of experts to
find them. The Ansar al-Muslimeen group, widely known as Ansaru, which took responsibility for the abduction of
the employees, neither communicated nor expressed demands concerning the release of the hostages.

On 9 March, the Ansaru terrorist organisation released photographs of a number of dead bodies, and announced,
through an audiovisual release, that it had executed the seven hostages in retaliation for moves by the Nigerian and
British authorities to free them.

These are cold-blooded murders, and they have been condemned not only by the European Union, but also by all
international organisations.

—
What measures does the Vice-President/ High Representative intend to take to investigate the abduction and
murder of the seven workers?

—
How will the European Union respond to this tragic event?

—
Will it take specific actions in cooperation with the Foreign Ministries of the UK, Greece and Italy?

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

_(14 June 2013)_

1. The investigation of the abduction and murder of the seven workers is the responsibility of the government of
Nigeria. However, the EU is working with the government of Nigeria to combat the current cycle of violence and
terrorism through continuous political dialogue on approaches to the problems, as well as targeted interventions and
development cooperation in northern Nigeria aiming at improving the lives of the people in the region.

2. The event further underlines the need to strengthen the support to the government and people of Nigeria to
combat terrorism. An EU mission was in Nigeria end of 2012 to examine specific forms of supporting the Nigerian
authorities in creating durable security (counter-terrorism support) and dealing with factors conducive to
radicalisation. The EU's objective is to assist the Nigerian authorities in ensuring peace, security, stability and
development, and respect for the rule of law and human rights.

3. The EEAS cooperates closely with all member states including the Foreign Ministries of the UK, Greece and Italy.
As hostage taking cases are very sensitive the EEAS would only conduct specific actions with the involved Member
States upon their request and with the necessary discretion.

C 33 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004327/13**

**to the Council**
**Nigel Farage (EFD)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Premature disclosure of inside information on the Cyprus bailout

Is the Council aware of allegations that, by disclosing confidential information, President Anastasiades of Cyprus
helped his relatives avoid losses (thereby increasing losses of other account holders and increasing risks borne by EU
taxpayers in financing the bailout) by withdrawing millions of euro from accounts in Cyprus days before capital
controls were introduced, and that there are widely held suspicions of inappropriate disclosure of confidential
information relating to discussions of and decisions reached by the eurozone? In the light of such concerns, does the
Council intend to:

1. examine and investigate whether transfers of monies from bank accounts in Cyprus, in the twelve months
before the introduction of capital controls, were prompted, influenced or otherwise made more likely by any
premature, erroneous or otherwise improper or unauthorised disclosure of information;

2. examine and investigate whether loan write-offs by the Bank of Cyprus or Laiki Bank, in the twelve months
before the introduction of capital controls, were premature, erroneous or otherwise improper;

3. examine and investigate whether withdrawals of deposits by or on behalf of German banks at Cypriot banks
were suspiciously large in proportion to withdrawals by other depositors;

4. make a statement to the Parliament on the above matters prior to and at the conclusion of such examination
and investigation;

5. make a statement on when and by whom it was first made aware that a Cypriot bailout needed to be considered
and, consequently, what contingency plans were prepared by whom and when;

6. make a statement to the Parliament on the Council’s role in discussions both within the troika, and with the
Cypriot government (whether directly, via the troika or otherwise) concerning the Cypriot bailout;

7. make a statement to the Parliament on any other related issues that led to, or arise from, the situation in Cyprus,
and if not, why not?

**Reply**
_(24 June 2013)_

The Council has not discussed the issue of allegations of premature disclosure of information concerning the Cyprus
bailout.

On 25 March 2013 the Eurogroup reached an agreement with the Cypriot authorities on the key elements necessary
for a future macroeconomic adjustment programme. The agreement between the euro area Member States and
Cyprus was based on a joint proposal of the three Troika institutions: the Commission, the European Central Bank
(ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Furthermore, on 25 April 2013 the Council adopted a decision addressed to Cyprus on specific measures to restore
financial stability and sustainable growth. This decision requires Cyprus to rigorously implement a macroeconomic
adjustment programme in order to facilitate the return of the Cypriot economy to the path of sustainable growth and
to fiscal and financial stability.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 233

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004329/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(17 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Αποκατάσταση και θεσμική ενδυνάμωση του κοινωνικού διαλόγου στα κράτη μέλη που αντιμετωπίζουν τις
σοβαρότερες οικονομικές και κοινωνικές απειλές

Ο κοινωνικός διάλογος αποτελεί «στοιχείο κλειδί» του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Μοντέλου και συνιστά βασική προϋπόθεση
για την επιτυχή έκβαση των μεταρρυθμιστικών εγχειρημάτων. Αυτόν τον ισχυρισμό επιβεβαίωσε σε πρόσφατη ομιλία του στο
πλαίσιο της ετήσιας έκθεσης για τις εργασιακές σχέσεις στην Ευρώπη ο Επίτροπος Απασχόλησης και Κοινωνικών Υποθέσεων
Laszlo Andor. Ταυτόχρονα, μεταξύ άλλων, ο Επίτροπος επισήμανε ότι ο κοινωνικός διάλογος βρίσκεται υπό σοβαρή απειλή
στην Ευρώπη, υποστηρίζοντας ότι οι χώρες που διαθέτουν ισχυρό πλέγμα εργασιακών σχέσεων και κοινωνικού διαλόγου
αντιμετωπίζουν λιγότερες ή ηπιότερες οικονομικές και κοινωνικές δυσχέρειες. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, και με δεδομένη τη
συμμετοχή της στο Μεικτό Μηχανισμό Στήριξης των κρατών μελών με σοβαρά δημοσιονομικά προβλήματα, ερωτάται η
Επιτροπή:

—
Σε ποιες χώρες παρατηρείται σημαντική αποδυνάμωση του κοινωνικού διαλόγου;

—
Σκοπεύει να προχωρήσει στην έκδοση σχετικών συστάσεων για τη θωράκιση και ενίσχυση του κοινωνικού διαλόγου
προς τα κράτη μέλη στα οποία θεωρεί ότι αυτός έχει εξασθενήσει;

—
Προτίθεται να αναλάβει συγκεκριμένες πρωτοβουλίες για την ενδυνάμωση του κοινωνικού διαλόγου στα κράτη μέλη
που έχουν υπαχθεί στο Μηχανισμό Στήριξης, μέσα και από αναθεωρήσεις όρων των Μνημονίων Δανεισμού που
υπονομεύουν τη συγκεκριμένη κοινωνική διαδικασία;

—
Ποιες δράσεις προσανατολίζεται να υιοθετήσει για την ενίσχυση του κοινωνικού διαλόγου σε επίπεδο ΕΕ, καθώς η
«κοινωνική συγκατάθεση» στις μεταρρυθμίσεις καθίσταται αναγκαία συνθήκη τόσο για την εφαρμογή τους, όσο και
για την απαραίτητη διαφύλαξη του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Κεκτημένου στο σύνολο της ΕΕ;

—
Εκτιμά ότι στις χώρες που πραγματοποιήθηκαν μεταρρυθμίσεις μονομερώς και χωρίς επαρκή κοινωνικό διάλογο, το
κόστος της δημοσιονομικής κρίσης μοιράστηκε δυσανάλογα στους οικονομικά και εισοδηματικά ασθενέστερους;

**Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(3 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Στον απόηχο της κρίσης, ο κοινωνικός διάλογος βρίσκεται υπό πίεση σε όλη την ΕΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένων πολλών χωρών
όπου εφαρμόζονται τα πλέον αυστηρά προγράμματα δημοσιονομικής εξυγίανσης ( [1] ). Σε ορισμένες χώρες όπου ο κοινωνικός
διάλογος ήταν λιγότερο αποτελεσματικός υπήρξαν προσφυγές στη ΔΟΕ και στο Συμβούλιο της Ευρώπης εναντίον ορισμένων
μέτρων που ελήφθησαν από τις κυβερνήσεις των εν λόγω χωρών.

Το άρθρο 151 της ΣΛΕΕ ( [2] ) ορίζει ότι ο κοινωνικός διάλογος αποτελεί έναν από τους στόχους της ΕΕ και των κρατών μελών.
Στις συστάσεις της, η Επιτροπή τονίζει τακτικά τη σημασία του κοινωνικού διαλόγου, την αυτονομία των κοινωνικών εταίρων
και το σεβασμό της για την υφιστάμενη κατάσταση των χωρών και τις πρακτικές τους. Το κύριο μήνυμα είναι ότι ο κοινωνικός
διάλογος μπορεί να αποτελέσει βασικό εργαλείο για τη διαχείριση των συγκρούσεων και την εύρεση λύσεων σε δύσκολες
καταστάσεις.

Η Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει τον διμερή κοινωνικό διάλογο σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο, τόσο σε διατομεακό όσο και σε τομεακό
επίπεδο. Επιπλέον, λαμβάνει μέτρα για τη μεγαλύτερη συμμετοχή των κοινωνικών εταίρων της ΕΕ στη διακυβέρνηση της ΕΕ
και της ΟΝΕ. Θα περιλαμβάνει προτάσεις για το σκοπό αυτό σε ανακοίνωση σχετικά με την κοινωνική διάσταση της ΟΝΕ.
Ύστερα από πρόσκληση του προέδρου της Επιτροπής, οι ευρωπαίοι κοινωνικοί εταίροι συναντήθηκαν με την Επιτροπή σε
αυτό το πλαίσιο στις 2 Μαΐου 2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Για λεπτομερέστερη ανάλυση βλέπε το έγγραφο εργασίας των υπηρεσιών της Επιτροπής με τίτλο «Εργασιακές Σχέσεις στην Ευρώπη 2012»

SWD(2013)126 τελικό.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Συνθήκη για τη λειτουργία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

( **|**

C 33 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Σε χώρες όπου εφαρμόζεται πρόγραμμα οικονομικής προσαρμογής, η Επιτροπή, ενεργώντας εξ ονόματος των κρατών μελών
της ευρωζώνης, συνέστησε να γίνουν μεταρρυθμίσεις που αφορούν την αγορά εργασίας, σε διαβούλευση με τους
κοινωνικούς εταίρους και σε συγκεκριμένες περιπτώσεις, να καταβληθούν καταρχάς προσπάθειες για επίτευξη τριμερών
συμφωνιών. Επιδίωξε επίσης τα μέτρα πολιτικής να μην πλήττουν τις πλέον ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες, ακόμη και αν είναι
αναπόφευκτες διάφορες προσαρμογές για την αντιμετώπιση των ανισορροπιών στην οικονομία ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Για περισσότερες πληροφορίες σχετικά με τα προγράμματα οικονομικής προσαρμογής, βλέπε το πρόγραμμα, τα έγγραφα και τις εκθέσεις
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/index_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 235

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004329/13**

**to the Commission**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restoration and institutional strengthening of the social dialogue in Member States facing the most serious
economic and social threats

The social dialogue is a key element of the European Social Model, and is the basic precondition for the successful
outcome of reform moves. This was confirmed in a recent speech by the Commissioner for Employment, Social
Affairs and Inclusion, Laszlo Andor, within the framework of the annual report on employment relations in Europe.
At the same time, the Commissioner pointed out that social dialogue is under serious threat in Europe, arguing that
the countries that enjoy a strong network of labour relations and social dialogue are facing fewer or milder economic
and social difficulties. Within this network, and given its participation in the joint support mechanism for Member
States with serious financial problems, will the Commission say:

—
In which countries has a weakening of the social dialogue been observed?

—
If it aims to proceed with issuing relevant recommendations to protect and strengthen social dialogue in
Member States where it believes this social dialogue has been weakened?

—
If it intends to take specific initiatives to strengthen social dialogue in Member States included in the Support
Mechanism, and also through reviewing the terms of the loan memoranda which undermine a specific social
process?

—
Which actions does it favour adopting for strengthening social dialogue at EU level, since social consensus is a
necessary condition for reforms, both for their implementation and for the necessary safeguarding of the
Community _acquis_ throughout the EU?

—
Does it consider that with regards to countries where reforms took place unilaterally and without sufficient
social dialogue, the cost of the financial crisis was borne disproportionately by those weaker in terms of funds
and income?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

In the wake of the crisis, social dialogue has been under strain throughout the EU, including in many of the countries
that implement the most challenging programmes of fiscal consolidation ( [1] ). In some countries where social dialogue
was less effective, some measures taken by the national governments were appealed against ILO and Council of
Europe.

Article 151 TFEU ( [2] ) lays down that social dialogue is one of the objectives of the EU and the Member States. In its
recommendations the Commission regularly stresses the importance of social dialogue, the autonomy of social
partners, and its respect for national circumstances and practices. A key message is that social dialogue can be key to
managing conflict and finding agreed solutions in difficult circumstances.

The Commission supports bipartite social dialogue at European level, at both cross-industry and sectoral level. It is
also taking steps to further involve EU social partners in the governance of the EU and of the EMU. It will include
proposals to this end in a communication on the social dimension of the EMU. On the invitation of the President of
the Commission, the European social partners met with the College in this context on 2 May 2013.

In countries with an economic adjustment programme, the Commission, acting on behalf of the euro area Member
States, has recommended to carry out labour market reforms in consultation with social partners, and in specific
cases by first attempting to reach tripartite agreements. It has also sought that the policy measures spare as much as
possible the most vulnerable, even if adjustments are unavoidable to overcome deep-rooted imbalances in the
economy ( [3] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For a detailed analysis see the Commission’s Staff Working Document ‘Industrial Relations in Europe 2012’ SWD(2013)126 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) For more information on the economic adjustment programmes, see the programme papers and reports

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/index_en.htm

C 33 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004330/13**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Stihler (S&D)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reserved contracts

Persons with disabilities often face complex barriers to finding or keeping work, but with the right support they can
realise their potential in a wide range of jobs.

Since 2004, Article 19 of Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts has granted Member States the right to reserve
participation in tender processes solely to supported businesses and factories. This means that no other provider may
tender. Under Article 19, the threshold for a supported business is that at least 50% of the employees should be
registered as having a disability.

Can the Commission provide information on how Member States have used Article 19 since it entered into force? Is a
national breakdown available on the number and value of reserved contracts issued?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

With the exception of a few Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Portugal and Sweden) all Member States have transposed
the possibility to reserve contracts to sheltered workshops as foreseen in Article 19 of Directive 2004/18/EC into
their national law.

A breakdown by Member State of the number of tenders advertised as reserved contracts (under Article 19 of
Directive 2004/18/EC or the similar provisions of Article 28 of Directive 2004/17/EC and Article 14 of
Directive 2009/81/EC) since 2006 is given in the table below.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 237

|Col1|2006|2007|2008|2009|2010|2011|2012|Total|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Belgium|7|1|16|15|10|11|8|68|
|Bulgaria||11|12|2|3|1|4|33|
|Czech Republic|1|8|2|19|10|15|27|82|
|Denmark|1||1|||2|71|75|
|Germany|8|2|15|15|14|7|14|75|
|Ireland|4|1|1|1|2||1|10|
|Greece|4|2|6|2|16|4|5|39|
|Spain|1|2|35|602|237|12|16|905|
|France|56|82|159|144|205|217|242|1 105|
|Italy|12|13|18|18|37|53|43|194|
|Cyprus|||1|2|1|||4|
|Lithuania|1|1|3|1|13|11|4|34|
|Luxembourg|4|||||||4|
|Hungary|3|1|5|3|3|2|13|30|
|Netherlands|33|18|26|16|18|21|12|144|
|Austria|1|1|2|6|2|1|19|32|
|Poland|6||1|4|11|37|71|130|
|Romania|||3|1|2|1|6|13|
|Slovenia|1|3|3|56|34|30|91|218|
|Slovakia||1|||1|2|2|6|
|Finland|||||||1|1|
|United Kingdom|374|140|10|14|11|14|7|570|
|Total|517|287|319|921|630|441|657|3 772|

These figures are based on the data submitted by contracting authorities to the Publications Office in notices for
publication in the Tenders Electronic Database (TED). The Commission cannot vouch for their reliability. Data for
2004 and 2005 and reliable data on the overall value of these contracts are not available.

It would seem likely from the evidence available that these contracts would amount to several hundred million euro

per year.

C 33 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004332/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(17 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Problematiche relative all'applicazione della direttiva 94/62/CE sugli imballaggi e i rifiuti di imballaggio

Un'associazione italiana che raccoglie i produttori di plastiche tradizionali segnala la scelta, operata dal nostro
legislatore con la Legge 24 marzo 2012, n. 28, di riservare la commerciabilità di «shopper» ai soli prodotti
biodegradabili mediante compostaggio (conformi alla norma armonizzata UNI EN 13432/2002), escludendo ogni
altro possibile procedimento. In materia di recupero d'imballaggi, la direttiva 94/62/CE ha definito forme e
caratteristiche che devono essere rispettate dai prodotti perché possano risultare conformi all'esigenza di rispetto
dell'ambiente e tra queste il compostaggio è solo una tra le possibilità di recupero dei rifiuti da imballaggio.

Tale direttiva, all'articolo 7, nell'imporre agli Stati l'introduzione di sistemi di restituzione e/o raccolta degli imballaggi
usati e dei rifiuti da imballaggio nonché di reimpiego e recupero, stabilisce che questi sistemi debbano essere concepiti
in modo da non ostacolare gli scambi o da creare distorsioni nella concorrenza. All'articolo 18 invece dispone che:
«gli Stati non possono ostacolare l'immissione sul mercato nel loro territorio di imballaggi conformi alle disposizioni
della presente direttiva».

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. è a conoscenza dei fatti sopra esposti?

2. Non ritiene che la disciplina italiana, riservando la commercializzazione degli «shopper» ai soli prodotti
compostabili e ponendo fuori commercio ogni altro tipo di «sacchetto da asporto», pregiudichi gli interessi del
mercato, andando contro il disposto degli articoli 7 e 18 della direttiva 94/62/CE?

3. Come intende intervenire a tutela delle aziende che in Italia lavorano in questo settore e che, per via dell'entrata
in vigore del disposto legislativo italiano, sono, di fatto, poste fuori dal mercato?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(11 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza dei fatti menzionati nell'interrogazione dell'onorevole parlamentare. La legislazione
italiana è oggetto di una procedura di infrazione. Nel quadro di tale procedura, la Commissione sta attualmente
valutando la compatibilità della legislazione italiana con la legislazione e le politiche dell'UE in questo settore, ivi
compresa la direttiva 94/62/CE sugli imballaggi e i rifiuti di imballaggio ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 365 del 31.12.1994.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 239

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004332/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Problems with the application of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste

An Italian association of manufacturers of traditional plastics has highlighted the decision taken by the Italian
legislature, under Law No 28 of 24 March 2012, to restrict the marketing of carrier bags solely to products that
biodegrade when composted (in accordance with harmonised standard UNI EN 13432/2002), ruling out any other
possible procedure. With regard to the recovery of packaging, Directive 94/62/EC laid down forms and
characteristics that products must comply with in order to meet the need to respect the environment; among these,
composting is only one of the possibilities for recovering packaging waste.

In requiring Member States to introduce systems for the return and/or collection of used packaging and packaging
waste and systems for reuse and recovery, Article 7 of the directive states that these systems must be designed so as to
avoid barriers to trade or distortions of competition. Article 18, on the other hand, lays down that: ‘Member States
shall not impede the placing on the market of their territory of packaging which satisfies the provisions of this
directive’.

1. Is the Commission aware of the facts set out above?

2. Does it not consider that, by restricting the marketing of carrier bags to compostable products only, and by
outlawing the sale of any other type of carrier bag, the Italian law is adversely affecting the interests of the market, in
conflict with the provisions of Articles 7 and 18 of Directive 94/62/EC?

3. How does it intend to protect firms in Italy operating in this sector which are, through the entry into force of the
Italian legislation, in practice excluded from the market?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

The Commisison is aware of the facts set out in the question of the Honourable Member. The Italian legislation is
subject of an infringement procedure. In the framework of this procedure, the Commission is currently assessing the
compatibility of the Italian legislation with EU legislation and policy in this area, including Directive 94/62/EC on
packaging and packaging waste ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

C 33 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004333/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Francesco De Angelis (S&D)**

_(17 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Futuro della siderurgia e tutela dell'occupazione

Con riferimento alla risposta all'interrogazione del 15 marzo 2012 relativa alla situazione dello stabilimento
siderurgico _ILVA_ di Patrica (FR), può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. quali azioni urgenti intende adottare per far fronte ai forti squilibri nella preparazione e gestione delle
ristrutturazioni aziendali?

2. Quali misure immediate prevede di adottare al fine di assicurare che le tutele previste nell'ambito degli
ammortizzatori sociali siano estese ai giovani lavoratori, quali sono gli operatori dell' _ILVA_ di Patrica e di molte
altre realtà industriali dell'area, soggette a drastici processi di ristrutturazione?

3. Quali misure intende adottare per salvaguardare migliaia di posti di lavoro oggi in pericolo nell'UE, visto che,
dopo l'estinzione del trattato Ceca, rientra tra i compiti della Commissione anche il trattamento delle
conseguenze economiche e sociali dell'evoluzione dell'industria siderurgica?

4. Come intende procedere in relazione alle numerose e gravi crisi industriali (tra gli altri, _Vdc Technologies, Gruppo_
_Siderpali e Marangoni_ ad Anagni _, Sistema Compositi_ di Paliano e _Cogeme_ di Patrica) che, nell'area del Basso Lazio,
stanno interessando uno dei siti produttivi più importanti del Paese?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(11 giugno 2013)_

1. La Commissione ha svolto un'opera notevole nel campo dell'anticipazione dei processi di ristrutturazione
aziendale e della loro gestione socialmente responsabile. In seguito alla pubblicazione del suo Libro verde nel gennaio
2012 ( [1] ) e all'adozione, in data 15 gennaio 2013, da parte del Parlamento europeo della relazione Cercas ( [2] ), la
Commissione intende presentare una comunicazione relativa alla definizione di un quadro di qualità in questo
campo: costituirà il quadro degli atti normativi e delle iniziative dell'UE in corso e illustrerà le migliori pratiche che
tutte le parti interessate dovranno applicare.

2. Per quanto la Commissione solleciti tutte le parti interessate a fare in modo che tutti i lavoratori colpiti da
processi di ristrutturazione siano sostenuti nei loro sforzi volti a un rapido reinserimento nel mercato del lavoro, la
copertura dei regimi di protezione sociale è materia di competenza delle autorità nazionali.

Quanto ai punti 3 e 4, la Commissione è a conoscenza delle gravi situazioni di crisi industriale che interessano molte
regioni d'Europa, comprese il Lazio, ed ovviamente riconosce l'importanza strategica che l'industria siderurgica
riveste per l'UE in termini di competitività e di posti di lavoro. È per questo motivo che nel luglio del 2012 la
Commissione ha convocato una tavola rotonda di alto livello sul futuro dell'industria siderurgica europea che nel
febbraio 2013 ha adottato una serie di raccomandazioni politiche.

È sulla base di tali raccomandazioni che la Commissione sta elaborando un piano d'azione per la competitività
dell'industria siderurgica dell'UE, la cui adozione è prevista nel mese di giugno 2013: verrà introdotta una strategia di
intervento per tutta l'UE e verrà stabilita una serie di azioni per affrontare le sfide attuali e future, nella prospettiva di
mantenere in Europa un settore siderurgico dinamico, competitivo e sostenibile.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) V. le risposte e una sintesi accessibili dal link http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A7-0390/2012 / P7_TA-PROV(2013)0005.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 241

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004333/13**

**to the Commission**
**Francesco De Angelis (S&D)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Future of the steel industry and protection of jobs

With reference to the answer to the question of 15 March 2012 on the situation of the ILVA steel works in Patrica
(province of Frosinone), can the Commission answer the following:

1. What urgent action does it intend to take to address the significant imbalances in the preparation and
management of corporate restructuring?

2. What immediate steps does it intend to take to ensure that the protection provided for by social safety nets is
extended to the young workers who constitute the workforce of ILVA in Patrica and many other industrial
facilities in the area which are undergoing drastic restructuring?

3. Given that, following the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, the Commission also has the duty to address the economic
and social consequences of developments in the steel industry, what steps does it intend to take to safeguard the
thousands of jobs now under threat in the EU?

4. What action does it intend to take in relation to the countless severe industrial crises (including at Vdc
Technologies, Gruppo Siderpali and Marangoni in Anagni, Sistema Compositi in Paliano and Cogeme in
Patrica) which are affecting the lower Lazio area, one of Italy’s most important manufacturing sites?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

1. The Commission carried out important work in the field of anticipation and socially responsible management
of corporate restructuring. Following its January 2012 Green Paper ( [1] ) and the adoption by the European Parliament
on 15 January 2013 of the Cercas report ( [2] ), the Commission will propose a communication establishing a Quality
Framework in this field that will frame the current EU legislation and initiatives and will present the best practices to
be implemented by all stakeholders.

2. Although the Commission urges all the concerned stakeholders to ensure that every worker affected by
restructuring is supported in his efforts to re-enter quickly the labour market, coverage of social protection systems is
under the responsibility of national authorities.

3 and 4. The Commission is aware of the severe industrial crises in many parts of Europe including Lazio. The
Commission is clearly committed to the strategic importance of the steel industry for the EU in terms of
competitiveness and jobs. This is why it convened in July 2012 a High-Level Roundtable on the future of the
European steel industry that adopted in February 2013 a set of policy recommendations.

Following the recommendations of the Roundtable, the Commission is preparing an Action Plan for the
competitiveness of the EU steel industry, to be adopted in June 2013, that will set up an EU-wide policy strategy and a
number of actions that will meet the current and future challenges with a view to keeping a dynamic, competitive and
sustainable steel sector in Europe.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See the replies and a summary under http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A7-0390/2012 / P7_TA-PROV(2013)0005.

C 33 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004334/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL)**

_(17. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Finanzmittel für „Amazon“

Hat die Kommission Kenntnis darüber, ob und in welcher Höhe Finanzmittel der Europäischen Union von den
Mitgliedstaaten Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien und Italien eingesetzt wurden, um dadurch Ansiedlungen
des US-Versandhändlers „Amazon“ in diesen Ländern zu unterstützen?

Was ist der Kommission über damit verbundene Auflagen zur Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen bzw. zur Standort‐ und
Arbeitsplatzgarantie bekannt?

**Antwort von Herrn Hahn im Namen der Kommission**

_(14. Juni 2013)_

Den Informationen der betreffenden Mitgliedstaaten zufolge hat Amazon keine Unterstützung im Rahmen der
Kohäsionspolitik erhalten.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 243

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004334/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Financial resources for ‘Amazon’

Does the Commission know whether and how much in the way of European Union financial resources have been
used by the Member States Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Italy to support the establishment of the US
mail order company ‘Amazon’ in these countries?

What does the Commission know about any associated conditions concerning the creation of jobs or concerning a
location and jobs guarantee?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

Based on information received from the Member States concerned, no support has been provided to Amazon from
cohesion policy.

C 33 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004335/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marian Harkin (ALDE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Airline fuel surcharges

The Commission is asked to give its legal opinion on the following situation in regard to airline fuel surcharges:

If a passenger cancels his/her flight, the airline refuses to refund the surcharge, even though the cancelled seat is often
resold and the fuel surcharge is charged again.

The majority of airlines, including British Airways, include a fuel surcharge in the original price of a ticket. Other
airlines, such as Aer Lingus, add on a fuel surcharge during the booking process. The variable fuel surcharge, which
may rise, fall or be removed in line with changes in fuels prices, results in fluctuating costs for the transport industry.

Could the Commission indicate the relevant legislation which deals with fuel surcharge costs on airlines?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the practice of fuel surcharges applied by several airlines as part of the final price of air
ticket and that its level varies.

Air carrier-imposed surcharges under IATA codes YR and YQ (fees for fuel and/or insurance) may be added to the
price of the ticket and those are usually non-refundable, depending on the type of the ticket. Regulation (EC)
No 1008/2008 ( [1] ) contains price transparency provisions which clearly indicates in its Article 23(1) that airlines have
the right to collect fuel surcharge. They shall communicate the amount of fuel surcharge in a clear, transparent and
unambiguous way at the start of and throughout any booking process. Based on the regulation and in line with IATA
guidelines and agreements, airlines are free to set air fares for their services as long as the rules of the regulation are
respected and thus, application of YR and YQ surcharges are not unlawful. Therefore, depending on the airline
marketing policy to qualify for a refund of the fee, airlines may require that the associated ticket purchased was a
refundable ticket.

Directive No 2005/29/EC ( [2] ) contains provisions whether a commercial practice applied by commercial partners shall
be considered unfair.

Since the Member States are in charge of the enforcement of these provisions, under the control of the Commission as
guardian of the Treaty, it is therefore up to the Member States to determine whether the fuel surcharge is displayed
according to the regulation and if its level is misleading for passengers and take appropriate action may it be found
unlawful.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air

services in the Community, OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3‐20.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial

practices in the internal market, OJ L 149, 11.06.2005, p.22-39.

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 245

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004336/13**

**to the Commission**
**Arlene McCarthy (S&D)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of MIFID I

The MIFID I legislation is designed, amongst other objectives, to introduce rules governing conflicts of interest
relating to the sale of investment products. In June 2012 the UK regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA),
found that 90% of interest rate swap agreements (IRSA) sold to SMEs had been mis-sold. However, it has concluded
that loans (such as tailored business loans) with interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) embedded, as opposed to sold
separately, are not covered by MIFID I legislation.

Does the Commission consider the mis-selling of loans in which IRHPs have been embedded and not sold separately
to be covered by the conflict-of-interest rules introduced in the MIFID I legislation? If so, does it consider the UK to
have fully implemented MIFID I?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

Directive 2004/39/EC ( [1] ) (MiFID) applies to the provision of investment services and activities in relation to financial
instruments. The list of financial instruments covered under MiFID is set up in Annex I, Section C of MiFID. Loans are
not financial instruments under MiFID. A mechanism to calculate interests that uses an embedded hedging product
does not change the nature of the loan and therefore does not turn the loan into a financial instrument.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1‐44.

C 33 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004337/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Propuneri legislative privind etichetarea alimentelor și calendarul acestora

În urma testelor ADN realizate după „scandalul” cărnii de cal, Comisia a anunțat că mai puțin de 5 % dintre produsele
vândute drept carne de vită în Uniunea Europeană conțin carne de cal — așadar, un produs din 20 a fost etichetat
greșit, cu intenție de fraudă. De asemenea, testele realizate în mod aleatoriu au arătat că în 0,5 % dintre carcasele de cal
a fost descoperită fenilbutazonă.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze:

1. dacă are intenția de a propune noi măsuri de natură legislativă în privința etichetării alimentelor;

2. dacă aceste eventuale propuneri ar putea include etichetarea obligatorie a produselor prelucrate;

3. care va fi calendarul acestor eventuale propuneri;

4. dacă testele ADN efectuate până în prezent ar putea face obiectul unei propuneri legislative în vederea
generalizării și permanentizării acestora.

**Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei**

_(24 mai 2013)_

1-3. Indicarea obligatorie pe etichetă a originii nu este un instrument de prevenire a fraudelor din partea operatorilor
răuvoitori. Prezentul scandal s-ar fi putut produce chiar dacă indicarea pe etichetă a originii ar fi fost obligatorie
pentru produsele alimentare în cauză. Practicile de natură să inducă în eroare pot fi eliminate prin punerea în aplicare
în mod corespunzător a legislației UE, în principal prin desfășurarea unor controale oficiale periodice de către
autoritățile naționale competente, pe baza unei analize adecvate a riscurilor, precum și prin impunerea de sancțiuni
disuasive și eficace, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 882/2004 privind controalele oficiale ( [1] ).

Propunerea Comisiei privind controalele oficiale, adoptată la data de 6 mai, vizează, de asemenea, consolidarea
suplimentară a sistemului existent, inclusiv a dispozițiilor referitoare la sancțiuni.

În ceea ce privește legislația existentă în materie de etichetare, măsurile de revizuire și de monitorizare prevăzute de
aceasta, Comisia îl invită pe distinsul deputat să consulte răspunsurile sale la întrebările scrise E-2408/2013 și
E-2548/2013. ( [2)]

4. Recomandarea 2013/99 a instituit un „plan de control coordonat”, adică un plan al controalelor efectuate
simultan și în aceleași condiții în toate statele membre, ca răspuns la necesitatea de a soluționa problema, care pare a
se manifesta pe scară largă, a prezenței cărnii de cabaline nedeclarate în produsele din carne de bovine. Punerea în
aplicare a respectivului plan de control coordonat a fost finalizată, iar rapoartele relevante au fost publicate. Aceasta
nu înseamnă că acum vor fi suspendate controalele privind prezența ADN‐ului de cal în alte produse, întrucât statele
membre includ, în mod progresiv, testele ADN în planurile de control naționale„normale”, prin care se asigură
respectarea tuturor normelor lanțului agroalimentar (inclusiv cerințele de etichetare) pe teritoriul lor. În plus, într‐o
etapă ulterioară pot fi necesare măsuri și teste coordonate suplimentare.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 882/2004 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 29 aprilie 2004 privind controalele oficiale efectuate pentru a

asigura verificarea conformității cu legislația privind hrana pentru animale și produsele alimentare și cu normele de sănătate animală și de
bunăstare a animalelor (JO L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/ro/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 247

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004337/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Legislative proposals on food labelling and the relevant timetable

As a result of the DNA tests carried out after the horsemeat ‘scandal’, the Commission announced that less than 5% of
the products sold as beef in the European Union contained horsemeat. This means that one product in 20 was
wrongly labelled with fraudulent intent. In addition, the tests carried out randomly highlighted that phenylbutazone
was discovered in 0.5% of the horse carcasses.

Can the Commission specify the following:

1. Does it intend to propose new legislative measures on food labelling?

2. Could prospective proposals include compulsory labelling for processed products?

3. What will the timetable be for these prospective proposals?

4. Could the DNA tests carried out so far be included in a legislative proposal, with the aim of making them a
general, permanent feature?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 May 2013)_

1-3. Mandatory origin labelling is not a tool to prevent fraud by malicious operators. The present scandal could have
occurred even if origin labelling was mandatory for the foods in question. Deceptive practices can be eliminated by
appropriate enforcement of EU legislation mainly by means of regular official controls by national competent
authorities based on appropriate risk analysis and the imposition of effective dissuasive sanctions, in accordance with
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls ( [1] ).

The Commission proposal on official controls, adopted on the 6 May, is also aiming at further strengthening the
existing system, including the provisions on sanctions.

As regards the existing labelling legislation, its review and the follow-up actions, the Commission would refer the
Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E‐2408/2013 and E-2548/2013 ( [2] ).

4. Recommendation 2013/99 established a ‘coordinated control plan’, that is a plan of controls carried out
simultaneously and with the same modalities in all Member States as a response to the need to tackle the seemingly
widespread issue of the presence of undeclared horse meat in beef products. The implementation of that coordinated
control plan has been finalised and reports from it published. This does not mean that controls on the undeclared
presence of horse DNA in other products will now be discontinued, as Member States are progressively including
DNA tests in their ‘normal’ national control plans, through which they ensure that all agri-food chain rules (including
labelling requirements) are complied with across their territory. Moreover, further coordinated action and tests may
be called for at a later stage.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the

verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

C 33 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004338/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Agenda de discuții cu Turcia cu privire la condițiile de export de animale vii

România a solicitat în mod repetat, în cadrul dialogului bilateral cu Turcia, deblocarea exporturilor de animale vii din
speciile ovine și bovine, precum și ridicarea măsurii de interzicere a tranzitului rutier cu carne românească de ovine și
bovine destinată țărilor arabe.

Această solicitare nu a fost până în prezent primită favorabil.

În iunie 2012, am adresat o întrebare cu aceeași temă Comisiei, care a arătat că „este pe deplin conștientă de
dificultățile cu care se confruntă exportatorii din UE și acest subiect se află în prezent pe agenda de discuții cu Turcia.
Comisia consideră că unele condiții de import impuse în prezent de Turcia sunt nejustificate și dorește obținerea unor
condiții armonizate pentru toate statele membre ale UE care doresc să exporte în Turcia”.

Comisia este rugată să aducă precizări cu privire la evoluția în cursul anului trecut și a primelor luni ale acestui an a
„agendei de discuții” cu Turcia cu privire la această problemă. De asemenea, Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă va
aborda acest subiect în cadrul comitetului vamal și în comisia de aderare.

**Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei**

_(11 iunie 2013)_

Cu toate că Turcia a instituit condiții veterinare de export pentru statele membre ale UE, exporturile de bovine vii din
statele membre ale UE au scăzut dramatic începând din decembrie 2012, ca urmare a faptului că Ministerul
Economiei a încetat să transmită documentele de import necesare. Exporturile de ovine vii au scăzut de asemenea în
mod semnificativ față de anul trecut.

Comisia și-a exprimat preocupările în acest sens în mai multe rânduri, cel mai recent în cursul reuniunii Comitetului
de asociere din aprilie 2013. Condițiile veterinare de export au fost de asemenea discutate în cadrul reuniunilor
tehnice din noiembrie 2012 și ianuarie 2013. Comisia a propus Turciei o nouă reuniune tehnică în iunie 2013, în
vederea continuării discuției cu privire la anumite condiții care par inutile sau nejustificate.

Comisia continuă să depună eforturi pentru a asigura continuarea exporturilor din UE către Turcia. Discuțiile pe
această temă sunt însă foarte dificile. După cum s-a menționat în răspunsul la întrebarea scrisă E-004402/2012 ( [1] ),
Turcia permite tranzitul pe teritoriul său numai pentru animalele și produsele de origine animală care respectă
condițiile sale de import. Din păcate, deoarece pentru România nu s-a prezentat niciun dosar la OIE privind
clasificarea ESB, Turcia va continua să aplice regula sa care interzice tranzitul de bovine vii prin România.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/ro/parliamentary-questions.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 249

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004338/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Agenda for discussions with Turkey regarding the export conditions for live animals

As part of its bilateral dialogue with Turkey, Romania has repeatedly requested the removal of the ban on exporting
live sheep and cattle, as well as the lifting of the measure banning the transit by road of Romanian sheepmeat and
beef, travelling to Arab countries.

This request has not received a positive response so far.

In June 2012 I submitted a question on the same subject to the Commission, which indicated that it ‘is fully aware of
the difficulties encountered by EU exporters and discussions with Turkey are ongoing on this issue. The Commission
considers that some current Turkish import conditions are not justified and aims to obtain harmonised conditions for
all EU Member States wishing to export to Turkey’.

Can the Commission give details about the progress made during last year and the initial months of this year on the
‘agenda for discussions’ with Turkey on this issue? Can the Commission also clarify whether it will raise this subject as
part of the Customs Committee and in the accession committee?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

Although Turkey has established veterinary export conditions for EU Member States, exports of live cattle from EU
Member States have dramatically dropped since December 2012 as the Ministry for Economy stopped delivering the
necessary import documents. Exports of live sheep are also significantly decreasing compared to last year.

The Commission has raised its concerns at several occasions and most recently during the Association Committee
meeting in April 2013. Veterinary export conditions were also discussed during technical meetings in
November 2012 and January 2013. The Commission has proposed a new technical meeting in June 2013 to Turkey
with a view to further discussion of certain conditions that seem unnecessary or unjustified.

The Commission persists in its efforts to ensure the continuation of EU exports to Turkey. However these discussions
are very difficult. As mentioned in the reply to Written Question E‐004402/2012 ( [1] ), Turkey only allows transit
through its territory of animals and animal products that comply with its import conditions. Unfortunately, since no
Romanian file was presented to the OIE for BSE classification, Turkey will continue to apply its rule prohibiting the
transit of live cattle through Romania.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004339/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Ucraina interzice importurile de carne din anumite țări europene

Autoritățile din Ucraina au anunțat interdicția de import a produselor de carne de vită și rumegătoare mici din
Regatul Unit, Țările de Jos, Germania, Franța, Italia, Luxemburg, Austria, Spania și Belgia, motivul fiind descoperirea
în aceste state a unor vite afectate de o boală cauzată de virusul Schmallenberg. Interdicția urmează să se aplice, de
asemenea, în cazul materialului genetic bovin.

În contextul unor interdicții tot mai frecvente cu privire la importuri impuse de Ucraina, Comisia este rugată să își
exprime punctul de vedere privind recenta decizie și să precizeze dacă consideră că aceste interdicții sunt întemeiate.

**Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei**

_(22 mai 2013)_

Comisia a menținut contacte strânse cu autoritățile competente din Ucraina de la introducerea măsurilor restrictive
referitoare la virusul Schmallenberg pentru importurile de animale vii și de material genetic (spermă și embrioni) din
UE.

Cu numeroase ocazii, Comisia a reiterat afirmația că orice restricție impusă exporturilor din UE, ca urmare a prezenței
virusului Schmallenberg, este inacceptabilă în temeiul Acordului privind aplicarea măsurilor sanitare și fitosanitare,
cu excepția cazului în care țara care a impus o astfel de măsură poate demonstra că este indemnă de virus și de alte
virusuri din serogrupul „Simbu” și că aplică o abordare nediscriminatorie coerentă față de alți parteneri comerciali.

Comisia a solicitat autorităților competente din Ucraina să elimine măsurile stricte în vigoare și să urmeze
recomandările din fișa tehnică descriptivă a Organizației Mondiale pentru Sănătatea Animalelor (OIE) cu privire la
virusul Schmallenberg.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 251

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004339/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ukraine bans meat imports from certain European countries

The Ukrainian authorities have announced a ban on importing meat products from cattle and small ruminants from
the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Spain and Belgium, as a result of
some cattle in these states being found to be affected by a disease caused by the Schmallenberg virus. This ban is also
to apply to genetic material from cattle.

In light of the increasingly frequent import bans imposed by Ukraine, can the Commission give its view on the recent
decision and state whether it regards these bans as being justified?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

The Commission has been in close contact with the Ukrainian competent authorities since the restrictive measures
related to Schmallenberg virus were introduced for imported live animals and genetic material (semen and embryos)
from the EU.

On numerous occasions the Commission reiterated that any restriction imposed on EU exports, as a result of the
occurrence of the Schmallenberg virus, is unacceptable under the Sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, unless the
country which imposed such a measure can demonstrate that it is free from the virus and the other viruses of the
‘Simbu’ serogroup and that it applies a consistent non-discriminatory approach vis-à-vis other trading partners.

The Commission asked the Ukrainian competent authorities to lift the rigorous measures in place and to follow the
World Organisation for Animal health (OIE) technical factsheet recommendations for the Schmallenberg virus.

C 33 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004340/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Condiționarea ajutorului pe cap de animal în România

În România, crescătorii de animale (ovine, bovine, caprine) care vor să beneficieze de subvenția pe cap de animal
trebuie să depună o declarație pe propria răspundere că nu au datorii către statul român. În anii 2009-2010, în urma
unor controale, a rezultat că unii fermieri aveau datorii la bugetul de stat, iar declarațiile date de aceștia nu
corespundeau adevărului.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă subvenția agricolă poate sau nu să fie condiționată de existența unor datorii la
bugetul de stat.

**Răspuns dat de dl. Cioloș în numele Comisiei**

_(12 iunie 2013)_

În România, în 2009, ajutorul pentru sectorul creșterii animalelor a fost disponibil numai sub formă de plăți directe
naționale complementare, așa cum a fost autorizat de Comisie, iar începând din anul 2010 acesta a fost oferit și sub
formă de ajutor specific în conformitate cu articolul 68 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 73/2009 ( [1] ). Comisia nu a fost
notificată cu privire la o eventuală condiție referitoare la absența de datorii restante la bugetul de stat, nici în cadrul
plăților directe naționale complementare, nici în cadrul ajutorului specific. În conformitate cu hotărârea Curții de
Justiție a Uniunii Europene în cauza C-115/10, emisă la 9 iunie 2011 ( [2] ), legislația UE interzice impunerea unei
condiții pentru acordarea plăților directe naționale complementare care nu a fost autorizată de Comisie.

Cu toate acestea, statele membre au posibilitatea ca, în condițiile specifice stabilite de Curtea de Justiție a Uniunii
Europene ( [3] ) să compenseze sumele care le sunt datorate și neachitate cu plățile agricole. Principiile stabilite în această
hotărâre ar trebui să fie, de asemenea, luate în considerare atunci când se face compensarea plăților directe naționale
complementare.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 30, 31.1.2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Cauza C-115/10 Bábolna.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cauza C-132/95 Bent Jensen/ Korn— og Foderstofkompagniet A/S.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 253

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004340/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Placing conditions on livestock aid in Romania

In Romania, livestock farmers (with sheep, cattle, goats) who will be eligible for livestock aid need to submit a
declaration at their own liability, confirming that they have no debts outstanding to the Romanian State. Some checks
carried out in the period 2009‐2010 revealed that some farmers did have debts outstanding to the state budget, and
that the statements they submitted were untruthful.

Can the Commission clarify whether or not granting agricultural subsidies can be conditional upon having debts
outstanding to the state budget?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

Aid to the livestock sector in Romania was in 2009 only available as complementary national direct payments
(CNDPs) as authorised by the Commission and from 2010 also as specific support according to Article 68 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 ( [1] ). The Commission was not notified of any condition related to the absence of
outstanding debts to the state budget neither in the framework of the CNDPs nor in the context of the specific
support. According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-115/10 delivered on
9 June 2011 ( [2] ), EC law prohibits the imposition of a condition for granting CNDPs that has not been authorised by
the Commission.

However, Member States have the possibility under the specific conditions set out by the Court of Justice of the
European Union ( [3] ) to set-off agricultural payments against outstanding debts to the Member State. The principles laid
down in this judgment should also be taken into account when setting-off CNDPs.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 30, 31.1.2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Case C-115/10 Bábolna.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Case C-132/95 Bent Jensen and Korn‐ og Foderstofkompagniet A/S.

C 33 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004341/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Stadiul analizei solicitării României cu privire la aplicarea unei scheme temporare de ajutor de stat

Potrivit autorităților române, aplicarea schemei temporare de ajutor de stat prin subvenționarea ratei accizei pentru
motorina utilizată în agricultură (21 de euro/1 000 litri și în 2013 și 2014, în limitele prevăzute pentru fiecare sector)
nu este posibilă pentru că se așteaptă încă aprobarea acestei propuneri de către Comisia Europeană.

Comisia este rugată să informeze Parlamentul când a fost înaintată solicitarea Guvernului României și care este stadiul
analizei acestei solicitări. De asemenea, Comisia este rugată să precizeze ce alte state UE au solicitat aprobarea unor
ajutoare similare și care este valoarea acestora.

**Răspuns dat de dl Cioloş în numele Comisiei**

_(6 iunie 2013)_

În conformitate cu orientările comunitare privind ajutoarele de stat în sectorul agricol și forestier pentru perioada
2007-2013 ( [1] ), ajutorul pentru o reducere a accizelor poate fi declarat compatibil cu Tratatul privind funcționarea
Uniunii Europene. Rata redusă a accizei poate fi aplicată pentru carburanții utilizați în producția primară de produse
agricole fără diferențieri în funcție de activitatea agricolă sau subsector.

În temeiul unei scheme aprobate anterior, autoritățile române au acordat ajutor printr-o rată redusă a accizei
(21 de euro/1 000 litri) până la 31 decembrie 2012. După expirarea acestei scheme, autoritățile române au notificat
Comisiei o nouă schemă de ajutor de stat la data de 12 martie 2013. Acesta se află în prezent în curs de examinare în
temeiul normelor relevante privind ajutorul de stat care prevăd o perioadă de două luni pentru o decizie în cazul unei
notificări complete.

Alte state membre (de exemplu, SA.35018 — Polonia, SA.33107 — Letonia, SA.32982 — Bulgaria) au introdus, de
asemenea, scheme similare pentru sectorul agricol ( [2] ). Bugetul acestor măsuri este calculat ca venituri nepercepute de
stat prin aplicarea unei rate de impozitare redusă.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO C 319, 27.12.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Textul deciziei în versiunea sau versiunile lingvistice autentice, din care au fost eliminate toate informațiile confidențiale, este disponibil pe site-ul:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 255

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004341/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Stage of examination of Romania's application for implementing a temporary state aid scheme

According to the Romanian authorities, the temporary state aid scheme based on subsidising the rate of duty on
diesel used in agriculture (EUR 21/1 000 litres in both 2013 and 2014, within the limits stipulated for each sector)
cannot be implemented because approval is still pending for this proposal from the Commission.

Can the Commission tell Parliament when the Romanian Government submitted the application and what stage the
examination of this application is at? Can the Commission also state which other EU Member States have requested
approval of similar aid and what its value is?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

Under the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the agricultural and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 ( [1] ), aid for an
excise duty reduction can be declared compatible with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The
reduced rate of the excise duty can be applied for fuel used in the primary production of agricultural products with no
differentiation according to the agricultural activity or subsector.

Under a previously approved scheme, the Romanian authorities granted aid as a reduced excise duty (EUR 21/1 000
litres) until 31 December 2012. After the expiry of this scheme, the Romanian authorities have notified to the
Commission a new state aid scheme on 12 March 2013. This is now under examination under the relevant state aid
rules which forsee a two month period for a decision in case of a complete notification.

Other Member States (e.g. SA.35018 — Poland, SA.33107 — Latvia, SA.32982 — Bulgaria) also introduced similar
schemes for the agricultural sector. ( [2] ) The budget of these measures is calculated as a revenue forgone for the state by
applying the reduced tax.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ C 319, 27.12.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

C 33 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys P-004342/13**

**komissiolle**
**Sampo Terho (EFD)**
_(17. huhtikuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Palvelusopimusasetuksen yleisen säännön soveltaminen jäsenmaassa

Palvelusopimusasetuksen (Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 1370/2007) hyväksymisvaiheessa
Suomen eduskunta linjasi, että subventoitujen seutu‐ ja kaupunkilippujen asia ratkaistaan asetuksen voimaan tullessa
asetuksen yleisellä säännöllä. Suomen joukkoliikennelain perusteella yleinen sääntö on annettava valtioneuvoston
asetuksella. Liikenne‐ ja viestintäministeriö on ilmoittanut, että Suomessa ei sovelleta asetuksen yleistä sääntöä.

Onko liikenne‐ ja viestintäministeriöllä palvelusopimusasetukseen perustuva oikeus rajoittaa toimivaltaisten
viranomaisten oikeutta käyttää asetuksen yleistä sääntöä ja onko Suomen joukkoliikennelaki mahdollisesti
ristiriidassa palvelusopimusasetuksen kanssa, kun joukkoliikenteen toimivaltaiset viranomaiset eivät saa Suomessa
itsenäisesti päättää yleisen säännön käytöstä?

**Siim Kallasin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(14. toukokuuta 2013)_

Asetuksen (EY) N:o 1370/2007 3 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaisesti korvausten maksaminen ja/tai yksinoikeuden
myöntäminen julkisen palvelun velvoitteiden täyttämiseksi edellyttää, että toimivaltainen viranomainen on tehnyt
julkisen liikenteen harjoittajan kanssa julkista palveluhankintaa koskevan sopimuksen. Saman asetuksen 3 artiklan
2 kohdassa sallitaan poikkeus tähän periaatteeseen: julkisen palvelun velvoitteista, joiden tarkoituksena on vahvistaa
enimmäishinnat, voidaan myös antaa yleisiä sääntöjä. Asetuksessa (EY) N:o 1370/2007 ei täsmennetä, millä
hallinnollisella tasolla tällaisia yleisiä sääntöjä olisi vahvistettava. Näin ollen jäsenvaltiot päättävät siitä itse. Yleisistä
säännöistä riippumatta toimivaltaisilla viranomaisilla on 3 artiklan 2 kohdan mukaan oikeus sisällyttää julkisia
palveluhankintoja koskeviin sopimuksiin julkisen palvelun velvoitteita, joilla vahvistetaan enimmäishintoja.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 257

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004342/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sampo Terho (EFD)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regulation on public passenger transport services

When the regulation on public passenger transport services by rail and by road (Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the
European Parliament and of the Council) was being adopted, the Finnish Parliament took the position that, once the
regulation came into force, the issue of subsidised regional and urban tickets should be resolved by means of a general
rule as provided for in the regulation. Pursuant to Finland’s Public Transport Law, a general rule must be adopted by
Government Decree. The Ministry of Transport and Communications has announced that no general rule as referred
to in the regulation is to be applied in Finland.

Does the Ministry of Transport and Communications have the right, under the regulation on public passenger
transport services, to limit the power of the competent authorities to introduce a general rule under the regulation,
and might Finland’s Public Transport Law breach the regulation on public passenger transport services if the
competent public transport authorities in Finland are not permitted to decide independently to introduce a general
rule?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation 1370/2007 payment of compensation and/or the granting of an exclusive right
for the discharge of public service obligations requires the award of a public service contract by a competent authority
to a public transport operator. Article 3(2) of that regulation allows for a derogation from this principle saying that
public service obligations which aim at establishing maximum tariffs may also be the subject of general rules.
Regulation 1370/2007 does not specify at what administrative level such general rules should be established. This is
therefore a matter for Member States to decide upon. Independently of the question of general rules, Article 3(2)
grants competent authorities the right to integrate public service obligations establishing maximum tariffs into public
service contracts.

C 33 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004343/13**

**to the Commission**
**Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE) and Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The control of bovine tuberculosis in the United Kingdom — follow up on Written Question E-010251/2012

In light of Commissioner Borg’s response to Written Question E-010251/2012, which specified that the EU is
providing substantial technical and financial support to the United Kingdom’s bovine tuberculosis (BTB) eradication
programme (EUR 31 200 000 for the 2012 programme and EUR 31 800 000 for the 2013 programme), could the
Commission provide a breakdown of what this money has been spent on or what it will be spent on in the future?

In particular, could the Commission also indicate whether

1. any support, financial or otherwise, has or will be provided by the EU to assist the United Kingdom’s pilot
badger culls scheduled to take place this year;

2. any support, financial or otherwise, has or will be provided by the EU to assist the United Kingdom in
developing an oral BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) vaccine for badgers or improving the use of the injectable BCG
vaccine, in order to reduce the transmission of TB from badgers to cattle?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission provided financial support for the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The measures co-funded by the Union are only for the costs (with ceilings) of carrying out tuberculin and laboratory
tests and the compensation to owners for the value of their animal slaughtered, which are also the costs for which the
co-funding request was made.

The eligible amounts for the years 2010 and 2011 have already been paid, respectively EUR 27 000 000 and
EUR 26 500 000. For these 2 years, the Union co-funded the costs of 16 776 807 tuberculin tests, 77 808 gamma
interferon tests and 79 681 slaughtered animals (usually cleared for the food chain after veterinary certification).

The Commission received the claim for the year 2012 (maximum EU co-funding of EUR 31 200 000) at the end of
April and have not been paid yet. The claim for the year 2013 (maximum EU co-funding of EUR 31 800 000) will be
received at the end of April 2014.

For the year 2014 a request for co-funding was submitted at the end of April and is still under evaluation.

No support is currently foreseen in order to assist the UK's pilot badger culls scheduled to take place this year.

In the period of 1.10.2008 to 30.6.2012, the EU funded a project on ‘strategies for the eradication of bovine
tuberculosis’ (acronym: TB-STEP ( [1] )), with an EU contribution of EUR 2.89 million, which included activities on the
oral BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) vaccine for badgers.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.vigilanciasanitaria.es/tb-step/index.php

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 259

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004344/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**
_(17 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Κοινός μηχανισμός εγγύησης των καταθέσεων στην Ευρωζώνη

Το κυπριακό bail in (διάσωση εκ των έσω) των κυπριακών τραπεζών, αναδεικνύει την ανάγκη για μια ισχυρή τραπεζική ένωση.
Η ενιαία αγορά της Ευρωζώνης, όμως, παραμένει ελλιπής χωρίς τη δημιουργία ενός κοινού, μηχανισμού εγγύησης των
καταθέσεων της Ευρωζώνης.

Σκοπεύει η Επιτροπή να συμπεριλάβει ένα κοινό σύστημα εγγύησης των καταθέσεων στην επικείμενη οδηγία σχετικά με το
Πλαίσιο για την Ανάκαμψη και την Εξυγίανση των Πιστωτικών Ιδρυμάτων και Επιχειρήσεων Επενδύσεων, που προβλέπεται
για τον Ιούνιο;

**Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(4 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η προσεχής οδηγία για την ανάκαμψη και την εξυγίανση των τραπεζών (BRR) που βρίσκεται σήμερα στο στάδιο της έγκρισης
από το Συμβούλιο και το Κοινοβούλιο, θα διασαφηνίσει τους κανόνες που εφαρμόζονται για την επίλυση των
προβληματικών τραπεζών. Η δυνατότητα δημιουργίας πανευρωπαϊκού συστήματος εγγύησης των καταθέσεων δεν εξετάζεται
στο πλαίσιο αυτών των διαπραγματεύσεων στην εν λόγω πρόταση οδηγίας. Τα συστήματα εγγύησης των καταθέσεων (ΣΕΚ)
θα εξακολουθήσουν να διέπονται από την οδηγία ΣΕΚ.

Η Επιτροπή προτίθεται να υποβάλει πρόταση για τη σύσταση ενιαίου μηχανισμού εξυγίανσης μέχρι το καλοκαίρι.

C 33 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004344/13**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Joint deposit guarantee system in the eurozone

The Cypriot bank ‘bail in’ (rescue from within) highlights the need for a strong banking union. However, the euro area
single market remains incomplete without the establishment of a joint deposit guarantee system in the euro area.

Does the Commission intend to include a joint deposit guarantee system in the forthcoming Directive establishing a
framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms, which is scheduled for June?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The forthcoming Directive on Bank Recovery and Resolution (BRR) which is currently in the process of being
adopted by the Council and Parliament, will clarify the rules applicable to the resolution of ailing banks. The
possibility of creating a pan-European Deposit Guarantee System is not being considered in the context of these
negotiations on the BRR proposal. Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGS) will continue to be regulated by the DGS
Directive.

The Commission intends to put forward a proposal for a Single Resolution Mechanism by the Summer.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004345/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Possible use of torture in the case of Hoang Van Ngai

Hoang Van Ngai (also known as Vam Ngaij Vaj) was arrested on 15 March 2013 and died two days later, on
17 March 2013, while in police custody at Gia Nghia town police station, Dak Nong Province, Vietnam. After his
death, the police claimed that an autopsy confirmed that the victim had committed suicide by putting his hand into
an electric socket. However, photographs taken shortly after the death, as well as the statements of those who saw the
body at that time, including his brother who was also held at the Gia Nghia town police station in an adjacent cell at
the time of the incident, suggest that Ngai was severely beaten while in police custody. The cause of death remains
unclear and the possible use of torture is suspected. The victim’s family members have submitted a letter of petition to
the Chief of Police in Dak Nong Province, but no further explanation has been received.

At of the time of writing, no further investigation has been made by the Vietnamese authorities.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this case?

How does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to take action to investigate the possible use of torture in
this case?

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

_(30 May 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the case, which has been subject of exchanges between the EU Delegation and like-minded
embassies in Hanoi. The EU Political Counsellors raised this case, sought clarification on what actually happened and
called for an urgent independent and transparent enquiry when meeting local authorities (the Head of the Religious
Affairs Committee of the Province) during the 22-24 April visit to the Dank Nong Province.

The Head of the Religious Affairs Committee of the Province, took note of the query and committed to transmitting it
to the relevant authorities. No further information is available at this stage but the EU will continue to closely monitor
developments regarding this case together with like-minded partners with the Vietnamese authorities in particular
regarding the allegations of torture and the setting-up of an official inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Hoang Van
Ngai's death.

C 33 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004346/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(17 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Interventi lobbistici propesticidi

L'11.4.2013 il CEO (Corporate Europe Observatory) ha denunciato con un dettagliato rapporto una brutale
aggressione lobbistica perpetrata da due giganti dell'industria delle biotecnologie — Syngenta e Bayer — finalizzata
ad impedire l'interdizione temporanea (2 anni) nell'UE dell'utilizzo di tre tipologie di pesticidi neonicotinoidi,
prodotti killer delle api.

L'attività lobbistica è giunta al punto di tentare di far modificare lo stesso comunicato stampa dell'EFSA (Autorità
europea per la sicurezza degli alimenti), cui la società Syngenta era riuscita ad aver accesso ancor prima della sua
pubblicazione.

Detta società, produttrice di pesticidi, aveva infatti redatto una lettera con cui, in tono piuttosto aggressivo, esigeva la
modifica del comunicato dell'autorità in questione, facendo addirittura balenare la minaccia di azioni legali contro
l'EFSA e la sua direttrice, come da documentazione pubblicata nel rapporto succitato.

Sulla base di questa puntuale ricostruzione dei fatti, come intende agire la Commissione per garantire che le
procedure di valutazione, discussione e approvazione delle direttive — in particolar modo quando ineriscono a temi
sensibili quale la salute dei consumatori e la vita degli animali — non sia inquinata da simili tentativi di distorsione dei
dati scientifici e fattuali?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

Il sistema di sicurezza alimentare dell'UE è stato ristrutturato nel 2002 ed è stata istituita un'agenzia indipendente,
l'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare (EFSA), con il compito di fornire pareri scientifici indipendenti. Nel caso
menzionato dall'onorevole deputato, le conclusioni scientifiche dell'EFSA sui neonicotinoidi sono state adottate e
pubblicate conformemente alle rigorose regole di indipendenza e trasparenza che disciplinano il funzionamento
dell'Agenzia.

La Commissione ritiene che le regole in vigore abbiano assicurato un processo scientifico indipendente in seno
all'EFSA nonché una comunicazione indipendente dei risultati dei suoi lavori. Si noti inoltre che il livello elevato di
trasparenza del funzionamento dell'EFSA permette un sistematico scrutinio pubblico dei suoi lavori e ha portato, a
partire dalla sua costituzione nel 2002, ad un costante miglioramento delle sue regole in tema di indipendenza e
trasparenza.

L'adozione di misure sull'uso dei neonicotinoidi che prendono le mosse dalle conclusioni dell'EFSA avverrà nel
rispetto dell'ampia panoplia di regole che assicurano l'indipendenza del processo decisionale delle istituzioni unionali
interessate.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 263

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004346/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(17 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Lobbying in support of pesticides

On 11 April 2013, the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) published a report detailing the brutal lobbying tactics
of two biotechnology industry giants — Syngenta and Bayer — in an attempt to block the temporary two-year EU
ban on the use of three kinds of neonicotinoid pesticides, products which kill bees.

Their lobbying activity has gone as far as trying to secure changes to the press release issued by the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA), which Syngenta was able to access prior to its publication.

In fact the latter company, a pesticides manufacturer, wrote a letter in which, in a rather aggressive tone, it demanded
the press release of the authority in question to be changed, even making legal threats against EFSA and its director, as
set out in the documentation published in the above report.

Based on this accurate reconstruction of events, what action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the
procedures to evaluate, discuss and adopt directives — in particular those relating to sensitive subjects such as
consumer health and animal life — are not tainted by similar attempts to distort scientific and factual data?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The EU food safety system was restructured in 2002 and an independent agency, the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA), was established to provide independent scientific advice. In the case referred to by the Honourable Member,
EFSA's scientific conclusions on neonicotinoids were adopted and published in accordance with the strict rules of
independence and transparency governing the Agency's functioning.

The Commission considers that the rules in place have ensured an independent scientific process in EFSA as well as an
independent communication of the results of its work. It should also be pointed out that the high level of
transparency of EFSA's functioning allows for systematic public scrutiny of its work and has led to a continuous
improvement of its rules on independence and transparency since its creation in 2002.

The adoption of any measure concerning the use of neonicotinoids on the basis of EFSA’s conclusions will be taken
within the comprehensive set of rules ensuring the independence of the decision-making process of the EU
institutions concerned.

C 33 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004347/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Protección de Derechos fundamentales de Oswaldo Payá y Harol Cepeda

Este diputado se congratula de que el Servicio Exterior de Acción Europea defienda «el Estado de Derecho y unos
procedimientos judiciales correctos y transparentes» tal como se responde a mi pregunta E-1456-13. Me preocuparía
lo contrario cuando toda actuación de dicho Servicio ha de basarse en los principios que se citan en el artículo 21 del
Tratado de la Unión Europea. De ahí que también aplauda las acciones de ese Servicio «comprometido con los
derechos humanos» y «la colaboración con las Naciones Unidas», tal como subraya en su propia página web.

Existe una petición de muchos ciudadanos para que se realice una investigación independiente, que se ha presentado
en las sedes de las NU de Nueva York y Ginebra.

Como considero que ese Servicio cuenta con los medios adecuados, me gustaría obtener respuesta a las siguientes
preguntas:

1. ¿Colaborará con las Naciones Unidas para impulsar una investigación transparente dirigida por una autoridad
internacional?

2. ¿No cree que, en el contenido esencial de los derechos fundamentales y de la dignidad de la persona, está el
derecho a saber con garantías los detalles de la muerte de dos hombres que defendieron de manera pacífica la
libertad en Cuba, uno de ellos titular del premio Sájarov?

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

_(12 de junio de 2013)_

1. Según la información de que disponemos, las Naciones Unidas no han anunciado la puesta en marcha de
ninguna investigación sobre el trágico accidente en que falleció el ganador del Premio Sájarov, el Sr. Oswaldo Payá. La
Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta no cuenta con mecanismos para iniciar tal investigación, pero estará pendiente
de cualquier novedad que se produzca en este sentido.

2. La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta reitera lo expresado en su respuesta a la pregunta E-1456/2013,
formulada por Su Señoría, en la que defiende el Estado de Derecho y unos procedimientos judiciales correctos y
transparentes en todos los casos.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 265

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004347/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Protection of the Fundamental Rights of Oswaldo Payá and Harol Cepeda

This Member welcomes the European External Service Action’s defence of ‘the rule of law and fair and transparent
judicial proceedings’ as stated in the answer to my Question E‐1456‐13. I would be concerned if this were otherwise,
given that all the actions of this Service must follow the principles contained in Article 21 of the Treaty on European
Union. I therefore also welcome this Service’s actions ‘committed to human rights’ and its ‘collaboration with the
United Nations’, as stressed on its own website.

A petition signed by many citizens to conduct an independent investigation has been presented at the UN’s
headquarters in New York and Geneva.

As I believe that this Service has the appropriate means, I would like answers to the following questions:

1. Will it collaborate with the United Nations to instigate a transparent investigation, carried out by an
international authority?

2. Does it not believe that, as an essential part of people’s fundamental rights and their human dignity, there is a
guaranteed right to know the details of the deaths of two men who peacefully defended liberty in Cuba, one of
them a holder of the Sakharov prize?

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

_(12 June 2013)_

1. According to the information available, the UN has not made any announcement about launching an
investigation on the tragic accident that killed Sakharov Prize holder O. Paya. The HR/VP does not have mechanisms
at its disposal to launch such an investigation but will continue to monitor closely the situation.

2. The HR/VP reiterates its reply to Question E-1456/2013 that it stands for the rule of law and adequate and
transparent legal procedures in all cases.

C 33 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004348/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Participaciones preferentes en Bankia

El 20 de julio de 2012 se produce la firma del Memorando de Entendimiento sobre condiciones de política sectorial
financiera entre la Unión Europea y España. En dicho memorando se prevé la creación de normas para garantizar la
responsabilidad subordinada. Esta responsabilidad subordinada supone garantizar el derecho de los acreedores sobre
los fondos que posean las entidades financieras españolas _, así como sobre los fondos de cierto tipo de clientes que hayan_
_asumido riesgo subsidiario con la entidad. Entre estos clientes se encuentran los titulares de participaciones preferentes de Bankia._

Este banco co _mercializó participaciones recabando millones de euros para las ampliaciones de capital. Todas estas operaciones_
_que durante años permiten la expansión del sistema financiero español se llevaron a cabo bajo un supuesto fraude de ley (art. 6 y 7_
_del CC) al conocer y no hacer cumplir la normativa vigente recogida en la Directiva 2004/39/CE, de 21 de abril de 2004, que_
_especifica los derechos del consumidor de este tipo de productos financieros, así como la normativa de la Comisión Nacional del_
_Mercado de Valores que regula la adquisición de este tipo de productos. Para poder comercializarlos, las entidades financieras_
_debían ofrecer grandes cantidades de información sobre los productos financieros, así como advertir con exactitud de los riesgos a_
_los que se exponen los clientes. En ningún caso se cumplieron estos requisitos mínimos dispuestos por la normativa, informando de_
_manera errónea, ocultando información y estafando a clientes para comercializar todos estos complejos productos financieros entre_
_personas sin preparación específica._

En _el Derecho civil de España el_ « _vicio de consentimiento_ » _es suficiente para invalidar cualquier contrato (art. 1265 del CC). En el_
_caso de estas participaciones preferentes, no cumplir con la normativa existente supondría un vicio de consentimiento que_
_invalidaría los contratos._

¿Es consciente la Comisión de la posible invalidez, según la normativa española, de buena parte de las participaciones
preferentes de Bankia que se verían afectadas por el Mem _orando de Entendimiento citado? En caso de invalidez de origen de_
_estas participaciones preferentes, ¿cómo pretende hacer cumplir la Comisión el Memorando de Entendimiento sin afectar a los_
_fondos de estos miles de pequeños ahorradores estafados? En estos casos, ¿en qué medida ha vigilado la Comisión el cumplimiento_
_de los requisitos para los clientes del anexo II de la Directiva 2004/39/CE del Parlamento y el Consejo, transpuesta en la_
_legislación española en la ley 47/2007, pero nunca puesta en la práctica por las autoridades españolas?_

**Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(19 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión está al corriente de las acusaciones de ventas abusivas de algunas de las acciones preferentes en Bankia u
otras entidades financieras españolas. El Memorándum de Acuerdo de 23 de julio de 2012, que desarrolla con detalle
una Decisión del Consejo y que firmaron la Comisión Europea, en nombre del MEE, y las autoridades españolas, prevé
que España proponga una legislación específica para limitar la venta por parte de las entidades bancarias de
instrumentos de deuda subordinada a clientes minoristas no cualificados y a mejorar sustancialmente el proceso de
venta a los clientes minoristas de cualquiera de los instrumentos no cubiertos por el Fondo de Garantía de Depósitos.
En lo que se refiere a las acusaciones concretas, la Comisión cree que compete a las autoridades y el poder judicial
españoles entender en estos asuntos y ponerles remedio, si se considera justificado.

El artículo 19 de la Directiva 2004/39/CE ( [1] ) contempla las normas de conducta que deben cumplir los proveedores
de servicios financieros, entre las cuales se cuenta la obligación de llevar a cabo una prueba de idoneidad o adecuación
a sus inversores. Las obligaciones dispuestas en el artículo 19 se aplican plenamente a los clientes minoristas y se
adaptan cuando se trata de clientes profesionales. No obstante, la clasificación como cliente minorista o profesional,
de conformidad con el anexo II de la Directiva 2004/39/CE, impone la evaluación de las circunstancias individuales
de cada cliente y entra en el ámbito de la competencia primaria de las autoridades y los tribunales nacionales.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 145 de 30.4.2004.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 267

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004348/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Preferred shares in Bankia

The Memorandum of Understanding on Financial-Sector Policy Conditionality was signed by the European Union
and Spain on 20 July 2012. The memorandum provides for rules to be established to guarantee subordinated liability.
Subordinated liability means creditors’ rights over funds held by Spain’s financial institutions, and over the funds of
customers of a particular kind who have accepted a subsidiary risk with the institution, are protected. These
customers include holders of Bankia preferred shares.

This bank marketed shares raising millions of euros to expand its capital. All these transactions which for years
enabled Spain’s financial system to expand were carried out under what is alleged to be fraud in law (Articles 6 and 7
of the Civil Code), as legislation in force stemming from Directive 2004/39/EC of 21 April 2004, which lays down
the rights of consumers of financial products of this kind, and the rules of the Spanish Securities and Exchange
Commission concerning the purchase of products of this kind were known but not complied with. In marketing these
financial products, financial institutions should have provided a great deal of information about them and warned
their customers of the precise risks they would be running. These minimum legal requirements were never met;
information was wrong or even concealed, tricking people who did not have any training in finance in order to sell
these complex financial products.

Spain’s civil law allows any contract to be invalidated on the simple grounds of ‘vicio de consentimiento’, or
‘imperfect consent’ (Article 1265 of the Civil Code). In the case of these preferred shares, failure to comply with
existing legislation would presuppose imperfect consent which would invalidate the contracts.

Is the Commission aware that a large number of Bankia’s preferred shares — which would be affected by the
aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding — may well be invalid under Spanish law? Should these preferred
shares prove to be invalid, how will the Commission enforce the memorandum of understanding without affecting
the funds of the thousands of small savers who were tricked in this way? In these cases, to what extent did the
Commission monitor compliance with the client requirements set out in Annex II to Directive 2004/39/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council, transposed into Spanish legislation by Law No 47/2007, but never
implemented by the Spanish authorities?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of allegations of mis-selling of some of the preferred shares in Bankia or other Spanish
financial institutions. The Memorandum of Understanding of 23 July 2012, which is a detailed declension of a
Council decision, signed by the European Commission, on behalf of the ESM, and the Spanish authorities foresees for
Spain to ‘Propose specific legislation to limit the sale by banks of subordinate debt instruments to non-qualified retail
clients and to substantially improve the process for the sale of any instruments not covered by the deposit guarantee
fund to retail clients’. As regards the specific allegations, it is in the view of the Commission the competence of the
Spanish authorities and judiciary to address these cases and remedy them where deemed justified.

Article 19 of Directive 2004/39/EC ( [1] ) contains the conduct of business obligations to be complied with by financial
services providers among which the obligation to perform a suitability or an appropriateness test to their investors.
The article 19 obligations are fully applied when retail clients are involved and are adapted in the case of professional
clients. However, the classification as retail or professional client, in accordance with Annex II to
Directive 2004/39/EC, requires the assessment of individual circumstances for each client and falls under the primary
competence of national authorities and courts.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 145, 30.4.2004.

C 33 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004349/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Muerte de Samba Martine en un CIE español

El pasado 19 de diciembre de 2011 murió en el Centro de Internamiento de Extranjeros de Aluche, en Madrid, la
ciudadana congoleña Samba Martine. Su defunción, según la información presentada en el informe del defensor del
pueblo sobre su actividad durante 2012, fue debida a una falta de comunicación entre instituciones que provocó que
no se le administrase tratamiento adecuado siendo portadora del Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Humana (VIH).

La inmigrante retenida en Aluche había sido diagnosticada como portadora del virus VIH en el Centro de Estancia
Temporal de Inmigrantes de Melilla, pero fue trasladada al CIE de Aluche en Madrid sin que hubiera habida la más
mínima comunicación de su estado de salud al nuevo centro. Esto provocó que en Aluche se le diagnosticaran
diferentes enfermedades y fuese tratada por los médicos del centro de diferentes diagnósticos al desconocer la
infección de VIH de la retenida, teniendo como consecuencia su muerte.

Los Centros de Internamiento de Extranjeros en España están obligados a cumplir con un tratamiento adecuado a los
derechos humanos y el derecho internacional humanitario en el tratamiento a las personas en procedimiento de
expulsión. Así como quedan obligados por la Directiva 2008/115/CE a nivel Europeo a proveer «atención sanitaria de
urgencia y tratamiento básico de enfermedades».

El citado caso de Samba Martine demuestra que la descoordinación entre el CIE de Aluche y el CETI de Melilla fue la
causa de un error de diagnóstico que supuso que no se le administrase un tratamiento básico de su enfermedad,
provocando indirectamente su muerte. Este caso se suma a la muerte de Idrissa Dialo y de otros tantos inmigrantes
que han perdido la vida en los CIE españoles, dando indicios de una sistemática violación de los derechos humanos y
de la citada Directiva. En su respuesta a mi pregunta E-000333/2012 aseguraba carecer de información suficiente
sobre los CIE españoles.

¿Ha recopilado la Comisión información suficiente para abrir un expediente a España por las claras infracciones sobre
las condiciones de internamiento recogidas en la Directiva 2008/115/CE?, ¿está llevando a cabo una investigación
específica sobre el tema en este país?, ¿Cuantas muertes más considera necesarias la Comisión para abrir un
expediente de infracción a España?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(8 de julio de 2013)_

Como ya se indicó en la respuesta de la Comisión a la pregunta E-000333/2012, la evaluación de deficiencias e
incidentes específicos que se produzcan en centros de internamiento nacionales es, en primer lugar, competencia de
las autoridades y los órganos jurisdiccionales nacionales.

En la actualidad, la Comisión está comprobando que se han incorporado correctamente a los ordenamientos jurídicos
nacionales de los Estados miembros las disposiciones de la Directiva 2008/115/CE sobre el retorno y no ha detectado
ninguna deficiencia en lo que respecta a la transposición en España de su artículo 16, apartado 3, que contempla el
derecho al tratamiento básico de las enfermedades en los centros de internamiento. Sigue en curso un estudio sobre la
aplicación práctica de la Directiva sobre el retorno en los Estados miembros y la Comisión informará de sus
conclusiones en una próxima comunicación sobre la política de retorno (incluido un primer informe de aplicación de
la Directiva sobre el retorno), que está prevista para diciembre de 2013. Este estudio constituirá también la base
documental para incoar, en caso necesario, procedimientos de infracción relativos a la situación en los centros de
internamiento.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 269

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004349/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Death of Samba Martine in an immigrant detention centre in Spain

On 19 December 2011, a Congolese citizen, Samba Martine, died at the Aluche immigrant detention centre in
Madrid. According to the Spanish Ombudsman’s 2012 annual report, her death was due to a lack of communication
between institutions which meant that she was not given the right treatment as someone with the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

The immigrant held at Aluche had been diagnosed as HIV-positive at the Melilla temporary detention centre for
immigrants but was transferred to the Aluche immigrant detention centre in Madrid without the latter centre being
given any information whatsoever about her health status. This meant that at Aluche she was diagnosed with
different illnesses and the centre’s doctors treated her on the basis of the different diagnoses without realising that she
was HIV-positive, which consequently led to her death.

Immigrant detention centres in Spain must treat those in the process of being deported in a way that respects their
human rights and international humanitarian law. Under Directive 2008/115/EC, they must provide ‘emergency
healthcare and essential treatment of illness’.

The case of Samba Martine shows that the lack of coordination between the Aluche immigrant detention centre and
the Melilla temporary detention centre for immigrants led to a diagnostic error which meant that she was not given
the essential treatment for her illness, which indirectly caused her death. In addition to this case, there is the case of
Idrissa Diallo and many other immigrants who have lost their lives in immigrant detention centres in Spain,
suggesting that human rights and the aforementioned directive are being systematically violated. In its answer to my
Question E-000333/2012, the Commission confirmed that it did not have enough information on immigrant
detention centres in Spain.

Has the Commission collected enough information to bring infringement proceedings against Spain for its clear
breaches of the detention conditions set out in Directive 2008/115/EC? Is it carrying out a specific investigation into
this issue in Spain? How many more deaths must there be before the Commission brings infringement proceedings
against Spain?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 July 2013)_

As already highlighted in the Commission's answer to Question E-000333/2012, the assessment of individual
incidents and shortcomings which take place in national detention centres is a matter primarily for the national
authorities and courts concerned.

The Commission is currently in the process of checking the correct legal transposition of the provisions of the Return
Directive 2008/115/EC by Member States and could not identify, in this context, any shortcoming as regards the
transposition of its Article 16(3), providing for a right to essential treatment of illness in detention centres, by Spain.
A study relating to the practical application of the Return Directive in Member States is currently still ongoing and the
Commission will report on its findings in an upcoming Communication on Return Policy (including a first
application report of the Return Directive), scheduled for December 2013. This study will also serve as a factual basis
for launching — if necessary — infringement procedures relating to situations in detention centres.

C 33 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004350/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Anexión de rebeldes sirios a Al Qaeda

Recientemente han sido numerosos los vídeos y las pruebas documentadas sobre el terror que la «oposición» Siria está
llevando a cabo en el país. No solo combates con los militares, sino atentados contra civiles y múltiples formas de
asesinato y de terrorismo que en nada respetan los derechos humanos o el Derecho internacional humanitario.

El Gobierno sirio esta ejerciendo la represión violenta contra su propio pueblo de una manera deplorable, pero la
«oposición democrática» comenzó su «primavera» con atentados terroristas. Hemos visto en numerosas ocasiones
cómo estas fuerzas rebeldes, compuestas por yihadistas procedentes de todo el mundo árabe, asesinan cruelmente en
la más absoluta impunidad. Recientemente hemos podido confirmar todas las sospechas sobre esta oposición,
calificada de «democrática» por la Señora Ashton, cuando el frente Al Nursa se ha fusionado con la rama iraquí de Al
Qaeda.

Pese a haber existido violencia por parte de ambos bandos, los rebeldes no han sido un modelo de respeto a los
derechos humanos, habiéndose reforzado con la entrada de milicianos extranjeros. Sin embargo, los diferentes
Gobiernos de los Estados miembros no hacen nada más que mostrar su apoyo a estas milicias y condenar el régimen
de Bashar al Assad sin mencionar la actitud ni procedencia de los rebeldes sirios. Prácticamente se garantiza que no
serán perseguidos ni juzgados, ofreciendo como el ejemplo con el caso de la muerte de Gadafi y tantos otros en Libia.
También se brindan continuas muestras de apoyo político y económico, llegando incluso a dar entrenamiento militar,
repitiendo el ejemplo de la formación del ejército talibán en Afganistán en los años 80. La Unión Europea ha sido
responsable de motivar la participación en el conflicto de éstos milicianos de Al Qaeda, debido a sus objetivos
geopolíticos con respecto al actual Gobierno de Siria. Pese al terrible papel que está desempeñando el Gobierno sirio,
esta forma de diplomacia internacional está arrojando por los suelos las conquistas que los diferentes cuerpos del
Derecho internacional han conseguido para evitar la impunidad y perseguir a los criminales de guerra.

¿Considera la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante de la UE que la oposición rebelde en Siria como el «único
representante legítimo»? ¿Piensa retirar su apoyo a éstos rebeldes? ¿Asumirá responsabilidades por haber apoyado la
creación de una nueva rama de Al Qaeda? ¿Cómo piensa hacer perseguir, de una manera efectiva, los crímenes contra
la humanidad cometidos tanto por el Gobierno de Bashar al Assad como por estos rebeldes en Siria?

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

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta ha condenado reiteradamente todos aquellos actos perpetrados en Siria que
atentan contra los derechos humanos y el Derecho humanitario internacional. La UE ha declarado en repetidas
ocasiones que todos los responsables de crímenes de lesa humanidad y crímenes de guerra deberán responder ante la
ley. En este sentido, la UE ha apoyado la labor realizada por la comisión de investigación independiente sobre la
situación en Siria y ha recibido con agrado el informe actualizado presentado por la misma.

La UE apoya a la coalición de la oposición siria, a la que considera representante legítima del pueblo sirio. En
numerosas ocasiones, los líderes de esta coalición han rechazado y condenado todas las formas de terrorismo e
ideologías extremistas, la última vez en Estambul con la firma de una declaración en la reunión del Grupo de amigos
del pueblo sirio. Dicha coalición ya ha expresado con anterioridad su deseo de que Siria sea un país civil, democrático
y plural. Asimismo, cabe puntualizar que entre las filas del Consejo Militar Sirio, que actúa en el marco de la coalición
de la oposición, no se encuentran miembros del Frente Al Nusra.

La UE no apoya a ningún grupo radical o extremista. Por el contrario, está intensificando su apoyo a la oposición
moderada y abogando, como único camino posible, por negociaciones encaminadas a una resolución política del
conflicto sirio.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 271

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004350/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syrian rebels becoming part of al-Qaeda

There have recently been many videos and documented evidence of the campaign of terror that the Syrian
‘opposition’ is waging in the country. They are not just fighting the military, but they are attacking civilians and
carrying out many killings and terrorist acts with a total disregard for human rights and international humanitarian
law.

The Syrian Government is violently repressing its own people in an appalling way, but the ‘democratic opposition’
started its ‘spring’ with terrorist attacks. We have often seen how these rebel forces, made up of jihadists from across
the Arab world, carry out brutal murders with complete impunity. All the suspicions about this opposition,
considered to be ‘democratic’ by Baroness Ashton, were recently confirmed when the al-Nusra Front merged with the
Iraqi arm of al-Qaeda.

Despite acts of violence having been carried out by both sides, the rebels have not been a model of respect for human
rights, their ranks having been swelled by foreign mercenaries. However, all the Member State governments have
done is show support for these militias and condemn Bashar al-Assad’s regime, without mentioning the approach of
the Syrian rebels or where they come from. It is all but guaranteed that they will not be prosecuted or brought to
justice, if we take the death of Gaddafi and so many others in Libya as an example. They are also constantly being
offered political and economic support, and even military training, just as the Taliban army in Afghanistan was
trained during the 1980s. The EU, due to its geopolitical objectives with respect to the current Syrian Government,
has been responsible for encouraging these al-Qaeda mercenaries to join in the conflict. Despite the atrocities
committed by the Syrian Government, this kind of international diplomacy is destroying the victories that the various
bodies of international law have achieved in prosecuting war criminals and ensuring they face punishment.

Does the Vice-President/High Representative consider the rebel opposition in Syria to be the ‘only legitimate
representative’? Will she withdraw her support for these rebels? Will she accept responsibility for supporting the
creation of a new arm of al-Qaeda? How will she ensure that the crimes against humanity committed not only by
Bashar al-Assad’s government, but also by the Syrian rebels, are effectively prosecuted?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

The HR/VP has repeatedly condemned all acts in Syria that violate human rights and international humanitarian law.
The EU has repeated stated that all those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes must be held
accountable. In that, the EU has supported the work of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the situation in
Syria and welcomed its updated report.

The EU supports the Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC) whom it considers as legitimate representatives of the Syrian
people. The SOC leadership on many occassions rejected and condemned all forms of terrorism and any extremist
ideology, most recently in a declaration signed at the meeting of the Friends of Syrian people in Istanbul. The SOC has
earlier on expressed its wish for a civil, democratic and pluralistic Syria. It should be noted that the Syrian Military
Council (SMC), which operates within the framework of the SOC does not contain the al-Nusra Front among its
members.

The EU does not support radical and extremists groups. Istead it is stepping up support to the moderate opposition
and advocating that negociations for a political settlement of the Syrian conflict is the only way forward.

C 33 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004351/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Mantenimiento artificial de los precios del alquiler en España

La situación de emergencia habitacional que está sufriendo la población española desde el inicio de la crisis financiera
no solo atañe a los casos de ejecuciones hipotecarias de familias que no pueden pagar sus obligaciones financieras.
Existen también muchos otros casos de alquileres que no pueden ser pagados debido al fuerte impacto de la crisis en
los ingresos de los españoles y el mantenimiento artificial de los precios de los alquileres.

Los precios de los alquileres en España apenas se han visto afectados desde el inicio de la crisis y esto supone una
importantísima dificultad para los ciudadanos españoles que han quedado desempleados para poder pagar su
vivienda. Esta condición de mantenimientos de precios del alquiler y expulsión de ciudadanos de sus casas supone un
irracional ataque contra el derecho a la vivienda que figura en la Constitución española, pero más allá de esto puede
suponer un caso de incumplimiento de las reglas del mercado europeo.

Uno de estos casos es el de las viviendas de Fuente Lucha, en Alcobendas (España), donde se están produciendo
desahucios de personas que viven en régimen de alquiler en Viviendas de Protección Oficial (VPO). Estas VPO fueron
adquiridas por sus inquilinos en unas condiciones económicas que resultaban favorables antes del inicio de la crisis,
pero estos precios fijos para el acceso a la vivienda social se han convertido en una herramienta para el
mantenimiento artificial de precios altos para el beneficio de las empresas privadas que gestionan dichos alquileres. La
empresa que gestiona los alquileres de Fuente Lucha está desahuciando a inquilinos que no pueden alcanzar a pagar el
alquiler debido a su precaria situación económica con impagos de dos meses, lo que supone terminar con la supuesta
función social de estas VPO.

¿Está estudiando la Comisión las razones por las que los precios de la vivienda en alquiler no han descendido en
España desde el inicio de la crisis, considerando el grave impacto económico de la crisis? ¿Considera la Comisión que
el alquiler de este tipo de Viviendas de Protección Oficial, fijado con precios sociales antes de la crisis, ha perdido su
carácter social al haber mantenido dichos precios, conllevando prácticas de competencia desleal por parte de las
empresas que gestionan dichos alquileres sociales?

**Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(31 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión supervisa la evolución de los mercados de la vivienda y de las hipotecas en todos los Estados miembros
en el marco del procedimiento de desequilibrio macroeconómico (PDM) ( [1] ). En este contexto, la Comisión analiza
también las repercusiones del segmento del alquiler en el mercado de la vivienda, que contrarresta haciendo que
disminuya la presión sobre los precios de la vivienda y promueve la movilidad laboral.

Durante las décadas pasadas las tasas de propiedad aumentaron en España bajo la fuerte influencia de las medidas
destinadas a incentivar la compra frente al alquiler (como beneficios fiscales y facilidades de financiación), lo que
generó un reducido segmento de alquileres privados (el menor de la zona del euro). Además, el mercado de los
alquileres sociales (o de propiedad pública) es relativamente reducido, ya que la vivienda protegida se ha destinado
tradicionalmente sobre todo a la ocupación por los propietarios.

En el actual contexto económico, varios factores cíclicos —la escasez del crédito, el aumento del desempleo y las
expectativas de caída de los precios de la vivienda— están afectando negativamente a la demanda de vivienda en
propiedad. Un mercado de alquiler bien desarrollado y eficiente, que proporcione una alternativa viable a la
propiedad, puede desempeñar un papel equilibrador al moderar las dinámicas del mercado de la vivienda. Esto sucede
especialmente en la medida en que proporciona una plataforma asequible para los jóvenes y los hogares de renta baja.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Véase, por ejemplo, el anexo estadístico del informe sobre el mecanismo de alerta, disponible en:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/documents/alert_mechanism_report_2013_stannex_en.pdf
Véase también Assessing the dynamics of house prices in the euro area, disponible en:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/qr_euro_area/2012/pdf/qrea4_focus_en.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 273

En su _Examen exhaustivo sobre España_ ( [2] ) de 2013 la Comisión ha señalado la necesidad de reformar el sector del
alquiler español para que desempeñe ese papel equilibrador en el mercado de la vivienda. Esta valoración apoya la
recomendación específica para España en relación con el mercado de la vivienda formulada en el marco del semestre
europeo de 2012, «Disminuir el sesgo que provoca el sistema tributario hacia el endeudamiento y el acceso a la
propiedad de la vivienda (en detrimento del alquiler)».

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Publicado en: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2013/pdf/ocp134_en.pdf

C 33 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004351/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Artificial maintenance of property rental prices in Spain

The emergency in the housing situation affecting Spain’s population since the start of the financial crisis not only
involves cases of mortgage foreclosures on families who cannot pay their financial obligations, there are also a large
number of cases where rent cannot be paid due to the significant impact of the crisis on Spanish people’s incomes and
to rental prices being artificially maintained.

Property rental prices in Spain have seen hardly any change since the start of the crisis, making it extremely difficult
for Spanish citizens who have become unemployed to pay for their housing. This situation — of maintaining rental
prices and evicting citizens from their homes — represents an irrational attack on the right to housing enshrined in
the Spanish Constitution, but, beyond that, it may represent a breach of European market rules.

One such case is that of housing in the Fuente Lucha district in Alcobendas (Spain), where people renting Officially
Protected Housing (VPO) are being evicted. Tenants acquired these VPO homes under what were, before the start of
the crisis, favourable economic conditions. However, these fixed prices for access to subsidised housing have become
a tool for keeping prices artificially high, benefitting the private companies that manage the rentals. The company
that manages the rental accommodation in Fuente Lucha is evicting tenants who cannot afford to pay rent due to
their precarious economic situation, once they are two months in arrears. This represents an end to the supposed
social function of this VPO housing.

Is the Commission analysing why property rental prices have not fallen in Spain since the beginning of the crisis,
given the serious economic impact of this crisis? Does the Commission consider that rental of this type of Officially
Protected Housing, fixed with social prices before the crisis began, has now lost its social character due to these prices
being maintained, leading to unfair competitive practices by the companies that manage such rentals?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

The Commission monitors developments in housing and mortgage markets for all Member States within the
framework of the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) ( [1] ). In this context, the Commission also analyses the
implications of the rental segment as it is an integral part of the housing market, acting as a counteracting force that
diminishes the pressure on house prices and fosters labour mobility.

Over the past decades ownership rates have increased in Spain, heavily affected by the incentives in favour of buying
vs. renting (taxation benefits, easing of financing conditions), yielding a reduced private rental segment (the smallest
in the euro area). On top of this, the social (or publicly owned) rental market is relatively thin as protected housing has
traditionally been provided mainly for owner-occupation.

In the current economic context, several cyclical factors — credit tightening, higher unemployment, and expectations
of house price falls — are affecting negatively the demand for home ownership. A well-developed and efficient rental
market providing a viable alternative to ownership could play a balancing role by smoothing housing market
dynamics. This is especially the case when it proves to be an affordable platform for young and low-income
households.

In its 2013 _In-depth Review for Spain_ ( [2] ), the Commission has identified the need for a reform of the Spanish rental
sector in order for it to play its balancing role in the housing market. This assessment supports the country-specific
recommendation on the housing market in the framework of the 2012 European Semester, ‘Ensure less tax-induced
bias towards indebtedness and homeownership’ (as opposed to renting).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See for example the Statistical Annex of the Alert Mechanism Report, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/documents/alert_mechanism_report_2013_stannex_en.pdf;
see also ‘Assessing the dynamics of house prices in the euro area,’ available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/qr_euro_area/2012/pdf/qrea4_focus_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2013/pdf/ocp134_en.pdf

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 275

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004352/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Prácticas esclavistas en Argentina por parte del grupo Inditex

El pasado mes de marzo, las autoridades argentinas clausuraron en la ciudad de Buenos Aires tres talleres de
confección que destinaba sus mercaderías a la cadena Zara, perteneciente al grupo empresarial Inditex. Dicho taller
aprovechaba la situación de inseguridad de inmigrantes para someter, tanto a niños como a adultos, a jornadas
laborales de trece horas y condiciones higiénicas denigrantes.

Resulta que el grupo empresarial español Inditex es bien conocido en el vecino país de Brasil por el empleo de trabajo
esclavo en los talleres que subcontrata. Como denuncié en mi pasada pregunta E‐010106/2012, las autoridades
brasileñas clausuraron por el mismo motivo numerosos talleres que producían para las diferentes marcas de este
grupo. Inditex se está convirtiendo en uno de los grupos más exitosos del sector textil en todo el mundo y su
propietario en una de las personas más ricas. Este escandaloso proceso de acumulación de riqueza está dándose
gracias el empleo de mano de obra en condiciones contrarias a los convenios del la OIT, entendiéndose que no es una
práctica inusual, sino en una práctica sistemática en todos los talleres subcontratados por la empresa.

En la respuesta que la Comisión dio a mi anterior pregunta se limita a recalcar que la responsabilidad social
corporativa es un mecanismo de adhesión voluntaria, que la empresa cumple a su antojo, y a indicar que trataría el
tema con Brasil, pero no pronunció ningún tipo de acción en contra del citado grupo empresarial que por supuesto
continúa empleando éstas prácticas. Tal falta de atención a las denuncias sobre Inditex ha provocado que continúen
sus prácticas esclavistas. Siendo uno de los grupos que más crece en el sector textil, considero más que justificada una
investigación del empleo sistemático de éste tipo de condiciones laborales para adquirir ventaja en el mercado.

¿Considera la Comisión que este nuevo caso puede suponer prueba suficiente para demostrar el empleo sistemático
del trabajo esclavo por parte de Inditex? ¿Iniciará la Comisión una investigación sobre dicho empleo sistemático de
estas prácticas por parte del grupo Inditex? ¿Demuestra este caso que su respaldo a los instrumentos de
responsabilidad social en empresas, expresada en su COM(2011)0681, es de una efectividad nula al carecer de
instrumentos legales vinculantes que obliguen a las empresas? ¿Piensa legislar para dotarse de instrumentos legales
que permitan un control efectivo de éste tipo de prácticas por parte de empresas europeas?

**Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(3 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión conoce las alegaciones realizadas contra Inditex que menciona Su Señoría.

La UE está promoviendo la ratificación y aplicación efectiva de normas laborales internacionales, entre ellas los
convenios fundamentales de la OIT sobre la abolición del trabajo forzoso y sobre la erradicación del trabajo infantil.
Las empresas tienen la obligación de respetar la legislación de los países en los que operan. Brasil y Argentina han
ratificado estos convenios y parece que han adoptado las medidas necesarias a fin de garantizar su cumplimiento en
los casos comunicados. Los órganos de control de la OIT no han comunicado ningún incumplimiento a este respecto.

Por otro lado, procede señalar que Inditex ha celebrado con los sindicatos un acuerdo mundial para el respeto y la
promoción del trabajo digno y los derechos laborales ( [1] ).

En cuanto a la responsabilidad social de las empresas (RSE) de ámbito internacional, la Comisión se remite a su
respuesta a la pregunta 10106/2012 ( [2] ) de Su Señoría y, además, señala que algunos principios y orientaciones sobre
la RSE reconocidos internacionalmente, como las orientaciones de la OIT y de la OCDE ( [3] ), tienen una función de
investigación que la Comisión apoya. Los Principios Rectores sobre las empresas y los derechos humanos de las
Naciones Unidas y las Líneas Directrices de la OCDE también contienen disposiciones y recomendaciones para que las
empresas sean debidamente diligentes con respecto a sus cadenas de suministro.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=978&langId=en&agreementId=99
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/es/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) La Declaración tripartita de la OIT sobre las empresas multinacionales y las Líneas directrices de la OCDE para empresas multinacionales.

C 33 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Aunque la Comisión considera que la RSE es en gran parte voluntaria, su Comunicación de 2011 sobre la
responsabilidad social de las empresas menciona una serie de ámbitos relacionados que son objeto de propuestas
legislativas. Entre estas figuran una reciente propuesta para obligar a la revelación de datos no financieros y una
propuesta de revisión de las Directivas sobre contratación pública.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 277

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004352/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Slave labour practices by the Inditex group in Argentina

In March this year, the Argentine authorities closed down in the city of Buenos Aires three clothing workshops that
supplied goods to the Zara chain, part of the Inditex group of companies. The workshops were taking advantage of
the insecure position of immigrants to subject them — both children and adults — to thirteen-hour workdays and
appalling conditions of hygiene.

It transpires that the Spanish group of companies, Inditex, is well known in the neighbouring country of Brazil for its
use of slave labour in the workshops to which it farms work out. As I reported in a previous question of mine E‐
010106/2012, the Brazilian authorities, for the same reason, closed down many workshops manufacturing for
different brands of this group. Inditex is becoming one of the word’s most successful groups in the textile sector, and
its owner one of the world’s richest people. This outrageous process of accumulating wealth exists thanks to the use
of labour in conditions that contravene ILO conventions, on the understanding that it is not an uncommon practice,
but a systematic practice in all workshops subcontracted by the company.

The Commission’s response to my previous question merely stressed that corporate social responsibility is a
voluntary mechanism, which companies comply with as they wish, and indicated that it would discuss the issue with
Brazil, but failed to announce any action to be taken against the aforementioned group of companies, which, of
course, continue to use these practices. Such failure to respond to complaints about Inditex means that they can
continue to employ slave labour practices. As one of the fastest growing groups in the textile sector, I believe an
investigation into its systematic use of this type of labour conditions, in order to gain market advantage, to be more
than justified.

Does the Commission consider this new case to represent sufficient proof of the systematic use of slave labour by
Inditex? Will the Commission initiate an investigation into the systematic use of these practices by the Inditex group?
Does this case demonstrate that the Commission’s endorsement of corporate social responsibility instruments,
expressed in COM(2011)0681, is ineffective, as there are no binding legal instruments to compel companies? Does it
intend to legislate to provide itself with legal instruments for effective control of this type of practice by European
companies?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the allegations made against Inditex, to which the Honourable Member refers.

The EU is promoting the ratification and effective implementation of international labour standards, including the
ILO fundamental conventions on the abolishment of forced labour and eradication of child labour. Companies have
the obligation to respect the legislation of the countries in which they operate. Brazil and Argentina have ratified these
conventions and it appears that they have taken the necessary measures to ensure compliance with them in the
reported cases. The ILO supervisory bodies do not report any failure in this regard.

It should further be noted that Inditex has concluded a Global agreement for implementation of fundamental labour
rights and decent work with trade unions ( [1] ).

When it comes to International Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the Commission refers to its reply to question
10106/2012 ( [2] ) by Mr Willy Meyer and in addition points out that some internationally recognised CSR guidelines
and principles such as the ILO and the OECD guidelines ( [3] ) have an investigative function that the Commission
supports. The UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights and the OECD Guidelines also contain provisions
and recommendations for enterprises to conduct due diligence in their supply chains.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=978&langId=en&agreementId=99
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The ILO Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

C 33 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

While the Commission believes that CSR is largely voluntary, its 2011 Communication on Corporate Social
Responsibility mentions a number of related areas which are the subject of legislative proposals. These include a
recent proposal to oblige non-financial disclosure, and a proposal to revise the public procurement Directives.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 279

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004353/13**

**al Consejo**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Tratado de las Naciones Unidas sobre el comercio de armas

El pasado 2 de abril de 2013, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas aprobó el Tratado sobre el Comercio de
Armas, que regula el intercambio global de todo tipo de bienes y equipamiento militar. El Tratado especifica en su
artículo 6 las condiciones bajo las que se prohíbe el comercio, y en el artículo 7 obliga a los Estados exportadores a
evaluar la situación del Estado importador y denegar la autorización en caso de determinados riesgos para la paz y los
derechos humanos.

Este Tratado afecta sin duda a la exportación de armas que se producen en la Unión Europea, una de las zonas con
mayor producción armamentística del mundo. En la UE, la exportación de armas se controla en los Estados miembros
que conceden las licencias de exportación en cada caso, y la información sobre todas las licencias de exportación
concedidas es recopilada y publicada en el Informe Anual sobre el Comercio de Armas, que se elabora desde que se
aprobara la Posición Común del Consejo 2008/944/PESC. En este informe se detalla el destino de todas las
exportaciones, poniendo en evidencia que algunas de estas pueden no ajustarse a la nueva normativa aprobada en las
Naciones Unidas. Según el último informe publicado sobre el año 2011, la UE exportó cantidades récord a países
como Arabia Saudí, por unos 4 200 millones de euros, Marruecos, por unos 330 millones, Israel, por 157, etc. Estas
exportaciones a países que son una clara amenaza para la paz deberían detenerse tras el acuerdo alcanzado.

Según el nuevo Tratado, los Estados están obligados a evaluar de manera objetiva y por igual a todos los importadores
para comprobar que no incumplen los requisitos fijados en el artículo 7, entre ellos «contribuir a la paz y seguridad o
menoscabarlas», «cometer o facilitar una violación grave de los derechos humanos y del Derecho internacional
humanitario». Esto debería detener los flujos de armas a determinados países como los anteriormente citados y
muchos otros, pero carecemos de garantías de transparencia en la metodología de evaluación que utilizarán los
Estados miembros para determinar si se deben anular licencias de exportación a determinados países, especialmente si
suponen cifras millonarias.

¿Cuál será la metodología empleada por los Estados miembros en estas evaluaciones estipuladas en el artículo 7 del
citado Tratado? ¿Plantea el Consejo desarrollar una metodología común? ¿Se están concediendo licencias de
exportación a países que pueden incumplir o claramente incumplen el Tratado, como Arabia Saudí, Israel o
Marruecos? ¿En qué medida la exportación de armas puede «contribuir a la paz»?

**Respuesta**
_(9 de julio de 2013)_

El principio fundamental consagrado en el Tratado sobre el comercio de armas es que la regulación del comercio de
armas, y en particular la decisión de autorizar o denegar una licencia de exportación de armas, es responsabilidad
nacional de los Estados Partes. Los Estados Partes —entre los que estarán todos los Estados miembros de la UE— están
obligados a llevar a cabo las evaluaciones de riesgos previstas en el artículo 7, pero el Tratado no prescribe ninguna
metodología específica de evaluación. Los Estados miembros examinarán, en el marco del Grupo PESC
correspondiente, el impacto de las obligaciones derivadas del Tratado sobre la aplicación de la Posición Común
2008/944/PESC del Consejo.

Al evaluar las solicitudes de certificados de exportación, los Estados miembros están obligados por las normas
comunes que rigen el control de las exportaciones de tecnología y equipos militares según lo establecido en la
Posición Común 2008/944/PESC del Consejo, de 8 de diciembre de 2008. Dicha Posición Común se acordó a fin de
establecer normas comunes rigurosas y promover la convergencia en el ámbito de las exportaciones de tecnología y
equipos militares en el marco de la Política Exterior y de Seguridad Común. Con arreglo al artículo 4.2 de la Posición
Común 2008/944/PESC, la decisión de autorizar o denegar licencias de exportación de armas sigue siendo
responsabilidad nacional de cada Estado miembro. Ya en la actualidad, la Guía del usuario que acompaña a la Posición
Común fija nuevas orientaciones para la interpretación de los criterios establecidos en la Posición Común, incluidos el
respeto del derecho internacional humanitario y la preservación de la paz, la seguridad y la estabilidad.

Otro principio fundamental, tanto de la Posición Común 2008/944/PESC del Consejo como del Tratado, es la
evaluación de las solicitudes de licencia de exportación caso por caso, teniendo en cuenta una evaluación diferenciada
de los criterios para cada solicitud de licencia individual con respecto a la tecnología militar o el artículo en cuestión y
el usuario final específico, y no sólo el país de destino final en su totalidad.

C 33 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

En sus conclusiones de noviembre de 2012, el Consejo afirma que las disposiciones de la posición común, así como
los instrumentos que esta prevé, seguirán sirviendo adecuadamente a los objetivos establecidos en 2008 y facilitando
una base sólida para la coordinación de las políticas de exportación de armas de los Estados miembros. El Consejo
reconoce también que se pueden lograr más progresos en la aplicación de la posición común y a fin de maximizar la
convergencia entre los Estados miembros en el ámbito de las exportaciones de armas convencionales. Con este fin, el
Consejo está desarrollando nuevas orientaciones en la aplicación e interpretación de los criterios de exportación de la
posición común.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 281

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004353/13**

**to the Council**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Arms Trade Treaty, regulating
international trade in all kinds of military material and equipment. Article 6 of the Treaty specifies the conditions
under which trade is prohibited, and Article 7 requires exporting States to assess the situation of the importing State
and to deny authorisation in the case of determined risks to peace and human rights.

This Treaty will certainly affect arms exports that take place in the European Union, which is one of the world’s
biggest producers of arms. In the EU, Member States control arms exports, granting export licences in each case, and
the Annual Report on Arms Trade, which has been prepared since adoption of Council Common
Position 2008/944/CFSP, complies and publishes information on all export licences granted. This report provides
details of the destination of all exports, highlighting that some exports may not conform to the new rules approved in
the United Nations. According to the latest report published in 2011, the EU exported record quantities to countries
such as Saudi Arabia (around EUR 4.2 billion), Morocco (some EUR 330 million), Israel (EUR 157 million), etc. These
exports to countries that are clearly a threat to peace should stop as a result of the agreement reached.

Under the new Treaty, States are obliged to assess all importers, in an objective and non-discriminatory manner, to
verify that they are not in breach of the requirements established in Article 7, which include ‘would contribute to or
undermine peace and security’ and ‘commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law’. This
should stop the flow of arms to certain countries, including those mentioned above and many others, but we have no
guarantees of transparency in the evaluation methodology that Member States will use to determine whether to
cancel export licences to certain countries, especially if enormous sums of money are involved.

What methodology will Member States use in the evaluations required by Article 7 of the Treaty? Is the Council
considering the possibility of developing a common methodology? Are export licences being granted to countries
that may fail to comply with, or clearly violate, the Treaty, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Morocco? To what extent
can arms exports ‘contribute to peace’?

**Reply**
_(9 July 2013)_

The core principle enshrined in the ATT is that regulating the arms trade, and notably the decision to authorise or
deny an arms export licence, remain the national responsibility of the State parties. State parties — which will include
all EU Member States — are required to carry out the risk assessments provided for in Article 7 but the ATT does not
prescribe any specific evaluation methodology. Member States will discuss, in the framework of the corresponding
CFSP Working Group, the impact of the obligations arising from the ATT on the implementation of Council
Common Position 2008/944/CFSP.

When assessing requests for export licences, Member States are bound by the common rules governing the control of
exports of military technology and equipment as set out by Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of
8 December 2008. This Common Position was agreed in order to set high common standards and to promote
convergence in the field of exports of military technology and equipment within the framework of Common Foreign
and Security Policy. Under Article 4 (2) of the Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, the decision on whether to
authorise or deny arms export licences remains the national responsibility of each Member State ~~s.~~ Already today, the
User's Guide accompanying the Common Position provides further guidance for the interpretation of the criteria
outlined in the Common Position, including the respect for international humanitarian law and the preservation of
regional peace, security and stability.

Another core principle, both in the Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP as well as in the ATT is the assessment
of export license applications on a case-by-case basis, allowing for a differentiated assessment of the criteria for each
individual license application with respect to the military technology or goods in question and the specific end user,
and not only the country of final destination as a whole.

C 33 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

In its conclusions of November 2012, the Council concludes that the provisions of the Common Position, and the
instruments it provides for, continue to properly serve the objectives set in 2008 and to provide a solid basis for the
coordination of Member States' arms export policies. The Council also recognises that further progress is achievable
in the implementation of the Common Position and in order to maximise convergence among Member States in the
field of exports of conventional arms. To this end, the Council is developing further guidance in the application and
interpretation of the export criteria of the Common Position.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 283

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004354/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Impacto de la crisis en los campamentos saharauis

La reducción de los fondos que los Estados miembros dedican a proyectos de cooperación internacional, con el
pretexto de las restricciones financieras que la crisis les impone, está produciendo una gravísima situación de
desabastecimiento en los campamentos de refugiados saharauis.

El Ministro de Cooperación del Frente Polisario, Brahim Mojtar, ha expuesto en unas recientes declaraciones: «el
impacto de la crisis económica está siendo muy grave en los campamentos de refugiados saharauis. Tenemos un
déficit de 29 000 toneladas de alimentos que no sabemos de dónde van a venir». Este déficit de alimentos en los
campamentos de refugiados saharauis produce una situación grave de inseguridad alimentaria para una población
aproximada de 200 000 personas que, al haber sido expulsados de su tierra, carecen de la posibilidad de producir tales
cantidades.

Según Mojtar, el Programa Mundial de Alimentos estimó en 37,5 millones de dólares la cantidad necesaria para cubrir
el volumen de alimentos necesarios para la población de los campamentos; el Plan ACNUR tan solo ha sido capaz de
recaudar 6 millones de dólares. Este gravísimo desfase entre las necesidades y las recaudaciones está comenzando a
agravar las condiciones de salud de la población saharaui, elevando drásticamente los índices de anemia entre los
niños menores de 5 años y las mujeres embarazadas, así como produciendo «la carencia total de medicamentos para
enfermos crónicos» en palabras del ministro. Ante esta situación de emergencia resulta indispensable movilizar
fondos adicionales para poder evitar una situación de crisis alimentaria en los campamentos saharauis.

¿Puede facilitar la Comisión información sobre las cifras de ayuda económica que el programa ECHO prevé para
ayuda alimentaria a los campamentos del refugiados del Sahara Occidental?

¿Considera la Comisión que dicha cifra se adecua a las actuales necesidades alimentarias y sanitarias de los
campamentos saharauis, habida cuenta de la importante falta de recursos expuesta?

¿Piensa la Comisión movilizar fondos adicionales para poder evitar una grave situación de emergencia alimentaria en
los campamentos saharauis?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Georgieva en nombre de la Comisión**

_(7 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión debatió el 23 de abril de 2013 la declaración del ministro saharaui de Cooperación sobre las penurias de
alimentos con el Presidente de la Media Luna Roja saharaui, el cual reconoció que había habido un malentendido en la
agencia de presa argelina que había difundido la información a este respecto.

El Programa Mundial de Alimentos (PMA) confirmó a la Comisión que el programa vigente de ayuda alimentaria en
favor de los refugiados saharauis que viven en los cinco campos del sudoeste de Argelia está muy bien financiado: ya
están confirmados 22 millones de dólares de los 35 millones de dólares necesarios (el 62,8 %), además de un importe
adicional previsto de 7,5 millones de dólares, con lo que la financiación confirmada y las contribuciones previstas
alcanzan el 84 % de la financiación total necesaria para el programa de ayuda alimentaria del PMA. Este porcentaje ya
es muy bueno, teniendo en cuenta que el programa solo ha llegado al 22 % de su duración.

La ayuda humanitaria de la UE a la prolongada situación de los refugiados saharauis asciende actualmente a diez
millones de euros anuales, importe que se ha mantenido estable en los últimos años. De este importe, la financiación
humanitaria de la UE para ayuda alimentaria en 2013 en beneficio de los refugiados asciende a 7 millones de euros,
divididos entre el PMA para proporcionar una cesta básica de alimentos deshidratados (4 millones de euros), y Oxfam
Solidarités de Bélgica, para un programa de alimentos frescos (3 millones de euros), que ofrece frutas y hortalizas a los
90 000 refugiados saharauis más vulnerables.

La encuesta sobre el estado nutricional realizada por el ACNUR y el PMA a finales de 2012 confirma una mejora del
estado nutricional de los refugiados saharauis en los campos. Aunque la inseguridad alimentaria sigue estando por
encima de las normas internacionales, está disminuyendo el raquitismo y la anemia en los niños de entre seis meses y
cinco años y los indicadores del consumo de alimentos también han mejorado respecto a 2010.

C 33 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004354/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Impact of the crisis on the Sahrawi camps

The reduction in funding assigned by Member States to international cooperation projects, under the pretext of the
financial constraints imposed by the crisis, is leading to a situation of serious shortages in the Sahrawi refugee camps.

The Minister of Cooperation for the Polisario Front, Brahim Mojtar, has explained in recent statements: ‘the economic
crisis is having a very serious impact in the Sahrawi refugee camps. We have a 29 000 tonne food deficit and we do
not know where it will come from’. This food shortage in the Sahrawi refugee camps has led to a serious situation of
food insecurity for a population of approximately 200 000 people who, having been expelled from their land, have
no opportunity to produce such quantities.

According to Mojtar, the World Food Programme estimated the amount required to cover the volume of food needed
for the population of the camps at USD 37.5 million; the UNHCR Plan has only been able to raise USD 6 million. This
serious gap between needs and revenues is starting to aggravate the health conditions of the Sahrawi population,
dramatically raising anaemia rates among children under five years and pregnant women, as well as producing, in the
minister’s words, ‘a total lack of medicaments for the chronically ill’. In this situation of emergency, it is essential to
mobilise additional funds to avert a food crisis in the Sahrawi camps.

Can the Commission furnish information on the economic aid figures for food aid to refugee camps in Western
Sahara provided for by the ECHO programme?

Does the Commission consider that this figure responds to the current nutritional and health needs of the Sahrawi
camps, given the significant lack of resources already explained?

Does the Commission intend to mobilise additional funds to avert a major food emergency in the Sahrawi camps?

**Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The statement made by the Sahrawi Minister of Cooperation about food shortages was discussed by the Commission
with the President of the Sahrawi Red Crescent on 23 April 2013. He agreed that ‘there was a misunderstanding from
the Algerian press agency’ that relayed information on the topic.

The World Food Programme (WFP) confirmed to the Commission that the current food aid programme in favour of
the Sahrawi refugees living in the 5 camps in southwest Algeria is very well funded: USD 22 million out of the
USD 35 million needed is already confirmed (i.e. 62.8%), and an additional USD 7.5 million is forecast, bringing the
confirmed funding and the forecasted contributions to 84% of the total funding needed for WFP’s food aid
programme. This rate is already very good, considering that the programme is only at 22% of its life-span.

The EU humanitarian contribution to the protracted Sahrawi refugee situation currently stands at EUR10 million per
year, an amount that has been stable in recent years. On this amount, EU humanitarian funding for food assistance in
2013 for the refugees amounts to EUR7 million, split between WFP for the provision of a basic dry food basket
(EUR4 million) and Oxfam Solidarités Belgium for a fresh food programme (EUR3 million) providing fruit and
vegetables to the most vulnerable 90 000 Sahrawi refugees.

The nutritional survey carried out by UNHCR and WFP at the end of 2012 actually confirms an improvement of the
nutritional status of Sahrawi refugees in the camps. While food insecurity levels remain above international
standards, stunting and anaemia among children from 6 months to 5 year old is decreasing, and the food
consumption score also shows an improvement over 2010.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 285

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004355/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Herbert Reul (PPE)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Nutzung flexibler Kooperationsmechanismen gemäß der Richtlinie 2009/28/EC

In dem von der Kommission am 27. März 2013 vorgelegten Fortschrittsbericht über die Entwicklung erneuerbarer
Energien in der EU wird der Stand der Umsetzung grenzüberschreitender Kooperationsmechanismen nach Artikel 6
bis 8 der Richtlinie 2009/28/EG nur peripher angesprochen; der Stand der Umsetzung von Projekten mit Drittstaaten
gemäß Artikel 9 wird überhaupt nicht angesprochen.

Kann die Kommission vor dem Hintergrund der anstehenden Veröffentlichung der Leitlinien zu
Kooperationsmechanismen folgende Fragen zum Stand der Umsetzung und zur Zukunft grenzüberschreitender
Kooperationsmechanismen im Rahmen der Richtlinie 2009/28/EG beantworten:

1. Welche Gründe sieht die Kommission dafür, dass die grenzüberschreitenden Kooperationsmechanismen bisher
annähernd ungenutzt bleiben? Ist davon auszugehen, dass bis 2020 eine höhere Nutzung der
Fördermechanismen eintritt?

2. Plant die Kommission Maßnahmen, um die Nutzung der flexiblen Kooperationsmechanismen zu fördern?
Welche Maßnahmen sind aus Sicht der Kommission dafür denkbar?

3. Wie ist der Stand der Umsetzung des von der Kommission unterstützten Pilotprojekts zum Export von in
Marokko erzeugtem Solarstrom nach Europa? Welche Hürden gibt es? Was steht einer Vereinbarung der
beteiligten Regierungen im Rahmen der Richtlinie 2009/28/EC im Weg?

4. In welcher Form werden die Kooperationsmechanismen im Rahmen des Mittelmeersolarplans berücksichtigt,
der im Dezember 2013 durch den Ministerrat der Union für das Mittelmeer verabschiedet werden soll?

**Antwort von Herrn Oettinger im Namen der Kommission**

_(11. Juni 2013)_

1. Die Mitgliedstaaten haben eine Reihe von Hindernissen ermittelt, die ihr derzeitiges Zögern bei der Anwendung
der Kooperationsmechanismen im Rahmen der Richtlinie 2009/28/EG erklären. Als Hinderungsgrund nennen viele
Mitgliedstaaten insbesondere die wahrgenommene technische und regulatorische Komplexität sowie die
vermeintliche Unsicherheit der zugrunde liegenden Kosten-Nutzen-Annahmen. Zudem verweisen sie auf die
Schwierigkeit, die Vorteile der Zusammenarbeit einer breiten Öffentlichkeit zu vermitteln, und äußern Bedenken
wegen Überschneidungen mit nationalen Förderregelungen. Nach Einschätzungen der Kommission dürften die
Kooperationsmechanismen künftig stärker genutzt werden, da die Mitgliedstaaten ihre Anstrengungen zur
Erreichung der verbindlichen 2020-Ziele verstärken müssen und Kosteneffizienzaspekte dabei immer wichtiger
werden.

2. Um die Anwendung der Kooperationsmechanismen zu erleichtern, plant die Kommission, in Kürze einen
Leitfaden für die Mitgliedstaaten zu veröffentlichen, in dem sie die genannten Herausforderungen behandelt und
Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten aufzeigt, mit denen diese Herausforderungen bewältigt werden können.

3. Das wichtigste Hindernis für die Durchführung eines Pilot-Kooperationsprojekts mit Marokko gemäß Artikel 9
der Richtlinie 2009/28/EG besteht darin, dass sich die interessierten Mitgliedstaaten bisher nicht auf einen
entsprechenden regulatorischen und finanziellen Rahmen einigen konnten. Die Kommission kann zu den laufenden
Gesprächen zwischen Mitgliedstaaten nicht Stellung nehmen.

4. Im Mittelmeersolarplan, der von den Energieministern der Union für den Mittelmeerraum im Dezember 2013
verabschiedet werden soll, wird dazu aufgefordert, den regionalen Handel von Strom aus erneuerbaren
Energiequellen zu fördern. Dabei wird auch die Anwendung des Kooperationsmechanismus gemäß Artikel 9 erwähnt
und empfohlen.

C 33 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004355/13**

**to the Commission**
**Herbert Reul (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Use of flexible cooperation mechanisms according to Directive 2009/28/EC

The progress report on the development of renewable energies in the EU, presented by the Commission on
27 March 2013, only makes peripheral mention of the status of the implementation of cross-border cooperation
mechanisms according to Articles 6 to 8 of Directive 2009/28/EC; the status of the implementation of projects
involving third countries according to Article 9 is not mentioned at all.

In the context of the forthcoming publication of the directive on Cooperation Mechanisms, can the Commission
answer the following questions in relation to the status of implementation and the future of cross-border cooperation
mechanisms within the framework of Directive 2009/28/EC:

1. In the Commission’s view, why is it that cross-border cooperation mechanisms remain almost unused to date?
Is it to be expected that there will be a higher level of use of support mechanisms by 2020?

2. Is the Commission planning measures to promote the use of flexible cooperation mechanisms? What
associated measures can be envisaged from the Commission’s perspective?

3. What progress has been achieved in implementing the pilot project supported by the Commission concerning
the export of solar energy generated in Morocco to Europe? What hurdles exist? What are the obstacles to an
agreement between the participating governments within the framework of Directive 2009/28/EC?

4. In what way are the cooperation mechanisms taken into account within the framework of the Mediterranean
Solar Plan, which is to be agreed for the Mediterranean Region by the Council of Ministers of the European
Union in December 2013?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

1. Member States have identified a number of barriers explaining their current reluctance to make use of the
cooperation mechanisms under Directive 2009/28/EC. Frequently mentioned issues and challenges include _inter alia_ :
the perceived technical and regulatory complexity, perceived uncertainty of underlying cost-benefit assumptions,
communicating the advantages of cooperation to the general public as well as concerns over interferences with
national support schemes. The Commission expects that greater use of cooperation mechanisms will be made in the
future, as national trajectories towards the mandatory 2020 targets become steeper and cost-efficiency concerns
become more prominent.

2. The Commission is planning to publish a guidance document for Member States shortly addressing these
challenges and exploring design options to solve them, in order to facilitate the implementation of cooperation
mechanisms.

3. The central barrier to the implementation of a pilot cooperation project under Article 9 of
Directive 2009/28/EC with Morocco is that interested Member States have so far not been able to agree upon a
regulatory and financing framework to that effect. The Commission is not in a position to comment upon these
ongoing discussions between Member States.

4. The Mediterranean Solar Master Plan, which is due for adoption at the UfM Energy Ministerial Council in
December 2013, calls for the promotion of regional trade of renewable electricity. In this context, the Master Plan
brings up and recommends, _inter alia_, the implementation of the Article 9 cooperation mechanism.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 287

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004356/13**

**to the Commission**

**Gay Mitchell (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regulation 883/2004 and access to non-contributory benefits for EU migrants

1. What measures does the Commission have in place to ensure that Member States comply with Regulation (EC)
No 883/2004 when determining which is the competent State in which the EU citizen, or family member of an EU
citizen, has established his or her habitual residence for the purposes of claiming a special non-contributory benefit?

2. Does the Commission have any plans to collect and analyse data on nationality and residence in relation to
benefit claims in each of the Member States in order to assess whether marginalised EU citizens who are economically
inactive but retain a right-to-reside are able to avail of special non-contributory benefits in their Member State of
residence?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

It is settled case-law that, in order to establish whether a person is habitually resident in a Member State, an overall
assessment must be made of the relevant facts with a view to determining the person’s centre of interests: this test is
reflected in Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 ( [1] ). National courts carry out the overall assessment of the
facts in an individual's case and the Commission intervenes only where a Member State’s legislation is at variance with
the case-law.

The Commission has commanded a study of the impact of the entitlement of non-active EU mobile citizens to special
non-contributory cash benefits and residence-based healthcare benefits. The results will be available in autumn 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, OJ L 284, 30.10.2009.

C 33 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-004357/13**

**komissiolle**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(18. huhtikuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Palestiinalaishallinnon saaman EU-rahoituksen läpinäkyvyys

EU:n myöntämä rahoitus yksityisille palestiinalaisille poliittisille järjestöille on mittavaa. Kuitenkaan talousavun
myöntämisperusteet ja varojen käyttöön liittyvät yksityiskohdat eivät ole vapaasti saatavana. On olemassa viitteitä,
että varoja on käytetty tavalla, joka ei vastaa EU:n tarkoitusperiä eikä palvele rauhaan tähtäävän toiminnan tavoitteita.
Varoja on ohjattu poliittisille järjestöille, jotka toimivat aktiivisesti arabien ja israelilaisten välisessä konfliktissa.
Tämän kaltainen toiminta ei ole omiaan parantamaan niitä lähtökohtia, joiden pohjalta pysyvä ratkaisu ristiriitoihin
voisi löytyä. On lopulta epäselvää, onko varat käytetty EU:n tarkoittamalla tavalla.

Komissio on aiemmin esittänyt salailun perusteeksi yleisen turvallisuuden. Mitä näyttöä komissiolla on siitä, että
tällainen salailu toimii toivotulla tavalla ja on edelleen tarpeen? Miten komissio varmistaa, että sen myöntämiä varoja
ei käytetä asiattomalla tavalla, kun esimerkiksi median toimintaa asian valvojana vaikeuttaa salailu? Kuinka EUkansalaisten oikeus saada tietoa EU:n hallinnosta toteutuu palestiinalaishallinnolle myönnetyn rahoituksen kohdalla?

**Štefan Fülen komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(30. toukokuuta 2013)_

EU:n Palestiinalle myöntämää rahoitusta koskevat tiedot eivät ole salaisia. Eurooppalaisen naapuruuden ja
kumppanuuden välineen (ENPI) hallintokomitea, joka koostuu kaikkien EU-maiden edustajista, hyväksyy kaiken
palestiinalaishallinnolle ja muille edunsaajille välineestä myönnettävän rahoitustuen. Tärkeimpiä muita edunsaajia
ovat YK:n Lähi-idässä olevien palestiinalaispakolaisten avustus- ja työelin (UNRWA) ja Palestiinan
vapautusjärjestön (PLO) Itä-Jerusalemin rahoituksesta vastaava toimisto. Yksityiskohtaisia tietoja rahoituksesta on
saatavana Itä-Jerusalemissa sijaitsevan EU:n edustuston sekä Brysselissä toimivan komission kehitys- ja
yhteistyöpääosaston verkkosivuilta. ( [1] )

Kansalaisyhteiskunnan järjestöjen toteuttamille hankkeille myönnetään rahoitusta julkisten ehdotuspyyntöjen
perusteella. Ehdotuspyyntöjä koskevat ohjeet on julkaistu edellä mainituilla verkkosivustoilla. Myös näiden
ehdotuspyyntöjen tulokset ja valittujen hankkeiden tiedot ovat julkisia. Rahoitusta voidaan myöntää vain toimiin,
jotka täsmennetään ehdotusten yksityiskohtaisissa talousarvioissa. Kaikilta edunsaajilta vaaditaan toimintaa ja
rahoitusta koskevat väliraportit sekä riippumattoman tilintarkastajan antama lopullinen menotarkastusraportti. EU
teettää myös säännöllisesti hankkeiden ja toimien tulosperusteista seurantaa ja arviointeja ulkopuolisilla
toimeksisaajilla.

Komissio pyytää arvoisaa parlamentin jäsentä tutustumaan myös vastauksiin, jotka se on antanut aiempiin
kysymyksiin E-003077/2013, E-003303/2013, E-003330/2013 ja P-003198/2013 ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?

do=publi.welcome&nbPubliList=15&orderby=upd&orderbyad=Desc&searchtype=RS&aofr=134082&userlanguage=en;
http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/israel/funding_opportunities/grants/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 289

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004357/13**

**to the Commission**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Transparency of EU funding received by the Palestinian Authority

EU funding of individual Palestinian political organisations is substantial. However, information about the basis on
which financial assistance is provided is not freely accessible; nor are details of the use made of the funding. There are
indications that funds have been used in a way which does not accord with the EU’s purposes and does not pursue
objectives geared to promoting peace. Funding has been provided to political organisations actively involved in the
Arab-Israeli conflict. Such activity is not likely to improve the preconditions for a lasting settlement to the disputes.
Lastly, it is not clear whether the funding has been used in the way intended by the EU.

The Commission has previously stated that the reason for secrecy was general security. What evidence does the
Commission have that such secrecy is functioning in the intended manner and remains necessary? How does the
Commission ensure that the funds it provides are not used in the wrong way, given that, for example, secrecy makes it
harder for the media to carry out monitoring? How is EU citizens’ right to be informed about EU administration
respected with regard to the funding granted to the Palestinian Authority?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

There is no secrecy surrounding the attribution of EU funds for Palestine. Allocations to the Palestinian Authority and
other beneficiaries (in particular the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the Office of the
President of the Palestine Liberation Organisation for funding for East Jerusalem) from the European Neighbourhood
Partnership Instrument are approved by the Management Committee, consisting of representatives of all Member
States. Details of such funding are available on the websites of the EU Representative Office in East Jerusalem and of
the Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation in Brussels ( [1] ).

Insofar as funding of projects implemented by civil society organisations is concerned, funds are awarded on the basis
of public calls for proposals, the guidelines for which are published in the two websites referred to above. The results
of the calls are published, together with information on the projects selected. Only activities foreseen in the detailed
budgets of these proposals are eligible for funding. All beneficiaries are required to submit interim narrative and
financial reports, together with a final expenditure verification report from an independent auditor. The EU also
regularly carries out results-oriented monitoring and evaluations of such projects and activities through external

contractors.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its replies to previous questions E-003077/2013,
E-003303/2013, E-003330/2013 and P-003198/2013 ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/europeaid/online-services/index.cfm?do=publi.welcome&nbPubliList=15&orderby=upd&orderbyad=Desc&

searchtype=RS&aofr=134082&userlanguage=en, http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/israel/funding_opportunities/grants/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

C 33 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-004358/13**

**do Komisji**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(18 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Memorandum w sprawie budowy drugiej nitki gazociągu Jamał-Europa

5 kwietnia br. szef koncernu Gazprom i prezes spółki EuRoPol Gaz podpisali w Petersburgu memorandum w sprawie
budowy drugiej nitki gazociągu Jamał-Europa.

Dokument przewiduje realizację projektu nazwanego Jamał-Europa II przez terytorium Polski w kierunku Słowacji
i Węgier o przepustowości nie mniejszej niż 15 miliardów metrów sześciennych gazu rocznie.

Rosjanie powołują się na umowę z 1993 r., określającą zasady realizacji gazociągu jamalskiego, który transportuje
gaz z terytorium Rosji przez Polskę do Niemiec. Plany zakładają, że Jamał-Europa II będzie miał zasadniczo inny
kształt – ma być gazociągiem biegnącym z Białorusi przez Polskę na Słowację.

Czy projekt ten był przedstawiany w ostatnim czasie Komisarzowi ds. Energii?

Czy w opinii Komisji realizuje on postulaty dywersyfikacji dostaw gazu do państw członkowskich?

Czy Komisja wymieniała opinie w tej sprawie ze stroną polską?

Czy Komisja dopuszcza zwolnienie tej infrastruktury z wymogów niezależnego operatorstwa, zgodnie z zasadami III
pakietu energetycznego?

Czy przywołanie umowy z 1993 r. dotyczącej realizacji gazociągu jamalskiego ma znaczenie prawne dla
obowiązywania III pakietu energetycznego wobec tej inwestycji, w przypadku gdyby była ona zrealizowana?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Günthera Oettingera w imieniu Komisji**

_(22 maja 2013 r.)_

Projekt nie został przedstawiony ani komisarzowi ds. energii, ani Komisji. Ponieważ projekt nie został przedstawiony
i nie są znane żadne jego szczegóły, Komisja nie może zajmować stanowiska odnośnie do spełnienia przez niego
wymogów w zakresie dywersyfikacji dostaw gazu do państw członkowskich. Analogicznie, w odniesieniu do
przedmiotowego projektu nie złożono wniosku w sprawie zwolnienia z wymogów niezależnego operatorstwa
zgodnie z zasadami tzw. trzeciego pakietu energetycznego ( [1] ). Trzeci pakiet energetyczny ma zastosowanie do
wszystkich sieci przesyłowych i dystrybucyjnych w UE, w tym do gazociągów Jamał.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/legislation/legislation_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 291

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004358/13**

**to the Commission**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Memorandum on construction of a second branch of the Yamal-Europe pipeline

On 5 April the CEO of Gazprom and the Managing Director of the EuRoPol Gaz joint venture signed a memorandum
of understanding in Saint Petersburg on the construction of a second branch of the Yamal-Europe pipeline

This document outlines the implementation of the so-called ‘Yamal-Europe II’ project, running through Poland to
Slovakia and Hungary, which would have a capacity of no less than 15 billion cubic metres of gas per year.

The Russians cite the 1993 agreement setting out the framework for construction of the Yamal gas pipeline, which
transports gas from Russia through Poland to Germany. According to the plans, Yamal-Europe II would have a very
different shape, running from Belarus through Poland to Slovakia.

Has this project recently been presented to the Energy Commissioner?

Does the Commission believe it fulfils the requirements of diversifying gas supplies to the Member States?

Has the Commission exchanged opinions with Poland on this matter?

Is the Commission permitting an exemption for this project from the independent operator requirements under the
third energy package?

Does the citing of the 1993 agreement on the implementation of the Yamal pipeline have any legal significance as
regards the application of the third energy package to the project, if it is to be carried out?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

The project has been presented neither to the Commissioner for energy nor to the Commission. Since the project has
not been presented and no details of the project are known, the Commission cannot pronounce itself on whether the
project fulfils requirements of diversifying gas supplies to the Member States or not. Equally, no exemption from the
independent operator requirements under the so called Third Energy Package ( [1] ) has been requested in respect of this
project. The Third Energy Package applies to all transmission and distribution networks in the EU, including the
Yamal pipelines.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/legislation/legislation_en.htm

C 33 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004359/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Racismo y xenofobia

El artículo 67, apartado 3, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea dice que: «La Unión se esforzará por
garantizar un nivel elevado de seguridad mediante medidas de prevención de la delincuencia, el racismo y la
xenofobia y de lucha en contra de ellos, medidas de coordinación y cooperación entre autoridades policiales y
judiciales y otras autoridades competentes, así como mediante el reconocimiento mutuo de las resoluciones judiciales
en materia penal y, si es necesario, mediante la aproximación de las legislaciones penales».

En relación con el artículo anteriormente citado, en el pasado Pleno de marzo del Parlamento Europeo en
Estrasburgo, los diputados europeos reclamaron que se reforzara la legislación comunitaria para combatir el racismo
y la xenofobia en Europa en una resolución consensuada por todos los grupos políticos y adoptada a mano alzada por
una amplia mayoría.

Por este motivo, ¿qué medidas pretende tomar la Comisión para combatir formas y expresiones de racismo y
xenofobia en la Unión Europea?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(30 de mayo de 2013)_

Como indicó la Comisión en la sesión plenaria del Parlamento Europeo de 12 de marzo de 2013, la Comisión está
evaluando las notificaciones de los Estados miembros sobre las medidas nacionales de incorporación de la Decisión
marco 2008/913/JAI del Consejo y presentará su evaluación sobre la aplicación por los Estados miembros de este
texto legislativo de la UE a finales de 2013. Por lo tanto, aún es pronto para evaluar en qué medida se ha aplicado este
instrumento, así como la posibilidad y el modo de revisarlo. La Comisión también recuerda que no está autorizada a
incoar procedimientos de infracción sobre la base de la Decisión marco hasta el 1 de diciembre de 2014.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 293

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004359/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Racism and xenophobia

Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union says that: ‘The Union shall endeavour to ensure
a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through
measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities,
as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the
approximation of criminal laws.’

In connection with that article, MEPs called, at the European Parliament’s March plenary session in Strasbourg, for EU
legislation to be strengthened to combat racism and xenophobia in Europe in a resolution supported by all the
political groups and adopted by a show of hands by a large majority.

What steps does the Commission therefore intend to take to combat forms and expressions of racism and
xenophobia in the European Union?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

As it has been stated by the Commission at the Plenary of the European Parliament on 12 March 2013, the
Commission is currently assessing the Member States' notifications on national measures transposing Council
Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and it will present its assessment on Member States' compliance with this EC law
at the end of 2013. Therefore, it is still premature to assess how this instrument has been applied and whether and
how it would need to be revised. The Commission also recalls that it is not authorised to launch infringement
proceedings on the basis of the framework Decision until 1 December 2014.

C 33 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004360/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Paro juvenil

La crisis económica está afectando de una manera más severa a los jóvenes europeos: hay cinco millones de jóvenes
desempleados en la EU y 7,5 millones de jóvenes que ni trabajan ni estudian.

En España la tasa de paro juvenil (menores de 25 años) se situó en el 55,13 % en 2012 —es decir, 6,57 puntos más
que en 2011—, lo que hace que el número de jóvenes desempleados se sitúe en 930 200 personas.

Además de la crisis, hay otros motivos que influyen directamente en el paro juvenil, como desajustes en el mercado
laboral, insuficiencia de conocimientos y capacitación, movilidad geográfica limitada o precariedad en el empleo.

Aunque la educación y las políticas de empleo son competencia de los Estados miembros, ¿qué medidas está tomando
la Comisión para ayudar a facilitar la entrada de los jóvenes en el mercado laboral?

**Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de junio de 2013)_

El 5 de diciembre de 2012, la Comisión adoptó el paquete _Promover el empleo juvenil (_ [1] _)_ . En él propone una
Recomendación del Consejo sobre el establecimiento de una Garantía Juvenil, en la que se llama a los Estados
miembros a velar por que todos los menores de 25 años reciban una buena oferta de empleo, educación continua,
formación de aprendiz o periodo de prácticas en un plazo de cuatro meses tras acabar la educación formal o quedar
desempleados. El Consejo adoptó la Recomendación el 22 de abril de 2013 ( [2] ). La Comisión efectuará un seguimiento
de su aplicación, fomentará el intercambio de buenas prácticas y garantizará que los fondos de la UE puedan utilizarse
plenamente para financiar la Garantía Juvenil.

El paquete de empleo juvenil destaca también la necesidad de una mayor oferta de periodos de prácticas y de
aprendizaje, de calidad para facilitar la transición de los jóvenes de la escuela al trabajo. Para ello, la Comisión
presentará en 2013 una propuesta de marco de calidad para los periodos de prácticas, y creará una Alianza Europea
para la Formación de Aprendices en julio de 2013, como ya anunció en el paquete de empleo juvenil y en la
Comunicación _Un nuevo concepto de educación_, de 21 de noviembre de 2012 ( [3] ).

Asimismo, el paquete de empleo juvenil indicará la manera de facilitar la movilidad laboral de la juventud en el
interior de la Unión, que aumentará sus oportunidades de encontrar trabajo y abordará la inadecuación de las
cualificaciones al mercado laboral.

La Iniciativa de Empleo Juvenil, de 6 000 millones de euros, adoptada por la Comisión el 12 de marzo de 2013,
seguirá estimulando las medidas de apoyo establecidas en el paquete de empleo juvenil, y en particular la Garantía
Juvenil. Reforzará el ya muy importante apoyo de los Fondos Estructurales de la UE, y en particular el apoyo las a
regiones con altas tasas de desempleo.

Por último, el 29 de mayo se adoptaron varias recomendaciones específicas por país en el contexto del Semestre
Europeo, para ayudar a los Estados miembros a emprender las reformas estructurales necesarias que faciliten el
empleo juvenil.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Paquete de empleo juvenil, COM(2012) 727-728-729, de 5 de diciembre de 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/es/13/st07/st07123.es13.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 295

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004360/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Youth unemployment

The economic crisis is having a particularly severe impact on Europe’s young people: there are 5 million unemployed
young people in the EU and 7.5 million young people who are neither working nor studying.

In Spain the youth unemployment rate (for those under 25) was 55.13% in 2012, which is 6.57 percentage points
higher than in 2011, meaning that there were 930 200 young people without employment.

In addition to the crisis, there are other factors with a direct effect on youth unemployment, such as mismatches in
terms of the labour market, a lack of knowledge and skills, restricted geographical mobility and job insecurity.

Although education and employment policies are a matter for the Member States, what measures is the Commission
taking to help facilitate the entry of young people into the labour market?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

On 5 December 2012, the Commission adopted the Youth Employment Package ( [1] ). It proposed a Council
Recommendation on Establishing a Youth Guarantee, calling on Member States to ensure that all young people up to
25 receive a good quality offer of employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four
months of leaving formal education or becoming unemployed. The Council adopted the recommendation on
22 April 2013 ( [2] ). The Commission will monitor its implementation, promote the exchange of good practices and
ensure that EU funding can be fully utilised for setting up Youth Guarantee schemes.

The YEP also stressed the need for a higher supply of quality traineeships and apprenticeships to facilitate school-towork-transition of young people. For this purpose, the Commission will table a proposal for a Quality Framework for
Traineeships in 2013 and launch a European Alliance for Apprenticeships in July 2013, as announced both in the
YEP and in the communication on ‘Rethinking Education’ of 21 November 2012 ( [3] ).

Furthermore, the YEP outlined ways to facilitate intra-EU labour mobility for young people, which will both increase
their job opportunities and address skills mismatches on the labour market.

The EUR 6 billion YEI ( [4] ) adopted by the Commission on 12 March 2013 will further boost support measures set out
in the YEP, in particular the Youth Guarantee. This will build on the already very significant support provided by
the EU structural funds and particularly support regions with high youth unemployment.

Last, a number of country-specific recommendations in the context of the European Semester as adopted on 29 May
help Member States to take necessary structural reforms to facilitate youth employment.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Youth Employment Package — COM(2012) 727-728-729 of 05.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) For the text, see http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st07/st07123.en13.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Youth Employment Initiative.

C 33 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004361/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Tráfico de estupefacientes

Los grupos latinoamericanos de delincuencia organizada se dedican a actividades delictivas como el tráfico de
estupefacientes y de seres humanos, la falsificación de documentos y de billetes de euros, la extorsión, el secuestro, el
tráfico de armas y el blanqueo de dinero, que afectan a los Estados miembros de la UE. El ámbito en el que las
actividades de estos grupos es más importante es el del tráfico de cocaína. Los grupos latinoamericanos de
delincuencia organizada dominan la oferta de droga en el mercado europeo y se han establecido en varios Estados
miembros de la UE para organizar y facilitar sus operaciones.

En concreto, son los grupos delictivos colombianos los que dominan la importación a gran escala de cocaína en la EU.

La cocaína se transporta desde los países productores de droga de América Latina a la UE por mar y por aire.

Debido a que la ruta de contrabando a través de la Península Ibérica es demasiado arriesgada en este momento y a que
la ruta alternativa a través de África ha sido el blanco de las autoridades, los cárteles se han visto obligados a trasladar
sus operaciones al norte de Inglaterra, por lo que el puerto de Liverpool se está convirtiendo en un centro neurálgico
del tráfico de cocaína.

¿Qué medidas está adoptando la Comisión para controlar las nuevas rutas que utilizan en los Estados miembros los
productores de droga de América Latina?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión no emprende medidas operativas de carácter policial, pero respalda la cooperación de las autoridades de
los Estados miembros en la lucha contra la delincuencia organizada y el tráfico de drogas, concretamente mediante la
financiación de la cooperación operativa transfronteriza, al amparo del programa «Prevención y lucha contra la
delincuencia» ( [1] ) (ISEC). Por ejemplo, se proporciona financiación, al amparo del ISEC, al Centro de Análisis y
Operaciones contra el Tráfico Marítimo de Estupefacientes (MAOC-N), una plataforma regional contra el tráfico de
cocaína en el litoral atlántico. Desde su puesta en marcha por siete Estados miembros de la UE en 2007, el MAOC-N
ha incautado 65 toneladas de cocaína y 50 toneladas de cannabis.

Además, el Programa de la ruta de la cocaína ( [2] ), que se puso en marcha en 2009 en el marco del programa financiero
de la UE Instrumento de Estabilidad ( [3] ), apoya la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas en las «ruta de la cocaína» (de
Latinoamérica y el Caribe a Europa a través de África Occidental). Desde 2009, se han comprometido en torno a
30 millones de euros para apoyar la capacitación contra el tráfico en alrededor de 36 países situados a lo largo de la
ruta de la cocaína.

Las agencias pertinentes de la UE, en particular Europol, Eurojust y Frontex, desempeñan un importante papel en la
coordinación y apoyo a la cooperación transfronteriza en la lucha contra la droga. El ciclo estratégico de la UE en
materia de delincuencia organizada y formas graves de delincuencia internacional, el marco de la cooperación policial
a escala de la UE en este ámbito, da la máxima prioridad a la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas. El informe publicado
recientemente sobre el mercado de los estupefacientes en la EU ( [4] ) facilita información más detallada sobre el tráfico
en lo referente a las distintas sustancias, los cambios en las rutas y las respuestas a nivel internacional y de la UE.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisión del Consejo, de 12 de febrero de 2007, por la que se establece para el período 2007-2013 el programa específico Prevención y lucha

contra la delincuencia, integrado en el programa general Seguridad y defensa de las libertades (2007/125/JHA) (DO L 58 de 24.2.2007, p. 7).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://corms.esteri.it/index.php?log_user=0
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Reglamento (CE) n° 1717/2006 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 15 de noviembre de 2006, por el que se establece un Instrumento de

Estabilidad (DO L 327 de 24.11.2006, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Véase para más información el Informe sobre el mercado de los estupefacientes: análisis estratégico del Observatorio Europeo de las Drogas y las

Toxicomanías, Luxemburgo, Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea, 2013.

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 297

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004361/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Drug trafficking

Latin American organised crime groups are involved in criminal activities such as trafficking in human beings and
drugs, forgery of documents and euro banknotes, extortion, kidnapping, arms trafficking and money laundering, and
these adversely affect EU Member States. The predominant sphere of activity for these groups is cocaine trafficking.
Latin American organised crime groups dominate the drug supply on the European market and have established
themselves in various EU Member States to organise and support their operations.

Specifically, Colombian criminal groups dominate the large-scale import of cocaine into the EU.

Cocaine is transported from the drug-producing countries of Latin America to the EU by sea and air.

Since the smuggling route across the Iberian peninsula is too risky at the moment and the alternative route across
Africa has been targeted by the authorities, the cartels have been forced to move their operations to the north of
England, and the port of Liverpool is becoming a nerve centre for cocaine trafficking.

What measures is the Commission taking to control the new routes used in the Member States by drug producers
from Latin America?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission does not undertake operational law enforcement measures. The Commission supports the
cooperation of Member States' authorities in combating organised crime and drug trafficking, in particular, e.g., by
funding cross-border operational cooperation, under the EU financial programme, Prevention of and fight against
crime ( [1] ) (ISEC). For instance, under ISEC funding is provided to the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre —
Narcotics (MAOC-N), a regional platform targeting the trafficking of cocaine along the Atlantic. Since its launch by
seven EU Member States in 2007, MAOC-N seized 65 tonnes of cocaine and 50 tonnes of cannabis.

In addition, the Cocaine Route Programme ( [2] ), which was launched in 2009 under the EU financial programme
Instrument for Stability ( [3] ), supports the fight against drug trafficking along the ‘cocaine route’ (from Latin America
and the Caribbean to Europe via West Africa). Since 2009, around EUR 30 million have been committed to support
capacity building against trafficking in around 36 countries along the cocaine route.

The relevant EU agencies, in particular Europol, Eurojust or Frontex, play an important role in coordinating and
supporting cross-border anti-drug cooperation. The EU policy cycle for organised and _serious international_ crime, the
framework for law enforcement cooperation at EU level in this area, puts combating drug trafficking on its list of
priorities, The recently published EU Drugs Market Report ( [4] ) provides more detailed information on trafficking
activities as regards different substances, changing routes for trafficking and the responses at EU and international
level.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Decision of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as part of General Programme on Security and Safeguarding

Liberties, the Specific Programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’ (2007/125/JHA). OJ L 58, 24.2.2007, p. 7.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://corms.esteri.it/index.php?log_user=0
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability,

OJ L 327, 24.11.2006, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See in more detail European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Europol, EU Drugs Market Report, A Strategic Analysis,

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2013.

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

C 33 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004362/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Fiscalía Europea

El artículo 86, apartado 1, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la UE (TFUE) prevé la posibilidad de crear una Fiscalía
Europea. La figura del fiscal europeo investigaría en una primera fase los fraudes y especulaciones contra el euro y en
una segunda fase también podría realizar investigaciones e incoar procedimientos penales en relación con delitos
transfronterizos como el tráfico de personas, el narcotráfico o el terrorismo.

Debido al creciente número de delitos y la relación existente entre diferentes grupos de delincuencia organizada en
Europa, es necesario volver a plantearse la importancia de la lucha contra la delincuencia grave de dimensión
transfronteriza mediante la creación de la Fiscalía Europea. Si bien dicho artículo no constituye un mandato ni una
obligación sino un instrumento previsto en el TFUE, ¿podría indicar la Comisión si ha previsto la creación de una
Fiscalía Europea?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(21 de junio de 2013)_

La creación de la Fiscalía Europea está incluida en el programa de trabajo de la Comisión para 2013 como una
cuestión de importancia estratégica y el Presidente Barroso confirmó, en su Discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión de
2012 ante el Parlamento Europeo, que la Comisión presentará una propuesta en 2013.

Como se prevé en el Tratado (artículo 86 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea) la Fiscalía Europea será
competente para investigar, perseguir y hacer que se juzguen los delitos contra los intereses financieros de la Unión.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 299

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004362/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Public Prosecutor's Office

Article 86(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) laid down the possibility of creating a
European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The European public prosecution body would initially investigate fraud and
speculation against the euro, and might subsequently also carry out investigations and bring criminal proceedings in
relation to cross-border crimes such as trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking or terrorism.

As a result of the growing number of crimes and the links between different organised crime groups in Europe, we
must focus once again on the importance of combating serious cross-border crime by setting up a European Public
Prosecutor’s Office. Although the article cited does not constitute a mandate or a duty but an instrument laid down in
the TFEU, could the Commission indicate if it is planning to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) is included in the Commission Work
Programme for 2013 as a matter of strategic importance and President Barroso has confirmed in his 2012 State of the
Union speech before the European Parliament that the Commission will deliver a proposal in 2013.

As foreseen by the Treaty (Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) the EPPO will be
competent to investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment offences against the financial interests of the Union.

C 33 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004364/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Europol — Fiscalía Europea

El artículo 86, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea relaciona de la siguiente manera
Europol con la futura figura de la Fiscalía Europea: «La Fiscalía Europea, en su caso en colaboración con Europol, será
competente para descubrir a los autores y cómplices de infracciones que perjudiquen a los intereses financieros de la
Unión definidos en el reglamento contemplado en el apartado 1, y para incoar un procedimiento penal y solicitar la
apertura de juicio contra ellos. Ejercerá ante los órganos jurisdiccionales competentes de los Estados miembros la
acción penal relativa a dichas infracciones».

Nos encontramos a la espera de que la Comisión proponga poner en marcha la creación de la Fiscalía Europea, pero
en cambio sí ha presentado ya el proyecto de Reglamento que establece la Oficina Europea de Policía (Europol). En
dicha propuesta de Reglamento la Comisión establece de manera genérica en su capítulo VI las relaciones con los
socios.

Debido a la importancia que tiene en la actualidad la lucha contra el crimen organizado y los delitos que afecten a los
intereses financieros de la Unión debería crearse con la mayor brevedad la figura de la Fiscalía Europea. En este caso,
¿debería verse contemplada específicamente la relación entre Europol y la Fiscalía Europea en el texto de ambas
figuras? ¿O la Comisión sólo la contemplará dentro de la redacción de la Fiscalía Europea? ¿O será suficiente con la
redacción del Capítulo VI del Reglamento Europol?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de junio de 2013)_

En su discurso sobre el Estado de la Unión de 2012 ante el Parlamento Europeo, el presidente Barroso anunció que la
Comisión presentará una propuesta de creación de la Fiscalía Europea en 2013. Las competencias de la Fiscalía
Europea se limitarán a las infracciones que perjudiquen a los intereses financieros de la Unión. Las competencias de
Europol abarcan una gama mucho más amplia de delitos. No obstante, de conformidad con el artículo 86 del TFUE,
será necesario que la Fiscalía Europea colabore con Europol. Por tanto, en la propuesta de creación de la Fiscalía
Europea deberá mencionarse la cooperación entre ambas organizaciones.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 301

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004364/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Europol — European Public Prosecutor's Office

Article 86(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union defines the relationship between Europol and
the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office as follows: ‘The European Public Prosecutor’s Office shall be
responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the
perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union’s financial interests, as determined by the regulation
provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member
States in relation to such offences.’

While we are still waiting for the Commission to propose setting up the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, it has
instead presented the proposal for a regulation establishing the European Police Office (Europol). In Chapter VI of
that proposal for a regulation, the Commission defines relations with partners in a generic manner.

Given the current importance of the fight against organised crime and offences affecting the Union’s financial
interests, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office should be established as soon as possible. In that case, should the
relationship between Europol and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office be covered specifically in the text for both
entities? Will the Commission only deal with it in the text for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office? Or will
Chapter VI of the Europol regulation be sufficient?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

President Barroso has announced in his 2012 State of the Union address to the European Parliament that the
Commission will come forward with a proposal to establish the European Public Prosecutor's Office in 2013. The
competence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office will be limited to crimes affecting the Union's financial
interests. Europol's competence covers a much wider range of crimes. Nevertheless, there will be a need for the
European Public Prosecutor's Office to work together with Europol, in line with Article 86 TFEU. The cooperation
between the two organisations will therefore be mentioned in the proposal to establish the European Public
Prosecutor's Office.

C 33 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004365/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Centro Europeo de Cibercrimen EC [3]

El 11 de Enero de 2013 se inauguró en la sede de Europol, en La Haya, el Centro Europeo de Cibercrimen. Dentro de
los objetivos del centro están los de perseguir todo tipo de delitos en la red, así como crear un entorno más seguro en
Internet y en las operaciones electrónicas.

Los expertos en seguridad en la red del Centro también intentarán poner coto a los 1 500 millones de euros que se
defraudan cada año a los ciudadanos europeos, principalmente a través de compras por Internet.

Debido al creciente uso de las nuevas tecnologías, ¿cuánto dotará la Comisión de presupuesto al Centro Europeo de
Cibercrimen EC [3] para que puedan contratar más personas y así hacer más efectiva la lucha contra el crimen
organizado en la red?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(27 de junio de 2013)_

El Centro Europeo de Ciberdelincuencia (EC [3] ) de Europol aspira a ser el centro de referencia europeo en la lucha
contra la delincuencia informática y a ayudar a los Estados miembros a eliminar y desarticular más redes de
delincuencia informática. Debe crear herramientas para los investigadores y ofrecer servicios de evaluación de las
amenazas, así como ofrecer formación más específica. Dada la importancia de una respuesta eficaz a la delincuencia
informática, Europol solicitó un incremento de su presupuesto de 2014 para el EC [3] . La Comisión, en su preparación
del proyecto de presupuesto de la UE de 2014, ha examinado cuidadosamente esta solicitud junto con otras
peticiones concurrentes de mayores recursos, inclusive de otras agencias.

De cara al período posterior a 2014, la solicitud de incrementar los recursos del EC [3] se recoge en la ficha de
financiación legislativa presentada como parte de la propuesta de la Comisión de un nuevo Reglamento de
Europol ( [1] ). El número definitivo de puestos para Europol, incluido el EC [3], y su presupuesto global dependen del
examen interno por la Comisión de las necesidades de recursos de las agencias descentralizadas y de las negociaciones
sobre el MFP, con especial atención a la evaluación de las necesidades reales en el contexto de las solicitudes
concurrentes de unos recursos presupuestarios muy limitados, asimismo con vistas a respetar la reducción en un 5 %
del personal de esos organismos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 173 final.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 303

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004365/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Cybercrime Centre EC3

On 11 January 2013 the European Cybercrime Centre was opened at Europol’s headquarters in The Hague. The
centre’s aims include prosecuting all forms of cybercrime, as well as making the Internet a safer place and electronic
transactions more secure.

The Centre’s network security experts will also try to stop EU citizens being defrauded of EUR 1.5 billion each year,
mainly through online shopping.

In view of the increasing use of new technologies, how much funding will the Commission give the European
Cybercrime Centre EC3 so that it can employ more people and more effectively fight organised cybercrime?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

The European Cybercrime Centre (EC [3] ) within Europol aims to be the European focal point in the fight against
cybercrime, helping Member States dismantle and disrupt more cybercrime networks. It should develop tools for
cybercrime investigators, and provide specialised threat assessments, as well as offer more focused training. Given the
importance of an effective response to cybercrime Europol requested an increase in its 2014 budget for EC [3] . The
Commission, in its preparation of the EU Draft Budget 2014, has examined carefully this request alongside other
competing requests for increased resources including from other agencies.

For the period after 2014, the request for increased resources for EC [3] is reflected in the legislative financial _fiche_
submitted as part of the Commission’s proposal for a new Europol Regulation ( [1] ). The final number of posts for
Europol including EC [3] and its overall budget are subject to the outcome of both an internal Commission review of the
resource needs of decentralised agencies and the MFF negotiations, with special regard to an assessment of real needs
in the context of competing demands for very limited budget resources, and in view of respecting the 5% staffing cut
in agencies.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 173 final.

C 33 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004366/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Europol

El 27 de marzo de 2013 la Sra. Malmström presentó en el Parlamento Europeo la propuesta de Reglamento por la que
se crea la Oficina Europea de Policía. Este Reglamento sustituirá a la Decisión 2009/371/JAI del Consejo, de 6 de abril
de 2009.

A su vez, el artículo 26, apartado 1, de dicha Decisión establece que «El Consejo, por mayoría cualificada y previa
consulta del Parlamento Europeo determinará la lista de terceros Estados y organizaciones contemplada en el
artículo 23, apartado 1, con los que Europol celebrará acuerdos». En la actualidad, se quiere modificar la Decisión
2009/935/JAI en lo que respecta a la lista de terceros Estados y organizaciones con los que Europol celebrará
acuerdos, para incluir a Brasil, Georgia, México y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos.

Dado que se sustituirá la Decisión 2009/371/JAI del Consejo, ¿es necesario que el Parlamento Europeo espere a la
aprobación del Reglamento que la sustituirá para realizar la consulta sobre la modificación de acuerdos para incluir a
Brasil, Georgia, México y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmströmon en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

A la espera de la adopción de la propuesta de Reglamento Europol ( [1] ), las disposiciones aplicables, en particular, el
artículo 26, de la Decisión del Consejo por la que se establece la Oficina Europea de Policía (Europol) ( [2] ) se aplican a la
situación a la que se refiere la pregunta de Su Señoría.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo relativo a la Agencia de la Unión Europea para la cooperación y la formación en

funciones coercitivas (Europol) y por el que se derogan las Decisiones 2009/371/JAI y 2005/681/JAI, COM(2013) 173 final, 27.3. 2013.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 2009/371/JAI.

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 305

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004366/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Europol

On 27 March 2013, Commissioner Malmström presented in Parliament the proposal for a regulation establishing the
European Police Office (Europol). This regulation will replace Council Decision 2009/371/JAI of 6 April 2009.

Article 26(1) of that decision lays down that ‘[t]he Council, acting by qualified majority after consulting the European
Parliament, shall … determine, in a list, the third States and organisations referred to in Article 23(1) with which
Europol shall conclude agreements.’ It is currently intended to amend Decision 2009/935/JAI as regards the list of
third States and organisations with which Europol shall conclude agreements, to include Brazil, Georgia, Mexico and
the United Arab Emirates.

Given that Council Decision 2009/371/JAI will be replaced, does Parliament need to wait for the regulation which
will replace it to be adopted before going ahead with the consultation on amending agreements to include Brazil,
Georgia, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

Pending the adoption of the proposed Europol Regulation ( [1] ), the relevant provisions, in particular Article 26, of the
Council Decision establishing the European Police Office (Europol) ( [2] ) apply to the situation to which the Honourable
Member's question refers.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and

Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA, COM(2013) 173 final, 27.3. 2013.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 2009/371/JHA.

( **|**

C 33 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004367/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Lucha contra el tráfico de drogas

En la actualidad las organizaciones delictivas cuyo propósito principal era el de promover y controlar las operaciones
de narcotráfico también están implicadas en delitos contra la propiedad, incluyendo robo a mano armada, fraude,
trata de seres humanos, falsificación de documentos y billetes en euros, extorsión, secuestro, tráfico de armas y
blanqueo de dinero.

La trata de seres humanos ya está contemplada en la Directiva 2011/36/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de
5 de abril de 2011, que regula la prevención y la lucha contra la trata de seres humanos y la protección de las víctimas.

Dado que los verdaderos éxitos en la lucha contra el tráfico de drogas solo se lograrán con una actividad conjunta de
los Estados miembros, ¿qué medidas conjuntas tiene pensado tomar la Comisión para reducir eficazmente esta
actividad? ¿Tiene pensado la Comisión elaborar una directiva que la regule, como en el caso de la trata de seres
humanos?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(21 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión participa activamente en el ciclo de actuación de la UE contra la delincuencia organizada y las formas
graves de delincuencia internacional, en el que se enmarca actualmente la cooperación policial. El nuevo ciclo
mantiene como frente de acción prioritario el narcotráfico, si bien con arreglo a una nueva formulación que permite
tener en cuenta la evolución del escenario delictivo.

La Comisión introdujo y elaboró un nuevo tipo de informe sobre las drogas, a saber «EU drug markets report: A
strategic analysis» [informe sobre los mercados de drogas en la EU: análisis estratégico], publicado a iniciativa de la
comisaria Malmström en enero de 2013 ( [1] ). Su finalidad es fusionar el planteamiento empírico del Observatorio
Europeo de las Drogas y las Toxicomanías (OEDT) con el enfoque basado en la función de inteligencia de Europol,
colmando así una laguna a nivel de la UE.

Además, de cara a una mayor desarticulación es preciso también mejorar el mapa de información prefronteriza de
la UE (mediante la implantación del sistema europeo de vigilancia de fronteras externas) y el papel de nodo de
intercambio de información que desempeña Europol, reforzando a un tiempo su obligación de rendir cuentas, en
consonancia con el Tratado de Lisboa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/joint-publications/drug-markets

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 307

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004367/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Combating drug trafficking

At the moment criminal organisations, whose main aim is to promote and control drug trafficking operations, are
also involved in crimes against property, including armed robbery, fraud, trafficking in human beings, forgery of
documents and euro banknotes, extortion, kidnapping, arms trafficking and money laundering.

Trafficking in human beings is already covered by Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims.

Since true success in combating drug trafficking will only be achieved if the Member States work together, what joint
measures does the Commission intend to take to effectively reduce such activity? Does the Commission intend to
draft a directive governing the issue of trafficking in human beings?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission is actively participating to the EU Policy Cycle for organised and serious transnational crime within
which police cooperation is now framed. The new Cycle retains a drug trafficking priority albeit in a new formulation
so as to take account of the evolution of the criminal scene.

The Commission initiated and framed a new type of drug report ‘EU drug markets report: A strategic analysis’ released
by the Commissioner Malmström in January 2013 ( [1] ). It aims to merge the evidence based approach of the EMCDDA
(European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction) with the intelligence perspective of Europol thus filling
a gap at EU level.

Beyond, better disruption also requires enhancing the EU pre-border intelligence picture (through the setting up of
the European external border surveillance system) and Europol's role as the EU information exchange hub while also
strengthening its accountability in line with the Lisbon Treaty.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/joint-publications/drug-markets.

C 33 E / 308 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004368/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Integración de los nacionales de terceros países

La fuerte crisis que atravesamos empuja cada vez a más ciudadanos europeos a hacer las maletas y buscar una
oportunidad laboral fuera de nuestras fronteras. Del mismo modo, otros ciudadanos de terceros países buscan
mejores condiciones dentro de nuestras fronteras que aquellas a las que se enfrentan en sus propios países de origen.
Por ello debemos tener una actitud de integración recíproca con dichos ciudadanos.

El artículo 79, apartado 4, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea establece que: «El Parlamento Europeo
y el Consejo podrán establecer, con arreglo al procedimiento legislativo ordinario, medidas para fomentar y apoyar la
acción de los Estados miembros destinada a propiciar la integración de los nacionales de terceros países que residan
legalmente en su territorio, con exclusión de toda armonización de las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias de los
Estados miembros».

¿Qué medidas está tomando la Comisión para favorecer la integración de los nacionales de terceros países?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(19 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión apoya las políticas nacionales y locales de integración de los nacionales de terceros países mediante la
[coordinación de estrategias, el intercambio de conocimientos y la asistencia financiera. En la Agenda Europea para la](http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_EN_ACT_part1_v10.pdf)
[Integración de Nacionales de Terceros Países (](http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/intro/docs/110720/1_EN_ACT_part1_v10.pdf) [1] [) figuran las prioridades actuales de la Comisión y el documento de](http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/doc_centre/immigration/docs/2011_commission_staff_working_paper_on_integration.pdf)
[trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión (](http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/doc_centre/immigration/docs/2011_commission_staff_working_paper_on_integration.pdf) [2] ) que lleva asociado incluye una lista de las iniciativas pertinentes de la UE.
Con arreglo a este marco de actuación se ha establecido una serie de medidas y mecanismos:

—
los Puntos de Contacto Nacionales para la Integración, una red de expertos de organismos oficiales
responsables de la integración política coordinada por la Comisión, que tiene por objeto fomentar el
intercambio de información y buenas prácticas entre los Estados miembros y reforzar la coordinación de las
políticas de integración nacionales y de la UE;

—
[el Fondo Europeo para la Integración de Nacionales de Terceros Países (825 millones EUR para el período](http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/migration-asylum-borders/integration-fund/index_en.htm)
2007-2013);

—
[un Manual sobre la integración para responsables de la formulación de políticas y profesionales;](http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_12892_168517401.pdf)

—
[la Página Web Europea sobre la integración;](http://www.integration.eu/)

—
[el Foro Europeo sobre la Integración;](http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/en/policy/legal.cfm)

—
[módulos europeos para la integración de inmigrantes e indicadores de integración de inmigrantes.](http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-11-009/EN/KS-RA-11-009-EN.PDF)

Instrumentos clave para la migración legal, como la Directiva 2003/86/CE, sobre el derecho a la reagrupación
familiar, o la Directiva 2003/109/CE, relativa al estatuto de los nacionales de terceros países residentes de larga
duración, también prevén medidas y derechos que contribuyen a la integración de los nacionales de terceros países y
que abarcan desde los derechos de igualdad de trato en una amplia serie de ámbitos hasta los derechos de acceso al
mercado laboral de los Estados miembros o a ejercer sus posibilidades de movilidad dentro de la UE.

La Comisión sigue perfeccionando estas herramientas y realizando sus prioridades en activa colaboración con las
partes interesadas pertinentes. Los informes anuales relativos a la inmigración y el asilo proporcionan una evaluación
periódica de los avances logrados.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 455 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 957.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 309

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004368/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Integration of third-country nationals

The severe crisis we are experiencing is leading to increasing numbers of European citizens packing their bags and
leaving to seek a job outside the EU. In the same way, other citizens from third countries are seeking better conditions
inside our borders than those they face in their own countries of origin. We must therefore adopt a policy of mutual
integration with these citizens.

Article 79(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that: ‘The European Parliament and
the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may establish measures to provide
incentives and support for the action of Member States with a view to promoting the integration of third-country
nationals residing legally in their territories, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member
States.’

What steps is the Commission taking to promote the integration of third-country nationals?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

The Commission supports national and local policies on integration of third-country nationals with policy
coordination, exchange of knowledge and financial support. The European Agenda for the Integration of ThirdCountry Nationals ( [1] ) outlines the current priorities of the Commission and the associated Staff Working Paper ( [2] )
contains a list of relevant EU initiatives. In accordance with this policy framework, a series of measures and
mechanisms have been put in place:

—
The National Contact Points on Integration, a network of government experts in charge of integration policy
coordinated by the Commission, which aims to foster exchange of information and good practice between
Member States and to strengthen coordination of national and EU integration policies;

—
The European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EUR 825 m for 2007-2013);

—
A Handbook on integration for policy-makers and practitioners;

—
The European Web Site on Integration;

—
The European Integration Forum;

—
[European Modules for migrant integration as well as Indicators of immigrant integration.](http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-11-009/EN/KS-RA-11-009-EN.PDF)

Key instruments for legal migration, like the Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/EC) or the Long-Term
Residents Directive (2003/109/EC) also foresee measures and rights that help integrating third-country nationals.
They range from equal treatment rights in a series of areas, to rights to access the labour market of the Member States
or make use of intra-EU mobility possibilities.

The Commission continues to develop these tools and to implement its priorities in active cooperation with relevant
stakeholders. The annual reports on Immigration and Asylum provide a regular assessment of progress made.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 455 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 957.

C 33 E / 310 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004369/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE), Andreas Schwab (PPE) und Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Umsetzung der Zahlungsverzugsrichtlinie

Mit der 2011 verabschiedeten Neufassung der Zahlungsverzugsrichtlinie (2011/07/EU) soll der Zahlungsverzug im
Binnenmarkt bekämpft und ein besseres rechtliches und wirtschaftliches Umfeld für mehr Zahlungsdisziplin im
Geschäftsleben geschaffen werden.

In Artikel 12 Absatz 3 der Richtlinie 2011/07/EU wird festgelegt, dass die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Umsetzung der
Richtlinie Vorschriften beibehalten oder erlassen können, die für den Gläubiger günstiger sind als die zur Erfüllung
der Richtlinie notwendigen Maßnahmen. In Artikel 3 Absatz 5 der Richtlinie 2011/07/EU wird festgelegt, dass die
Mitgliedstaaten sicherstellen sollen, dass vertraglich festgelegte Zahlungsvereinbarungen 60 Kalendertage nicht
überschreiten dürfen, solange nicht eine anderweitige Vereinbarung getroffen wurde, die den Gläubiger nicht grob
benachteiligt.

In der Bundesrepublik Deutschland gelten bereits jetzt folgende Regelungen für den Zahlungsverzug im
Geschäftsverkehr: In §271 Absatz 1 des Deutschen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs (BGB) wird festgelegt, dass ein
Gläubiger die Zahlung „sofort verlangen“ kann, solange vertraglich nichts anderes vereinbart wurde („Ist eine Zeit für
die Leistung weder bestimmt noch aus den Umständen zu entnehmen, so kann der Gläubiger die Leistung sofort
verlangen, der Schuldner sie sofort bewirken“ (§271 (1) BGB). In § 307 BGB wird festgelegt, dass Bestimmungen in
Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen unwirksam sind, wenn sie einen Vertragspartner des Verwenders unangemessen
benachteiligen.

Sieht die Kommission durch die in §271 in Verbindung mit §307 BGB festgelegten Rechtsvorschriften Artikel 3
Absatz 5 der Richtlinie 2011/07/EU als umgesetzt an?

**Antwort von Herrn Tajani im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. Juni 2013)_

Die Frist für die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2011/7/EU zur Bekämpfung von Zahlungsverzug im Geschäftsverkehr ist
am 16. März 2013 abgelaufen. Allerdings hat Deutschland der Kommission seine Umsetzungsmaßnahmen bislang
nicht offiziell mitgeteilt. Die Kommission wird, sobald ihr die deutschen Umsetzungsmaßnahmen bekannt gegeben
werden, im Rahmen einer rechtlichen Analyse prüfen, ob die Maßnahmen mit der Richtlinie im Einklang stehen.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 311

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004369/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE), Andreas Schwab (PPE) and Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of the Late Payments Directive

The recast of the Late Payments Directive agreed in 2011 (2011/07/EU) is intended to combat late payments in the
internal market and to establish a legal and economic environment that will promote greater payment discipline in
business life.

Article 12(3) of Directive 2011/07/EU states that, when implementing the directive, Member States may maintain or
bring into force provisions which are more favourable to the creditor than the provisions necessary to comply with
this directive. Article 3(5) of Directive 2011/07/EU states that Member States must ensure that payment agreements
fixed in the contract do not exceed 60 calendar days, unless otherwise agreed in the contract and provided this is not
grossly unfair to the creditor.

The following provisions already apply to late payments in commercial transactions in the Federal Republic of
Germany: Section 271(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) states that a creditor can demand ‘immediate payment’
provided there has been no agreement to the contrary (‘Where no time for performance has been specified or is
evident from the circumstances, the obligee may demand performance immediately, and the obligor may effect it
immediately’ (Section 271(1) BGB). Section 307 BGB states that provisions in standard business terms are ineffective
if they unreasonably disadvantage the other party to the contract with the user.

Does the Commission consider that Article 3(5) of Directive 2011/07/EU is implemented through the legal
provisions defined in Section 271 in conjunction with Section 307 BGB?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The deadline for transposing Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions was
16 March 2013. However, to date, Germany has not officially notified their transposing measures to the Commission.
Once it receives the German transposing measures, the Commission will undertake a legal analysis to verify whether
the national measures are in conformity with the directive.

C 33 E / 312 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004370/13**

**to the Commission**
**Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU commitments to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)

In April 2012, Commissioner Piebalgs attended the High Level Meeting of the Sanitation and Water for All (SWA)
partnership, where he outlined the commitments the EU has made to improving access to safe water, adequate
sanitation and good hygiene.

Since these commitments were made:

1. How much funding has been disbursed, and how many people have been reached by water and sanitation
projects, through the MDG Initiative ( [1] ), providing additional funding for projects targeting the most off-track
Millennium Development Goals (including sanitation)?

2. How many people have gained access to safe water, adequate sanitation and good hygiene as a result of the EUACP Water Facility?

3. What actions has the Commission taken to step up cooperation efforts on water and sanitation with the
governments of partner countries, other donors, the water industry, NGOs and other stakeholders, in order to
deliver more effective development assistance?

4. In the new Action Plan of the Africa-EU MDG Partnership, access to water and sanitation is a priority concern.
How has the Commission aligned its support with this priority?

**Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

1. In 2013, all of the MDG ( [2] ) Initiative funding related to Water (EUR 266 million out of EUR 1 billion) has been
committed in 19 ACP countries. Contracting and first disbursements will start in 2013.The number of people to be
reached by the MDG initiative cannot be estimated to date.

2. It is expected that through the EU-ACP Water Facility, 17.8 million people will gain access to safe drinking
water, 6.3 million to improved sanitation facilities and 17.5 million to improved hygiene and education programmes.

3. To deliver more effective development assistance in the field of Water and Sanitation, the Commission has
supported the EU Water initiative which aims at increasing the political commitment on water, improving
governance & water management, promotes cooperation on river basins and identifies more sustainable financing for
water related activities. Furthermore, the Commission launched the Water Facility in 2004, in order to provide
funding for Water and sanitation basic infrastructure and hygiene promotion (EUR 712 million under the 9th and
10th EDF, financing 297 interventions).

4. The objectives on water and sanitation have indeed been recognised as a priority area under the 2nd JAES ( [3] )
Action Plan agreed in 2010, mainly as part of the MDG Partnership, but also in relation with infrastructure. The
ongoing dialogue between African (represented by AMCOW ( [4] )) and EU Partners constitutes an important framework
to align policies and strategies and increase coordination and aid effectiveness, following a multi-stakeholder
approach. Support being provided on water and sanitation with resources from the Water Facility and MDG Initiative
responds to the priority under the 2nd JAES Action Plan.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/millenium-development-goals/mdg_initiative_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Millennium Development Goals.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Joint Africa-EU Strategy.
( ⋅4∙ ) African Ministers' Council on Water.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 313

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004371/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Droits humains en Ukraine

Les autorités ukrainiennes doivent tirer parti du climat politique actuel afin de mettre un terme au recours massif de la
police à la torture et à d'autres formes de mauvais traitements, en créant un organe véritablement indépendant,
impartial et efficace qui serait chargé d'enquêter sur les plaintes déposées contre des policiers.

Les passages à tabac et les actes de torture continuent sans faiblir en Ukraine, en dépit de l'adoption d'un nouveau
Code de procédure pénale par le gouvernement à la fin de l'année dernière. Aucune mesure concrète n'a été prise afin
d'instaurer un mécanisme indépendant visant à obliger la police à rendre des comptes, ce qui, dans les faits, permet à
celle-ci d'échapper aux sanctions malgré l'ampleur choquante des mauvais traitements infligés aux détenus.

1. Quelle est la réaction de la Commission face à ces exactions allant à l'encontre des positions des institutions
européennes?

2. Que fait la Commission pour que les autorités ukrainiennes mettent un terme au recours massif de la police à la
torture et à d'autres formes de mauvais traitements, en créant, par exemple, un organe véritablement indépendant,
impartial et efficace qui serait chargé d'enquêter sur les plaintes déposées contre des policiers?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(7 juin 2013)_

Le respect des Droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales reste un élément essentiel de l'approche suivie par l'UE
pour resserrer les liens politiques et approfondir l'intégration économique entre l'UE et l'Ukraine. L'objectif est de
garantir un cadre législatif complet, conforme aux normes européennes, et la bonne mise en œuvre des mesures de
réforme adoptées.

Dans ce but, l'UE entretient un dialogue permanent avec les autorités ukrainiennes, au niveau tant opérationnel que
politique. Dans le cadre de ce dialogue, elle procède à des évaluations et émet des recommandations sur les mesures à
prendre pour remédier au décalage entre les mesures préconisées dans les conclusions du Conseil «Affaires étrangères»
du 10 décembre 2012 ( [1] ) et les actions de suivi entreprises par l'Ukraine. Des allégations de torture et de mauvais
traitements infligés par la police sont constamment évoquées lors des consultations bilatérales (par exemple, dans le
cadre du sous-comité UE-Ukraine «Justice, liberté et sécurité»).

Parmi les mesures que l'Ukraine est fortement invitée à prendre, figure aussi l'octroi des ressources nécessaires pour
mettre en œuvre efficacement le mécanisme national de prévention de la torture, conformément au «protocole
facultatif à la Convention des Nations unies contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou
dégradants».

La mise en place rapide d'un bureau national d'enquête, qui jouerait le rôle de police judiciaire chargée d'enquêter sur
les crimes commis par les fonctionnaires (y compris la police et le parquet), constitue une autre priorité lors des
discussions entre l'UE et les autorités ukrainiennes.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/134136.pdf

C 33 E / 314 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004371/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Human rights in Ukraine

The Ukrainian authorities should take advantage of the current political climate to put an end to the widespread use
of torture and other forms of ill-treatment by the police, by establishing a truly independent, impartial and efficient
body which would be responsible for investigating complaints against police officers.

Beatings and acts of torture continue unabated in Ukraine, despite the government’s adoption of a new Criminal
Procedure Code at the end of last year. No concrete steps have been taken to create an independent mechanism to
hold police officers accountable, which effectively protects them from punishment in spite of the appalling scale of
ill-treatment suffered by prisoners.

1. What is the Commission’s response to these abuses, which stand in conflict with the positions of the European
institutions?

2. What is the Commission doing to ensure that the Ukrainian authorities put an end to the widespread use of
torture and other forms of ill-treatment by the police, for example by establishing a truly independent, impartial and
efficient body which would be responsible for investigating complaints against police officers?

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

_(7 June 2013)_

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms remain key to the EU's approach in building a closer political
association and a deeper economic integration between the EU and Ukraine. The aim is to ensure a comprehensive
legislative framework in line with the European standards and an adequate implementation of the reform measures
taken.

To this end, the EU has a permanent dialogue with the Ukrainian authorities, both at operational and political level,
providing assessements and reccommendations on where the gaps between the 10 December 2012 Foreign Affairs
Council Conclusions and Ukraine's ( [1] ) follow up actions need to be filled. Cases of alleged torture and ill-treatment by
the police are constantly raised in the bilateral consultations, (e.g. the EU-Ukraine Justice, Freedom and Security
Subcommittee).

Among the measures Ukraine is vigurously asked to take is also the allocation of the necessary resources to
implement effectively the National Preventive Mechanism against Torture in accordance with the ‘Optional Protocol
to the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’.

The early establishment of a National Bureau of Investigation, which should act as a judicial police investigating
crimes committed by civil servants (including police and prosecution), represents another priority in discussions
between the EU and the Ukrainian authorities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/134136.pdf .

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 315

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004372/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Proposition sur l'agence ferroviaire européenne

1. Quand la Commission compte-t-elle soumettre sa proposition concernant l'Agence ferroviaire européenne afin
d'améliorer le rôle de celle-ci, notamment en lui confiant de nouvelles tâches concernant l'émission des autorisations
de véhicules et des certificats de sécurité et en renforçant le contrôle qu'elle exerce sur les règles nationales de sécurité
ferroviaire et sur les autorités ferroviaires nationales dont la coopération reste encore insuffisante à l'échelle
européenne?

2. Où en est-elle dans la mise en place des outils nécessaires pour favoriser la création d'un véritable espace
ferroviaire unique européen, qui soit concurrentiel?

3. Le Parlement européen estime que l'Agence ferroviaire européenne n'est pas dotée de moyens financiers et de
ressources humaines suffisants. Quelle est la position de la Commission?

**Réponse donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission**

_(4 juin 2013)_

1. Le 30 janvier 2013, la Commission a adopté le quatrième paquet ferroviaire, qui comporte six propositions
législatives ( [1] ). L'une d'entre elles est la proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif à
l'Agence de l'Union européenne pour les chemins de fer et abrogeant le règlement (CE) n° 881/2004 ( [2] ), qui prévoit un
élargissement des tâches de l'Agence dans le domaine de l'autorisation des véhicules ferroviaires et de la certification
des entreprises ferroviaires.

2. Depuis l'adoption du premier paquet ferroviaire en 2001, la Commission a pris plusieurs initiatives législatives
et non législatives visant à soutenir la création d'un espace ferroviaire unique européen véritable et concurrentiel. La
dernière en date est le quatrième paquet ferroviaire, qui s'articule autour de trois volets essentiels: 1) la diminution des
coûts supportés par les fabricants et les entreprises ferroviaires en matière d'autorisation des véhicules ferroviaires et
de certification des entreprises ferroviaires, 2) l'ouverture des marchés nationaux aux services de transport de
voyageurs et 3) le renforcement de l'indépendance des gestionnaires d'infrastructures.

3. Les ressources financières et humaines de l'Agence ferroviaire européenne sont soumises à la procédure
budgétaire annuelle et sont décidées en dernier lieu par le Parlement européen et le Conseil. Leur niveau a augmenté
progressivement depuis 2005 conformément au tableau des effectifs de l'Agence. Toutefois, en raison des nouvelles
contraintes budgétaires, l'Agence a consenti des efforts supplémentaires en termes d'efficacité et commencé à établir
des priorités dans l'accomplissement de ses tâches. Toutes les agences contribuent à la réduction de 5 % du personnel
applicable dans toutes les institutions pour la période 2013-2017.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/packages/2013_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0027:FIN:FR:PDF

C 33 E / 316 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004372/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Proposal on the European Railway Agency

1. When is the Commission planning to submit its proposal on the European Railway Agency with a view to
enhancing the role of the latter, in particular by giving it new tasks of issuing vehicle authorisations and safety
certificates and strengthening its supervision of national railway rules and over national railway authorities, which do
not yet cooperate sufficiently at European level?

2. What progress has the Commission made with introducing the tools necessary to support the creation of a true
and competitive Single European Railway Area?

3. Parliament believes that the European Railway Agency has insufficient financial and human resources. What is
the Commission’s position?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

1. The Commission adopted on 30th January 2013 the 4th Railway Package consisting of six legislative
proposals ( [1] ). One of these proposals is the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the European Union Agency for Railways and repealing Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 ( [2] ), which includes an
extension of the tasks of this Agency in the field of authorisation of railway vehicles and certification of railway
undertakings.

2. Since the adoption of the first railway package in 2001, the Commission has taken several legislative and nonlegislative initiatives to support the creation of a real and competitive Single European Railway Area. The last one, the
Fourth Railway Package, focuses on three key areas: (1) cutting the costs of manufacturers and rail companies in
relation to auhorisation of vehicles and certification of railway underatkings, (2) opening the domestic markets for
passenger services and (3) strengthening the independence of infrastructure managers.

3. The financial and human resources of the European Railway Agency are subject to the annual budgetary
procedure and are ultimately decided by the European Parliament and the Council. The level of resources has
increased progressively since 2005 in accordance with the establishment plan of the Agency. However, due to the
new budgetary constraints, the Agency has made additional efforts in terms of its efficiency and started to prioritise its
tasks. All agencies are participating to the 5% reduction of staff in all institutions over the period 2013-2017.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/packages/2013_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0027:FIN:EN:PDF.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 317

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004373/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Budget des autorités européennes de surveillance

La Commission compte-t-elle évaluer la possibilité de présenter une proposition visant à faire en sorte que les budgets
des autorités européennes de surveillance soient financés en totalité par le budget de l'Union?

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

_(3 juin 2013)_

Les actes législatifs instituant le Système européen de surveillance financière (SESF) ( [1] ) prévoient que la Commission
réexamine le fonctionnement des autorités européennes de surveillance (AES) d'ici janvier 2014. Conformément à
l'article 81 des règlements instituant les autorités européennes de surveillance, la Commission va publier un rapport
général sur l'expérience tirée du fonctionnement de ces autorités et des procédures fixées dans ces règlements. Ce
rapport sera transmis au Parlement européen et au Conseil, assorti de propositions, le cas échéant.

Les travaux préparatoires ont déjà commencé. En particulier, les services de la Commission ont lancé le 26 avril 2013
une consultation publique sur le SESF qui sera clôturée le 19 juillet; par ailleurs, une audition publique sur la question
de la supervision financière est organisée le 24 mai 2013. En outre, les AES transmettent régulièrement des données à
la Commission via un groupe de contact qui comprend des représentants des AES et de la Commission.

La question du financement et des ressources des AES fait partie de celles traitées dans le cadre du réexamen. La
Commission procédera à une analyse approfondie des contributions reçues, fera rapport sur ces questions et, le cas
échéant, proposera des mesures législatives de suivi.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Conformément à l'article 81 des règlements (UE) n [o] 1093/2010, 1094/2010 et 1095/2010 du 24 novembre 2010 instituant les autorités

européennes de surveillance (Autorité bancaire européenne (ABE), Autorité européenne des assurances et des pensions professionnelles (AEAPP)
et Autorité européenne des marchés financiers (AEMF)).

C 33 E / 318 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004373/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Budget of the European Supervisory Authorities

Is the Commission planning to assess the possibility of tabling a proposal which would ensure that the budgets of the
European Supervisory Authorities are funded entirely from the EU budget?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The legislative acts establishing the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) ( [1] ) provide for a review by the
Commission of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) by January 2014. According to Article 81 of the
regulations establishing the ESAs the Commission shall publish a general report on the experience acquired as a result
of the operation of the Authorities and procedures laid down in these Regulations. This report shall be forwarded to
the European Parliament and to the Council, together with any accompanying proposals, as appropriate.

Preparatory work has already started. In particular, the Commission services have launched a public consultation on
the ESFS on 26 April 2013, which is open until 19 July, and a public hearing on the issue of financial supervision is
organised on 24 May 2013. In addition the ESAs provide regular data inputs to the Commission in the framework of
a contact group encompassing representatives from the ESAs and the Commission.

Financing and resources of the ESAs is one of the issues addressed in the course of the review. The Commission will
examine in-depth the relevant input received, will report on these issues, and where appropriate, propose legislative
follow-up.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pursuant to Article 81 of Regulations (1093/2010), (1094/2010) and (1095/2010) of 24 November 2010 establishing European Supervisory

Authorities (European Banking Authority, EBA), (European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority, EIOPA), (European Securities and
Markets Authority, ESMA).

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 319

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004374/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Morte sospetta del leader cristiano della «Chiesa Evangelica del Vietnam del Sud»

Il 17 Marzo scorso, Hoang Van Ngai, leader della «Chiesa Evangelica del Vietnam del Sud», legalmente riconosciuta nel
paese, è deceduto mentre era sotto custodia delle forze di polizia. La versione ufficiale rilasciata dalle forze dell'ordine,
sulle cause della morte, è stata quella del suicidio per mezzo di elettrocuzione; il fratello di Ngai, detenuto nella vicina
cella, ha testimoniato che alle 3.00 del mattino del 17 ha udito chiari rumori di pestaggio provenire dalla cella del
congiunto, dichiarazioni queste avvalorate dalla famiglia e innumerevoli testimoni che hanno visto il corpo che
presentava estese ferite.

La Commissione è a conoscenza dei fatti sopra descritti?

Come sta agendo la Commissione per tutelare i diritti umani e le comunità cristiane in Vietnam?

Qual è la posizione della Delegazione europea ad Hanoi circa i fatti sopra descritti?

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

_(6 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza del caso, che è stato oggetto di scambi di vedute tra la delegazione dell'UE e
ambasciate allineate sulle stesse posizioni ad Hanoi. I consiglieri politici dell'UE hanno sollevato la questione nel corso
della visita effettuata alla provincia di Dank Nong dal 22 al 24 aprile scorso, durante la quale si sono incontrati con le
autorità locali (in particolare il capo della commissione per gli affari religiosi della provincia), alle quali hanno chiesto
che sia fatta piena luce sul reale svolgimento dei fatti e che venga condotta senza indugio un'indagine indipendente e
trasparente su questo episodio.

Il capo della commissione per gli affari religiosi della provincia ha preso atto della richiesta e si è impegnato a
trasmetterla alle autorità competenti. Al momento non si hanno ulteriori notizie. L'UE continuerà a seguire
attentamente gli sviluppi del caso, insieme ai suoi partner che condividono posizioni affini, intervenendo presso le
autorità vietnamite in particolare riguardo al presunto ricorso alla tortura e all'istruzione di un'indagine ufficiale sulle
circostanze della morte di Hoang Van Ngai.

In merito all'azione della Commissione per la difesa dei diritti umani e la tutela delle comunità cristiane in Vietnam,
l'intensificato dialogo sui diritti umani instaurato nel quadro dell'accordo di partenariato e di cooperazione firmato
nel giugno scorso rappresenta lo strumento precipuo per affrontare simili preoccupazioni. La libertà di religione e di
credo era all'ordine del giorno dell'ultima sessione tenutasi nell'ottobre 2012 e molto probabilmente vi figurerà
ancora nella prossima sessione che si terrà più avanti nel corso di quest'anno. L'UE solleva la questione dei diritti
umani anche in occasione di riunioni bilaterali con le autorità vietnamite. Essa continuerà a promuovere il rispetto dei
diritti umani, tra cui la libertà di religione e di credo, in Vietnam attraverso strumenti quali il nuovo dialogo
intensificato, dichiarazioni pubbliche e mosse diplomatiche, nonché interagendo con associazioni e progetti in difesa
dei diritti umani come quelli finanziati dallo Strumento europeo per la democrazia e i diritti umani.

C 33 E / 320 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004374/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Suspicious death of the Christian leader of the ‘Evangelical Church of South Vietnam’

On 17 March, Hoang Van Ngai, leader of the ‘Evangelical Church of South Vietnam’, legally recognised in the country,
died while in police custody. The official version of the cause of death, provided by the police, is suicide by
electrocution; Ngai’s brother, held in the adjacent cell, has testified that at 3.00 a.m. on 17 March, he heard distinct
sounds of beating coming from his brother’s cell. This statement was corroborated by the family and countless
witnesses who saw the body, which bore extensive signs of injury.

Is the Commission aware of the facts described above?

What action is the Commission taking to safeguard human rights and the Christian communities in Vietnam?

What is the position of the Delegation of the European Union to Hanoi concerning the facts described above?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the case, which has been subject of exchanges between the EU Delegation and likeminded embassies in Hanoi. EU Political Counsellors raised this case, sought clarification on what actually happened
and called for an urgent independent and transparent enquiry when meeting local authorities (the Head of the
Religious Affairs Committee of the Province) during the 22-24 April visit to the Dank Nong Province.

The Head of the Religious Affairs Committee of the Province took note of the query and committed to transmitting it
to the relevant authorities. No further information is available at this stage. The EU will continue to closely monitor
developments regarding this case, together with like-minded partners, with the Vietnamese authorities in particular
regarding the allegations of torture and the setting-up of an official inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Hoang Van
Ngai's death.

As regards Commission action to safeguard human rights and Christian Communities in Vietnam the enhanced
Dialogue on Human Rights established under the partnership and cooperation agreement signed last June is the
primary instrument to address issues of concern. The last session was held in October 2012. Freedom of Religion and
Belief was on the agenda and it can be expected that it will be again in the next session later this year. The EU also
raises human rights concerns in its bilateral meetings with the Vietnamese authorities. The EU will continue to
promote respect for human rights including Freedom of Religion and Belief in Vietnam, through the new enhanced
dialogue, public statements and demarches, interaction with human rights defenders and projects such as those
funded by the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 321

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004375/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Misure di sostegno per i pescatori della laguna di Venezia

Lo scorso 28 agosto 2012, negli allevamenti di vongole della laguna di Venezia si è verificata una massiccia moria dei
molluschi che ha creato una vera e propria emergenza economica e sociale. I pescatori delle aree della laguna centrale
e le loro famiglie (circa 200) si sono infatti pesantemente indebitati, mettendo a rischio le loro stesse abitazioni, per
ottenere dalle banche le fideiussioni necessarie all'acquisto di concessioni per l'esercizio dell'acquacultura ormai
inservibili.

Può la Commissione dire:

1. se è a conoscenza del gravissimo stato di crisi del settore della pesca lagunare veneziana e di tutto il suo indotto
così importante per l'economia locale;

2. se ha intenzione di promuovere iniziative atte a salvaguardare questa particolare tipologia di pesca;

3. se ha intenzione di promuovere la creazione di strumenti di microcredito per permettere ai lavoratori della
laguna veneta di pagare i canoni di concessione?

**Risposta di Maria Damanaki a nome della Commissione**

_(14 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza della situazione di emergenza sopravvenuta nella laguna di Venezia il 28 agosto
2012. Secondo gli allevatori, la morte delle vongole potrebbe essere collegata ai lavori per le infrastrutture di dighe del
sistema MOSE. Sembra che l'Italia non abbia segnalato il caso mediante il sistema di allarme rapido per gli alimenti e i
mangimi (RASFF).

Ai sensi del regolamento (CE) n. 1198/2006 del Consiglio (relativo al Fondo europeo per la pesca ( [1] )), gli Stati membri
possono decidere di concedere un sostegno per compensare i molluschicoltori per la sospensione temporanea della
raccolta dei molluschi allevati. L'indennità può essere concessa nel caso in cui la contaminazione dei molluschi
dovuta alla proliferazione di plancton tossico o alla presenza di plancton contenente biotossine determini, per motivi
sanitari, la sospensione della raccolta per più di quattro mesi consecutivi o qualora la perdita dovuta alla sospensione
della raccolta superi il 35 % del fatturato annuo dell'impresa interessata, calcolato sulla base del fatturato medio
dell'impresa nei tre anni precedenti.

La proposta della Commissione relativa al Fondo europeo per gli affari marittimi e la pesca ( [2] ), prevede la possibilità di
salvaguardare le entrate dei produttori acquicoli tramite un contributo a un'assicurazione degli stock acquicoli che
copra le perdite dovute a calamità naturali, condizioni climatiche avverse, improvvisi cambiamenti della qualità delle
acque, malattie nel settore acquicolo o distruzione di impianti di produzione.

I canoni di concessione sono considerati costi operativi e non sono inclusi nell'ambito dei Fondi europei. Le
informazioni sulle possibilità di accesso ai microcrediti per quanto riguarda gli altri aspetti del settore delle PMI sono
disponibili sullo specifico portale UE ( [3] ).

Spetta allo Stato membro interessato (al livello amministrativo opportuno) prevedere eventuali azioni correttive.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 223 del 15.8.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)807 def.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://access2eufinance.ec.europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-support/access-to-finance/index_it.htm

C 33 E / 322 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004375/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Support measures for fishermen in the Venetian Lagoon

On 28 August 2012, vast quantities of molluscs were found dead in the clam breeding farms in the Venetian Lagoon,
creating a true economic and social emergency. Fishermen in the central lagoon area and their families (around 200)
have become heavily indebted and put their very homes at risk in order to obtain the guarantees they need from the
banks to purchase concessions to conduct aquaculture activities; these concessions are now useless.

Can the Commission state:

1. Whether it is aware of the desperate crisis in the fishing sector in the Venetian lagoon and in all its satellite
activities, which are so vital for the local economy.

2. Whether it intends to promote initiatives to protect this particular type of fishing.

3. Whether it intends to promote the creation of microcredit instruments to enable workers in the Venetian
lagoon to pay their concession fees.

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the emergency in the Venetian lagoon of 28 August 2012. According to the clam
farmers, the death of the clams could be linked to works for the MOSE dam infrastructure. It appears that Italy has not
notified the case via the Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food (RASFF).

Under Council Regulation (EU) 1198/2006 (European Fisheries Fund ( [1] )) Member States may decide to provide
support to compensate mollusc farmers for the temporary suspension of harvesting of farmed mollusc.
The compensations may be granted where contamination of molluscs owing to the proliferation of toxin-producing
plankton or the presence of plankton containing bio-toxins entails, for public health protection reasons, suspension
of the harvest for more than four months consecutively or where the loss suffered as a result of suspension of the
harvest amounts to more than 35% of the annual turnover of the business concerned, calculated on the basis of the
average turnover of the business over the preceding three years.

The Commission proposal for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund ( [2] ) envisages the possibility to safeguard the
income of aquaculture producers by supporting the contribution to an aquaculture stock insurance which shall cover
the losses due to natural disasters, adverse climatic events, sudden water quality changes, diseases in aquaculture or
destruction of production facilities.

Concession fees are considered as operational costs and are not eligible under the European Funds. Information on
opportunities to access microcredit for other aspects of SME business can be found at the dedicated EU portal ( [3] ).

It is the responsibility of the Member State concerned (at the appropriate administrative level) to envisage possible
remedial actions.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 223, 15.8.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 807 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://access2eufinance.ec.europa.eu/youreurope/business/finance-support/access-to-finance.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 323

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004376/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sigarette elettroniche e pubblicità ingannevole

Le vendite dei dispositivi denominati «sigarette elettroniche» hanno subito un fortissimo incremento dacché sono
state immesse sul mercato, mentre solo in Italia si stimano più di 400.000 utilizzatori.

Oltre ai punti vendita ed agli acquirenti, si moltiplicano anche gli spot pubblicitari che reclamizzano questi prodotti,
alcuni dei quali hanno destato preoccupazione tra le associazioni dei consumatori, in particolare gli spot che
pubblicizzano le e-cigar come metodo per smettere di fumare.

Uno di questi spot è stato denunciato all'Antitrust italiana che ne ha chiesto l'inibizione della messa in onda, in quanto
considerato ingannevole per i consumatori, non essendoci ricerche scientifiche certificate che attestino che tali
dispositivi rappresentino un metodo efficace per permettere alle persone di smettere di fumare.

Può la Commissione dire:

1. se è a conoscenza dei fatti sopra descritti;

2. se può riferire se anche negli altri Stati membri vengono messe in onda pubblicità di questo tipo;

3. se può fornire cifre sulla commercializzazione dei dispositivi definiti «sigaretta elettronica» all'interno degli Stati
membri dell'UE;

4. se intende commissionare studi specifici circa l'effettiva efficacia di questi dispositivi per quanto concerne lo
smettere di fumare «normali» sigarette?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(28 maggio 2013)_

La valutazione effettuata dalla Commissione sulle tendenze di mercato per quanto concerne le sigarette elettroniche è
riportata nella valutazione d'impatto della Commissione ( [1] ). La Commissione sa che l'uso delle sigarette elettroniche si sta
diffondendo rapidamente.

Come indicato in una risposta all'interrogazione E-002905/13 ( [2] ), nell'ottica della protezione della salute la proposta
della Commissione serve a incoraggiare le potenzialità delle sigarette elettroniche quali sussidio alla disassuefazione dal
fumo poiché assoggetta le sigarette elettroniche che superano una certa soglia di nicotina alla legislazione che disciplina i
prodotti medicinali. Ciò assicurerebbe che, prima di immetterle sul mercato, si proceda a un'adeguata valutazione della
correlazione rischi/benefici per le sigarette elettroniche che si situano al di sopra di tale soglia.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SWD(2012)452 def., pagg. 15-17.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 324 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004376/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Electronic cigarettes and misleading advertising

There has been a dramatic rise in the sale of devices known as ‘electronic cigarettes’ since they were launched on the
market. There are estimated to be over 400 000 users in Italy alone.

Retail outlets and purchasers have multiplied and so have advertisements for these products, some of which have
caused concern among consumer associations, especially those that promote e-cigars as a way to quit smoking.

A complaint about one of these advertisements was made to the Italian competition authority, which asked for it to
be withdrawn as it was deemed to be misleading for consumers, as there is no documented scientific research to
confirm that these devices represent an effective method for people to quit smoking.

Can the Commission state:

1. Whether it is aware of the facts described above.

2. Whether similar advertising has also been broadcast in other Member States.

3. Whether it can provide figures about the sales of ‘electronic cigarettes’ in the Member States of the EU.

4. Whether it intends to commission specific studies into the actual effectiveness of these devices in allowing
people to quit smoking ‘normal’ cigarettes.

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The Commission's assessment of the market trends with regard to electronic cigarettes is set out in the Commission's
Impact Assessment ( [1] ). The Commission is aware of the fact that the use of electronic cigarettes is growing quickly.

As indicated by a reply to the Question E-002905/13 ( [2] ), from the point of view of health protection, the Commission's
proposal seeks to encourage the potential of electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid by subjecting those products
exceeding a certain threshold of nicotine to the medicinal products legislation. This would ensure that a proper
assessment of the risks and benefits of electronic cigarettes above this threshold would have to be made before placing
them on the market.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SWD(2012) 452 final, pp. 15-17.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 325

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004377/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibile inasprimento delle pene per i «blogger atei» in Bangladesh

Il 2 aprile in Bangladesh sono stati arrestati tre blogger con l'accusa di aver diffamato il profeta Maometto e l'Islam,
con scritte ritenute blasfeme dalle autorità e che sono punibili per legge con una pena di dieci anni di reclusione.

L'arresto dei tre uomini è avvenuto nella settimana in cui migliaia di esponenti integralisti islamici hanno organizzato
una manifestazione con la quale richiedono al governo che tale legge sia modificata in modo tale da prevedere la pena
di morte per i «Blogger atei».

Può la Commissione dire:

1. se è a conoscenza dei fatti sopra esposti;

2. come li valuta;

3. qual è lo stato del rispetto dei dritti umani in tale paese;

4. qual è l'ammontare degli aiuti erogati al Bangladesh e gli ambiti cui essi sono stati destinati?

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

_(11 giugno 2013)_

L’UE è a conoscenza degli arresti e segue con preoccupazione gli scontri per le strade fra i vari partiti politici e fra i
sostenitori di un approccio laico, da un lato, e quelli dei partiti religiosi, dall’altro. Questi atti di violenza hanno
provocato incidenti particolarmente gravi e diverse vittime. L’UE ha invitato le forze politiche a mettere fine a questa
atmosfera di contrapposizione, che, con l’avvicinarsi delle elezioni, può solo complicare una situazione già tesa.

Sussistono ancora motivi di preoccupazione in merito ai diritti umani in Bangladesh (per esempio, in campo sociale,
la sicurezza al lavoro e la situazione di profughi e minoranze), di cui l’UE discute periodicamente con il governo del

paese.

L’Unione europea è il principale fornitore di assistenza al Bangladesh, che riceve annualmente circa 500 milioni di
euro dalle istituzioni dell’UE e a titolo degli accordi bilaterali con gli Stati membri. L’UE si adopera per rafforzare la
democrazia e i diritti umani nel paese, sia sul piano politico che contribuendo come partner per lo sviluppo. Ha
sostenuto attivamente il ritorno del Bangladesh alla democrazia nel 2008 e ha offerto la propria assistenza in vista
delle prossime elezioni. L’Unione europea è uno dei principali donatori in settori quali la salute, l’istruzione, la buona
gestione politica, i diritti umani e la sicurezza alimentare e ha fornito aiuti umanitari a seguito delle catastrofi naturali
che colpiscono periodicamente il paese.

C 33 E / 326 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004377/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible stricter penalties for ‘atheist bloggers’ in Bangladesh

On 2 April, two bloggers were arrested in Bangladesh, accused of having defamed the Prophet Mohammed and Islam
with pieces of writing deemed to be blasphemous by the authorities and legally punishable by 10 years’
imprisonment.

The three men were arrested in a week during which thousands of Islamic extremists organised a demonstration
demanding that the government amend the law in order to punish ‘atheist bloggers’ with the death penalty.

Can the Commission state:

1. Whether it is aware of the events stated above.

2. What its assessment is of these events.

3. What the human rights situation is in Bangladesh.

4. What aid has been provided to Bangladesh and the intended uses of this aid.

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

_(11 June 2013)_

The EU is aware of the arrests. It is following with concern the clashes on the streets between political parties, and
between those who advocate a secular approach and supporters of religious parties. These clashes have now
provoked very serious incidents and a number of deaths. The EU has called on the political forces to put an end to this
atmosphere of confrontation, which can only make a tense situation more difficult as the general elections approach.

There remain a number of areas of concern regarding human rights in Bangladesh — including those affecting social
issues such as safety at work, refugees and minorities — and the EU has raised them regularly with the Bangladeshi
Government.

The EU is the largest provider of grant assistance to Bangladesh, disbursing around EUR 500 million annually through
the EU institutions as well as through Member States' bilateral programmes. The EU has been working to strengthen
democracy and human rights in Bangladesh, both politically and as a development partner. It actively supported the
country's return to democracy in 2008, and has offered its support in view of the next elections. The EU has been a
major donor in areas such as health, education, good governance, human rights and food security, and has provided
humanitarian support in response to natural disasters which have periodically affected the country.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 327

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004378/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(18 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sicurezza alimentare

Gli alimenti sono un bene prezioso e l'intero settore rappresenta interessi economici molto importanti invogliando
alcuni produttori e/o rivenditori a trarre profitti illeciti tramite «frodi». Esse hanno come obiettivo principale quello di
rendere «vendibili» prodotti con caratteristiche merceologiche e/o sanitarie non idonee al consumo. Le frodi
alimentari generano danni economici alle imprese, allo Stato e in particolare alla salute pubblica. Quest'affermazione
risulta valida sia per le frodi sulla qualità sia per quelle sull'origine e la provenienza degli alimenti. Ciò premesso,
quindi, lo scopo di tali frodi è quello di migliorare la qualità degli alimenti con «azioni» che sono spesso di «facciata»
come nel caso della modifica delle etichette, attribuendo ai prodotti denominazioni che persuadono e inganno i
consumatori.

L’inscindibile sistema di regole europee a garanzia della sicurezza alimentare si basa sulla prevenzione che deve essere
assicurata da tutti gli operatori della filiera e sorvegliata dalle pubbliche autorità. Il sistema di allarme rapido per gli
alimenti e i mangimi dell'UE ha permesso di evitare o ridurre i rischi per la sicurezza degli alimenti. Tale sistema
svolge un ruolo fondamentale perché mette in moto una reazione rapida non appena viene individuato un rischio per
la sicurezza alimentare, garantendo così la sicurezza dal produttore al consumatore.

Inoltre, occorre anche precisare che l'industria dei prodotti alimentari e delle bevande è uno dei settori industriali più
importanti e più dinamici d'Europa. Esso è rappresentato da circa 310.000 aziende e offre lavoro a oltre quattro
milioni di persone con un volume di affari annuo superiore a 900 miliardi di euro. Questo fa sì che le sofisticazioni
siano sempre più difficili da individuare e che le aziende ricorrano a tali stratagemmi per superare la concorrenza.

Tutto ciò premesso, può la Commissione precisare se reputa necessario inasprire le norme per mettere al bando
nell'UE (anche temporaneamente) e società che non rispettano determinati standard o che sono ree di sofisticazione di
etichette alimentari?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

La responsabilità di far rispettare la legislazione relativa alla filiera alimentare compete agli Stati membri ( [1] ), che sono
tenuti a istituire un sistema di controlli ufficiali per verificare l'ottemperanza, da parte degli operatori, ai requisiti
derivanti da detta legislazione. Laddove si individuino inadempienze, gli Stati membri devono intervenire, sulla base
di informazioni concrete, per assicurare che gli operatori interessati rimedino alle inadempienze. Tale intervento può
comprendere la sospensione delle operazioni o la chiusura in toto o in parte dell'azienda interessata per un
appropriato periodo di tempo (articolo 54 del regolamento (CE) n. 882/2004).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 882/2004 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 29 aprile 2004, relativa ai controlli ufficiali intesi a verificare la

conformità alla normativa in materia di mangimi e di alimenti e alle norme sulla salute e sul benessere degli animali, GU L 165 del 30.4.2004,
pag. 1.

C 33 E / 328 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004378/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Food safety

Food is a precious asset and the entire food industry represents major economic interests which tempt some
producers and/or dealers to derive illegal profits through ‘scams’. The main goal of such scams is to make products
which are commercially and hygienically unfit for sale ‘sellable’. Food scams are economically harmful to companies,
States and public health. This assertion holds true for scams that concern the quality of food as well as its origin or
source. The aim of such scams is to improve the quality of food by taking ‘action’ which is often a mere ‘facade’, such
as changing labels to give products names that will persuade and mislead consumers.

The single and indivisible system of European food safety rules is based on prevention, which must be guaranteed by
all industry operators and monitored by public authorities. The EU’s rapid alert system for food and feed has allowed
risks to food safety to be avoided or reduced. This system plays a fundamental role by ensuring that quick action is
taken as soon as a food safety risk is detected, thus guaranteeing safety from the producer to the consumer.

It is also important to state that the food and drink industry is one of the most important and dynamic industrial
sectors in Europe. It comprises some 310 000 companies and provides work for over four million people with an
annual business volume of over EUR 900 billion. The upshot of this has been that food adulteration is ever more
difficult to detect and that companies are using such tricks to outstrip the competition.

In view of the above, can the Commission state whether it believes it necessary to tighten the rules for banning within
the EU (even temporarily) companies which fail to respect specific standards or which are guilty of using misleading
food labels?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The responsibility for enforcing food chain legislation lies with Member States ( [1] ), which are required to establish a
system of official controls to verify compliance by operators with requirements deriving therefrom. Where noncompliance is detected Member States must, depending on the factual information available, take appropriate action
to ensure that the non-compliance is remedied by the operators concerned. Such action may include the suspension
of operation or closure of all or part of a business for an appropriate period of time (Article 54 of Regulation (EC)
No 882/2004).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the
verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 329

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004379/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Patricia van der Kammen (NI)**

_(18 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Commissievoorstel om de directe betalingen aan landbouwers te verlagen met 5 %

De Commissie stelt in haar voorstel tot „financiële discipline” voor directe betalingen uit hoofde van het GLB voor het
jaar 2014 ( [1] ) dat alle directe betalingen boven 5.000 euro gekort worden met 4,98 %, met uitzondering van directe
betalingen voor Bulgarije, Kroatië en Roemenië.

De antieke systematiek van landbouwsubsidies en inkomenssteun heeft boeren afhankelijk gemaakt van de EU. Zij
hangen aan het subsidie-infuus van Brussel, in plaats van dat zij op een gezonde manier via goede handelsprijzen
kunnen ondernemen en daarmee zelf in hun bestaan kunnen voorzien.

1. Is de Commissie ervan op de hoogte dat de financiële situatie van veel Nederlandse landbouwers nijpend is en
dat deze aan de rand van een faillissement staan ( [2] )?

2. Is de Commissie ervan op de hoogte dat veel Nederlandse boeren helemaal niet zitten te wachten op de
systematiek van inkomenssteun maar liever met eerlijke handelsprijzen een bloeiend boerenbedrijf in stand houden?

3. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat het niet aan hard werkende burgers is uit te leggen dat de Commissie
liever 5 % van het inkomen van hardwerkende boeren afpakt dan snijdt in de eigen begroting? Zo nee, kan zij het dan
uitleggen aan hen?

4. Is de Commissie bereid om het systeem van landbouwsubsidies af te schaffen, de financiële middelen terug te
geven aan de bijdragende lidstaten en het landbouwbeleid aan de lidstaten zelf over te laten? Zo nee, waarom niet?

**Antwoord van de heer Cioloș namens de Commissie**

_(30 mei 2013)_

De Commissie is op de hoogte van de moeilijkheden waarmee heel wat landbouwers in de Europese Unie worden
geconfronteerd. Daarom is het belangrijk om de inkomenssteun te handhaven, landbouwers te vergoeden voor de
levering van collectieve goederen, de risico's beter te beheren, beter te reageren op crisissituaties en
plattelandsontwikkeling te ondersteunen. Deze elementen maken deel uit van het voorstel van de Commissie voor de
hervorming van het GLB met het oog op een meer concurrerende en duurzamere landbouw.

Op basis van het wettelijke kader ( [3] ) en de voorlopige ramingen voor de ontwerpbegroting 2014, met name de
ramingen voor rechtstreekse betalingen aan landbouwers en marktuitgaven, zag de Commissie zich in de huidige
periode genoodzaakt uiterlijk op 31 maart 2013 de toepassing van het mechanisme voor financiële discipline voor te
stellen voor het begrotingsjaar 2014 om de maxima van het Europees Landbouwgarantiefonds niet te overschrijden.
Meer details over de achterliggende redenen hiervoor zijn terug te vinden in het voorstel van de Commissie ( [4] ).

Het Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (GLB) is een werkelijk Europees beleid: in plaats van in 28 landen een eigen
landbouwbeleid te voeren, brengen de lidstaten hun middelen samen om één Europees beleid met één Europese
begroting te voeren. Dit garandeert zowel de meest doeltreffende reactie op de beleidsuitdagingen als het meest
efficiënte gebruik van begrotingsmiddelen. In haar effectbeoordeling ( [5] ) van het GLB tot 2020 heeft de Commissie de
optie om de inkomenssteun geleidelijk af te bouwen, beoordeeld. Zij is tot de conclusie gekomen dat aan een
dergelijke uitfasering meer negatieve gevolgen dan mogelijke voordelen zijn verbonden.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-297_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.boerderij.nl/Home/Nieuws/2012/12/Meer-boeren-aangewezen-op-voedselbank-1132843W/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Artikel 11 van Verordening (EG) nr. 73/2009.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 159.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 1154 definitief/2.

C 33 E / 330 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004379/13**

**to the Commission**
**Patricia van der Kammen (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Commission proposal to reduce direct payments to farmers by 5%

In its proposal for ‘financial discipline’ for direct payments under the heading of the CAP for the year 2014, the
Commission stipulates ( [1] ) that all direct payments above EUR 5 000 should be reduced by 4.98% with the exception
of direct payments for Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania.

The age-old system of farming subsidies and income support has made farmers dependent on the EU. They depend on
the injection of subsidies from Brussels instead of running a sound business using good trade prices and thus
providing for their own subsistence.

1. Is the Commission aware that the financial situation of many Dutch farmers is precarious and that they are on
the verge of bankruptcy ( [2] )?

2. Is the Commission aware that many Dutch farmers absolutely do not sit around waiting for the income support
system but prefer to maintain a thriving farming business with fair trade prices?

3. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that it is inexplicable to hard-working citizens that the Commission
prefers to take 5% from the income of hard-working farmers than to make cuts in its own budget? If not, can the
Commission explain it to them?

4. Is the Commission prepared to abolish the system of farming subsidies, return the funds to the contributing
Member States and transfer agricultural policy to the Member States themselves? If not, why not?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the difficulties faced by many farmers in the European Union. Hence the need to
maintain income support, compensate farmers for the provision of public goods, better manage risks and respond to
crisis situations and support rural development. These elements are part of the Commission proposal for the CAP
reform aimed at a more competitive and sustainable agriculture. .

In the current period, according to the legislative framework ( [3] ) and the provisional estimates for the Draft Budget
2014 and in particular direct payments to farmers and market-related expenditure, the Commission was obliged to
propose by 31 March 2013 the application of the financial discipline mechanism for financial year 2014 to stay
within the ceiling for the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. Further details on the underlying motivations are
provided in the Commission proposal ( [4] ).

The common agricultural policy (CAP) is a genuinely European policy as instead of operating 28 agricultural policies,
Member States pool resources to operate a single European policy with a single European budget. This ensures both
the most effective response to the policy challenges as well as the most efficient use of budgetary resources. In its
impact assessment ( [5] ) on the CAP towards 2020, the Commission has assessed the option of phasing-out income
support with the negative implications outweighing potential benefits.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-297_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.boerderij.nl/Home/Nieuws/2012/12/Meer-boeren-aangewezen-op-voedselbank-1132843W/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2013)159.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) SEC(2011)1154 final/2.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 331

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004380/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Birmania/Myanmar — La UE no debe abandonar los requisitos de derechos humanos

Actualmente la Unión Europea está revisando su política relativa a Birmania/Myanmar e incluso valora si continuar
con la suspensión de las sanciones de la UE o suprimirlas. El 22 de abril se adoptará una decisión final.

No existe ninguna duda de que se han producido cambios espectaculares en Birmania/Myanmar en los últimos dos
años y de que se da una oportunidad para seguir cambiando, lo que debe fomentarse. Sin embargo, la Unión Europea
tiene tendencia a destacar lo positivo y a ignorar algunas importantes y duras realidades sobre el terreno.

Es necesario encontrar, con cuidado, un equilibrio entre los estímulos y la presión continuada de varios tipos. Este
equilibrio reviste suma importancia.

La campaña Burma Campaign UK ha publicado un informe en el que pueden encontrarse varios casos en los que se
vulneran estos derechos ( [1] ).

Levantar las sanciones económicas y diplomáticas, cuando no se han cumplido exigencias clave de la UE en cuanto a
la mejora de los derechos humanos, transmite al Gobierno de Birmania/Myanmar el mensaje de que puede ignorar,
con toda seguridad, las peticiones de la UE para mejorar los derechos humanos sin tener que afrontar consecuencias.

¿Qué valoración han hecho los representantes de la UE/la VP/AR de la situación real de los derechos humanos en
Birmania/Myanmar?

¿Dispone la UE/la VP/AR de información sobre si la situación y el bienestar de los rohingya ha mejorado?

¿Se tendrá en cuenta la situación real de los derechos humanos en la revisión final de la política de la UE?

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

_(20 de junio de 2013)_

El 22 de abril, el Consejo de Asuntos Exteriores decidió levantar las sanciones, con excepción del embargo sobre las
armas. Myanmar/Birmania se encuentra, sin duda, en una situación diferente de la imperante doce meses atrás,
cuando se suspendieron las sanciones. La decisión de levantar las sanciones en lugar de prorrogar su suspensión se
adoptó tras una rigurosa evaluación de la evolución registrada en el país. A través de dicha decisión se ha pretendido
establecer un cuidadoso equilibrio entre, por una parte, el reconocimiento de los importantes progresos conseguidos
y, por otra, los persistentes motivos de preocupación, en particular en el ámbito de los derechos humanos, como son
la violencia entre comunidades y la situación de los rohingya.

La UE ha estado y seguirá estando en la primera línea de la actuación internacional encaminada a promover los
derechos humanos en Myanmar/Birmania. La UE fue el principal promotor de la Resolución sobre la situación de los
derechos humanos en Myanmar, aprobada por el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas el 21 de
marzo de 2013.

Los derechos humanos seguirán estando también en el centro del compromiso bilateral de la UE con
Myanmar/Birmania. Tal como se estipula en las conclusiones de 22 de abril, ello implicará igualmente la promoción
de un diálogo sistemático sobre derechos humanos entre la UE y Myanmar/Birmania. El representante especial de la
UE para los derechos humanos visitó este país a mediados de mayo, a fin de debatir con las partes interesadas las
modalidades para la puesta en marcha del diálogo sobre derechos humanos y tener una visión global de la situación
actual.

De cara al futuro, la UE se ha comprometido a asumir un papel destacado con vistas a fomentar nuevas reformas
democráticas, la reconciliación nacional y la consolidación de los derechos humanos en Myanmar/Birmania. Este
compromiso quedó patente en la Declaración Conjunta emitida con ocasión de la visita a Bruselas del Presidente
Thein Sein, el pasado mes de marzo.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/index.php/news-and-reports/burma-briefing

C 33 E / 332 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004380/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Burma — the EU must not abandon human rights benchmarks

The European Union is currently reviewing its policy on Burma, including whether to continue with the suspension
of EU sanctions, or to lift them altogether. A final decision will be taken on 22 April.

There is no doubt that there have been dramatic changes in Burma in the past two years and that there is an
opportunity for further change, which must be encouraged. However, there is a tendency by the European Union to
highlight the positives while ignoring some important and harsh realities on the ground.

A careful balance needs to be struck between encouragement and continued pressure of various kinds. This balance is
extremely important.

The Burma Campaign UK recently published a briefing where many cases of this breach of rights can be found ( [1] ).

The expected lifting of economic and diplomatic sanctions when key EU demands for improvements in human rights
have not been met sends a signal to the Government of Burma that it can safely ignore EU calls for improvements in
human rights, and face no consequences.

What assessment have representatives of the EU/VP-HR made of the real human rights situation in Burma?

Does the EU/VP-HR have information that the status and welfare of the Rohingya has improved?

Will the reality of the human rights situation be taken into account in the final revision of the EU policy revision?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

On 22 April, the Foreign Affairs Council decided to lift sanctions with the exception of the arms embargo.
Myanmar/Burma is undeniably in a different situation than it was 12 months ago, when sanctions were suspended.
The decision to lift rather than extend suspension of the sanctions was taken after thorough assessment of
developments in the country. It represents a careful balance struck between recognition of important progress
achieved, and persisting concerns, notably in the field of human rights, such as inter-communal violence and the
situation of the Rohingya.

The EU has been and will continue to be at the forefront of international action to promote human rights in
Myanmar/Burma. The EU was the leading sponsor of the UN Human Rights Council's Resolution on the Situation of
Human Rights in Myanmar of 21 March 2013.

Human rights will also remain at the heart of the EU's bilateral engagement with Myanmar/Burma. As stipulated in
the 22 April Conclusions, this will also include the promotion of a regular human rights dialogue between the EU and
Myanmar/Burma. The EU's Special Representative for Human Rights visited Myanmar/Burma in mid-May to discuss
with stakeholders the modalities for launching the human rights dialogue and to gain an overview of the current
situation.

Looking forward, the EU is committed to playing a key role in encouraging further democratic reforms, national
reconciliation and strengthening of human rights in Myanmar/Burma. This commitment was underlined in the Joint
Statement issued on the occasion of President Thein Sein's visit to Brussels in March

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/index.php/news-and-reports/burma-briefing.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 333

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004381/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ashley Fox (ECR)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cardiff airport and EU state aid rules

In Written Question E-000903/2013, I advised the Commission of the intention of the Welsh Government, which is
controlled by the Labour Party, to purchase Cardiff airport from its private owners, and of the consequence of this
market distortion for neighbouring airports such as Bristol airport.

In its response, the Commission stated: ‘As long as the state behaves as a profit-oriented market economy investor
would do, there is no state aid involved … the price for which the state acquires the undertaking has to be a market
price’.

The Welsh Government has now completed the purchase of Cardiff airport, at a sale price of GBP 52 million. This
figure is considered to be considerably above market value. Despite assurances from the Welsh Government that the
airport will be operated on an ‘arm’s-length’ basis, it is expected that it will be providing annual funding to the sum of
GBP 6 million to support capital investment and route development.

Does the Commission believe that this constitutes a breach of EU state aid rules?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

To prevent illegal state aid being granted to the seller of the airport through the purchase of Cardiff Airport by the
Welsh Government, the price paid by the state must indeed not be above the market price for the airport. At present
the Commission has no information that the sale price of GBP 52 million is above this market price, and so has no
indication that state aid might have been granted to the seller of the airport.

If after having acquired an economic undertaking, the state then subsequently invests in it, no state aid is involved if
the investment is expected to yield adequate profits. If this is not the case the investment may constitute state aid.

With regard to possible future aid granted to the airport for the financing of its operation and infrastructure
investments as well as for start-up aid for airlines, the UK authorities are obliged to notify any such aid to the
Commission according to Article 107 (3) TFEU.

The Commission would then assess the compatibility of the aid with the internal market. With regard to aid to
airports and airlines the Commission assesses the aid in line with the Community guidelines on financing of airports
and start‐up aid to airlines departing from regional airports (OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p.1).

At the moment the Commission has no information that the United Kingdom plans to grant state aid to Cardiff
Airport or the airlines using the airport.

C 33 E / 334 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004382/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrew Henry William Brons (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Capital controls

With reference to your answer to my Written Question E-011592/2011 of 8 December 2011 on capital flight, it is
clear that recent events in Cyprus have justified the fears I anticipated in my question.

1. Does the Commission concur that it would be prudent for citizens in the ‘southern periphery’ of the eurozone
to protect their savings from default on the part of their government and/or their bank and/or from a possible
restoration of their nation’s currency (at a devalued rate) by moving their savings to safer havens? If not, why not?

2. Will the Commission rule out any further confiscation of savings of the kind recently carried out in Cyprus? If
not, why not?

3. Will the Commission rule out any further capital control measures of the kind recently taken in Cyprus? If not,
why not?

4. If the Commission will not rule out any further confiscation of savings and/or any further capital controls, will it
therefore concur that it would be prudent for savers and depositors to take steps to seek out safe havens for their
savings?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

A whole range of measures are in place or being negotiated which contribute to a consistent level of deposit
protection throughout the internal market. For example, Directive 94/19/EC ensures that depositors are covered by
deposit guarantee schemes up to a coverage level of EUR 100 000 in case of bank default. This guarantee has always
been preserved for all depositors in the EU, including in Cyprus. The DGS system is complemented by
Directive 97/9/EC on investor compensation schemes which offers protection with regard to securities. Measures
have been proposed by the Commission to strengthen deposit guarantee schemes and investor compensation
schemes and are awaiting the legislator’s final decision. In addition, the proposal on bank recovery and resolution
made in June 2012 aims at ensuring convergence in regulatory and financial frameworks for bank crisis management
in the whole EU. This will reinforce the establishment of a common level of financial safety throughout the internal
market.

While the imposition of capital control measures is an unprecedented measure, Article 65 TFEU allows such
temporary restrictions to the free movement of capital. In the case of Cyprus, the Commission acknowledges that,
taking into account the emergency situation and the significant risk of an uncontrollable outflow of deposits,
temporary unilateral restrictions were justified in the overriding public interest in the given circumstances.

A monitoring system is in place to ensure that the capital controls are not maintained longer than necessary

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 335

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004383/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Accords UE-Inde, menace pour l'avenir des médicaments génériques

L'accord en cours de finalisation entre l'Union européenne et l'Inde suscite de vives inquiétudes. C'est un accord qui ne
manquera pas d'être lourd de conséquences, notamment en ce qui concerne l'accès aux médicaments. En effet,
certaines clauses, considérées comme dangereuses, pourraient avoir un fort impact aussi bien en Inde que dans
l'ensemble des pays en développement qui s'approvisionnent massivement en médicaments génériques à bas prix
produits par l'Inde. En effet, l'Inde est considérée comme la «pharmacie des pays sous-développés»; elle produit de ce
fait plus de 80 % des médicaments génériques utilisés contre le VIH/sida. Au-delà des médicaments antirétroviraux et
anticancéreux, ce pays produit de nombreux médicaments à moindre coût. Le jeu de la concurrence entre les
producteurs de génériques est l'un des principaux facteurs à avoir permis la mise sous traitement de millions de
malades dans les pays en développement depuis les débuts de la pandémie.

1. Par conséquent, si l'on coupe le robinet indien que constitue son industrie du médicament générique, ne met-on
pas en danger des millions de personnes? La Commission a-t-elle considéré le fait que, rédigés comme tels, ces accords
commerciaux auront des conséquences dramatiques pour la santé publique? L'industrie du médicament générique est
essentielle pour les malades dans les pays en développement.

2. Le passage sur les mesures dangereuses que le texte comporte, mentionnant par exemple l'augmentation de la
durée des brevets et l'exclusivité des données, ne va-t-il pas sonner la mise à mort de l'industrie du générique?

3. La Commission a-t-elle quantifié, ou compte-t-elle quantifier, les conséquences d'un tel traité sur le générique?
Quel est le nombre des génériques qui sont fabriqués? Combien de vie ont-ils permis de sauver?

4. Pour répondre aux enjeux de santé publique, importer ou produire des copies génériques à bas prix est crucial
pour des millions de personnes à travers le monde. La Commission est-elle prête à prendre le risque de voir ces gens
mourir, faute de traitement?

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

_(31 mai 2013)_

La Commission est tout à fait consciente du rôle que peuvent jouer les médicaments génériques pour améliorer l'accès
des populations les plus pauvres aux médicaments, ainsi que du rôle de l'Inde à cet égard. Le chapitre relatif à
la propriété intellectuelle (DPI) de l'accord de libre-échange (ALE) entre l'UE et l'Inde ne portera pas atteinte à la
capacité de ce pays à produire et à exporter des médicaments génériques à un prix abordable pour les populations qui
en ont besoin.

De fait, en 2010 l'Union européenne et l'Inde étaient déjà convenues que le chapitre sur les droits de propriété
intellectuelle du futur accord n'imposerait à aucune des parties d'introduire des modifications dans sa législation en
matière de DPI en ce qui concerne l'accès aux médicaments. Cela signifie que l'ALE n'entraînera aucun changement
dans la législation actuelle de l'Inde à cet égard, qu'il s'agisse de la protection des données, de la durée des brevets ou
encore de l'application des DPI. Par ailleurs, l'UE a proposé d'inclure dans l'ALE une clause aux termes de laquelle
«aucune disposition de l'accord ne peut être interprétée de manière à compromettre la capacité des parties à
promouvoir l'accès aux médicaments». La position de négociation de l'UE n'a pas changé.

C 33 E / 336 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004383/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU-India agreements, a threat to the future of generic medicinal products

The agreement being finalised between the European Union and India has given rise to grave concerns. It cannot fail
to have serious consequences, particularly as regards access to medicinal products. Some of the clauses deemed to be
risky could have a major impact not only in India, but also in all the developing countries which are supplied with
vast quantities of low-cost generic medicinal products by India. India has been called a ‘pharmacy for underdeveloped countries’ and it produces over 80% of the generic medicinal products used to treat HIV/AIDS. The country
produces many other low-cost medicinal products as well as anti-retroviral and anti-cancer drugs. Competition
between the manufacturers of generic medicinal products is one of the main factors which have made it possible to
treat millions of patients in developing countries since the start of the pandemic.

1. Is it not therefore the case that millions of people would be put at risk if supplies from the Indian generic
medicinal product industry were cut off? Has the Commission taken into account the fact that, as they stand, these
trade agreements will have dramatic consequences for public health? The generic medicinal product industry is vital
for patients in developing countries.

2. The text refers to certain measures which entail risks, for example longer patent lives and greater data exclusivity
rights; will these not sound the death knell for the generics industry?

3. Has the Commission quantified, or does it intend to quantify, the effects of a treaty of this kind on generic
medicinal products? How many generic medicinal products are manufactured? How many lives have they saved?

4. In order to respond to public health challenges, it is crucially important for millions of people across the world
that low-cost generic copies can be imported or produced. Is the Commission prepared to accept the risk of these
people dying if such treatment is not available?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

The Commission is well aware of the role that generics can play in improving access to medicines for the poorest
populations, as well of the role played by India in this respect. The Intellectual Property (IPR) Chapter in the EU-India
Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will not undermine India's ability to produce and export affordable generic medicines for
people in need.

In fact, in 2010 the EU and India already agreed that the IPR chapter of the future agreement will not request either
party to introduce amendments to its current IPR law in relation to access to medicines. This implies that the FTA will
not result in any changes to India's current legislation, not only with respect to data protection and patent term, but
also in relation to IPR enforcement. Furthermore, the EU has proposed that the FTA contain a provision stating that
‘nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as to impair the capacity of the Parties to promote access to medicines’.
The EU's negotiating position has not changed.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 337

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004384/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Libéralisation des aides d'États

La France, l'Allemagne et le Royaume-Uni ont appelé la Commission à «libéraliser» les aides d'État pour les investir
dans l'innovation des entreprises.

Les trois grandes puissances de l'Union européenne défendent l'assouplissement et la libéralisation des aides d'État
devant la Commission.

Dans leur argumentation, les trois États expliquent que dans le monde entier, hormis la Silicon Valley en Californie,
ce sont les États qui payent l'innovation technologique: en Chine, en Corée, en Amérique du Sud, au Canada, aux
États-Unis. L'Europe devrait dès lors être «au niveau», sinon «ce seront eux qui inventeront les technologies de
demain».

1. Quelle est la réaction de la Commission?

2. La Commission compte-t-elle prendre des dispositions protectrices contre la concurrence déloyale?

3. Les trois États prennent d'ailleurs comme exemple le secteur de l'énergie photovoltaïque qui a souffert de la
concurrence des bas prix chinois. Est-ce un exemple acceptable pour la Commission?

**Réponse donnée par M. Almunia au nom de la Commission**

_(19 juin 2013)_

En premier lieu, la Commission rappelle qu'un soutien efficace à l'innovation exige un dispositif de contrôle
permettant de garantir que les aides d'État ciblent les situations où le marché seul ne permet pas de développer
l'innovation et où ces aides ont un effet incitatif et sont limitées au minimum nécessaire pour atteindre leur objectif.

Actuellement, la Commission travaille à la modernisation des règles de l'UE applicables aux aides d'État, qui
comprennent les règles relatives à la RDI et au financement des risques. L'objectif est de garantir une concurrence
effective sur le marché intérieur afin de permettre aux entreprises de l'UE d'innover et de faire face à la mondialisation.

En second lieu, on observera que, si les règles de l'UE relatives aux aides d'État ne peuvent pas en elles-mêmes offrir
une protection contre la concurrence déloyale, les dispositions applicables aux aides à la RDI prévoient la possibilité
d'octroyer des aides dont l'intensité est équivalente à celle des aides octroyées hors de l'Union pour des projets
similaires. De manière plus générale, l'UE peut recourir à des instruments de défense commerciale, comme des
mesures antidumping et compensatoires, afin de garantir des conditions de concurrence équitables dans le domaine
du commerce international.

En ce qui concerne plus particulièrement le secteur de l'énergie photovoltaïque, la Commission a récemment soumis
les importations de produits chinois à des conditions strictes ( [1] ). Cela témoigne de sa détermination à utiliser des
instruments adéquats chaque fois que cela s'avère nécessaire, afin de garantir des conditions de concurrence équitables
au niveau mondial.

En outre, il convient de noter que les règles applicables aux aides d'État permettent déjà à l'industrie photovoltaïque de
l'UE de recevoir un soutien efficace. La Commission a, par exemple, autorisé ( [2] ) l'Allemagne à financer la construction
d'un nouveau centre de recherche sur l'énergie photovoltaïque à base de silicium, auquel les entreprises européennes
ont librement accès.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Concernant les importations de modules photovoltaïques en silicium cristallin et de leurs composants essentiels originaires ou en provenance de

la République populaire de Chine, voir le règlement (UE) n [o] 182/2013 de la Commission du 1 [er] mars 2013 (JO L 61 du 5.3.2013).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Décision de la Commission du 30 janvier 2008 concernant l'aide d'État N 365/2007 (JO C 91 du 12.4.2008).

( **|**

C 33 E / 338 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004384/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Liberalisation of state aid

France, Germany and the United Kingdom have called on the Commission to ‘liberalise’ State aid so that it can be
invested in business innovation.

The European Union’s three major powers have made a case to the Commission for relaxing and liberalising state aid.

The three Member States explain in their arguments that technological innovation is publicly funded everywhere in
the world except for Silicon Valley in California: in China, Korea, South America, Canada and the United States.
Europe should therefore be ‘up to standard’, otherwise ‘it will be other countries which invent the technologies of
tomorrow’.

1. What is the Commission’s response to this?

2. Is the Commission planning to take steps to protect against unfair competition?

3. The three Member States refer to the example of the photovoltaic energy sector, which has been hit by low-cost
Chinese competition. Does the Commission believe that this is a valid example?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

The Commission recalls firstly that effective innovation support requires a control system ensuring that state aid is
targeted at situations where the market alone would not deliver innovation, and where aid has an incentive effect and
is limited to the minimum necessary to achieve its policy objective.

The Commission is currently modernising EU State aid rules, including those on R&D&I and risk financing. The
objective is to ensure effective competition in the internal market so that EU companies innovate and tackle
globalisation.

Secondly, while EU State aid rules cannot by themselves ‘protect against unfair competition’, R&D&I aid rules
currently provide for the possibility of granting R&D aid that matches aid intensities granted outside the EU for
comparable projects. More generally, the EU can make use of trade defence instruments, such as anti-dumping and
anti-subsidy measures, in order to ensure a level playing field in international trade.

As regards the photovoltaic sector in particular, the Commission has recently made imports from China subject to
strict conditions ( [1] ). This demonstrates the Commission's determination to use appropriate instruments whenever
necessary to ensure a global level playing field.

Further, it should be noted that state aid rules already allow effective support for the EU photovoltaic industry. For
example, the Commission authorised ( [2] ) Germany to support the construction of a new Research Centre for Silicon
Photovoltaic, to which European enterprises have unrestricted access.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in or consigned from China; Regulation (EU)

No 182/2013 of 1 March 2013, OJ L 61, 5.3.2013.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission decision of 30.1.2008, State-aid N 365/2007, OJ C 91, 12.4.2008.

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 339

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004385/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Banque centrale européenne (BCE) — rapport annuel

1. La Commission compte-t-elle présenter des propositions en vue d'un nouveau fonds européen de résolution et
d'un système européen de garantie des dépôts venant compléter les fonctions de surveillance de la BCE, comme l'y
invite le Parlement européen dans sa résolution adoptée le mercredi 17 avril 2013 sur le rapport annuel 2011 de la
Banque centrale européenne?

2. Dans l'affirmative, quelles sont ces propositions?

**Réponse donnée par M. Rehn au nom de la Commission**

_(30 mai 2013)_

La Commission a l'intention de présenter avant l'été une proposition de mécanisme de résolution unique, afin de
parachever l'union bancaire.

C 33 E / 340 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004385/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Central Bank (ECB) — annual report

1. Is the Commission planning to put forward proposals for a new European resolution fund and a European
deposit guarantee system that complement the supervisory functions of the ECB, as called for by Parliament in its
resolution of Wednesday 17 April 2013 on the 2011 annual report of the European Central Bank?

2. If so, what are its proposals?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission intends to put forward a proposal for a Single Resolution Mechanism by the Summer in order to
complement the Banking Union.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 341

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004386/13**

**au Conseil**
**Marielle Gallo (PPE)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement — exclusion des services audiovisuels

Le 12 mars 2013, la Commission a présenté une proposition de mandat pour la négociation d'un accord de libreéchange avec les États-Unis appelé «Partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement».

Ce partenariat aura vocation à stimuler la croissance de l'Union européenne et la création de nouveaux emplois,
objectifs louables en cette période de crises économique et sociale. Cependant, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que la
promotion de la diversité culturelle est aussi un objectif de l'Union, énoncé à l'article 167 du traité FUE. En outre,
depuis le cycle d'Uruguay, l'Union exclut systématiquement les services audiovisuels des accords commerciaux.

1. Le Conseil exclura-t-il explicitement les services audiovisuels de l'accord de libre-échange avec les États-Unis?

2. En cas de réponse négative à la première question, quelles sont les raisons qui justifient un changement de
position de la part de l'Union en ce qui concerne les services audiovisuels dans le cadre de la politique commerciale
commune?

**Réponse**
_(24 juin 2013)_

La recommandation de décision du Conseil autorisant l'ouverture de négociations concernant un accord global sur le
commerce et l'investissement entre l'Union européenne et les États‐Unis d'Amérique, qui comporte le projet de
directives de négociation, est en cours d'examen au sein du Conseil. Les discussions portent notamment sur la
question de la diversité culturelle. Dès que les directives de négociation auront été adoptées, le Conseil informera le
Parlement européen de leur teneur, comme l'y oblige le traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne.

C 33 E / 342 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004386/13**

**to the Council**
**Marielle Gallo (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Transatlantic trade and investment partnership — exclusion of audiovisual services

On 12 March 2013, the Commission tabled a proposal for a negotiating mandate for a free trade agreement with the
United States entitled ‘Transatlantic trade and investment partnership’.

The partnership is intended to boost growth in the European Union and create new jobs, which are laudable
objectives at a time of economic and social crisis. However, it should not be forgotten that promoting cultural
diversity is another of the EU’s objectives, as enshrined in Article 167 TFEU. What is more, the EU has systematically
excluded audiovisual services from trade agreements since the Uruguay Round.

1. Will the Council explicitly exclude audiovisual services from the free trade agreement with the United States?

2. If not, what reasons would justify a change in the EU’s position on audiovisual services under the common trade
policy?

**Reply**
_(24 June 2013)_

The Commission's Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on a
comprehensive trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States of America,
including the draft negotiating directives, is currently under discussion in the Council. These discussions include the
issue of cultural diversity. As soon as the negotiating directives are adopted, the Council will inform the European
Parliament, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 343

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004387/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marielle Gallo (PPE)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement — exclusion des services audiovisuels

Le 12 mars 2013, la Commission a présenté une proposition de mandat pour la négociation d'un accord de libreéchange avec les États-Unis appelé «Partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement».

Cette proposition de mandat n'exclut pas explicitement les services audiovisuels. Or, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que la
promotion de la diversité culturelle est un objectif de l'Union européenne, énoncé à l'article 167 du traité FUE.
D'ailleurs, depuis le cycle d'Uruguay, l'Union exclut systématiquement les services audiovisuels des accords
commerciaux, l'exemple le plus récent étant les négociations pour un accord de libre-échange entre l'UE et le Canada
(CETA).

1. La Commission s'est elle fixée comme objectif l'exclusion des services audiovisuels de l'accord de libre-échange
avec les États-Unis?

2. En cas de réponse négative à la première question, quelles sont les raisons qui justifient un changement de
position de la part de l'Union dans le cadre de la politique commerciale commune en ce qui concerne les services
audiovisuels?

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

_(24 mai 2013)_

La diversité culturelle, inscrite à l'article 167, paragraphe 4, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne et
dans la Convention de l'Unesco sur la protection et la promotion de la diversité des expressions culturelles, est un des
principes directeurs de l'action de la Commission, y compris de sa politique commerciale. Les directives de
négociation proposées en vue de la conclusion d'un partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement
respectent pleinement cette ligne de conduite. C'est dans cet esprit que la Commission et les États membres discutent
actuellement des moyens d'introduire dans les directives de négociation un juste équilibre entre, d'une part, la
sensibilité du secteur de l'audiovisuel et la nécessité de maintenir une marge de manœuvre politique appropriée et,
d'autre part, l'objectif de mener des négociations larges et ambitieuses. L'Honorable Parlementaire notera que dans des
propositions de directives de négociation antérieures, notamment celles concernant le Japon, en rapport avec le
programme de Doha pour le développement, le secteur de l'audiovisuel n'a pas été totalement exclu.

C 33 E / 344 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004387/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marielle Gallo (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Transatlantic trade and investment partnership — exclusion of audiovisual services

On 12 March 2013, the Commission presented a proposal for a negotiating mandate for a free trade agreement with
the United States entitled ‘Transatlantic trade and investment partnership’.

The mandate proposal does not explicitly exclude audiovisual services, and it should not be forgotten that promoting
cultural diversity is one of the EU’s objectives, as enshrined in Article 167 TFEU. Yet the EU has systematically
excluded audiovisual services from trade agreements since the Uruguay Round, the most recent example being the
negotiations for a free trade agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA).

1. Is the Commission aiming to exclude audiovisual services from the free trade agreement with the United States?

2. If not, what reasons would justify a change in the EU’s position on audiovisual services under the common trade
policy?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 May 2013)_

Cultural diversity, as enshrined in Article 167 (paragraph 4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
and the Unesco Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, is a guiding
principle of the Commission's actions, including in the context of trade. The proposed negotiating directives for a
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement (TTIP) fully respect this policy. Against this background, Commission
and Member States are currently discussing ways of how to reflect in the negotiating directives the right balance
between, on the one hand, the sensitivity of the audiovisual sector and the need to maintain commensurate policy
space and, on the other hand, the objective of broad and ambitious negotiations. The Honourable Member should
note that in earlier proposals for negotiating directives, such as these concerning Japan on the Doha Development
Agenda, the audiovisual sector was not entirely excluded.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 345

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004388/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D) e Guido Milana (S&D)**

_(18 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Concessioni demaniali per l'esercizio delle attività di acquacoltura

Il processo di recepimento nell'ordinamento italiano della direttiva 2006/123/CE relativa ai servizi nel mercato
interno ha sollevato la questione della sua applicabilità al regime per il rilascio e rinnovo delle concessioni demaniali
marittime per lo svolgimento delle attività di acquacoltura, questione che in Italia assume particolare urgenza
soprattutto in relazione alle concessioni in procinto di scadenza o già scadute il 31 dicembre 2012.

Per la tutela degli investimenti, così come per la salvaguardia dei livelli occupazionali, fatti salvi gli obiettivi di tutela
della concorrenza, occorre dare certezza di diritto agli operatori e alle imprese operanti in un settore di importanza
strategica per il futuro della filiera ittica nazionale.

L'attività di acquacoltura, quale recentemente definita nella normativa nazionale di riordino del settore, decreto
legislativo del 9 gennaio 2012, n.4, non costituisce prestazione di servizi, ma attività di produzione primaria,
rientrante nel settore dell'attività agricola. Il tipo di concessioni in questione si avvicina più a una semplice locazione
del bene demaniale a fini di produzione, senza che, appunto, vengano prestati servizi su tali beni.

Al fine di porre e affrontare il problema sulla base della specificità che gli è propria, senza incappare nell'errore di
mutuare per il settore dell'acquacoltura soluzioni idonee ad altri settori, considerando la netta separazione esistente
tra concessioni rilasciate per lo svolgimento di attività di produzione primaria e concessioni rilasciate per lo
svolgimento di attività di servizi, si chiede alla Commissione:

Le previsioni e le decadenze della Direttiva Servizi, e conseguentemente dei relativi atti di recepimento emanati dal
legislatore nazionale, in relazione a rapporti concessori sul demanio marittimo sono applicabili al regime di rilascio e
rinnovo delle concessioni demaniali per lo svolgimento delle attività di acquacoltura?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(19 giugno 2013)_

La direttiva 2006/123/CE (la direttiva «Servizi»), come indicato all'articolo 2, si applica ai servizi forniti dai prestatori
stabiliti in uno Stato membro. Secondo la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia, la produzione di merci non è
un'attività di servizi. Inoltre, è necessario valutare caso per caso se determinate attività costituiscano o no un servizio,
tenendo conto di tutte le loro caratteristiche, tra cui il modo in cui tali attività vengono prestate e gestite nello Stato
membro interessato.

Come segnalato dagli onorevoli deputati, il decreto legislativo del 9 gennaio 2012, n. 4, definisce l'acquacoltura
un'attività di produzione primaria rientrante nel settore dell'attività agricola. Lo stesso vale per la definizione di cui
all'articolo 3, lettera d), del regolamento (CE) n. 1198/2006 del Consiglio.

La Commissione ritiene che l'attività di acquacoltura in quanto tale non rientri nell'ambito di applicazione della
direttiva «Servizi». Tuttavia, va tenuto presente che esistono molte attività correlate all'agricoltura, come la vendita al
dettaglio o la manutenzione, cui essa potrebbe applicarsi.

C 33 E / 346 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004388/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D) and Guido Milana (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Concession of State-owned property for conducting aquaculture business

The process of transposing Directive 2006/123/EC concerning services in the internal market into Italian law has
raised the question of its applicability to the system for granting and renewing concessions of State-owned maritime
property for aquaculture businesses, an issue which is particularly topical in Italy because of the concessions which
are on the verge of expiring or expired on 31 December 2012.

In order to safeguard investments, as well as levels of employment, without prejudice to the objectives of safeguarding
competition, the operators and companies operating in this strategically important sector for the future of the
national fishing industry must be given certainty about their rights.

The aquaculture business, as recently defined in national legislation governing the reorganisation of the sector,
i.e. Legislative Decree No 4 of 9 January 2012, is not a service but a primary production activity, which places it in the
farming sector. The type of concession in question is closer to a simple hiring of State-owned property for the
purposes of production, without services actually being provided at the property.

In order to determine and tackle the problem on the basis of its own unique features, without making the mistake of
borrowing solutions suitable for other sectors for the aquaculture sector, considering the clear separation which exists
between concessions awarded for conducting primary production activities and concessions awarded for conducting
service activities, can the Commission state:

Are the provisions and deadlines of the Services Directive, and consequently of the transposition measures issued by
the national legislator, in relation to the concessional relationships for State-owned maritime property, applicable to
the regime for granting and renewing concessions of State-owned maritime property for conducting aquaculture
business?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

Directive 2006/123/EC (‘the Services Directive’), as indicated in its Article 2, shall apply to services supplied by
providers established in a Member State. According to the case law of the Court of Justice, the production of goods is
not a service activity. Furthermore, the assessment of whether certain activities constitute a service has to be carried
out on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all of their characteristics, including the way they are provided and
organised in the Member State concerned.

As the Honourable Members points out, Legislative Decree No 4 of 9 January 2012 defines the aquaculture business
as a primary production within the farming sector. The same applies to the definition given by Council Regulation
(EC) 1198/2006 in its Art. 3 (d).

The Commission considers that the activity of aquaculture as such is not within the scope of the Services Directive.
However, it must be taken into consideration that there are many activities ancillary to aquaculture, e.g retailing or
maintenance, to which the Services Directive could be applicable.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 347

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004389/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Cuestiones sobre actos delegados y actos de ejecución

Los artículos 290 y 291 del Tratado de Lisboa regulan el funcionamiento básico y general de los actos delegados y de
los actos de ejecución, a través de los cuales se ejercita la delegación de poderes por parte de las instituciones europeas
a favor de la Comisión. Esta normativa de alcance general, y la aprobada para regular su desarrollo procedimental, ha
modificado el funcionamiento legislativo de la Unión Europea, intentando clarificar las competencias otorgadas por
el Tratado de Lisboa a unas u otras instituciones comunitarias.

Sin embargo, a pesar de esta normativa, en la práctica esta distinción de poderes y procedimientos no está tan clara.
Cada día son más los problemas existentes en la tramitación de las diferentes iniciativas legislativas, debido a la
inclusión del uso de los actos delegados o de ejecución. Su aceptación o no por uno u otro colegislador hace en
ocasiones inviable alcanzar el necesario acuerdo interinstitucional.

Ante esta situación general de posible bloqueo legislativo, ¿qué acciones ha pensado tomar la Comisión?

**Respuesta del Sr. Šefčovič en nombre de la Comisión**

_(23 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión sigue un planteamiento coherente que se basa en la elección entre actos delegados y de ejecución
dependiendo de cada caso concreto y de conformidad con los criterios del Tratado, y únicamente en función de la
naturaleza de las competencias que le han sido otorgadas. Cualquier aplicación incorrecta de los criterios establecidos
en los artículos 290 y 291 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la UE podría afectar a la legalidad del acto legislativo de
base e incluso a la validez de los actos posteriormente adoptados por la Comisión.

La Comisión seguirá, por tanto, mediando con honestidad en cada procedimiento legislativo al tiempo que
garantizará el respeto de los criterios del Tratado. Esto podría implicar además el rechazo de las modificaciones
introducidas por el legislador en el transcurso del procedimiento legislativo, o la remisión de actos legislativos al
Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en los casos en que la Comisión considere que el legislador no ha respetado
los criterios del Tratado.

Asimismo, la Comisión ha iniciado un diálogo con el Consejo y el Parlamento Europeo, basado en las prácticas
seguidas en el pasado y documentado con ejemplos concretos de legislación anteriormente aprobada. El objetivo es
desarrollar un enfoque horizontal entre las tres instituciones que ofrezca orientación para aplicar más
coherentemente, en determinados expedientes legislativos, los criterios establecidos en los artículos 290 y 291 del
Tratado. Si dichas conversaciones culminaran con éxito, este enfoque horizontal podría resultar útil para
complementar el actual «Acuerdo común sobre actos delegados», suscrito entre las tres instituciones en 2011, y, al
mismo tiempo, facilitaría las negociaciones sobre las actuales y futuras propuestas legislativas.

C 33 E / 348 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004389/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Questions concerning delegated acts and implementing acts

Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty of Lisbon govern the basic and general functioning of the delegated acts and
implementing acts by which powers are delegated to the Commission by European institutions. These regulations of
general application, and those adopted to govern their procedural execution, have changed the functioning of EU
legislation by attempting to clarify the powers conferred by the Treaty of Lisbon on the various EU institutions.

In practice, however, this means of distinguishing powers and procedures is not so straightforward. The use of
delegated and implementing acts has had an increasingly detrimental effect on the processing of different legislative
initiatives. The question of whether or not such acts have been adopted by a particular co-legislator sometimes makes
it impossible for the required interinstitutional agreement to be reached.

In the face of this potential legislative deadlock, what actions does the Commission intend to take?

**Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Commission's consistent approach is that the choice between delegated and implementing acts has to be
determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Treaty criteria, solely with regard to the nature of the
power that is to be conferred. A misuse of the criteria set out in Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the EU might not only affect the legality of the basic legislative act but it could also impinge on the validity of
subsequent acts adopted by the Commission.

The Commission will, therefore, continue to act as an honest broker in each legislative procedure while ensuring the
respect of the Treaty criteria, which can also include the non-acceptance of amendments made by the legislator
during the legislative procedure or the referral of legislative acts to the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases
where the Commission considers that the legislator has not respected the Treaty criteria.

In addition, the Commission has initiated a dialogue with the Council and the European Parliament, based on past
practice and supported by concrete examples from previously adopted legislation, with the aim to develop a
horizontal approach between the three Institutions that would provide guidance for a more coherent application, in
specific legislative files, of the criteria laid down in Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty. If such an exercise was
successful, this horizontal approach could helpfully complement the existing ‘common understanding on delegated
acts’ agreed between the three Institutions in 2011 and facilitate the negotiations in pending and future legislative
proposal.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 349

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004390/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Defensa de los derechos de las minorías

La Unión Europea, tal y como recoge el Programa de Estocolmo, debe ser ante todo un espacio único de protección de
los derechos y libertades fundamentales. Desgraciadamente en los últimos años estamos asistiendo a la proliferación
de movimientos extremistas que atentan contra los derechos de determinados colectivos, especialmente por motivos
étnicos, de género o religiosos.

Ante esta situación, ¿está tomando la Comisión algún tipo de medida para fomentar y lograr el efectivo respeto de los
derechos de las minorías?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de junio de 2013)_

De conformidad con el artículo 2 del Tratado de la Unión Europea, el respeto de los derechos de las personas
pertenecientes a minorías es uno de los valores fundadores de la UE que son comunes a todos los Estados miembros.
Además, los artículos 21 y 22 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea prohíben toda
discriminación basada en la pertenencia a una minoría nacional y establecen el respeto por parte de la Unión de la
diversidad cultural, religiosa y lingüística.

Tal como ya explicó, por ejemplo, en su respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-01067/2012, la Comisión no tiene ninguna
competencia general en lo que respecta a las minorías. No obstante, en el ámbito del Derecho de la UE, la Comisión
vela por que los Estados miembros respeten los derechos fundamentales, incluido el principio de no discriminación
contemplado en el artículo 21 de la Carta, al aplicar ese Derecho. Además, la legislación de la UE ( [1] ) y los programas
de financiación contribuyen a solucionar algunas dificultades que es probable que afecten a las personas
pertenecientes a minorías, tales como la discriminación y la incitación a la violencia o al odio por motivos de raza u
origen nacional o étnico ( [2] ).

La Comisión también apoya proyectos relacionados con las lenguas regionales y minoritarias mediante una variedad
de programas, inclusive en ámbitos como la educación y la formación, la cultura y el apoyo a la juventud.

La Comisión apoya activamente la lucha contra la discriminación por motivos de origen étnico en el marco del
programa Progress, mediante estudios, subvenciones a la sociedad civil y las autoridades nacionales, intercambios
entre pares, y campañas de concienciación ( [3] ).

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Véase http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/law/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Para más información, puede consultarse la página web de la DG de Justicia: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism
xenophobia/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/index_es.htm

( **|**

C 33 E / 350 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004390/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Defending minority rights

According to the Stockholm Programme, the European Union must primarily be a unique space in which
fundamental rights and freedoms are protected. Unfortunately, in the past few years very many extremist movements
have emerged that seek to curtail the rights of certain groups, particularly on the grounds of ethnicity, gender and
religion.

In the face of this situation, is the Commission taking any measures to ensure that minority rights are effectively
fostered and respected?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

According to Article 2 of the Treaty on the EU, the respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities
constitutes one of the founding values of the EU that are common to all Member States. Furthermore, Articles 21 and
22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU prohibit discrimination based on membership of a national
minority and provide for the respect by the Union of cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

As explained for instance in its reply to Written Question E-01067/2012, the Commission has no general powers as
regards minorities. However within the scope of EC law, the Commission ensures that Member States, when
implementing this law, respect fundamental rights, including the principle of non-discrimination provided in
Article 21 of the Charter. Furthermore, EU legislation ( [1] ) and financing programmes contribute to address certain
difficulties which are likely to affect persons belonging to minorities, such as discrimination and incitement to
violence or hatred based on race or national or ethnic origin ( [2] ).

The Commission also supports projects related to regional and minority languages through a variety of programmes,
including in areas such as education and training, culture and youth support.

The Commission is actively supporting activities in the field of antidiscrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin
through the PROGRESS programme, including studies, grants to civil society and national authorities, peer exchange,
and awareness raising campaigns ( [3] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/law/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) For further information, please see DG Justice website at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/index_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 351

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004391/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Ayuda alimentaria 2014-2020

Actualmente existen cerca de 80 millones de ciudadanos europeos que viven por debajo del umbral de la pobreza,
13 millones de personas que padecen pobreza en 19 Estados miembros y en torno a 30 millones de personas mal
nutridas en el territorio europeo. Y estas cifras no hacen sino aumentar año tras año como consecuencia de la crisis
económica que atraviesan los diferentes Estados miembros.

Durante los últimos años hemos asistido a debates y visto movimientos políticos destinados, si no a eliminar, sí a
reducir paulatinamente las ayudas destinadas a estos colectivos tan vulnerables. Esto debe evitarse.

El debate del marco financiero plurianual 2014-2020 juega un papel vital para el futuro de estas políticas, ya que de
su contenido dependerá el mantenimiento o la desaparición en mayor o menor medida de estas ayudas en favor de los
ciudadanos más necesitados de ayuda en la Unión.

Ante esta situación de posible desamparo, ¿qué acciones está llevando a cabo la Comisión para asegurar la
sostenibilidad de las ayudas alimentarias para el periodo 2014-2020?

**Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión está apoyando activamente a los dos colegisladores para lograr un acuerdo acerca de su propuesta sobre
el nuevo Fondo de Ayuda Europea para los Más Necesitados. Si desea Su Señoría conocer más detalles sobre dicha
propuesta, la Comisión tiene a bien remitirle a las respuestas dadas a las anteriores preguntas escritas E‐001134/2013
y E‐002087/2013.

C 33 E / 352 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004391/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Food aid 2014-2020

Currently, almost 80 million European citizens live below the poverty line, 13 million people suffer the effects of
poverty in 19 Member States and around 30 million people are malnourished within European territory. Every year,
these figures keep rising as a result of the economic crisis affecting the different Member States.

Over the past few years we have witnessed debates and seen political movements whose aim was, if not to eliminate,
then to gradually reduce, the aid earmarked for these vulnerable groups. This must be avoided.

The debate surrounding the multiannual financial framework 2014‐2020 is essential to the future of these policies
since it will determine whether aid continues to be provided to those who most need the EU’s assistance.

In the face of this situation, what actions is the Commission taking to ensure that food aid is maintained for the period
2014‐2020?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission is actively supporting the two co-legislations to find an agreement on its proposal for the new Fund
for European Aid to the most deprived. For further details on its proposal, the Commission would like to kindly refer
the Honorable Member to the answers provided to previous written questions, notably E-001134/2013 and
E-002087/2013.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 353

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004392/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Futuras medidas para luchar contra el desempleo

El problema del paro afecta en el conjunto de la UE a 26,2 millones de personas, 19 millones de los cuales viven en la
zona del euro.

En el mes de febrero de 2013 en el conjunto de la UE el paro se situó en el 10,90 %. Estos datos son aún peores en la
zona del euro, en la que el desempleo alcanza el 11,9 %.

Este problema no ha hecho sino agudizarse en los últimos años, mostrando una tendencia ascendente. La tasa de paro
en el conjunto de la UE se situaba en el mes de febrero de 2011 en el 9,40 %, y en el año 2012, en el 10,20 %. Por su
parte, en la zona del euro el incremento sufrido por la tasa de paro ha sido superior a un punto.

Desgraciadamente, todos los indicadores económicos prevén que el paro se agravará aún más durante los próximos
periodos.

Ante estas perspectivas, ¿qué medidas ha pensado desarrollar la Comisión para solucionar el problema del paro en los
próximos años?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004394/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Futuras medidas para luchar contra el desempleo

El problema del desempleo afecta en el conjunto de la UE a 26,2 millones de personas, de las que 19 millones viven en
la zona del euro.

Así, en el conjunto de la UE el desempleo ha aumentado siete décimas en el último año, hasta alcanzar el 10,8 %. En la
zona del euro el incremento es superior a un punto y alcanza ya el 11,9 %.

¿Podría indicar la Comisión qué medidas está desarrollando para hacer frente en estos momentos al problema del
desempleo en la Unión Europea?

**Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de junio de 2013)_

Los actuales niveles de desempleo son intolerables, especialmente en lo que se refiere a la juventud europea. Con el
paquete sobre el empleo ( [1] ) la Comisión aconseja a los Estados miembros unas medidas en áreas tales como la
creación de puestos de trabajo en sectores estratégicos, la inversión en cualificaciones y la plena realización del
mercado laboral de la UE. En el paquete de empleo juvenil ( [2] ), la Comisión propone la Garantía Juvenil. El Consejo
Europeo aprobó una Iniciativa de Empleo Juvenil, con 6 000 millones de euros a favor de medidas de empleo juvenil.
El paquete sobre inversión social ( [3] ) insta a los Estados miembros a gastar de un modo más eficaz y eficiente para
garantizar una protección social adecuada y sostenible.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173 de 18 de abril de 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 727-728-729 de 5 de diciembre de 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 144 de 12 de marzo de 2013.

C 33 E / 354 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

También es necesario actuar a escala nacional. El Estudio Prospectivo Anual sobre el Crecimiento 2013 ( [4] ) fijó los
objetivos estratégicos siguientes: consolidación fiscal diferenciada y favorable al crecimiento; fomento del crecimiento
y la competitividad; lucha contra el desempleo y las consecuencias sociales de la crisis. Estos objetivos deben inspirar a
los Estados miembros y hacerles tomar las adecuadas medidas laborales y sociales, incluidas las reformas
estructurales. Como parte del Semestre Europeo de 2013, la Comisión ha propuesto una recomendación para tratar el
empleo juvenil.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 750 de 28 de noviembre de 2012.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 355

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004392/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Future measures to tackle unemployment

Across the EU, unemployment affects 26.2 million people, of whom 19 million live in the euro area.

In February 2013, unemployment across the EU was 10.9%. These figures are even worse in the euro area, where
unemployment has reached 11.9%.

Over the past few years the problem has only worsened, with unemployment on an upward trend. In February 2011,
the unemployment rate across the EU was 9.4% whereas in 2012 it was 10.2%. The rise in unemployment in the euro
area has been greater than 1%.

Unfortunately, all economic indicators predict that unemployment will rise even further in the near future.

Faced with this perspective, what measures will the Commission take to solve the problem of unemployment in the
next few years?

**Question for written answer E-004394/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Future measures for tackling unemployment

The problem of unemployment is affecting 26.2 million people across the EU, 19 million of whom live within the

euro area.

Therefore, unemployment in the EU as a whole has increased by 70% in the last year and has now reached 10.8%.
There has been an increase of more than one percentage point in the euro area, where the figure is now 11.9%.

Could the Commission specify what measures it is developing to address the problem of unemployment in the
European Union at this critical time?

**Joint answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

Current unemployment levels are intolerable, especially for what concerns the European youth. With the
Employment Package ( [1] ) the Commission has advised Member States on measures in such areas as job creation in
strategic sectors, investment in skills and completion of the EU labour market. In the Youth Employment Package ( [2] ),
the Commission proposed the Youth Guarantee. The European Council approved a EUR 6 billion worth Youth
Employment Initiative in support of youth employment measures. The Social Investment Package ( [3] ) invited Member
States to spend more effectively and efficiently to ensure adequate and sustainable social protection.

Action is also needed at the national level. The 2013 Annual Growth Survey ( [4] ) set the strategic objectives of pursuing
differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; promoting growth and competitiveness; tackling unemployment
and the social consequences of the crisis. These objectives should inspire Member States to take appropriate labour
market and social policy measures, including structural reforms. As part of the 2013 European Semester, the
Commission has proposed a country-specific recommendation on tackling youth employment.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173 of 18 April 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 727-728-729 of 5 December 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 144 of 12 March 2013.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 750 of 28 November 2012.

C 33 E / 356 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004393/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Abolición de la pena de muerte, la tortura y otros tratos inhumanos y degradantes

El Programa de Estocolmo recoge, entre otros puntos, la invitación para que las instituciones europeas continúen con
los esfuerzos para conseguir la abolición de la pena de muerte, la tortura y otros tratos inhumanos y degradantes.

Desgraciadamente estos delitos siguen produciéndose y en algunos países adquieren rango de legalidad. La UE no
puede permanecer impasible ante tales hechos, no solo dentro de nuestras fronteras sino también fuera de ellas.
Hemos visto que algunos delitos, como la trata de seres humanos, han aumentado considerablemente dentro de
nuestras fronteras. Concretamente, y a modo ilustrativo, entre los años 2008 y 2010 el tráfico de personas en la EU
ha aumentado un 18 %, afectando principalmente a mujeres utilizadas para el comercio sexual. Por el contrario, las
detenciones de sospechosos han disminuido un 13 % en ese periodo.

Por ello, ¿puede informar la Comisión sobre las medidas que está desarrollando para conseguir la abolición de la pena
de muerte, la tortura y otros tratos inhumanos y degradantes?

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

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La UE es una firme defensora de la abolición de la pena de muerte y la erradicación de la tortura. Su compromiso con
esta doble causa se reitera firmemente en el Marco estratégico de la UE sobre derechos humanos y democracia.

Habida cuenta de ello, la UE se muestra en todo momento dispuesta a responder al aumento de las ejecuciones,
utilizando todos los medios a su alcance: a) declaraciones y comunicados, b) gestiones diplomáticas en los países
afectados, c) sanciones, como en el caso de Irán, d) diálogos sobre los derechos humanos, y e) acciones en foros
multilaterales, especialmente en el contexto de las Naciones Unidas donde la UE tuvo un papel fundamental en la
adopción de la Resolución 67/206 de 21.12.2012, en la que se pide una moratoria mundial de la pena de muerte.

El Instrumento Europeo para la Democracia y los Derechos Humanos (EIDHR) es un elemento esencial del
compromiso de la UE contra la pena de muerte. Desde 2007, la Comisión presta su apoyo a ONG regionales e
internacionales que defienden su abolición. El EIDHR ha destinado casi 20 millones de euros a la lucha contra la pena
de muerte, siendo el único instrumento que financia proyectos en todos los países que aún la mantienen.

La prevención y erradicación de todas las formas de tortura es otro de los principales objetivos de la UE. Las
Directrices de la UE sobre la tortura constituyen el marco general de actuación en la materia en relación con terceros
países, así como en los foros multilaterales. Esas Directrices contemplan el uso de todos los instrumentos
diplomáticos y de cooperación existentes, en particular el diálogo político, las gestiones de las representaciones
diplomáticas y la concesión de ayudas a proyectos de ONG a través del EIDHR. En 2012 se publicó una convocatoria
de propuestas bajo el título «Lucha contra la Impunidad», uno de cuyos lotes específicos, dotado con 20 millones de
euros, era el de las acciones de la sociedad civil contra la tortura.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 357

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004393/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Abolition of the death penalty, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment

The Stockholm Programme includes a request to the European institutions to continue to press for the abolition of
the death penalty, torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment.

Unfortunately, these crimes are still being committed and are even lawful in some countries. The EU cannot turn a
blind eye to such acts, not only within our borders but also beyond them. We have seen certain crimes, such as
human trafficking, increase substantially within our borders. By way of example, between 2008 and 2010, human
trafficking in the EU increased by 18%, with most of the victims being women bound for the sex trade. Arrests of
suspects over the same period, however, fell by 13%.

Can the Commission report on the measures it is taking towards the abolition of the death penalty, torture and other
inhuman and degrading treatment?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

The EU is fully committed to the abolition of capital punishment and the eradication of torture. This commitment is
strongly reaffirmed in the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy.

In this light, the EU is very active and uses all tools available in responding to the increase in executions, through a)
Statements/Declarations, b) diplomatic level demarches to targeted countries, c) sanctions, such as in the case of Iran,
d) human rights dialogues and e) action in multilateral fora, especially in the context of the United Nations (UN)
where the EU played a key role in the adoption of the UN Resolution 67/206 (21.12.2012) calling for a global
moratorium.

The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is an essential part of this EU commitment
against the death penalty. Since 2007, the Commission has supported abolitionist regional and international nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). The EIDHR has provided almost EUR 20 million to fight the death penalty and
is the only actor to fund projects in every country which still retain the practice.

In parallel, also the prevention and eradication of all forms of torture represents one of the main objectives of the EU.
The EU Guidelines on Torture provide the general framework for action in this area towards third countries, as well as
in multilateral fora. The Guidelines foresee the use of all available tools of diplomacy and cooperation, most notably
through political dialogue, diplomatic representations (e.g. demarches) and assistance to NGO projects under the
EIDHR. In 2012 a global call for proposal ‘fighting impunity’ was launched with a total amount of EUR 20 million
dedicated in a specific lot to supporting civil society actions in the field.

C 33 E / 358 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004395/13**

**al Consiglio**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(18 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Agenti iraniani attivi in Europa

Negli ultimi mesi sono emerse una serie di relazioni sull'attività di agenti del governo iraniano nelle principali città
europee. A dicembre, la _Federal Research Division_ (unità di ricerca e analisi) della Biblioteca del Congresso statunitense
ha pubblicato una relazione in cui si indicava che città come Vienna rappresentano un crocevia di agenti del ministero
delle Informazioni e della sicurezza (MOIS) dell'Iran, ai quali spetta il compito di reprimere le espressioni di dissenso e
di contribuire a ridurre al silenzio gli attivisti politici, oltre che di raccogliere preziose informazioni per il programma
nucleare iraniano.

Nel 2009, il programma di attualità tedesco «Panorama» segnalò che i servizi segreti tedeschi (Verfassungsschutz)
avevano avvertito che agenti della polizia segreta iraniana stavano tentando di identificare gli attivisti contrari al
regime filmando manifestazioni e proteste. Inoltre, esponenti dei servizi di intelligence dell'Iran stavano cercando di
costringere i cittadini iraniani che vivevano in Germania a lavorare per il regime di Teheran.

Secondo la relazione di dicembre della _Federal Research Division_, gli agenti del MOIS iraniano sono estremamente attivi
in paesi dell'UE come l'Austria, la Germania, la Francia e il Regno Unito.

1. Alla luce delle relazioni sul ruolo attivo degli agenti segreti dell'Iran in diversi paesi europei, sia nel reclutare i
cittadini iraniani che nel monitorare i dissidenti, quali azioni è disposto il Consiglio a intraprendere per individuare i
soggetti sospettati di collegamenti con il MOIS?

2. Ha il Consiglio adottato negli ultimi anni provvedimenti tesi a valutare la portata delle operazioni del MOIS in
tutti gli Stati membri dell'UE?

3. È il Consiglio disposto a intensificare le attività per impedire agli agenti del MOIS di operare all'interno degli
Stati membri dell'UE? Può il Consiglio fornire alcuni esempi di provvedimenti che potrebbe adottare?

**Risposta**
_(16 settembre 2013)_

Per principio, il Consiglio non si pronuncia su articoli pubblicati dalla stampa.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 359

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004395/13**

**to the Council**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Iranian agents operating in Europe

In recent months a number of reports have emerged that Iranian Government operatives are active in major European
cities. In December the Federal Research Division of the U.S. Library of Congress published a report which stated that
cities such as Vienna are hubs for agents from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security. They are responsible
for suppressing dissent and helping to silence political activists. They also work to gather valuable information for
Iran’s nuclear programme.

In 2009 the German current affairs show ‘Panorama’ reported that Germany’s domestic intelligence service
Verfassungsschutz warned of Iranian agents from Iran’s secret police trying to identify anti-regime activists by filming
demonstrations and protests. In addition, Iranian intelligence agents were attempting to coerce Iranian individuals
living in Germany to work on behalf of the regime in Tehran.

According to the Federal Research Division December report, operatives from Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and
Security (MOIS) are most active in EU countries such as Austria, Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

1. In the light of reports that agents from Iran’s Intelligence Ministry are active in various European countries, both
recruiting Iranian citizens and monitoring dissidents, what steps is the Council prepared to take in order to track
individuals with suspected links to the MOIS?

2. Has the Council taken steps in recent years to assess the extent of MOIS operations across all EU Member States?

3. Is the Council prepared to step up activities to prevent MOIS operatives from working within EU Member
States? Can the Council provide some examples of steps it could adopt?

**Reply**
_(16 September 2013)_

As a matter of principle, the Council does not comment on articles in the press.

C 33 E / 360 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004396/13**

**à la Commission**
**Patrice Tirolien (S&D)**

_(18 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Suites de l'action préparatoire «BEST»

L'action préparatoire initiée par le Parlement européen sur la biodiversité et les services écosystémiques dans les
territoires d'outre-mer européen (BEST) arrive maintenant à sa troisième et dernière année. Les deux précédents appels
organisés par la Commission européenne dans le cadre de cette initiative ont connu un vif intérêt avec plus de
84 propositions au total. Les projets présentés et la mobilisation qu'a suscitée cette initiative ont démontré non
seulement les besoins mais aussi la capacité des RUP (régions ultrapériphériques) et des PTOM (pays et territoires
d'outre‐mer) à porter des projets, ainsi que la pertinence de développer un outil dédié à la biodiversité de l'outre-mer
européen. Cette action préparatoire appelle nécessairement une décision de la Commission européenne. Le Parlement
européen a appelé à une collaboration de tous les services de la Commission européenne afin de mettre en place le
schéma volontaire vivement recommandé lors de la conférence de la Réunion en 2008. À ce titre, au-delà du
troisième appel qui sera publié prochainement, il est désormais possible pour la Commission européenne de créer un
fonds fiduciaire («trust fund»). Cet outil a l'intérêt de permettre d'agréger des fonds de différentes sources et d'organiser
aussi des appels adaptés aux acteurs ciblés.

Eu égard à ce qui précède, la Commission est invitée à répondre aux questions suivantes:

1) Quelles sont ses intentions pour donner suite à l'action préparatoire au-delà de l'organisation du troisième
appel?

2) La possibilité de créer un «trust fund» pour la biodiversité des outre-mer européens est‐elle envisagée?

**Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission**

_(4 juin 2013)_

La décision de financement concernant la troisième année de l'action préparatoire BEST a été adoptée par la
Commission européenne le 18 avril 2013 ( [1] ). Étant donné que les actions préparatoires ont une durée maximale de
trois ans, il a été décidé que l'utilisation la plus efficace de la troisième et dernière tranche des fonds alloués à l'action
préparatoire BEST serait d'investir dans la création des structures et de la base de connaissances qui permettront de
promouvoir le flux à long terme de projets fondés sur des données scientifiques et liés à un réseau de sources établies
et fiables de financement public et privé. Par conséquent, comme le prévoit la décision de financement, la mise en
œuvre de la troisième (et dernière) année de l'action préparatoire sera assurée au moyen d'un appel d'offres ouvert et
non d'un appel à propositions ouvert.

On étudie actuellement la possibilité de créer un fonds multi-bailleurs en faveur de la biodiversité dans les territoires
d'outre-mer de l'Union. Il est néanmoins trop tôt pour tirer des conclusions tangibles concernant les bailleurs
susceptibles de participer à ce fonds, les fonds potentiellement disponibles, les modalités précises de mise en œuvre de
ce fonds et le rôle que l'entité sélectionnée à l'issue de l'appel d'offres pourrait jouer. DEVCO a exprimé un intérêt
éventuel à contribuer à ce type de fonds en faveur des PTOM en utilisant la ligne budgétaire réservée aux biens publics
mondiaux et aux défis dans le cadre de l'instrument ICD, qui n'en est encore qu'au début de sa phase de
programmation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm#best

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 361

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004396/13**

**to the Commission**
**Patrice Tirolien (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up to the ‘BEST’ preparatory action

The Parliament-initiated preparatory action for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the EU’s overseas territories
(BEST) is now entering its third and final year. There was considerable interest in the previous two calls for proposals
organised by the Commission under the initiative, with over 84 proposals received in total. The projects submitted
and the enthusiastic response to the initiative have revealed not only the needs but also the capabilities of the
outermost regions (ORs) and the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) in terms of project implementation, as well
as the importance of developing a biodiversity-specific instrument for the EU’s overseas territories. A decision needs
to be taken by the Commission on this preparatory action, and Parliament has called for all Commission services to
work together to implement the voluntary scheme strongly recommended during the conference held in Réunion in
2008. In addition to the third call for proposals, which will be published shortly, the Commission could set up a trust
fund. The advantage of this instrument is that funds from different sources could be combined, and calls for proposals
could be adapted to specific stakeholders.

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

1. How does it intend to follow up on the preparatory action in addition to organising the third call for proposals?

2. Are there any plans to create a trust fund for biodiversity in the EU’s overseas territories?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The Financing Decision on the third year of BEST preparatory action was adopted by the European Commission on
18 April 2013 ( [1] ). As preparatory actions have a maximum duration of three years it was decided that most effective
use of the third and final tranche of the money allocated to the BEST preparatory action would be to invest in creating
the structures and the knowledge-base that will promote the long-term flow of scientifically robust projects linked to
a network of established and reliable sources of public and private funding. Therefore, as stated in the Financing
Decision the implementation of the third (and final) year of the preparatory action will proceed through an open call
for tender and not through an open call for proposals.

The possibility of a multi-donor fund for biodiversity in the EU's overseas territories is being explored. However, it is
too early to draw tangible conclusions on which donor would join this fund, what envelops would be available, how
precisely this fund would be implemented and what might be the role of the entity which will be selected through the
call for tender. There is a potential interest from DEVCO to contribute to such a fund for OCTs through the Global
Public Goods and Challenges budget line under the DCI instrument, which is however still in its early programming
phase.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/2020.htm#best.

C 33 E / 362 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004397/13**

**do Komisji**
**Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE)**

_(18 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Nowelizacja rozporządzenia Komisji (WE) nr 800/2008 z dnia 6 sierpnia 2008 r. uznającego niektóre
rodzaje pomocy za zgodne ze wspólnym rynkiem w zastosowaniu art. 87 i 88 Traktatu

W dniu 31 grudnia 2013 r. upływa termin obowiązywania rozporządzenia Komisji (WE) nr 800/2008 z dnia
6 sierpnia 2008 r. uznającego niektóre rodzaje pomocy za zgodne ze wspólnym rynkiem w zastosowaniu art. 87 i 88
Traktatu. To kluczowy dokument dla osób niepełnosprawnych i ich pracodawców, potwierdzający, że wspieranie
szkoleń i rekrutacji pracowników znajdujących się w szczególnie niekorzystnej sytuacji lub niepełnosprawnych oraz
rekompensata dodatkowych kosztów zatrudnienia pracowników niepełnosprawnych są istotnymi celami polityki
gospodarczej i społecznej Wspólnoty i państw członkowskich. W związku z tym pomoc na zatrudnianie tych
pracowników w formie subsydiów płacowych oraz pomoc na rekompensatę dodatkowych kosztów związanych
z ich zatrudnieniem są zgodne ze wspólnym rynkiem w rozumieniu art. 87 ust. 3 Traktatu ustanawiającego
Wspólnotę Europejską i nie podlegają zgłoszeniu.

Mając na uwadze zbliżający się termin wygaśnięcia tego rozporządzenia, zwracam się do Komisji Europejskiej
z następującymi pytaniami:

1. czy w Komisji trwają prace nad nowym rozporządzeniem, które zastąpi rozporządzenie Komisji (WE)
nr 800/2008 z dnia 6 sierpnia 2008 r.?

2. czy znany jest już projekt nowego rozporządzania?

3. czy znany jest przybliżony termin wejścia w życie nowego rozporządzenia uznającego niektóre rodzaje
pomocy za zgodne ze wspólnym rynkiem w zastosowaniu art. 87 i 88 Traktatu?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Joaquína Almunię w imieniu Komisji**

_(17 czerwca 2013 r.)_

W istocie trwają prace nad przeglądem ogólnego rozporządzenia w sprawie wyłączeń blokowych (nr 800/2008).

W dniu 8 maja 2013 r. służby Komisji ds. konkurencji rozpoczęły konsultacje społeczne w sprawie pierwszego
wniosku dotyczącego przeglądu rozporządzenia. Wniosek ten jest skutkiem konsultacji społecznych
przeprowadzonych w 2012 r., których celem było zgromadzenie opinii państw członkowskich i zainteresowanych
stron, aby przygotować przyjęcie wniosku Komisji dotyczącego przeglądu rozporządzenia jeszcze w tym roku.

Ogólne rozporządzenie w sprawie wyłączeń blokowych określa warunki, przy spełnieniu których pomoc państwa
może zostać zwolniona z obowiązku uprzedniego zgłoszenia Komisji. Ogólne rozporządzenie w sprawie wyłączeń
blokowych ma na celu promowanie stosowanych przez państwa członkowskie środków wsparcia (które nie
zakłócają konkurencji i wymiany handlowej na rynku wewnętrznym) w ramach strategii „Europa 2020”. Projekt
proponuje szereg zmian do obowiązującego rozporządzenia zgodnie z celami w zakresie unowocześnienia polityki
w dziedzinie pomocy państwa, takimi jak promowanie „dobrej” pomocy oraz bardziej skuteczne i wydajne wsparcie
publiczne. Nadal dopuszcza się wsparcie na rzecz kształcenia i zatrudnienia pracowników niepełnosprawnych
i znajdujących się w szczególnie niekorzystnej sytuacji, w tym rekompensatę dodatkowych kosztów.

Konsultacje zakończono w dniu 28 czerwca 2013 r. Wniosek jest dostępny na stronie internetowej:
[http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_gber/index_en.html.](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_gber/index_en.html)

Przyjęcie zmienionego rozporządzenia planuje się w pierwszej połowie 2014 r.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 363

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004397/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sidonia Elżbieta Jędrzejewska (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Revision of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid
compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty

On 31 December 2013, Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of
aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty will expire. This legal act is
of vital importance for disabled people and their employers. It reaffirms that supporting the training and recruitment
of particularly disadvantaged or disabled people and providing compensation for the additional costs associated with
the employment of disabled people are key economic and social policy aims for the EU and the Member States. In this
connection, assistance for the employment of workers from these groups in the form of financial subsidies, as well as
compensation for the additional costs associated with their employment, are compatible with the common market
within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and are not subject to
notification.

Given the upcoming expiry of the regulation, I put the following questions to the Commission:

1. Is work under way in the Commission on a new regulation to replace Commission Regulation (EC)
No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008?

2. Has a draft of the new regulation already been produced?

3. Has an indicative date been set for the entry into force of the new Regulation declaringcertain categories of aid
compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87and 88 of the Treaty?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 June 2013)_

Work on revision of the General block exemption Regulation No 800/2008 (GBER) is indeed ongoing.

On 8 May 2013 the Commission's competition service launched a public consultation on a first proposal for the
review of the GBER. This proposal follows a public consultation held in 2012 aimed at collecting views from Member
States and stakeholders, to prepare for the adoption of a Commission proposal for a revised Regulation later this year.

The GBER sets out the conditions under which state aid can be exempted from prior notification to the Commission.
The GBER aims to promote Member States' support measures (that do not distort competition and trade in the
internal market) for EU 2020 objectives. The draft proposes a number of changes to the current GBER in line with the
State Aid Modernisation objectives of promoting ‘good’ aid and more effective and efficient public support. It
continues to allow support for training and employment of disabled and disadvantaged workers, including
compensation for additional costs.

The consultation closes on 28 June 2013. The draft proposal is available at:
[http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_gber/index_en.html.](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_gber/index_en.html)

The adoption of the revised Regulation is planned for the first half of 2014.

C 33 E / 364 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004398/13**
**adresată Comisiei (Vicepreședintelui/Înaltului Reprezentant)**

**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(18 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ VP/HR — Echilibrul geografic în selecția și numirea personalului

Serviciul European de Acțiune Externă este rugat să răspundă la următoarea întrebare: care este numărul de angajați ai
Serviciului European de Acțiune Externă; care este proveniența, după statul membru, a angajaților SEAE; care este
proveniența, după statul membru, a angajaților SEAE cu funcții de conducere; ce măsuri va lua conducerea SEAE
pentru realizarea unui echilibru geografic mai pronunțat în selecția și numirea personalului.

**Răspuns dat de Înaltul Reprezentant/Vicepreședinte al Comisiei, dna Ashton în numele Comisiei**

_(3 iunie 2013)_

Numărul total de persoane angajate la SEAE, atât la sediul central, cât și în delegații, pe categorii, la data de 25 aprilie
2013, este prezentat în tabelul 1 (vă rugăm să consultați anexa).

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 365

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004398/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — geographical balance in the selection and appointment of staff

Can the European External Action Service (EEAS) answer the following questions? How many people are employed
by the EEAS? What is the breakdown by Member State in terms of where EEAS employees come from? What is the
breakdown by Member State in terms of where EEAS employees in management positions come from? What
measures is the EEAS leadership going to take to achieve a more apparent geographical balance in the selection and
appointment of staff?

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

_(3 June 2013)_

The breakdown by categories of all staff in activity in the EEAS, together in Headquarters and in Delegations, on the
25 of April 2013 is shown in the Table 1 (please see Annex).

C 33 E / 366 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004399/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(18 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Eventuale propuneri legislative cu privire la utilajele folosite în agricultură pentru împrăștierea pesticidelor
și/sau a fertilizatorilor

Având în vedere informațiile cu caracter neoficial vehiculate în rândurile agricultorilor europeni, Comisia este rugată
să răspundă la următoarea întrebare: dacă are intenția de a iniția, în cursul acestui an sau în cursul anului viitor,
propuneri legislative cu privire la utilajele folosite în agricultură pentru împrăștierea pesticidelor și/sau a
fertilizatorilor.

**Răspuns dat de dl Tajani în numele Comisiei**

_(30 mai 2013)_

Consiliul și Parlamentul European au adoptat deja legislația privind echipamentele agricole folosite pentru
împrăștierea pesticidelor:

a) Proiectarea și construcția acestor echipamente tehnice constituie obiectul Directivei 2009/127/CE ( [1] ) de
modificare a Directivei 2006/42/CE în ceea ce privește echipamentele tehnice de aplicare a pesticidelor, care
introduce cerințe privind protecția mediului. Aceste dispoziții, care se referă la producătorii de echipamente
tehnice noi, se aplică începând cu 15 decembrie 2011.

b) Directiva 2009/128/CE de stabilire a unui cadru de acțiune comunitară în vederea utilizării durabile a
pesticidelor ( [2] ) prevede, printre alte măsuri, că echipamentele de uz profesional pentru aplicarea pesticidelor fac
obiectul unor inspecții periodice. Perioada dintre inspecții este stabilită de statele membre și nu depășește cinci
ani până în 2020 și trei ani după această dată. Până la 14 decembrie 2016, statele membre se asigură că
echipamentul de aplicare a pesticidelor a fost inspectat cel puțin o dată. După această dată, numai acele
echipamente de aplicare a pesticidelor care au trecut cu succes de inspecție pot fi utilizate în scop profesional.
Orice echipament nou este inspectat cel puțin o dată pe parcursul unei perioade de cinci ani după cumpărare.
Aceste dispoziții se referă la utilizatorii echipamentelor de aplicare a pesticidelor, inclusiv la agricultori.

Niciuna dintre măsurile de mai sus nu se referă la echipamentele pentru aplicarea îngrășămintelor, cu toate acestea ele
se aplică echipamentelor cu utilizare dublă.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:310:0029:0033:ro:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0071:0086:ro:PDF

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 367

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004399/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Prospective legislative proposals regarding agricultural machinery used for spreading pesticides and/or
fertilisers

Given the unofficial information doing the rounds among European farmers, can the Commission answer the
following question? Does it intend to initiate, during this year or next, legislative proposals regarding agricultural
machinery used for spreading pesticides and/or fertilisers?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The Council and the European Parliament have already adopted legislation on agricultural machinery used for
spreading pesticides:

a) The design and construction of such machinery is the subject of Directive 2009/127/EC ( [1] ), amending the
Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application, which introduces
requirements relating to the protection of the environment. These provisions, which concern the
manufacturers of new machinery, have been applicable since 15 December 2011.

b) Directive 2009/128/EC establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of
pesticides ( [2] ) lays down, amongst other measures, that pesticide application equipment in professional use shall
be subject to periodic inspections. The interval between inspections is fixed by the Member States and shall not
exceed five years until 2020 and three years thereafter. By 14 December 2016, Member States shall ensure that
pesticide application equipment has been inspected at least once. After that date, only pesticide application
equipment having successfully passed inspection shall be in professional use. New equipment shall be
inspected at least once within a period of five years after purchase. These provisions concern the users of
pesticide application equipment, including farmers.

Neither of the above measures concerns machinery for applying fertilisers, however they do apply to dual purpose
machinery.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:310:0029:0033:en:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:309:0071:0086:en:PDF

C 33 E / 368 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004400/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Futuras medidas para luchar contra el desempleo

El problema del paro afecta en el conjunto de la UE a 26,2 millones de personas, 19 millones de los cuales viven en la
zona del euro.

Así, en el conjunto de la UE el paro ha crecido en el último año siete décimas, hasta el 10,8 %. En la zona euro el
incremento es superior a un punto y alcanza ya el 11,9 %.

Este problema no ha hecho más que agudizarse en los últimos años, y los principales indicadores económicos,
financieros y políticos apuntan que seguirá agravándose en los próximos periodos.

En medio de esta situación la Unión Europea está inmersa en el debate sobre el Marco Financiero Plurianual para el
periodo 2014-2020, en el que deberían fijarse las partidas presupuestarias destinadas a políticas para luchar contra el
desempleo en la Unión.

¿Puede informar la Comisión si en el debate sobre el MFP 2014-2020 se está teniendo en cuenta el problema que
supone el paro? ¿El futuro MFP contendrá partidas económicas concretas destinadas a luchar contra el paro en la
Unión?

**Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de junio de 2013)_

El marco financiero plurianual (MFP) ( [1] ) y sus instrumentos se centran en el apoyo a la Estrategia Europa 2020, cuyo
objetivo es reducir el desempleo y la pobreza. A raíz de la propuesta de la Comisión, corresponde al Parlamento
Europeo y al Consejo acordar un MFP que sea suficientemente ambicioso para abordar los retos del empleo en la EU.

La Comisión ha propuesto que al menos el 25 % de la financiación de las políticas de cohesión se asignen al Fondo
Social Europeo (FSE) ( [2] ). El papel del FSE es hacer que haya más oportunidades de empleo, fomentar la educación y el
aprendizaje permanente, mejorar la inclusión social, contribuir a luchar contra la pobreza y mejorar la capacidad
institucional y la eficiencia de la administración pública, mediante el tratamiento de los principales retos expuestos en
las recomendaciones específicas por país.

La propuesta de Iniciativa de Empleo Juvenil ( [3] ) constituirá una contribución concreta a partir de 2014 para aplicar
medidas de empleo juvenil en las regiones que más lo necesitan, es decir, en las que el desempleo juvenil ha superado
el 25 %.

El Fondo Europeo de Adaptación a la Globalización ( [4] ) ofrece medidas transitorias dirigidas a los trabajadores que
hayan perdido su puesto de trabajo a consecuencia de la globalización. Se propone que se amplíe a aquellos casos en
los que los despidos se deban a la crisis económica y financiera.

El nuevo Programa para el Cambio y la Innovación Sociales ( [5] ) apoya el desarrollo y la coordinación de políticas de
inversión social, el intercambio de las mejores prácticas, el incremento de las capacidades y la verificación de las
innovaciones sociales, con el objetivo de reforzar sustancialmente las medidas de mayor éxito.

El apoyo del Parlamento para los diferentes fondos es crucial para garantizar que las negociaciones tripartitas sigan
centrándose en la lucha contra el desempleo.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=62&langId=es
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173, de 18 de abril de 2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/egf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 609 final de 6 de octubre de 2011.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 369

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004400/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Future measures to combat unemployment

Across the EU, 26.2 million people are unemployed, 19 million of whom live in the euro area.

Across the EU, unemployment has risen by seven tenths in the last year to reach 10.8%. In the euro area,
unemployment has increased by over one percentage point and now stands at 11.9%.

This problem has only become worse in recent years and, according to the main economic, financial and political
indicators, it will continue to get worse in the future.

Against this backdrop, the European Union is engaged in talks on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 20142020, which should include the necessary budget lines for policies to tackle unemployment in the EU.

Can the Commission say whether the problem of unemployment is being considered in the MFF 2014-2020
negotiations? Will the future MFF contain specific budget lines for tackling EU unemployment?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) ( [1] ) and its instruments are focused on supporting the Europe 2020
strategy, which aims at reducing unemployment and poverty. Following the Commission's proposal, it is up to the
European Parliament and the Council to agree on a MFF that will be ambitious enough to address EU employment
challenges.

The Commission has proposed that at least 25% of cohesion policy funding should be allocated to the European
Social Fund (ESF) ( [2] ). The role of the ESF is to increase employment opportunities, promote education and lifelong
learning, enhance social inclusion, contribute to combating poverty, and enhance institutional capacity and efficient
public administration, by addressing the key challenges set out in the country specific recommendations.

The proposed Youth Employment Initiative ( [3] ) will make a concrete contribution from 2014 onwards to implement
youth employment measures in those regions that need it most, i.e. where youth unemployment has risen above
25%.

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund ( [4] ) provides one-off, targeted support for workers who have lost their
jobs because of globalisation. It is proposed to extend it to case when redundancies are due to the financial and
economic crisis.

The new Programme for Social Change and Innovation ( [5] ) support the development and coordination of social
investment policies, sharing of best practices, capacity-building, and testing of social innovations, with the aim of upscaling the most successful measures.

The support of the Parliament for these various funds is critical to ensure that the focus on fighting unemployment is
preserved in the course of the trilogue negotiations.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/index_en.cfm.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=62&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173 of 18 April 2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/egf.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 609 final of 6 October 2011.

C 33 E / 370 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004401/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Desempleo juvenil: medidas de futuro

Según los datos de Eurostat de fecha 1 de marzo de 2013 ( [1] ), el porcentaje de jóvenes de la zona euro que busca
trabajo se ha incrementado en 2,3 puntos, situándose en estos momentos en el 24,2 %. Este ascenso es aún mayor en
los países mediterráneos. En el mes de enero de 2013 en España llegó al 55,5 %, en Italia al 38,7 %, y en Portugal
al 38,6 %. Grecia, en el mes de noviembre de 2012, situó su tasa de desempleo juvenil en el 59,4 %.

Esta trayectoria es ascendente, y la crisis en la que sigue inmersa la Unión Europea hace que las previsiones para los
próximos años sean aún peores.

En medio de esta situación la Unión Europea está inmersa en el debate sobre el Marco Financiero Plurianual para el
periodo 2014- 2020, en el que deberían fijarse las partidas presupuestarias necesarias destinadas a políticas para
luchar contra el desempleo juvenil en la Unión. Es necesario tomar medidas para evitar perder generaciones de
jóvenes.

¿Qué medidas tiene pensadas la Comisión para hacer frente al paro juvenil en los próximos años?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004402/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Desempleo juvenil

Según los datos de Eurostat de fecha 1 de marzo de 2013 ( [2] ), el 24,2 % de los jóvenes de la zona del euro buscaba
trabajo. En los países del sur de Europa el drama se multiplica por dos: Grecia acumulaba en noviembre de 2012 un
paro juvenil del 59,4 %, mientras que en España llegó en enero de 2013 al 55,5 %, en Italia al 38,7 %, y en Portugal
al 38,6 %.

En total, según los datos de Eurostat, 5,7 millones de menores de 25 años buscan trabajo en los veintisiete países de
la UE, mientras que en la zona del euro el número desempleados jóvenes es de 3,6 millones, casi 300 000 más que
hace un año.

Ante esta situación, ¿qué medidas está llevando a cabo la Comisión para frenar el paro juvenil en estos momentos?

**Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(11 de junio de 2013)_

La lucha contra el desempleo juvenil es una prioridad fundamental de la Comisión Europea, que en diciembre de
2010 adoptó el Paquete sobre Empleo Juvenil ( [3] ) para facilitar la transición de los jóvenes desde el sistema educativo a
la vida laboral.

En abril de 2013 el Consejo adoptó una recomendación sobre la base de una propuesta de la Comisión, contenida en
el Paquete sobre Empleo Juvenil, por la que se pedía a los Estados miembros que garantizaran que todos los jóvenes
menores de veinticinco años pudieran recibir una oferta de empleo de calidad o seguir una educación continua, un
aprendizaje o un período de prácticas a los cuatro meses de haberse quedado sin empleo o de haber finalizado la
educación formal.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01032013-BP/EN/3-01032013-BP-EN.PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01032013-BP/EN/3-01032013-BP-EN.PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 727 final de 5.12.2012.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 371

El Paquete sobre Empleo Juvenil y la comunicación titulada «Un nuevo concepto de educación» ( [4] ) también incluía la
idea de la Alianza Europea para la Formación de Aprendices, que pondrá en marcha la Comisión en julio de 2013 con
el fin de mejorar la calidad y la oferta de los contratos de aprendiz y de fomentar las asociaciones nacionales de
sistemas de formación profesional dual.

Sobre la base también del Paquete sobre Empleo Juvenil, la Comisión presentará en diciembre de 2013 una propuesta
de Marco de Calidad para los Períodos de Prácticas con el fin de que los períodos de prácticas ofrezcan a los jóvenes
experiencias laborales de alta calidad y en condiciones seguras.

El Consejo Europeo de febrero de 2013 decidió asignar 6 000 millones EUR a la Iniciativa sobre Empleo Juvenil
(2014-2020), con los que financiar los objetivos del Paquete sobre Empleo Juvenil y, concretamente, la aplicación de
la conocida como Garantía Juvenil.

En mayo de 2012 entró en funcionamiento el nuevo régimen europeo de movilidad laboral conocido como «Tu
primer trabajo EURES», cuyo objetivo es ayudar a los jóvenes a encontrar su primer empleo en cualquiera de los 27
Estados miembros, y a las empresas a que contraten a ciudadanos de otros Estados miembros de la UE.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final de 21.11.2012.

C 33 E / 372 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004401/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Youth unemployment: future measures

According to Eurostat figures published on 1 March 2013  ( [1] ), the percentage of young people in the euro area
looking for work now stands at 24.2%, an increase of 2.3 percentage points. This increase is even higher in
Mediterranean countries. In January 2013, youth unemployment reached 55.5% in Spain, 38.7% in Italy and 38.6%
in Portugal. In November 2012, the level of youth unemployment in Greece was 59.4%.

This is an increasing trend and the crisis in which the EU is still embroiled means that projections for future years are

even worse.

Against this backdrop, the European Union is engaged in talks on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020,
which should include the necessary budget lines for policies to tackle youth unemployment in the EU. Steps need to
be taken to avoid losing whole generations of young people.

What steps will the Commission take to tackle youth unemployment in the coming years?

**Question for written answer E-004402/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Youth unemployment

According to Eurostat figures published on 1 March 2013 ( [2] ), 24.2% of young people in the euro area are looking for
work. In southern Europe, the situation is twice as bad: in November 2012, youth unemployment in Greece reached
59.4% while in January 2013 it was 55.5% in Spain, 38.7% in Italy and 38.6% in Portugal.

According to Eurostat figures, 5.7 million people under 25 are looking for work in the EU-27, while in the euro area
3.6 million young people are unemployed, almost 300 000 more than a year ago.

In view of this situation, what steps is the Commission taking to curb youth unemployment?

**Joint answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

Fighting youth unemployment is a top priority for the European Commission which adopted the Youth Employment
Package ( [3] ) (YEP) in December 2012 to enhance young people's transitions from school to work.

In April 2013, the Council adopted a recommendation based upon the Commission's proposal in the YEP, which
calls on Member States to ensure that all young people under the age of 25 receive a good quality offer of
employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within a period of four months of becoming
unemployed or leaving formal education.

The YEP and the communication on ‘Rethinking Education’ ( [4] ) also announced the European Alliance for
Apprenticeships, which the Commission will launch in July 2013, to improve the quality and supply of
apprenticeships and to promote national partnerships for dual vocational training systems.

Building upon the YEP, the Commission will present in December 2013 a proposal related to a Quality Framework
for Traineeships to help ensure that traineeships provide young people with high quality work experience under safe
conditions.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01032013-BP/EN/3-01032013-BP-EN.PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01032013-BP/EN/3-01032013-BP-EN.PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 727 final, 5.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final, 21.11.2012.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 373

The February 2013 European Council decided to allocate a EUR 6 billon Youth Employment Initiative (2014-2020)
to support the objectives of the Youth Employment Package and notably the implementation of the Youth Guarantee.

In May 2012, the new European job mobility scheme ‘Your first EURES job’ became operational. It aims at helping
young people to find their first job in any of the 27 Member States, and supporting companies to recruit from another
EU country.

C 33 E / 374 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004403/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Lucha contra la homofobia

El respeto de la persona y de la dignidad humana, así como de los demás derechos consagrados en la Carta de los
Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y en el Convenio Europeo para la Protección de los Derechos Humanos
y de las Libertades Fundamentales, constituye un valor esencial de la Unión.

En los últimos años estamos viendo cómo algunos Estados miembros están llevando a cabo profundos debates sobre
los derechos del colectivo homosexual. En unos casos, referidos a la legalización o no del matrimonio, a la adopción o
al reconocimiento de las uniones de hecho.

Desgraciadamente, a la sombra de estos debates políticos y ciudadanos, están surgiendo ciertos movimientos
extremistas cuyo objetivo es impedir su democrática reflexión. Las amenazas verbales han pasado incluso a ser
agresiones físicas. El pasado 7 de abril, una pareja fue brutalmente agredida en París por el mero hecho de ser
homosexual. Y este no ha sido un episodio aislado.

Ante esta situación, ¿está llevando a cabo la Comisión algún tipo de medida para evitar las agresiones al colectivo
LGTB, y para fomentar el respeto de los derechos de este colectivo?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión rechaza la homofobia y la transfobia como violaciones flagrantes de la dignidad humana y confirma su
determinación de combatir dichos fenómenos en toda la medida en que le competa en virtud de los Tratados. Sin
embargo, la Comisión Europea no tiene competencias generales para intervenir ante los Estados miembros en el
ámbito de los derechos fundamentales. Solo puede hacerlo si se trata de alguna cuestión relacionada con la legislación
de la Unión Europea.

La actual Decisión Marco ( [1] ) relativa a la lucha contra el racismo y la xenofobia solo contempla las manifestaciones y
delitos de odio racista y xenófobo pero no las manifestaciones y delitos homofóbicos. La Directiva 2000/78/CE del
Consejo, de 27 de noviembre de 2000, establece un marco general para la igualdad de trato y prohíbe explícitamente
toda discriminación por motivos de orientación sexual en el lugar de trabajo.

La Comisión presentó una propuesta de Directiva en 2008 con el fin de ampliar la protección contra la
discriminación por razones de orientación sexual y demás motivos de exclusión a ámbitos fuera del lugar de trabajo,
tales como el acceso a los bienes y servicios, la protección social y la educación.

La adopción de la nueva Directiva relativa a los derechos garantizados a las víctimas de delitos en la EU, una vez
aplicada por los Estados miembros, también prestará asistencia y protección específica a las personas que hayan sido
víctimas de delitos cometidos por motivos de orientación sexual, identidad de género o expresión de género.

Al mismo tiempo, la Comisión apoya acciones en toda Europa destinadas a fomentar la igualdad y a concienciar sobre
la discriminación y, desde hace más de una década, viene apoyando a las ONG y acompañándolas en sus esfuerzos
por promover la igualdad de derechos para las personas LGBT.

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría al reciente discurso de la Vicepresidenta Reding sobre cómo «las acciones de la
Comisión están consiguiendo hacer realidad los derechos de las personas LGBT» ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decisión Marco 2008/913/JAI del Consejo, de 28 de noviembre de 2008, relativa a la lucha contra determinadas formas y manifestaciones de

racismo y xenofobia mediante el Derecho penal, DO L 328 de 6.12.2008, p. 55-58.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-424_es.htm

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 375

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004403/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fighting against homophobia

The European Union’s core values include respect for the person and human dignity in addition to the other rights set
down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

In recent years, intense debates on homosexual rights have been taking place in some Member States. In some cases,
these debates concern the legalization of same-sex marriage, adoption, or the recognition of civil partnerships.

Unfortunately, in the wake of these political and public debates, extremist movements have emerged whose aim is to
prevent democratic reflection. Verbal threats have given way to physical attacks. On 7 April, a couple was brutally
assaulted in Paris simply for being homosexual. This is not an isolated incident.

In the face of this situation, is the Commission taking any measures to prevent attacks on the LGTB community and
to encourage respect for this group’s rights?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission rejects homophobia and transphobia as blatant violations of human dignity and confirms its
determination to combating these phenomena to the full extent of the powers conferred on it by the Treaties. The
European Commission has however no general powers to intervene with the Member States in the area of
fundamental rights. It can only do so if an issue of European Union law is involved.

The current Framework Decision ( [1] ) on combating racism and xenophobia addresses only racist and xenophobic hate
speech and crime, while homophobic hate speech and crime are not included. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of
27 November 2000 establishes a general framework for equal treatment and explicitly prohibits discrimination on
the grounds of sexual orientation at the workplace.

The Commission proposed a directive in 2008 to extend protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation and other grounds beyond the work place to areas, such as access to goods and services, social protection
and education.

The adoption of the new Directive on the rights guaranteed to victims of crime in the EU, once implemented by
Member States will provide specific assistance and protection also to people who suffered crime because of their
sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

In parallel, the Commission supports actions across Europe to raise awareness of discrimination and promote
equality and, for more than a decade now, it has been supporting NGOs and their work to promote equal rights for
LGBT people.

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to Vice-President Reding's recent speech ‘The
Commission's actions are making LGBT rights a reality’ ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by

means of criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55-58.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-424_en.htm

( **|**

C 33 E / 376 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004404/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Homologación de certificados acreditativos de discapacidad

La Unión Europea debe velar por la protección de los derechos de los ciudadanos europeos, protegiendo
especialmente a los colectivos más vulnerables. Es cierto que en materia de accesibilidad la UE ha avanzado mucho
durante los últimos años, pero aún quedan muchas medidas por desarrollar.

Desgraciadamente, los ciudadanos con algún tipo de discapacidad reconocida por las autoridades competentes en
algún Estado miembro se encuentran con problemas a la hora de ver homologar esta situación en otro Estado
miembro. El reconocimiento de su discapacidad realizado en un país de la Unión, y el documento acreditativo
expedido a tal fin, no son siempre aceptados en otro Estado miembro, con los perjuicios que ello conlleva. Este
problema se agrava aún más en los países con un alto grado de descentralización administrativa.

Ante esta situación, ¿qué medidas está llevando a cabo la Comisión para asegurar el respeto por parte de todos los
Estados miembros de los documentos expedidos por la autoridad competente de un Estado miembro, por los cuales
se acredita que un ciudadano posee algún tipo de discapacidad?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La certificación y el reconocimiento de la condición de persona con discapacidad es competencia de las autoridades
nacionales o locales de los Estados miembros de la UE. Cada Estado define esta condición de diferente forma y la
Comisión no tiene previsto en estos momentos abordar la armonización en este ámbito.

No obstante, a efectos del reconocimiento transfronterizo de la condición de persona con discapacidad de cara a
ventajas en determinados sectores como el turismo, el ocio, la cultura y el transporte, la Comisión está trabajando en
una iniciativa sobre una tarjeta de discapacidad de la UE, tal como anuncia el Informe sobre la ciudadanía de la UE de
2013. Para más información, la Comisión remite a Su Señoría a su respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-003455/2013.
Asimismo, cabe señalar que esta iniciativa no afectará a la libertad de los Estados miembros de establecer sus propios
criterios y procedimientos para el reconocimiento de la condición de persona con discapacidad.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 377

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004404/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of disability certificates

The EU has a duty to protect the rights of European citizens, particularly the most vulnerable. Disability access in
the EU has improved a great deal in recent years but much still remains to be done.

Unfortunately, citizens with a disability that is recognised by the competent authorities in one Member State find it
difficult to have their status recognised in other Member States. One Member State’s recognition of a disability and of
the certificate issued for that purpose are not always accepted by other Member States, creating problems for the
person concerned. This problem is even worse in countries with a highly decentralised administration.

In view of this situation, what steps is the Commission taking to ensure that all Member States recognise the
documents issued by the competent authorities of other Member States to certify that a citizen has a particular
disability?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

Certification and recognition of disability status is a matter of competence of national or local authorities in the EU
Member States. They are using different definitions for this purpose and there are no current Commission plans for
harmonisation in this area.

However, for the purpose of cross border recognition of disability status procuring benefits in certain areas such as
tourism, leisure, culture and transport, the Commission is preparing an initiative for an EU disability card, as
announced in the 2013 EU Citizenship Report. For more details, the Commission would refer the Honourable
Member also to its answer to Written Question E-003455/2013. It should be noted that this initiative will not affect
Member States’ freedom to establish their own criteria and procedures for the recognition of disability status.

C 33 E / 378 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004405/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Homologación de títulos europeos

Una de las principales conquistas de la Unión Europea ha sido la libertad con la que transitan los ciudadanos europeos
por su territorio. Existe libertad de capitales, de tránsito y de bienes. Pero en ocasiones los trabajadores europeos,
cuando se desplazan a otro Estado miembro, se encuentran con ciertos problemas para poder ejercer una profesión
cualificada, ya que no siempre se reconocen del mismo modo los títulos académicos que han obtenido en otro Estado
miembro.

El reconocimiento de los títulos académicos es fundamental a efectos personales y profesionales. Supone además un
valor añadido para la economía y la educación europea, generando un beneficio general en el conjunto de la Unión, al
ser una herramienta que fomenta la inversión y los negocios intracomunitarios. Todo ello es importante, más aún
ahora ante la necesidad de revitalizar la economía europea.

Por ello, ¿qué medidas está llevando a cabo la Comisión para asegurar la movilidad profesional y el reconocimiento de
los títulos académicos en el territorio europeo?

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(19 de junio de 2013)_

La Directiva 2005/36/CE, relativa al reconocimiento de cualificaciones profesionales, se aplica a los profesionales que
ejercen o prestan servicios en otro Estado miembro, si su profesión está regulada. La Directiva define una serie de
normas relativas al reconocimiento de las cualificaciones profesionales, que es un paso necesario para acceder a una
profesión regulada. El reconocimiento de las cualificaciones con el objetivo de continuar los estudios no se aborda en
esta Directiva, pero cuenta con el apoyo de los centros nacionales de información sobre reconocimiento académico
de títulos (ENIC-NARIC).

El 19 de diciembre de 2011, la Comisión presentó una propuesta legislativa para modernizar la Directiva sobre las
cualificaciones profesionales, a fin de facilitar la movilidad de los profesionales en toda la UE. Los colegisladores están
estudiando la propuesta y se prevé un acuerdo político al respecto para finales de junio de 2013.

La novedad más importante de esta propuesta es la creación de una tarjeta profesional europea, que se implantará en
el caso de las profesiones interesadas y que simplificará considerablemente los procedimientos de reconocimiento. Se
basará en el uso sistemático de la Información del Mercado Interior (IMI) y en el refuerzo de la cooperación entre los
Estados miembros de origen y los de acogida.

Otro elemento importante de la modernización del reconocimiento de las cualificaciones es la introducción de un
nuevo sistema de reconocimiento automático basado en un conjunto común de conocimientos, capacidades y
competencias. Se podrían crear «marcos de formación comunes» para las profesiones interesadas y las cualificaciones
obtenidas en virtud de dicho marco se reconocerían automáticamente en los otros Estados miembros, sin necesidad
de medidas de compensación.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 379

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004405/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Recognition of European qualifications

One of the EU’s greatest achievements has been to enable its citizens to move freely around Europe. There is freedom
of capital, transit and goods. However, when European workers move to another Member State, they sometimes find
it difficult to enter a regulated profession because the academic qualifications that they have gained in another
Member State are not always recognised in the same way.

Recognition of academic qualifications is essential for both personal and professional reasons. It also represents
added value for the economy and European education, benefiting the whole of the EU by encouraging investment and
intra-Community trade. This factor is even more important now that the European economy needs to be revitalised.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure occupational mobility and the recognition of academic qualifications
in Europe?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

The Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC) applies to professionals willing to exercise or to
provide services in another Member State, where their profession is regulated. The directive defines a set of rules for
the recognition of professional qualifications, which is a necessary step for accessing a regulated profession. The
recognition of qualifications for the purpose of further studies is not dealt within the context of this directive, but
with the support of National Recognition Information Centres (ENIC-NARIC).

On 19 December 2011, the Commission presented a legislative proposal modernising the Professional Qualifications
Directive, whose purpose is to facilitate the mobility of professionals across the EU. The proposal is currently being
examined by the co-legislators and a political agreement is expected by the end of June 2013.

The major innovation of this proposal is the creation of a European Professional Card, which will be introduced for
the interested professions and will significantly simplify recognition procedures. It will be based on the systematic use
of the internal market Information (IMI) system and on the enhanced cooperation between the home and host
Member States.

Another important element of the modernization of qualifications recognition is the introduction of a new system of
automatic recognition based on a common set of knowledge, skills and competences. ‘Common training frameworks’
could be developed for the interested professions and the qualifications obtained under such a framework would be
automatically recognised in other Member States, without the need for any compensation measures.

C 33 E / 380 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004406/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Desempleo femenino

Según datos de Eurostat con fecha 1 de marzo de 2013 ( [1] ), la tasa de paro masculino en la zona euro se situaba en el
11,8 %, siendo del 10,8 % en el conjunto de la Unión. Por su parte, esta tasa es mayor en el sector femenino,
situándose en el 12,1 % en la eurozona y el 10,9 % en los veintisiete.

Analizando los datos existentes, vemos que la tasa de paro femenino ha sufrido un incremento mayor y más
pronunciado que la masculina.

¿Qué medidas ha pensado tomar la Comisión para hacer frente al incremento de la tasa de desempleo femenina y para
favorecer el acceso de las mujeres al mercado laboral?

**Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(12 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión es consciente de la evolución de la diferencia en la tasa de desempleo entre hombres y mujeres. Mientras
que en el último trimestre de 2012, las tasas de desempleo entre las mujeres jóvenes y mayores eran más bajas
(del 22,6 % frente al 23,6 % en el grupo de edad 15-24 años y del 7,1 % frente al 7,9 % en el grupo de edad 50-64), la
tasa de desempleo de las mujeres en edad de máximo rendimiento (25-49 años) ha sido del 10,6 % frente al 9,8 % de
los hombres. No obstante, las tasas de actividad son mucho más elevadas para los hombres que para las mujeres:
del 45,5 % frente al 39,7 % para el grupo de edad 15-24; del 71,7 % frente al 56,2 % para el grupo de edad 50-64 y
del 92,3 % frente al 79,8 % para el grupo de edad en máximo rendimiento. Además, la tasa de empleo de las mujeres
(grupo de edad 15-64) es más baja que la de los hombres en todos los Estados miembros.

El empleo femenino debe aumentar sustancialmente para lograr el objetivo de empleo del 75 % de la Estrategia
Europa 2020. Por consiguiente, en el contexto de los Semestres Europeos, la Comisión ha dirigido recomendaciones
específicas a varios Estados miembros para que fomenten el empleo de las mujeres con medidas dirigidas, entre otras
cosas, a mejorar la oferta de servicios de asistencia asequibles, suprimir la desincentivación fiscal para los segundos
receptores de renta, fomentar prácticas flexibles en el lugar de trabajo y reducir la diferencia salarial entre hombres y
mujeres. Con el fin de mejorar los niveles de empleabilidad, la Comisión hizo hincapié en que los Estados miembros
deberían intensificar los esfuerzos para apoyar el acceso al empleo y la reincorporación al mundo laboral.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01032013-BP/EN/3-01032013-BP-EN.PDF

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 381

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004406/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Female unemployment

According to Eurostat figures published on 1 March 2013 ( [1] ), the male unemployment rate stood at 11.8% in the euro
area and 10.8% across the EU. Meanwhile, the female unemployment rate was higher at 12.1% in the euro area and
10.9% in the EU-27.

These figures clearly show that there has been a bigger and sharper increase in female unemployment than in male
unemployment.

What steps has the Commission considered taking to tackle the rise in female unemployment and to help women to
enter the labour market?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the evolution of the gender unemployment gap. While young and senior females
experienced lower unemployment rates than males (22.6% vs 23.6% in the 15-24 age group and 7.1% vs 7.9% for the
50-64 age group), prime age (25-49) female unemployment rate has been 10.6% vs. to 9.8% for males in 2012 Q4.
However, activity rates are much higher for men compared to women: 45.5% vs 39.7% for the 15-24 age group;
71.7% vs 56.2% for the 50-64 age group and 92.3% vs 79.8% for the prime age group. Moreover, in all Member
States employment rates of women (15-64 age group) are lower than of men.

The employment of women needs to increase substantially in order to reach the 75% employment target of the
EU2020 strategy. Therefore in the context of the European semesters, the Commission has adressed country-specific
recommendations to several Member States related to fostering female employment targeting among others the
improvement of availability and affordability of care services, dismantling fiscal disincentives for second-income
earners, provision of flexible workplace practices and the reduction of a high gender pay gap. With a view to
improving employability levels the Commission stressed that Member States should do more to support access to
jobs or a return to the world of work.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-01032013-BP/EN/3-01032013-BP-EN.PDF

C 33 E / 382 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-004407/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Ole Christensen (S&D)**

_(18. april 2013)_

_Om:_ Tolkning af kørekortsregler for chauffører med epilepsi

Med den danske indarbejdelse af EU-direktiv 2006/126/EF om kørekort har de danske myndigheder ændret praksis i
forbindelse med fornyelse af kørekort til lastbilchauffører, der lider af epilepsi. Hidtil har man godt kunnet få stort
kørekort, hvis det er sket på visse vilkår, for eksempel at vedkommende får anfaldsforebyggende medicinering.

I bekendtgørelsen — som den kompetente myndighed (det danske Justitsministerium) anvender — står blandt andet,
at kørekort kun kan udstedes, fornyes eller bevares for ansøgere med epilepsi efter en anfaldsfri periode på mindst
10 år uden anfaldsforebyggende behandling.

Nogle chauffører har ikke haft et anfald i 10 år eller mere, fordi de har fået anfaldsforebyggende behandling. De
udelukkes nu, hvis der anlægges en fortolkning, der kræver en anfaldsfri periode på mindst 10 år uden
anfaldsforebyggende behandling _._

EU-direktivet tilsiger, at det netop ikke skal berøre en eksisterende førerret, der er tildelt eller erhvervet, inden EUdirektiv 2006/126/EF er trådt i kraft (præambel 5).

På baggrund af ovenstående bedes Kommissionen vurdere, om det danske Justitsministerium har lavet en korrekt
indarbejdning af EU-reglerne i overensstemmelse med lovgivers hensigt?

Kommissionen bedes endvidere vurdere, om det er i overensstemmelse med direktiv 2006/126/EF, at førere, der
har fået fornyet kørekort hvert andet år og ved at følge behandling for epilepsi, har lov til at være undtaget fra de nye
regler om, at man skal have haft en anfaldsfri periode i mindst 10 år uden forebyggende medicin, da det nye direktiv
ikke skal berøre en eksisterende førerret, og så førerne også i fremtiden kan få udstedt kørekort?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Siim Kallas**

_(23. maj 2013)_

Kravene er i overensstemmelse med EU-reglerne.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 383

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004407/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ole Christensen (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Interpretation of driving licence rules for drivers with epilepsy

With the Danish transposition of Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences, the Danish authorities have changed
their practice in relation to the renewal of driving licences for lorry drivers suffering from epilepsy. Up to now it has
been perfectly possible to obtain a driving licence, subject to certain conditions, for example that the person in
question takes medication to prevent seizures.

The Order — applied by the competent authority (the Danish Ministry of Justice) — states, among other things, that
driving licences may only be issued, renewed or retained by applicants with epilepsy after they have had a seizure-free
period of at least 10 years without seizure-prevention treatment.

Some drivers have not had a seizure for 10 years or more because they have received seizure-prevention treatment.
They will now be excluded if an interpretation requiring a seizure-free period of at least 10 years without seizureprevention treatment is applied.

Directive 2006/126/EC specifically states that it should not prejudice existing entitlements to drive granted or
acquired before the directive entered into force (recital 5).

In view of the above, could the Commission assess whether the Danish Ministry of Justice has correctly incorporated
the EU rules as intended by the legislator?

Could the Commission also assess whether it is in accordance with Directive 2006/126/EC for drivers who have
renewed their driving licence every two years and are receiving treatment for epilepsy to be entitled to be exempt
from the new rules requiring a seizure-free period of at least 10 years without preventative medicine, as the new
directive should not prejudice existing entitlements to drive, so the drivers can continue to obtain a driving licence in
future?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The requirements are in line with the EU rules.

C 33 E / 384 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004408/13**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR), Charles Tannock (ECR) en Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(18 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — Sektarisch geweld tegen kopten in Egypte

Al enkele dagen laait het sektarische geweld in Egypte weer op. De situatie in de stad Wasta, gelegen op ongeveer
honderd kilometer ten zuiden van Caïro, is gespannen en soms zelfs gevaarlijk. Naar verluidt werd een jonge moslima
van de stad onlangs als vermist opgegeven en stelden de lokale salafisten de Mar-Girgis kerk verantwoordelijk voor
haar verdwijning. Zij beweerden dat de leden van de kerk haar hadden gedwongen om zich tot het christendom te
bekeren. In de week van 19 tot 25 maart 2013 werden alle christenen door de salafisten en hun aanhangers
gedwongen om hun winkels en zaken te sluiten en de stad te verlaten.

Op vrijdag 5 april kwamen door sektarisch geweld in het dorp El Khusus vier christenen en één moslim om het leven.
Na een uitvaartdienst op zondag 7 april in de belangrijkste koptische kathedraal van Caïro ontstonden nabij de kerk
en in de aangrenzende wijken urenlange straatgevechten. Dit eiste opnieuw het leven van een koptische christen en er
vielen tientallen gewonden. De politie zou zich niet volledig hebben ingezet om de woedende menigte jonge moslims
tot bedaren te brengen en ze zou zelfs op de binnenplaats van de kerk traangas hebben afgevuurd.

1. Hoe beoordeelt de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger de situatie in Egypte? Is zij van mening dat de
Egyptische instanties zich voldoende inspannen om een van de oudste inheemse gemeenschappen in Egypte, met
name de koptische christenen, te beschermen?

2. Welke maatregelen hebben de Europese dienst voor extern optreden en de EU-delegatie in Caïro genomen of
voorgesteld teneinde de Egyptische instanties te ondersteunen in hun inspanningen om de kopten te beschermen en
nieuw sektarisch geweld te voorkomen?

3. Is de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger het erover eens dat artikel 2 van de Associatieovereenkomst EUEgypte nog steeds van kracht is en dat de Egyptische instanties verantwoordelijk moeten worden gesteld voor hun
handelen en nalaten indien als gevolg daarvan de fundamentele mensenrechten van de kopten worden geschonden?

4. Is de vicevoorzitter / hoge vertegenwoordiger voornemens sancties op te leggen, zoals een bevriezing van de
hulp, teneinde het Egyptische regime ertoe aan te zetten concrete actie te ondernemen om de kopten te beschermen?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(17 juni 2013)_

De EU is bezorgd om de beperkingen waarmee verschillende religieuze minderheden in Egypte worden
geconfronteerd en veroordeelt alle vormen van onverdraagzaamheid, discriminatie en geweld ten aanzien van
personen op grond van hun godsdienst of levensovertuiging, ongeacht om welke godsdienst het gaat. De hoge
vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter heeft de Egyptische autoriteiten verzocht om de vrijheid van godsdienst of
levensovertuiging in hun land te waarborgen.

De EU-delegatie volgt gevallen van sektarisch geweld op de voet en benadrukt tijdens haar contacten met de
Egyptische autoriteiten het belang van het voorkomen van discriminatie op grond van religie. De EDEO wil graag
samenwerken met alle relevante belanghebbenden in het land alsook met de regionale en internationale organisaties
die de waarden en doelstellingen van de EU in dit verband delen, om een grotere vrijheid van godsdienst en
levensovertuiging in Egypte te steunen.

Artikel 2 van de Associatieovereenkomst tussen de EU en Egypte is inderdaad van toepassing en het is van belang
erop te wijzen, zoals ook in het gezamenlijk ENB-actieplan EU-Egypte is gesteld, dat de naleving van de
mensenrechten en grondrechten, met inbegrip van de vrijheid van geloof, een belangrijk onderdeel van het Europees
nabuurschapsbeleid vormt.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 385

De EU is van mening dat samenwerking en politieke dialoog de meest geschikte kanalen zijn om druk uit te oefenen
op de Egyptische regering en haar ertoe aan te moedigen concrete acties te ondernemen om kopten en andere
religieuze minderheden te beschermen. De EU volgt de situatie ter plekke nauwlettend en onderhoudt nauwe
contacten met de regering, de oppositie, het maatschappelijk middenveld en andere belanghebbenden om, indien
nodig en in het licht van de veranderende politieke context, de juiste maatregelen te kunnen treffen.

C 33 E / 386 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004408/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR), Charles Tannock (ECR) oraz Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(18 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – przemoc na tle wyznaniowym wobec Koptów w Egipcie

W ostatnich dniach w Egipcie ponownie miały miejsce akty przemocy na tle wyznaniowym. W mieście Wasta,
położonym ok. 100 km na południe od Kairu, sytuacja jest napięta, a niekiedy nawet zapalna. Niedawno zaginęła
podobno młoda muzułmanka, a miejscowi salafiści winą za jej zniknięcie obarczają Kościół św. Jerzego, twierdząc, że
członkowie tego kościoła zmusili ją do nawrócenia się na chrześcijaństwo. W dniach od 19 do 25 marca 2013 r.
salafiści i ich zwolennicy zmusili chrześcijańskich właścicieli sklepów i przedsiębiorstw do zamknięcia swoich
zakładów i nakazali wszystkim chrześcijanom opuszczenie miasta.

W piątek 5 kwietnia w wyniku przemocy na tle wyznaniowym we wsi El Khusus śmierć poniosło czterech
chrześcijan i jeden muzułmanin. Po mszy pogrzebowej w głównej katedrze koptyjskiej w Kairze w niedzielę
7 kwietnia przez kilka godzin trwały walki uliczne w pobliżu katedry i w sąsiadujących z nią dzielnicach. Życie stracił
kolejny Kopt, a kilkadziesiąt osób odniosło rany. Policja uczyniła niewiele, aby poskromić rozwścieczony tłum
młodych muzułmanów, a może nawet użyła gazu łzawiącego na dziedzińcu kościoła.

1. Jak Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel postrzega sytuację w Egipcie? Czy uważa ona, że władze
Egiptu podejmują wystarczające środki mające na celu ochronę jednej z najstarszych lokalnych społeczności
egipskich, jaką są chrześcijanie koptyjscy?

2. Jakie działania Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych i delegatura UE w Kairze podjęły lub zaproponowały,
aby wspomóc władze Egiptu w ich wysiłkach zmierzających do ochrony Koptów i zapobiegnięcia dalszym
przypadkom przemocy na tle wyznaniowym?

3. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel podziela opinię, że artykuł 2 układu o stowarzyszeniu
między UE a Egiptem wciąż obowiązuje oraz że władze Egiptu powinny odpowiadać za wszelkie działania lub
zaniechanie działań, jeżeli w ich konsekwencji dochodzi do łamania podstawowych praw człowieka Koptów?

4. Czy Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel rozważy możliwość nałożenia sankcji, takich jak np.
wstrzymanie pomocy, jako środka wywarcia nacisku na władze Egiptu w celu skłonienia ich do podjęcia konkretnych
działań z myślą o ochronie Koptów?

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

**Komisji**
_(17 czerwca 2013 r.)_

UE jest zaniepokojona ograniczeniami, jakim podlegają różne mniejszości religijne w Egipcie i potępia wszelkie
formy nietolerancji, dyskryminacji i przemocy przeciwko tym osobom ze względu na ich religię lub przekonania
niezależnie od ich wyznania. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca wezwała egipskie władze do zapewnienia
wolności wyznania lub przekonań w tym kraju.

Delegatura UE ściśle monitoruje przypadki przemocy na tle religijnym i w swoich kontaktach z władzami egipskimi
podkreśla znaczenie unikania dyskryminacji z przyczyn religijnych. Aby wesprzeć poprawę wolności wyznania lub
przekonań w Egipcie, ESDZ z zaangażowaniem współpracuje z wszelkimi odnośnymi zainteresowanymi stronami
w tym kraju, a także z regionalnymi i międzynarodowymi organizacjami podzielającymi wartości i cele UE w tej
dziedzinie.

W istocie ważny w tym kontekście jest art. 2 układu o stowarzyszeniu między UE i Egiptem i należy pamiętać, że – co
odzwierciedla wspólny plan działania UE i Egiptu w ramach europejskiej polityki sąsiedztwa – poszanowanie praw
człowieka i praw podstawowych, w tym wolności wyznania, jest ważnym elementem europejskiej polityki
sąsiedztwa.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 387

UE stwierdza, że współpraca i dialog polityczny są najbardziej odpowiednimi kanałami wspierania i wywierania
presji na rząd w Kairze, aby podjął on konkretne działania w celu ochrony Koptów i innych mniejszości religijnych.
Dlatego UE stale monitoruje sytuację na miejscu w ścisłym kontakcie i dialogu z rządem, opozycją, przedstawicielami
społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i innymi kluczowymi zainteresowanymi stronami w celu podejmowania niezbędnych
i właściwych działań dostosowanych do rozwoju sytuacji politycznej.

C 33 E / 388 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004408/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR), Charles Tannock (ECR) and Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Sectarian violence against Copts in Egypt

In recent days renewed sectarian violence has taken place in Egypt. The situation has been tense and at times explosive
in the town of Wasta, about one hundred kilometres south of Cairo. Reportedly, a young local Muslim woman
recently went missing, with local Salafis blaming the Mar-Girgis Church for her disappearance, claiming that its
members had forced her to convert to Christianity. In the week of 19 to 25 March 2013, Salafis and their supporters
forced Christian stores and businesses to shut and ordered all Christians to leave the town.

On Friday 5 April, sectarian violence in the village of El Khusus cost the lives of four Christians and one Muslim.
Following a funeral mass in Cairo’s main Coptic cathedral on Sunday 7 April, street battles raged for hours on the
cathedral premises and in the surrounding neighbourhood. Another Coptic life was lost and dozens of people were
wounded. It appears that the police did little to subdue the crowds of angry Muslim youths outside, and they may
have even fired tear gas into the church’s courtyard.

1. How does the Vice-President/High Representative view the situation in Egypt? Does she believe that the
Egyptian authorities are doing enough to protect one of Egypt’s oldest indigenous communities, the Coptic
Christians?

2. What actions have the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the EU Delegation in Cairo undertaken or
proposed in order to assist the Egyptian authorities in their efforts to protect the Copts and prevent further sectarian
violence?

3. Does the Vice-President/High Representative share the opinion that Article 2 of the EU‐Egypt Association
Agreement still bears relevance, and that the Egyptian authorities should be held accountable for any actions or lack
of action that harm the basic human rights of the Copts?

4. Will the Vice-President/High Representative consider imposing sanctions, such as an aid freeze, as a means of
pressuring the Egyptian regime into taking concrete action to protect the Copts?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

The EU is concerned about the constraints that different religious minorities face in Egypt and condemns all forms of
intolerance, discrimination and violence against persons because of their religion or belief, regardless of the religion.
The HR/VP repeatedly called on the Egyptian authorities to ensure freedom of religion or belief in the country.

The EU delegation is closely monitoring cases of sectarian violence and emphasises the importance of avoiding
discrimination on religious grounds in its contacts with Egyptian authorities. In order to support the improvement of
freedom of religion or belief in Egypt, the EEAS is keen to engage with all the relevant stakeholders in the country as
well as with the regional and international organisations sharing EU's values and objectives in this respect.

Art. 2 of the EU-Egypt Association Agreement is indeed relevant and it is important to bear in mind, as reflected in the
joint EU-Egypt ENP Action Plan, that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of
belief, is an important part of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

The EU considers that cooperation and political dialogue are the most appropriate channels to encourage and put
pressure on Cairo's government so that it will undertake concrete actions in order to protect Copts and other religious
minorities. Therefore, the EU is continuously monitoring the situation on the ground in close contact and dialogue
with the government, opposition, civil society representatives and other key stakeholders in order to take the
necessary and appropriate measures according to the evolution of the political context.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 389

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004409/13**

**do Komisji**
**Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)**

_(18 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zezwolenie na użycie mączki mięsno-kostnej do karmienia przeżuwaczy i zwierząt innych niż
przeżuwacze oprócz zwierząt akwakultury

Według rozporządzenia Komisji (UE) nr 56/2013 z dnia 16 stycznia 2013 r. zmieniającego załączniki I i IV do
rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (WE) nr 999/2001 ustanawiającego zasady dotyczące
zapobiegania, kontroli i zwalczania niektórych przenośnych gąbczastych encefalopatii wynika, że z dniem 1 czerwca
2013 r. zezwala się na karmienie zwierząt akwakultury przetworzonym białkiem zwierzęcym. Jednak w dalszym
ciągu funkcjonuje zakaz używania tego rodzaju białka do produkcji pasz dla przeżuwaczy i zwierząt innych niż
przeżuwacze (w tym w szczególności świń oraz drobiu). W związku z powyższym paszę dla wymienionych zwierząt
produkuje się głównie z mączki rybnej. Powoduje to zwiększoną presję na połowy ryb w akwenie Morza Bałtyckiego,
wpływając tym samym na ich populację. Ponadto należy wskazać, że mączka mięsno-kostna jest tańsza od mączki
rybnej, a co za tym idzie, bardziej opłacalna dla przedsiębiorców.

Chciałbym w tym miejscu przywołać wyniki badań naukowych zatwierdzonych przez Europejski Urząd ds.
Bezpieczeństwa Żywności ( [1] ), w których zawarta jest ocena ryzyka w odniesieniu do ryzyka BSE stwarzanego przez
przetworzone białka zwierzęce. Stanowi ona, że przy odpowiednich założeniach „można by oczekiwać z 95 %
pewnością, iż w unijnym pogłowiu bydła BSE zakażone zostanie rocznie mniej niż jedno dodatkowe zwierzę.” Jak
wynika z przedstawionej opinii ryzyko to jest bardzo niskie.

Wobec powyższego proszę o udzielenie następujących informacji:

1. Czy możliwe jest zniesienie zakazu używania mączki mięsno-kostnej do produkcji pasz dla przeżuwaczy
i zwierząt innych niż przeżuwacze oprócz zwierząt akwakultury?

2. Jeśli tak, to jaki jest przewidywany horyzont czasowy na wprowadzenie zmian?

3. Czy trwają badania nad stworzeniem efektywnego systemu kontroli jakości surowców używanych do
produkcji mączki mięsno-kostnej?

4. Czy Komisja posiada dane na temat tego, jak kształtuje się procentowy podział zużycia surowców do produkcji
pasz? (Mam tu na myśli produkty wymienione w Rozdziale II rozporządzenia Komisji Europejskiej (UE)
nr 56/2013).

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(31 maja 2013 r.)_

Rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 56/2013 ( [2] ) ma na celu ponowne zezwolenie na stosowanie przetworzonych białek
zwierzęcych pochodzących od zwierząt gospodarskich innych niż przeżuwacze (tj. głównie od świń i drobiu)
w paszy dla ryb hodowlanych i innych zwierząt akwakultury. Stosuje się je od dnia 1 czerwca 2013 r. i jest zgodne
z najnowszymi opiniami EFSA, które wskazują, że ryzyko przenoszenia gąbczastej encefalopatii bydła (BSE) między
zwierzętami innymi niż przeżuwacze jest niewielkie, pod warunkiem zapobieżenia powtórnemu przetwarzaniu
wewnątrzgatunkowemu (kanibalizmowi).

1. Komisja zamierza zaproponować, z zastrzeżeniem dostępności zwalidowanych specyficznych testów
analitycznych w celu zapewnienia właściwych kontroli urzędowych, dalszy środek w celu ponownego
wprowadzenia stosowania przetworzonych białek zwierzęcych pochodzących od świń i drobiu z przeznaczeniem
odpowiednio dla drobiu i świń. Komisja nie zamierza proponować ponownego zezwolenia na stosowanie
przetworzonych białek zwierzęcych do karmienia przeżuwaczy (tj. bydła, owiec lub kóz) ani proponować
ponownego stosowania przetworzonych białek zwierzęcych pochodzących od przeżuwaczy do karmienia zwierząt
innych niż przeżuwacze, od których lub z których pozyskuje się żywność.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EFSA; http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1947.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dz.U. L 21 z 24.1.2013, s. 3.

C 33 E / 390 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

3. Do produkcji przetworzonych białek zwierzęcych mogą być wykorzystywane wyłącznie produkty uboczne
pochodzenia zwierzęcego pochodzące ze zwierząt zdatnych do spożycia przez ludzi, a sposób, w jaki te produkty
uboczne pochodzenia zwierzęcego są produkowane, gromadzone, transportowane, przechowywane
i wykorzystywane, jest ściśle regulowany rozporządzeniem (WE) nr 1069/2009 ( [3] ), w celu uniknięcia ryzyka dla
zdrowia ludzi i zwierząt. Właściwe organy w państwach członkowskich kontrolują prawidłowe wdrożenie tych
przepisów.

4. Odsetek przetworzonych białek zwierzęcych, które mogłyby być dodawane do paszy, jest różny w zależności
od potrzeb żywieniowych danego gatunku: jest to około 2‐5 % w przypadku paszy dla drobiu i świń oraz do 40 %
w przypadku paszy dla ryb mięsożernych.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Dz.U. L 300 z 14.11.2009, s. 1.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 391

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004409/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Authorisation for the use of meat and bone meal to feed ruminants and non-ruminants, excluding
aquaculture animals

According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 56/2013 of 16 January 2013 amending Annexes I and IV to
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention,
control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, the feeding of aquaculture animals
with processed animal proteins will be authorised from 1 June 2013. Yet the ban on the use of such proteins for the
production of feed intended for ruminants and non‐ruminants, in particular pigs and poultry, is still in place. In view
of this, feed intended for the aforementioned animals is produced mainly from fishmeal. This is putting additional
pressure on fish catches in the Baltic Sea basin, which is in turn affecting fish stocks. It must also be stressed that meat
and bone meal is cheaper than fishmeal and thus makes more economic sense for companies.

I should like to cite the findings of an EFSA‐approved scientific study ( [1] ) which contains an assessment of the BSE risk
posed by processed animal proteins. The assessment concludes that ‘less than one additional BSE infected cattle could
be expected in the EU cattle population per year with an upper 95% confidence’. This illustrates that the risk of
infection is negligible.

1. Is it possible to lift the ban on the use of meat and bone meal in the production of feed for ruminants and non‐
ruminants, excluding aquaculture animals?

2. If so, within what time frame can such a change be expected?

3. Is research being carried out into establishing an effective quality control system for raw materials used in the
production of meat and bone meal?

4. Does the Commission have data detailing the percentage of raw materials that are used in the production of
feed? I refer to those products listed in Chapter II of Commission Regulation (EU) No 56/2013.

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

Commission Regulation (EU) No 56/2013 ( [2] ) aims to reauthorise the use of processed animal proteins (PAPs) derived
from non-ruminant farmed animals (i.e. mainly from pigs and poultry) in feed for farmed fish and other aquaculture
animals. It is applicable from 1 June 2013 and is in line with latest EFSA opinions which indicate that the risk of
transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) between non-ruminant animals is negligible provided that
intra-species recycling (cannibalism) is prevented.

1. The Commission intends to propose, subject to the availability of validated specific analytical tests to ensure
appropriate official controls, a further measure to re-introduce the use of pig and poultry PAPs for poultry and pigs
respectively. The Commission does not intend to propose the re-authorisation of PAPs for feeding ruminant animals
(i.e. cattle, sheep or goats) or to propose to re-use PAPs from ruminants for feeding non-ruminant food producing
animals.

3. Only animal by-products (ABPs) derived from animals fit for human consumption can be used for producing
PAPs, and the way those ABP are produced, collected, transported, stored and used is strictly regulated by Regulation
(EC) No 1069/2009 ( [3] ) in order to avoid any risk for human and animal health. Competent authorities from Member
States shall control the correct implementation of those provisions.

4. The percentage of PAPs that could be incorporated in feed varies according the nutritional needs of the species
concerned: it is around 2-5% for poultry and pig feed and up to 40% for feed for carnivore fish.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EFSA. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1947.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 21, 24.1.2013, p. 3.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p. 1.

C 33 E / 392 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-004410/13**

**komissiolle**
**Riikka Manner (ALDE)**

_(18. huhtikuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Venäjän viisumivapaus

Vuoden 2003 EU:n ja Venäjän välisessä huippukokouksessa otettiin pitkän aikavälin tavoitteeksi viisumivapaus.
Viimeisten kymmenen vuoden aikana tavoitetta on viety yhä käytännöllisemmän valmistelun tasolle.

Suomi on hyvä esimerkki EU:n itärajavaltiosta, jossa viisumivapauden vaikutukset olisivat suorat ja mittavat.
Suomessa itärajan ylitykset ovat kasvaneet pitkään varsin voimakkaalla tahdilla. Silti kasvun mahdollisuudet ovat
vielä merkittävän suuret, vaikka huomioitaisiin ainoastaan Venäjän oma väkiluku. Sen lisäksi viisumivapauden
voidaan perustellusti uskoa kasvattavan myös muiden kuin Suomen ja Venäjän kansalaisten rajanylityksiä. Suomessa
on ministeriötasolla arvioitu, että viisumivapaus kolminkertaistaa rajanylitysten määrän.

Rajanylitysten määrän kasvun hallinta vaatii käytännön rajaturvallisuustyöltä toiminnallisesti paljon. On arvioitu,
ettei EU ole tällä hetkellä järjestelmien eikä rahoituksen suhteen valmis viisumivapauden laajentamiseen. Mikäli
esimerkiksi rajanylitystietojärjestelmien valmius ei ole operatiivisesti riittävällä tasolla, rajat ylittävän rikollisuuden,
ihmiskaupan ja laittoman maahantulon torjunta hankaloituu merkittävästi.

Kysynkin, onko komissio tehnyt vertailevan kartoituksen kaikkien EU-maiden ja erityisesti sen itärajalla sijaitsevien
valtioiden valmiudesta viisumivapauteen Venäjän kanssa? Onko komissiolla ajantasaista tietoa itäisten
rajanylityspaikkojen infrastruktuurin tasosta ja sen kehittämistarpeista ja ‐suunnitelmista?

**Cecilia Malmströmin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(4. kesäkuuta 2013)_

Komissio on tietoinen siitä, että jos viisumivapaus Venäjän federaation kanssa otetaan käyttöön, rajanylityspaikkojen
ja rajaturvallisuuden on tärkeää olla laadultaan asianmukaisia.

Tästä syystä asiakirjassa Yhteiset toimet Venäjän ja EU:n kansalaisten lyhytaikaisten matkojen viisumivapauden
toteuttamiseksi ( [1] ) määritellään kattavat vaatimukset, jotka koskevat rajaturvallisuuden ylläpitämistä koskevia
sääntöjä ja käytänteitä Venäjällä ja EU:ssa (ks. erityisesti asiakirjan 2.3 kohta). Yhteiset toimet on pantava täytäntöön
ennen kuin osapuolet päättävät EU:n ja Venäjän välistä viisumivapaussopimusta koskevien neuvottelujen
aloittamisesta.

Kaikkien yhteisten toimien täytäntöönpanoa arvioidaan parhaillaan, ja kun tiedot toimien kaikista neljästä osaalueesta on saatu koottua, komissio antaa kertomuksen täytäntöönpanon edistymisestä.

Samaan aikaan, ja ennen minkäänlaisten päätösten tekemistä, komissio laatii myös kattavan arvioinnin siitä, millaisia
vaikutuksia EU:lle olisi mahdollisesta viisumivapauden käyttöönotosta Venäjän kanssa. Tämän arvioinnin pitäisi
kattaa myös rajaturvallisuuteen liittyvät kysymykset.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/fi/11/st18/st18217.fi11.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 393

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004410/13**

**to the Commission**
**Riikka Manner (ALDE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Visa-free travel between Russia and the EU

At the EU-Russia summit in 2003, it was agreed that visa-free travel should be a long-term objective. In the past
10 years, preparations for achieving the objective have been proceeding on an increasingly practical basis.

Finland is a good example of an EU Member State on the EU’s eastern border where the impact of visa-free travel
would be direct and substantial. In Finland, numbers of people crossing the eastern border have for a long time been
growing at a considerable pace. Even so, there is still a good deal of scope for further increases, if only bearing in mind
the size of Russia’s own population. In addition, visa-free travel may also justifiably be expected to cause an increase
in numbers of people crossing the border who are not nationals of Finland or Russia. In Finland, it has been estimated
by the relevant ministry that visa-free travel will cause a threefold increase in the numbers of people crossing the
border.

Administering the increase in the number of people crossing the border is very demanding in terms of practical
border security operations. The view has been taken that, from the point of view of systems or funding, the EU is not
yet ready for an expansion of visa-free travel. If for example IT systems relating to border crossing are not yet
sufficiently operational, it will become very much more difficult to fight cross-border crime, trafficking in persons
and illegal immigration.

Has the Commission performed a comparative review of the preparedness of all EU countries, particularly those on
the eastern border, for visa-free travel with Russia? Does the Commission have up-to-date information about the
standard of infrastructure of border crossing points and the need/plans for developing it?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the importance of the appropriate quality of border crossing points and border
management for the possible visa free regime with the Russian Federation.

For this reason the Common Steps towards visa free short-term travel document, as agreed between the EU and the
Russian Federation, contain extensive benchmarks addressing the border management rules and practices both by
Russia and the EU (see in particular Section 2.3 of the document ( [1] )). The Common Steps need to be implemented
before the Parties decide on starting negotiations on an EU-Russia visa waiver agreement.

The evaluation of the implementation of all the Common Steps is ongoing and once the information on all four
blocks of the Common Steps are gathered, the Commission will present a report on the state of the implementation.

At the same time, and before any decision is taken, the Commission will also prepare a comprehensive assessment of
impact on the EU of a possible future visa liberalisation with Russia. This assessment should also cover border
management issues.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/international-affairs/russia/docs/ common_steps_ towards_visa_free_ short__travel_
term_en.pdf

C 33 E / 394 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004411/13**

**an den Rat**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Gesamtausgaben für Pauschalen für Reisen zum Herkunftsort von Beamten des Rates

Der Beamte hat für sich und, soweit er Anspruch auf die Haushaltszulage hat, für seinen Ehegatten und die
unterhaltsberechtigten Personen einmal jährlich Anspruch auf eine Pauschalvergütung der Reisekosten vom Ort der
dienstlichen Verwendung zum Herkunftsort (Anhang VII Abschnitt 3 C Artikel 8 des Statuts der Beamten der
Europäischen Gemeinschaften vom 1.5.2004).

1. Wie hoch waren jeweils in den Jahren 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012 die Ausgaben des Rates zur
Erstattung dieser im Statut vorgesehenen Ausgaben?

2. Wie viele Beamte des Rats erhielten jeweils in den Jahren 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012 den
automatischen Pauschalbetrag?

3. Wie hoch war die Auszahlung im Durchschnitt? Wie hoch war der niedrigste gezahlte Pauschalbetrag; wie
hoch war der höchste gezahlte Pauschalbetrag?

**Antwort**

_(24. Juni 2013)_

Die nachstehende Tabelle enthält die von dem Herrn Abgeordneten angeforderten Informationen. Es sei darauf
hingewiesen, dass die Zahlen für 2012 vorläufig sind, da in diesem Jahr möglicherweise noch Anpassungen an der
Anzahl der Anspruchsberechtigten und an den Beträgen vorgenommen werden.

|Jahr|Gesamtkosten|Anzahl|durchschnittlicher<br>Betrag|höchster Betrag|niedrigster Betrag|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|2007|4 442 643,30 EUR|2.574|1 725,97 EUR|10 244,51 EUR|0,70 EUR|
|2008|4 707 004,42 EUR|2.660|1 769,55 EUR|10 753,82 EUR|0,71 EUR|
|2009|4 901 256,64 EUR|2.661|1 841,89 EUR|11 251,48 EUR|2,92 EUR|
|2010|5 092 890,59 EUR|2.725|1 868,95 EUR|10 505,42 EUR|2,98 EUR|
|2011|4 975 263,75 EUR|2.834|1 755,56 EUR|10 760,80 EUR|3,08 EUR|
|2012|4 833 416,86 EUR|2.468|1 958,43 EUR|10 833,65 EUR|3,03 EUR|

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 395

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004411/13**

**to the Council**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Total expenditure on lump-sum allowances for travel by Council officials to their place of origin

Officials shall be entitled to be paid in each calendar year a sum equivalent to the cost of travel from the place of
employment to the place of origin for themselves and, if they are entitled to the household allowance, for the spouse
and dependants (Section 3 C Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
dated 1 May 2004).

1. What was the Council’s expenditure in making these payments as provided for in the Staff Regulations in 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012?

2. How many officials of the Council received the automatic lump-sum allowance in the years 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012?

3. What was the average payment? What was the lowest lump-sum allowance payment; what was the highest
lump-sum allowance payment?

**Reply**
_(24 June 2013)_

The table below shows the information requested by the Honourable Member. It should be pointed out that the
figures for 2012 are provisional, as it is still possible that some adjustments may be made this year to both the
number of entitled persons and the amounts.

|Year|Total cost|Number|Average payment|Maximum<br>payment|Minimum<br>payment|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|2007|EUR 4.442.643,30|2.574|EUR 1.725,97|EUR 10.244,51|EUR 0,70|
|2008|EUR 4.707.004,42|2.660|EUR 1.769,55|EUR 10.753,82|EUR 0,71|
|2009|EUR 4.901.256,64|2.661|EUR 1.841,89|EUR 11.251,48|EUR 2,92|
|2010|EUR 5.092.890,59|2.725|EUR 1.868,95|EUR 10.505,42|EUR 2,98|
|2011|EUR 4.975.263,75|2.834|EUR 1.755,56|EUR 10.760,80|EUR 3,08|
|2012|EUR 4.833.416,86|2.468|EUR 1.958,43|EUR 10.833,65|EUR 3,03|

C 33 E / 396 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004412/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Gesamtausgaben für Pauschalen für Reisen zum Herkunftsort von Beamten der Kommission

Der Beamte hat für sich und, soweit er Anspruch auf die Haushaltszulage hat, für seinen Ehegatten und die
unterhaltsberechtigten Personen einmal jährlich Anspruch auf eine Pauschalvergütung der Reisekosten vom Ort der
dienstlichen Verwendung zum Herkunftsort (Anhang VII Abschnitt 3 C Artikel 8 des Statuts der Beamten der
Europäischen Gemeinschaften vom 1.5.2004).

1. Wie hoch waren jeweils in den Jahren 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012 die Ausgaben der
Kommission zur Erstattung dieser im Statut vorgesehenen Ausgaben?

2. Wie viele Beamte der Kommission erhielten jeweils in den Jahren 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012
den automatischen Pauschalbetrag?

3. Wie hoch war die Auszahlung im Durchschnitt? Wie hoch war der niedrigste gezahlte Pauschalbetrag; wie
hoch war der höchste gezahlte Pauschalbetrag?

**Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission**

_(31. Mai 2013)_

Ungefähr 20 000 Personalmitglieder erhalten die jährliche Pauschalvergütung der Reisekosten vom Ort der
dienstlichen Verwendung zum Herkunftsort. Angaben zu den ausgezahlten Beträgen können den Arbeitsunterlagen
(„Verwaltungsausgaben“) im Anhang zum Haushaltsentwurf der Europäischen Kommission entnommen werden.

Die Höhe der einzelnen Beträge hängt u. a. von der Familienzusammensetzung ab.

Die Kommission hat im Rahmen ihres Vorschlags zur Änderung des Statuts (siehe KOM(2011)890) eine Änderung
der Berechnungsmethode dieser Pauschalvergütung vorgeschlagen.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 397

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004412/13**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Total expenditure on flat rates for travel by Commission officials to their place of origin

Officials shall be entitled to be paid in each calendar year a sum equivalent to the cost of travel from the place of
employment to the place of origin for themselves and, if they are entitled to the household allowance, for the spouse
and dependants (Section 3 C Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
dated 1 May 2004).

1. What was the Commission’s expenditure in making these payments as provided for in the Staff Regulations in
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012?

2. How many officials of the Commission received the automatic lump-sum allowance in the years 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012?

3. What was the average payment? What was the lowest lump-sum allowance payment; what was the highest
lump-sum allowance payment?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M. Šefčovič au nom de la Commission**

_(31 mai 2013)_

Environ 20 000 membres du personnel reçoivent un remboursement au titre de leur frais de voyage annuel.
L'Honorable Parlementaire trouvera les informations concernant les montants versés dans les documents de travail
annexés au projet de Budget de la Commission européenne intitulés «Dépenses Administratives».

Les montants individuels de ce remboursement dépendent notamment de la composition familiale.

Dans le cadre de son projet de modification du statut, la Commission a proposé de modifier les règles de calcul de ce
remboursement (voir COM(2011)890).

C 33 E / 398 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004413/13**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Gesamtausgaben für Pauschalen für Reisen zum Herkunftsort von EAD-Beamten

Der Beamte hat für sich und, soweit er Anspruch auf die Haushaltszulage hat, für seinen Ehegatten und die
unterhaltsberechtigten Personen einmal jährlich Anspruch auf eine Pauschalvergütung der Reisekosten vom Ort der
dienstlichen Verwendung zum Herkunftsort (Anhang VII Abschnitt 3 C Artikel 8 des Statuts der Beamten der
Europäischen Gemeinschaften vom 1.5.2004).

1. Wie viele Beamte des EAD erhielten jeweils in den Jahren 2010, 2011 und 2012 den automatischen
Heimreise-Pauschalbetrag?

2. Wie hoch waren jeweils in den Jahren 2010, 2011 und 2012 — soweit dies für den EAD getrennt erhoben
werden kann — die Kosten für Heimreise-Pauschalbeträge?

3. Wie hoch war der Pauschalbetrag im Durchschnitt? Wie hoch war der niedrigste gezahlte Pauschalbetrag; wie
hoch war der höchste gezahlte Pauschalbetrag?

4. Welche Heimreise-Sonderregelungen finden für Beamte des Europäischen Auswärtigen Diensts (EAD)
Anwendung?

5. Wie viele Beamte des EAD erhielten jeweils in den Jahren 2010, 2011 und 2012 Zahlungen nach speziellen
Heimreise-Sonderregelungen des EAD?

6. Wie hoch waren in den Jahren 2010, 2011 und 2012 die Aufwendungen des EAD für EAD-spezifische
Heimreise-Zahlungen?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(7. Juni 2013)_

1. Im Jahr 2011 haben 1 504 Beamte und Vertragsbedienstete des EAD einen Pauschalbetrag für jährliche
Reisekosten (vom Ort der dienstlichen Verwendung zum Herkunftsort) erhalten; im Jahr 2012 waren es 1 688. Da
der EAD erst im Laufe des Jahres 2010 gegründet wurde, liegen für dieses Jahr keine Angaben vor.

2. Die Pauschalvergütungen für Reisekosten beliefen sich im Jahr 2011 auf insgesamt 8 310 203 EUR; 2012
waren es 10 527 413,64 EUR.

3. Die Pauschalvergütung betrug durchschnittlich 5 525,40 EUR (2011) bzw. 6 236,62 EUR (2012). Die
einzelnen Beträge variieren je nach der familiären Situation des Empfängers.

4. Der EAD hat Regelungen für jährlich anfallende Reisekosten verabschiedet („Allgemeine Durchführungsbestimmungen zu
Artikel 8 des Anhangs VII des Beamtenstatuts“, Verwaltungsmitteilungen Nr. 56-2004, Kommissionsbeschluss K(2004)1588).

5. Für den EAD gelten keine Sonderregelungen für jährliche Reisekosten (vgl. Antwort zu Frage 1).

6. Der EAD leistet keine EAD-spezifischen Zahlungen für jährliche Reisekosten (vgl. Antwort zu Frage 2).

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 399

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004413/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Total expenditure on lump sum allowances for travel by officials of the European External Action
Service (EEAS) to their place of origin

Officials shall be entitled to be paid in each calendar year a sum equivalent to the cost of travel from the place of
employment to the place of origin for themselves and, if they are entitled to the household allowance, for the spouse
and dependants (Section 3 C Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
dated 1 May 2004).

1. How many officials of the EEAS received the automatic lump-sum allowance for journeys home in the years
2010, 2011 and 2012?

2. What were the costs for the lump-sum allowances for journeys home in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012,
insofar as these can be ascertained separately for the EEAS?

3. What was the average lump-sum allowance payment? What was the lowest lump-sum allowance payment;
what was the highest lump-sum allowance payment?

4. What special arrangements for journeys home apply to officials of the European External Action Service
(EEAS)?

5. How many officials of the EEAS received payments under the special EEAS arrangements for journeys home in
the years 2010, 2011 and 2012?

6. What was the expenditure of the EEAS for EEAS-specific payments for journeys home in the years 2010, 2011
and 2012?

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

_(7 June 2013)_

1. The number of officials and contract agents of the EEAS receiving a lump-sum allowance for annual travel
reached 1 504 for 2011 and 1 688 for 2012. Given the date of creation of the EEAS, 2010 figures are not available.

2. The payments for the lump-sum allowances for annual travel were EUR 8 310 203 in 2011 and EUR 10 527
413.64 for 2012.

3. The average lump-sum allowance was EUR 5 525.40 (2011) and EUR 6 236.62 (2012). Individual payments
vary depending on the family situation of the recipients.

4. The EEAS has adopted the arrangements for annual travel applicable for the Commission (General
Implementing Provisions ‘giving effect to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations’ Administrative Notices N°
56-2004, Commission Decision C(2004) 1588).

5. The EEAS does not have any special arrangements for annual travel (See Point 1).

6. The EEAS does not have any EEAS specific payments for annual travel (See Point 2).

C 33 E / 400 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004414/13**

**an den Rat**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Beamte mit Hauptwohnsitz in Luxemburg

Wie viele Beamte des Rates hatten in den Jahren 2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012 ihren Hauptwohnsitz in Luxemburg?

Wie viele Beamte davon arbeiten regelmäßig in Brüssel?

Wie hoch waren die Kosten für den Rat in den Jahren 2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012, die durch das Pendeln dieser
Beamten entstehen?

Welche zusätzlichen Zulagen bekommen Beamte, die in Brüssel arbeiten und ihren Hauptwohnsitz in Luxemburg
haben, im Gegensatz zu Beamten mit Hauptwohnsitz und Arbeitsort in Brüssel?

Wie hoch waren die Kosten in den Jahren 2009, 2010, 2011 und 2012 für die zusätzlichen Zulagen für Beamte mit
Hauptwohnsitz in Luxemburg?

**Antwort**

_(10. Juni 2013)_

Nur ein Beamter (eine Beamtin) hatte von 2009 bis 2011 seinen (ihren) Hauptwohnsitz in Luxemburg. Der Beamte
(die Beamtin) hatte im gesamten Zeitraum Urlaub aus persönlichen Gründen und wurde letztendlich zur
Europäischen Kommission nach Luxemburg versetzt. Dem Rat entstanden keine Kosten.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 401

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004414/13**

**to the Council**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Officials with their principal residence in Luxembourg

How many Council officials had their principal residence in Luxembourg in the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012?

How many of these officials regularly work in Brussels?

What were the costs incurred by the Council in the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 through commuting by these
officials?

What additional allowances are paid to officials who work in Brussels and who have their principal residence in
Luxembourg in contrast to officials who have their principal residence in Brussels and who also work there?

What were the costs incurred in the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 for the additional allowances for officials with
their principal residence in Luxembourg?

**Reply**
_(10 June 2013)_

Only one official had his/her principal residence in Luxembourg from 2009 until 2011. The official was on leave on
personal grounds for the whole period and finally transferred to the European Commission in Luxembourg. No costs
were incurred by the Council.

C 33 E / 402 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004415/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Compatibilidad del Código Penal Español con las directivas comunitarias en materia de propiedad intelectual

Pese a las múltiples reformas del Código Penal español y la existencia de directivas europeas que regulaban de manera
clara materias de propiedad intelectual, el legislador español se ha negado sistemáticamente a incluir modificaciones
en dicho código que permitan que los artículos 270 a 272 del Código Penal, delitos relativos a la propiedad
intelectual, sean compatibles con la legislación comunitaria.

En estos artículos se incluye el concepto de programa de ordenador dentro del concepto de derecho de autor, cuando
las directivas europeas como la Directiva 2009/24/CE sobre la protección jurídica de los programas de ordenador
(anterior Directiva 91/250/CEE) y múltiple jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como la
sentencia sobre el Asunto C-406/10 SAS Institute Inc./World Programming Ltd, entre otras, separan estos dos
conceptos, no considerándolo susceptible de la cobertura genérica de los derechos de autor, sino de una cobertura
específica.

Como consecuencia, la normativa española permite interpretar que los programas de ordenador y los mismos
ordenadores pueden venderse de manera conjunta y obligada, bajo la protección del Código Penal, mientras que la
misma Comisión, en el caso COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft y el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en su
sentencia sobre el Asunto T-167/08 Microsoft Corp./Comisión, consideraron esta práctica como claramente
contraria a la libre competencia.

¿Qué acciones piensa llevar a cabo la Comisión frente a este claro incumplimiento de la legislación comunitaria?

¿Considera la Comisión que la regulación española es contraria a la libre competencia? De ser así, ¿considera
recomendar al Reino de España la adopción de normativas que obliguen a separar la venta del ordenador de la de los
programas?

¿Qué recomendaciones haría la Comisión para que la legislación española se adaptase a la legislación comunitaria?

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(27 de junio de 2013)_

El artículo 4 del Tratado de la OMPI sobre Derecho de Autor establece que los programas de ordenador están
protegidos como obras literarias en el marco de lo dispuesto en el artículo 2 del Convenio de Berna ( [1] ). Con arreglo al
artículo 1, apartado 1, de la Directiva 2009/24/CE ( [2] ), «los Estados miembros protegerán mediante derechos de autor
los programas de ordenador como obras literarias tal como se definen en el Convenio de Berna ( [3] )». Además de la
protección que se deriva de la Directiva 2009/24/CE, los programas de ordenador están también protegidos por la
Directiva 2001/29/CE ( [4] ) ( [5] ). No obstante, el artículo 1, apartado 2, letra a) ( [6] ), de dicha Directiva dispone que esta
«dejará intactas y no afectará en modo alguno las disposiciones comunitarias vigentes relacionadas con: a) la
protección jurídica de los programas de ordenador» ( [7] ).

1. y 3. Desgraciadamente, resulta difícil valorar si puede haberse producido una infracción del Derecho de la UE
sobre la base de la información facilitada por Su Señoría. La Comisión estaría dispuesta a investigar el asunto si
recibiera información más detallada sobre la manera en que España no ha incorporado las Directivas a su
ordenamiento jurídico.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) El Tratado de la OMPI sobre Derecho de Autor fue ratificado en nombre de la Comunidad Europea mediante la Decisión 2000/278/CE del

Consejo, de 16 de marzo de 2000 (DO L 89 de 11.4.2000, p. 6).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 2009/24/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 23 de abril de 2009, sobre la protección jurídica de programas de ordenador.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Convenio de Berna para la Protección de las Obras Literarias y Artísticas.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directiva 2001/29/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 22 de mayo de 2001, relativa a la armonización de determinados aspectos de los

derechos de autor y derechos afines a los derechos de autor en la sociedad de la información (DO L 167 de 22.6.2001, p. 10).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Del artículo 1, apartado 2, letra a), de la Directiva 2001/29/CE se desprende que esta «dejará intactas y no afectará en modo alguno las

disposiciones comunitarias vigentes relacionadas con la protección jurídica de los programas de ordenador» otorgada por la Directiva
91/250/CEE, que luego fue codificada por la Directiva 2009/24/CE.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Véase el considerando 50 de la Directiva 2001/29/CE.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) El Tribunal de Justicia ha interpretado esta disposición en su sentencia en el asunto C-128/11, Usedsoft, en el sentido de que las disposiciones de la

Directiva 2009/24 constituyen lex specialis en relación con las disposiciones de la Directiva 2001/29, lo que significa que las disposiciones de la
Directiva 2009/24/CE priman sobre la aplicación de las disposiciones de esta última Directiva.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

( **|**
( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 403

2. Si la normativa española infringe la legislación de la UE en materia de competencia dependerá de un análisis
caso por caso de una serie de factores materiales, jurídicos y económicos. La Comisión señala que, en el asunto de
Microsoft, ni la Comisión ( [8] ) ni el Tribunal General de la Unión Europea ( [9] ) consideraron que la venta conjunta de
ordenadores y programas informáticos constituyese una infracción del artículo 102 del TFUE.

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Asunto COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Asuntos T-201/04 y T-167/08 Microsoft contra la Comisión.

C 33 E / 404 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004415/13**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Compatibility of the Spanish Criminal Code with EU directives on intellectual property

Despite the Spanish Criminal Code having been revised several times and the fact that there are EU directives which
clearly regulate intellectual property matters, the Spanish legislature has systematically neglected to amend the
Criminal Code to make Articles 270 to 272 thereof, on intellectual property offences, compatible with EC law.

These articles include the concept of computer programming within the concept of copyright, while EU directives
such as Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programs (previously Directive 91/250/EEC) and
extensive case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, such as the judgment in Case C-406/10 SAS
Institute Inc./World Programming Ltd, _inter alia_, separate these two concepts, not considering computer
programming eligible for generic cover under copyright, but for specific cover.

Consequently, Spanish legislation allows the interpretation that computer programs and computers themselves can
necessarily be sold together under the protection of the Criminal Code, while the Commission, in Case COMP/C3/37.792 Microsoft, and the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment in Case T-167/08 Microsoft
Corp./Commission, considered this practice clearly to run counter to free competition.

What action will the Commission take in response to this clear failure to comply with EC law?

Does the Commission think that Spanish legislation runs counter to free competition? If so, is it planning to
recommend that Spain adopt rules making it compulsory to sell computers separately from programs?

What recommendations will the Commission make to bring Spanish legislation into line with EU legislation?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

Article 4 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty states that ‘computer programs are protected as literary works within the
meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention’ ( [1] ). According to Article 1(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC ( [2] ), ‘Member
States shall protect computer programs, by copyright, as literary works within the meaning of the Berne
convention’ ( [3] ). In addition to the protection that follows from Directive 2009/24/EC, computer programs are also
protected by Directive 2001/29/EC ( [4] ) ( [5] ). However, it follows from Article 1.2 a) ( [6] ) that that directive ‘shall leave
intact and shall in no way affect Community provisions relating to: a) the legal protection of computer programs’ ( [7] ).

1 + 3. It is unfortunately difficult to assess whether there could be a possible violation of EC law on the basis of the
facts provided by the Honourable Member. The Commission is willing to investigate the matter should it be provided
with more detailed information on how Spain has failed to transpose the directives.

2. Whether Spanish legislation is in breach of EU competition law will depend on a case-by-case analysis of a range
of factual, legal and economic factors. The Commission notes that in Microsoft, neither the Commission ( [8] ), nor the
General Court of the European Union ( [9] ) found that the joint-selling of computer programs and computers
constituted a breach of Article 102 TFEU.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The WIPO Copyright Treaty was ratified on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2000/278/EC of 16 March 2000 (OJ 2000 L

89, p. 6).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/24 /EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Berne convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and

related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10-19.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) It follows from Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC that the directive ‘leave[s] intact and … in no way affect[s] existing … provisions [of

European Union law] relating to … the legal protection of computer programs’ conferred by Directive 91/250, which was subsequently codified
by Directive 2009/24.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) See also Recital 50 of Directive 2001/29/EC.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) The Court has interpreted this provision in its judgment in Case C-128/11, Usedsoft, stating that ‘the provisions of Directive 2009/24 […]

constitute lex specialis in relation to the provisions of Directive 2001/29’, which means that the provisions in Directive 2009/24/EC shall take
precedent over the provisions in the latter directive.

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Case COMP/C-3/37.792 _Microsoft_ .
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Cases T-201/04 and T-167/08 _Microsoft_ v _Commission_ .

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

( **|**
( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|**
( **|**

⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 405

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004416/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Situación del Parque Nacional Marítimo Terrestre del Archipiélago de Cabrera

Oceana ha denunciado la insostenible situación del Parque Nacional Marítimo-Terrestre del Archipiélago de Cabrera
que ha empeorado con creces en el último año tras la reducción drástica de presupuesto destinado a personal de
control, mantenimiento e investigación y seguimiento. La consecuencia inmediata es la incentivación de la pesca
ilegal y la actividad de los furtivos, cosa que contradice flagrantemente lo dispuesto en la Directiva sobre hábitats.
Actualmente para las 10 000 hectáreas del Parque Nacional Marítimo-Terrestre del Archipiélago de Cabrera se
dispone de un grupo de ocho trabajadores que repartidos en turnos semanales resulta que se hacen cargo al mismo
tiempo de todo el archipiélago (dos islas y quince islotes) un vigilante y un agente medioambiental. Esta situación se
debe a la no renovación por parte del Gobierno Balear del contrato con la empresa Tragsa que ha supuesto el despido
de veintidós personas. Oceana también denuncia que el ejecutivo autonómico ha desviado el 5 millones de euros de
aportación anual del Estado a otros fines que nada tienen que ver con la gestión del archipiélago, dejando al Parque
Nacional en la situación más precaria en la que se ha visto desde su creación.

¿Cómo valora la Comisión la denuncia de Oceana en torno al proceso de desmantelamiento de facto que está
sufriendo el Parque Nacional Marítimo-Terrestre del Archipiélago de Cabrera?

¿Qué acciones piensa llevar a cabo la Comisión, en base a la legislación comunitaria y estatal que prohíbe desde 2006
de manera expresa la pesca con redes de arrastre en las zonas con presencia de fondos de coralígeno y maërl?

**Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión**

_(7 de junio de 2013)_

1. El archipiélago de Cabrera ha sido designado por España como lugar perteneciente a la red Natura 2000, con
arreglo a lo dispuesto en la Directiva sobre hábitats ( [1] ) y la Directiva sobre aves ( [2] ). De conformidad con el artículo 6
de la Directiva sobre hábitats, las autoridades españolas deben implantar las medidas de conservación necesarias y
evitar el deterioro de los hábitats naturales y las alteraciones que repercutan en las especies que hayan motivado la
designación de la zona, a través de una gestión eficaz de la misma, incluidas una vigilancia y financiación adecuadas.
Sin embargo, las modalidades concretas de la gestión del parque nacional son competencia nacional.

2. La Comisión coincide con Su Señoría en que es fundamental la protección de las zonas con presencia de fondos
de coralígeno y maërl.

Sin embargo, el control de las actividades pesqueras llevadas a cabo en aguas de los Estados miembros es competencia
nacional. La UE ha adoptado un conjunto de normas relativas a dicho control y a la lucha contra la pesca ilegal, si bien
es responsabilidad del Estado miembro garantizar que dichas normas se apliquen correctamente y que se penalicen las
infracciones.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo, de 21 de mayo de 1992, relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres

(DO L 206 de 22.7.1992).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 2009/147/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 30 de noviembre de 2009, relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres

(DO L 20 de 26.1.2010, p. 7), que codifica la Directiva 79/409/CEE del Consejo, de 2 de abril de 1979, relativa a la conservación de las aves
silvestres.

( **|**

C 33 E / 406 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004416/13**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Situation of the Cabrera Archipelago Maritime-Terrestrial National Park

Oceana, the marine conservation organisation, has condemned the unsustainable situation of the Cabrera
Archipelago Maritime-Terrestrial National Park, which has markedly deteriorated in the last year after a drastic cut in
the budget for management, maintenance, and research and monitoring staff. The immediate consequence is to
encourage illegal fishing and poaching, in clear breach of the Habitats Directive. A group of eight people currently
work on the 10 000 hectares of the Cabrera Archipelago Maritime-Terrestrial National Park sharing weekly shifts,
meaning that at any given time one watchman and one environmental officer are responsible for the whole
archipelago (2 islands and 15 islets). This situation has been brought about by the Balearic Government not renewing
its contract with the company Tragsa, meaning that 22 people have lost their jobs. Oceana also condemns the fact
that the autonomous executive has diverted the EUR 5 million in annual state aid for other purposes which have
nothing to do with the management of the archipelago, leaving the National Park in the most precarious situation it
has faced since its creation.

How does the Commission assess Oceana’s criticism regarding the de facto dismantling of the Cabrera Archipelago
Maritime-Terrestrial National Park?

What steps will the Commission take given that EU and state legislation has, since 2006, explicitly prohibited fishing
with trawl nets in areas where there are coralligenous habitats and mäerl beds?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

1. The site _Archipèlag de Cabrera_ has been designated by Spain for the Natura 2000 network under the provisions of
the Habitats ( [1] ) and Birds Directives ( [2] ). In accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, Spanish authorities are
required to put in place the necessary conservation measures and to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and
disturbance to the species for which the area has been designated, by ensuring the effective management of the area,
including its adequate wardening and financing. However, the detailed arrangements for the management of the
national park are a matter of national competence.

2. The Commission agrees with the Honourable member that the protection of areas where there are coralligenous
habitats and mäerl beds habitats is essential.

Nevertheless, the control of fishing activities performed in the Member States' waters is essentially a matter of national
competence. The EU has adopted a comprehensive set of rules to deal with the control of fishing activities and to
combat illegal fishing but it is primarily the responsibility of the Member State to ensure that they are correctly
applied and that infringements are sanctioned.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20/7,

26.1.2010) that codifies the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 407

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004417/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Coexistencia ganadería-lobo

El Proyecto Wolf, Wild Life and Farmers, está formado por once Grupos de Desarrollo Rural de España, Estonia y
Portugal, por el que se busca alternativas para garantizar la agro-compatibilidad y coexistencia de la ganadería
extensiva y el lobo.

Dicho proyecto ha concluido que, debido al número y distribución actual de lobos, tanto en España como en Europa,
es obligado hacer una gestión adecuada para garantizar la biodiversidad y la coexistencia ganadera, más teniendo en
cuenta la actual Política Agraria Europea, dirigida a la utilización de mayores superficies, lo que conlleva a acrecentar
los problemas en esta relación lobo-ganadería.

Por ello, los grupos sostienen que es conveniente, dentro de la PAC, incluir en el pago compensatorio verde a los
ganaderos con actividad extensiva en zonas loberas por los servicios ambientales que prestan, así como a los
ganaderos en zonas loberas que se hallen en zonas con limitaciones naturales.

A su vez, proponen la inclusión de líneas específicas para zonas loberas dentro de los Programas Agroambientales
que incluyan medidas de prevención y de compensación de daños.

¿Piensa la Comisión tener en cuenta estas medidas? En su defecto, ¿qué medidas de coexistencia entre ambas partes
propone? ¿Se plantea la Comisión la posibilidad de una regulación uniforme y clara de dotación en cuanto a la
defensa del ganado, así como con respecto a las medidas compensatorias por daños por ataques de lobos?

**Respuesta del Sr. Cioloş en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

En el marco del pilar de la PAC relativo al desarrollo rural y durante el actual y el próximo período de programación,
los Estados miembros pueden prestar ayuda a aquellos agricultores que pongan en marcha distintas medidas de
prestación de servicios medioambientales. Las prácticas extensivas de explotación agrícola que proporcionan bienes
públicos medioambientales pueden beneficiarse de medidas agroambientales, así como de otras medidas, tales como
las inversiones no productivas vinculadas a objetivos medioambientales.

Estas últimas incluyen la posibilidad de prestar ayuda para acciones preventivas destinadas a paliar el riesgo de daños
causados por grandes carnívoros a la ganadería.

En cuanto a la indemnización por los daños causados por carnívoros, el marco jurídico de la PAC no contempla la
concesión de este tipo de indemnización.

En el contexto de distintas decisiones sobre ayudas estatales ( [1] ), la Comisión ha procedido ya a una evaluación de
medidas de financiación exclusivamente nacionales de indemnización por los daños causados por carnívoros, en el
marco del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea («TFUE»). Como alternativa, los Estados miembros pueden
conceder a los agricultores, a lo largo de un período de tres años, una ayuda _de minimis_ de hasta 7 500 euros para
medidas preventivas y a modo de indemnización por los daños causados por carnívoros, de conformidad con el
Reglamento (CE) n° 1535/2007 ( [2] ).

En el marco de la revisión de las Directrices comunitarias aplicables a la agricultura y la silvicultura en 2007-2013,
como parte del proceso de modernización de las ayudas estatales actualmente en curso, se contempla la posible
inclusión de disposiciones específicas sobre ayudas estatales para daños causados por animales predadores.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) N 723/2009-«indemnización por daños causados por carnívoros» (Sajonia); SA.34622 — indemnización financiera con cargo al «Fondo de

indemnización grandes predadores» por daños causados por lobos, linces y osos (Baviera); SA.33040 — indemnización por daños causados por
lobos (Brandenburgo); se pueden consultar las decisiones en: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register/

( ⋅2∙ ) DO L 337 de 21.12.2007.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 33 E / 408 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004417/13**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Coexistence of wolves and livestock farming

The ‘Wolf: Wildlife and Farmers’ project brings together 11 rural development groups from Spain, Estonia and
Portugal with the aim of looking for alternative ways to guarantee agricultural compatibility and coexistence between
extensive livestock farming and wolves.

This project has concluded that, owing to the number and current distribution of wolves, in Spain and in the rest of
Europe, proper management is needed to guarantee biodiversity and coexistence with livestock, while taking into
account the current common agricultural policy (CAP), which aims at using larger areas, leading to more problems in
the relationship between wolves and livestock farming.

For this reason, the groups claim that the CAP should include greening payments for livestock farmers who farm
extensively in areas where wolves are present for the environmental services they provide, as well as for livestock
farmers in areas where wolves are present, located in areas with natural constraints.

They suggest including specific delineated areas where wolves are present within agri-environmental programmes,
including ways to prevent and compensate for losses.

Will the Commission take these measures into consideration? If not, what measures does it suggest to promote
coexistence between livestock farming and wolves? Will the Commission consider the possibility of a uniform, clear
regulation for providing resources to protect livestock, as well as for compensating for losses caused by wolf attacks?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

In the framework of rural development pillar of the CAP, in the current and next programming period, Member States
may provide support for farmers undertaking various measures with the aim of delivering environmental services.
Extensive methods of farming providing environmental public goods can be supported under the agri-environment
measure but also under other measures such as non-productive investments linked to environmental objectives.

The latter measure includes the possibility to grant support for preventive actions aimed at mitigating the risk of
damages done by large carnivores to livestock farming.

With regard to the possible compensation for damages done by carnivores, the CAP legal framework does not foresee
the possibility of granting such compensation.

In several state aid decisions ( [1] ), the Commission has already assessed pure national financing measures aiming at
compensating for damages caused by carnivores directly under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU). As an alternative, Member States may grant to farmers for preventive measures and for compensation of
damages done by carnivores, _de minimis_ aid up to 7 500 EUR over a three-year-period under Regulation
1535/2007 ( [2] ).

In the framework of the revision of the Community Guidelines for agriculture and forestry 2007-2013, as part of the
ongoing State Aid Modernisation (SAM) process, consideration is given to include specific provisions on state aid for
damages caused by predatory animals.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) N 723/2009-‘Compensation for damages caused by carnivores’ (Saxony); SA.34622 Financial compensation by the ‘Compensation funds large

predators’ for damages caused by wolfs, lynxes and bears (Bavaria); SA.33040 Compensation for damages caused by wolves (Brandenburg).
Decisions are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register/

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 337, 21.12.2007.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 409

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004418/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Ganado porcino

En 2001 se aprobó la Directiva Europea para determinar las normas mínimas para la protección de cerdos (Directiva
2001/88/CE, de 23 de octubre de 2001, por la que se modifica la Directiva 91/630/CEE, relativa a las normas
mínimas para la protección de cerdos). En ambas legislaciones se fijan los requisitos que deben cumplir todas las
instalaciones para cerdos confinados destinados a la cría o al engorde y además se establecía un plazo de diez años
para la aplicación de la citada normativa en el caso de las explotaciones existentes. Es decir, desde el 2003 era de
obligado cumplimiento para aquellas instalaciones nuevas o las que se reconstruyan, y a partir del 2013 es de
obligado cumplimiento para la totalidad.

Sin embargo, a pesar de la nueva normativa, es necesario seguir trabajando a fin de mejorar el bienestar del ganado
porcino. El artículo 3 de dicha Directiva establece que los Estados miembros deben velar por que las cerdas y las
cerdas jóvenes se críen en grupos, con al menos diez cerdas o más. Directriz que sigue sin cumplirse por parte de los
productores de algunos Estados miembros. A su vez, cada año son mutilados cientos de cerdos, a los cuales se les
corta la cola o son castrados a veces con tijeras, o se les extraen los dientes de atrás incluso utilizando alicates, a pesar
de que la Directiva establece claramente que dichos procedimientos no pueden llevarse a cabo de forma rudimentaria.

La industria se escuda aduciendo que dichas mutilaciones son necesarias para evitar que los cerdos se ataquen unos a
otros mediante caudofagia. Pero esta situación la han creado ellos mismos debido a las lamentables condiciones de las
granjas.

¿Cómo piensa actuar la Comisión para garantizar el pleno cumplimiento de la Directiva 2001/88/CE? ¿Tiene previsto
imponer algún tipo de sanción a aquellos productores que no cumplan con la normativa? ¿Se plantea estudiar
alternativas a la castración? ¿Qué opciones menos agresivas propone al corte de cola, así como a la extracción de
dientes?

**Respuesta del Sr. Borg en nombre de la Comisión**

_(29 de mayo de 2013)_

En lo que respecta a la Directiva 2008/120/CE ( [1] ) y al requisito de estabulación en grupo de las cerdas, el 21 de febrero
de 2013 la Comisión incoó procedimientos de infracción contra nueve Estados miembros por incumplimiento. Por
lo que se refiere a las demás cuestiones, como el suministro de materiales manipulables, la Comisión tiene previsto
elaborar directrices, que pueden ayudar tanto a los productores de porcino como a las autoridades de los Estados
miembros en sus esfuerzos para dar cumplimiento a lo dispuesto en la Directiva, evitando así, por ejemplo, tener que
amputar la cola de los cerdos.

Por lo que respecta a las alternativas a la castración de los cerdos, actualmente se están realizando cinco estudios, y se
espera que sus resultados contribuyan a garantizar que, de aquí a 2018, se vaya reduciendo progresivamente la
castración quirúrgica.

Además, es responsabilidad de los Estados miembros adoptar todas las medidas necesarias para garantizar el
cumplimiento de las medidas y/o de las sanciones, tal como se establece en los artículos 54 y 55 del Reglamento (CE)
n° 882/2004 ( [2] ), sobre los controles oficiales para corregir la situación si se detectan casos de incumplimiento.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 47 de 18.2.2009, p. 5.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DO L 191 de 28.5.2004.

C 33 E / 410 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004418/13**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Pigs

The EU directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs was adopted in 2001 (Council
Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the
protection of pigs). Both directives laid down the requirements to be met by all installations with pigs confined for
rearing or fattening, and a period of 10 years was established for existing holdings to comply with the rules. In other
words, compliance had been compulsory since 2003 for newly built or rebuilt holdings, and has been compulsory for
all holdings as of 2013.

However, despite the new rules, work is still needed to improve pigs’ well-being. Article 3 of the directive lays down
that Member States must ensure that sows and gilts are reared in groups of at least 10 sows or more. This guideline is
still being ignored by producers in some Member States. Each year hundreds of pigs are mutilated, having their tails
cut off or being castrated, sometimes with scissors, or having their back teeth extracted, even with pliers, despite the
directive clearly stipulating that these practices must not be carried out in a rudimentary manner.

The industry hides behind claims that these mutilations are necessary to stop the pigs attacking each other by tail
biting. However, it is the industry that has created this situation, owing to the deplorable conditions on farms.

What will the Commission do to guarantee full compliance with Directive 2001/88/EC? Does it plan to impose some
kind of sanction on producers who do not comply with the rules? Will alternatives to castration be looked into? What
less brutal alternatives are there to tail docking and tooth extraction?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

With regard to Directive 2008/120/EC ( [1] ) and the requirement for group housing of sows the Commission on
21 February 2013 launched infringement proceedings against nine Member States for non-compliance. On other
issues such as the provision of manipulable material the Commission plans to develop guidelines. Such guidelines
may assist both pig producers and Member States' authorities in their efforts to comply with the directive and thus
e.g. avoid the need to tail dock pigs.

With regard to alternatives to pig castration currently five studies are being performed the outcomes of which should
help ensure the phasing out of surgical castration by 2018.

It is furthermore the responsibility of the Member States to take all the necessary enforcement measures and/or
sanctions as laid down in Articles 54 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 ( [2] ) on official controls to correct the
situation if cases of non-compliance are discovered.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 47, 18.2.2009; p 5.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 191, 28.5.2004.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 411

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004419/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Rechtsrahmen für die gerätgebundene Lizenzierung von Software

Im Februar 2013 wurde bekannt, dass das US-Unternehmen Microsoft die neue Version seiner Bürosoftware
„Office 2013“ mit einer gerätgebundenen Lizenz verkaufen will. Diese Lizenz sieht vor, dass die Software nur auf
einem einzigen Gerät genutzt werden darf; selbst nach einer Deinstallation oder nach Versagen der Hardware kann
Office 2013 somit nicht auf einem neuen Gerät installiert werden. Am 3. Juli 2012 entschied der Europäische
Gerichtshof in einem Urteil zum Wiederverkaufsrecht für Software, dass Software und Lizenzvertrag ein „unteilbares
Ganzes“ darstellen.

1. Sind gerätgebundene Lizenzen nach den EU-Rechtsrahmen für Wettbewerbs‐ und Konsumentenschutzrecht
erlaubt, oder regeln andere europäische Richtlinien diesen Bereich?

2. Falls solche Lizenzen nicht erlaubt sind, welche Maßnahmen wird die Kommission ergreifen, falls Microsoft das
Office 2013-Paket mit einer solchen Lizenz in der EU anbietet?

3. Falls solche Lizenzen erlaubt sind, plant die Kommission Regelungen zum Schutz von Verbrauchern, die dies
ändern?

**Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission**

_(19. Juni 2013)_

In der Softwarebranche ist es gängige Praxis, dass Softwareanbieter je nach Bedarf ihrer Kunden verschiedene Arten
von Softwarelizenzen anbieten und die Preise entsprechend staffeln. Ein solches Vorgehen allein gibt keinen Anlass zu
Bedenken in Bezug auf das Wettbewerbsrecht oder den Verbraucherschutz, da die Verbraucher auf diese Weise selbst
das Lizenzpakete auswählen können, das am ehesten ihren Bedürfnissen entspricht.

Unabhängig von der Würdigung nach dem EU‐Wettbewerbsrecht ist zu prüfen, ob es einschlägige abgeleitete
Rechtsvorschriften zu Fragen im Zusammenhang mit gerätgebundenen Lizenzen gibt. Nach Artikel 7 der
Richtlinie 2009/24 sind die Mitgliedstaaten verpflichtet, gemäß ihren innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften geeignete
Maßnahmen gegen Personen vorzusehen, die Mittel in Verkehr bringen, die dazu bestimmt sind, die unerlaubte
Beseitigung technischer Programmschutzmechanismen zu erleichtern ( [1] ).

Zahlreiche EU‐Richtlinien verpflichten Händler ferner, die Verbraucher vor dem Kauf über die wesentlichen
Merkmale des Produkts klar zu informieren (Art. 4 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Richtlinie 97/7/EG, Art. 7 Abs. 4 Buchst. a der
Richtlinie 2005/29/EG, Art. 22 Abs. 1 Buchst. j). Sobald die Richtlinie 2011/83/EU über die Rechte der Verbraucher
in den Mitgliedstaaten im Juni 2014 in den Mitgliedstaaten in Kraft getreten ist, müssen die Händler nicht nur die
Verbraucher von den wesentlichen Eigenschaften in Kenntnis setzen (Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a und Art. 6 Abs. 1
Buchst. a), sondern sie auch gezielt informieren über „die Funktionsweise digitaler Inhalte, einschließlich anwendbarer
technischer Schutzmaßnahmen für solche Inhalte“ und „gegebenenfalls — soweit wesentlich — die Interoperabilität
digitaler Inhalte mit Hard‐ und Software, soweit diese dem Unternehmer bekannt ist oder vernünftigerweise bekannt
sein muss“ (Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. g und h, Art. 6 Abs. 1 Buchst. r und s).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Bisher liegt kein Urteil des Gerichtshofs zum Umfang des mit dieser Bestimmung gewährten Schutzes vor. Der Gerichtshof hat kürzlich jedoch in

einem anderen Zusammenhang entschieden, dass sich der zweite Erwerber einer Nutzungslizenz auf die Erschöpfung des Verbreitungsrechts nach
Art. 4 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2009/24 berufen kann und somit im Sinne von Art. 5 Abs. 1 der Richtlinie als rechtmäßiger Erwerber einer
Programmkopie anzusehen ist (Urteil vom 3. Juli 2012, UsedSoft/Oracle, C‐128/11). Der Gerichtshof urteilte ferner, dass der
Urheberrechtsinhaber zwar dem Weiterverkauf nicht widersprechen kann, aber mit allen ihm zur Verfügung stehenden technischen Mitteln
sicherstellen darf, dass die beim Verkäufer noch vorhandene Kopie unbrauchbar gemacht wird.

C 33 E / 412 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004419/13**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Legal framework for the device-specific licensing of software

In February 2013 it became known that US company Microsoft intends selling the new version of its ‘Office 2013’
software with a device-specific license. This license means that the software can only be used on a single device, so
that Office 2013 cannot be installed on a new device even after it has been removed from the original device or after a
hardware failure. On 3 July 2012, in a judgment on software resale rights, the European Court of Justice determined
that a software and licensing agreement constitutes an ‘indivisible whole’.

1. Are device-specific licenses permitted according to the EU legal framework for competition and consumer
protection law, or do other European directives regulate this area?

2. If such licenses are not permitted, what measures does the Commission plan to take if Microsoft offers the
Office 2013 package for sale in the EU with a license of this kind?

3. If such licenses are permitted, is the Commission planning to introduce regulations to protect consumers that
change this?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

It is a common practice in the software industry for vendors to offer different types of software licences in accordance
with customer needs and to price them accordingly. This practice does not, in itself, give rise to competition or
consumer protection concerns, as it may allow consumers to purchase the licensing package which best suits their
needs.

Any assessment under EU competition law is also separate from the issue of whether there is any relevant secondary
legislation which addresses any of the issues raised by device specific licences. Article 7 of Directive 2009/24 requires
Member States to provide appropriate remedies against persons that put into circulation the means to facilitate the
unauthorised removal of technical devices that are applied to protect a program. ( [1] )

In addition, several EU Directives oblige traders to inform the consumer clearly before the purchase on the key
characteristics of the product (Art. 4(1)(b) of Directive 97/7/EC, Article 7(4)(a) of Directive 2005/29/EC, Article 22(1)
(j). Once Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights takes effect in the Member States in June 2014, it will, beyond
the obligation to inform consumers on the main characteristics (Article 5(1)(a) and Article 6(1)(a) also oblige traders
to inform consumers specifically on ‘functionality, including applicable technical protection measures, of digital
content’, and ‘where applicable, any relevant interoperability of digital content with hardware and software that the
trader is aware of or can reasonably be expected to have been aware of’ (Article 5(1)(g) and (h), Article 6(1)(r) and (s)).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) There is as yet no judgment of the Court of Justice on the scope of the protection granted under this provision. However, the Court has recently

ruled in another context that a secondary purchaser of a software licence can rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of
Directive 2009/24 and hence be regarded as a lawful acquirer of a copy of a computer program (judgment of 3 July 2012 in Case C-128/11
(UsedSoft/Oracle). The Court also held that whilst the rightholder cannot object to the resale, it may nevertheless ensure by all technical means at
his disposal that the copy still in the hands of the reseller is made unuseable.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 413

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004420/13**

**an den Rat**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Standpunkt des Rates zur Sicherheit europäischer Computersysteme

Medien berichteten Anfang 2013 wiederholt darüber, dass Einbrüche in Computersysteme von US-Unternehmen
und Organisationen von scheinbar staatlichen Akteuren oder zumindest mit Duldung staatlicher Akteure der
Volksrepublik China verübt wurden.

1. Hat der Rat in den letzten drei Jahren die Sicherheit von (a) privaten europäischen Computersystemen,
(b) europäischer Infrastruktur und (c) staatlichen europäischen Einrichtungen sowie den Schutz dieser Systeme vor
staatlichen und nichtstaatlichen Cyberattacken besprochen?

2. Welche Pläne verfolgt der Rat was die Zusammenarbeit im Bereich der digitalen Sicherheit innerhalb der EU
betrifft?

**Antwort**

_(24. Juni 2013)_

(a) Der Rat möchte einige Initiativen hervorheben, die im Hinblick auf private europäische Computersysteme
ergriffen wurden:

—
der Rat hat in seinen Schlussfolgerungen zu der Mitteilung der Kommission zur EU-Strategie der inneren
Sicherheit ( [1] ) erklärt, dass ein besserer Schutz der Bürger und Unternehmen im Cyberspace — neben den vier
anderen von der Kommission ermittelten strategischen Zielen für die innere Sicherheit — für eine weitere
Stärkung der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts in der Europäischen Union von entscheidender Bedeutung
sind;

—
der Rat hat die Bekämpfung der Cyberkriminalität und des kriminellen Missbrauchs des Internets durch
organisierte kriminelle Gruppen als eine der Prioritäten der Europäischen Union für die Bekämpfung der
organisierten Kriminalität in den Jahren 2011‐2013 festgelegt ( [2] );

—
der Rat hat Schlussfolgerungen zur Errichtung eines Europäischen Zentrums zur Bekämpfung der
Cyberkriminalität ( [3] ) angenommen, welches sich mit den unterschiedlichen Bereichen der Cyberkriminalität
befasst und als europäische Anlaufstelle für Informationen über Cyberstraftaten dient.

(b) Bezüglich der europäischen Infrastruktur sind die Schlussfolgerungen des Rates zum Schutz kritischer
Informationsinfrastrukturen („Ergebnisse und nächste Schritte: der Weg zur globalen Netzsicherheit“ ( [4] )) zu nennen,
in denen auf die Bedeutung hingewiesen wird, die dem Aufbau nationaler/staatlicher IT-Notfalldienste (Computer
Emergency Response Teams — CERTs), der Ausarbeitung nationaler Notfallpläne für Netzstörungen sowie der
Veranstaltung von nationalen Übungen zur Internetsicherheit zukommt.

(c) Was die europäischen Verwaltungseinrichtungen und den Schutz ihrer Systeme vor staatlichen und
nichtstaatlichen Cyber-Angriffen anbelangt, so wurde im Rat ein Meldeverfahren für Netzsicherheitsverletzungen ( [5] )
eingeführt und für die Organe und sonstigen Stellen der EU wurde ein CERT eingerichtet ( [6] ), nachdem Rolle und
Wirksamkeit dieses Notfalldienstes nach einer einjährigen Pilotphase positiv beurteilt worden waren.

Der Rat prüft gegenwärtig einen Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über Maßnahmen zur Gewährleistung einer hohen
gemeinsamen Netz‐ und Informationssicherheit in der Union, den die Kommission am 7. Februar 2013
angenommen hat.

Die Europäische Agentur für Netz‐ und Informationssicherheit (ENISA) wird in dieser Hinsicht eine wichtige Rolle
spielen, indem sie auf der Grundlage ihres verlängerten Mandats, auf das sich der Rat und das Parlament Anfang dieses
Jahres geeinigt haben, auf EU-Ebene Fachwissen und Beratung anbieten wird.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dok. 6699/11 JAI 124.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dok. 11050/11 JAI 396 COSI 46 ENFOPOL 184 CRIMORG 81 ENFOCUSTOM 52 PESC 718 RELEX 603.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Dok. 10603/12 ENFOPOL 154 TELECOM 116.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Dok. 10299/11 TELECOM 71 DATAPROTECT 55 JAI 332 PROCIV 66. Siehe auch Dok. 10494/11, S. 8.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Dok. 8184/2/10 REV 2 EXT 1 CSC 15 SAP 5 CSCI 8.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Dok. 13737/12 CIS 5 CSC 56.

C 33 E / 414 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004420/13**

**to the Council**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The Council's position on the security of European computer systems

At the beginning of 2013, the media repeatedly reported that cyber-attacks on the computer systems of US businesses
and organisations had been perpetrated by actors apparently operating with at least the tolerance, if not the actual
backing, of the Government of the People’s Republic of China.

1. Over the last three years, has the Council discussed the security of (a) private European computer systems,
(b) European infrastructure and (c) European governmental institutions and the protection of these systems against
state and non-state cyber-attacks?

2. What plans is the Council pursuing in relation to cooperation in the area of digital security within the EU?

**Reply**
_(24 June 2013)_

(a) The Council would like to hightlight some initiatives regarding private European computer systems.

— In its conclusions on the Commission communication on the European Union internal security strategy in
action ( [1] ), the Council stated that raising levels of security for citizens and businesses in cyberspace, along with the
other four strategic objectives for internal security developed by the Commission, is crucial to further strengthening
freedom, security and justice in the European Union.

— The Council made the fight against cybercrime and criminal misuse of the Internet by organised crime groups one
of the European Union's priorities in the fight against organised crime between 2011 and 2013 ( [2] ).

— The Council adopted conclusions on the establishment of a European Cybercrime Centre ( [3] ) which focuses on
different areas of cybercrime and serves as the European cybercrime information focal point.

(b) Concerning European infrastructure, the Council adopted conclusions on Critical Information Infrastructure
Protection (‘Achievements and next steps: towards global cybersecurity’ ( [4] )), underlining the importance of the
development of National/Governmental Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) and the elaboration of
national cyber incident contingency plans as well as the organisation of national cyber exercises.

(c) Concerning European governmental institutions and the protection of these systems against state and non-state
cyber-attacks,a Network Security Incident Alert Mechanism has been established in the Council ( [5] ) and a CERT for
the EU institutions, bodies and agencies has been set up ( [6] ) following a pilot phase of one year and successful
assessment of its role and effectiveness.

The Council has begun the examination of the proposal for a directive concerning measures to ensure a high
common level of network and information security across the Union, which the Commission adopted on
7 February 2013.

The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) will play a key role in this regard and will provide
expertise and advice at EU level on the basis of its renewed mandate, agreed by the Council and the Parliament earlier
this year.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Doc. 6699/11 JAI 124.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Doc. 11050/11 JAI 396 COSI 46 ENFOPOL 184 CRIMORG 81 ENFOCUSTOM 52 PESC. 718 RELEX 603.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Doc. 10603/12 ENFOPOL 154 TELECOM 116.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Doc. 10299/11 TELECOM 71 DATAPROTECT 55 JAI 332 PROCIV 66. See also 10494/11 (p. 8).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Doc. 8184/2/10 REV 2 EXT 1 CSC 15 SAP 5 CSCI 8.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Doc. 13737/12 CIS 5 CSC 56.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 415

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004421/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(18. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Empfänger und Leser der Stellungnahme 2/2012 des OLAF-Überwachungsausschuss

Auf Frage Nr. 36 der Fragen an die Generalsekretärin der Kommission für die Anhörung im
Haushaltskontrollausschuss am 22.1.2013 hatte das Generalsekretariat geantwortet, dass dem Generalsekretariat
keine Kopie der Stellungnahme des OLAF-Überwachungsausschusses zugesandt wurde. Eine vorläufige Version des
Berichts wurde bereits am 21.12.2012 an den Generaldirektor des OLAF mit der Aufforderung zur Stellungnahme
übermittelt. Die endgültige Version der Stellungnahme des Überwachungsausschusses wurde dem Präsidenten der
Kommission zugesandt.

1. Zu welchem Zeitpunkt hatte das Generalsekretariat eine Kopie dieser Stellungnahme vorliegen?

2. Welche Personen hatten oder haben in der Kommission Zugang zu diesem Bericht? In welcher Funktion?
Wann?

**Antwort von Herrn Barroso im Namen der Kommission**

_(27. Mai 2013)_

Mit Schreiben vom 29. Januar 2013 übermittelte der Vorsitzende des OLAF-Überwachungsausschusses den
Präsidenten des Europäischen Parlaments, des Rates der Europäischen Union und der Europäischen Kommission eine
Kopie seiner Stellungnahme 2/2012. Der Vorsitzende wies in seinem Anschreiben darauf hin, dass kleinere Teile der
Stellungnahme ausgenommen waren, da sie unter Artikel 8 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1073/1999 fielen. In dem
Schreiben hieß es ausdrücklich, dass das Dokument weiterhin als vertraulich anzusehen sei und angesichts des
laufenden Gerichtsverfahrens auf nationaler Ebene nicht weitergegeben werden sollte.

Um die vom Vorsitzenden geforderte Vertraulichkeit zu wahren, wurden das Schreiben und die Anlage innerhalb der
Kommission nur streng begrenzt weitergegeben. Nur der Kabinettchef des Präsidenten, der Generaldirektor des
Juristischen Dienstes und die Generalsekretärin erhielten Anfang Februar Zugang zu diesem Bericht. Außerdem
erhielten auch die Juristen, die für die gerichtliche Weiterverfolgung der Verfahren im Zusammenhang mit diesen
Untersuchungen zuständig waren, vertraulichen Zugang zu dem Bericht.

C 33 E / 416 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004421/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Recipients and readers of Opinion 2/2012 of the OLAF Supervisory Committee

In response to question No 36 of the questions to the General Secretary of the Commission for the hearing in the
Committee on Budgetary Control on 22 January 2013, the Secretariat answered that the Secretariat had not received
a copy of the opinion of the OLAF Supervisory Committee. A draft version of the report had been sent to the
Director-General of the OLAF on 21 December 2012 for comment. The final version of the opinion of the
Supervisory Committee was sent to the President of the Commission.

1. At what point did the Secretariat receive a copy of this opinion?

2. Who in the Commission had or has access to this report? In what capacity? When?

**Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

By letter dated 29 January 2013, the Chairman of the OLAF Supervisory Committee transmitted to the Presidents of
the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission a copy of its Opinion
2/2012. In his letter the Chairman indicated that minor parts of the opinion were excluded because they were covered
by Article 8 of Regulation EC 1073/1999. The letter stated clearly that the document should continue to be regarded
as confidential, and should not be circulated, in the light of the ongoing judicial procedure at national level.

In order to respect the confidentiality requested by the Chairman, within the Commission the circulation of the letter
and the attachment was strictly limited. Only the Head of Cabinet of the President, the Director General of the Legal
Service and the Secretary General were given access to this report in early February. In addition the legal agents in
charge of the judicial follow-up of proceedings linked to these investigations were also given confidential access to the
report.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 417

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004422/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(18 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Duurzame voorziening fosfor

In de in 2011 door de Commissie voorgestelde routekaart voor grondstofefficiëntie wordt gesteld dat de duurzame
toevoer van fosfor, een schaars en onvervangbaar goed voor het vruchtbaar maken van bodems, cruciaal is voor onze
langetermijnvoedselvoorziening. De Commissie beloofde in dit voorstel de continuïteit van de voorziening van fosfor
en mogelijke acties voor het duurzame gebruik ervan verder te beoordelen.

Op 13 maart beloofde Commissaris Potocnik een strategie om fosfor te recyclen en te beschermen. Europa is vrijwel
volledig import-afhankelijk voor fosfor, en dit schaarse materiaal wordt vaak nog onvoldoende efficiënt gebruikt.

De enige producent van witte fosfor in Europa was het Nederlandse bedrijf Thermphos. Op 7 november 2011 diende
deze fosforproducent een klacht in bij de Europese Commissie over het dumpen op de markt van witte fosfor door
het bedrijf Kazhphosphate uit Kazachstan. De Europese Commissie gaf in een besluit op 13 februari aan dat deze
klacht gegrond was, maar hier volgden geen verdere acties op.

Hiermee ging de Commissie in tegen haar eigen voornemen om de continuïteit van de voorziening van fosfor en het
duurzame gebruik ervan in de toekomst zeker te stellen.

1. Welke maatregelen gaat de Commissie treffen om de continuïteit van duurzame fosforvoorziening, stimulering
van recycling en gesloten ketens te borgen?

2. Is de Commissie bereid bij te dragen aan de ontwikkeling van een kenniscentrum zodat de expertise die
aanwezig was in Europa's enige wittefosforproducent niet verloren gaat? Plant de Commissie eventueel nog andere
acties om deze kennis te behouden?

3. Welke maatregelen wil de Commissie nemen om de importafhankelijkheid van Europa te beperken nu Europa
zelf geen fosfor meer produceert?

**Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie**

_(13 juni 2013)_

Het door de Commissie aangekondigde verslag over het duurzaam gebruik van fosfor zal een reeks maatregelen
uiteenzetten die genomen kunnen worden om de grondstofefficiëntie ten aanzien van fosfor te verbeteren en
zodoende de recycling en de veiligheid van de fosforvoorziening te bevorderen.

De herziening van de meststoffenverordening waaraan momenteel wordt gewerkt zal naast andere doelstellingen
gericht zijn op de totstandbrenging van een interne markt voor meststoffen die gerecycleerde fosfor bevatten.

Fosfaat zal in 2013 geëvalueerd worden in het kader van de herziening van de EU-lijst van kritieke grondstoffen. De in
2010 gepubliceerde lijst van kritieke grondstoffen is een belangrijk instrument gebleken voor de Commissie om
bewustwording te creëren, prioritaire acties te bepalen en financieringsmogelijkheden open te stellen uit hoofde van
het zevende kaderprogramma voor onderzoek en ontwikkeling. De herziene lijst dient begin 2014 door de
Commissie vastgesteld te worden.

Onderzoek en innovatie ten aanzien van een efficiënter gebruik van fosfor vormt een ander onderdeel van het beleid
voor een duurzamer gebruik van fosfor. In dit verband ontwikkelt de Commissie een Europees innovatiepartnerschap
voor productiviteit en duurzaamheid in de landbouw, dat streeft naar een concurrerende en duurzame land‐ en
bosbouw waarin met minder meer wordt bereikt en in harmonie met de omgeving wordt gewerkt.

C 33 E / 418 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004422/13**

**to the Commission**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sustainable supply of phosphorus

It is set out in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap put forward by the Commission in 2011 that the sustainable supply
of phosphorus, a scarce and irreplaceable resource for making soil fertile, is vital for our long-term food supply. In
this proposal the Commission pledged to continue the supply of phosphorus and to conduct a further review of
possible actions to support its sustainable use.

On 13 March Commissioner Poto committed to a strategy for recycling and protecting phosphorus. Europe is almost
entirely dependent on imports for phosphorus, and this scarce material is often still not being used as efficiently as it
should be.

The only producer of white phosphorus in Europe was the Dutch company Thermphos. On 7 November 2011 the
phosphorus producer submitted a complaint to the Commission regarding the dumping on the market of white
phosphorus by the Kazakh company Kazhphosphate. In its decision of 13 February the Commission stated that there
were grounds for this complaint, but no further action was taken.

In doing this the Commission went against its own decision to ensure continuity in the supply of phosphorus and its
sustainable use in the future.

1. What measures will the Commission put in place to guarantee the continuity of a sustainable supply of
phosphorus, incentives for recycling and closed chains?

2. Is the Commission prepared to contribute to the development of a centre of expertise so that the expertise of
Europe’s only white phosphorus producer is not lost? Is the Commission planning any further action to preserve this
expertise?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take to limit Europe’s dependence on imports now that Europe
is no longer producing any phosphorus itself?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 June 2013)_

The forthcoming Commission paper on the sustainable use of phosphorus will set out a range of actions that could be
taken to improve resource efficiency in respect of phosphorus, thereby promoting recycling and improving the
security of phosphorus supplies.

The revision of the Fertiliser Regulation, which is currently being prepared, will amongst other objectives aim at
creating an internal market for fertilising materials containing recycled phosphorus.

Phosphate will be evaluated in the 2013 review of the EU critical raw materials list. Since its publication in 2010 the
list of critical raw materials has proven to be an important tool for the Commission to raise awareness, determine
priority actions and open up funding opportunities under the 7th Framework Programme for Research and
Development. The revised list is to be adopted by the Commission in the beginning of 2014.

Research and innovation into using phosphorus more efficiently is another component of a policy for a more
sustainable phosphorus use. In this respect, the Commission is developing a European Innovation Partnership (EIP)
on agricultural productivity and sustainability which aims to foster competitive and sustainable agriculture and
forestry that achieves more from less and works in harmony with the environment.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 419

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004423/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(18 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Faillissement Thermphos

Op 13 februari 2013 publiceerde de Europese Commissie haar besluit om geen maatregelen te nemen tegen de
dumping van witte fosfor uit Kazachstan. Met dit besluit werd het faillissement van Europa's enige producent van
witte fosfor in december onomkeerbaar. Eerder verzuimde de Commissie ook om voorlopige maatregelen te treffen
die ervoor konden zorgen dat de productie van witte fosfor in Europa doorgang kon vinden.

In het genoemde besluit concludeerde de Europese Commissie dat er sprake was van dumping en dat dit heeft geleid
tot schade, zowel voor de betrokken industrie als van het algemene belang van de Europese Unie (punt 190, 178 van
besluit 2013/81/EU), maar dat de belangen van de gebruikers en importeurs zwaarder wegen dan het verlies van
Europa's enige producent van witte fosfor.

Het faillissement van Thermphos heeft als gevolg dat er 500 banen verloren gaan en dat de kosten voor het opruimen
van het terrein tussen de 70 en 120 miljoen bedragen. Deze gevolgen komen in hun geheel voor de rekening van de
Provincie Zeeland en de Nederlandse gemeenschap.

1. Welke acties gaat de Commissie ondernemen om de gevolgen van de door haar vastgestelde dumping
(onderdeel C van besluit 2013/81/EU, met name punt 48) te herstellen?

2. Hoe gaat de Commissie zorgen dat er een compensatie plaatsvindt voor de geleden schade?

3. In hoeverre acht de Commissie een doorstart van Thermphos mogelijk en op welke manier gaat zij hieraan
bijdragen?

**Antwoord van de heer De Gucht namens de Commissie**

_(7 juni 2013)_

Overeenkomstig de anti-dumpingwetgeving van de EU moet voor het instellen van anti-dumpingmaatregelen aan een
aantal voorwaarden worden voldaan: er moet worden vastgesteld dat er sprake is van schade, en dat er een oorzakelijk
verband tussen beide bestaat. Het instellen van anti-dumpingrechten mag bovendien niet indruisen tegen het
algemene belang van de Europese Unie. De beëindiging van dit onderzoek was gebaseerd op de beoordeling van de
negatieve effecten van eventuele rechten op de gebruikers van witte fosfor en op een diepgaand onderzoek waarbij
met de standpunten van alle betrokken partijen rekening is gehouden. Onder deze omstandigheden is vastgesteld dat
het duidelijk niet in het belang van de Europese Unie was om anti-dumpingmaatregelen in te stellen en
overeenkomstig de wettelijke bepalingen kunnen er derhalve geen anti-dumpingmaatregelen worden ingesteld.

In het kader van de anti-dumpingonderzoeken, handelt de Commissie in overeenstemming met de antidumpingbasisverordening van de EU, Verordening (EG) nr. 1225/2009 van de Raad van 30 november 2009
betreffende beschermende maatregelen tegen invoer met dumping uit landen die geen lid zijn van de Europese
Gemeenschap ( [1] ). Deze wetgeving is in overeenstemming met de antidumpingovereenkomst van de
Wereldhandelsorganisatie (WTO). Binnen dit juridische kader heeft de Commissie geen andere rechtsmiddelen of
verplichtingen met betrekking tot de bedrijfstak van de Europese Unie en de activiteiten daarvan.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) PB L 343 van 22.12.2009.

C 33 E / 420 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004423/13**

**to the Commission**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(18 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Collapse of Thermphos

On 13 February 2013 the Commission published its decision not to take any action against the dumping of white
phosphorus from Kazakhstan. This decision made the collapse of Europe’s only producer of white phosphorus in
December irreversible. The Commission previously neglected to implement provisional measures which could have
ensured the continuation of the production of white phosphorus in Europe.

In the aforementioned decision the Commission concluded that this was a case of dumping and that this had been
damaging both to the industry concerned and to the overall interest of the European Union (Points 190, 178 of
Decision 2013/81/EU), but that the interests of the consumers and importers carried greater weight than the loss of
Europe’s only producer of white phosphorus.

The collapse of Thermphos will lead to the loss of 500 jobs and costs for clearing the land amounting to between 70
and 120 million. These consequences will be fully felt by the province of Zeeland and Dutch society.

1. What steps will the Commission take to rectify the consequences of the dumping that it has brought about
(Section C of Decision 2013/81/EU, and specifically Point 48)?

2. How will the Commission ensure that compensation is provided for the losses incurred?

3. To what extent does the Commission consider it possible to restart operations at Thermphos and how will it
contribute to this?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

According to EU anti-dumping legislation, in order to impose anti-dumping measures, several conditions have to be
fulfilled: the existence of dumping and injury needs to be established, as well as a causal link between them. In
addition, any duties should not be against the Union's overall interest. The termination of this investigation was based
on the assessment of the negative impact of possible duties on the users of white phosphorus further to an in-depth
investigation which took into account the views expressed by all interested parties. Under these circumstances, it was
concluded that it was clearly not in the Union's interest to adopt anti-dumping measures, and according to the legal
provisions, therefore, no anti-dumping measures can be imposed.

In the context of anti-dumping investigations, the Commission acts within the EU's basic anti-dumping Regulation,
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from
countries not members of the European Community ( [1] ). This legislation complies with the World Trade
Organisation's (WTO) Anti-dumping Agreement. Within this legal framework, the Commission has no other legal
means or obligations with regard to the Union industry and their activities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 421

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004424/13**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**
**Ana Gomes (S&D), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE), Barbara Lochbihler**

**(Verts/ALE), Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D) und Elmar Brok (PPE)**

_(19. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Haftbefehle der ägyptischen Regierung gegen politische Aktivisten und Menschenrechtsaktivisten

Zwei Jahre nach der Revolution vom 25. Januar 2011 mitzuerleben, wie die ägyptische Regierung dieselben
politischen Aktivisten verfolgt, die zum Sturz des undemokratischen Mubarak-Regimes beigetragen haben, und vor
allem Aktivisten der Jugendbewegung des 6. April, ist paradox. Amnesty International zufolge wurden in den
vergangenen zwei Wochen 33 Personen verhaftet und unter Anklage gestellt. Zu ihnen gehören auch der bekannteste
Kabarettist Ägyptens, Bassem Jusuf, ein führender Aktivist der Jugendbewegung des 6. April, Ahmad Abdallah, der
bekannte Blogger Alaa Abdel Fatah, die Menschenrechtsaktivistin Muna Seif und die bekannte
Menschenrechtsanwältin Mahinur Masri.

Bei den Verhaftungen handelt es sich um einen ungerechtfertigten Einschüchterungsversuch aufgrund der beruflichen
Tätigkeit und der politischen Überzeugungen der Angeklagten und damit um eine Verletzung des Rechts auf freie
Meinungsäußerung in Ägypten. Äußerst besorgniserregend ist auch der Fall des Hassan Mustafa, der wegen politisch
motivierter Aktivitäten zu zwei Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt wurde.

Die EU darf nicht zulassen, dass sich die Fehler der Vergangenheit wiederholen, sie muss klar Stellung beziehen und
gegen diese Verstöße gegen die Demokratie in Ägypten vorgehen. Aus diesem Grund ersuchen wir die VP/HR um
Beantwortung der folgenden Fragen:

1. Hat die VP/HR die genannten Fälle während ihres Besuchs in Ägypten am Sonntag, den 7. April 2013,
gegenüber Präsident Mursi und den Mitgliedern der ägyptischen Regierung zur Sprache gebracht?

2. Hat die VP/HR die Oppositionsführer getroffen, um die Bemühungen zu bündeln und ihr Engagement für den
Aufbau eines demokratischen Rechtsstaats, in dem die Gewaltenteilung und das Recht auf freie
Meinungsäußerung respektiert werden, zu unterstützen?

3. Hat die VP/HR die Haftbefehle verurteilt, die in Ägypten gegen politische Aktivisten und
Menschenrechtsaktivisten erlassen wurden?

4. Das Parlament hat auf seiner Plenartagung im März 2013 über eine Entschließung abgestimmt, in der es die EU
auffordert „den ägyptischen Behörden keine Budgethilfen zu gewähren, wenn keine entscheidenden
Fortschritte hinsichtlich der Achtung der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten, der demokratischen
Staatsführung und der Rechtsstaatlichkeit gemacht werden“. Wie setzt die VP/HR diese Empfehlung des
Parlaments um?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(20. Juni 2013)_

Die HV/VP führte während ihres Besuchs in Kairo im April 2013 Gespräche mit Präsident Morsi, führenden
Oppositionsangehörigen und Vertretern der Zivilgesellschaft. Bei allen Zusammenkünften wies sie darauf hin, wie
wichtig es ist, eine auf Rechtsstaatlichkeit beruhende Zivilgesellschaft aufzubauen und dabei die
Menschenrechtsprinzipien zu achten. Sie wiederholte außerdem erneut ihren Aufruf zum Dialog zwischen allen
Parteien in Ägypten, damit weitere Fortschritte auf dem Weg zu einer vertieften und nachhaltigen Demokratie
gemacht werden können.

Außerdem brachte die HV/VP in der Erklärung vom 12. Mai ihre Besorgnis hinsichtlich der Inhaftierung und
Verfolgung von zivilgesellschaftlichen Aktivisten und Medienangehörigen zum Ausdruck und verurteilte dieses
Vorgehen als beunruhigende Entwicklung mit Blick auf den Übergang des Landes zur Demokratie. Darüber hinaus
erinnerte die HV/VP sämtliche am Übergang beteiligten Gruppen daran, dass nun Nachdruck auf Dialog, Toleranz
und einen integrativen Prozess gelegt werden sollte, der zu der Stabilität führen könnte, die Ägypten so dringend
braucht.

Was die Entschließung des EP vom März anbelangt, so ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass 2013 keine Budgethilfe für die
ägyptischen Behörden bereitgestellt wurde.

C 33 E / 422 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004424/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**
**Ana Gomes (S&D), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE), Barbara Lochbihler**

**(Verts/ALE), Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D) e Elmar Brok (PPE)**

_(19 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Mandati d'arresto emessi dal governo egiziano contro attivisti politici e dei diritti umani

A due anni dalla rivoluzione del 25 gennaio 2011, è un paradosso constatare che il governo egiziano perseguita gli
stessi attivisti politici che hanno contribuito a rovesciare il regime non democratico di Mubarak, e in particolare gli
attivisti del Movimento Gioventù 6 aprile. Secondo Amnesty International, nelle ultime due settimane, 33 persone
sono state arrestate e accusate, in particolare: Bassem Youssef, il più famoso scrittore satirico d'Egitto; Ahmad
Abdallah, attivista di primo piano del Movimento Gioventù 6 aprile; Alaa Abdel Fatah, famoso blogger; la sig.ra Mona
Seif, attivista dei diritti umani e la sig.ra Mahinour Masri, famosa avvocato dei diritti umani.

Questi arresti costituiscono un atto ingiustificato di intimidazioni fondato sulle attività professionali e le convinzioni
politiche degli imputati, e con ciò mina la libertà di espressione in Egitto. Un altro motivo di profonda
preoccupazione è il caso di Hassan Mustapha, che ha davanti una pena detentiva di due anni per azioni di una certa
matrice politica.

L'UE non deve stare a guardare gli errori del passato che si ripetono — deve parlare ed agire contro siffatte violazioni
della democrazia in Egitto. Vorremmo dunque chiedere alla VP/HR quanto segue:

1. la VP/HR ha sollevato i casi di cui sopra con il Presidente Morsi e i membri del governo egiziano durante la sua
visita in Egitto di domenica 7 aprile 2013?

2. La VP/HR ha incontrato i leader dell'opposizione, nell'ottica di unire gli sforzi e sostenere le loro iniziative nella
costruzione di uno Stato democratico che rispetti lo Stato di diritto, la separazione dei poteri, e la libertà di
espressione?

3. La VP/HR ha condannato i mandati d'arresto emessi contro gli attivisti politici e dei diritti umani in Egitto?

4. Nella plenaria di marzo 2013, il Parlamento ha votato una risoluzione che invita l'Unione europea «a non
concedere alcun sostegno finanziario alle autorità egiziane, ove non si compia alcun progresso significativo
quanto al rispetto dei diritti umani, delle libertà, della governance democratica e dello Stato di diritto». La
VP/HR come sta attuando la raccomandazione del Parlamento?

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

_(20 giugno 2013)_

Durante la sua visita al Cairo nell'aprile 2013, l'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha avuto diversi incontri con il
presidente Morsi, con gli esponenti dell'opposizione e con i rappresentanti della società civile. In tutte queste
occasioni, ha sottolineato l'importanza di costruire una società fondata sullo Stato di diritto e conforme ai principi dei
diritti umani. Ha inoltre invitato nuovamente tutte le parti in Egitto a dialogare al fine di progredire ulteriormente
verso una democrazia radicata e sostenibile.

Anche nella dichiarazione del 12 maggio, l'AR/VP ha espresso la propria preoccupazione per l'arresto e il
perseguimento giudiziario degli attivisti della società civile e dei professionisti dei mezzi d'informazione e ha
condannato tali eventi in quanto segnali preoccupanti nel contesto della transizione democratica del paese. Ha inoltre
ricordato a tutte le parti coinvolte nella transizione che è necessario impegnarsi nel dialogo, nella tolleranza e in un
processo globale che potrebbe portare alla stabilità di cui l'Egitto ha urgente bisogno.

Per quanto riguarda la risoluzione del Parlamento europeo di marzo, è importante tener presente che nel 2013 non è
stata eseguita alcuna operazione di sostegno al bilancio a favore delle autorità egiziane.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 423

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004424/13**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**
**Ana Gomes (S&D), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE), Barbara Lochbihler**

**(Verts/ALE), Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D) en Elmar Brok (PPE)**

_(19 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — Arrestatiebevelen die door de Egyptische regering tegen politieke en mensenrechtenactivisten zijn
uitgevaardigd

Het is twee jaar na de 25-januari-revolutie paradoxaal te zien hoe dezelfde politieke activisten die hebben geholpen
het antidemocratische regime van Mubarak ten val te brengen, namelijk de activisten van de 6-april-beweging, thans
door de Egyptische regering worden vervolgd. Volgens Amnesty International worden 33 mensen de laatste twee
weken achtervolgd met aanhoudingen en beschuldigingen, waaronder Bassem Youssef, de meest bekende humorist
van het land, Ahmad Abdallah, een vooraanstaande activist in de 6-april-beweging, Alaa Abdel Fatah, een bekend
blogger, Mona Seif, een mensenrechtenactiviste, en Mahinour Masri, een bekend mensenrechtenadvocaat.

Het gaat hier om niet te rechtvaardigen intimidatie, die direct is ingegeven door hun beroepsactiviteiten en politieke
overtuigingen, en die een bedreiging vormt voor de vrijheid van meningsuiting in Egypte. Zeer zorgwekkend is ook
de zaak Hassan Mustapha die tot een gevangenisstraf van twee jaar dreigt te worden veroordeeld op politiek
gemotiveerde beschuldigingen.

De EU moet niet haar fouten uit het verleden herhalen, maar haar stem verheffen en actie ondernemen tegen deze
schendingen van de democratie in Egypte. Daarom leggen wij de VV/HV de volgende vragen voor:

1. Heeft de VV/HV deze gevallen aan de orde gesteld in haar gesprekken met president Morsi en leden van diens
regering, tijdens haar bezoek aan Egypte op zondag 7 april?

2. Heeft de VV/HV met de oppositieleiders gesproken om krachten te bundelen en steun te geven aan hun
initiatieven voor het opbouwen van een democratische staat waar de rechtsstaat, de scheiding der machten en
vrijheid van meningsuiting worden gerespecteerd?

3. Heeft de VV/HV haar veroordeling uitgesproken over de arrestatiebevelen die tegen politieke en
mensenrechtenactivisten in Egypte zijn uitgevaardigd?

4. In de plenaire vergadering van maart nam het Europees Parlement een resolutie aan waarin de EU dringend
wordt gevraagd „geen enkele begrotingssteun aan de Egyptische autoriteiten te verlenen indien geen
aanzienlijke vooruitgang is geboekt met betrekking tot de eerbiediging van mensenrechten en vrijheden, een
democratisch bestuur en respect voor de regels van de rechtsstaat”. Wat doet de VV/HV om invulling te geven
aan deze aanbeveling van het EP?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(20 juni 2013)_

Tijdens haar bezoek aan Caïro in april 2013 heeft de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter gesprekken gevoerd met
president Morsi, leiders van de oppositie en vertegenwoordigers van het maatschappelijke middenveld. Tijdens al
deze vergaderingen heeft de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter het belang benadrukt van de opbouw van een
samenleving die is gebaseerd op de rechtsstaat en de naleving van de mensenrechtenbeginselen. Zij heeft eveneens alle
partijen in Egypte opnieuw opgeroepen om de dialoog aan te gaan met het oog op verdere vooruitgang op de weg
naar wezenlijke en duurzame democratie.

In haar verklaring van 12 mei heeft de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter eveneens haar bezorgdheid geuit over
de vrijheidsbeneming en vervolging van activisten uit het maatschappelijke middenveld en mensen die werkzaam zijn
in de media, en heeft zij dergelijke acties veroordeeld als een verontrustende ontwikkeling in het kader van de
democratische overgang in het land. De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter heeft alle partijen die bij de overgang
zijn betrokken, er eveneens aan herinnerd dat de nadruk nu moet worden gelegd op dialoog, verdraagzaamheid en
een inclusief proces dat kan leiden tot de stabiliteit waaraan Egypte dringend behoefte heeft.

Wat de resolutie van het Europees Parlement van maart betreft, moet worden opgemerkt dat de Egyptische
autoriteiten in 2013 geen begrotingssteun hebben ontvangen.

C 33 E / 424 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-004424/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**
**Ana Gomes (S&D), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE), Barbara Lochbihler**

**(Verts/ALE), Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D) e Elmar Brok (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Mandados de prisão emitidos contra ativistas dos direitos políticos e humanos pelo Governo
egípcio

Dois anos depois da revolução de 25 de janeiro de 2011, é paradoxal assistir à perseguição, pelo Governo egípcio, dos
mesmos ativistas políticos que contribuíram para derrubar o regime não-democrático de Mubarak, e especialmente
ativistas do Movimento de Juventude 6 de abril. Segundo a Amnistia Internacional, nas duas últimas semanas foram
presas e acusadas 33 pessoas, nomeadamente: Bassem Youssef, o mais famoso satirista do Egito; Ahmad Abdallah,
um ativista líder do Movimento de Juventude 6 de abril; Alaa Abdel Fatah, um famoso autor de blogues; Mona Seif,
uma ativista dos direitos humanos; e Mahinour Masri, famosa advogada de direitos humanos.

Estas detenções constituem um ato injustificado de intimidação baseado nas atividades profissionais e convicções
políticas dos acusados, minando assim a liberdade de expressão no Egito. Outro motivo de profunda preocupação é o
caso de Hassan Mustapha, que enfrenta uma pena de prisão de dois anos com fundamento em ações politicamente
motivadas.

A UE não deve assistir à repetição dos erros do passado — deve fazer ouvir a sua voz e tomar medidas contra estas
violações da democracia no Egito. Assim, gostaríamos de perguntar à VP/AR o seguinte:

1. A VP/AR evocou os casos supracitados junto do Presidente Morsi e membros do Governo egípcio durante a sua
visita ao Egito no domingo 7 de abril de 2013?

2. A VP/AR encontrou-se com os líderes da oposição a fim de conjugar esforços e apoiar as suas iniciativas para a
construção de um Estado democrático que respeite o princípio de legalidade, a separação de poderes e a
liberdade de expressão?

3. A VP/AR condenou os mandados de prisão emitidos contra ativistas políticos e dos direitos humanos no Egito?

4. Na sessão plenária de março de 2013, o Parlamento votou uma resolução exortando a UE «a não conceder
qualquer apoio orçamental às autoridades egípcias se não forem efetuados importantes progressos no que se
refere ao respeito das liberdades e dos direitos humanos, à governação democrática e ao Estado de Direito». De
que forma está a VP/AR a implementar a resolução do Parlamento?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

Durante a sua visita ao Cairo em abril de 2013, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente manteve conversações com o
Presidente Morsi, com destacadas figuras da oposição e com representantes da sociedade civil. A Alta
Representante/Vice-Presidente sublinhou, em todas as reuniões, a importância de construir uma sociedade baseada no
respeito do Estado de direito e em conformidade com os princípios dos direitos humanos. Também instou de novo
todas as partes no Egito a manterem o diálogo a fim de realizar mais progressos no sentido de uma democracia sólida
e sustentável.

Na comunicação de 12 de maio, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente também manifestou preocupação com a
detenção e acusação dos ativistas da sociedade civil e dos profissionais dos meios de comunicação social e condenou
esses acontecimentos como preocupantes no contexto da transição democrática do país. A Alta Representante/VicePresidente também recordou a todas as partes envolvidas na transição que a tónica deve agora incidir no diálogo, na
tolerância e num processo inclusivo que possam conduzir o Egito à estabilidade de que carece urgentemente.

No que diz respeito à resolução de março do PE, é importante ter em conta que em 2013 não teve lugar qualquer
operação de apoio orçamental às autoridades egípcias.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 425

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004424/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Ana Gomes (S&D), Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE), Barbara Lochbihler**

**(Verts/ALE), Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D) and Elmar Brok (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arrest warrants issued against political and human rights activists by the Egyptian government

Two years after the revolution of 25 January 2011, it is a paradox to witness the Egyptian Government pursuing the
same political activists who helped overthrow the non-democratic Mubarak regime, and in particular activists from
the April 6 Youth Movement. According to Amnesty International, 33 people have been arrested and charged in the
past two weeks, notably: Mr Bassem Youssef, Egypt’s most famous satirist; Mr Ahmad Abdallah, a leading activist
with the April 6 Youth Movement; Mr Alaa Abdel Fatah, a famous blogger; Ms Mona Seif, human rights activists; and
Ms Mahinour Masri, a famous human rights lawyer.

These arrests constitute an unjustified act of intimidation based on the professional activities and political beliefs of
the accused, thereby undermining freedom of expression in Egypt. Another cause for deep concern is the case of
Mr Hassan Mustapha, who faces a two-year prison sentence on the grounds of politically‐motivated actions.

The EU must not see the past’s mistakes repeated — it must speak out and take action against these violations of
democracy in Egypt. As such, we would like to ask the VP/HR the following questions:

1. Did the VP/HR raise the above cases with President Morsi and members of the Egyptian Government during her
visit to Egypt on Sunday, 7 April 2013?

2. Did the VP/HR meet with the opposition leaders in order to combine efforts and support their initiatives in
building a democratic state that respects the rule of law, the separation of powers, and freedom of expression?

3. Did the VP/HR condemn the arrest warrants issued against political and human rights activists in Egypt?

4. At the March 2013 plenary session, Parliament voted a resolution urging the EU ‘not to grant any budgetary
support to the Egyptian authorities if no major progress is made regarding respect of human rights, freedoms,
democratic governance and the rule of law’. How is the VP/HR implementing Parliament’s recommendation?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The HR/VP, during her visit to Cairo in April 2013, held discussions with President Morsi, leading opposition figures
and representatives from civil society. In all meetings the HR/VP stressed the importance of building a society based
on the rule of law and its compliance with human right principles. She also reiterated previous calls for dialogue
among all parties in Egypt in order to make further progress towards deep and sustainable democracy.

Also in the statement of 12 May, the HR/VP expressed concern regarding the detention and prosecution of civil
society activists and media professionals and condemned such events as a worrying development in the context of the
democratic transition of the country. The HR/VP also reminded all parties involved in the transition that emphasis
should now be put on dialogue, tolerance and an inclusive process that could lead to the stability Egypt urgently
needs.

With regards to the March EP's resolution, it is important to bear in mind that in 2013 no budget support operation
to the Egyptian authorities has taken place.

C 33 E / 426 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004425/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Batteriofagi: un'eccezionale scoperta per la cura delle infezioni batteriche

Scoperti agli inizi del XX secolo, i batteriofagi sono virus in grado di attaccare diverse specie di batteri: una volta
infettata la cellula batterica, il DNA dei batteriofagi si replica fino a distruggere l'ospite. Nonostante l'accanito ricorso
alla terapia fagica in alcune parti del mondo, lo sviluppo convenzionale e la produzione di massa degli antibiotici
hanno portato a un generale rifiuto dei batteriofagi. A causa della comparsa di numerosi batteri resistenti a più classi
di antibiotici, tuttavia, si torna a guardare con interesse alla terapia fagica.

Gli scienziati hanno ripreso a occuparsi dei batteriofagi, data la loro estrema specificità e la capacità di colpire soltanto
i batteri dannosi, oltre che per il ridotto numero di effetti collaterali e l'impatto minimo sull'ambiente. Recenti studi
sulla valutazione della terapia fagica su pazienti con infezioni suppurative e settiche hanno rivelato un tasso di
successo del 91,3 % (137 pazienti su 150) nella cura delle infezioni suppurative e del 92,4 % (342 pazienti su 370) in
quella delle infezioni settiche. Sebbene la genetica dei batteriofagi e la loro efficacia siano oggi ampiamente note, sono
necessarie ulteriori indagini sulle analogie e sulle differenze negli effetti antibatterici _in vivo_ e _in vitro_ di questi virus. Ciò
si deve alla diversa fisiologia dei batteri che infettano il corpo umano e di quelli che sono coltivati artificialmente in
laboratorio.

Alla luce delle seguenti considerazioni:

—
i batteriofagi sono in grado di tenere il passo di tutti i batteri che hanno il compito di distruggere e possono
essere efficaci sia nelle malattie croniche che nelle infezioni batteriche;

—
la terapia fagica sarebbe utile per la cura dei pazienti che presentano allergie agli antibiotici;

—
è poco probabile che l'uomo possa mettere a punto antibiotici sempre nuovi, mentre i batteri continueranno
probabilmente a sviluppare resistenza;

—
la terapia fagica è meno costosa degli antibiotici;

potrebbe la Commissione chiarire se esiste la possibilità di incoraggiare ulteriori ricerche in questo campo, al fine di
ottenere informazioni più dettagliate su tutti i tipi di batteriofagi e sui nuovi modi di combattere le infezioni?

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(30 maggio 2013)_

La Commissione è pienamente consapevole della necessità di incoraggiare la ricerca mirante a sviluppare nuove terapie di
trattamento delle infezioni batteriche, quale quella indicata dall'onorevole parlamentare. Il 15 novembre 2011 la
Commissione ha pertanto pubblicato un piano d'azione per contrastare i rischi crescenti di resistenza agli antimicrobici ( [1] )
comprendente iniziative volte ad intensificare la ricerca contro tale fenomeno.

La ricerca sull'utilizzo dei batteriofagi per il trattamento delle infezioni batteriche rientra nelle attività sostenute dal PQ7 e
comprende il progetto CONCORD ( [2] ), nell'ambito del quale si è svolto un esperimento pilota di terapia fagica per il
trattamento dello « _S. aureus_ » meticillino-resistente nei suini, i cui risultati sono attualmente in corso di valutazione.

Lo sviluppo di farmaci, vaccini e strategie mediche alternative resta un settore prioritario. Questo tipo di ricerca è stato
specificamente sollecitato in un invito a presentare proposte nell'ambito del PQ7 ( [3] ) pubblicato nel 2012. A seguito di
tale invito, la Commissione sta attualmente ultimando la messa a punto di una convenzione di sovvenzione per un
progetto denominato PHAGOBURN finalizzato a valutare l'utilizzo della terapia fagica per il trattamento delle
infezioni batteriche delle ustioni nel quadro di una sperimentazione clinica.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0748:FIN:IT:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.concord-mrsa.eu
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) PQ7: settimo programma quadro per le attività di ricerca, sviluppo tecnologico e dimostrazione (2007-2013).

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 427

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004425/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bacteriophages: an outstanding discovery in the treatment of bacterial infections

Discovered in the late 1910s, bacteriophages are viruses which are able to infect various species of bacteria. Once they
infect a bacterial cell, the bacteriophages’ DNA replicates until it kills the host. Despite a stubborn enthusiasm for
phage therapy in some parts of the world, the mainstream development and mass production of antibiotics has paved
the way for the widespread rejection of bacteriophages. However, the field of phage therapy is once again gaining
momentum as a result of the emergence of many multi-drug-resistant bacteria.

Scientists are again looking to bacteriophages, given that they are highly specific and only target harmful bacteria.
Furthermore, they give rise to few side effects and have a minimal impact on the environment. Recent studies
evaluating phage therapy on patients with suppurative and septic infections have shown success rates of 91.3% (137
out of 150 patients) in the treatment of suppurative infections, and success rates of 92.4% (342 out of 370) in the
treatment of septic infections. Although significant knowledge about the genetics of bacteriophages and their
effectiveness is now widely available, further investigation into the similarities and differences between the _in vivo_ and
_in vitro_ antibacterial effect of bacteriophages is needed. This is due to the fact that the physiology of bacteria which
infect the human body is not the same as that of bacteria which are grown artificially in laboratories.

Considering that:

—
bacteriophages are capable of keeping pace with all of the bacteria which they are designed to kill, and can
work well on chronic diseases and bacterial infections;

—
phage therapy would be useful in the treatment of patients allergic to antibiotics;

—
humans are unlikely to be able to come up with new antibiotics indefinitely, while bacteria will probably
continue to develop resistance;

—
phage therapy is less expensive than antibiotics,

could the Commission clarify whether there is a possibility of encouraging further research in this field with a view to
discovering more detailed information about all types of bacteriophage and new ways of fighting infections?

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

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission is fully aware of the need to encourage research that aims to develop novel therapies to treat
bacterial infections, as described by the Honourable Member. Therefore, on 15 November 2011, the Commission
issued an Action plan against the rising threats from antimicrobial resistance ( [1] ), containing actions aimed at
reinforcing research to combat antimicrobial resistance.

Research on the use of bacteriophages to treat bacterial infections is part of the activities supported by FP7, and
includes the CONCORD ( [2] ) project that carried out a phage therapy pilot experiment for the treatment of Methicillinresistant ‘S. aureus’ in pigs, the results of which are currently under evaluation.

The development of drugs, vaccines and alternative medical approaches continues to be a priority area and this type
of research was specifically asked for in an FP7 ( [3] ) call for proposals published in 2012. As a result of this call, the
Commission is currently in the final stages of preparing a grant agreement for a project called PHAGOBURN that
aims to evaluate the use of phage therapy to treat bacterial infections of burn wounds in a clinical trial.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0748:FIN:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.concord-mrsa.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) FP7: Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013).

C 33 E / 428 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004426/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Relazione sui progressi della Turchia tra riforme fallite e stallo politico istituzionale: quale futuro per i
negoziati

La relazione più recente sui progressi della candidatura della Turchia per entrare a far parte dell'Unione europea è
stata presentata dalla Commissione nel 2012. Quest'ultima si basa su informazioni provenienti da diverse fonti
(elaborati del governo turco, degli Stati membri e del Parlamento europeo così come di organizzazioni internazionali
e non governative). In questo documento si evidenzia come la Turchia, sebbene si sia dimostrata pronta alla stesura di
una nuova costituzione e abbia compiuto notevoli progressi in ambito militare ed economico, resta politicamente
non in linea con criteri politici definiti per l'adesione all'UE.

Di fatto, il primo aprile è scaduto il termine dato alla «Commissione di conciliazione costituzionale» per presentare la
bozza di una nuova legge fondamentale, tuttavia le posizioni restano ancora caratterizzate da forti divergenze,
soprattutto sulla forma istituzionale della «nuova» Turchia. Mancano misure a favore della libertà di stampa,
modifiche della legislazione antiterrorismo e sulla riduzione della soglia di sbarramento alle elezioni parlamentari:
l'accordo sulla costituzione e sulla tutela di diritti fondamentali come quelli citati sarebbe quindi legato a doppio filo
al destino di un compromesso pubblico che tarda ad arrivare. In seguito a tale pubblicazione, diverse sono state le
proteste da parte delle autorità turche: in particolare, si è detto che la relazione sarebbe sbilanciata, in quanto
metterebbe in luce solo gli aspetti negativi senza lasciar spazio a quelli positivi.

Considerando che:

—
il processo di modernizzazione e democratizzazione del paese si trova ora in un'evidente fase di stallo;

—
l'attuale linea di condotta dell'UE con la Turchia è incoerente se confrontata con quella di altri paesi;

—
le riforme del sistema giuridico e dell'ordinamento politico della Turchia sono in ritardo rispetto alla tabella di
marcia richiesta per completare il processo di adesione;

può la Commissione far sapere:

1. Se ritenga che la Turchia sia ancora in grado di uniformarsi ai termini delle negoziazioni ad oggi ancora aperte?

2. Quali ulteriori provvedimenti considera necessari per dichiarare fallibili le trattative in corso dal momento che
non vi è traccia di riforme radicali per il sistema giuridico e per la risoluzione della questione curda?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(4 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza delle questioni sollevate dall'onorevole parlamentare.

Nel dicembre 2012 il Consiglio ha ribadito l'importanza delle relazioni tra l'Unione europea e la Turchia, dando
rilievo al fatto che tale paese ha posto la sua candidatura ad entrare nell'Unione e, in ragione della sua economia
dinamica e posizione strategica, ne costituisce uno dei partner fondamentali. Negoziati di adesione attivi e credibili
nel rispetto degli impegni dell'UE e delle condizioni poste, accanto a tutti gli altri aspetti delle relazioni UE-Turchia
affrontate nelle presenti conclusioni, consentiranno di sviluppare al meglio il potenziale di tali relazioni.

L'Unione inoltre sostiene pienamente i colloqui in corso intesi a porre fine al terrorismo e alla violenza nella Turchia
sudorientale, che hanno causato fin troppe vittime negli ultimi tre decenni. L'Unione accoglie con favore i grandi
progressi avvenuti di recente in tale direzione nonché l'ampio sostegno pubblico della Turchia alla presente iniziativa.
Per quanto riguarda la riforma del sistema giudiziario l'Unione è favorevole all'adozione del quarto pacchetto di
riforme. Si tratta di importanti progressi verso il pieno rispetto dei diritti fondamentali in Turchia, in linea con la
Convenzione europea sui diritti dell'uomo e le sentenze della Corte europea dei diritti dell'uomo. L'Unione auspica
una rapida attuazione del pacchetto, che consenta di affrontare in maniera adeguata i problemi che limitano de facto i
diritti fondamentali, tra cui la libertà dei media, il diritto a un processo equo e il diritto di riunione, nonché l'adozione
e la realizzazione di ulteriori riforme giudiziarie.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 429

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004426/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Progress report for Turkey reveals failed reforms and political/institutional deadlock: what is the future for the
negotiations?

The most recent progress report regarding Turkey’s application to join the EU was presented by the Commission in
2012. It is based on information from a range of sources (papers from the Turkish Government, Member States and
the European Parliament, as well as from international non-governmental organisations). This document reveals how
Turkey, although it has shown itself ready to draft a new constitution and has made considerable progress in the
military and economic fields, is still not in line with the political criteria set for joining the EU.

The time limit set for the ‘Constitutional Conciliation Commission’ to present the draft of a new basic law expired on
1 April 2013, but there are still great differences between the various positions, especially regarding the institutional
form of the ‘new’ Turkey. There is a lack of measures to support freedom of the press, amend antiterrorism legislation
and reduce the minimum threshold for parliamentary elections. Agreement on the constitution and the protection of
fundamental rights, such as those mentioned above, appears to be dependent on a public compromise which is not
forthcoming. Publication of the report was greeted with a range of protests from the Turkish authorities: in particular,
the report was said to be biased, since it highlighted only the negative aspects without mentioning the positive ones.

Considering that:

—
the modernisation and democratisation process in the country is now obviously in a state of deadlock;

—
the EU’s current course of action vis-à-vis Turkey is not consistent with that of other countries;

—
the reforms of the legal and political system in Turkey are behind the schedule required to complete the
accession process;

can the Commission state:

1. If it believes that Turkey is still able to conform to the terms of the current negotiations?

2. Which further measures it deems necessary to take in order to declare that current negotiations have failed,
given that there is no sign of any sweeping reform of the legal system or of any resolution of the Kurdish issue?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member.

In December 2012, the Council reaffirmed the importance it attaches to EU relations with Turkey. It stressed that
Turkey is a candidate country and a key partner for the European Union considering its dynamic economy and
strategic location. Active and credible accession negotiations which respect the EU's commitments and established
conditionality, along with all the other dimensions of the EU Turkey relationship addressed in these conclusions, will
enable the EU-Turkey relationship to achieve its full potential.

Furthermore, the EU fully supports the ongoing talks aimed at ending terrorism and violence in South-East Turkey,
which has claimed far too many victims in the past three decades. The EU welcomes important recent developments
in this regard as well as the broad public support in Turkey for this initiative. As regards judicial reform, the EU
welcomes the adoption of the 4th judicial reform package. This is an important development towards full respect for
fundamental rights in Turkey in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and the judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights. The EU is looking forward to the swift implementation of the package in order to
properly address issues restricting fundamental rights in practice, including media freedom, the right to a fair trial and
the right of assembly, as well as to the adoption and implementation of further judicial reforms.

C 33 E / 430 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004427/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sanità greca agonizzante: come intervenire

La crisi economica in Grecia ha messo in ginocchio anche il settore sanitario; se prima della crisi le persone rimaste
senza lavoro potevano ricevere un sussidio di disoccupazione e assistenza sanitaria per un anno, oggi la situazione è
cambiata radicalmente. Nel luglio 2011 la Grecia ha, infatti, firmato l'accordo per ottenere prestiti dagli altri Stati e
scongiurare il collasso economico. Con tale accordo si stabiliva che, una volta terminati i sussidi, la Grecia avrebbe
dovuto pagare «di tasca propria» i servizi relativi all'assistenza sanitaria. I tagli imposti dai creditori internazionali
hanno privato e continuano a privare i cittadini greci della copertura sanitaria e dell'accesso ai farmaci. In particolare,
un segnale allarmante è dato dalla scarna fornitura di composti per i protocolli chemioterapici, una situazione che si
protrae da mesi a causa del mancato pagamento alle imprese produttrici e delle insufficienti forniture di plasma.
Queste ultime sono ormai distribuite in quantità ridotta, non potendo il Paese sostenerne le relative spese. Una simile
situazione è preoccupante se si pensa che in Grecia si registrano in media tremila persone affette da talassemia, per le
quali le trasfusioni sono necessarie se non addirittura vitali.

Considerato che:

—
il tasso di disoccupazione ha raggiunto la soglia del 25 %;

—
la stretta economica e finanziaria della crisi europea ha portato a ridurre sensibilmente il ricorso all'assistenza
sanitaria;

—
le condizioni di salute dei cittadini hanno subito un progressivo peggioramento, rendendo rischiose se non
addirittura impossibili le donazioni di sangue;

—
la situazione sanitaria sempre più allarmante ha contribuito a un aumento del tasso di suicidi, poiché solo tra il
2011 e il 2012 si contano 3 124 casi di persone che si sono tolte la vita;

—
la tutela del diritto alla salute dei cittadini europei è garantita in primis dalla CEDU,

Quali azioni e misure intende la Commissione eventualmente adottare nel breve periodo per garantire il
miglioramento della situazione sanitaria in Grecia?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(28 maggio 2013)_

La Commissione continuerà a sostenere la Grecia nei suoi sforzi per porre in atto un'ampia riforma del sistema
sanitario greco al fine di garantire una maggiore equità nell'accesso a un'assistenza sanitaria di qualità elevata, come
indicato nel Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality (memorandum di intesa
sulle condizioni specifiche di politica economica), di concerto con la Banca centrale europea e il Fondo monetario
internazionale.

A tal fine, la Commissione ha istituito nel luglio 2011 una task force per la Grecia che ha il compito di fornire
assistenza tecnica alle autorità greche per aiutarle ad ottemperare al Memorandum di intesa.

Nel passato recente la task force ha sostenuto una serie di missioni di valutazione, relazioni e progetti di piani
d'azione, in particolare in tema di prescrizioni elettroniche, fissazione dei prezzi e rimborso dei medicinali,
definizione di un sistema estensivo di assistenza sanitaria di base, riforme relative alla gestione e alla struttura degli
ospedali nonché all'ulteriore sviluppo dell'EOPYY (Servizio sanitario nazionale greco).

La task force aiuta inoltre le autorità greche a mettere a punto un piano di finanziamento con l'Organizzazione
mondiale della sanità, la quale potrebbe sostenere queste riforme e l'assistenza tecnica ad esse correlata. La task force
continuerà le sue attività di sostegno in linea con il programma «Health in action» (Salute in azione) adottato dalla
Grecia il 26 marzo 2013.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 431

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004427/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ailing Greek healthcare system: what measures should be taken?

The economic crisis in Greece has also brought the healthcare sector to its knees; while before the crisis, unemployed
people could receive unemployment benefit and healthcare for a year, the situation today has changed dramatically.
In July 2011, Greece signed an agreement to receive loans from other States and forestall an economic collapse. This
agreement stipulated that, once the subsidies ended, Greece would have to pay for healthcare services ‘out of its own
pocket’. The cuts imposed by international creditors have deprived and continue to deprive Greek citizens of
healthcare and access to drugs. One particularly alarming sign is the inadequate supply of compounds for
chemotherapy protocols. This situation has lasted for months because of a lack of payments to manufacturers and
insufficient supplies of plasma. These are now distributed in smaller quantities because the country is unable to bear
the related costs. This is a worrying situation if you consider that, on average, there are three thousand people
suffering from thalassaemia in Greece, for whom transfusions are necessary if not vital.

Given that:

—
the rate of unemployment has grown to 25%;

—
the economic and financial squeeze caused by the crisis in Europe has led to a considerable reduction in the use
of healthcare facilities;

—
the health of citizens has grown progressively worse, making blood donations risky, if not impossible;

—
the increasingly worrying healthcare situation has contributed to a rise in the number of suicides: 3 124 people
took their own life in 2011 and 2012 alone;

—
protecting the right of European citizens to healthcare is enshrined first and foremost in the ECHR,

What possible steps and measures does the Commission intend to adopt in the short term to ensure that the
healthcare situation in Greece improves?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The Commission will continue to support Greece in its efforts to implement a comprehensive reform of the Greek
healthcare system, aimed at improving equal access to and high quality of care delivery as set forth in the
memorandum of understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality, in agreement with the European Central
Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

For this purpose, the Commission has established a Task Force for Greece in July 2011 to provide technical assistance
to the Greek authorities in compliance with the memorandum of understanding.

In the recent past, the Task force has supported a series of assessment missions, reports and draft action plans, notably
on e-prescriptions; pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticals; establishing a comprehensive system for primary
healthcare; reforms in hospital management and structures; and further development of the EOPYY (Greek National
Health Service Organisation).

The Task Force is also helping the Greek authorities to set up a financing scheme with the World Health Organisation
that could support these reforms and the related technical assistance. The task force will maintain its support
activities, fully in line with the ‘Health in action’ programme that Greece adopted on 26 March 2013.

C 33 E / 432 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004428/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Tecnica del sandblasting e silicosi: quali misure per proteggere i lavoratori

Schiarire il tessuto denim dei jeans è un'operazione che richiede un trattamento specifico, il c.d. _sandblasting_, ossia
l'applicazione di getti di sabbia con aria compressa sulla stoffa. Tramite questo processo viene prodotta una grande
quantità di polvere contenente particelle di biossido di silicio, con la conseguente contrazione da parte dei lavoratori
di malattie quali la silicosi e altre patologie dell'apparato respiratorio.

L'uso di questa tecnica è vietato in Europa dal 1966, ma resta una solida realtà in paesi con manodopera a basso costo
quali Indonesia, Cambogia, India, Pakistan e Bangladesh. Da tempo la _Clean Clothes Campaign_ lotta per ottenere
l'abolizione della sabbiatura nella produzione internazionale di jeans, ma non sono ancora stati raggiunti i risultati
sperati. Per questo motivo a febbraio 2013 ha avuto luogo una protesta a Milano che ha preso di mira alcune case di
moda che non hanno ancora aderito alla petizione contro il metodo della sabbiatura ma che sostengono di non
avvalersi di tale tecnica per i loro prodotti.

Considerato che:

—
in seguito ai divieti in alcuni paesi, ad esempio quello imposto in Turchia nel 2009, i produttori di jeans
riescono sempre a trasferire i loro ordini verso altri paesi;

—
i lavoratori, tra cui molti bambini, sono costretti a lavorare in condizioni pessime e le mascherine, per quanto
insufficienti a contrastare l'inalazione di polvere, non vengono fornite loro;

—
nel 70 % dei casi la silicosi porta alla morte;

può la Commissione far sapere:

1. Quali provvedimenti ritenga opportuni per cessare l'adozione della tecnica del _sandblasting_ a livello europeo?

2. Se ritenga di dover intervenire in modo da far assumere alle aziende le loro responsabilità ed erogare adeguati
risarcimenti ai lavoratori affetti da silicosi e alle loro famiglie?

3. Se consideri necessario promuovere campagne di sensibilizzazione a livello europeo, al fine di rendere i
cittadini più consapevoli e sostenere pratiche e politiche di produzione, distribuzione e consumo più giuste e
sostenibili?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(11 giugno 2013)_

La legislazione dell'UE in tema di salute e sicurezza professionali costituisce un quadro estensivo che copre la
protezione dei lavoratori esposti _ad agenti chimici pericolosi. Le principali direttive applicabili all'esposizione dei lavoratori ad_
_agenti chimici pericolosi, compresa la silice, sono le direttive 89/391/CEE (_ [1] _)_ _e 98/24/CE (_ [2] _)_ . Inoltre, nel 2006 le parti sociali
hanno sottoscritto un accordo di dialogo sociale multisettoriale sulle misure pratiche per gestire in modo efficace
l'esposizione alla silice.

Per quanto è a conoscenza della Commissione, l'industria tessile dell'UE non usa più la tecnica del _sandblasting_ nella
produzione di indumenti.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 89/391/CEE del Consiglio, del 12 giugno 1989, concernente l'attuazione di misure volte a promuovere il miglioramento della sicurezza

e della salute dei lavoratori durante il lavoro, GU L 183 del 29.6.1989.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 98/24/CE del Consiglio, del 7 aprile 1998, sulla protezione della salute e della sicurezza dei lavoratori contro i rischi derivanti da agenti

chimici durante il lavoro, GU L 131 del 5.5.1998.

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 433

Il riconoscimento e l'indennizzo delle malattie professionali rientrano nelle responsabilità degli Stati membri. La
silicosi figura sull'Elenco europeo delle malattie professionali allegato alla raccomandazione 670/2003/CE della
Commissione ( [3] ), la quale raccomanda agli Stati membri di introdurre l'Elenco europeo nelle loro disposizioni
legislative, regolamentari o amministrative relative alle malattie riconosciute scientificamente di origine professionale
che possono dar luogo ad indennizzo e che devono costituire oggetto di misure preventive. La raccomandazione non
è vincolante per gli Stati membri.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Raccomandazione della Commissione, del 19 settembre 2003, sull'elenco europeo delle malattie professionali, GU L 238 del 25.9.2003.

C 33 E / 434 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004428/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sandblasting and silicosis: what measures can be taken to protect workers?

Bleaching denim jeans requires a specific treatment known as sandblasting, which involves blasting the fabric with
jets of sand using compressed air. The process generates a large quantity of dust containing silicon dioxide particles,
and can result in workers contracting diseases such as silicosis and other disorders of the respiratory system.

The use of this technique has been banned in Europe since 1966, but it is still widely used in low labour cost countries
such as Indonesia, Cambodia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. For some time now, the Clean Clothes Campaign has
fought to have sandblasting banned in the production of jeans around the world, but the expected results have not yet
been achieved. For this reason a protest was held in Milan in 2013 against some fashion houses which have not yet
signed up to the anti-sandblasting petition but claim not to use this technique for their products.

Given that:

—
following bans in some countries, e.g. the one imposed in 2009 in Turkey, jeans producers have always
managed to transfer their orders to other countries;

—
the workers, many of whom are children, are forced to work in dire conditions and without face masks,
however insufficient they may be in preventing dust inhalation;

—
silicosis causes death in 70% of cases;

Can the Commission state:

1. Which measures it believes should be taken to ban the use of sandblasting throughout Europe.

2. Whether it believes it should intervene to force companies to assume their responsibilities and provide suitable
compensation to workers suffering from silicosis and their families.

3. Whether it believes it is necessary to encourage awareness-building campaigns at European level, in order to
make citizens more informed and support production, distribution and consumption practices and policies
that are both fairer and more sustainable?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

EU occupational safety and health legislation is a comprehensive framework that covers the protection of workers
exposed to hazardous chemicals. The key Directives applicable to workers’ exposure to hazardous chemical agents,
including silica, are Directives 89/391/EEC ( [1] ) and 98/24/EC ( [2] ). In addition, in 2006 the social partners signed a
multi-sectoral social dialogue agreement on practical measures to manage exposure to silica effectively.

As far as the Commission is aware, the EU textile industry no longer uses sandblasting in garment production.

Recognition of and compensation for occupational diseases is a Member State responsibility. Silicosis is listed in the
European schedule of occupational diseases annexed to Commission Recommendation 670/2003/EC ( [3] ), which
recommends that the Member States introduce the European schedule as soon as possible into their national laws,
regulations or administrative provisions concerning scientifically recognised occupational diseases liable for
compensation and subject to preventive measures. The recommendation is not binding on the Member States.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers

at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at

work, OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Recommendation of 19 September 2003 concerning the European schedule of occupational diseases, OJ L 238, 25.9.2003.

( **|**

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 435

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004429/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Zeoliti da «fly ash» per depurare l'ambiente: una nuova possibilità per un ambiente più sano e benefici per la
salute di tutti

Bonificare acque inquinate e terreni contaminati da metalli pesanti (nichel, piombo e manganese), o da composti
organici presenti in concentrazioni elevate, è la sfida proposta e sviluppata dai ricercatori del Consiglio Nazionale
delle Ricerche (CNR) italiano. Le ricerche sono state condotte in USA, dove sono stati lavorati materiali di scarto quali
il «fly ash», un residuo dei trattamenti di depolverizzazione e pulizia dei reflui gassosi ricco di inquinanti organici e
inorganici, considerato come materiale pericoloso da smaltire in discarica, per il quale in molti Paesi si sta creando un
grosso problema a danno dell'ambiente mondiale. Ad esempio, in Italia la metodica per determinare il Toc (carbonio
organico totale) non tiene conto dell'esclusione del carbonio elementare, e questo fa sì che il valore di carbonio sia
sovrastimato, ma la sovrastima del carbonio obbliga a spendere molto di più per le bonifiche e, per contro, impedisce
lo smaltimento in discarica delle cosiddette «fly ash». In Olanda queste particelle sono utilizzate come filler nell'asfalto,
mentre il metodo studiato dal CNR si basa sulla sintesi di zeoliti generate da «fly ash», minerale innovativo anti
inquinamento sintetizzato dai rifiuti; le zeoliti sono minerali idrati di silicio, solitamente ottenuti con acqua distillata e
utilizzati come setacci chimici, filtri per controllare gli odori e assorbenti per rimuovere elementi o molecole da acque
contaminate. Il CNR ha studiato un sistema a basso costo energetico per generare zeoliti che, infatti, vengono
sintetizzate impiegando acqua di mare a temperature inferiori a 45°: seguendo questo processo si ottengono maggiori
quantità di zeolite rispetto a quanto si possa ricavare impiegando acqua distillata.

Considerato che:

—
in diversi Paesi la stragrande maggioranza di «fly ash», dopo aver subito un processo di inertizzazione, viene
esportata per la quasi totalità verso altri Paesi, destinata ad operazioni di messa in riserva, spesso in miniere di
salgemma, o impiegata nell'asfalto;

può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Non ritiene opportuno vagliare lo studio condotto dal CNR affinché possano essere valutati eventuali margini
di miglioramento in vista di un migliore smaltimento delle polveri?

2. Non ritiene che sarebbe utile per tutti i Paesi europei impiegare il «fly ash» come sintetizzatore di zeoliti che
potrebbero apportare un'importante svolta nella depurazione delle acque e dei terreni nei quali la
concentrazione di metalli pesanti e composti organici è elevata?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(27 maggio 2013)_

La Commissione non è a conoscenza della specifica ricerca cui fa riferimento l'onorevole deputato. In letteratura,
tuttavia, non è del tutto nuovo l'uso di ceneri volanti per produrre zeolite ( [1] ).

Poiché questa tecnica di trattamento con ceneri volanti derivate dai processi industriali potrebbe essere riconosciuta
come «tecnica emergente» o come «migliore tecnica disponibile», a norma della direttiva 2010/75/UE relativa alle
emissioni industriali, esortiamo i ricercatori a fornire tutte le informazioni pertinenti all'Ufficio europeo di
prevenzione e di riduzione integrata dell'inquinamento (EIPPCB) della Commissione, affinché sia presa in
considerazione nell'ambito della revisione del documento di riferimento sulle migliori tecniche disponibili (BREF) in
materia di trattamento dei rifiuti che prenderà il via tra qualche mese.

Se invece la tecnica proposta deve essere ulteriormente sviluppata per andare incontro alle esigenze del mercato,
potrebbe essere presentata nell'ambito dei futuri inviti a presentare proposte del programma quadro per la ricerca e
l'innovazione — Orizzonte 2020 (2014-2020).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Evaluation of zeolites synthesized from fly ash as potential adsorbents for wastewater containing heavy metals, Journal of Environmental

Sciences, 21 (1), 2009, pagg. 127-136; Synthesis of zeolite from coal fly ashes with different silica‐alumina composition, Fuel, 84 (2-3), gennaiofebbraio 2005, pagg. 299-304; Mechanism of zeolite synthesis from coal fly ash by alkali hydrothermal reaction, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 64 (1), febbraio 2002, pagg. 1-17.

C 33 E / 436 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004429/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fly ash zeolites to purify the environment: a new option for a cleaner environment and health benefits for

everyone

Researchers at the Italian National Research Council (CNR) have taken up the challenge of cleaning polluted waters
and soils contaminated with heavy metals (nickel, lead and manganese) or high concentrations of organic
compounds. Research conducted in the USA has processed waste material such as fly ash, a residue from waste gas
dedusting and cleaning processes, which is rich in organic and inorganic pollutants and considered too hazardous to
be landfilled, thus creating a major problem in many countries that is harmful to the global environment. In Italy, the
method used to determine TOC (Total Organic Carbon) does not take into account the exclusion of elemental carbon,
which means that the carbon value is overestimated, as a result of which a lot more must be spent on
decontamination and fly ash cannot be landfilled. In the Netherlands, these particles are used as a filler in asphalt,
while the method developed by the CNR is based on synthesising the zeolites generated by fly ash, creating an
innovative anti-pollution mineral synthesised from waste. Zeolites are minerals that contain hydrated silicon
compounds, usually obtained with distilled water and used as molecular sieves, odour-controlling filters and
absorbents to remove elements or molecules from polluted water. The CNR has designed a low energy system for
generating zeolites which are actually synthesised using seawater at under 45°: this process produces greater
quantities of zeolites than can be obtained by using distilled water.

Given that:

—
in a range of countries, the vast majority of fly ash is first neutralised and then almost entirely exported to other
countries for storage, often in halite mines, or used in asphalt;

could the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Does it believe it would be worthwhile to examine the research conducted by the CNR in order to assess any
potential improvements with a view to improving the disposal of dust?

2. Does it believe it would be useful for all EU countries to use fly ash as a means of synthesising zeolites, thus
achieving a major breakthrough in soil and water decontamination where the concentration of heavy metals
and organic compounds is very high?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

The Commission is not aware of the specific research referred to by the Honourable Member. However, in the
literature the use of fly ash for producing zeolite is not completely new ( [1] ).

As this technique of dealing with fly ashes from industrial processes could be a candidate to be recognised as an
‘emerging technique’ or a ‘Best Available Technique’ within the context of the Industrial Emissions
Directive 2010/75/EU, we encourage the researchers to provide all relevant information on it to the Commission's
European IPPC Bureau for its consideration in the context of the revision of the Best Available Techniques Reference
Document (BREF) for Waste Treatment, which is planned to start later this year.

On the other hand, if the proposed technique still needs further development to get closer to the market, it could be
considered for submission in the future calls for proposals that will be launched under the framework Programme for
Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020 (2014-2020).

⋅1∙

( **|** **|** ) Evaluation of zeolites synthesized from fly ash as potential adsorbents for wastewater containing heavy metals, _Journal of Environmental Sciences_,

Volume 21, Issue 1, 2009, pp. 127‐136; Synthesis of zeolite from coal fly ashes with different silica‐alumina composition, _Fuel_, Volume 84, Issues
2‐3, January‐February 2005, pp. 299‐304; Mechanism of zeolite synthesis from coal fly ash by alkali hydrothermal reaction, _International Journal_
_of Mineral Processing_, Volume 64, Issue 1, February 2002, pp. 1‐17.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 437

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-004430/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(19 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Progresele înregistrate de Serbia în 2012

La data de 1 martie 2012, Serbia a obținut în mod formal statutul de candidat la aderarea la UE. În Raportul Comisiei
privind progresele înregistrate de Serbia în 2012, se afirmă că Serbia continuă să îndeplinească în mod suficient
criteriile politice. În ciuda acestei constatări, precum și a laudelor primite de Serbia în dialogul său cu Uniunea,
persistă o serie de probleme, legate în special de protecția și promovarea drepturilor minorităților etnice. Raportul
Comisiei constată că progresele în acest domeniu au fost limitate.

După cum se știe, în regiunea sârbă cunoscută sub numele de Valea Timocului, trăiește un număr important de etnici
români. Aceștia nu se pot bucura în mod deplin de o serie de drepturi fundamentale, precum cel de a învăța în limba
maternă.

Tot la data de 1 martie 2012, România și Serbia au semnat Protocolul celei de-a doua sesiuni a Comisiei Mixte
Interguvernamentale privind minoritățile naționale. El conține o serie de angajamente în vederea protejării drepturilor
minorităților naționale, începând cu reprezentarea parlamentară, autorizațiile de construire a unor biserici sau
asigurarea dreptului la educație în limba maternă.

De asemenea, Protocolul precizează asumarea de către Serbia a conexiunii dintre aderarea la UE a acestui stat și
criteriile politice de aderare de la Copenhaga, care includ și protecția minorităților naționale.

Din păcate, progresele înregistrate de Serbia în implementarea prevederilor protocolului sunt limitate până în acest
moment și se rezumă, pe de o parte, la extinderea duratei unei transmisiuni TV în limba română difuzate de către o
televiziune cu o acoperire relativ limitată de la 10 minute la 45 de minute, iar pe de alta la inițierea unui program
educațional pilot în trei localități în care se va putea preda limba maternă la școală pentru etnicii români.

Cum vor condiționa aceste progrese limitate îndeplinirea criteriilor de la Copenhaga referitoare la protecția
minorităților, de către Serbia, o condiție fundamentală pentru avansarea dialogului cu Uniunea?

De asemenea, ce mijloace are la dispoziție în acest moment Comisia pentru a monitoriza implementarea cât mai
eficientă a măsurilor luate de autoritățile de la Belgrad în problematica minorităților naționale?

Poate fi condiționată deschiderea negocierilor de aderare cu Serbia de înregistrarea de progrese în acest domeniu?

**Răspuns dat de dl Füle în numele Comisiei**

_(24 mai 2013)_

Comisia monitorizează îndeaproape situația minorităților din Serbia, țară în care există în general un cadru juridic
adecvat pentru protecția minorităților, care însă trebuie pus în aplicare cu mai multă eficacitate și consecvență pe tot
teritoriul țării.

Raportul comun ( [1] ) al Comisiei și al Înaltului Reprezentant privind progresele realizate de Serbia, adoptat la 22 aprilie
2013, indică faptul că, în ultimele luni, Serbia a luat măsuri pentru a îmbunătăți punerea în aplicare a cadrului juridic
pe tot teritoriul țării. În ceea ce privește estul Serbiei, s-au luat măsuri pentru a se produce și a se difuza pe plan local
programe de televiziune în limba română și pentru a se redifuza programele postului de televiziune Vojvodina TV în
limba română. S-au primit instrucțiuni oficiale în sensul introducerii, din anul școlar următor, a unei ore opționale de
limba română, care să cuprindă și elemente de cultură, iar în aprilie 2013 au fost lansate clase-pilot în trei
municipalități din Serbia. În raport se menționează totodată că nu a fost încă rezolvată problema serviciilor religioase,
se ia însă notă de faptul că guvernul Serbiei a făcut apel la Biserica Ortodoxă Sârbă să poarte un dialog cu Biserica
Ortodoxă Română.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JOIN (2013) 7: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/sr_spring_report_2013_en.pdf

C 33 E / 438 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Progresele înregistrate până acum se datorează în mare parte consultărilor care au avut loc în octombrie 2012 și din
nou în martie 2013 sub auspiciile Înaltului Comisar pentru Minoritățile Naționale din cadrul Organizației pentru
Securitate și Cooperare în Europa (OSCE). Înaltul Comisar s-a oferit să medieze în ceea ce privește chestiunea
serviciilor religioase, iar Comisia speră ca acest lucru să conducă la mai multe rezultate pozitive.

Comisia va continua să monitorizeze îndeaproape progresele înregistrate în acest domeniu, în strânsă colaborare cu
Înaltul Comisar pentru Minoritățile Naționale din cadrul OSCE, precum și cu organismele competente ale Consiliului
Europei.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 439

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004430/13**

**to the Commission**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Progress recorded in Serbia in 2012

On 1 March 2012, Serbia received full candidate status for EU accession, the Commission report on its progress in
2012 pointing to a satisfactory record in meeting the political criteria. Despite this and the plaudits garnered by
Serbia in its dialogue with the Union, a number of problems relating in particular to the protection and promotion of
the rights of ethnic minorities remain unresolved, the Commission being forced to concede that progress in this area
has been limited.

It is well known that the Timocka Krajina region of Serbia is home to a large number of ethnic Romanians, who are
being deprived of a number of fundamental rights, including native-language teaching.

On March 2012, Romania and Serbia signed the protocol drawn up at the second meeting of the joint
intergovernmental committee on national minorities containing a number of undertakings regarding the protection
of national minority rights, including parliamentary representation, authorisation to build churches and entitlement
to native-language teaching.

The protocol also specifies recognition by Serbia of the link between EU accession and compliance with the
Copenhagen political accession criteria, including the protection of national minorities.

Unfortunately only limited progress has been made to date by Serbia in this respect, amounting to an increase from
10 to 45 minutes in the duration of a television broadcast in Romanian, reaching a relatively limited audience and the
commencement of an educational pilot project in three localities providing native-language teaching for ethnic
Romanian school pupils.

What are the implications of this limited progress in meeting the Copenhagen criteria for the protection of minorities
by Serbia, a basic condition for the advancement of dialogue with the Union?

What resources does the Commission currently have available to monitor the effective implementation of the
provisions adopted by the Belgrade authorities regarding national minorities?

Can negotiations for Serbian accession be made conditional on progress in this area?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 May 2013)_

The Commission closely follows the situation of minorities in Serbia where overall an appropriate legal framework
providing for the protection of minorities is in place while its implementation needs to be applied more effectively
and consistently throughout the country.

The Joint Report ( [1] ) of the Commission and the High Representative on Serbia’s progress adopted on 22 April 2013
indicates that, in recent months, Serbia has taken steps to improve the implementation of the legal framework
throughout its territory. With regard to Eastern Serbia, measures have been implemented to locally produce and
broadcast television (TV) programmes in Romanian and re-broadcast Vojvodina TV programmes in Romanian.
Official instructions have introduced an optional Romanian language class with elements of culture as from the next
school year and pilot classes have started in April 2013 in three Serbian municipalities. The report also mentions that
the issue of religious services remains to be resolved but took note that the Serbian Government has called on the
Serbian Orthodox Church to engage in a dialogue with the Romanian Orthodox Church.

Progress recorded so far owes a lot to consultations under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) High Commissioner on National Minorities held in October 2012 and again in
March 2013. The High Commissioner has offered to mediate on the issue of religious services and the Commission
expects this to bring about additional results.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor progress in this area in close cooperation with the OSCE High
Commissioner on National Minorities, as well as Council of Europe expert bodies.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JOIN (2013) 7: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2013/sr_spring_report_2013_en.pdf

C 33 E / 440 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004431/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Accesión de Bulgaria y Rumanía al Tratado de Schengen

La aprobación del Tratado de Schengen sirvió, junto a otros elementos normativos, como base para la construcción y
fortaleza de la Unión Europea. Esta zona cubre una población de aproximadamente 400 millones de personas y
4 312 099 km [2] de superficie.

En el año 2007, Bulgaria y Rumanía accedieron como miembros de pleno derecho a la Unión Europea y sin embargo,
desde entonces está pendiente su accesión al Área de Schengen. Se han realizado informes de evaluación para conocer
su grado de cumplimiento en relación con el nivel de protección de datos, el Sistema de Información de Schengen, la
cooperación policial, la emisión de visados y el control de las fronteras terrestres, aéreas y marítimas.

Siendo todos estos informes favorables, el Parlamento Europeo votó a favor de su entrada en el Área de Schengen en
junio de 2011, pero aún estamos pendientes de que el Consejo se pronuncie favorablemente.

Ante esta situación, y ante la posibilidad de veto en el seno del Consejo por algunos Estados miembros, ¿qué pasos
tiene pensados dar la Comisión para garantizar la entrada de Bulgaria y Rumania en el Área de Schengen?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004432/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Accesión de Bulgaria y Rumanía al Tratado de Schengen

La aprobación del Tratado de Schengen sirvió, junto a otros elementos normativos, como base para la construcción y
fortaleza de la Unión Europea. Esta área cubre una población de aproximadamente 400 millones de personas y
4 312 099 km [2] de superficie.

En el año 2007 Bulgaria y Rumanía accedieron como miembros de pleno derecho a la Unión Europea y sin embargo,
desde entonces está pendiente su accesión al Área de Schengen. Se han realizado informes de evaluación para conocer
su grado de cumplimiento en relación con el nivel de protección de datos, el Sistema de Información de Schengen, la
cooperación policial, la emisión de visados y el control de las fronteras terrestres, aéreas y marítimas.

Siendo todos estos informes favorables, el Parlamento Europeo votó a favor de su entrada en el Área de Schengen en
junio de 2011, pero aún estamos pendientes de que el Consejo se pronuncie favorablemente.

Ante esta situación, ¿puede la Comisión informarnos del punto en el que se encuentran estas negociaciones?

**Respuesta conjunta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(31 de mayo de 2013)_

Las Actas de Adhesión de Bulgaria y de Rumania establecen que las disposiciones del acervo de Schengen solo se
aplicarán plenamente en estos dos Estados miembros después de una evaluación y una decisión del Consejo a tal
efecto, previa consulta al Parlamento Europeo. La Comisión no tiene un papel oficial en este proceso.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 441

Tras el debate sobre la situación actual de la adhesión de Bulgaria y de Rumania a Schengen mantenido en la sesión del
Consejo de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior (JAI), celebrada los días 7 y 8 de marzo de 2013, el ministro irlandés que
ocupaba la Presidencia de turno declaró: «El Consejo volverá a tratar el tema de la adhesión de Rumanía y de Bulgaria
a Schengen como solicitó el Consejo Europeo en diciembre de 2012. Recuerda el resultado de la sesión del Consejo
Europeo de diciembre de 2012 así como las conclusiones pertinentes de los Consejos Europeos anteriores y del
Consejo JAI. El Consejo ha decidido tratar de nuevo este tema a finales de 2013 con miras a considerar el camino por
seguir basándose en un planteamiento en dos etapas.»

La Comisión sigue apoyando la adhesión de los dos Estados miembros al Espacio de Schengen y seguirá
desempeñando su función de mediadora para alcanzar un acuerdo entre los Estados miembros.

C 33 E / 442 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004431/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Agreement

Together with other legal instruments, the adoption of the Schengen Agreement formed the basis on which the
European Union was built and developed. The Schengen Area covers 4 312 099 square kilometres and includes
within it approximately 400 million people.

Bulgaria and Romania became full members of the European Union in 2007, and yet their accession to the Schengen
Area has still not taken place. Assessment reports have been carried out to pinpoint their levels of compliance in the
following areas: data protection, the Schengen information system, police cooperation, issuance of visas and control
of land, sea and air borders.

Positive assessments were given in all of the reports, leading the European Parliament to vote in favour of Bulgaria and
Romania's entry into the Schengen Area in June 2011. However, we are still awaiting approval from the Council.

Given that certain Member States might use their veto at the Council, what steps does the Commission plan to take in
order to ensure that Bulgaria and Romania join the Schengen Area?

**Question for written answer E-004432/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen Agreement

Together with other legal instruments, the adoption of the Schengen Agreement formed the basis on which the
European Union was built and developed. The Schengen Area covers 4 312 099 square kilometres and includes
within it approximately 400 million people.

Bulgaria and Romania became full members of the European Union in 2007, and yet their accession to the Schengen
Area has still not taken place. Assessment reports have been carried out to pinpoint their levels of compliance in the
following areas: data protection, the Schengen information system, police cooperation, issuance of visas and control
of land, sea and air borders.

Positive assessments were given in all of the reports, leading the European Parliament to vote in favour of Bulgaria and
Romania's entry into the Schengen Area in June 2011. However, we are still awaiting approval from the Council.

Can the Commission give an update on what stage these accession negotiations have reached?

**Joint answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

Bulgaria's and Romania's Acts of Accession determine that the provisions of the Schengen _acquis_ shall fully apply in
these two Member States only following an evaluation and a Council decision to that effect, after consultation of the
European Parliament. The Commission has no formal role in this process.

After the state of play discussion on Bulgaria's and Romania's Schengen accession at the 7 and 8 March 2013 meeting
of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council, the Irish Minister holding the rotating presidency concluded: ‘The
Council reverted to the issue of the Schengen accession of Romania and Bulgaria, as requested by the European
Council in December 2012. It recalled the outcome of the European Council meeting in December 2012 as well as all
relevant conclusions of previous European Councils and of the JHA Council. The Council decided to address this issue
again by the end of 2013 with a view to considering the way forward on the basis of a two-step approach.’

The Commission continues to support the two Member States' accession to the Schengen area and will continue
using its role as facilitator to reach an agreement among Member States.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 443

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004433/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Dispersión geográfica

El artículo 174, párrafo segundo, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea señala que: «la Unión se
propondrá, en particular, reducir las diferencias entre los niveles de desarrollo de las diversas regiones y el retraso de
las regiones menos favorecidas».

Castilla y León es la región más extensa de España y la segunda más extensa de la UE, ya que con un territorio de más
de 94 000 kilómetros cuadrados, 2 558 463 habitantes y 2 248 municipios, y el 26 % de la población reside en
municipios de menos de 2 000 habitantes.

¿Podría la Comisión indicar si se tendrá en cuenta el criterio de la dispersión geográfica como un factor de bajo nivel
de desarrollo? ¿Qué medidas va a tomar la Comisión para reducir estas diferencias en los niveles de desarrollo de las
diversas regiones?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004434/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Despoblación geográfica

La crisis está afectando a muchos sectores, pero sobre todo a ciertas regiones que están viendo como tienen una
continuada pérdida de habitantes, ya que se marchan a otras regiones, ciudades e incluso países en busca de trabajo y
mejores condiciones de vida.

España está entre los países de la UE con mayor despoblación en las zonas rurales. Entre las desventajas demográficas
de la región de donde soy yo, Castilla y León, también está la creciente despoblación.

El título XIII del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea trata de la cohesión económica, social y territorial y
de cómo promover un desarrollo armonioso del conjunto de la Unión. ¿Podría la Comisión indicar qué medidas va a
tomar para solucionar el problema de la despoblación en este tipo de regiones?

**Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Hahn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(20 de junio de 2013)_

El artículo 174 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea trata en particular de las regiones afectadas por
desventajas naturales o demográficas graves y permanentes.

La Comisión, en el Libro Verde sobre la cohesión territorial, de 6 de octubre de 2008, destaca que la escasa densidad
de población constituye un obstáculo importante al desarrollo de las regiones.

En estas circunstancias, la propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, por el que se establecen
disposiciones comunes relativas al Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, al Fondo Social Europeo, al Fondo de
Cohesión, al Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural y al Fondo Europeo Marítimo y de la Pesca, prevé que el
porcentaje de financiación de los Fondos en un eje prioritario podrá modularse en función de la inclusión de zonas
afectadas por desventajas naturales o demográficas graves y permanentes, como las zonas de densidad de población
baja (menos de 50 habitantes por km [2] ) y muy baja (menos de 8 habitantes por km [2] ).

C 33 E / 444 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004433/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Geographical dispersion

The second paragraph of Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that ‘the Union
shall aim at reducing disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the
least favoured regions’.

Castilla y León is the largest region in Spain and the second largest in the European Union, covering an area of over
94 000 km [2] . The region has 2 248 municipalities and a population of 2 558 463, of whom 26% live in municipalities
with fewer than 2 000 inhabitants.

Is geographical dispersion considered a factor in low levels of development? What action does the Commission
intend to take in order to reduce these disparities between levels of development in the various regions?

**Question for written answer E-004434/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Geographical depopulation

The crisis is affecting many sectors, but particularly certain regions which are experiencing a continuous decline in
inhabitants, as they are moving to other regions, cities and even countries in search of jobs and better living
conditions.

Spain is one of the countries with the highest rate of depopulation in rural areas in the EU. Growing depopulation is
one of the demographic constraints facing the region where I am from, Castilla y León.

Title XVIII of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union deals with economic, social and territorial
cohesion and how to promote its overall harmonious development across the Union. Can the Commission state what
measures it intends to take to resolve the problem of depopulation in such regions?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse commune donnée par M. Hahn au nom de la Commission**

_(20 juin 2013)_

L'article 174 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union Européenne traite particulièrement sur les régions qui
souffrent de handicaps naturels ou démographiques graves et permanents.

La Commission, dans le Livre Vert du 6 octobre 2008 sur la cohésion territoriale, souligne que la faible densité de
population constitue un obstacle majeur au développement des régions.

Dans ces conditions, la proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil portant dispositions générales
applicables au Fonds européen de développement régional, au Fonds social européen, au Fonds de cohésion, au Fond
européen agricole de développement rural et au Fonds européen maritime et de la pêche prévoit que le taux de
cofinancement des Fonds dans un axe prioritaire pourra être modulé en fonction de la couverture de zones souffrant
de handicaps naturels ou démographiques graves et permanents telles que les zones à densité de population faible
(moins de 50 habitants par km [2] ) et très faible (moins de 8 habitants par km [2] ).

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 445

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004435/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Directiva del Consejo 2004/113/CE

El objetivo de la Directiva del Consejo 2004/113/EC es crear un marco para combatir la discriminación sexual en
relación con el acceso a los bienes y servicios y su suministro, con vistas a que en los Estados miembros se aplique el
principio de igualdad de trato entre hombres y mujeres.

El uso del género como factor para calcular primas y beneficios en los seguros es una cuestión controvertida. En su
sentencia del 1 de marzo de 2011, el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea expuso que el artículo 5, apartado 2, de
la Directiva citada anteriormente es contrario al acuerdo sobre la igualdad de trato entre hombres y mujeres.

Teniendo en cuenta esta sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia ¿podría señalar la Comisión si ha elaborado algún tipo de
informe para valorar el impacto de dicha sentencia sobre la igualdad de trato entre hombres y mujeres?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión publicó en 2011 las Directrices sobre la aplicación de la Directiva 2004/113/CE del Consejo a los
seguros, a la luz de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea en el asunto C-236/09 (Test-Achats) ( [1] ).

La Comisión presentará en 2014 su informe sobre la ejecución de la Directiva 2004/113/CE en los distintos Estados
miembros. Dicho informe incluirá un análisis de la ejecución de la sentencia Test-Achats en los Estados miembros.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directrices sobre la aplicación de la Directiva 2004/113/CE del Consejo a los seguros, a la luz de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión
Europea en el asunto C-236/09 (Test-Achats) — DO C 11 de 13.1.2012, pp. 1-11.

C 33 E / 446 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004435/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Council Directive 2004/113/EC

The purpose of Council Directive 2004/113/EC is to lay down a framework for combating discrimination based on
sex in access to and supply of goods and services, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle
of equal treatment between men and women.

The use of sex as a factor in the calculation of premiums and benefits for the purposes of insurance is a controversial
issue. In its judgment of 1 March 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that Article 5(2) of the
aforementioned Directive is not in line with the agreement on equal treatment between men and women.

Bearing in mind the judgment of the Court of Justice, can the Commission indicate whether it has drawn up any kind
of report to evaluate the impact of this judgment on equal treatment between men and women?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(6 juin 2013)_

La Commission a publié en 2011 des lignes directrices sur l'application de la directive 2004/113/CE du Conseil dans
le secteur des assurances, à la lumière de l'arrêt de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne dans l'affaire C-236/09
(Test-Achats) ( [1] ).

La Commission présentera en 2014 son rapport sur la mise en œuvre de la directive 2004/113/CE dans les différents
États membres. Ce rapport inclura une analyse de la mise en œuvre de l'arrêt Test-Achats dans les États membres.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Lignes directrices sur l'application de la directive 2004/113/CE du Conseil dans le secteur des assurances, à la lumière de l'arrêt de la Cour de
justice de l'Union européenne dans l'affaire C-236/09 (Test-Achats) — JO n°C 011 du 13/01/2012, pp. 0001-0011.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 447

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004436/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Directiva del Consejo 2004/113/CE

La Directiva del Consejo 2004/113/CE, que implementa el principio de igualdad de trato entre hombres y mujeres en
el acceso al suministro de bienes y servicios, entró en vigor el 21 de diciembre de 2004. Los Estados miembros tenían
tiempo hasta el 21 de diciembre de 2007 para implementarla, y, en último lugar, la Comisión debía realizar un
informe de evaluación al respecto a partir de la implementación en todos los Estados miembros.

Debido a la importancia que tienen los informes de evaluación para identificar las posibles lagunas y así proponer
soluciones, ¿cuándo tiene previsto la Comisión realizar dicho informe?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(28 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión presentará en 2014 un informe sobre la implementación de la Directiva 2004/113/CE en los diferentes
Estados miembros. En este informe, la Comisión evaluará la necesidad de proponer que se introduzcan posibles
modificaciones en dicha Directiva, si así procede.

C 33 E / 448 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004436/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Council Directive 2004/113/EC

Council Directive 2004/113/EC, implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the
access to and supply of goods and services, entered into force on 21 December 2004. The Member States had until
21 December 2007 to implement this directive and, lastly, the Commission had to draw up an evaluation report in
this regard based on implementation in all of the Member States.

Given the importance of evaluation reports for identifying possible shortcomings and proposing solutions for these,
when does the Commission intend to produce this report?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(28 mai 2013)_

La Commission présentera en 2014 un rapport sur la mise en œuvre de la directive 2004/113/CE dans les différents
États membres. Dans ce rapport, la Commission évaluera la nécessité de proposer, si nécessaire, d'éventuels
amendements à la directive 2004/113.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 449

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004437/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Respeto de los derechos fundamentales en la red

El incremento del uso de las nuevas tecnologías supone también, de un modo paralelo, un incremento de incidentes
en la red. Uno de los que suceden con asiduidad es la vulneración de los derechos fundamentales de otros ciudadanos.

En una consulta pública en 2011, el 57 % de los encuestados aseguraron que habían experimentado problemas de
ciberseguridad. También se constató que este tipo de delitos se está incrementando y sofisticando, lo que impone la
necesidad de reforzar las herramientas para combatirlo.

Debido a que los sistemas de información están interconectados y no conocen fronteras, la lucha por el respeto de los
derechos fundamentales en la red debe hacerse a escala europea.

Por la misma razón, la Comisión decidió formular recomendaciones para reforzar el marco legal en este campo e
incrementar las capacidades de respuesta y coordinación en los Veintisiete, por medio de un mecanismo de
cooperación e intercambio de información.

A fin de asegurar de una manera más efectiva el respeto de los derechos fundamentales _online_, ¿tiene previsto realizar
la Comisión algún tipo de iniciativa legislativa de obligado cumplimiento en los Estados miembros?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(13 de junio de 2013)_

Con el fin de que el ciberespacio siga manteniendo su carácter abierto y libre, las mismas normas, principios y valores
que la UE defiende en el mundo real deberían aplicarse también al mundo virtual. La protección de los derechos
fundamentales en el ciberespacio es necesaria y su consecución requiere protección y seguridad. La Comisión Europea
ha propuesto dos iniciativas legislativas relativas a la lucha contra la delincuencia informática y la ciberseguridad.

La primera de ellas, la propuesta de Directiva relativa a los ataques contra los sistemas de información ( [1] ), responde al
creciente número de ataques a gran escala que sufren las empresas pero también, cada vez más, los gobiernos, como
así pusieron de manifiesto los ataques informáticos de los que fue víctima Estonia en el año 2007. Esta propuesta
considera delito tanto el uso como la producción y venta de herramientas (tales como los _botnets_ ) cuyo fin es atacar
sistemas de información. En junio de 2012, el Consejo y el PE alcanzaron un acuerdo sobre un texto transaccional
cuya adopción continúa pendiente debido a su vinculación con los debates interinstitucionales que giran en torno al
paquete legislativo de Schengen.

La segunda propuesta de Directiva, la más reciente, se refiere a las medidas encaminadas a garantizar un elevado nivel
común de seguridad de las redes y de la información en la Unión ( [2] ), y tiene como finalidad aumentar la seguridad de
internet y de las redes y sistemas de información privados que sustentan el funcionamiento de las sociedades y
economías de la UE. A fin de alcanzar dicho objetivo, es necesario, por una parte, instar a los Estados miembros a
estar más preparados e incrementar la cooperación entre ellos, y, por otra, exigir a los operadores de infraestructuras
críticas y a las administraciones públicas que adopten las medidas oportunas para gestionar los riesgos de seguridad y
notificar los incidentes graves a las autoridades nacionales competentes.

Ambas Directivas garantizarán el respeto de los derechos fundamentales en línea, lo cual exige que previamente
existan una mayor preparación y una lucha más eficaz contra la delincuencia informática.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 517 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 48 final.

C 33 E / 450 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004437/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Respect for fundamental rights online

The increase in the use of new technologies also represents a parallel increase in online incidents. One incident which
occurs frequently is the breach of other citizens’ fundamental rights.

In a public consultation in 2011, 57% of respondents stated that they had experienced problems with cyber-security.
It was also stated that this kind of crime is on the rise and is becoming more sophisticated, highlighting the need to
strengthen tools to combat it.

Given that information systems are interconnected and are not restricted by borders, the fight for respect for
fundamental rights online should be tackled at European level.

For the same reason, the Commission decided to make recommendations to strengthen the legal framework in this
area and increase response and coordination capacities in the EU-27 using a cooperation and information exchange
mechanism.

In order to ensure, as effectively as possible, respect for fundamental rights online, does the Commission intend to
launch any legislative initiatives that would be binding on Member States?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 June 2013)_

For cyberspace to remain open and free, the same norms, principles and values that the EU upholds offline, should
also apply online. Fundamental rights need to be protected in cyberspace; this requires safety and security. The
European Commission has proposed two legislative initiatives on the fight against cybercrime and in the field of
cybersecurity.

The draft Directive on attacks against information systems ( [1] ) addresses the growing number of large-scale cyber
attacks against businesses but also increasingly governments, as the example of cyber attacks against Estonia in 2007
demonstrated. The proposal criminalises the use as well as the production and sale of tools (such as ‘botnets’) to
commit attacks against information systems. The Council and the EP reached a political agreement on a compromise
text in June 2012; adoption is pending due to the linkage to interinstitutional discussions on the Schengen
governance package.

The recently-proposed Directive concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information
security across the Union ( [2] ) focuses on improving the security of the Internet and the private networks and
information systems underpinning the functioning of EU societies and economies. This will be achieved by requiring
the Member States to increase their preparedness and improve their cooperation with each other, and by requiring
operators of critical infrastructures as well as public administrations to adopt appropriate steps to manage security
risks and report serious incidents to the national competent authorities.

Both directives would ensure respect for fundamental rights online. Better resilience and a more effective fight against
cybercrime are pre-conditions for safeguarding such rights.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 517 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 48 final.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 451

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004438/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Directiva 2011/36/UE relativa a la prevención y lucha contra la trata de seres humanos y a la protección de las
víctimas

La Directiva 2011/36/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 5 de abril de 2011, regula la prevención y lucha
contra la trata de seres humanos y la protección de las víctimas y el plazo para su incorporación al Derecho nacional
de los Estados miembros expiró el pasado 6 de abril.

La trata de seres humanos, que está considerada como una de las infracciones penales más graves a escala mundial, se
ha cobrado 24 000 víctimas en la Unión Europea y 1,8 millones en todo el mundo. Constituye una violación de los
derechos humanos y una forma moderna de esclavitud. La nueva Directiva adoptada por la Unión Europea establece
normas mínimas comunes relativas a la definición de las infracciones penales y de las sanciones en el ámbito de la
trata de seres humanos.

No obstante, entre 2008 y 2010 el tráfico de personas en la EU aumentó en un 18 % y afectó, en particular, a mujeres
que fueron utilizadas para el comercio sexual. Sin embargo, las detenciones de sospechosos han disminuido un 13 %
en ese período.

Este problema radica, fundamentalmente, en que solamente seis Estados miembros han aplicado dicha Directiva hasta
la fecha. ¿Podría la Comisión indicar qué medidas piensa tomar para intentar conseguir erradicar esta tendencia tan
alarmante?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

El plazo de transposición de la Directiva 2011/36/UE ( [1] ) terminó el 6 de abril de 2013. Hasta ahora, nueve Estados
miembros han notificado la plena incorporación de la misma a su ordenamiento jurídico. La Comisión está
analizando la información transmitida por los Estados miembros y ha puesto en marcha el procedimiento por falta de
comunicación contra los que no han procedido a esa incorporación. La Comisión seguirá evaluando el grado de
cumplimiento de la Directiva, incluida la posibilidad de incoar un procedimiento de infracción.

La trata de seres humanos evoluciona con los cambios socioeconómicos y las circunstancias (geo)políticas. Tiene sus
raíces en la vulnerabilidad frente a la pobreza, la falta de cultura democrática, las desigualdades entre hombres y
mujeres y la violencia contra las mujeres, las situaciones bélicas y posbélicas, la falta de integración social, la falta de
oportunidades y empleo, la falta de acceso a la educación, el trabajo infantil y la discriminación. Otras causas que
pueden mencionarse son una industria del sexo floreciente y la consiguiente demanda de servicios sexuales. Al mismo
tiempo, la demanda de mano de obra y productos baratos también se consideran factores.

La política de la Comisión ( [2] ) se caracteriza por un planteamiento global e integrado centrado en los derechos
humanos y la perspectiva de género, que no solo presta atención a la dimensión represiva, sino que tiene por objeto
prevenir la delincuencia y garantizar que las víctimas de la trata de seres humanos puedan recuperarse y reintegrarse
en la sociedad.

La Comisión hace hincapié en la necesidad de que todos los Estados miembros cumplan sus obligaciones en virtud del
Derecho de la UE y, por lo tanto, incorporen la Directiva a su ordenamiento jurídico completamente y sin demora. Si
se aplica plena y oportunamente, la Directiva puede cambiar de verdad las vidas de las víctimas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2011/36/UE, relativa a la prevención y lucha contra la trata de seres humanos y a la protección de las víctimas.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Estrategia de la UE para la erradicación de la trata de seres humanos (2012-2016), COM(2012) 286 final.

C 33 E / 452 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004438/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims

Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 deals with preventing and
combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and the time frame for its transposition into the
national law of the Member States expired on 6 April.

Trafficking in human beings, which is considered one of the most serious criminal offences worldwide, has affected
24 000 victims in the European Union, and 1.8 million throughout the world. It is a violation of human rights and a
modern form of slavery. The new Directive adopted by the EU establishes common minimum rules concerning the
definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of trafficking in human beings.

However, between 2008 and 2010, trafficking in human beings in the EU increased by 18% and affected, in
particular, women who were used for the sex trade, yet arrests of suspects fell by 13% in this period.

The root of this problem lies, fundamentally, in the fact that so far only six Member States have applied this directive.
Can the Commission state what measures it intends to take to try to eradicate this worrying trend?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The deadline for the transposition of Directive 2011/36/EU ( [1] ) expired on 6 April 2013. So far, nine Member States
have notified full transposition. The Commission is analysing information transmitted by Member States, and has
launched the process of non-communication with those that have not notified transposition. The Commission will
further assess the level of compliance with the directive, including the possibility of initiating infringement
proceedings.

Trafficking in human beings evolves with changing socioeconomic and (geo-)political circumstances. It is rooted in
vulnerability to poverty, lack of democratic cultures, gender inequality, and violence against women, conflict and
post-conflict situations, lack of social integration, lack of opportunities and employment, lack of access to education,
child labour and discrimination. Other causes include a booming sex industry and the consequent demand for sexual
services. At the same time demand for cheap labour and products are also considered as factors.

The Commission's policy ( [2] ) is characterised by a comprehensive and integrated approach that is human-rights
centred and gender-specific; focusing not only focus only on repression but aims at preventing the crime, and
ensuring that victims of trafficking are given an opportunity to recover and to re-integrate into society.

The Commission stresses the need for all Member States to fulfil their obligations under EC law and, therefore, to
transpose the directive into national law fully and swiftly. If implemented fully and in a timely manner, the directive
has a potential to make a real difference to the lives of victims.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combatting trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012‐2016, COM(2012) 286 final.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 453

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004439/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Conservación de datos

Debido al rápido y constante cambio en el uso de las nuevas tecnologías relativas a las comunicaciones electrónicas y
el consiguiente tratamiento de un número cada vez mayor de datos personales, se debe revisar cuanto antes el marco
vigente en materia de conservación de datos.

Con esta premisa, la Directiva vigente nació con el objetivo de armonizar las disposiciones de los Estados miembros
relativas a la conservación de datos con el fin de garantizar su disponibilidad con fines de investigación, detección y
enjuiciamiento de delitos graves, como el terrorismo y la delincuencia organizada. Dicha armonización es necesaria,
porque las investigaciones y la experiencia práctica han demostrado la ineficiencia de la fragmentación mediante
normas nacionales.

A la vista de lo necesarios y útiles que son dichos datos para la lucha contra todo tipo de delitos, ¿cuándo va a
proponer la Comisión la revisión del marco vigente en materia de conservación de datos?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Malmström en nombre de la Comisión**

_(26 de junio de 2013)_

Como declaró la comisaria Malmström en el debate celebrado el 23 de octubre de 2012 en el Parlamento Europeo, y
respondiendo a la pregunta escrita E-9778/2012, la Comisión cree que existe una serie de puntos de la Directiva sobre
la conservación de datos (Directiva 2006/24/CE, DO L 105 de 13.4.2006, pp. 54-63) que requieren mejoras y que
cualquier revisión de esta debe garantizar que la información conservada se utilice exclusivamente para los fines
establecidos en esa Directiva y no para otros fines que permite actualmente la Directiva sobre la privacidad y las
comunicaciones electrónicas ( [1] ). Por lo tanto, la Comisión tiene la intención de proponer una revisión de la Directiva
sobre la conservación de datos al mismo tiempo que una futura propuesta sobre la revisión de la Directiva sobre la
privacidad y las comunicaciones electrónicas. Esta propuesta no tiene calendario por el momento. Cualquier
propuesta de reforma de esta última Directiva deberá tener en cuenta el resultado de las negociaciones sobre la
reforma del régimen de protección de datos de la UE, que se está debatiendo en el Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2002/58/CE, de 12 de julio de 2002 (DO L 201 de 31.7.2002).

C 33 E / 454 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004439/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Data retention

Given the rapid and constant changes in the use of new electronic communications technologies and the resulting
processing of more and more personal data, the existing framework on data retention should be reviewed as soon as
possible.

With this in mind, the current Directive was established with the aim of harmonising provisions in the Member States
with regard to data retention so as to ensure its availability for the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious
crimes, such as terrorism and organised crime. Such harmonisation is needed, as investigations and practical
experience have shown the ineffectiveness of differing national legislation.

Given how essential and useful these data are for the fight against all kinds of crime, when will the Commission
propose to review the existing framework on data retention?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 June 2013)_

As stated by Commissioner Malmström during the debate in the European Parliament on 23 October 2012, and in
response to Written Question E-9778/2012, the Commission considers that there are a number of areas in the data
retention directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) OJ L 105, 13.4.2006, pp. 54-63) that call for improvement, and that any
revision of this directive should ensure that retained data will be used exclusively for the purposes set out in this
directive, and not for other purposes, as currently allowed by the E-Privacy Directive ( [1] ). The Commission therefore
aims to propose a revision of the Data Retention Directive at the same time as a future proposal on revision of the EPrivacy Directive. There is no timetable at present for this proposal. Any proposal on reforming the E-Privacy
Directive will need to take into account the result of the negotiations on the reform of the EU data protection regime,
which is currently before the European Parliament and the Council.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2002/58/EC of 12 July 2002. OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 455

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004441/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Sajjad Karim (ECR)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Violence against minority Muslim populations in Burma/Myanmar

I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the increasing sectarian violence against minority Muslim
populations that is taking place in Burma/Myanmar.

The situation facing the Rohingya people has previously been discussed in this Parliament. I would now like to draw
the Commission’s attention to the recent spate of religious violence directed against other Muslim communities
across the country, in particular an incident last month, in the town of Meiktila, in which at least 20 Muslim boys
were kidnapped and hacked to death, with their bodies subsequently being soaked in petrol and set alight.

In light of this violence, which has resulted in the wholesale destruction of Muslim neighbourhoods and the death,
torture or displacement of their inhabitants, I would like to ask what steps the Commission and the EEAS are taking
to end this oppression, and what action is being taken to provide assistance to such persecuted populations across
Burma/Myanmar?

I also ask what the EEAS is doing to ensure that the goal underpinning the provision of financial assistance to
Burma/Myanmar — to ‘help create a legitimate, civilian government to pursue the social and economic development
of the country, respecting human rights and rebuilding relations with the international community’ — is being met,
both economically and politically?

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

_(24 June 2013)_

The EU follows with great concern all incidents of inter-communal violence in Myanmar, as well as the critical
situation of the Rohingyas in Rakhine State. These issues have been raised with the authorities and other stakeholders
— most recently during the visit of the EU's Special Representative for Human Rights to Myanmar — in order to
promote peaceful solutions.

EU humanitarian assistance focuses particularly on areas occupied by ethnic minorities such as Rakhine State
(internally displaced (IDPs) in 2012 and the Rohingya population in general), the eastern border area with Thailand
and Kachin State. EU Development cooperation also supports ethnic minorities and IDPs, including for programmes
supporting reconciliation.

As stated in the April 2013 Council conclusions, the EU will use all means and mechanisms at its disposal to support
Myanmar's political, economic and social transition — thus aiming to meet the goal quoted by the Honourable
Member. This includes continued dialogue with authorities and national stakeholders in close coordination with
international partners underpinned by the deployment of the whole range of the EU's financial instruments:
development cooperation, complemented and supported by actions under the Instrument for Stability, the European
Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Non-State Actors Programme, as well as humanitarian actions.
Interventions (planned and ongoing) focus on key priorities such as peace, reconciliation, non-discrimination of
ethnic and religious minorities, capacity building of government and civil society, media, but also trade, investment
and private sector development.

C 33 E / 456 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004442/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Corina Creţu (S&D)**

_(19 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Pedeapsa cu moartea în cazul delincvenților juvenili

Legislația internațională în materie de drepturile omului interzice, fără excepție, utilizarea pedepsei cu moartea pentru
crimele comise de persoane care nu au împlinit vârsta de 18 ani. În pofida acestui fapt, în anumite state din lume,
delincvenții copii sunt încă executați, fără intervenția comunității internaționale, cu alte cuvinte fără ca statele
respective să fie avertizate, sancționate sau pedepsite.

În ultimii cinci ani, țări care au semnat și ratificat Convenția ONU cu privire la drepturile copilului, precum Iran,
Yemen și Arabia Saudită, au continuat să aplice pedeapsa cu moartea în cazul minorilor, făcând încă o dată dovada
faptului că nu-și respectă angajamentele asumate în temeiul legislației și tratatelor internaționale.

Zeci de persoane condamnate la moarte așteaptă să fie executate în închisori, în ciuda faptului că, în conformitate cu
certificatele lor de naștere, erau minori în momentul comiterii infracțiunilor. Din păcate, procurorii au decis în prea
multe rânduri să ignore certificatele de naștere și probele rezultate în urma examinărilor medico-legale care
determinau vârsta inculpaților.

Abolirea pedepsei cu moartea și respectarea drepturilor omului au reprezentat întotdeauna priorități importante ale
Uniunii Europene.

Care este strategia Comisiei pentru reducerea numărului de execuții ale delincvenților juvenili și eliminarea acestora în
țările unde încă se mai aplică pedeapsa cu moartea? În cazul în care negocierile diplomatice nu dau rezultate, va
solicita Comisia sancțiuni la adresa țărilor care încalcă dispozițiile internaționale în acest domeniu?

**Răspuns dat de dna Ashton, Înalt Reprezentant/Vicepreședinte în numele Comisiei**

_(6 iunie 2013)_

UE se ocupă într-un mod foarte activ de problema pe care o reprezintă, în general, pedeapsa cu moartea, pe baza
poziției principiale a UE împotriva pedepsei cu moartea, și, în particular, pedeapsa cu moartea în cazul minorilor. În
orientările UE privind pedeapsa cu moartea se specifică explicit că execuția minorilor este o încălcare a standardelor
minime internaționale.

Acțiunile diplomatice care se adresează țărilor terțe variază de la acțiuni diplomatice cu un caracter public mai
pronunțat (cum ar fi declarațiile) și discuții purtate în cadrul unor reuniuni la toate nivelurile, până la acțiuni mai puțin
vizibile, precum întreprinderea unor demersuri în țara în cauză, la Bruxelles și în altă parte. Tipul de acțiune se alege
întotdeauna pe baza unei evaluări în cadrul căreia se determină ce acțiune ar fi cea mai eficace pentru obținerea
rezultatelor preconizate.

În unele țări există dispoziții legislative prin care minorii sunt protejați împotriva pedepsei cu moartea, însă lipsa unor
documente de identitate oficiale îngreunează sarcina de verificare a vârstei. În astfel de situații, pe lângă acțiunea
diplomatică, UE poartă dialoguri cu autoritățile în vederea consolidării capacităților instituționale și administrative.
Acesta este cazul Yemenului, unde UE, alături de UNICEF și Ministerul Justiției, acționează în direcția unui sistem de
justiție pentru minori în interesul acestora. De asemenea, UE finanțează un proiect de îmbunătățire a registrului de
stare civilă, ajutând astfel minorii să își dovedească vârstă.

În fine, atunci când dialogul nu este posibil și când mijloacele diplomatice au fost epuizate, UE impune sancțiuni,
precum în cazul Iranului, unde 87 de cetățeni iranieni sunt sancționați ca urmare a unor grave încălcări ale drepturilor
omului.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 457

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004442/13**

**to the Commission**
**Corina Creţu (S&D)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Death penalty for juveniles

International human rights legislation prohibits, without exception, the use of the death penalty for crimes
committed by persons under the age of eighteen. Despite this fact, there are nations throughout the world that still
execute child offenders without the intervention of the international community, in terms of warning, sanction and
punishment.

Countries which have signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, such as Iran, Yemen and
Saudi Arabia, have in the past five years continued to impose the death penalty on minors, once again demonstrating
their lack of commitment to and respect for international legislation and treaties.

Dozens are awaiting execution under death sentences in prisons, despite possessing birth certificates which
demonstrate that they were minors at the time that the crimes were committed. Unfortunately, public prosecutors
have decided all too frequently to ignore birth certificates and evidence from forensic examinations determining the
age of culprits.

The abolition of the death penalty and the respect of human rights have always been important priorities of the
European Union.

What is the Commission’s strategy for reducing and eliminating the execution of juveniles in countries where the
death penalty exists? Should diplomatic negotiations fail to yield results, will the Commission call for sanctions
against countries in breach of international provisions on this matter?

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

_(6 June 2013)_

The EU is very actively addressing the issue of death penalty in general, based upon the EU's principled position
against the death penalty, and for juveniles in particular. The EU Guidelines on Death Penalty explicitly stipulate that
the execution of minors is a violation of international minimum standards.

The diplomatic actions undertaken towards the third countries range from the more public ones (e.g. statements) over
discussions in meetings at all levels, to less visible action, such as demarches, in the country concerned, in Brussels,
and elsewhere. The choice of action is always based upon an assessment of what action would be the most effective as
to the expected outcome.

In some countries, there are legislative provisions to protect minors from the death penalty, but the absence of formal
ID documents makes age verification difficult. In such situations, in addition to diplomatic action, the EU engages
with the authorities to reinforce the institutional and administrative capacities. This is the case of Yemen, where
the EU, together with the Unicef and the Ministry of Justice works towards a child-friendly juvenile justice system. The
EU is also financing a project to improve the civil registry, thus enabling juveniles to prove their age.

Finally, where dialogue is not possible and diplomatic means are exhausted, the EU imposes sanctions, such as in the
case of Iran, where 87 Iranian individuals are sanctioned on the basis of serious violations of human rights.

C 33 E / 458 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004443/13**

**à la Commission**
**Isabelle Thomas (S&D)**

_(19 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Merlan bleu dans les eaux de l'Union européenne

Au‐delà des accords sur les possibilités de pêche entre l'Union européenne et la Norvège, un certain nombre
d'arrangements existent avec cet État tiers. En effet, des discussions entre la Commission et la Norvège, en amont des
négociations relatives aux accords de pêche, permettent à la Norvège, dont les eaux sont pauvres en merlan bleu
adultes, de venir pêcher une partie de son quota dans les eaux de l'Union européenne. Un accès réciproque, et réputé
équivalent, est dans le même temps octroyé par la Norvège aux navires de l'Union pour qu'ils puissent également
pêcher une partie de leurs quotas de merlan bleu dans les eaux norvégiennes.

À l'inverse, lorsque la Norvège offre la possibilité aux navires de l'Union d'accéder à ses eaux pour y pêcher une partie
de leurs quotas de hareng atlanto-scandien, possibilité d'accès consentie par la Norvège depuis 2007, elle exige en
contrepartie une réduction des quotas de l'Union pour cette espèce. Comme ces possibilités d'accès aux eaux
norvégiennes ou européennes sont négociées sans lien direct avec les accords annuels d'échange des quotas, il paraît
important que l'économie des résultats de ces discussions soit des plus transparentes pour les autres institutions.

Ainsi, la Commission peut-elle préciser:

1. Quelles ont été les quantités de merlan bleu pêchées par la flotte norvégienne dans les eaux de l'Union et par la
flotte de l'Union dans les eaux norvégiennes au cours de chacune des années 2000 à 2012 dans le cadre des
accords bilatéraux d'accès réciproques?

2. Quelles quantités de hareng atlanto-scandien ont été pêchées par la flotte de l'Union dans les eaux norvégiennes
au cours des années 2000 à 2012? Au cours des mêmes années, quelles ont été successivement les parts du
TAC de hareng atlanto-scandien allouées à l'Union?

3. Quelle est la base juridique des accords bilatéraux entre la Commission et la Norvège qui sont conclus
indépendamment des négociations annuelles sur les possibilités de pêche?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Damanaki au nom de la Commission**

_(1_ _[er]_ _juillet 2013)_

1. La Commission procède à l'envoi des données concernant la période 2006-2012 directement à l'Honorable
Parlementaire et au secrétariat du Parlement.

Avant 2006, aucun accord n'avait été dégagé entre les États côtiers au sujet du merlan bleu, y compris du point de vue
des droits d'accès de la Norvège aux eaux de l'Union européenne. Jusqu'à 2005, la Norvège a bénéficié d'un accès sur
la base des quotas réciproques accordés par l'Union dans le cadre des accords de pêche bilatéraux annuels.

2. La Commission procède à l'envoi des informations directement à l'Honorable Parlementaire et au secrétariat
du Parlement.

3. Les accords bilatéraux conclus entre l'UE et la Norvège font partie intégrante du paquet global d'accords passés
entre les États côtiers, qu'il s'agisse du merlan bleu ou du hareng altlanto-scandinave (hareng norvégien à frai
printanier). Ces accords donnant accès sont donc directement liés aux parts de quotas convenues pour ces stocks et en
conséquence, ils ne peuvent pas être considérés isolément. Une fois qu'ils ont fait l'objet de négociations entre les États
côtiers, ils sont recommandés aux autorités compétentes en vue de leur adoption. En ce qui concerne l'UE, c'est le
Conseil qui décide s'il convient ou pas d'adopter ces recommandations. Les décisions prises à ce sujet sont consignées
dans le règlement sur les possibilités de pêche annuelles.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 459

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004443/13**

**to the Commission**
**Isabelle Thomas (S&D)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Blue whiting in EU waters

In addition to agreements on fishing opportunities between the European Union and Norway as a third country, a
number of other arrangements are in place with the country. Discussions between the Commission and Norway,
ahead of the talks on fishing agreements, mean that Norway, whose waters contain low stocks of blue whiting, can
come and fish part of its quota in EU waters. At the same time, Norway grants reciprocal, and supposedly equivalent,
access to EU vessels so that they can also fish part of their blue whiting quotas in Norwegian waters.

Conversely, when Norway grants EU vessels the opportunity to access its waters to fish part of their Atlanto-Scandian
herring quotas, an opportunity granted by Norway since 2007, it requires the EU to reduce its quotas for that species
in return. As these opportunities for access to Norwegian or EU waters are negotiated with no direct link to the annual
agreements on the exchange of quotas, it is important that the results-based economy of these discussions is highly
transparent for the other institutions.

1. What quantities of blue whiting were fished by the Norwegian fleet in EU waters and by the EU fleet in
Norwegian waters every year from 2000 to 2012 under the bilateral agreements on reciprocal access?

2. What quantities of Atlanto-Scandian herring were fished by the EU fleet in Norwegian waters between 2000
and 2012? Over the same period, what portions of the total allowable catches of Atlanto-Scandian herring was the EU
granted in successive years?

3. What is the legal basis for the bilateral agreements between the Commission and Norway which are concluded
independently of the annual talks on fishing opportunities?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(1 July 2013)_

1. The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat the data
concerning the period 2006-2012.

Prior to 2006, there was no arrangement agreed between the Coastal States on blue whiting, including access by
Norway to EU waters. During the years up to 2005, any access given to Norway was on the basis of reciprocal quotas
granted by the Union in the context of the annual bilateral fisheries arrangements.

2. The information is sent by the Commission directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

3. The bilateral arrangements between the EU and Norway are agreed as an integral part of the overall package of
arrangements between the Coastal States, whether it be for blue whiting or Atlanto-Scandian (Norwegian springspawning) herring. These access arrangements are therefore directly linked to the quota shares agreed for those stocks
and consequently the access arrangements may not be viewed in isolation. These arrangements, once negotiated at
Coastal State level are recommended to the appropriate authorities for their adoption. In the case of the EU, it is the
Council which decides whether or not to adopt these recommendations, the results of which are included in the
annual fishing opportunities regulation.

C 33 E / 460 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004444/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(19 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Disoccupazione giovanile in Italia ed Europa

I dati Istat ed Eurostat sulla disoccupazione in Italia rilevano che l'11,7 % degli italiani è attualmente disoccupato, fra
di essi la percentuale dei giovani senza un lavoro è del 38,7 %, con un incremento del 6,4 % rispetto al gennaio 2012.

Attualmente, nel nostro paese 2,8 milioni di persone sono senza un posto fisso: 2.375.000 con un contratto a
termine, mentre 433.000 sono i collaboratori, questi dati risultano più elevati rispetto alle rilevazioni sugli stessi
settori rispettivamente del 1993 e del 2004.

Dal «Rapporto UE 2012 sull'occupazione e gli sviluppi sociali» emerge che l'Italia, insieme ad altri paesi quali Spagna,
Grecia, Malta e i paesi Baltici, è ad alto rischio di entrare nella povertà e con poche vie di fuga.

Può la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

1. è a conoscenza dei dati sopra esposti?

2. come intende agire per supportare il mercato del lavoro in Italia ed in Europa?

3. come aiuterà i suoi giovani cittadini ad inserirsi sia nel mondo del lavoro sia nella società senza dover ricorrere
al supporto delle famiglie?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(14 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione è consapevole delle allarmanti condizioni in cui versano i giovani della crescente disoccupazione di
cui sono vittime, in particolare in Italia.

Essa ha adottato varie misure per risolvere questo problema, tra cui il Pacchetto per l’occupazione giovanile ( [1] ) ( _Youth_
_Employment Package_ — YEP), del dicembre 2012. Lo YEP punta ad agevolare la transizione dallo studio al lavoro (per
esempio, grazie a un programma dal titolo «Alleanza UE per l’apprendistato» (EU Alliance for Apprenticeships)
lanciato nel luglio 2013), promuovendo la mobilità all’interno della UE e istituendo una Garanzia per la gioventù
( _Youth Guarantee_ ) destinata a giovani fino a 25 anni d’età. La Commissione si compiace per l’adozione, avvenuta
nell’aprile 2013, della raccomandazione del Consiglio ( [2] ) che «istituisce una Garanzia per la gioventù», seguirà da
vicino la sua attuazione e garantirà che le varie iniziative, avviate nel quadro della Garanzia per la gioventù dagli Stati
membri,e quindi anche dall’Italia, siano finanziate da fondi della UE.

Oltre a quanto deciso nel corso del Consiglio europeo del 7-8 febbraio 2013, la Commissione ha anche adottato una
comunicazione relativa a una Iniziativa a favore dell’occupazione giovanile ( _Youth Employment Initiative_ — YEI) ( [3] ). La
YEI aiuterà le regioni della UE aventi un tasso di disoccupazione giovanile superiore al 25 % ad attuare lo YEP e, in
particolare, la Garanzia per la gioventù.

La Commissione sta inoltre analizzando i progressi ottenuti in risposta alle raccomandazioni specifiche per paese,
inviate all’Italia. Nel quadro del Semestre europeo 2013, essa aveva proposto di inviare all’Italia una raccomandazione
specifica per paese sulla lotta alla disoccupazione giovanile.

La Commissione ha infine attivato, negli Stati membri che, come l’Italia, denunciano elevati livelli di disoccupazione
giovanile, una serie di cosiddetti «gruppi d’azione». Insieme alla Commissione, l’Italia ha individuato una serie di
iniziative tese a promuovere l’occupazione giovanile e l’imprenditorialità giovanile in Italia.

La Commissione segue da vicino l’attuazione di queste iniziative ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)727-728-729 del 5.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st07/st07123.en13.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013)145 del 12.3.2013.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/barroso/report_en.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 461

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004444/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Youth unemployment in Italy and Europe

According to Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat) figures on unemployment in Italy, 11.7% of Italians are
currently unemployed. Within that figure, 38.7% of young people are unemployed, an increase of 6.4% compared
with January 2012.

At present, 2.8 million people in Italy are without a full-time job: 2.375 million people have a fixed-term contract,
while 433 000 are contractors. These figures are higher compared with the findings of surveys from 1993 and 2004
on the same sectors.

According to the EU’s 2012 report on employment and social developments, Italy, along with countries such as
Spain, Greece, Malta and the Baltic countries, is at high risk of slipping into poverty with little chance of escape.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above figures?

2. What action will it take to support the labour market in Italy and in Europe?

3. How will it help young people in the EU to join both the world of work and society without having to rely on
support from their families?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the alarming situation of young people and of growing unemployment within their
ranks, particularly in Italy.

It has taken several measures in order to tackle this challenge, including the Youth Employment Package ( [1] ) (YEP) of
December 2012. YEP focuses on facilitating transition from education to work (including through the launch of an
EU Alliance for Apprenticeships in July 2013), promoting intra-EU mobility and establishing a Youth Guarantee for
young people up to 25. The Commission welcomes the adoption of the Council Recommendation ( [2] ) on ‘establishing
a Youth Guarantee’ in April 2013. It will monitor its implementation and ensure that EU funding be used for setting
up Youth Guarantee schemes in the Member States, including in Italy.

Further to the European Council of 7-8 February 2013, the Commission adopted a communication on a Youth
Employment Initiative (YEI) ( [3] ). The YEI will help EU regions with a youth unemployment rate above 25% implement
the YEP, and in particular the Youth Guarantee.

Furthermore, the Commission is monitoring progress in response to the country-specific Recommendations
addressed to Italy. As part of the 2013 European Semester, it has proposed addressed a country-specific
recommendation on tackling youth employment to Italy.

Finally, the Commission has put in place ‘action teams’ in Member States with high levels of youth unemployment,
including Italy. Together with the Commission, Italy has identified a series of measures aimed at promoting youth
employment and youth entrepreneurship in Italy.

The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation of those measures ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 727-728-729 of 05.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st07/st07123.en13.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 145 of 12.03.2013.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/barroso/report_en.pdf

C 33 E / 462 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004445/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(19 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Crisis in de binnenvaart

De afgelopen dagen hebben in diverse Europese landen protesten en stakingen van binnenvaartschippers laten zien.
Overcapaciteit en een gebrek aan perspectief voor binnenvaartondernemers lijken belangrijke drijfveren voor deze
acties. Het gaat al sinds 2009 slecht met de binnenvaart en de situatie voor de nabije toekomst lijkt er ook niet
rooskleurig uit te zien.

1. Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie de huidige situatie van de binnenvaartsector?

2. Deelt de Commissie mijn opvatting dat de binnenvaart in een structurele crisis in de zin van Richtlijn 96/75/EG
terecht is gekomen? Zo nee, waarom niet?

3. Is de Commissie met mij van mening dat het laatst uitgevoerde onderzoek naar een „ernstige verstoring van de
markt” uit 2010 met spoed opnieuw moet worden uitgevoerd, omdat de crisis in de binnenvaart zich evident heeft
verdiept, en de lange termijn perspectieven zijn verslechterd onder meer door het uitstel van het Seine-Schelde
traject? Zo nee, waarom niet? Zo ja, is zij van plan op heel korte termijn een werkgroep in te stellen om een
hernieuwd onderzoek uit te voeren?

4. Indien die werkgroep concludeert dat er sprake is van een crisis in de binnenvaart, zal de Commissie dan het
verzoek van een lidstaat honoreren — als die lidstaat een verzoek indient om de binnenvaart in structurele crisis te
verklaren — waardoor verschillende steunmaatregelen voor de binnenvaart beschikbaar komen? Zo nee, waarom
niet?

5. Welke maatregelen neemt de Commissie verder om de binnenvaartsector nieuwe kansen te bieden?

**Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie**

_(6 juni 2013)_

1. De Commissie beschouwt de binnenvaartsector als een belangrijke pijler van het Europese vervoersbeleid. Vervoer
over de binnenwateren staat hoog op de agenda in belangrijke beleidsinitiatieven voor transversaal transport zoals het
trans-Europese vervoersnetwerk ( [1] ), de financieringsfaciliteit voor Europese verbindingen ( [2] ) en het initiatief „Schone
energie voor het vervoer” ( [3] ). De sector heeft een groot intrinsiek potentieel maar heeft het moeilijk om dit potentieel
te benutten.

2, 3 en 4. Overeenkomstig Richtlijn 96/75/EG is het aan de lidstaten om in geval van ernstige verstoring van de
markten passende maatregelen te verzoeken. Een dergelijk verzoek van lidstaten moet gebaseerd zijn op een
beoordeling van de economische situatie en moet vergezeld gaan van de nodige informatie. De Commissie heeft tot
dusver nog geen dergelijke verzoeken ontvangen. Indien een lidstaat een dergelijk verzoek indient, zal de Commissie
dit op basis van de verstrekte informatie onderzoeken overeenkomstig Richtlijn 96/75/EG.

5. Tijdens de volgende vergadering van het Binnenvaartcomité op 27 mei 2013 zal de Commissie een uitwisseling
van informatie tussen de lidstaten organiseren over de economische situatie van de sector. Bovendien onderzoekt de
Commissie op dit moment, in het kader van de voorbereidingen voor het aanstaande NAIADES II-actieprogramma,
dat naar verwachting in de komende maanden zal worden goedgekeurd en aan het Europees Parlement zal worden
voorgelegd, mogelijke maatregelen zoals regelgevende maatregelen, coördinatie van onderzoek en het gebruik van
financiële instrumenten om de kwaliteit van de binnenvaart te verbeteren. In deze analyse wordt rekening gehouden
met de huidige macro-economische omstandigheden en wordt erkend dat er in de huidige context van de open
vervoersmarkt slechts een beperkte overheidsinterventie in de markt mogelijk is zonder de mededinging te vervalsen.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 665.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 17 en COM(2013) 18.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 463

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004445/13**

**to the Commission**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Inland waterways crisis

Various countries in Europe have seen protests and strikes by inland waterway operators in recent days. Overcapacity and a lack of prospects for inland waterway carriers seem to be important factors driving them to these
actions. The situation in the inland waterways sector has already been deteriorating since 2009, and the outlook does
not seem promising for the near future either.

1. What is the Commission’s view of the current situation in the inland waterways sector?

2. Does the Commission share my view that the inland waterways sector has ended up in a structural crisis, as
specified by Directive 96/75/EC? If not, why not?

3. Does the Commission agree with me that the last survey carried out into a ‘serious market disturbance’ in 2010
must be carried out again as a matter of urgency because the inland waterways crisis has obviously deepened and the
long-term prospects have deteriorated, which is also due to the Seine-Scheldt section being postponed? If not, why
not? If so, does it intend to set up a working group in the very near future to carry out an analysis again?

4. If this working group reaches the conclusion that the inland waterways sector is in crisis, will the Commission
then comply with the request from a Member State — if this Member State submits a request for the inland waterways
sector to be declared as being in a structural crisis — as a result of which various support measures will be made
available for the inland waterways sector? If not, why not?

5. What further measures will the Commission take in terms of offering the inland waterways sector new
opportunities?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

1. The Commission considers the inland waterway transport sector to be an important pillar of the European
transport policy. Inland waterway transport is high on the agenda in key transversal transport policy initiatives, such
as the trans-European transport network ( [1] ), the Connecting Europe Facility ( [2] ) and the Clean Power for Transport
initiative ( [3] ). The sector has significant intrinsic potential, but faces difficulties to realise this potential.

2, 3 and 4. In accordance with Directive 96/75/EC, it is up to Member States to request for suitable measures in the
event of serious market disturbance. Any requests by Member States must be based on an assessment of the economic
situation and accompanied by all the information needed for it. The Commission has not received such requests so
far. If such a request is introduced by a Member State, the Commission will examine it in accordance with
Directive 96/75/EC on the basis of the information provided.

5. The Commission will organise an exchange of information between Member States on the economic situation
of the sector at the occasion of the next Inland Waterway Transport Committee on 27 May 2013. Moreover as part of
the preparation of the forthcoming NAIADES II action programme due to be adopted and presented to the European
Parliament in the coming months, the Commission is examining possible measures such as regulatory measures,
research coordination and the use of financial instruments to improve the quality of inland navigation. This analysis
takes into account the current macroeconomic circumstances and acknowledges that in the current context of open
transport markets, there are limits to the possibilities of public intervention in the market without unduly distorting
competition.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 665.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 17 & 18.

C 33 E / 464 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004446/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Corina Creţu (S&D)**

_(19 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Combaterea șomajului în UE

Șomajul în Uniunea Europeană a atins în februarie 2013 alarmanta rată de 10,9 %. Numărul angajaților a scăzut cu
0,4 % la nivelul UE și cu 0,8 % în zona euro în al patrulea trimestru din 2012, comparativ cu aceeași perioadă din
2011.

Peste 26,338 milioane de oameni din Uniunea Europeană se află în imposibilitatea de a-și utiliza competențele pentru
a produce bunuri economice și nu pot asigura un nivel de subzistență familiilor lor.

O astfel de rată a șomajului nu are numai efecte economice foarte grave, ci mai ales consecințe psihologice dramatice
și, nu de puține ori, afectează sănătatea celor rămași fără locuri de muncă.

Șomajul alimentează izolarea socială, generează raporturi familiale tensionate, violență domestică, alcoolism sau
necromanie.

Care este strategia Comisiei privind reintegrarea pe piață a celor 8,2 % de cetățeni ai UE cu vârste cuprinse între 25 și
64 de ani care nu beneficiază de o educație de nivel terțiar?

Cum abordează Comisia necesitatea de a crea noi locuri de muncă în perioada financiară 2014-2020? Care sunt
măsurile concrete luate de Comisie pentru combaterea șomajului?

**Răspuns dat de dl Andor în numele Comisiei**

_(11 iunie 2013)_

Abordarea nivelului intolerabil de șomaj în Europa necesită o strategie integrată. Odată cu pachetul privind ocuparea
forței de muncă ( [1] ), Comisia a promovat măsuri pentru a stimula cererea de locuri de muncă, în special în sectoarele
generatoare de locuri de muncă, precum sănătatea, TIC și economia ecologică, pentru a investi în îmbunătățirea
competențelor lucrătorilor și pentru a valorifica pe deplin potențialul pieței forței de muncă din UE. Programul YEP ( [2] )
a propus măsuri specifice de stimulare a capacității de inserție profesională a tinerilor, inclusiv „garanția pentru
tineret”, în timp ce Consiliul European a alocat 6 miliarde EUR programului YEI ( [3] ) în sprijinul YEP.

În plus, Comunicarea Comisiei privind „Reorganizarea învățământului” ( [4] ) stabilește o agendă cuprinzătoare pentru
reformarea sistemelor de educație și (de) formare, pentru o mai bună corelare a competențelor cu nevoile de pe piața
forței de muncă. Aceste eforturi și strategii sunt completate de SIP ( [5] ), care oferă orientări pentru reformarea
sistemelor de protecție socială ale statelor membre cu un accent mai mare pe investiții în capitalul uman și în
coeziunea socială.

CFM ( [6] ), inclusiv investițiile în capitalul uman, infrastructura socială, de sănătate și de educație, efectuate de ESIF ( [7] ), va
reprezenta o oportunitate suplimentară pentru a spori efortul european în materie de creștere economică și creare de
locuri de muncă. Comisia a propus ca o cotă minimă de 25 % din bugetul alocat pentru politica de coeziune să fie
dedicată FSE.

De asemenea, sunt necesare acțiuni la nivel național. Statele membre trebuie să își coreleze politicile privind piața
muncii cu obiectivele strategice ale AAC 2013 ( [8] ), prin urmărirea unei consolidări bugetare diferențiate și favorabile
creșterii economice, promovarea creșterii și a competitivității, precum și prin combaterea șomajului și a consecințelor
sociale ale crizei. La 29 mai, Comisia a adoptat propuneri de recomandări specifice fiecărei țări care urmează să fie
adoptate de către Consiliu.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM (2012) 173 din 18 aprilie 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Pachetul privind ocuparea forței de muncă în rândul tinerilor, COM(2012) 727-728-729 din 5 decembrie 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Inițiativa privind ocuparea forței de muncă în rândul tinerilor.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final, 21.11.2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Pachet de măsuri privind investițiile sociale COM (2013) 83 final februarie 2013.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Cadrul financiar multianual.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Fondurile structurale europene și de investiții.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Analiza anuală a creșterii, COM (2012) 750 din 28 noiembrie 2012.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 465

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004446/13**

**to the Commission**
**Corina Creţu (S&D)**

_(19 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tackling unemployment in the EU

The unemployment rate in the European Union reached an alarming 10.9% this February. The number of people in
work fell by 0.4% across the EU and by 0.8% in the euro area during the fourth quarter of 2012, compared to the
same period in 2011.

More than 26 338 million people in the European Union are unable to use their skills to produce economic assets and
cannot provide a living at subsistence level for their families.

Such a high rate of unemployment not only has an extremely severe economic impact, but also has, in particular,
drastic psychological repercussions, and it frequently affects the health of the jobless.

Unemployment fuels social isolation and causes tension in family relations, domestic violence, alcoholism or
necromania.

What strategy is the Commission adopting in terms of reintegrating into the market the 8.2% of EU citizens aged
between 25 and 64 who do not have the benefit of tertiary-level education?

How is the Commission tackling the need to create new jobs during the 2014‐2020 financial period? What specific
measures have been taken by the Commission to tackle unemployment?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

Tackling the intolerable unemployment levels in Europe requires an integrated strategy. With the Employment
Package ( [1] ) the Commission has promoted measures to stimulate job demand, notably in job-rich sectors such as
healthcare, ICT and the green economy, invest in workers' skills upgrading and exploit the full potential of the EU
labour market. The YEP ( [2] ) proposed specific measures to boost the employability of young people, including the
Youth Guarantee, while European Council earmarked EUR 6 billion as the YEI ( [3] ) to support the YEP.

Furthermore, the Commission's Communication on ‘Rethinking Education’ ( [4] ) sets out a comprehensive agenda for
reforming education and training systems to better match skills with labour market needs. These efforts and strategies
are complemented by the SIP ( [5] ), which provides guidance for refroming the Member States’ welfare systems with a
stronger focus on investing in human capital and social cohesion.

The MFF ( [6] ), including investments in human capital, social, health and education infrastructure by the ESIF ( [7] ) will
represent a further opportunity to increase European effort for growth and jobs. The Commission proposed that a
minimum share of 25% of the budget allocated to the Cohesion policy was dedicated to the ESF.

Action is also needed at the national level. Member States are to connect their labour market policies to the strategic
objectives of the 2013 AGS ( [8] ): pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; promoting growth and
competitiveness; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis. On 29 May, the Commission has
adopted proposals for country-specific recommendations to be adopted by the Council.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173 of 18 April 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Youth Employment Package, COM(2012) 727-728-729 of 5 December 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Youth Employment Initiative.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 669 final of 21.11.2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Social Investment Package COM(2013) 83 final February 2013.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Multiannual Financial Framework.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) European Structural and Investment Funds.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Annual Growth Survey, COM(2012) 750 of 28 November 2012.

C 33 E / 466 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004447/13**

**to the Council**
**Claude Moraes (S&D)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU Environment Ministers meeting in Dublin — clean air and environmental policy

The UK Government is expected to lobby for weaker public health protection at the EU Environment Ministers
meeting in Dublin this week.

The recently released 2013 World Health Organisation (WHO) study requested by Commissioner Potočnik, on a
review of the health aspects of pollution, presented considerable evidence that:

—
There are associations between annual mortality rates and levels of fine particles (PM2.5) which are below the
current air quality guidelines (AQG), fixed at 10 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m [3] ), and;

— Long-term exposures to ozone (O 3 ) can lead to respiratory mortality and death among people with
predisposing chronic conditions.

This report also draws attention to the WHO’s June 2012 classification of diesel exhaust fumes as a class one
carcinogen for humans.

Considering that air pollution near London’s busiest roads is twice or three times that of WHO guidelines and legal
limits; that levels of NO 2 in London are the highest of any capital city in Europe; and that the UK has the highest
proportion of zones exceeding the NO 2 annual limit value plus margin of tolerance of any country in Europe and;

Given that the WHO recommends:

—
a revision of the air quality guidelines (AQGs) for particulate matter by 2015 and;

—
the development of AQGs for long-term average ozone concentrations;

Could the Council undertake to protect current environmental standards in EU policy, ensuring that it will in no way
weaken environmental protection or lessen clean air and pollution targets for Member States?

**Reply**
_(10 June 2013)_

As the Honourable Member knows, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, is responsible for overseeing
Member States' application of Union law.

The recent meeting in Dublin, referred to in the question, registered broad awareness among Member States of the
serious health and environmental risks that certain pollutants pose, especially in major cities where density of
economic activities and population lead to higher concentrations of air pollutants (particulate matters, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide). However, as the Honourable Member is also aware, it is not for informal meetings of EU ministers
to take formal decisions on EU policy and law.

A high level of protection remains one of the key objectives of the EU's environmental action. The Council will
examine with great attention any new proposal from the Commission on air pollution and, more broadly, air quality.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 467

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004448/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Quita en participaciones preferentes y deuda subordinada perpetua en NCG Banco

El pasado 22 de marzo el Fondo de Restructuración Ordenada Bancaria (FROB) emitió una comunicación con su
decisión definitiva sobre las quitas aplicables a los mecanismos híbridos de deuda, también conocidos como
participaciones preferentes. Se fija una quita para las participaciones preferentes del grupo NCG Banco del 43 % y de
entre un 41 %y un 22 % para la deuda subordinada.

Dicha decisión se adoptó con la intención de aplicar lo acordado en el Memorando de Entendimiento del Rescate
Financiero entre la Unión Europea y el Gobierno de España. Este acuerdo, firmado el 20 de julio de 2012, prevé la
elaboración de normas para garantizar la responsabilidad subordinada de estos mecanismos de deuda. Esta
responsabilidad subordinada supone garantizar el derecho de los acreedores sobre los fondos que posean las
entidades financieras españolas, así como sobre los fondos de cierto tipo de clientes que hayan asumido riesgo
subsidiario con la entidad. Entre estos clientes se encuentran los titulares de participaciones preferentes de
NCG Banco.

Este banco comercializó participaciones recabando millones de euros para las ampliaciones de capital. NCG Banco es
un banco originario de Galicia creado en 2011, producto de la fusión de varias cajas de ahorro, que tiene más de
3 millones de clientes. Las operaciones de preferentes, que durante años permitieron la expansión del sistema
financiero español, se llevaron a cabo bajo un supuesto fraude de ley (Art. 6 y 7 del Código Civil) al conocer y no
hacer cumplir la normativa vigente recogida en la Directiva 2004/39/CE, que especifica los derechos del consumidor
de este tipo de productos financieros, así como la normativa de la CNMV que regula la adquisición de este tipo de
productos. En el Derecho civil de España el «vicio de consentimiento» es suficiente para invalidar cualquier contrato
(Art. 1265 del Código Civil). Recientemente se han producido las primeras sentencias que anulan dichos contratos,
por ejemplo sobre preferentes firmadas por menores, etc. En su respuesta a mi anterior pregunta E-009392/2012, la
Comisión sostuvo que incumben al sistema judicial español las acusaciones sobre la invalidez de los contratos.

¿Es consciente la Comisión de las primeras sentencias que el sistema judicial español está emitiendo sobre este asunto?
¿Qué consecuencias cree que acarrearán para cumplir los requisitos del Memorando de Entendimiento? Ante la
posible invalidez de muchos contratos de participaciones preferentes de NCG Banco que se verían afectadas por el
Memorando de Entendimiento, reduciendo las cantidades fijadas en la quita, ¿cómo piensa actuar? ¿Cuántos
ahorradores se verán afectados por las quitas en este banco?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004449/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Quita en participaciones preferentes y deuda subordinada perpetua en Catalunya Banc

El pasado 22 de marzo el Fondo de Restructuración Ordenada Bancaria (FROB) emitió una comunicación con su
decisión definitiva sobre las quitas aplicables a los mecanismos híbridos de deuda, también conocidas como
participaciones preferentes, fijando una quita para las participaciones preferentes del grupo Catalunya Banc del 61 %
y de entre 40 % y un 15 % para la deuda subordinada.

Dicha decisión se llevó a cabo con la intención de aplicar lo acordado en el Memorando de Entendimiento del Rescate
Financiero entre la Unión Europea y el Gobierno de España. Este acuerdo, firmado el 20 de julio de 2012, prevé la
creación de normas para garantizar la responsabilidad subordinada de estos mecanismos de deuda. Esta
responsabilidad subordinada supone garantizar el derecho de los acreedores sobre los fondos que posean las
entidades financieras españolas, así como sobre los fondos de cierto tipo de clientes que hayan asumido riesgo
subsidiario con la entidad. Entre estos clientes se encuentran los titulares de participaciones preferentes de Catalunya
Banc.

C 33 E / 468 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Este banco comercializó participaciones recabando millones de euros para las ampliaciones de capital. Catalunya
Banc es un banco originario de Cataluña creado en 2010, producto de la fusión de varias cajas de ahorro, que tiene
más de 4 millones de clientes. Las operaciones de preferentes, que durante años permitieron la expansión del sistema
financiero español, se llevaron a cabo bajo un supuesto fraude de ley (Art. 6 y 7 del Código Civil) al conocer y no
hacer cumplir la normativa vigente recogida en la Directiva 2004/39/CE, que especifica los derechos del consumidor
de este tipo de productos financieros, así como la normativa de la CNMV que regula la adquisición de este tipo de
productos. En el Derecho civil de España el «vicio de consentimiento» es suficiente para invalidar cualquier contrato
(Art. 1265 del Código Civil). Recientemente se han producido las primeras sentencias que anulan dichos contratos,
por ejemplo sobre preferentes firmadas por menores, etc. En su respuesta a mi anterior pregunta E‐009392/2012, la
Comisión sostuvo que incumben al sistema judicial español las acusaciones sobre la invalidez de los contratos.

¿Es consciente la Comisión de las primeras sentencias que el sistema judicial español está emitiendo sobre este asunto?
¿Qué consecuencias cree que acarrearán para cumplir los requisitos del Memorando de Entendimiento? Ante la
posible invalidez de muchos contratos de participaciones preferentes de Catalunya Banc que se verían afectadas por el
Memorando de Entendimiento, reduciendo las cantidades fijadas en la quita, ¿cómo piensa actuar? ¿Cuántos
ahorradores se verán afectados por las quitas en este banco?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004450/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Quita en participaciones preferentes y deuda subordinada perpetua en BFA-Bankia

El pasado 22 de marzo el Fondo de Reestructuración Ordenada Bancaria (FROB) emitió una comunicación con su
decisión definitiva sobre las quitas aplicables a los mecanismos híbridos de deuda, también conocidos como
participaciones preferentes. Se fija una quita para las participaciones preferentes del grupo BFA‐Bankia del 38 % y de
entre un 36 % y un 13 % para la deuda subordinada.

Dicha decisión se adoptó con la intención de aplicar lo acordado en el Memorando de Entendimiento del Rescate
Financiero entre la Unión Europea y el Gobierno de España. Este acuerdo, firmado el 20 de julio de 2012, prevé la
elaboración de normas para garantizar la responsabilidad subordinada de estos mecanismos de deuda. Esta
responsabilidad subordinada supone garantizar el derecho de los acreedores sobre los fondos que posean las
entidades financieras españolas, así como sobre los fondos de cierto tipo de clientes que hayan asumido riesgo
subsidiario con la entidad. Entre estos clientes se encuentran los titulares de participaciones preferentes de BFA‐
Bankia.

Este banco comercializó participaciones recabando millones de euros para las ampliaciones de capital. BFA‐Bankia es
un banco creado en 2010, producto de la fusión de varias cajas de ahorro de todo el territorio español, que tiene más
de 12 millones de clientes. Las operaciones de preferentes, que durante años permitieron la expansión del sistema
financiero español, se llevaron a cabo bajo un supuesto fraude de ley (Art. 6 y 7 del Código Civil) al conocer y no
hacer cumplir la normativa vigente recogida en la Directiva 2004/39/CE, que especifica los derechos del consumidor
de este tipo de productos financieros, así como la normativa de la CNMV que regula la adquisición de este tipo de
productos. En el Derecho civil de España el «vicio de consentimiento» es suficiente para invalidar cualquier contrato
(Art. 1265 del Código Civil). Recientemente se han producido las primeras sentencias que anulan dichos contratos,
por ejemplo sobre preferentes firmadas por menores, etc. En su respuesta a mi anterior pregunta E-009392/2012, la
Comisión sostuvo que incumben al sistema judicial español las acusaciones sobre la invalidez de los contratos.

¿Es consciente la Comisión de las primeras sentencias que el sistema judicial español está emitiendo sobre este asunto?
¿Qué consecuencias cree que acarreará para cumplir los requisitos del Memorando de Entendimiento? Ante la posible
invalidez de muchos contratos de participaciones preferentes de BFA‐Bankia que se verían afectadas por el
Memorando de Entendimiento, reduciendo las cantidades fijadas en la quita, ¿cómo piensa actuar? ¿Cuántos
ahorradores se verán afectados por las quitas en este banco?

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 469

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004451/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Quita en participaciones preferentes y deuda subordinada perpetua en Banco Gallego

El pasado 22 de marzo el Fondo de Restructuración Ordenada Bancaria (FROB) emitió una comunicación con su
decisión definitiva sobre las quitas aplicables a los mecanismos híbridos de deuda, también conocidos como
participaciones preferentes. Se fija una quita para las participaciones preferentes del grupo Banco Gallego del 50 % y
de entre un 39 %y un 11 % para la deuda subordinada.

Dicha decisión se adoptó con la intención de aplicar lo acordado en el Memorando de Entendimiento del Rescate
Financiero entre la Unión Europea y el Gobierno de España. Este acuerdo, firmado el 20 de julio de 2012, prevé la
elaboración de normas para garantizar la responsabilidad subordinada de estos mecanismos de deuda. Esta
responsabilidad subordinada supone garantizar el derecho de los acreedores sobre los fondos que posean las
entidades financieras españolas, así como sobre los fondos de cierto tipo de clientes que hayan asumido riesgo
subsidiario con la entidad. Entre estos clientes se encuentran los titulares de participaciones preferentes de Banco
Gallego.

Este banco comercializó participaciones recabando millones de euros para las ampliaciones de capital. NCG Banco es
un banco originario de Galicia, creado en 1991, que empleó las preferentes para sus ampliaciones de capital. Las
operaciones de preferentes, que durante años permitieron la expansión del sistema financiero español, se llevaron a
cabo bajo un supuesto fraude de ley (Art. 6 y 7 del Código Civil) al conocer y no hacer cumplir la normativa vigente
recogida en la Directiva 2004/39/CE, que especifica los derechos del consumidor de este tipo de productos
financieros, así como la normativa de la CNMV que regula la adquisición de este tipo de productos. En el Derecho civil
de España el «vicio de consentimiento» es suficiente para invalidar cualquier contrato (Art. 1265 del Código Civil).
Recientemente se han producido las primeras sentencias que anulan dichos contratos, por ejemplo sobre preferentes
firmadas por menores, etc. En su respuesta a mi anterior pregunta E-009392/2012, la Comisión sostuvo que
incumben al sistema judicial español las acusaciones sobre la invalidez de los contratos.

¿Es consciente la Comisión de las primeras sentencias que el sistema judicial español está emitiendo sobre este asunto?
¿Qué consecuencias cree que acarrearán para cumplir los requisitos del Memorando de Entendimiento? Ante la
posible invalidez, de muchos contratos de participaciones preferentes de Banco Gallego que se verían afectadas por el
Memorando de Entendimiento, reduciendo las cantidades fijadas en la quita, ¿cómo piensa actuar? ¿Cuántos
ahorradores se verán afectados por las quitas en este banco?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004452/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Quita en participaciones preferentes y deuda subordinada en Liberbank

El pasado 8 de abril el Fondo de Restructuración Ordenada Bancaria (FROB) emitió una comunicación con su
decisión definitiva sobre las quitas aplicables a los mecanismos híbridos de deuda, también conocidos como
participaciones preferentes. Se fija una quita media para las participaciones preferentes y deuda subordinada del
grupo Liberbank de más de un 61 %.

Dicha decisión se adoptó con la intención de aplicar lo acordado en el Memorando de Entendimiento del Rescate
Financiero entre la Unión Europea y el Gobierno de España. Este acuerdo, firmado el 20 de julio de 2012, prevé la
elaboración de normas para garantizar la responsabilidad subordinada de estos mecanismos de deuda. Esta
responsabilidad subordinada supone garantizar el derecho de los acreedores sobre los fondos que posean las
entidades financieras españolas, así como sobre los fondos de cierto tipo de clientes que hayan asumido riesgo
subsidiario con la entidad. Entre estos clientes se encuentran los titulares de participaciones preferentes de Liberbank.

C 33 E / 470 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Este banco comercializó participaciones recabando millones de euros para las ampliaciones de capital. Liberbank es
un banco creado en 2011, producto de la fusión de varias cajas de ahorro de diferentes puntos de España. Todas estas
operaciones, que durante años permiten la expansión del sistema financiero español, se llevaron a cabo bajo un
supuesto fraude de ley (Art. 6 y 7 del Código Civil) al conocer y no hacer cumplir la normativa vigente recogida en la
Directiva 2004/39/CE, que especifica los derechos del consumidor de este tipo de productos financieros, así como la
normativa de la CNMV que regula la adquisición de este tipo de productos. En el Derecho civil de España el «vicio de
consentimiento» es suficiente para invalidar cualquier contrato (Art. 1265 del Código Civil). Recientemente se han
producido las primeras sentencias que anulan dichos contratos, por ejemplo sobre preferentes firmadas por menores,
etc. En su respuesta a mi anterior pregunta E-009392/2012, la Comisión sostuvo que incumben al sistema judicial
español las acusaciones sobre la invalidez de los contratos.

¿Es consciente la Comisión de las primeras sentencias que el sistema judicial español está emitiendo sobre este asunto?
¿Qué consecuencias cree que acarrearán para cumplir los requisitos del Memorando de Entendimiento? Ante la
posible invalidez de muchos contratos de participaciones preferentes de Liberbank que se verían afectadas por el
Memorando de Entendimiento, reduciendo las cantidades fijadas en la quita, ¿cómo piensa actuar? ¿Cuántos
ahorradores se verán afectados por las quitas en este banco?

**Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(19 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión está al corriente de las supuestas ventas abusivas de acciones preferentes en varios bancos españoles y de
los procedimientos judiciales que examinan algunas de estas transacciones. La Comisión no ve actualmente ningún
riesgo derivado de tales procedimientos para la ejecución del programa destinado al sector financiero español y, en
consecuencia, no hay necesidad de dar una respuesta a los mismos. Si se diera cualquier incidencia negativa
importante, la Comisión la valoraría y adoptaría medidas correctoras.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 471

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004448/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at NCG Banco

On 22 March 2013 the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) issued a press release containing its final
decision on haircuts for hybrid debt instruments, also known as preference shares. It agreed on haircuts of 43% and of
between 22% and 41% respectively for holders of preference shares and subordinated debt issued by the NCG Banco

group.

The FROB adopted its decision in order to apply the terms of the memorandum of understanding on financial-sector
policy conditionality (MoU) concluded between the Union and the Spanish Government. Signed on 20 July 2012, the
MoU provides for the introduction of rules to guarantee subordinated liability for these kinds of debt instruments.
Subordinated liability means safeguarding the rights of creditors over the funds held by the Spanish banks, and over
the funds of certain types of clients who have taken a subsidiary risk with a bank. These include the holders of
preference shares issued by NCG Banco.

The latter sold shares worth millions of euros in order to increase its capital. Originally a Galician bank, NCG Banco
was established in 2011 following a merger between various savings banks and has more than 3 million clients.
However, these preference share deals, which over a number of years facilitated the expansion of Spain's financial
sector, were allegedly carried out in breach of Spanish law (Articles 6 and 7 of the Civil Code). This is because the
banks were aware of but failed to comply with current legislation as laid down in Directive 2004/39/EC, which details
the rights of consumers of these types of financial products, and with the rules of Spain's Stock Market Authority
(CNMV), which regulates the purchase of such products. According to Article 1265 of Spain’s Civil Code, ‘defects of
consent’ are sufficient grounds for invalidating any kind of contract. The courts recently handed down the first rulings
invalidating these kinds of contracts, including preference share contracts signed by minors. In its answer to my
Question E-009392/2012, the Commission said that it is for the Spanish judicial system to investigate allegations
that these contracts are invalid.

Is the Commission aware of the first rulings issued on this subject by the Spanish courts? What does it think will be
the impact in terms of implementing the MoU? Bearing in mind that many NCG Banco preference share contracts
affected by the MoU could be declared invalid (a scenario which would lead to a reduction in the amounts targeted for
haircuts), how does the Commission plan to respond? How many investors would be affected by haircuts on products
issued by NCG Banco?

**Question for written answer E-004449/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at Catalunya Banc

On 22 March 2013 the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) issued a press release containing its final
decision on haircuts for hybrid debt instruments, also known as preference shares. It agreed on haircuts of 61% and of
between 15% and 40% respectively for holders of preference shares and subordinated debt issued by the Catalunya
Banc group.

The FROB adopted its decision in order to apply the terms of the memorandum of understanding on financial-sector
policy conditionality (MoU) concluded between the Union and the Spanish Government. Signed on 20 July 2012, the
MoU provides for the introduction of rules to guarantee subordinated liability for these kinds of debt instruments.
Subordinated liability means safeguarding the rights of creditors over the funds held by the Spanish banks, and over
the funds of certain types of clients who have taken a subsidiary risk with a bank. These include the holders of
preference shares issued by Catalunya Banc.

C 33 E / 472 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

The bank, which was established in Catalonia in 2010 following a merger between various savings banks and which
has more than four million clients, sold shares worth millions of euros in order to increase its capital. However, these
preference share deals, which over a number of years facilitated the expansion of Spain's financial sector, were
allegedly carried out in breach of Spanish law (Articles 6 and 7 of the Civil Code). This is because the banks were
aware of but failed to comply with current legislation as laid down in Directive 2004/39/EC, which details the rights
of consumers of these types of financial products, and with the rules of Spain's Stock Market Authority (CNMV),
which regulates the purchase of such products. According to Article 1265 of Spain’s Civil Code, ‘defects of consent’
are sufficient grounds for invalidating any kind of contract. The courts recently handed down the first rulings
invalidating these kinds of contracts, including preference share contracts signed by minors. In its answer to my
Question E-009392/2012, the Commission said that it is for the Spanish judicial system to investigate allegations
that these contracts are invalid.

Is the Commission aware of the first rulings issued on this subject by the Spanish courts? What does it think will be
the impact in terms of implementing the MoU? Bearing in mind that many Catalunya Banc preference share contracts
affected by the MoU could be declared invalid (a scenario which would lead to a reduction in the amounts targeted for
haircuts), how does the Commission plan to respond? How many investors would be affected by haircuts on products
issued by Catalunya Banc?

**Question for written answer E-004450/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at BFA-Bankia

On 22 March 2013 the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) issued a press release containing its final
decision on haircuts for hybrid debt instruments, also known as preference shares. It agreed on haircuts of 38% and of
between 13% and 36% respectively for holders of preference shares and subordinated debt issued by the BFA‐Bankia

group.

The FROB adopted its decision in order to apply the terms of the memorandum of understanding on financial-sector
policy conditionality (MoU) concluded between the Union and the Spanish Government. Signed on 20 July 2012, the
MoU provides for the introduction of rules to guarantee subordinated liability for these kinds of debt instruments.
Subordinated liability means safeguarding the rights of creditors over the funds held by the Spanish banks, and over
the funds of certain types of clients who have taken a subsidiary risk with a bank. These include the holders of
preference shares issued by BFA-Bankia.

The latter sold shares worth millions of euros in order to increase its capital. BFA‐Bankia was established in 2010
following a merger between various Spanish savings banks and has more than 12 million clients. However, these
preference share deals, which over a number of years facilitated the expansion of Spain's financial sector, were
allegedly carried out in breach of Spanish law (Articles 6 and 7 of the Civil Code). This is because the banks were
aware of but failed to comply with current legislation as laid down in Directive 2004/39/EC, which details the rights
of consumers of these types of financial products, and with the rules of Spain's Stock Market Authority (CNMV),
which regulates the purchase of such products. According to Article 1265 of Spain’s Civil Code, ‘defects of consent’
are sufficient grounds for invalidating any kind of contract. The courts recently handed down the first rulings
invalidating these kinds of contracts, including preference share contracts signed by minors. In its answer to my
Question E-009392/2012, the Commission said that it is for the Spanish judicial system to investigate allegations
that these contracts are invalid.

Is the Commission aware of the first rulings issued on this subject by the Spanish courts? What does it think will be
the impact in terms of implementing the MoU? Bearing in mind that many BFA-Bankia preference share contracts
affected by the MoU could be declared invalid (a scenario which would lead to a reduction in the amounts targeted for
haircuts), how does the Commission plan to respond? How many investors would be affected by haircuts on products
issued by BFA‐Bankia?

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 473

**Question for written answer E-004451/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and perpetual subordinated debt at Banco Gallego

On 22 March 2013 the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) issued a press release containing its final
decision on haircuts for hybrid debt instruments, also known as preference shares. It agreed on haircuts of 50% and of
between 11% and 39% respectively for holders of preference shares and subordinated debt issued by the Banco
Gallego group.

The FROB adopted its decision in order to apply the terms of the memorandum of understanding on financial-sector
policy conditionality (MoU) concluded between the Union and the Spanish Government. Signed on 20 July 2012, the
MoU provides for the introduction of rules to guarantee subordinated liability for these kinds of debt instruments.
Subordinated liability means safeguarding the rights of creditors over the funds held by the Spanish banks, and over
the funds of certain types of clients who have taken a subsidiary risk with a bank. These include the holders of
preference shares issued by Banco Gallego.

Established in Galicia in 1991, Banco Gallego sold preference shares worth millions of euros in order to increase its
capital. However, these preference share deals, which over a number of years facilitated the expansion of Spain's
financial sector, were allegedly carried out in breach of Spanish law (Articles 6 and 7 of the Civil Code). This is because
the banks were aware of but failed to comply with current legislation as laid down in Directive 2004/39/EC, which
details the rights of consumers of these types of financial products, and with the rules of Spain's Stock Market
Authority (CNMV), which regulates the purchase of such products. According to Article 1265 of Spain’s Civil Code,
‘defects of consent’ are sufficient grounds for invalidating any kind of contract. The courts recently handed down the
first rulings invalidating these kinds of contracts, including preference share contracts signed by minors. In its answer
to my Question E-009392/2012, the Commission said that it is for the Spanish judicial system to investigate
allegations that these contracts are invalid.

Is the Commission aware of the first rulings issued on this subject by the Spanish courts? What does it think will be
the impact in terms of implementing the MoU? Bearing in mind that many Banco Gallego preference share contracts
affected by the MoU could be declared invalid (a scenario which would lead to a reduction in the amounts targeted for
haircuts), how does the Commission plan to respond? How many investors would be affected by haircuts on the
products issued by Banco Gallego?

**Question for written answer E-004452/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Haircuts on preference shares and subordinated debt at Liberbank

On 8 April 2013 the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) issued a press release containing its final decision
on haircuts for hybrid debt instruments, also known as preference shares. It agreed on an average haircut of more
than 61% for holders of preference shares and subordinated debt issued by the Liberbank group.

The FROB adopted its decision in order to apply the terms of the memorandum of understanding on financial-sector
policy conditionality (MoU) concluded between the Union and the Spanish Government. Signed on 20 July 2012, the
MoU provides for the introduction of rules to guarantee subordinated liability for these kinds of debt instruments.
Subordinated liability means safeguarding the rights of creditors over the funds held by the Spanish banks, and over
the funds of certain types of clients who have taken a subsidiary risk with a bank. These include the holders of
preference shares issued by Liberbank.

The latter sold shares worth millions of euros in order to increase its capital. Liberbank was established in 2011
following a merger between various Spanish savings banks. However, these deals, which over a number of years
facilitated the expansion of Spain's financial sector, were allegedly carried out in breach of Spanish law (Articles 6 and
7 of the Civil Code). This is because the banks were aware of but failed to comply with current legislation as laid down
in Directive 2004/39/EC, which details the rights of consumers of these types of financial products, and with the rules
of Spain's Stock Market Authority (CNMV), which regulates the purchase of such products. According to
Article 1265 of Spain’s Civil Code, ‘defects of consent’ are sufficient grounds for invalidating any kind of contract. The
courts recently handed down the first rulings invalidating these kinds of contracts, including preference share
contracts signed by minors. In its answer to my Question E-009392/2012, the Commission said that it is for the
Spanish judicial system to investigate allegations that these contracts are invalid.

C 33 E / 474 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Is the Commission aware of the first rulings issued on this subject by the Spanish courts? What does it think will be
the impact in terms of implementing the MoU? Bearing in mind that many Liberbank preference share contracts
affected by the MoU could be declared invalid (a scenario which would lead to a reduction in the amounts targeted for
haircuts), how does the Commission plan to respond? How many investors would be affected by the haircuts on
products issued by Liberbank?

**Joint answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of alleged mis-selling in preferential shares in a number of Spanish banks and is aware of
judicial procedures examining some of these transactions. The Commission sees at current no risk to the
implementation of the Spanish financial-sector programme stemming from these proceedings and therefore no need
to device any response to these. Should any materially adverse impact arise, the Commission will assess it and take
corrective action.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 475

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004453/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Artículo erróneo de Reinhart y Rogoff

En su respuesta a mi anterior pregunta E-000884/2013, que versaba sobre los posibles errores analíticos del FMI que
habían podido ser asumidos por la Comisión, el Vicepresidente de la Comisión y Comisario de Asuntos Económicos y
Monetarios y Euro defendía el trabajo de revisión científica de su evaluación del impacto de la austeridad en el
crecimiento y en la realidad económica de los Estados miembros, sosteniendo que la Comisión empleaba sus datos y
conclusiones propias para elaborar su política económica.

Recientemente se ha publicado una revisión crítica del artículo académico de 2010 titulado «Growth in a Time of
Debt» de los profesores de Harvard Carmen M. Reinhart y Kenneth S. Rogoff; en dicha revisión se ha demostrado que
los cálculos que justificaban su visión sobre el impacto de la deuda en el crecimiento se basaban en hojas erróneas de
Excel. Este artículo, al haberse publicado en una revista de gran impacto académico, sirvió para justificar la reducción
del gasto público y la política de austeridad como única solución a la crisis económica en los Estados miembros. Este
artículo ha sido citado en seis de las siete últimas revisiones económicas publicadas por la Comisión desde 2010.

Incluso en una carta personal de 13 de febrero de 2013 (ARES(2013) 185796), que el Vicepresidente de la Comisión
y Comisario de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios y Euro dirigió a los ministros de Economía de los Estados
miembros y presidentes de importantes instituciones económicas, el Sr. Rehn citó conclusiones extraídas
directamente de este artículo: «Está ampliamente admitido, basado en estudios académicos serios, que cuando los
niveles de deuda pública suben por encima del 90 %, tienden a tener un impacto negativo en el dinamismo
económico», para justificar la continuidad de la política de austeridad en la Unión Europea. Pese al hecho de que la
Comisión utilice sus propios datos, este artículo parece haber impactado fuertemente en sus estudios económicos.

¿Se ha basado la Comisión en dicho artículo, sin revisarlo, para justificar su política de austeridad? ¿Va a considerar la
Comisión la posibilidad de retractarse de las afirmaciones sobre la política económica basadas en las conclusiones de
este artículo con errores de Excel? ¿De qué mecanismos dispondrá la Comisión para revisar toda su política
económica de cara al claro apoyo expresado en artículos académicos erróneos para justificar la austeridad? ¿Asumirá
la responsabilidad por justificar sus políticas sin revisar los artículos en los que basa las opiniones que afectan a la vida
de millones de europeos? ¿Reconsiderará la Comisión los efectos del nivel de deuda pública sobre el crecimiento y,
por tanto, su política de austeridad? ¿Piensa retractarse de las conclusiones esgrimidas en la citada carta?

**Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(26 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión no hace comentarios sobre documentos escritos por investigadores o particulares.

La Comisión recuerda a Su Señoría que la política presupuestaria en la Unión Europea está regulada por el Pacto de
Estabilidad y Crecimiento, el marco fiscal regulado basado en el Tratado. Este último contiene disposiciones relativas a
la deuda y el déficit. Por lo tanto, la acción de la Comisión en relación con la aplicación del marco de política fiscal
común se ajusta plenamente a los principios del Pacto.

C 33 E / 476 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004453/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reinhart and Rogoff's misleading article

In his response to my previous Question E-000884/2013, regarding the possible analytical errors of the IMF for
which the Commission could have taken responsibility, the Vice-President of the European Commission and the
European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro defended the scientific review of
evaluations of the impact of austerity on growth and on the economic reality of Member States, arguing that the
Commission used its own data and findings to develop its economic policy.

A critical review of the 2010 academic article entitled ‘Growth in a Time of Debt’ by Harvard professors Carmen M.
Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff has recently been published; this review shows that the calculations justifying their
views on the impact of debt on growth were based on erroneous Excel sheets. This article, having been published in a
high-impact academic journal, was used to justify public spending cuts and austerity measures as the only solution to
the economic crisis in the Member States. This article has been cited in six of the last seven economic reviews
published by the Commission since 2010.

Even in a personal letter dated 13 February 2013 (ARES(2013) 185796), which the Vice-President of the European
Commission and the European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro sent to the finance
ministers of Member States and to the chairs of major economic institutions, Mr Rehn cited the findings taken directly
from this article: ‘It is widely acknowledged, based on serious academic research, that when public debt levels rise
above 90% they tend to have a negative impact on economic dynamism’ to justify the continuation of austerity
measures in the European Union. Despite the fact that the Commission uses its own data, this article appears to have
had a major influence on its economic studies.

Has the Commission relied on this article, without checking it, to justify its policy of austerity? Will the Commission
consider retracting statements on economic policy based on the findings of this article which contains errors in Excel?
What mechanisms will be available to the Commission to review its entire economic policy in view of the clear
support expressed in misleading academic articles to justify austerity? Will it assume responsibility for justifying its
policies without checking the articles on which opinions that affect the lives of millions of Europeans are based? Will
the Commission reconsider the effects of public debt on growth and, therefore, its policy of austerity? Does it intend
to retract the conclusions put forward in this letter?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 June 2013)_

The Commission does not comment on papers written by researchers or private individuals.

The Commission reminds to the honourable Member that budgetary policy in the European Union is regulated by the
Stability and Growth Pact, the rule-based fiscal framework grounded in the Treaty. The latter contains contains
provisions on debt and deficit. Thus the action by the Commission regarding the application of the common fiscal
policy framework is entirely guided by the principles of the Pact.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 477

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004454/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Juicio a Efraín Ríos Montt

El pasado 19 de marzo se inició en Guatemala el debate oral y público del juicio contra el general José Efraín Ríos
Montt por los cargos de genocidio y crímenes contra la humanidad. Numerosas organizaciones de la sociedad civil se
han personado en la acusación y el mundo entero se encuentra a la espera de un juicio limpio que haga justicia a los
innumerables crímenes cometidos durante la dictadura de los años 1982 y 1983.

El general guatemalteco ha esquivado su enjuiciamiento desde que, en 2005, un juez español emitiera una orden
internacional de captura sobre su persona por los crímenes contra la humanidad cometidos durante la dictadura. Para
evitar su captura, Ríos Montt se presentó como candidato al Parlamento guatemalteco, obteniendo su escaño y, por
tanto, la inmunidad parlamentaria a la que el cargo da acceso. El 14 de enero del pasado año terminó su cargo en el
Parlamento y 10 días después fue formalmente acusado de genocidio y crímenes contra la humanidad por primera
vez en Guatemala; desde entonces, se está desarrollando un arduo proceso judicial.

Los abogados del general han interpuesto todo tipo de recursos al proceso que, pese a haberlo retrasado, no han
conseguido invalidar un juicio que la sociedad guatemalteca —e incluso las Naciones Unidas— está siguiendo con
expectación. Se trata del primer juicio contra un antiguo Jefe de Estado en el país y esto debe sentar precedente para el
enjuiciamiento de todos los criminales durante la larga guerra civil que sufrió el país. Por ello, el proceso reviste una
importancia fundamental y la imparcialidad con la que se pueda desarrollar este juicio demostrará la independencia
del poder judicial en el país centroamericano.

¿Está la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante dando seguimiento al citado juicio a Efraín Ríos Montt por genocidio y
crímenes de lesa humanidad?

¿Qué opinión tiene la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante sobre el mismo?

¿Está exigiendo la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante que sean juzgados todos los militares guatemaltecos que hayan
cometido crímenes de lesa humanidad durante todo el proceso de la guerra civil en el país?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004455/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Anulación del juicio a José Efraín Ríos Montt

El pasado jueves 18 de abril, la jueza guatemalteca Carol Patricia Flores ordenó la anulación del juicio contra el general
José Efraín Ríos Montt y el también general José Mauricio Rodríguez por los cargos de genocidio y crímenes contra la
humanidad. La sociedad guatemalteca necesita un juicio limpio que haga justicia por los innumerables crímenes
cometidos durante la dictadura de los años 1982 y 1983.

La decisión de la anulación del juicio ha provocado el profundo rechazo de la fiscalía y la acusación particular, y
vuelve a poner en entredicho a un sistema judicial que no ha permitido esclarecer ninguno de los crímenes de guerra
cometidos en el país. La causa de la anulación del juicio se debe a una orden de la Corte Constitucional, pero el juicio
ha destapado copiosa información que implica a numerosos altos cargos del ejército y el Estado, entre ellos el actual
presidente, Otto Pérez Molina. Esta puede haber sido la causa por la que el sistema judicial ha detenido el proceso. Se
necesitan garantías que confirmen la imparcialidad del sistema judicial, y esta anulación, pese a atenerse a derecho,
vuelve a poner en duda dicha imparcialidad al no avanzar en las implicaciones ni imputar a todos los criminales de la
guerra civil guatemalteca. Mi pasada pregunta con respecto a dicho juicio pedía su seguimiento, por las dudas que
pendían sobre dicho proceso; una vez confirmadas estas dudas, la UE debe exigir un juicio imparcial.

Un grupo de influyentes ciudadanos participantes en la elaboración de los tratados de paz ha firmado el documento
«Traicionar la paz y dividir a Guatemala», que sostiene que el juicio implica «serios peligros para el país». Si este
proceso judicial se ve interrumpido pondrá en tela de juicio el compromiso del Estado de Guatemala con los derechos
humanos, violará la cláusula segunda del Acuerdo de Asociación de la UE con la Región Centroamericana y, por
tanto, supondrá un argumento de peso para cancelar dicho Acuerdo de Asociación con el país.

C 33 E / 478 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

¿Ha expresado la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante su preocupación por el desarrollo imparcial del citado juicio?
¿Qué opinión le merece el comunicado «Traicionar la paz y dividir a Guatemala»? ¿Y sus firmantes? ¿Qué opinión
tiene sobre la aparición del nombre de Otto Pérez Molina en el juicio? ¿Considera que debería imputársele ante tan
graves acusaciones? ¿Considera que se debe suspender el proceso de ratificación del Acuerdo de Asociación con la
Región Centroamericana hasta que el Gobierno pueda garantizar la efectiva persecución de las violaciones de los
derechos humanos y su juicio imparcial?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-005453/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(16 de mayo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Condena Ríos Montt y posible vinculación del Presidente Pérez Molina

El pasado 11 de mayo se condenó a 80 años de prisión al exdictador guatemalteco Efraín Ríos Montt por los delitos
de genocidio y crímenes contra la humanidad. Dicha sentencia ha supuesto un avance en el cumplimiento de los
derechos humanos en dicho país pero, sin embargo, a lo largo del proceso se presentaron testimonios que vinculaban
a Otto Pérez Molina, actual Presidente del país, con los crímenes por los que se ha condenado al exdictador.

_La aparición del actual Presidente del país durante el proceso ha tenido un fuerte impacto en la opinión pública y en la comunidad_
_internacional, que deberá exigir que el sistema judicial guatemalteco inicie una investigación imparcial para esclarecer si Otto_
_Pérez Molina estuvo verdaderamente implicado en crímenes contra la humanidad. Durante el testimonio de un testigo exmilitar se_
_incriminó directamente al actual Presidente del país en la participación en el genocidio de los indígenas Ixiles._

_Esta condena es un importantísimo paso hacia el fin de la impunidad de los crímenes contra la humanidad en Centroamérica, pero_
_si no continúa el procesamiento de los culpables de los terribles crímenes cometidos en Guatemala se continuará en la impunidad._
_Los culpables de los terribles crímenes de los militares guatemaltecos no pueden ser investigados de forma parcial, y se debe_
_esclarecer la responsabilidad de todos los participantes en el genocidio guatemalteco._

¿Está la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante informada de la existencia del testimonio que podría incriminar al
Presidente guatemalteco Otto Pérez Molina en el genocidio de los indígenas Ixiles?

_¿Considera que el actual Presidente debe ser investigado por los testimonios que le imputarían responsabilidad en el citado_
_genocidio?_

_¿Exigirá al sistema judicial guatemalteco que se investigue al Presidente para terminar con la impunidad de los crímenes contra la_
_humanidad en el país centroamericano?_

**Respuesta conjunta de la Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(28 de junio de 2013)_

El pasado 18 de abril, el portavoz de la Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta emitió una declaración en relación con el
juicio contra el antiguo Jefe de Estado de facto de Guatemala, Efraín Ríos Montt, en el que se subrayaba la importancia
de este juicio para dicho país. La Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta está convencida de que la celebración de juicios
justos, imparciales e independientes constituye la piedra angular de cualquier sistema judicial. Por esa razón, la Alta
Representante/Vicepresidenta considera fundamental que la justicia guatemalteca haya decidido conocer de este

asunto.

La Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta seguirá atentamente el desarrollo de este juicio y se mantendrá en estrecho
contacto con las autoridades y las organizaciones civiles interesadas. La Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta ha pedido
a todas las partes que se comprometan a promover de manera constructiva el diálogo y la reconciliación frente al
clima, cada vez más polarizado, que planea sobre este juicio, haciendo al mismo tiempo hincapié en la importancia de
que el Estado proteja convenientemente a todas las personas que participen en el juicio, sea en calidad de testigos,
miembros de la defensa o en su condición de autoridades fiscales o judiciales.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 479

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004454/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — The trial of Efraín Ríos Montt

On 19 April, the oral and public debate began in Guatemala at the trial against General José Efraín Ríos Montt on
charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. Numerous civil society organisations have appeared for the
prosecution and the whole world eagerly awaits a fair trial achieving justice for the countless crimes committed
during the 1982‐1983 dictatorship.

The Guatemalan general has avoided prosecution ever since a Spanish judge issued an international arrest warrant in
2005 for crimes against humanity committed during the dictatorship. To avoid being captured, Ríos Montt ran for
and won a seat in the Guatemalan Parliament, thus enjoying immunity from prosecution. On 14 January last year, his
term in Parliament came to an end and 10 days later he was formally charged with genocide and crimes against
humanity for the first time in Guatemala; since then, legal proceedings have been making arduous progress.

The general’s lawyers have lodged all sorts of appeals which, although having managed to delay matters, they have
failed to invalidate a trial which Guatemalan society, and even the United Nations, is following expectantly. This is the
first trial of a former Head of State in the country and should set a precedent for the prosecution of all criminals
during the long civil war that shook the country. The trial is therefore of fundamental importance and the impartiality
that can be adopted in this trial will demonstrate the independence of the judiciary in this Central American country.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative following the progress of the trial against Efraín Ríos Montt for genocide
and crimes against humanity?

What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s opinion on this matter?

Is the Vice-President/High Representative demanding that all Guatemalan military who committed crimes against
humanity during the many years of civil war in that country be brought to trial?

**Question for written answer E-004455/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Suspension of the José Efraín Ríos Montt trial

Last Thursday 18 April, the Guatemalan judge, Carol Patricia Flores, ordered that the trial against General José Efraín
Ríos Montt and also General José Mauricio Rodríguez, on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, be
suspended. Guatemalan society needs a fair trial that achieves justice for the countless crimes committed during the
1982-1983 dictatorship.

The decision to suspend the trial has been strongly denounced by both public and private prosecutors, and again calls
into question a judicial system that has failed to shed any light on the war crimes committed in this country. The
reason for suspending the trial was due to a Constitutional Court order, but the trial has uncovered a wealth of
information implicating numerous senior members of the army and State, including the current president, Otto Pérez
Molina. This may have been why the judiciary stopped the trial. Guarantees are needed to verify the judicial system’s
impartiality, and this suspension, although adhering to the law, again calls into question this impartiality since no
headway is being made regarding these implications and no charges are being brought against the criminals of the
Guatemalan civil war. My last question regarding this trial called for it to be monitored given the misgivings over it;
once these misgivings have been confirmed, the EU should demand a fair trial.

A group of influential citizens involved in drawing up the peace treaties has signed the document ‘ _Traicionar la paz y_
_dividir a Guatemala_ ’ [‘Betraying the peace and dividing Guatemala’], which argues that the trial entails ‘serious dangers
for the country’. If this trial is to be stopped, it will impugn the State of Guatemala’s commitment to human rights, it
will violate the second clause of the Association Agreement between the EU and Central America and there will then
be a strong case for cancelling the Association Agreement with this country.

C 33 E / 480 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Has the Vice-President/High Representative expressed her concern over the impartiality of this trial? What is her view
of the document ‘Betraying the peace and dividing Guatemala’? And of its signatories? What does she think about
Otto Pérez Molina’s name being mentioned in the trial? Does she think that he should be charged in the light of such
serious allegations? Does she consider that the ratification process of the Association Agreement with the Central
American countries should be suspended until the government can guarantee effective prosecution for human rights
violations and a fair trial?

**Question for written answer E-005453/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(16 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Ríos-Montt verdict and possible link with President Molina Pérez

On 11 May 2013, the Guatemalan former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt was sentenced to 80 years imprisonment for
genocide and crimes against humanity. This verdict is a sign of progress in the defence of human rights in Guatemala.
However, during the trial witnesses gave evidence linking the country’s current president, Otto Pérez Molina, to the
crimes for which the former dictator has been sentenced.

The implication of the current president during the trial has had a major impact on public opinion and the
international community, which must demand that the Guatemalan legal system launch an impartial investigation to
establish whether Otto Pérez Molina was in fact involved in crimes in against humanity. During the trial, a former
member of the armed forces gave evidence directly implicating the current President of Guatemala in the genocide of
the indigenous Ixil Maya.

This sentence is a major step towards ending impunity for crimes against humanity in Central America, but if the
process of bringing to trial those responsible for the appalling crimes committed in Guatemala does not continue,
impunity will prevail. Investigation of those responsible for the terrible crimes committed by the Guatemalan military
must not be partial. The responsibility of all those who took part in the Guatemalan genocide must be established.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the existence of evidence that could incriminate Guatemalan
President Otto Pérez Molina in the genocide of the Ixil Maya?

Does she consider that the President of Guatemala should be investigated on the basis of witness statements charging
him with responsibility for the abovementioned genocide?

Will she demand that the Guatemalan legal system investigate the President in order to put an end to the impunity of
crimes against humanity in that country?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

On 18 April the spokesperson of the HR/VP issued a statement regarding the trial against former de facto head of
state Rios Montt, highlighting the importance of the trial for Guatemala. The HR/VP is convinced that independent,
impartial and fair trials constitute the corner stone of any justice system. That is why the HR/VP considers it
fundamental that the national judiciary system has taken on the case.

The HR/VP will continue to monitor this trial and stay in close contact with both the authorities and civil society
organisations involved. She has asked all parties to engage constructively in promoting dialogue and reconciliation, in
response to a climate of increasing polarisation around this trial, whilst at the same time she has stressed the
importance that all persons involved in the trial, albeit as witness, defence, prosecuting and judicial authorities are
duly protected by the state.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 481

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004456/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE) y Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Negociaciones del acuerdo de libre comercio con Tailandia

Recientemente se lanzaron oficialmente las negociaciones para que Tailandia y la Unión Europea alcancen un acuerdo
de libre comercio. Se trata de un acuerdo que ofrece grandes oportunidades y expectativas para ambos mercados. Sin
embargo, desde el punto de vista defensivo, algunos sectores de la Unión Europea —como el sector conservero de
pescados y mariscos— se verán gravemente afectados.

España representa el 69 % de la producción comunitaria de conservas de atún. Es el segundo productor de latas de
atún a nivel mundial, precisamente después de Tailandia. Este sector es uno de los principales motores económicos de
la Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, que genera el 85 % de la producción española y da trabajo a 12 000
trabajadores, el 79 % de ellos mujeres.

Por su parte, Tailandia es un importantísimo productor mundial de transformados de pescados y mariscos. Se trata
del primer productor mundial de conservas de atún y es el principal competidor de la industria española y
comunitaria.

En consecuencia, el acuerdo de libre comercio de la Unión Europea con Tailandia puede suponer una grave amenaza
para el sector conservero español y gallego. ¿Es consciente la Comisión de ello?

Además, se formulan a la Comisión las siguientes preguntas:

1. ¿Qué sectores considerará sensibles la Comisión en las negociaciones? ¿Considerará sector sensible el de los
transformados de pescados y mariscos y, especialmente, las conservas de atún?

2. ¿Qué posición piensa adoptar en las negociaciones sobre los transformados de pescados y mariscos para
minimizar los efectos negativos —económicos y para el empleo— en el sector?

3. La industria europea cumple estrictos estándares y legislación en materia social, laboral, higiénico-sanitaria y
medioambiental. ¿Qué nivel de exigencia sobre estos estándares pedirá la Comisión a Tailandia?

4. El acuerdo debe respetar estrictamente el cumplimiento de las normas de origen, sin excepciones. ¿Coincide la
Comisión en que bajo ningún concepto puede repetirse el lamentable precedente de Papúa Nueva Guinea?

**Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión Europea es perfectamente consciente de la importancia de la industria conservera de pescados y
mariscos de la UE y, concretamente, de la española en el marco del comercio bilateral con un gran operador en el
sector del atún en conserva como es Tailandia. Un ambicioso y equilibrado acuerdo de libre comercio entre la Unión
Europea y Tailandia, que tenga en cuenta, entre otras cosas, un sector tan sensible como el de la industria conservera
de pescados y mariscos, aportará importantes beneficios a la economía de la UE en su conjunto.

En las negociaciones del acuerdo de libre comercio la UE pretende lograr un equilibrio entre las necesidades de sus
proveedores de materias primas, sus productores, sus consumidores y sus intereses en materia de importación y
exportación. En este contexto, se prestará especial atención a las normas de origen. Como ha afirmado en varias
ocasiones la Comisión, la excepción que se pretende aplicar al grupo de países ACP del Pacífico, incluida Papúa Nueva
Guinea, tiene por objeto abordar las circunstancias especialmente difíciles de la región con el fin de fomentar el
desarrollo local y contribuir a la erradicación de la pobreza, así como a la progresiva integración de los Estados ACP
en la economía regional y mundial.

El sector pesquero de la UE ha tenido la posibilidad por medio de un cuestionario específico de facilitar a la Comisión
Europea información que le permitirá establecer prioridades y tomar decisiones durante el proceso de negociación.

C 33 E / 482 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Por lo que se refiere a la higiene y a las medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias, una vez firmado el acuerdo de libre
comercio, Tailandia tendrá que seguir cumpliendo las estrictas normas actualmente en vigor que establece la
legislación de la UE. De ningún modo podrá rebajar el acuerdo de libre comercio esas normas. Por otra parte, la
Comisión seguirá estableciendo estrictas disposiciones en materia de comercio y desarrollo sostenible y respetando
sus compromisos a nivel internacional en materia de Derecho del trabajo y en materia de normativa medioambiental.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 483

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004456/13**

**to the Commission**
**Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE) and Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with Thailand

Negotiations have recently been officially launched for Thailand and the European Union to achieve a Free Trade
Agreement. This agreement would provide huge opportunities and prospects for both markets. However, from a
defensive standpoint, some industries in the European Union — such as the seafood canning industry — would be
seriously affected.

Spain accounts for 69% of the Community production of canned tuna. It is the second largest producer of canned
tuna in the world, after Thailand. This industry is one of the main driving forces behind the economy of the
Autonomous Community of Galicia, generating 85% of Spanish production and employing 12 000 workers, 79% of
them women.

For its part, Thailand is a major producer of processed seafood. It is the world’s leading producer of canned tuna and is
Spain’s and the Community’s main competitor in this industry.

The EU-Thailand Free Trade Agreement could therefore pose a considerable threat to the Spanish and Galician
canning industry. Is the Commission aware of this?

In addition, I would like to put the following questions to the Commission:

1. Which industries will the Commission consider sensitive in the negotiations? Will it consider the processed
seafood industry and in particular the canned tuna industry sensitive?

2. What position will it take in the negotiations on processed seafood to minimise the negative effects on the
economy and jobs in the industry?

3. European industry meets strict standards and legislation on social, labour, hygiene and sanitation and
environmental matters. What level of demand will the Commission require of Thailand regarding these
standards?

4. The agreement must strictly comply with the rules of origin, with no exception. Does the Commission agree
that under no circumstances can the unfortunate precedent of Papua New Guinea be repeated?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The European Commission is indeed aware of the importance of the EU — and especially Spanish — seafood canning
industry, in particular in the context of bilateral trade with a large player in the canned tuna sector such as Thailand.
An ambitious and balanced free trade agreement between the EU and Thailand which takes into account the sensitive
nature of the seafood canning industry among others will bring substantial benefits for the EU economy as a whole.

In its Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations, the EU seeks to strike a balance between the needs of its suppliers of
raw material, its producers, its consumers and its import/export interests. In that context, particular attention will be
given to rules of origin. As has been stated several times by the Commission, the derogation for the Pacific ACP group
of countries, including Papua New Guinea, is aimed at addressing the particular difficult circumstances of the region,
in order to boost local development and contribute to poverty eradication and the gradual integration of the ACP
states into the regional and world economies.

The EU fisheries sector has been given the opportunity, by means of a specific questionnaire, to provide the European
Commission information to enable it to establish priorities and take decisions throughout the negotiating process.

C 33 E / 484 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

As to hygiene and sanitary and phytosanitary measures, with the FTA Thailand has to continue meeting the current
high standards set in the EU legislation. The FTA will not lower these standards. The Commission will also pursue
robust provisions on trade and sustainable development, including commitments to the internationally recognised
core labour standards and environmental rules.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 485

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004457/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Programa «Garantía Juvenil» y discapacidad

El Consejo de Ministros de Empleo de la UE del pasado 28 de febrero de 2013 aprobó la «Garantía Juvenil», una
medida destinada a facilitar el acceso de los menores de 26 años al mercado laboral, y que estará financiada con
6 000 millones de los Fondos Estructurales para el periodo 2014-2020.

Considerando que el principio central subyacente a la garantía juvenil es garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades para
la juventud en el mercado laboral,

Considerando que varios de los once objetivos temáticos de la nueva Programación de Fondos que los Estados
miembros deben seleccionar están directamente relacionados con la integración de las personas con discapacidad,
como la promoción del empleo y favorecer la movilidad laboral (objetivo 8),

Considerando que el Fondo Social Europeo es el instrumento financiero principal de la UE para fomentar el empleo, la
inclusión social y la igualdad de oportunidades,

Considerando que un insuficiente acceso al mercado laboral de las personas con discapacidad puede significar que se
encuentren en situaciones socialmente vulnerables y expuestas a serios riesgos de discriminación, pobreza y exclusión
social,

Considerando que el artículo 27 de la Convención de Naciones Unidas sobre las Personas con Discapacidad incluye el
derecho a tener la oportunidad de ganarse la vida mediante un trabajo libremente elegido o aceptado en un mercado y
un entorno laborales que sean abiertos, inclusivos y accesibles,

1. ¿Qué medidas piensa adoptar la Comisión para fomentar el empleo de las personas con discapacidad, y en
concreto de los jóvenes con discapacidad?

2. ¿Contempla la iniciativa «Garantía Juvenil» medidas orientadas a la incorporación de los jóvenes con
discapacidad al mercado laboral?

3. ¿En base a qué criterios se financiará este programa? ¿Se incluye entre esos criterios la formación de personas
con discapacidad?

**Respuesta del Sr. Andor en nombre de la Comisión**

_(4 de julio de 2013)_

1) La Comisión, en la Estrategia Europea sobre Discapacidad, aborda la situación de desempleo en la que se
encuentran las personas con discapacidad, por medio de una serie de medidas que se incluyen en la lista de acciones
(2010‐2015). Por otro lado, las recomendaciones específicas por país formuladas en el contexto del Semestre
Europeo se refieren a medidas destinadas a impulsar la inclusión en el mercado de trabajo y la empleabilidad de
quienes más alejados están de dicho mercado.

2) En la Recomendación del Consejo sobre el establecimiento de la Garantía Juvenil ( [1] ) se pide a los Estados
miembros que, a la hora de elaborar sus programas, tengan en cuenta que los jóvenes no constituyen un grupo
homogéneo. Se les pide, entre otras cosas, que diseñen estrategias eficaces para llegar, por ejemplo, a los jóvenes
vulnerables que afrontan múltiples obstáculos y, en este mismo contexto, que tengan en cuenta los antecedentes
diversos de los jóvenes, condicionados, en particular, por la discapacidad.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/es/13/st06/st06944.es13.pdf

C 33 E / 486 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

3) La Iniciativa de Empleo Juvenil, creada por el Consejo Europeo de 8 de febrero ( [2] ), apoyará las medidas
establecidas en el paquete de empleo juvenil y, en particular, la Garantía Juvenil. Cuenta con un presupuesto de
6 000 millones de euros para el período 2014‐2020 y se ejecutará a través de programas del FSE. Dichos programas
estarán diseñados y gestionados por las autoridades nacionales, incluida la determinación de los criterios de selección
de los beneficiarios (por ejemplo, por lo que respecta a la discapacidad). Las acciones financiadas estarán en
consonancia con la estrategia y los objetivos del programa, que tendrá en cuenta las recomendaciones específicas por
país pertinentes y el programa nacional de reforma.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Doc. EUCO 37/13.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 487

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004457/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ ‘Youth Guarantee’ programme and disability

On 28 February 2013, the EU Council of Employment Ministers approved the Youth Guarantee, a measure intended
to facilitate access to the labour market for young people below the age of 26, which is to be financed with
EUR 6 billion of Structural Funds for the period 2014‐2020.

Given that the central underlying principle of the youth guarantee is to ensure equal opportunities for young people
in the labour market;

Given that several of the 11 thematic objectives of the new Programming of Funds which Member States must select
are directly linked to the integration of persons with disabilities, such as promoting employment and supporting
labour mobility (objective 8);

Given that the European Social Fund is the EU’s main financial instrument for supporting employment, social
inclusion and equal opportunities;

Given that insufficient access to the labour market for persons with disabilities can mean that they find themselves in
socially vulnerable situations and exposed to serious risks of discrimination, poverty and social exclusion;

Given that Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities includes the right to
the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and work environment that is
open, inclusive and accessible,

1. What measures does the Commission intend to adopt to promote the employment of persons with disabilities,
and specifically young persons with disabilities?

2. Does it believe that the measures of the ‘Youth Guarantee’ initiative are geared towards the integration of young
persons with disabilities into the labour market?

3. What criteria will be used to finance this programme? Do these criteria include training for persons with
disabilities?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 July 2013)_

1. In the European Disability Strategy the Commission tackles the employment situation of people with disabilities
through a number of measures included in the accompanying list of actions (2010-2015). Also, country specific
recommendations in the context of the European Semester concern measures to foster labour market inclusion and
employability of those furthest from the labour market.

2. The Council Recommendation on Establishing a Youth Guarantee ( [1] ) calls on Member States to consider in
designing their schemes that young people are not a homogenous group. It calls, _inter alia_, for effective outreach
strategies, e.g. for young vulnerable people facing multiple barriers, and emphasises in this context the need to take
into consideration the young peoples' diverse backgrounds, due in particular also to disability.

3. The Youth Employment Initiative, as created by the European Council of 8 February ( [2] ), ‘will act in support of
measures set out in the youth employment package and in particular to support the Youth Guarantee’. It comprises
EUR 6 billion for the period 2014-2020 and will be implemented through ESF programmes. These are designed and
managed by the national authorities, including the identification of criteria for selecting the beneficiaries (e.g. related
to disability). The supported actions shall be in line with the strategy and objectives of the programme, which shall
take into account relevant country-specific recommendations and the National Reform Programme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st06/st06944.en13.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EUCO 37/13.

C 33 E / 488 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004458/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Lucha contra los paraísos fiscales

Recientemente he sabido que varios Gobiernos de la UE, entre ellos España, Gran Bretaña, Italia, Francia y Alemania,
han firmado acuerdos entre ellos para facilitarse información fiscal siguiendo el esquema existente en los Estados
Unidos, en concreto, en la Ley de cumplimiento tributario de las cuentas extranjeras (FACTA). Esos mismos países
han firmado ya, individualmente, acuerdos bilaterales con los Estados Unidos con el mismo objetivo.

Siendo la lucha contra el fraude fiscal un asunto primordial, ¿no considera la Comisión que debe promover con
rapidez una acción coordinada, conjunta y única, no fraccionada, en nombre de todos los países europeos?

**Respuesta del Sr. Šemeta en nombre de la Comisión**

_(12 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión ha acogido con interés la iniciativa adoptada por cinco Estados miembros, y respaldada por varios otros,
de colaborar en el establecimiento de un sistema piloto de intercambio multilateral basado en el modelo convenido
con Estados Unidos para los acuerdos FATCA. Esta iniciativa demuestra que existe entre los Estados miembros un
fuerte consenso en torno a la necesidad de una mayor cooperación a través del intercambio automático de
información.

La Comisión comparte la opinión de Su Señoría de que, dentro de la Unión, los progresos en este ámbito deben venir
impulsados por una actuación a nivel de la UE, puesto que, de esta forma, se garantizará que el intercambio
automático de información se lleve a cabo de manera coherente. Por este motivo, tal como se anunció en la reunión
del Consejo Ecofin de 14 de mayo de 2013 y se mencionó en las conclusiones del Consejo Europeo de 22 de mayo
de 2013, la Comisión propondrá en junio de este año una serie de modificaciones de la Directiva 2011/16/UE ( [1] ). Las
modificaciones tienen por objeto ampliar el ámbito del intercambio automático de información entre los Estados
miembros, a fin de incluir en él las rentas financieras y otros elementos que no están cubiertos por las actuales
disposiciones de la UE al respecto.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 64 de 11.3.2011, p. 1.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 489

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004458/13**

**to the Commission**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fight against tax havens

I have recently discovered that several EU governments, including Spain, Great Britain, Italy, France and Germany,
have signed agreements with each other to obtain tax information following the arrangement that exists in the United
States, namely the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA _)_ . Those same countries have already individually
signed bilateral agreements with the United States for the same purpose.

As the fight against tax evasion is a major issue, does the Commission not think that it should be quick to promote a
coordinated, joint and single action, which is all-inclusive, on behalf of all European countries?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The Commission has noted with interest the initiative launched by five Member States, and supported by several
others, to work on a pilot multilateral exchange facility using the model agreed with the US for FATCA agreements as
a basis. This initiative shows that there is strong consensus among Member States on the need for a greater level of
cooperation via automatic exchange of information.

The Commission shares the view of the Honourable Member that, within the EU, progress in this area should be made
through action at EU level, as this would ensure that the automatic exchange of information takes place in a coherent
manner. It is for this reason that, as announced at the Ecofin meeting of 14 May 2013 and as mentioned in the
European Council conclusions of 22 May 2013, the Commission will propose in June this year amendments to
Directive 2011/16/EU ( [1] ). The amendments are aimed at broadening the scope of automatic exchange of information
between the Member States so as to cover financial income and other items that are not covered by existing EU
arrangements on automatic exchange of information.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 64 11.3.2011, p. 1.

C 33 E / 490 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-004459/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(22 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Los riesgos del mercado Bitcoin

Sin duda, la Comisión Europea conocerá la difusión que está teniendo como moneda virtual el Bitcoin, creado ya hace
algunos años. Frente a otros instrumentos de cambio virtuales, este se ha extendido con gran celeridad. Junto a la
preocupación por otorgar necesarias garantías a su adquisición y utilización, las noticias sobre los movimientos
especulativos acaecidos en las últimas semanas han generado cierta alarma. A título de ejemplo, la Comisión
recordará que, frente a una normal cotización de quince dólares, en unos días el cambio pasó a más de cien dólares, y
a principios de abril superó los doscientos, para caer posteriormente de manera precipitada hasta los cincuenta.

1. ¿Ha puesto en marcha la Comisión algún estudio sobre esta moneda virtual y su incidencia en el comercio
electrónico?

2. ¿Piensa facilitar alguna información para proteger a los consumidores europeos?

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

1. Las monedas virtuales y, especialmente, los _bitcoins_ han recibido recientemente cierta atención de los medios de
comunicación. No obstante, los importes de estas monedas virtuales en circulación son bastante marginales en
comparación con el valor de las monedas y billetes en euros en circulación y, por lo tanto, el porcentaje de la
población que las utiliza se puede considerar bajo. Como se trata de un moneda muy volátil, es probable que atraiga a
más inversores que consumidores, que suelen ser reacios al riesgo.

El Banco Central Europeo sigue de cerca la evolución de las monedas virtuales, ya que esto entra en el ámbito de sus
competencias de supervisión. El año pasado, el BCE publicó un informe en el que indicaba que, por el momento, las
monedas virtuales no planteaban riesgos para la estabilidad financiera o de los precios, pero que la Comisión seguirá
observando la situación en ese mercado.

2. La Comisión comparte la opinión del BCE de que, en esta fase y en las circunstancias actuales, no es necesario
considerar una intervención reguladora. No obstante, la Comisión es consciente de que este sector evoluciona con
rapidez y seguirá vigilando de cerca la situación. En el caso de que las monedas virtuales se conviertan en un
fenómeno extendido, puede resultar apropiado estudiar la forma de que estos nuevos producto entren en el ámbito de
la normativa.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 491

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004459/13**

**to the Commission**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The risks of the Bitcoin market

The Commission will undoubtedly know about the ongoing circulation of the virtual currency, the Bitcoin, which
was created a few years ago. Unlike other virtual exchange instruments, it has spread very quickly. Together with
concerns for guarantees to be provided for its purchase and use, news about speculative movements taking place in
recent weeks has caused some alarm. For example, the Commission will recall that, compared to a standard value of
USD 15, in just a few days the rate shot up to over USD 100, and in early April it was over USD 200, then falling
sharply to USD 50.

1. Has the Commission launched a study on this virtual currency and its impact on ecommerce?

2. Will it consider providing some information to protect European consumers?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 July 2013)_

1. Recently, virtual currencies, and more particularly Bitcoins, have received certain media attention. However, the
amounts of these virtual currencies in circulation are rather marginal compared to the value of euro coins and notes
in circulation and the percentage of the population using such currencies can thus be considered low. Considering
that it is a very volatile currency, it is also likely to more attract investors than consumers, which tend to be more riskaversive.

The developments with regard to virtual currencies are closely followed by the European Central Bank, as this falls
within its sphere of oversight competences. Last year, the ECB issued a report stating that for the time being virtual
currencies do not appear to pose risk for price or financial stability, but that it will continue to monitor the situation
on this market.

2. The Commission shares the opinion of the ECB that at this stage and under the current circumstances there
would not appear to be any need to consider regulatory intervention. However, the Commission appreciates that this
sector evolves quickly and will continue to monitor the situation closely. In case virtual currencies become a more
widespread phenomenon, it may become appropriate to consider ways of bringing these new products within the
scope of regulation.

C 33 E / 492 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004462/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ευρωπαϊκό Κέντρο για Εγκλήματα στον Κυβερνοχώρο

Στο πλαίσιο της ευρωπαϊκής προσπάθειας για την καταπολέμηση της εγκληματικότητας στον κυβερνοχώρο δημιουργήθηκε
πρόσφατα το Ευρωπαϊκό Κέντρο για Εγκλήματα στον Κυβερνοχώρο (EC3) στο πλαίσιο της Εuropol.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Ποια τα πρώτα στοιχεία που προκύπτουν από τη λειτουργία του κέντρου; Ποια εγκλήματα εντοπίζονται να παρουσιάζουν την
μεγαλύτερη συχνότητα και ποια κράτη μέλη φαίνεται να δραστηριοποιούνται και να αξιοποιούν καλύτερα τη λειτουργία του
κέντρου;

**Απάντηση της κ. Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(21 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κέντρο για Εγκλήματα στον Κυβερνοχώρο (EC3), που δρομολογήθηκε στις 11 Ιανουαρίου 2013 στο πλαίσιο
της Europol, δημιουργήθηκε ως ο βραχίονας της ΕΕ για την καταπολέμηση του εγκλήματος στον κυβερνοχώρο. Προτού
δημιουργηθεί το EC3, η Ευρωπόλ είχε ήδη αρχίσει να δέχεται ετησίως πάνω από δέκα χιλιάδες αιτήσεις για βοήθεια από τα
κράτη μέλη στον τομέα του εγκλήματος στον κυβερνοχώρο. Βασικό καθήκον του EC3 είναι η παροχή καλύτερης
επιχειρησιακής υποστήριξης σε μεγαλύτερο αριθμό εθνικών ερευνών. Προκειμένου να διασφαλιστεί η βέλτιστη σχέση
κόστους-αποτελεσματικότητας και η προστιθέμενη αξία του έργου του EC3, τρεις βασικοί τύποι του ηλεκτρονικού
εγκλήματος έχουν οριστεί ως τομείς προτεραιότητας: ηλεκτρονική επίθεση, σεξουαλική κακοποίηση παιδιών που περνά στο
διαδίκτυο, και απάτη σε πληρωμές με πιστωτικές κάρτες.

Μετά από μόλις πέντε μήνες ύπαρξης, το EC3 έχει ήδη συμβάλει στην εξάρθρωση μεγάλων εγκληματικών συμμοριών στην
Ισπανία (περίπτωση ηλεκτρονικής επίθεσης) και στη Ρουμανία (περίπτωση απάτης με πληρωμές με πιστωτικές κάρτες). Το
EC3 παρέχει επίσης συνεχή υποστήριξη σε μια σειρά από άλλες, υψηλού προφίλ επιχειρήσεις, μερικές από τις οποίες
εμπλέκουν μέχρι και 20 κράτη μέλη. Στα πρώτα στάδια της ανάπτυξης του EC3, τα επιτεύγματα αυτά είναι άκρως
ενθαρρυντικά. Μια πληρέστερη εικόνα και λεπτομερέστερα στοιχεία σχετικά με τις έρευνες που πραγματοποιούνται με την
υποστήριξη του EC3 θα είναι διαθέσιμα προς το τέλος τρέχοντος έτους.

Πέραν του κεντρικού καθήκοντος συνδρομής και συντονισμού των διασυνοριακών ερευνών, το EC3 στοχεύει στο συνδυασμό
των διαφόρων προσεγγίσεων αντιμετώπισης του εγκλήματος στον κυβερνοχώρο και στη συλλογή και επεξεργασία, από ένα
ευρύ φάσμα πηγών, δεδομένων που σχετίζονται με το έγκλημα στον κυβερνοχώρο. Στη βάση της αυξημένης αυτής ροής
πληροφοριών, το EC3 επιφορτίσθηκε με τη σύνταξη και δημοσίευση στρατηγικής ανάλυσης, η οποία ενσωματώθηκε ιδίως
στις εκθέσεις SOCTA ( [1] ) και i-OCTA ( [2] ), και με την υποβολή εξειδικευμένων εκθέσεων σχετικά με τις νέες τάσεις και απειλές.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Εκτίμηση απειλής του σοβαρού και οργανωμένου εγκλήματος στην ΕΕ (2013): https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu-serious-and-organised
crime-threat-assessment-socta

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Εκτίμηση απειλής του σοβαρού και οργανωμένου εγκλήματος στο Διαδίκτυο.

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 493

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004462/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Cybercrime Centre

As part of EU efforts to combat cybercrime, a European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) was recently set up within Europol.

Will the Commission say:

What do initial data provided by the Centre show? Which crimes have been identified as being the most common and
which Member States appear to be acting on this data and making best use of the Centre?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The European Cybercrime Centre (EC3), launched on 11 January 2013 within Europol, is conceived as the EU focal
point in the fight against cybercrime. Before EC3 was set-up, Europol was already responding to over ten thousand
requests for assistance from Member States in the area of cybercrime each year. EC3's core task is to provide better
operational support to a larger number of national investigations. To ensure optimal cost-efficiency and added value
of EC3's work, three major types of cybercrime have been defined as priority areas: intrusion, child sexual abuse
online, and payment card fraud.

After only five months in existence, EC3 has already contributed to the successful dismantling of major criminal
gangs in Spain (intrusion case) and in Romania (case payment card fraud case). EC3 is also providing ongoing support
to a number of other high-profile operations, some of them involving up to 20 Member States. In the early stages of
EC3's development, these achievements are very encouraging. A more comprehensive picture and more detailed data
on the investigations conducted with the support of EC3 will become available towards the end of this year.

Beyond this central task of assisting in and coordinating cross-border investigations, the EC3 aims to integrate the
various approaches towards tackling cybercrime and to gather and process cybercrime-related data from a wide array
of sources. On the basis of this increased flow of information, EC3 is tasked with compiling and publishing strategic
analysis, published notably in the SOCTA ( [1] ) and i-OCTA reports ( [2] ), and to deliver specialised reports on new trends
and threats.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (2013): https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/eu-serious-and-organised-crime-threat

assessment-socta.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Internet‐ Organised Crime Threat Assessment.

( **|**

C 33 E / 494 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-005262/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13. Mai 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Bekämpfung von Menschenhandel

Eine umfassende EU-Studie zum Thema Menschenhandel kam zu dem Schluss, dass die offizielle Zahl der Opfer von
Menschenhandel zwischen 2008 und 2010 um gut 18 % gestiegen ist. Im gleichen Zeitraum ist die Zahl der
verurteilten Menschenhändler um ca. 13 % gesunken. Dies mag wohl unter anderem auch daran liegen, dass bis dato
nicht alle EU-Staaten die EU-Richtlinie vom März 2011 gegen Menschenhandel umgesetzt haben.

1. Welche EU-Staaten haben bis dato die EU-Richtlinie vom März 2011 gegen Menschenhandel umgesetzt?

2. Bei welchen Staaten wurde zeitgleich mit der sozusagen erfolgten „Ausdehnung der Strafbarkeit des
Menschenhandels“ dabei auch eine Verschärfung des Strafrechts eingeführt?

3. Und bei welchen EU-Mitgliedstaaten steht dies noch zur Diskussion?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Malmström im Namen der Kommission**

_(15. Juli 2013)_

Die Europäische Kommission legt besonderes Augenmerk auf die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 2011/36/EU zur
Verhütung und Bekämpfung des Menschenhandels und zum Schutz seiner Opfer. Die Frist für die Umsetzung lief am
6. April 2013 aus. Wenn sie vollständig umgesetzt ist, kann die Richtlinie das Leben der Opfer wirklich verändern
und mehr Verurteilungen herbeiführen.

Bisher haben elf Mitgliedstaaten (Tschechische Republik, Estland, Lettland, Litauen, Ungarn, Polen, Rumänien,
Finnland, Schweden, das Vereinigte Königreich und Kroatien) die vollständige und drei Mitgliedstaaten (Belgien,
Bulgarien, Slowenien) eine teilweise Umsetzung mitgeteilt. Die Kommission prüft die von diesen Mitgliedstaaten
übermittelten Informationen. Alle Bestimmungen der Richtlinie, einschließlich der strafrechtlichen Vorschriften,
werden geprüft.

Die Kommission trifft alle notwendigen Maßnahmen, um die korrekte Anwendung des EU-Rechts im Einklang mit
ihrer Rolle als Hüterin der Verträge zu gewährleisten. Dazu leitet sie gegebenenfalls auch
Vertragsverletzungsverfahren ein.

Dreizehn Mitgliedstaaten, die am 29. Mai 2013 noch keine Umsetzungsmaßnahmen notifiziert hatten, erhielten
[Fristsetzungsschreiben (Artikel 258). Die Liste ist online abrufbar online.](http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/eulaw/decisions/dec_20130603.htm)

[Für den Rückgang der Zahl der Verurteilungen in den Jahren 2008-2010, der aus einer ersten Analyse des EU](http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?breadCrumbReset=true&path=EU+Policy%2FReport_DGHome_Eurostat)
[Statistical Data Reportersichtlich ist, kann es mehrere Gründe geben. Insbesondere spielt eine Rolle, dass die](http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?breadCrumbReset=true&path=EU+Policy%2FReport_DGHome_Eurostat)
Verfolgung und Verurteilung einiger Fälle von Menschenhandel auf der Grundlage anderer Bestimmungen der in den
Mitgliedstaaten geltenden Rechtsakte erfolgt als den Rechtsvorschriften für den Menschenhandel.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 495

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004463/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Αδυναμία σύλληψης και φυλάκισης διακινητών θυμάτων εμπορίας ανθρώπων

Σύμφωνα με πρόσφατα στοιχεία που έδωσε η Επιτροπή στη δημοσιότητα, 23 632 άνθρωποι έπεσαν ή εικάζεται ότι έπεσαν
θύματα εμπορίας ανθρώπων στην ΕΕ κατά τη διάρκεια της περιόδου 2008-2010. Στην ίδια έκθεση τονίζεται ότι, μολονότι ο
αριθμός των θυμάτων εμπορίας ανθρώπων προς την ΕΕ αυξήθηκε κατά 18% από το 2008 έως το 2010, λιγότεροι διακινητές
καταλήγουν στη φυλακή, δεδομένου ότι οι καταδίκες μειώθηκαν κατά 13% την ως άνω περίοδο.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Διαθέτει στοιχεία ή αιτιολογημένες γνώμες από τα κράτη μέλη για τον λόγο καθυστέρησης μεταφοράς της οδηγίας
της ΕΕ για την καταπολέμηση της εμπορίας ανθρώπων (2011/36/ΕΕ);

2. Ποίοι άλλοι παράγοντες κατά την γνώμη της Επιτροπής ευθύνονται για το γεγονός ότι λιγότεροι — από ό,τι στο
παρελθόν — διακινητές καταλήγουν στη φυλακή;

**Κοινή απάντηση της κ. Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(15 Ιουλίου 2013)_

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή δίνει ιδιαίτερη προσοχή στη μεταφορά της οδηγίας 2011/36/ΕΕ για την πρόληψη και την
καταπολέμηση της εμπορίας ανθρώπων και για την προστασία των θυμάτων. Η προθεσμία για την μεταφορά έληξε στις 6
Απριλίου 2013. Εάν εφαρμοστεί πλήρως, η οδηγία έχει τη δυνατότητα να συμβάλει ουσιαστικά στην ποιότητα ζωής των
θυμάτων, καθώς και να αυξήσει τον αριθμό των καταδικαστικών αποφάσεων.

Μέχρι σήμερα έντεκα κράτη μέλη (Τσεχική Δημοκρατία, Εσθονία, Λετονία, Λιθουανία, Ουγγαρία, Πολωνία, Ρουμανία,
Φινλανδία, Σουηδία, Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο και Κροατία) έχουν κοινοποιήσει πλήρη μεταφορά στο εθνικό δίκαιο και τρία
(Βέλγιο, Βουλγαρία, Σλοβενία) μερική. Η Επιτροπή θα προβεί σε ανάλυση των στοιχείων που διαβιβάστηκαν από τα εν λόγω
κράτη μέλη. Το σύνολο των διατάξεων της οδηγίας θα εξεταστεί, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των διατάξεων του ποινικού δικαίου.

Η Επιτροπή θα λάβει όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για τη διασφάλιση της ορθής εφαρμογής του κοινοτικού δικαίου σύμφωνα με
τον ρόλο που της έχει ανατεθεί δυνάμει των Συνθηκών, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της θέσπισης διαδικασιών επί παραβάσει, εάν
αυτό κριθεί αναγκαίο.

Προειδοποιητικές επιστολές (Άρθρο 258) απεστάλησαν σε δεκατρία κράτη μέλη που δεν κοινοποίησαν τη μεταφορά στις 29
[Μαΐου 2013. Ο κατάλογος είναι διαθέσιμος διαδικτυακά.](http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/eulaw/decisions/dec_20130603.htm#el)

[Σχετικά με τη μείωση του αριθμού των καταδικών κατά τα έτη 2008-2010, από την πρώτη ανάλυση της στατιστικής έκθεσης](http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?breadCrumbReset=true&path=EU+Policy%2FReport_DGHome_Eurostat)
[δεδομένων της ΕΕ προκύπτει ότι, είναι ποικίλοι οι ενδεχόμενοι λόγοι για τους οποίους συμβαίνει αυτό, μεταξύ των οποίων](http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?breadCrumbReset=true&path=EU+Policy%2FReport_DGHome_Eurostat)
και το γεγονός ότι ορισμένες υποθέσεις υπευθύνων εμπορίας ανθρώπων διώκονται και καταδικάζονται με βάση διαφορετικές
διατάξεις νομοθετικών πράξεων που ισχύουν στα κράτη μέλη από εκείνες που αφορούν την εμπορία ανθρώπων.

C 33 E / 496 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004463/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Failure to arrest and imprison traffickers in human beings

According to recently published Commission figures, 23 632 people fell — or are suspected of having fallen —
victim to traffickers in human beings in the EU during 2008-2010. The same report stresses that, while the number of
victims of trafficking to the EU increased by 18% over the same period, fewer traffickers have ended up in jail, because
the number of convictions fell by 13% over this period.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it have any data or reasoned opinions from Member States on the reasons for the late transposition of
the EU Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings (2011/36/EU)?

2. What other factors, in its opinion, are responsible for the fact that fewer traffickers end up in jail than before?

**Question for written answer E-005262/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(13 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Combating trafficking in human beings

An extensive EU study on the subject of trafficking in human beings came to the conclusion that the official number
of victims of people trafficking rose by a good 18% between 2008 and 2010. The number of people prosecuted for
people trafficking offences declined by about 13% in the same period. This may be partly due to the fact that, to date,
not all EU Member States have transposed the EU Directive against Trafficking in Human Beings of March 2011.

1. Which EU Member States have not to date transposed the EU Directive against Trafficking in Human Beings of
March 2011?

2. Which Member States tightened up criminal law provisions at the same time as widening the criminality of
trafficking in human beings?

3. In which EU Member States is this still under discussion?

**Question for written answer E-005493/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(17 May 2013)_

_Subject:_ Implementation of 2011 Directive against human trafficking

Human trafficking is a problem across all Member States and it is clear the EU must do more to eradicate this atrocity.
The deadline for implementation of the Human Trafficking Directive expired on 6 April 2013.

Has the Commission commenced formal proceedings against any Member State for non-implementation?

**Joint answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 July 2013)_

The European Commission is paying particular attention to the transposition of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing
and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. The deadline for the transposition expired on
6 April 2013. If fully implemented, the directive has a potential to make a real difference to the lives of victims and
also increase number of convictions.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 497

To date eleven Member States (Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Finland,
Sweden, UK and Croatia) have notified full transposition and three (Belgium, Bulgaria, Slovenia) partial transposition.
The Commission will analyse the information transmitted by these Member States. All the provisions of the directive
will be examined, including criminal law provisions.

The Commission will take all necessary measures to ensure the correct application of EC law, in accordance with its
role under the Treaties, including by launching infringement procedures where necessary.

Letters of formal notice (Article 258) were sent to thirteen Member States who had not notified transposition on
[29 May 2013. The list is available online.](http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/eulaw/decisions/dec_20130603.htm)

[On the decrease of the number of convictions in years 2008-2010, based on the first analysis of the EU Statistical](http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?breadCrumbReset=true&path=EU+Policy%2FReport_DGHome_Eurostat)
[Data Report, there might be various reasons for this, including the fact that some trafficking cases are prosecuted and](http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/entity.action?breadCrumbReset=true&path=EU+Policy%2FReport_DGHome_Eurostat)
convicted on the basis of other provisions of the legislative acts in force in Member States than those concerned with
trafficking in human beings.

C 33 E / 498 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004464/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ανισότητα κατανομής πλούτου στα ευρωπαϊκά νοικοκυριά

Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει η Επιτροπή, με βάση τα τελευταία στοιχεία, σε ποια κράτη μέλη παρατηρείται η μεγαλύτερη
ανισοκατανομή πλούτου στα νοικοκυριά; Πόσες φορές μεγαλύτερο είναι το ποσοστό πλούτου ανάμεσα στο 20%
πλουσιότερο κομμάτι της κοινωνίας των κρατών αυτών σε σχέση με το 20% των φτωχότερων; Λαμβάνονται από τα κράτη
μελή επαρκείς πολιτικές πρωτοβουλίες για τη μείωση των σχετικών ανισοτήτων;

**Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(27 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Το ευρωπαϊκό στατιστικό σύστημα δεν περιλαμβάνει συλλογή στατιστικών στοιχείων σχετικά με τον πλούτο. Ωστόσο, η
πρόσφατη «Έρευνα του ευρωσυστήματος για τα οικονομικά των νοικοκυριών και την κατανάλωση» («Eurosystem
Household Finance and Consumption Survey») ( [1] ) που διεξήγαγε η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα στην ευρωζώνη επιχειρεί
να καλύψει το εν λόγω κενό. Το κατώτερο 20% των νοικοκυριών ως προς τον πλούτο συχνά δείχνει αρνητικό μέσο καθαρό
πλούτο, ως εκ τούτου, ο υπολογισμός ποσοστού έως το ανώτατο 20% είναι προβληματικός. Μια άλλη εναλλακτική λύση
που χρησιμοποιείται ευρύτατα για να εξεταστεί η ανισότητα είναι ο λόγος του μέσου προς τον διάμεσο καθαρό πλούτο των
νοικοκυριών. Αυτό δείχνει ότι η ανισότητα πλούτου είναι η υψηλότερη στην Αυστρία και τη Γερμανία. Η αξιοπιστία των
αποτελεσμάτων αυτής της πρωτοπόρου έρευνας εξακολουθεί να τελεί υπό έλεγχο.

Η κρίση και οι μεγάλες προσπάθειες δημοσιονομικής εξυγίανσης σε πολλά κράτη μέλη προκάλεσαν ανησυχίες σχετικά με την
προοπτική αύξησης των ανισοτήτων. Ενώ τα κράτη μέλη έχουν τον πρωταρχικό ρόλο στο ζήτημα αυτό, δεν έχουν όλα
διαθέσιμες τις αναγκαίες επενδύσεις για να ικανοποιήσουν τις ανάγκες των ανθρώπων. Οι στρατηγικές που εγκρίθηκαν από τα
κράτη μέλη για την αποκατάσταση της βιωσιμότητας των δημόσιων οικονομικών πρέπει να εφαρμόζονται κατά τρόπο ώστε
να υποστηρίζεται τόσο η ανάπτυξη και η απασχόληση όσο και η κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, όπως ορίζεται στη στρατηγική
«Ευρώπη 2020».

Η Επιτροπή συνιστά στα κράτη μέλη να ενισχύσουν τις ενεργητικές πολιτικές για την αγορά εργασίας και να μετατοπίσουν τη
συνολική φορολογική επιβάρυνση προς φορολογικές βάσεις που είναι λιγότερο βλαπτικές για την ανάπτυξη και τη
δημιουργία απασχόλησης και να καταστήσουν τα φορολογικά συστήματα πιο δίκαια και πιο αποδοτικά. Περαιτέρω, η δέσμη
μέτρων για τις κοινωνικές επενδύσεις του Φεβρουαρίου του 2013 δίνει οδηγίες στα κράτη μέλη σχετικά με το πώς να δώσουν
περισσότερη έμφαση στις κοινωνικές επενδύσεις σε ανθρώπινο δυναμικό και κοινωνική συνοχή στο πλαίσιο των
μεταρρυθμίσεων κοινωνικής πολιτικής.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/ecbsp2en.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 499

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004464/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Inequitable distribution of wealth among European households

Can the Commission state, on the basis of the latest figures, in which Member States inequality in household wealth is
greatest? How many times more wealthy is the richest 20% in these States compared to the poorest 20%? Are Member
States taking sufficient political initiatives to reduce these inequalities?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

The European Statistical System does not include collection of statistics on wealth. Yet the recent ‘Eurosystem
Household Finance and Consumption Survey’ ( [1] ) run by the European Central Bank in the eurozone attempts to fill
that gap. The bottom 20% of households by wealth often shows negative average net wealth, hence calculating a ratio
to the top 20% is problematic. Another alternative widely used to examine inequality is the ratio of mean to median
net household wealth. This shows that wealth inequality is highest in Austria and Germany. The robustness of the
results of this pioneering survey is still under scrutiny.

The crisis and the large fiscal consolidation efforts in many Member States have raised concerns about the prospect of
inequalities increasing. Whereas Member States have the principal role in this matter, not all have in place the
necessary investments to meet people's needs. The strategies adopted by Member States to restore the sustainability of
public finances must be implemented in a way that supports both growth and employment and social fairness as set
out in the Europe 2020 strategy.

The Commission recommends Member States to reinforce active labour market policies and to shift the overall tax
burden towards tax bases that are less detrimental to growth and job creation and to make tax systems fairer and
more efficient. Furthermore, the Social Investment Package of February 2013 gives guidance to Member States on
how to put more emphasis on social investment in human capital and social cohesion as part of social policy reforms.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/ecbsp2en.pdf

C 33 E / 500 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004465/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Βίαιος εξτρεμισμός στην ΕΕ

Η αύξηση των ακραίων τάσεων και φωνών σε αρκετά κράτη μέλη, φαινόμενο που ενισχύεται και από την μακρόχρονη
οικονομική κρίση, επιβάλλει την επικαιροποίηση της ευρωπαϊκής προσέγγισης στον τομέα αυτό. Η Επιτροπή, μάλιστα, με
πρόσφατη τοποθέτησή της (IP/13/59) είχε τονίσει την ανάγκη δημιουργίας ευρωπαϊκής «φαρέτρας» με βάση τις βέλτιστες
πρακτικές στα κράτη μέλη.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Συλλέγονται βέλτιστες πρακτικές από τα κράτη μέλη που αφορούν την αντιμετώπιση του βίαιου εξτρεμισμού; Είναι σε θέση
να μου παραθέσει τις σημαντικότερες από αυτές και σε ποια κράτη μέλη εφαρμόζονται;

**Απάντηση της κ. Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(21 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Όπως αναφέρεται στην απάντηση στη γραπτή ερώτηση E-8264/11 ( [1] ), η Επιτροπή συνεχίζει να εργάζεται για τους τρόπους
συνδρομής των κρατών μελών στην πρόληψη του βίαιου εξτρεμισμού, ανεξάρτητα από τα κίνητρα και τις μεθόδους, ως μίας
από τις προτεραιότητες της εσωτερικής ασφάλειας, συνεκτιμώντας ότι η πρωταρχική ευθύνη παραμένει σε τοπικό και εθνικό
επίπεδο. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, το Δίκτυο Ενημέρωσης σχετικά με τη Ριζοσπαστικοποίηση (RAN), που δρομολογήθηκε τον
Σεπτέμβριο του 2011, συνδέει παράγοντες που εμπλέκονται στην πρόληψη της ριζοσπαστικοποίησης που οδηγεί στη
τρομοκρατία και τον βίαιο εξτρεμισμό. Το Δίκτυο στοχεύει να συνδυάσει την πείρα, τη γνώση και τα συναχθέντα
συμπεράσματα για την καλύτερη προετοιμασία των πρώτης γραμμής ατόμων και ομάδων στελεχών στην επικίνδυνη
καθημερινή τους εργασία.

Το έργο τους θα ενταχθεί σε ένα ευρωπαϊκό πρόγραμμα για την αντιμετώπιση του βίαιου εξτρεμισμού, μεταξύ άλλων με τη
συλλογή και διάχυση πρακτικών, μεθοδολογιών και προσεγγίσεων σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-008264&language=EN

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 501

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004465/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Violent extremism in the EU

The growth in extremist tendencies and voices in several Member States, a phenomenon strengthened by the long
economic crisis, means that Europe’s approach in this area needs to be brought up to date. In fact the Commission, in
a recent statement (IP/13/59) stressed the need to create a European toolbox based on best practices in Member
States.

Will the Commission say:

Are efforts being made to identify best practices from Member States on countering violent extremism? Can it list the
most important ones and say in which Member States they are being implemented?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

As set out in the reply to Written Question E-8264/11 ( [1] ) the Commission continues to work on ways to assist
Member States in addressing prevention of violent extremism regardless of motivation and methods, as one of the
internal security priorities, bearing in mind that the primary responsibility remains at local and national level. More
specifically the EU Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), launched in September 2011, connects practitioners
involved in preventing radicalisation leading to terrorism and violent extremism. The Network aims to pool
experience, knowledge and lessons learned to better equip first-line practitioners in their daily work with at risk
individuals and groups.

Their work will feed into a European Programme on how to counter violent extremism, including by a collection and
dissemination of practices, methodologies and approaches from across the EU Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-008264&language=EN.

C 33 E / 502 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004466/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Εκτιμήσεις για τα επισφαλή δάνεια στην ΕΕ

Τα μη εξυπηρετούμενα δάνεια σε αρκετές τράπεζες πολλών κρατών μελών, λόγω και της οικονομικής κρίσης, θέτουν άλλο
ένα πρόβλημα όσον αφορά την τραπεζική σταθερότητα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Διαθέτει πρόσφατα στοιχεία αναφορικά με το ύψος των μη εξυπηρετούμενων δανείων στην ΕΕ;

2. Σε ποιες χώρες παρατηρείται εντονότερο το φαινόμενο και τι ποσοστό αντιπροσωπεύουν αναφορικά με το συνολικό
ύψος των δανείων;

**Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2013)_

Τα στοιχεία σχετικά με τα μη εξυπηρετούμενα δάνεια συγκεντρώνονται σε τακτική βάση από την Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική
Τράπεζα (Αποθήκη στατιστικών στοιχείων). Τα πλέον πρόσφατα αριθμητικά στοιχεία αφορούν τον Ιούνιο του 2012 και είναι
διαθέσιμα στους εξής δύο συνδέσμους:

Ετήσια στοιχεία:

http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?
node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=A&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DA
TASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC

Εξαμηνιαία στοιχεία:

http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?
node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=H&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DA
TASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC

Είναι σημαντικό να σημειωθεί ότι ο ορισμός των μη εξυπηρετούμενων δανείων δεν έχει εναρμονιστεί σε όλες τις χώρες,
συνεπώς η σύγκριση των στοιχείων σε διεθνές επίπεδο θα πρέπει να προσεγγίζεται με επιφύλαξη. Σύμφωνα με την ΕΚΤ, το
ποσοστό των μη εξυπηρετούμενων δανείων (ΜΕΔ) στην ΕΕ φτάνει το 4% (επί του συνόλου των δανείων) από το πρώτο
εξάμηνο του 2012. Το ποσοστό αυτό καλύπτει μεγάλες ανισότητες ως προς τα επίπεδα των ΜΕΔ και τις τάσεις σε όλες τις
ευρωπαϊκές χώρες. Επιπλέον, τα αριθμητικά στοιχεία των ΜΕΔ θα πρέπει να αναλύονται σε σχέση με το ποσό των
αποθεματικών που προβλέφθηκαν γι' αυτά (ο συντελεστής κάλυψης).

Η εικόνα όσον αφορά την εξέλιξη είναι ανάμεικτη. Τα ΜΕΔ αυξάνονται ταχέως στην περιφέρεια της ευρωζώνης.

Αντιθέτως, τα ΜΕΔ στα κράτη της Βαλτικής σημειώνουν αισθητή μείωση ενώ αρχικά ήταν σε πολύ υψηλά επίπεδα. Ορισμένες
χώρες της Ανατολικής Ευρώπης παρουσιάζουν επίσης αυξήσεις των ΜΕΔ που σε ορισμένες περιπτώσεις φθάνουν σε πολύ
υψηλά επίπεδα. Στις βόρειες και κεντρικές περιοχές της Ευρώπης τα ΜΕΔ αυξάνονται, αν και με βραδύτερους ρυθμούς. Σε
άλλες χώρες του πυρήνα σημειώνεται μάλιστα και μείωση των ΜΕΔ.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 503

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004466/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Estimates of bad loans in the EU

Loans in a number of banks in many Member States are non-performing due to the economic crisis. This is one more
problem affecting bank stability.

Will the Commission state:

1. Does it have any recent information concerning the amount of non-performing loans in the EU?

2. Which countries are most affected and what percentage do such loans represent compared to the total amount
of loans?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 July 2013)_

The data on non-performing loans are compiled on a regular basis by the European Central Bank (Statistical Data
Warehouse). The most recent figures correspond to June 2012 and are available through these two links:

Annual data:

http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?
[node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=A&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DA](http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=A&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DATASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC)
[TASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC](http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=A&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DATASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC)

Semi-annual data:

http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?
[node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=H&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DA](http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=H&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DATASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC)
[TASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC](http://sdw.ecb.int/browseTable.do?node=71390&CB_REP_SECTOR=67&FREQ=H&CB_ITEM=73614&flipped=Y&sfl2=4&sfl1=3&sfl4=6&sfl3=4&DATASET=0&periodSortOrder=ASC)

It is important to note that the definition of non-performing loans is not harmonised across countries so that
international comparison of data should be taken with caution. Non-performing loans (NPLs) in the EU stand at 4%
(of total loans) as of 2012H1, according to the ECB. This figure hides a wide disparity in NPL levels and trends across
European countries. Moreover, NPL figures should be analysed with respect to the amount of provisions set aside for
them (the coverage ratio)

The picture in terms of evolution is mixed. NPLs are rapidly rising in the EA periphery.

In contrast, in the Baltic States NPLs are strongly decreasing from very high initial levels. Some Eastern European
countries are also experiencing increases in NPLs, reaching in some cases significantly high levels. In the northern and
central parts of Europe NPLs are rising, although at a slower pace. Other core countries are even experiencing a
decline in NPLs.

C 33 E / 504 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004467/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roger Helmer (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Religious conflict in Egypt

Is the Commission aware of the escalating situation in Egypt as regards religious persecution? This is on the increase
and becoming more vicious, as demonstrated by recent clashes in which six Coptic Christians and one Muslim are
estimated to have died ( [1] ).

Does the Commission propose to take any action to help re-establish the peaceful co-existence of different religious
groups in the area?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the escalating situation in Egypt concerning religious minorities, as the recent clashes in
which six Copts and one Muslim died. The HR/VP issued a statement on 7 April ( [2] ) while travelling to the region,
urging for restraint and for the security forces to control the situation. The EU Delegation closely monitors the
situation and its follow-up.

Freedom of religion or belief and the rights of minorities are high priorities under the EU's human rights policy. The
EU is using the full range of its diplomatic and cooperation instruments to address freedom of religion or belief and to
ensure minorities in Egypt are protected against such acts of violence.

In this respect, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights plays an active role in support of human rights in
Egypt. He raised the issue during his visit to Egypt in mid-March 2013.

The basis for the EU engagement in Egypt is the renewed EU Neighbourhood Policy adopted in 2011 according to
which the EU engagement — technically as well as financially — is strictly linked to the respect of fundamental rights
and values according to the ‘more-for-more’ principle.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22062622.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/136667.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 505

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004468/13**

**to the Commission**
**Arlene McCarthy (S&D) and Linda McAvan (S&D)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Illegal bird hunting in Malta

Under the 1979 Wild Birds Directive, the hunting of wild birds is regulated in the EU. The Commission has previously
launched infringement proceedings against Malta for failing to comply with the provision of the directive concerning
hunting. Can the Commission provide an update regarding these infringement proceedings and confirm whether they
are still ongoing?

Recent reports indicate that the Maltese authorities have relaxed the supervision of, and the enforcement
requirements for, the spring hunt for turtle dove and quail.

Is the Commission aware of these recent developments, and of the level of illegal bird hunting in Malta in general?
Can the Commission confirm what action it will take in response to this?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the situation in Malta and recent developments with respect to the spring hunting
derogation. The Commission is in contact with the Maltese authorities regarding the effectiveness of the enforcement
system. The Commission would also refer the Honourable Members to its answers to written questions E-347/2013
and E-4289/2013.

C 33 E / 506 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004469/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Croatia's accession to the EU

The Commission outlined 10 areas for progress ahead of Croatia’s proposed accession to the EU on 1 July 2013. Will
the Commission provide details of these requirements and outline the progress made on each to date?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

In its October 2012 Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Croatia ( [1] ), the Commission considered that particular
attention should be paid by Croatia in the coming months to ten priority actions in the area of competition, judiciary
and fundamental rights, and justice, freedom and security.

In its Spring 2013 Monitoring Report on Croatia's accession preparations ( [2] ), the Commission concluded that Croatia
has completed the ten priority actions identified in the Commission's Comprehensive Monitoring Report of
October 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 601 final/10.10.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 171 final/ 26.03.2013.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 507

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004470/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Assistance package for Palestine

Can the Commission outline the details of the 2013 assistance package for Palestine, including the overall cost to the
European Union, which budget the package is financed from, and how this package compares to any previous aid
given in 2011 and in 2012?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 June 2013)_

The European Neighbourhood Partnership Instrument has allocated EUR 300 million for support to Palestine and the
Palestinian people in 2013. Of this amount, EUR 168 million has been allocated for recurrent expenditure of the
Palestinian Authority under the PEGASE Mechanism (salaries, social allowances and contribution to arrears of
referrals to East Jerusalem hospitals); EUR 80 million to UNRWA; EUR 8 million for actions in East Jerusalem and the
remainder for institution-building and water infrastructure projects. The overall amount is the same as for the two
previous years.

EUR 3.9 million has been allocated from thematic budget lines (EUR 2.4 million from Non State Actors & Local
Authorities in Development, EUR 0.9 million from the Civil Society Facility and EUR 1.5 million from European
Instrument for Human Rights) so far in 2013. In 2012 the figure was EUR 9.7 million and in 2011 it was
EUR 11.25 million.

EUR 35 million have been so far allocated this year for humanitarian operations for Palestinians, compared with
EUR 42 million allocated in 2012 and EUR 48.63 million in 2011.

C 33 E / 508 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004471/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU free trade deal with Japan

I welcome the news that Japan and the EU have agreed to open talks on a trade deal next month, as the latest sign of a
re-energised global trade negotiating agenda.

What trade concerns are considered a priority in these negotiations and what benefits could be brought to the EU as a
result of such a deal, particularly to smaller regions throughout the EU, such as Northern Ireland?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

The launch of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations has been in preparation for some years. The actual
negotiations are based on the outcome of the scoping exercise which the EU and Japan completed in 2012. In the
context of this exercise, both parties committed to an ambitious trade liberalisation agenda covering all issues
including non-tariff barriers or access to public procurement. For the EU side, the priority areas will include, but will
not be limited to, the elimination of non-tariff barriers by Japan, ensuring access for EU companies to Japanese
railway procurement and elimination of tariffs of exports of EU agricultural products.

According to the available studies, it is estimated that an ambitious FTA between EU and Japan will bring considerable
gains. Depending on the liberalisation scenario used, the FTA is expected to boost EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
by 0.6% to 0.8%.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 509

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004472/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Forced child labour in Uzbekistan's cotton industry

There is much concern across the EU at the reports of state-sponsored forced child labour in Uzbekistan’s cotton
industry. Human rights groups have estimated that every year as many as 100 000 children are forced into work.

The EU is the largest destination market for Uzbek cotton and the country benefits from preferential import duties for
its cotton exports to the EU.

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure independent monitoring of the cotton harvest? Does the Commission
intend to address the issue of forced labour in the Uzbek cotton industry and to reconsider the preferential import
duties until the situation improves?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

The European Commission has been following with considerable attention the situation of human rights in
Uzbekistan. The issue of child labour in the cotton harvest was raised for example at the EU-Uzbekistan Cooperation
Committee on 19 July 2012, the Human Rights Dialogue on 6 November 2012 and the EU-Uzbekistan Economic,
Trade and Investment Subcommittee on 15 March 2013.

The EU has sought to develop relevant cooperation responses with Uzbekistan, including the promotion of
agriculture diversification and diminishing the country's reliance on cotton monoculture. Furthermore, the
Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) provides incentives for the export of many other products aside from
cotton-based goods. The Commission favours cooperation, transparency and dialogue as most efficient tools to
achieve the EU's objectives. GSP preferences can be temporarily withdrawn only if a country is responsible for serious
and systematic violations of principles laid down in international conventions, including those of the International
Labour Organisation (ILO) on child labour standards.

Though a steep decline in the number of younger children (under 15) working in the 2012 harvest has been reported
by embassies and international organisations, the Commission continues to urge the Uzbek government to cooperate
with the ILO, including on monitoring aspects, and encourage further efforts towards full implementation of
Uzbekistan’s obligations under ILO conventions.

C 33 E / 510 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004473/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Arming Syrian rebels

In a recent joint letter to the Commission, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, William
Hague, and the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, urged the Commission to threaten the Syrian regime of
Bashar al-Assad with the potential arming of rebels within the country.

Can the Commission outline its current policy on this issue and state what preparations it has made to engage with
the Syrian rebels should the situation in Syria deteriorate further?

**Question for written answer E-004792/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diane Dodds (NI)**

_(29 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU support for Syrian rebels

With growing calls by the international community to arm the Syrian rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad, could
the Commission indicate what support, if any, is being given to the rebels?

With increasing concerns by Israel and others that Islamists could use any weapons to further their own cause, it is
essential that any support is carefully considered before being given.

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

_(10 July 2013)_

The EU is committed to spare no effort to bring about a successful convening of the peace conference on Syria on the
basis agreed in the Geneva Communique of June 2012. The EU has been reviewing its sanctions regime against Syria
in order to support and help the opposition and to enable greater support for the protection of civilians. The recent
Council decisions have been taken in this context, including amending its sanctions regime in order to allow the
delivery of non-lethal military equipment and related technical assistance to the National Coalition for the protection
of civilians. Derogations under the restrictive measures have also been introduced to allow under certain conditions
the resumption of imports of oil and petroleum products from Syria to the EU, exports of key equipment and
technology for the oil and gas industry to Syria, as well as investments in the Syrian oil industry, the granting of any
financial loan or credit to, the acquisition or extension of a participation in, or the creation of any joint venture with
any Syrian person, the opening of a new bank account or a new representative office, or the establishment of a new
branch or subsidiary

With regard to the measures on arms, the Council underlines the Council Declaration adopted on 27 May 2013 ( [1] ). In
this Declaration Member States committed to proceed in their national policies with regard to the possible export of
arms to Syria for the Syrian National Coalition for Opposition and Revolutionary Forces and intended for the
protection of civilians on the basis of adequate safeguards and on a case-by-case basis, taking full account of the
criteria set out in Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing
control of exports of military technology and equipment.

Member States also committed not to proceed at this stage with the delivery of the equipment mentioned above. The
Council will review its position before 1 August 2013 on the basis of a report by the High Representative/VicePresident, after having consulted the UN Secretary General, on the developments related to the US-Russia initiative
and on the engagement of the Syrian parties.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/137315.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 511

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004474/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Labour shortages in EU health and technology industries

Many recent reports have shown that, despite the economic crisis, there is still a shortage of professionals across
the EU, particularly in the healthcare and technology industries.

Can the Commission detail current initiatives and future plans to address this issue in these two industries and explain
what plans are in place to encourage more EU nationals to take up careers or upskill in order to fill vacancies in these
industries?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(1 July 2013)_

The EU’s health workforce shortage will worsen as the workforce ages and there are not enough new recruits to
replace those retiring, so successfully managing health workforce is a high EU priority.

The Commission Staff Working Document on an Action Plan for the EU Health Workforce ( [1] ) proposes practical
measures to help the Member States tackle the challenges facing the EU healthcare sector and boost employment in
the medium to long term:

—
forecasting workforce needs and improving workforce planning methodologies;

—
anticipating future skill needs in the health professions (social partners have completed a feasibility study with
EU financial support on establishing an EU sector skills council in the area of nursing and care);

—
sharing good practice on effective recruitment and retention strategies for health professionals.

The Commission Staff Working Document ‘Exploiting the employment potential of ICTs’ ( [2] ) identifies ICT as a largely
untapped area for employment creation. The Commission went on to launch a Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs ( [3] ),
proposing actions to boost the number of ICT professionals through industry-led training and certification, mobility,
education and awareness-raising of careers in ICT. Within this framwork stakeholders from across the EU are
currently submitting pledges to commit themselves to concrete actions to help fill digital jobs vacancies.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2012) 93 final of 18 April 2012 is part of the Employment Package, which is available at: .

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/andor/headlines/news/2012/04/20120418_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2012) 96 final of 18 April 2012 is also part of the Employment Package and is available on the same

website.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/grand-coalition-digital-jobs-0

( **|**

( **|**

C 33 E / 512 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004475/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Innovation in the EU

I welcome the recent publication of the Innovation Union Scoreboard for 2012 by the European Commission. The
United Kingdom has achieved the laudable status of ‘innovation follower’ but Northern Ireland, which I represent, is
the only place in the British Isles to be deemed a ‘moderate innovator’.

How does the Commission intend to assist Northern Ireland with its innovation objectives in 2013 in order to bring it
into line with the rest of the United Kingdom?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 July 2013)_

The United Kingdom is one of the EU innovation followers with an above average innovation performance ( [1] ).
Regarding the regional level ( [2] ), there is considerable diversity in innovation performance both between and within
Member States. Most of the European countries have regions with different levels of innovation performance. This is
the case for Northern Ireland, a moderate innovator.

The concept of Smart Specialisation — a requirement for EU Structural Fund investments in R&I in 2014-2020 —
works from the assumption that regions have different strengths and weaknesses. It involves a process of developing
a vision, identifying competitive advantages, setting strategic priorities and making use of smart policies to maximise
the knowledge-based development potential of any region. In 2012 Northern Ireland participated in the peer review
of the Smart Specialisation Platform and in a next step the Commission will finance expert advice to assess Northern
Ireland's smart specialisation strategy and its future innovation objectives.

The European Regional Development Fund ( [3] ) 2007-2013 Competiveness Programme for Northern Ireland presently
provides EUR 272 m to bolster the competitiveness and innovative capacity of the economy ( [4] ). The Northern Ireland
Competitiveness Programme also provides a further EUR 210m for enterprise development and entrepreneurship ( [5] ).
Through the intermediary Invest Northern Ireland, the ERDF is supporting R&D and development/design
programmes and venture capital provision for Northern Ireland companies. The ERDF is supporting the provision of
proof of concept funding which seeks to encourage the commercialisation of technological development occurring
within Northern Ireland universities.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) According to the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ERDF.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 50% from ERDF and the remaining 50% from national public and private sources.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 50% from ERDF and the remaining 50% from national public and private sources.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 513

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004476/13**
**to the Council (President of the European Council)**

**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ PCE/PEC — Allocation of rural development top-ups during February's budget negotiations

One of the outcomes of the February budget negotiations between the EU’s leaders was the allocation of additional
rural development funds to sixteen Member States.

Given the scale of these top-up payments, I would be interested to know what criteria were used during the
negotiations for making such allocations and the justification for payments being made to each of the Member States
concerned.

**Reply**
_(15 July 2013)_

The February European Council concluded that the overall support for rural development will amount to
EUR 84 936 million at 2011 prices.

It will be distributed between Member States based on objective criteria and past performance while taking into
account the objectives of the rural development and having regard to the overall context of the common agricultural
policy and the Union budget. Amounts will be adjusted to take into account flexibility between pillars.

As an exception to the distribution based on those criteria, the European Council also decided that additional
allocations will be made for sixteen Member States. They will be granted to those Member States facing particular
structural challenges in their agriculture sector or which have invested heavily in an effective delivery framework for
rural development expenditure.

For the Member States receiving financial assistance in accordance with Articles 136 and 143 TFEU, the additional
allocations will be subject to full EU co-financing. This rule shall be reassessed in 2016.

C 33 E / 514 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004477/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reallocating reclaimed CAP expenditure

The Commission recently claimed back EUR 414 million of agricultural policy funds from 22 Member States. How
and where does the Commission intend to reallocate these funds?

Many of these amounts reclaimed relate to repeat-offence actions by Member States in breach of Commission
guidelines. What is the Commission doing to address these issues and effectively communicate with Member States in
order to prevent further offences?

Moreover, with the ongoing reform of the CAP, how does the Commission propose that financial corrections of this
nature be avoided in the future, especially given that many of its preferred proposals are likely to place an additional
administrative burden on the shoulders of Member States?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

1. The financial corrections (EUR 414 million) were adopted by Decision 2013/123/EU ( [1] ). Receipts originating
from financial corrections are designated as revenue assigned to the financing of EAGF expenditure. In the 2013
budget EUR 1533 million assigned revenue was estimated to be available for EAGF expenditure of which
EUR 500 million was allocated to market related expenditure and EUR 1033 million to direct aids.

2. In this decision, two financial corrections were made on repeat-offense actions or recurrence by Member States.
The Commission has notified Member States how it deals with recurrent shortcomings in control systems ( [2] ) and if
shortcomings persist, it can be justified to increase the flat-rate correction. In neither of the two recurrent weaknesses
corrected were the conditions met for application of an increase in the flat-rate correction.

3. When drafting its CAP reform proposals the Commission consulted Member States’ experts and farmers
specifically on the controllability, simplification and administrative burden aspects of the key novel elements being
considered for the new programming period. However the co-legislator has introduced certain elements during the
co-decision procedure which risk complicating the application of the new provisions. While Member States
themselves often apply additional layers of obligations and eligibility criteria leading to greater complexity.

The Commission will continue to ensure that the legislation adopted by the co-legislator is correctly applied in the
Member States; it will use all the means at its disposal in order to shield the EU budget from irregular expenditure.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Decision of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the

Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European
Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document
C(2013) 981), OJ L 67, 9.3.2013, p. 20‐52.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Doc AGRI/60637/2006 final.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 515

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004478/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE)**

_(22. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Freihandelsabkommen zwischen China und Island

China hat vor kurzem ein Freihandelsabkommen mit China geschlossen. Dies ist das erste Freihandelsabkommen
zwischen China und einem westlichen Staat. Darüber hinaus hat sich Island als Gastgeber eines Forums „Nördlicher
Polarkreis“ (Arctic Circle) ins Spiel gebracht. Im Gegensatz zum Arktischen Rat (Arctic Council), dem nur die sieben
arktischen Anrainerstaaten angehören dürfen, steht dieses Forum einer Reihe von Teilnehmern offen, darunter
Staaten wie Frankreich und China und nichtstaatliche Akteure wie Google. Der Arktis kommt eine immer größere
geopolitische Bedeutung zu, und zahlreiche Akteure, einschließlich China, sind bestrebt, ihren Einfluss dort
auszuweiten. Auf diese Region entfallen 25 Prozent des weltweit gefangenen Weißfischs, und durch eine Öffnung der
nördlichen Seeroute könnte der bisherige Seeweg zwischen Europa und Ostasien um 40 Prozent verkürzt werden. Im
vergangenen Jahr wurde die nördliche Seeroute von nahezu 50 Schiffen befahren.

Die Kommission wird daher um folgende Auskünfte gebeten:

Wie bewertet die Kommission das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen China und Island?

Welche Regelungen dieses Freihandelsabkommens sind für die EU von Belang?

Wird die Kommission ausführliche Informationen zu diesem Thema dem Parlament zukommen lassen?

Ist sich die Kommission dessen bewusst, dass China und Island bereits fortgeschrittene Verhandlungen über die
Zusammenarbeit bei einer Studie zur Erschließung von Ölvorkommen in den nordöstlichen Küstengewässern geführt
haben?

Kann die Kommission bestätigen, dass das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen China und Island ein Kapitel über
Erdölbohrungen in der Arktis enthält?

Hat Island im Rahmen seiner Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der EU, welche die isländische Regierung Ende 2013
abschließen möchte, seine Verhandlungen mit China über das Freihandelsabkommen zur Sprache gebracht?

Befürwortet die Kommission eine Teilnahme der EU an dem Forum „Nördlicher Polarkreis“, wie es Island angeregt
hat?

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(14. Juni 2013)_

1. Island hat bereits zahlreiche Freihandelsabkommen geschlossen, und wie in anderen solchen Fällen nimmt die
Kommission keinen besonderen Standpunkt dazu ein, zumal das vorliegende Abkommen eine Kündigungsklausel
enthält. Die Kündigungsklausel ist im Hinblick auf einen künftigen Beitritt Islands zur EU von Bedeutung.

2. Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen Island und China ist veröffentlicht und kann auf der angegebenen
Website eingesehen werden ( [1] ).

4. Abgesehen von dem oben erwähnten offiziell übermittelten Text des Freihandelsabkommens verfügt die
Kommission über keine weiteren Informationen.

5. Die Kommission hat keine Kenntnis von etwaigen Bestimmungen des Abkommens zur Erdölförderung in der
Arktis.

6. Island hat die Kommissionsdienststellen über seinen Fahrplan für Freihandelsabkommen informiert, dabei
jedoch keinen konkreten Zeitplan für den Abschluss eines Abkommens angegeben. Dies ist auch in den
Fortschrittsberichten der Kommission zu Island für 2011 und 2012 vermerkt; Letzterer wurde im Oktober 2012
veröffentlicht und kann auf der angegebenen Website eingesehen werden ( [2] ).

7. Über ihre Teilnahme am Forum „Nördlicher Polarkreis“ hat die Kommission noch keine Entscheidung
getroffen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/trade/free-trade-agreement-between-iceland-and-china/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/is_rapport_2012_en.pdf

C 33 E / 516 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004478/13**

**to the Commission**
**Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Free trade agreement between China and Iceland

China has recently signed a free trade agreement (FTA) with Iceland. This is the first FTA concluded between China
and a Western nation. In addition, Iceland has taken the initiative to host an ‘Arctic Circle’ forum. In contrast to the
Arctic Council, open only to the seven Arctic coastal states, this forum is open to a variety of participants, ranging
from states such as France and China to non-state actors like Google. The Arctic region is becoming increasingly
important in geopolitical terms, and a wide number of actors, including China, are looking at expanding their stakes
in the region. Not only does the region account for 25% of the global catch of whitefish, but opening the Northern
Sea Route could cut the Europe-East Asia route by 40%. Last year nearly 50 ships passed through the Northern Sea
Route.

In this context, I ask the Commission to answer the following questions:

How does the Commission evaluate the China-Iceland Free Trade Agreement?

Which provisions of the China-Iceland Free Trade Agreement are of relevance to the EU?

Will the Commission share detailed information with Parliament on this matter?

Is the Commission aware that China and Iceland have engaged in advanced talks to cooperate on a study of oil
exploration in northeast coastal waters?

Can the Commission confirm that the China-Iceland Free Trade Agreement includes paragraphs on oil drilling in the
Arctic?

Has Iceland raised the issue of its negotiations with China on a free trade agreement with the EU in the context of its
negotiations on accession to the EU, which the Icelandic Government aims to conclude by the end of 2013?

Does the Commission advocate that the EU should join the Arctic Circle, as initiated by Iceland?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

1. Iceland has already concluded many Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and as with others, the Commission does
not take a particular view especially since this FTA includes a termination clause. The termination clause is relevant in
view of any future accession of Iceland to the EU.

2. The Iceland — China FTA is published and can be found at the following address ( [1] ).

4. The Commission has no further information beyond the officially communicated FTA referenced above.

5. The Commission is not aware of any provisions in the Agreement with regard to oil drilling in the Arctic.

6. Iceland has informed the Commission services of its FTAs agenda; however without specifying a timeline for the
conclusion of an agreement. This is also mentioned in the progress reports of the Commission on Iceland for 2011
and 2012, the latest one published in October 2012 and can be found at the following address ( [2] ).

7. The Commission has not yet taken a decision as regards its participation in the Arctic Circle.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/trade/free-trade-agreement-between-iceland-and-china/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/package/is_rapport_2012_en.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 517

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004479/13**

**to the Commission**

**Vicky Ford (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ SME ‘TOP 10’ consultation

The results of the Commission’s consultation entitled ‘Which are the TOP 10 most burdensome EU legislative acts for
SMEs?’ have now been published.

The Commission has stated that it will use the results of the consultation in the work being done under the EU
regulatory fitness initiative (REFIT).

The consultation has identified specific pieces of legislation that are especially burdensome.

Businesses across Europe want to know when the European institutions will take action to remove such burdens.

The Commission is asked to answer the following:

1. What specific actions or measures does it recommend be taken to address the issues raised?

2. What timetable does it propose for proposals to revise individual areas of legislation in order to reduce the
burdens on SMEs?

3. What timetable does it propose for the implementation of such actions and measures?

If the Commission cannot provide specific timetables at this time, can it please state when these will be available?

**Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission is currently preparing its follow-up to the results of the TOP10 consultation on the most
burdensome EU legislative acts for SMEs in the context of its work on the EU Regulatory fitness initiative (REFIT).

The Commission's response to the TOP10 consultation will be presented to the European Council in June. This
response will include information on the specific actions the Commission will take and on the timing of these actions
in order to reduce regulatory burden on SMEs.

C 33 E / 518 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004480/13**

**to the Commission**

**Vicky Ford (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Commission, European Consumer Centres and ‘Leaseurope’ — developments with regard to Written
Question E-007987/2012

In its answer to Written Question E-007987/2012, the Commission states that, together with European Customer
Centres, it has started cooperation with the European association of car rental companies ‘Leaseurope’ in view of
improving the code of best practice adopted by the members of this association by feeding it with the most common
consumer complaints.

The Commission has concluded that fuelling policy is one of the top ten priorities chosen for cooperation in 2013.

I have recently received the following enquiry on this issue from a constituent: given that we are well into 2013, what
have the Commission, the European Consumer Centres and ‘Leaseurope’ done to tackle the issue of EU rental
companies charging for a full tank of fuel and asking for the car to be returned with an empty tank?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 June 2013)_

As indicated in its response to Question E-007987/2012 ( [1] ), the Commission has worked in particular with the
European Consumer Centres (ECCs) on improving the situation of consumers when they rent cars in another EU
country. Every year, they help solve about 1 000 complaints related to car renting.

The Commission shares the view that it is unacceptable that as a result of the full/empty policy implemented by
certain companies, consumers may end up paying for fuel they have not consumed ( [2] ). These practices could be
contrary to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive ( [3] ) and the Unfair Contract Terms Directive ( [4] ).

The ECC of Spain recently obtained from national authorities an assessment of such a policy. They have informed the
Commission that awareness activities will be carried out so that companies change their practices. In parallel, the
Commission will feed this assessment into its discussions with the European association of car rental companies
‘Leaseeurope’ on improving the code of best practice adopted by its members.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See its responses to parliamentary questions E-5999/2008 by Ms Stihler (S&D), E-5462/2009 by Mr Kamall, E-5234/2009 by Ms Hall and H
0412/2009 by Mr Gallagher.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Directive 84/450/EEC,

Directives 97/7/EC and 2002/65 and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 95, 21.4.1993.

( **|**

( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 519

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-004481/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(22 april 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Amerikaanse wet op naleving belastingvoorschriften buitenlandse rekeningen (Fatca) en weigering van
Amerikaanse burgers als klanten door Swedbank

Onlangs is ons ter ore gekomen dat paragraaf 1.4 van de specifieke voorwaarden die gelden voor de overeenkomst
inzake een beleggingsrekening bij Swedbank ( [1] ), het volgende bepaalt:

„De bank biedt de beleggingsrekening niet aan Amerikaanse personen aan noch verkoopt de bank dit product aan
hen, en de klant bevestigt hierbij tegenover de bank dat hij geen Amerikaanse persoon is. De bank heeft het recht de
overeenkomst onmiddellijk te beëindigen indien de klant een Amerikaanse persoon is of tijdens de looptijd van de
overeenkomst wordt. De klant verplicht zich ertoe de bank onmiddellijk op de hoogte te stellen van alle
omstandigheden die ertoe kunnen leiden dat de klant als Amerikaanse persoon wordt aangemerkt. De bank kan ook
gebruikmaken van openbare informatie om te beoordelen of een klant als Amerikaanse persoon moet worden
aangemerkt. Een rechtspersoon kan een Amerikaanse persoon zijn wanneer deze in de VS is gevestigd,
overeenkomstig de Amerikaanse wet handelt, een postadres in de VS heeft, enigerlei zakelijke activiteiten in de VS
heeft, enz. Een vertegenwoordiging of filiaal van een buitenlandse rechtspersoon kan onder dezelfde voorwaarden als
Amerikaanse persoon worden aangemerkt. Een natuurlijke persoon kan een Amerikaanse persoon zijn wanneer deze
voor belastingdoeleinden als Amerikaanse ingezetene wordt beschouwd, voor studie of werk enige tijd in de VS
verblijft, enz. Een persoon kan ook onder andere, van de Amerikaanse wetgeving afgeleide voorwaarden als
Amerikaanse persoon worden beschouwd.”

Is de Commissie van mening dat deze door Swedbank gehanteerde specifieke voorwaarden verband houden met de
onlangs goedgekeurde Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Fatca — Amerikaanse wet op naleving
belastingvoorschriften buitenlandse rekeningen), het feit dat er momenteel aan desbetreffende intergouvernementele
akkoorden wordt gewerkt, en de rechtsonzekerheid voor buitenlandse financiële instellingen omtrent de
extraterritoriale toepassing van de Fatca?

Is de Commissie zich ervan bewust dat het extraterritoriale effect van de Fatca voor banken op het grondgebied van
de EU aanleiding zou kunnen zijn om Amerikaanse klanten te weigeren?

Is de Commissie van mening dat deze praktijk in strijd is met het algemene beginsel van gelijke behandeling en nondiscriminatie of met een of meer bepalingen in de EU-Verdragen?

Is de Commissie zich ervan bewust dat de definitie van „Amerikaanse persoon” van toepassing kan zijn op
EU-burgers, hetgeen inhoudt dat in de EU woonachtige EU-burgers rechtstreeks de gevolgen van een Amerikaanse
wet zouden kunnen ondervinden?

**Antwoord van de heer Šemeta namens de Commissie**

_(7 juni 2013)_

De Commissie is op de hoogte van dit probleem, waarmee ook EU-burgers die een bankrekening wensen te openen in
een lidstaat waar zij niet verblijven, mee kunnen worden geconfronteerd.

Uit hoofde van het beginsel van contractvrijheid hebben banken het recht om zelf te beslissen met wie zij een contract
wensen te sluiten. Zij kunnen steeds klanten weigeren indien zij hiervoor goede commerciële redenen hebben.

De Commissie is echter van mening dat financiële instellingen personen geen toegang tot financiële diensten mogen
ontzeggen enkel vanwege de zorgvuldigheids‐ en rapportageverplichtingen die dat schept. De Commissie heeft
onlangs een voorstel ( [2] ) goedgekeurd dat de lidstaten ertoe verplicht ervoor te zorgen dat consumenten die legaal in
de Unie verblijven, bij het aanvragen van of toegang verkrijgen tot een betaalrekening niet worden gediscrimineerd op
grond van nationaliteit of woonplaats. Daartoe worden de lidstaten uit hoofde van de richtlijn verplicht om ervoor te
zorgen dat ten minste één betalingsdienstaanbieder op hun grondgebied een betaalrekening met basisfuncties
aanbiedt aan consumenten die legaal in de Unie verblijven, ongeacht de woonplaats in de EU of nationaliteit van deze
consument. Het voorstel kan de problemen oplossen die in de EU wonende burgers van de VS, maar evenzeer burgers
van de EU kunnen ondervinden bij het openen van een bankrekening.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) https://www.swedbank.ee/static/pdf/private/investor/deposits/cond_investdep_eng_2012_08_20.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 266 — voorlopige versie van 8.5.2013.

C 33 E / 520 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Bovendien is het uit hoofde van een clausule in bijlage II bij de FATCA-modelovereenkomsten verboden voor een
financiële instelling die in aanmerking wil komen voor het statuut van „deemed-compliant”, om ten aanzien van
VS-burgers discriminerende beleidsbeginselen of praktijken toe te passen ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Deze discriminatieclausule is in bijlage II bij zowel model 1 als bij model 2 opgenomen onder nummer 10, onderafdeling A („Financial Institution

with a Local Client Base”) van hoofdstuk III („Small or Limited Scope Financial Institutions that Qualify as Deemed-Compliant FFIs”). In deze
clausule wordt bepaald dat de financiële instelling geen beleidsbeginselen of praktijken mag toepassen die discrimineren bij het openen of
aanhouden van financiële rekeningen door Amerikaanse burgers of ingezetenen van [FATCA-partnerland]. Zie http://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 521

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004481/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and the refusal by Swedbank to accept US citizens as
clients

We have recently been informed that, according to paragraph 1(4) of the terms and conditions of Swedbank’s
investment deposit agreement ( [1] ),

‘The Bank does not offer or sell investment deposit to US persons and the Client hereby confirms to the Bank that it is
not a US person. The Bank has the right to terminate the agreement immediately if the Client is a US person or
becomes a US person during the term of the agreement. The Client undertakes to inform the Bank immediately of any
circumstances which could cause the Client to be qualified as a US person. The Bank can also use public information
when assessing the qualification of a client as a US person. A legal person can be a US person, among other things,
when it is established in the US, acts in accordance with US law, has a US postal address or has some business
activities in the US. A representative office or a branch of a foreign legal person can be qualified as a US person on
same conditions. A natural person can be a US person, among other things, when it is considered a US resident for tax
purposes or if the person stays in the US for some time for educational or work purposes. A person can be considered
a US person also under other conditions deriving from US laws.’

Does the Commission consider these terms and conditions set forth by Swedbank to be related to the recently
adopted US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the ongoing development of intergovernmental
agreements with regard to it and the legal uncertainty for foreign financial institutions with regard to the
extraterritorial application of the FATCA?

Is the Commission aware that the extraterritorial effect of the FATCA could prompt banks on EU territory to refuse
US clients?

Does the Commission consider this practice to be in violation of the general principle of equal treatment and nondiscrimination, or of any provision of the EU Treaties?

Is the Commission aware that the definition of ‘US person’ may apply to EU citizens, meaning that EU citizens living
in the EU could be directly affected by a US law?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of this problem which can also be encountered by EU nationals wishing to open bank
accounts in Member States where they are not resident.

Banks have the right, under the contractual freedom principle, to decide with whom they want to contract. They can
in any event refuse clients for sound commercial reasons.

However the Commission believes that financial institutions should not deny persons access to financial services
merely because they would then face due diligence and reporting obligations. The Commission has recently adopted a
proposal ( [2] ) that would oblige the Member States to ensure that consumers legally resident in the EU are not
discriminated against by reason of their nationality or place of residence when applying for or accessing a payment
account. To this end, the directive obliges Member States to ensure that at least one payment service provider in their
territory offers a payment account with basic features to consumers legally resident in the Union, irrespective of the
consumer's EU place of residence or nationality. This proposal may help to address the difficulties that not just US
citizens who are resident within the EU but also EU nationals may currently encounter in opening bank accounts.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) https://www.swedbank.ee/static/pdf/private/investor/deposits/cond_investdep_eng_2012_08_20.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013)266 — provisional version of 8.5.2013.

C 33 E / 522 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

Moreover, the FATCA Model agreements include, in Annex II, a clause that would forbid a financial institution
wishing to benefit from the ‘deemed-compliant’ status from having ‘discriminatory policies or practices’ in respect of
US citizens ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) That non-discrimination clause is included in Annex II of both Model 1 and Model 2, at number 10, subsection A (‘Financial Institution with a

Local Client Base’) of section III (‘Small or Limited Scope Financial Institutions that Qualify as Deemed-Compliant FFIs’). It provides that the
Financial Institution must not have policies or practices that discriminate against opening or maintaining Financial Accounts for individuals who
are Specified U.S. Persons and residents of [the FATCA Partner country]. See http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/taxpolicy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 523

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004482/13**

**à la Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(22 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Bien-être animal et accord OMC

Dans le cadre de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), l'Union européenne s'est engagée dans un large
mouvement d'ouverture de ses marchés. Même si le secteur agricole est un secteur où les négociations avancent peu,
la politique agricole commune (PAC) est élaborée, autant que faire se peut, en conformité avec ces principes.

Si l'Union européenne peut protéger son marché des importations de produits alimentaires qui ne respectent pas les
critères de sûreté qu'elle s'est assignés, grâce à l'accord sur les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires, elle ne peut en
revanche rien faire pour contrer la concurrence des productions qui ne respectent pas les mêmes normes en matière
de bien-être animal.

L'élevage européen est ainsi soumis à une concurrence déloyale de la part des pays tiers, et l'OMC interdit à l'Union de
le protéger.

1. La Commission dispose-t-elle de données pour évaluer l'impact de ces distorsions de concurrence sur la
compétitivité des exploitations européennes?

2. La Commission tient-elle compte de cet état de fait lorsqu'elle fait des propositions législatives concernant le
bien-être animal?

3. La Commission compte-t-elle engager, en interne ou dans le cadre de l'OMC, des actions pour faire cesser cette
concurrence déloyale, qui détériore gravement la santé économique de certaines filières? Si oui, peut-elle détailler
ces actions?

**Réponse donnée par M. Borg au nom de la Commission**

_(1_ _[er]_ _juillet 2013)_

Conséquence des accords conclus avec l'OMC et d'une série d'accords bilatéraux, les exportations de produits
agroalimentaires de l'Union européenne sont en augmentation constante. Des réformes cohérentes et orientées sur le
marché ont contribué à renforcer la compétitivité de la politique agricole commune. L'Union respecte pleinement les
engagements auxquels elle a souscrit envers l'OMC dans le cadre de l'accord sur l'agriculture.

La législation de l'Union fait l'objet de vastes consultations auxquelles sont associées les parties prenantes et d'autres
institutions lorsque la compétitivité de l'UE est l'un des éléments pris en considération.

Les produits agroalimentaires qui entrent sur le marché de l'Union doivent être conformes aux exigences de la
législation de cette dernière en matière de sûreté des produits alimentaires et de santé des animaux et des plantes.

En ce qui concerne le bien-être des animaux dans les abattoirs exportant de la viande vers l'UE, celle-ci a pu obtenir la
garantie suivante: la certification des abattoirs en question exige que les animaux soient traités conformément aux
spécifications du règlement (CE) n° 1099/2009 sur la protection des animaux au moment de leur mise à mort ( [1] ) et
que des prescriptions au moins équivalentes à celles de la législation de l'Union soient respectées.

En outre, à la demande du Parlement européen, une étude a été consacrée au coût pour les agriculteurs de la mise en
conformité avec la législation de l'Union relative à l'environnement, au bien-être animal et à la sûreté alimentaire; cette
étude sera prête en décembre 2013.

L'Union continuera à coopérer dans le domaine du bien-être animal avec ses partenaires commerciaux dans les
enceintes internationales appropriées. En outre, cette coopération est systématiquement prise en compte dans la
négociation d'accords commerciaux bilatéraux avec des pays tiers.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 303 du 18.11.2009, pp. 1-30.

C 33 E / 524 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004482/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Animal welfare and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement

As a member of the World Trade Organisation, the European Union is part of a broad movement to open up markets.
Even though the agricultural sector is one in which very little progress has been made in negotiations, the common
agricultural policy (CAP) is drawn up, as far as possible, according to these principles.

While the European Union can protect its market from imported foodstuffs that do not meet the safety criteria that it
has laid down thanks to the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, it cannot do anything to oppose
competition from products that do not comply with the same animal welfare standards.

European livestock farming is thus subject to unfair competition from third countries, and the WTO prevents the EU
from protecting it.

1. Does the Commission have any figures which can be used to assess the impact of these distortions of
competition on the competiveness of European farms?

2. Does the Commission take account of this situation when it makes legislative proposals on animal welfare?

3. Does the Commission plan to take action, internally or within the WTO, to put an end to this unfair
competition, which is seriously damaging the economic well-being of certain sectors? If so, can it say what this action
is?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(1 July 2013)_

Following the WTO agreements and a series of bilateral agreements, EU exports of agro-food products have
constantly increased. Consistent market-oriented reforms of the CAP have helped enhancing the competitiveness.
The EU fully respects its WTO commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture.

Legislation in the EU is subject to broad consultations with stakeholders and other institutions where EU's
competitiveness is one of the elements taken into consideration.

Agro-food products which enter the EU market have to comply with requirements set by EU legislation which
concern the safety of food products and animal and plant health.

The EU has been able to obtain guarantees that as regards animal welfare in slaughterhouses exporting meat to the EU
the certification requires that the animals have been handled in compliances with Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 on
the protection of animals at the time of killing ( [1] ) and have met requirements at least equivalent to those laid down in
EC law.

Furthermore, on the basis of a request from the European Parliament, a study assessing farmers' costs of compliance
with EU legislation in the fields of environment, animal welfare and food safety will conclude in December 2013.

The EU will continue the cooperation on animal welfare with EU's trading partners in the appropriate international
fora. Furthermore, cooperation on animal welfare is systematically included in negotiations related to bilateral trade
agreements with third countries.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1‐30.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 525

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004483/13**

**à la Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(22 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ TVA forfaitaire agricole

La directive 2006/112/CE permet aux États membres de mettre en œuvre un régime forfaitaire pour les exploitations
agricoles pour lesquelles l'assujettissement au taux normal de TVA se heurterait à des difficultés.

L'article 299 de la directive dispose que «Les pourcentages forfaitaires de compensation ne peuvent avoir pour effet de
procurer à l'ensemble des agriculteurs forfaitaires des remboursements supérieurs aux charges de TVA en amont».

Or, comme le démontre l'étude de l'OCDE intitulée «Taxation and Social Security in Agriculture 2005», le système de
TVA en Allemagne, qui applique le régime forfaitaire non seulement aux petites mais également aux grandes
exploitations, confère aux entreprises un avantage compétitif certain. D'abord jugé «faible», cet avantage s'est accru
jusqu'à représenter, grâce à des techniques fiscales avancées, telles que la subdivision légale des exploitations et le
passage successif d'un régime à l'autre, 3,8 centimes d'euros par kilo dans le secteur porcin.

1. La Commission juge-t-elle cette pratique conforme au droit européen? N'y voit-elle pas une distorsion de
concurrence?

2. Dans le cas où la Commission considérerait que la législation allemande est contraire à la directive TVA ou à son
esprit, quelles mesures entend-elle mettre en œuvre pour faire cesser cette situation?

3. Étant donné l'immédiateté de la menace que représente cette pratique, quels moyens d'urgence peut-elle
employer pour rétablir une relative équité fiscale pour les entreprises agricoles?

**Réponse donnée par M. Šemeta au nom de la Commission**

_(13 juin 2013)_

Dans le cadre d'une enquête, les services de la Commission ont informé les autorités allemandes qu'ils ont reçu une
plainte concernant l'application dans cet État membre du régime commun forfaitaire établi aux articles 295 et
suivants de la directive 2006/112/CE.

Les services de la Commission examinent actuellement la question, sur la base des réponses des autorités allemandes.

Si une quelconque incompatibilité avec le droit de l'Union est constatée, la Commission prendra, en tant que
gardienne des traités, les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la mise en œuvre correcte du droit de l'Union.

C 33 E / 526 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004483/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Flat-rate VAT scheme for agriculture

Directive 2006/112/EC allows Member States to implement a flat-rate scheme for agricultural holdings which would
face difficulties if they were liable for the normal VAT rate.

Article 299 of the directive states that ‘The flat-rate compensation percentages may not have the effect of obtaining
for flat-rate farmers refunds greater than the input VAT charged’.

The OECD study ‘Taxation and Social Security in Agriculture 2005’ reveals that the German VAT system gives
undertakings a competitive advantage, since the flat-rate scheme is applied to large agricultural holdings as well as
small ones. Although this advantage was initially regarded as ‘weak’, advanced tax techniques such as the legal subdivision of holdings and successive switches from one scheme to another mean that it now amounts to 3.8 cents per
kilo in the pig-farming sector.

1. Does the Commission believe that this practice complies with EC law? Does it not believe that it represents a
distortion of competition?

2. If the Commission believes that the German legislation infringes the VAT Directive or the spirit of the latter,
what measures does it intend to take to put a stop to the situation?

3. Given the immediacy of the threat posed by this practice, what urgent steps could it take to restore a measure of
tax justice for agricultural undertakings?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 June 2013)_

In the framework of an investigation the Commission services informed the German authorities that they have
received a complaint regarding the application in that Member State of the common flat-rate scheme laid down in
Articles 295 et seq of the Directive 2006/112/EC.

On the basis of the replies from the German authorities, the Commission's services are currently examining the

matter.

Should any incompatibility with EC law be established, the Commission will, as a guardian of the Treaties, take the
necessary actions to ensure that EC law is correctly implemented.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 527

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004484/13**

**à la Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(22 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Dumping social filière agroalimentaire

Depuis plusieurs années, les entreprises allemandes ont un recours massif aux travailleurs détachés, notamment dans
l'agroalimentaire et en particulier dans la filière abattage. Cette possibilité, ménagée par le droit communautaire,
permet à ces entreprises d'exercer une concurrence insoutenable pour leurs rivaux des pays voisins, avec un coût
salarial plus de trois fois inférieur.

1. La Commission juge-t-elle que ces pratiques sont toujours conformes au droit communautaire? Prévoit-elle de
prendre des mesures pour faire cesser les éventuelles pratiques illégales?

2. Dans le cas où ces pratiques devaient être considérées comme légales, la Commission ne considère-t-elle pas que
la législation européenne est inadaptée et crée des distorsions de concurrence anormales? Si tel est son jugement,
prévoit-elle de modifier le droit européen?

**Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission**

_(17 juin 2013)_

1. Pour être en mesure de juger si les allégations de pratiques de dumping social dans le secteur agroalimentaire en
Allemagne tendent, ou non, à révéler une infraction à la législation de l'Union, il semble nécessaire de clarifier et
d'étayer davantage les circonstances de fait. C'est pourquoi la Commission entend examiner plus en détail ces
circonstances et aborder la question d'une éventuelle non-conformité avec les autorités allemandes par les voies
appropriées.

La Commission rappelle que la surveillance et le contrôle de l'application des conditions de travail et d'emploi et de la
rémunération d'un salarié relèvent de la compétence des États membres, y compris en ce qui concerne les travailleurs
détachés.

2. En mars 2012, la Commission a adopté une proposition ( [1] ) de directive d'exécution visant à améliorer
l'application et le respect de la directive 96/71/CE ( [2] ) par les États membres, en vue de prévenir le contournement des
règles, de prévoir des sanctions en cas de non-respect de ces règles et de mieux protéger les travailleurs sur le territoire
de l'Union européenne. Le texte est actuellement examiné par le Conseil et le Parlement. La Commission invite les
colégislateurs à profiter de cette occasion pour renforcer dans le droit de l'UE les garanties juridiques contre les
pratiques abusives en matière de détachement de travailleurs.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 131 final du 21 mars 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 96/71/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 décembre 1996 concernant le détachement de travailleurs effectué dans le cadre

d'une prestation de services, JO L 18 du 21.1.1997.

C 33 E / 528 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004484/13**

**to the Commission**
**Agnès Le Brun (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Social dumping in the agri-food sector

For several years now German companies have relied heavily on posted workers, in particular in the agri-food and
animal slaughter industries. Such arrangements are permitted under EC law, but they allow these companies to
compete at a level which is unsustainable for their rivals in neighbouring countries, given that they spend three times
less on wages.

1. Does the Commission believe that these practices still comply with EC law? Does it intend to take any steps to
put a stop to any practices which are illegal?

2. If these practices are deemed legal, does the Commission not believe that the European legislation is ill-adapted
and creates undue distortions of competition? If so, does it intend to amend this legislation?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 June 2013)_

1. In order to be able to assess whether or not the allegations of social dumping practices in the agri-food sector in
Germany point to a breach of Union law, further clarification and substantiation of the factual circumstances appear
necessary. Therefore the Commission intends to investigate such circumstances in greater depth and raise the matter
of an eventual non-compliance with the German authorities through the appropriate channels.

The Commission recalls that the monitoring and enforcement of the working and employment conditions and the
actual remuneration of an employee fall within the competence of the Member States, including as regards posted
workers.

2. In March 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal ( [1] ) for an Enforcement Directive to improve the way
Directive 96/71/EC ( [2] ) is implemented, applied and enforced in practice by the Member States with the aim of
preventing and providing sanctions for the circumvention of the rules applicable and improving the protection of
posted workers in the EU. The proposal is being examined by the Council and Parliament. The Commission calls
upon the co-legislators to seize this opportunity to strengthen the legal safeguards in EC law against abusive practices
in the context of the posting of workers.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 131 final of 21 March 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of

the provision of services, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 529

_(Leagan Gaeilge)_

**Ceist i gcomhair freagra scríofa E-004486/13**

**chuig an gCoimisiún**
**Liam Aylward (ALDE)**

_(22 Aibreán 2013)_

_Ábhar:_ Infhaighteacht Ionchlannán Cochla Déthaobhach

Tá éisteacht an dá chluas ag teastáil chun gnáthfhuaimeanna steiréó a chloisteáil. Is féidir le hionchlannáin
dhéthaobhacha (lena gcuirtear ionchlannán sa dá chluas) cumas éisteachta iad siúd a bhfuil ionchlannán cochla
faighte acu nó a bhfuil an deis acu ionchlannán cochla a fháil a fheabhsú go suntasach.

Aithnítear gur dea-chleachtais idirnáisiúnta atá i gceist le hionchlannáin dhéthaobhacha. Níl ach cúpla tír san Eoraip
nach gcuireann ionchlannáin chomhuaineacha agus sheicheamhacha ar fáil, agus Éire ina measc. Anuas air sin, ní
thugtar ach ionchlannán cluas amháin do leanaí in Éirinn, agus measann eagraíocht a bhíonn i mbun feachtais ar son
350 páiste in Éirinn atá ag fanacht ar ionchlannáin a fháil nach bhfuil sé sin leath maith a dhóthain. Is gá go gcuirfí
isteach an dara hionchlannán do na páistí sin laistigh de thrí go cúig bliana ón gcéad cheann a chur isteach, toisc go
bhfaigheann an néaróg bás i ndiaidh na tréimhse sin agus nach mbíonn maitheas ar bith mar sin leis an ionchlannán.

Chuige sin, an bhféadfadh an Coimisiún eolas a thabhairt maidir lena bhfuil á dhéanamh chun a spreagadh go
gcuirfear ionchlannán cochla ar fáil sna Ballstáit éagsúla dóibh siúd atá ag fanacht air sin agus nach bhfuil mórán ama
fágtha acu leis an ionchlannán a fháil?

**Freagra ón gCoimisinéir Borg thar ceann an Choimisiúin**

_(24 Meitheamh 2013)_

In Airteagal 168(7) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh ( [1] ) tá an prionsabal leagtha síos gurb iad na
Ballstáit féin atá freagrach as a mbeartas seirbhísí sláinte a shainiú agus as seirbhís sláinte agus cúram leighis a eagrú
agus a sholáthar. Dá réir sin is faoi gach Ballstát ar leith atá sé an ‘ciseán sochar’ a chinneadh, i.e. na cóireálacha agus
na seirbhísí leighis a chuirfidh sé ar fáil dá phobal. Dá bhrí sin, is faoi gach Ballstát ar leith atá sé a chinneadh an
gcuirfear ionchlannáin chochla ar fáil — maille leis an modh ionchlannaithe a úsáidfear.

Faoin seachtú creatchlár le haghaidh taighde agus forbartha teicneolaíochta (2007‐2013), tá tacaíocht tugtha ag an
AE do thaighde ar chóireálacha i gcoinne míchumais chéadfaigh trí mhír speisialta sa chlár oibre i gcomhair Sláinte
2012. As measc na seacht tionscadal ( [2] ) ar tacaíodh leo, baineann cúig cinn leis an éisteacht agus dheonaigh an AE
EUR 21.3 milliún dóibh.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IO L 83, 30.3.2010.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/medical-research/severe-chronic-diseases/projectsfp7_en.html

C 33 E / 530 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004486/13**

**to the Commission**
**Liam Aylward (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Availability of bilateral cochlear implants

To experience everyday sounds in stereo, we need to be able to hear with both ears. For cochlear implant candidates
and recipients, bilateral implantation (cochlear implants in both ears) greatly improves hearing.

Bilateral implants are recognised as international best practice. Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe which
does not provide simultaneous and sequential implantation. Furthermore, Irish children are limited to one ear
implant and an organisation that campaigns for 350 children in Ireland who are waiting for implants believe that
leaves much to be desired. These children have a window of three and five years between the first and second implant.
After this time the nerve dies and the implant is useless.

Could the Commission provide information as regards what is being done to encourage cochlear implants being
made available in the various Member States to those waiting for them and who cannot afford to wait much longer
for them?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 June 2013)_

Article 168(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( [1] ) establishes the principle that Member States
are responsible for the definition of their health services policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services
and medical care. This means that each Member State has responsibility for deciding on the ‘basket of benefits’: the
healthcare treatments and services which it provides to its population. Therefore, the decision as to whether or not to
offer cochlear implants — and the method of their implantation — is for each Member State to decide.

Under its Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013), the EU
has supported research on combating sensory impairment with a special topic in the Health 2012 work programme.
Of the seven projects supported ( [2] ), five concern hearing and receive an EU contribution of EUR 21.3 million.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 83, 30.3.2010.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/medical-research/severe-chronic-diseases/projectsfp7_en.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 531

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004487/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Regolamentazione sigarette elettroniche

L'attuale direttiva sui prodotti del tabacco (2001/37/CE) risale al 2001. Da allora, si sono registrati significativi
sviluppi scientifici, internazionali e di mercato. Ad esempio, si sono resi disponibili nuovi elementi di prova relativi
agli aromi utilizzati nei prodotti del tabacco e all'efficacia dei messaggi di informazione relativi alla salute. Nel
frattempo, sul mercato sono comparsi prodotti di nuova generazione, quali le sigarette elettroniche, prive di brevetti
specifici, di provenienza dubbia e totalmente svincolate dal rispetto delle normative che regolano invece le sigarette
classiche. Tale fenomeno, contrario agli sforzi di disincentivare la moda dell'uso delle sigarette, appare preoccupante
per il consumatore europeo, non essendovi alcuna evidenza scientifica che consenta di escludere effetti dannosi, a
breve o lungo termine, causati dal consumo di sigaretta elettronica, sia per quanto riguarda il fumatore che per il
soggetto, bambino o adulto, esposto in modo passivo. La sola cosa che pare accertata è l'effetto immediato del
broncospasmo, che si produce dopo 10 minuti dall'utilizzo della sigaretta elettronica, con un aumento della
resistenza che i bronchi oppongono al passaggio dell'aria.

L'UE e tutti i suoi Stati membri hanno ratificato la convenzione quadro dell'OMS per la lotta al tabagismo (FCTC). Di
conseguenza, alcune delle attuali disposizioni della direttiva dell'UE sono diventate obsolete. Appare quindi evidente
come vi sia la necessità di armonizzare la regolamentazione della produzione e commercializzazione delle sigarette
elettroniche. La nuova direttiva in fase di discussione, pur cercando di aggiornare e implementare la legislazione
attuale tenendo conto dei nuovi sviluppi scientifici e di mercato dei prodotti del tabacco, non analizza tutti i
cambiamenti del settore in relazione all'avvento della sigaretta elettronica.

Tutto ciò premesso, voglia la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. reputa la Commissione che sia auspicabile un'armonizzazione della legislazione dei diversi Stati membri
dell'Unione riguardo alla produzione e commercializzazione delle sigarette elettroniche, che sia a diretta tutela
del consumatore?

2. reputa che sia necessario prevedere un sistema di brevetti comunitari e di tracciabilità per le sigarette
elettroniche?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(31 maggio 2013)_

In base alle informazioni in possesso della Commissione, le normative nazionali in materia di sigarette elettroniche
presentano attualmente divergenze molto marcate ( [1] ). La Commissione ha di conseguenza proposto un approccio
armonizzato a tali prodotti.

Secondo la proposta della Commissione, le sigarette elettroniche contenenti nicotina al di là di determinate soglie
sarebbero assoggettate al quadro normativo per i medicinali ( [2] ). Ne consegue che la loro immissione in commercio
sarebbe subordinata ad un'autorizzazione preventiva, così come prescritto dalla legislazione farmaceutica. Le soglie in
questione sono state stabilite facendo riferimento al tenore in nicotina delle terapie sostitutive della nicotina che
hanno già ottenuto autorizzazioni all'immissione in commercio negli Stati membri.

Per quanto concerne le sigarette elettroniche al di sotto di tali soglie, la proposta della Commissione contempla
avvertenze relative ai rischi per la salute, con le formulazioni opportune a seconda dei casi. Tali sigarette dovrebbero
inoltre rispettare, come già avviene, le prescrizioni della direttiva sulla sicurezza generale dei prodotti.

Secondo la proposta della Commissione la maggior parte delle sigarette elettroniche ricadranno nel campo di
applicazione della normativa farmaceutica. La commercializzazione delle stesse dovrà quindi uniformarsi alle norme
applicabili ai medicinali. A parere della Commissione, tale soluzione renderebbe superfluo un sistema di tracciabilità
specifico per le sigarette elettroniche.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SWD(2012)452 def.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012)788 def.

C 33 E / 532 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004487/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Rules for electronic cigarettes

The current Directive on tobacco products (2001/37/EC) dates back to 2001. Since then there have been significant
scientific, international and market developments. For example, new evidence is available concerning the aromas
used in tobacco products and the effectiveness of health information messages. Meanwhile, next generation products,
such as electronic cigarettes, have appeared on the market; they have no specific patents, are of dubious origin and are
not bound in any way by the legislation which governs traditional cigarettes. This phenomenon, which goes against
all efforts to discourage the trend of smoking cigarettes, seems to be a cause for concern for European consumers,
since there is no scientific evidence to rule out the short‐ or long-term adverse effects of using electronic cigarettes,
both for smokers themselves and for any person, child or adult, exposed to passive smoking. The only thing that
seems to have been confirmed is the immediate effect of bronchospasms, which occur 10 minutes after an electronic
cigarette has been used, causing the bronchioles to constrict and making it more difficult for air to pass through.

The EU and all its Member States have ratified the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
Accordingly, some of the current provisions of the EU Directive have become obsolete. It therefore seems obvious
that the rules on the production and sale of electronic cigarettes need to be harmonised. The new directive is currently
being discussed and, although it is intended to update and implement current legislation while taking into account
new developments in science and in the tobacco products market, it does not analyse all the changes in the sector
with regard to the arrival of electronic cigarettes.

1. Does the Commission believe that legislation in the various EU Member States concerning the production and
sale of electronic cigarettes should be harmonised, in order to protect consumers directly?

2. Does it believe that an EU patent and traceability system is needed for electronic cigarettes?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

According to the information available to the Commission, national legislation on electronic cigarettes is currently
characterised by significant divergences ( [1] ). The Commission therefore proposes a harmonised approach for these
products.

According to the Commission proposal, electronic cigarettes would fall under the legal framework for medicinal
products if they contain levels of nicotine above certain thresholds ( [2] ). Thus, their bringing on the market would
require prior authorisation under pharmaceutical legislation. The threshold has been identified by considering the
nicotine content of nicotine replacement therapies that have already received a marketing authorisation by Member
States.

For electronic cigarettes below the thresholds, the Commission proposal foresees that they carry tailor made health
warnings. They would also have to comply with the General Product Safety Directive as it is the case at the moment.

The Commission proposal foresees that the majority of electronic cigarettes would fall under the pharmaceutical
legislation. Their placing on the market would thus have to comply with the rules applying to medicinal products.
The Commission is of the opinion that, with this solution, a specific traceability system for electronic cigarettes would
not be required.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SWD(2012) 452 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 788 final.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 533

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004488/13**

**to the Commission**
**Claude Moraes (S&D)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ London job creation — single market

Barriers to trade within the single market have not been eliminated, despite the EU celebrating the 20th anniversary of
the single market programme last year.

Has the Commission conducted any research into the impact on job creation in London that the development of the
single market, as it stands, has had?

If so, can it give details of this research?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

While being aware of several private sector studies in relation to this topic on which it cannot comment, the
Commission has not conducted research into the impact on job creation that the development of the Single Market as
it stands has had in relation to any particular city in the EU.

Trade with the rest of the Single Market (i.e. the 26 other EU Member States) represented respectively 53.9% of total
UK exports of goods and 39.5% of total UK exports of services in 2010. 51.4% of the total UK imports of goods and
51.1% of total UK imports of services came from the Single Market in 2010 (source: Eurostat).

Given the importance of the Greater London area for the UK economy, the Commission has no reason to believe that
the impact of the trade in goods and services with the rest of the Single Market on jobs in the Greater London area is
less important than it is in the rest of the UK.

C 33 E / 534 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004489/13**

**à la Commission**
**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(22 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Protéger les consommateurs en garantissant l'application des règles européennes: la situation des opérateurs
étrangers de l'énergie en Hongrie

Dans sa déclaration en session plénière du Parlement européen, le 17 avril, Viviane Reding a évoqué les évolutions
constitutionnelles récentes en Hongrie et souligné les conséquences qu'elles pourraient avoir en termes de
compatibilité avec les règles européennes.

Viviane Reding a également rappelé la possibilité pour la Commission européenne de lancer de nouvelles procédures
en infraction à l'encontre de la Hongrie, sans toutefois mentionner le secteur de l'énergie.

Or, les opérateurs étrangers du secteur de l'énergie rencontrent des difficultés sur le marché hongrois et subissent des
pertes du fait des mesures prises par le gouvernement hongrois pour bloquer les tarifs de l'énergie et diminuer les taux
de rémunération pour la distribution. Ces mesures dissuadent les entreprises étrangères d'investir dans le pays,
craignant de nouvelles mesures défavorables aux opérateurs étrangers.

Ce ne sont pas seulement les consommateurs hongrois qui pourraient pâtir de ces problèmes, mais également tous les
Européens, car ils ne peuvent tirer tous les bénéfices d'un marché de l'énergie pleinement intégré.

Dans sa communication sur un bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur de l'énergie, la Commission insiste sur la
bonne application des règles et la mise en œuvre des règles de concurrence pour que toutes les entreprises du marché
bénéficient d'une réelle égalité de traitement. À ce titre, que pense la Commission des problèmes spécifiques
rencontrés par les opérateurs de l'énergie en Hongrie?

**Réponse donnée par M. Oettinger au nom de la Commission**

_(28 juin 2013)_

La Commission a suivi attentivement l'évolution du marché de l'énergie en Hongrie, et notamment les modifications
législatives annoncées récemment. Ces modifications font actuellement l'objet d'une évaluation concernant leurs
conséquences pour les opérateurs sur le marché de l'énergie en Hongrie et pour le fonctionnement du marché
hongrois de l'énergie en général.

Lors de son analyse du cadre réglementaire, la Commission examine si les règles sont conformes à la législation de
l'Union relative au marché intérieur de l'énergie. Pour avoir une idée globale de la situation, et notamment clarifier les
différents éléments des mesures réglementaires, la Commission prendra contact, le cas échéant, avec les autorités
hongroises. Le résultat de cette analyse permettra à la Commission de déterminer la conduite à adopter.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 535

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004489/13**

**to the Commission**

**Rachida Dati (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protecting consumers by ensuring that EU rules are applied: the situation of foreign energy operators in
Hungary

In a statement made at Parliament’s plenary session of 17 April 2013, Viviane Reding referred to the recent
constitutional developments in Hungary and drew attention to their possible consequences in terms of compatibility
with EU rules.

Commissioner Reding also stated that the Commission may launch further infringement procedures against Hungary;
however, she made no mention of the energy sector.

Foreign energy operators are facing difficulties in the Hungarian market and are incurring losses after the Hungarian
Government adopted measures to block the implementation of energy tariffs and reduce remuneration for
distribution. These steps are discouraging foreign enterprises from investing in Hungary, as they give rise to fears that
more new measures will be introduced that put them at a disadvantage.

It is not only Hungarian consumers who could suffer as a result of this, but all Europeans, since they would be unable
to take full advantage of a fully integrated energy market.

In its communication on the proper functioning of the internal energy market, the Commission insists that existing
rules, including competition rules, should be properly applied in order to ensure that all companies in the market can
benefit from truly equal treatment. In this connection, what is the Commission’s view on the specific problems faced
by energy operators in Hungary?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 June 2013)_

The Commission has carefully followed developments in the Hungarian energy market including the recently
announced regulatory changes. These changes are now being assessed with regards to their impact on the energy
market actors in Hungary and on the functioning of the Hungarian energy market in general.

When analysing the regulatory framework the Commission assesses whether the rules comply with EU internal
energy market legislation. In order to have an overall picture of the situation — including clarifying the details of the
regulatory measures — the Commission will engage with the Hungarian authorities as appropriate. The result of this
analysis will help the Commission determining the appropriate course of action.

C 33 E / 536 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004490/13**

**à la Commission**
**Constance Le Grip (PPE)**

_(22 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Politique en matière de gestion des déchets biodégradables

La Commission européenne a publié le 7 mars 2013 un Livre vert sur une stratégie européenne en matière de déchets
plastiques dans l'environnement. À la lecture de ce dernier, on se rend compte que les objets de la vie quotidienne, tels
que les sacs plastiques fabriqués avec des matières biodégradables, ne seraient en fait pas si bénéfiques pour
l'environnement que ce que l'on pourrait croire.

On apprend par exemple à la page 20 que les sacs plastiques biodégradables, s'ils sont jetés en mer, ne se
décomposent que très lentement, voire pas du tout lorsqu'ils se retrouvent dans l'estomac d'un animal. La difficulté du
recyclage de ces déchets dits biodégradables est également évoquée, et il semblerait qu'aucune solution satisfaisante
n'ait été trouvée pour le moment. En revanche, il apparaît que sur les 25 millions de tonnes de déchets produits par an
dans l'Union européenne, seuls 21,3 % ont pu être recyclés. Par conséquent, se pose la question de la pertinence du
développement des matières biodégradables dans l'Union européenne, en particulier pour la fabrication de sacs
plastiques.

1. Ne serait-il pas préférable, compte tenu des analyses auxquelles s'est livrée la Commission, d'encourager le
développement de la filière de recyclage des déchets «classiques», plutôt que d'inciter à produire des sacs dits
biodégradables qui, finalement, posent également beaucoup de problèmes environnementaux?

2. Quelles solutions la Commission envisage-t-elle de proposer pour résoudre les problèmes environnementaux
supplémentaires qu'induit la production de sacs biodégradables?

**Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission**

_(27 juin 2013)_

1. La Commission tient à préciser qu'il n'est dit nulle part dans le Livre vert sur une stratégie européenne en matière
de déchets plastiques dans l'environnement que les sacs biodégradables ne sont «pas si bénéfiques pour
l'environnement», pas plus qu'il n'est indiqué que les sacs en plastique biodégradables sont plus problématiques que
les sacs en plastique composés de plastique traditionnel. Le livre vert établit plutôt, sur la base des informations
scientifiques disponibles, que les sacs en plastique biodégradables doivent faire l'objet d'un examen attentif avant
d'être considérés comme une solution au problème de la présence de plastique dans les déchets marins.

2. La consultation publique sur le livre vert s'est achevée le 7 juin 2013. La Commission examine actuellement les
réponses qu'elle a reçues et se prononcera plus tard sur d'éventuelles options stratégiques. La Commission a
l'intention de présenter cette année une proposition concrète, basée sur une analyse approfondie des différentes
approches possibles, afin de traiter la question des sacs en plastique à usage unique.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 537

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004490/13**

**to the Commission**
**Constance Le Grip (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Biodegradable waste management policy

On 7 March 2013 the Commission published a Green Paper on a European strategy on plastic waste in the
environment, according to which everyday items such as plastic bags made from biodegradable materials are not as
environmentally friendly as might be thought.

For example, it is stated on page 20 that biodegradable plastic bags, if they are disposed of in the sea, only decompose
very slowly or even not at all if they end up in an animal’s stomach. Reference is also made to the problem of recycling
this ‘biodegradable’ waste, and it seems that no satisfactory solution has yet been found. On the other hand, it has
apparently only been possible to recycle 21.3% of the 25 million tonnes of waste produced every year by the EU. It is
therefore worth asking whether there is any point in developing biodegradable materials in the EU, particularly for
the manufacture of plastic bags.

1. In view of the analyses carried out by the Commission, would it not be preferable to encourage the development
of ‘traditional’ waste recycling, rather than encouraging the production of ‘biodegradable’ bags which are ultimately
much more problematic in environmental terms?

2. What solutions will the Commission propose to resolve the additional environmental problems associated with
the production of biodegradable bags?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

1. The Commission would like to clarify that the Green Paper on a European strategy on plastic waste in the
environment does not state that biodegradable bags are ‘not as environmentally friendly’ and nowhere does it
consider biodegradable plastic bags _more_ problematic than plastic bags made of conventional plastic. Rather it
reasoned on the basis of available scientific information that biodegradable plastic bags need careful consideration
before being promoted as a solution for the problem of plastic in marine litter.

2. The public consultation on the Green Paper ended on 7 June 2013. The Commission is now in the process of
evaluating the replies received and will only later decide on potential policy options. The Commission intends to
come forward with a specific proposal to tackle the issue of single-use plastic bags this year, based on a thorough
analysis of the various possible approaches.

C 33 E / 538 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-004491/13**

**à la Commission**
**Alain Cadec (PPE)**

_(22 avril 2013)_

_Objet:_ Plafonds d'effort de pêche — Pêche à la coquille en Baie de Seine

La pêche à la coquille en Manche est encadrée par le règlement du Conseil (CE) n [o] 1954/2003. Ce règlement indique la
répartition de l'effort entre États membres faisant partie de cette pêcherie, notamment les zones CIEM VI et VII.

Les plafonds d'effort de pêche à respecter sont fixés par la Commission européenne (annexe I du règlement (CE)
n [o] 1954/2003), laquelle reçoit également des États membres une description des mesures mises en œuvre pour la
gestion de l'effort exercé. La Commission reçoit notamment la liste des navires possédant des permis de pêche
spéciaux pour la coquille de la part des États membres (article 10).

En plus des règles communautaires qui sont la taille minimale, le régime d'encadrement de l'effort de pêche à travers
les permis de pêche spéciaux et le plafond d'effort annuel, les pêcheurs de Basse-Normandie ont mis en place un
ensemble de règles nationales pour la gestion durable de la coquille Saint-Jacques. Ces mesures comprennent
notamment la fermeture annuelle du 15 mai au 30 septembre, le maillage des anneaux des dragues, la fixation d'une
quantité maximale de pêche par sortie, un accès plus restreint aux zones côtières et des restrictions du temps de
pêche.

Depuis 2011 déjà, les pêcheurs français de la Baie de Seine sont préoccupés par l'augmentation de l'effort de pêche de
leurs homologues d'autres États membres, particulièrement les navires britanniques. En zone CIEM VII, la production
a doublé en quatre ans. L'augmentation de l'effort britannique semble avoir dépassé les seuils d'effort de pêche
initialement alloués par l'Union européenne.

1. La Commission a-t-elle pris la mesure du conflit entre professionnels dans le cadre de la pêche de cette espèce?

2. La Commission peut-elle nous faire parvenir un tableau comparatif des seuils d'effort autorisés par le
règlement (CE) n [o] 1954/2003 et les chiffres de l'effort de pêche à la coquille effectivement réalisés en zone CIEM VI
et VII par chaque État membre?

3. La Commission peut-elle proposer ses services en tant que médiateur dans ce conflit entre professionnels
français et britanniques et permettre la mise en place d'un accord entre professionnels reconnu par les États concernés
tel qu'il existe dans la Baie de Granville?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Damanaki au nom de la Commission**

_(5 juillet 2013)_

La Commission est consciente du problème et des efforts déployés par l'industrie pour mettre en place des mesures de
gestion coopérative.

Les limites de l'effort fixées pour les eaux occidentales à l'annexe I du règlement (CE) n° 1415/2004 peuvent être
adaptées chaque année au moyen d'échanges entre les États membres. Conformément aux dispositions des articles 33
et 109 du règlement relatif au contrôle [règlement (CE) n° 1224/2009], les États membres sont tenus de fournir des
chiffres d'utilisation exacts pour le 15 de chaque mois. La Commission transmet directement à l'Honorable
Parlementaire et au secrétariat du Parlement un tableau présentant les données officielles dont la Commission dispose
pour 2012.

La Commission contrôle actuellement les systèmes de notification de plusieurs États membres afin de s'assurer de leur
efficacité et de vérifier que les limites de l'effort de pêche définies sont respectées. Si des cas de non-respect des règles
de l'Union applicables sont constatés, les mesures appropriées seront prises.

La Commission est disposée à aider au règlement des différends survenant entre les secteurs de la pêche, y compris
dans ce cas concernant une pêcherie largement côtière. Si l'état du stock ou son exploitation devenaient préoccupants,
la Commission étudierait les options disponibles afin de prendre des mesures de conservation supplémentaires. À la
suite du récent accord donné par les colégislateurs sur la réforme de la politique commune de la pêche, l'une des
solutions possibles serait la mise en place de mesures de gestion conjointe par les États membres concernés.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 539

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004491/13**

**to the Commission**

**Alain Cadec (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fishing effort ceilings — fishing for scallops in the Seine estuary

Fishing for scallops in the English Channel is covered by Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003. This regulation sets out how
the fishing effort is to be divided between Member States fishing this fishery, particularly in ICES areas VI and VII.

The fishing effort ceilings which must be complied with are set by the Commission (Annex I to Regulation (EC)
No 1954/2003), which also receives from the Member States a description of the steps they have taken to manage the
effort deployed. In particular, the Commission receives from the Member States a list of vessels with special fishing
permits for scallops (Article 10).

In addition to EU rules such as the minimum size requirement, the regime to contain fishing effort through special
fishing permits and the annual effort ceiling, the fishermen of Lower Normandy have implemented a set of national
rules for the sustainable management of scallops. These measures include an annual close season from 15 May to
30 September, a mesh size for nets, a maximum quantity of fish per trip, more controlled access to coastal zones and
time restrictions on fishing.

Since 2011, French fishermen in the Seine estuary have been concerned about the increased fishing effort by their
fellow fishermen in other Member States, particularly by British vessels. Production has doubled in four years in ICES
area VII. The increased British effort appears to have exceeded the fishing effort limits originally allowed by the EU.

1. Is the Commission fully aware of the dispute between fishermen in respect of fishing for this species?

2. Can the Commission provide a table comparing the effort limits authorised by Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003
and the figures for the scallop fishing effort actually deployed in ICES areas VI and VII by each Member State?

3. Can the Commission act as a mediator in this dispute between French and British fishermen, allowing an
agreement to be reached between fishermen that is recognised by the Member States concerned, as is the case in the
Bay of Granville?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 July 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the issue and of attempts by the industry to develop cooperative management measures.

The initial Western Waters effort limits set out in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004, can be adapted yearly by
exchange between Member States. Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 33 and 109 of the Control Regulation
(Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009), Member States are required to provide accurate uptake figures by the 15th of each
month. The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table that
presents the official data available to the Commission for 2012.

The Commission is currently auditing the reporting processes of several Member States to ensure effective of
reporting systems and to check that defined effort limits are complied with. Action will be taken as appropriate if any
non-compliance with applicable EU regulations should be found.

The Commission is willing to help resolve any differences between fishing sectors, including this largely inshore
fishery. Should there be cause for concern about the state of the stock or its exploitation, the Commission will
consider options for any additional conservation measures. Following the recent agreement on the reformed rules of
the common fisheries policy by the co-legislators one possible option is the development of joint management
measures by the Member States involved.

C 33 E / 540 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004492/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Riduzione del gap informatico tra Nord e Sud Europa

Nell'ultima edizione del Global Information Technology Report, a cura del World Economic Forum, viene
evidenziato il forte divario in ambito di implementazione delle tecnologie informatiche tra i Paesi del Nord e quelli del
Sud Europa.

Da un lato, la Finlandia, dove l'accesso alla banda larga è riconosciuto per legge come un diritto di ogni cittadino,
risulta il Paese più virtuoso in quanto a facilità di accesso ad internet per privati e imprese, seguito a breve distanza da
Svezia, Olanda e Norvegia; dall'altro Italia e Grecia presentano un indice di penetrazione di internet assai deludente,
inferiore persino a quello di Paesi globalmente meno sviluppati come Taiwan o la Giordania.

Si pensi che in Italia e nella stessa Lombardia, dove gli ostacoli di tipo ambientale o orografico sono decisamente
inferiori a quelli esistenti nei Paesi Scandinavi, molte località non sono tuttora raggiunte dalla banda larga, il che
implica considerevoli disagi per cittadini ed imprese e frena lo sviluppo delle aree interessate da tale problema.

Poiché tale situazione comporta notevolissimi danni all'economia europea, e considerato che i Paesi più avanzati in
questo settore hanno raggiunto l'attuale primato anche grazie ad oculate scelte politiche, e ricordando altresì come la
presenza di una rete informatica veloce, economica, affidabile e capillare costituisca un presupposto imprescindibile
per una reale implementazione del mercato unico europeo e della stessa idea di Unione europea, chiediamo alla
Commissione quali iniziative intenda intraprendere per agevolare una migliore diffusione dell'accesso a internet per
imprese e cittadini in tutto il territorio dell'Unione e per ridurre il gap informatico tra gli Stati membri.

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(12 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione concorda pienamente sul fatto che la banda larga è fondamentale per l'economia europea ed
essenziale per l'Italia e per tutti i cittadini europei. Essa ha confermato la sua posizione in merito nell'agenda digitale
europea ( [1] ) e ha fissato traguardi ambiziosi per la copertura a banda larga e la sua diffusione. La Commissione al
momento sta lavorando con gli Stati membri per garantire un'efficace realizzazione di questi obiettivi e rendere la
banda larga accessibile a tutti.

Il miglioramento delle connessioni a banda larga richiede investimenti sia da parte del settore pubblico sia di quello
privato. Il ruolo della Commissione in relazione agli investimenti privati è assicurare che ci sia un quadro normativo
atto ad incoraggiare tali investimenti. La Commissione persegue tale obiettivo e sta lavorando a una raccomandazione
sui metodi di definizione dei costi e sulla non discriminazione. Inoltre, nel marzo di quest'anno, la Commissione ha
adottato una proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo a misure volte a ridurre il costo
dell'installazione di reti di comunicazioni elettroniche ad alta velocità ( [2] ), che dovrebbe ridurre il costo della diffusione
di internet ad alta velocità fino al 30 %. In risposta alle conclusioni del Consiglio europeo di marzo, la Commissione
sta lavorando a una proposta di misure volte a creare un mercato unico delle tecnologie dell'informazione e della
comunicazione.

In aree in cui il settore privato non veda alcun interesse commerciale nell'investimento, come potrebbe verificarsi nel
caso delle zone remote e scarsamente popolate dell'Italia, la Commissione può finanziare gli investimenti in banda
larga tramite i Fondi strutturali e per gli investimenti europei. Di recente la Commissione ha adottato nuovi
orientamenti in materia di aiuti di Stato ( [3] ) al fine di garantire che tale regolamentazione sia al passo con i più recenti
sviluppi tecnologici in fatto di connessione a banda larga.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/digital-agenda-europe.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0147:FIN:IT:PDF].
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Orientamenti dell'Unione europea per l'applicazione delle norme in materia di aiuti di Stato in relazione allo sviluppo rapido di reti a banda larga.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 541

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004492/13**

**to the Commission**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reducing the digital divide between northern and southern Europe

The latest edition of the World Economic Forum’s Global Information Technology Report highlights the wide gap in
information technology implementation between the countries of northern and southern Europe.

On the one hand, Finland, where the right of every citizen to broadband access is enshrined in law, is the best country
in terms of Internet access for individuals and companies, followed closely by Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway;
on the other hand, Italy and Greece have extremely disappointing Internet penetration rates, even lower than those of
globally less developed countries such as Taiwan or Jordan.

In Italy and specifically in Lombardy, where there are far fewer environmental and orographic obstacles than in
Scandinavian countries, many areas still do not have broadband, which is a major disadvantage for citizens and
companies and which slows down the development of the areas affected by this problem.

Given that this situation causes great harm to the European economy and that the more advanced countries in this
sector have gained their current advantage partly because of shrewd policy choices, and considering, furthermore,
that the existence of a fast, economical, reliable and widespread IT network is a prerequisite for the actual
implementation of the single European market and of the very concept of European Union, what action does the
Commission intend to take to facilitate improved Internet access for companies and citizens across the whole
European Union and to reduce the digital divide among the Member States?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The Commission fully agrees that broadband underpins the European economy and that it is essential for Italy and all
Europeans. The Commission has reinforced this position in the Digital Agenda for Europe ( [1] ) by setting ambitious
targets for broadband coverage and take up. It is now working with the Member States to ensure effective
implementation of these targets and make broadband accessible for all.

Improving broadband connections requires investment by both the private and public sectors. The Commission's role
in regard to private investment is to ensure that there is a regulatory framework encouraging such investment. The
Commission pursues this objective and is currently working on a recommendation on costing methodologies and
non-discrimination. In addition, in March this year, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation of the
European Parliament and of the Council on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic
communications networks ( [2] ), which is expected to cut the cost of rolling out high speed Internet by up to 30%. In
response to the March European Council Conclusions, the Commission is working on a proposal of measures to
establish a single market for Information and Communication Technologies.

In areas where the private sector can see no business case to invest, which may well apply to the remote and sparsely
populated parts of Italy, the Commission may support broadband investment through the European Structural and
Investments Funds. The Commission also recently adopted revised guidelines on state aid regulations ( [3] ) to ensure
these are up to date with the latest technological developments in broadband connectivity.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/digital-agenda-europe.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0147:FIN:EN:PDF].
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks.

C 33 E / 542 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004493/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Polizze auto assicurative più costose per ragioni di età

Secondo la sentenza relativa alla causa C 236/09, in applicazione anche dell'articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti
fondamentali che vieta discriminazioni fondate sul sesso, non è consentito stipulare polizze di assicurazione relative
alla circolazione stradale con tariffe differenti in base al sesso dell'assicurato.

Poiché il citato articolo 21 vieta altresì discriminazioni fondate sull'età, intende la Commissione attivarsi perché le
assicurazioni non applichino, sempre riguardo alle polizze per la circolazione stradale, condizioni tariffarie differenti
in base all'età?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(12 giugno 2013)_

La sentenza della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea nella causa C-236/09 («Test-Achats») riguarda la direttiva
2004/113/CE del Consiglio che attua il principio della parità di trattamento tra uomini e donne per quanto riguarda
l'accesso a beni e servizi e la loro fornitura ( [1] ).

Attualmente nessuna legislazione dell'UE vieta la discriminazione per motivi di età per l'accesso a beni e servizi.
L'articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea si applica soltanto agli Stati membri
esclusivamente nell'attuazione del diritto dell'Unione, articolo 51, paragrafo 1, della Carta.

Nel 2008 la Commissione ha presentato una proposta di direttiva ( [2] ) che introduce il divieto di discriminazione anche
per motivi di età, nell'accesso a beni e servizi, tra cui prodotti finanziari quali le polizze assicurative. La proposta
legislativa è ancora in fase di negoziato al Consiglio, che deve raggiungere l'unanimità per adottarla.

Il progetto di direttiva prevede una disposizione specifica sui servizi finanziari in base alla quale disparità
proporzionate di trattamento in ragione dell'età non costituiscono discriminazione se, per il servizio prodotto in
questione, l'età è un elemento determinante per valutare i rischi e se la valutazione si basa su principi attuariali e dati
statistici.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 373 del 21.10.2004, pag. 37.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta di direttiva del Consiglio recante applicazione del principio di parità di trattamento fra le persone indipendentemente dalla religione o

dalle convinzioni personali, dalla disabilità, dall'età o dall'orientamento sessuale, COM(2008)426 definitivo del 2 luglio 2008.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 543

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004493/13**

**to the Commission**
**Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increased cost of vehicle insurance policies on the grounds of age

According to the judgment in Case C-236/09, pursuant to Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which
prohibits discrimination based on sex, the cost of vehicle insurance policies must not differ based on the
policyholder’s gender.

Since the aforementioned Article 21 also prohibits discrimination based on age, will the Commission take action to
ensure that the premium conditions for vehicle insurance policies do not differ on the grounds of age?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 June 2013)_

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-236/09 (‘Test-Achats’) concerned
Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and
supply of goods and services ( [1] ).

There is currently no EU legislation prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age in the access to goods and services.
Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is only applicable at Member States level as
regards the implementation of EC law (in line with Article 51(1) of the Charter).

In 2008, the Commission issued a proposal for a directive ( [2] ) that would introduce a ban on discrimination on the
grounds of age (among other grounds) in access to goods and services, including financial products such as vehicle
insurance. This legislative proposal is still being negotiated in Council where unanimity is required for its adoption.

The draft Directive includes a specific provision on financial services, according to which proportionate differences in
treatment on the grounds of age would not constitute discrimination provided that age is a determining factor in the
assessment of risk for the service in question and that this assessment is based on actuarial principles and statistical
data.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 373, 21.10.2004, p. 37.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age

or sexual orientation, COM(2008) 426 final, 2.7.2008.

C 33 E / 544 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004494/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Aumento delle violenze religiose contro i cristiani in Uzbekistan

È notizia recente che le persecuzioni contro i cristiani sono in netto aumento nel mondo arabo e che, in Uzbekistan in
particolare, ad attuarle sono le stesse forze di polizia chiamate a reprimerle. Quattro famiglie cristiane, ad esempio,
sono state arrestate perché colpevoli di possedere libri e cd sulla fede cristiana. La polizia ha trattenuto per ore i
membri di queste famiglie, li ha sottoposti a trattamenti degradanti e infine ha distrutto il materiale sequestrato. Sono
numerosi anche gli attacchi ai missionari e ai giovani convertitisi, attacchi che si traducono in multe di migliaia di
euro, violenze fisiche e morali.

Considerando che, come sottolinea Amnesty International nel suo ultimo rapporto, il 23 dicembre 2008 l'Uzbekistan
ha aderito al secondo protocollo opzionale della convenzione internazionale sui diritti civili e politici, ma non ha
ancora ratificato il protocollo opzionale della convenzione contro la tortura;

considerando altresì le risoluzioni adottate dal Parlamento europeo contro le persecuzioni religiose verso i cristiani, in
particolare le risoluzioni P6_TA(2007)0542 e P7_TA(2011)0021 e la risoluzione P6_TA(2007)0543 nella parte in
cui «esorta le autorità dell'Uzbekistan a rispettare pienamente i loro impegni internazionali a favore delle libertà
fondamentali»;

si chiede all'Alto Rappresentante dell'Unione:

1. se sia a conoscenza degli sviluppi della situazione;

2. quali azioni ha già intrapreso o intende intraprendere per favorire il rispetto della libertà di culto in Uzbekistan.

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

_(17 giugno 2013)_

Essendo la libertà di religione e di credo un diritto umano universale, la sua tutela rientra tra le priorità della politica
dell'UE in materia di diritti dell'uomo.

L'AR/VP ha condannato la violenza e gli atti di terrorismo in tutto il mondo, in particolare contro i cristiani e i loro
luoghi di culto, i pellegrini musulmani e altre comunità religiose.

Sebbene l'Uzbekistan non sia rimasto completamente immune a rinnovate manifestazioni di intolleranza nei
confronti di gruppi cristiani, questo fenomeno fortunatamente non ha raggiunto le dimensioni che si riscontrano in
molti altri paesi. Siamo tuttavia preoccupati per i recenti e incresciosi eventi che coinvolgono i cristiani, spesso dovuti
alla rigida applicazione della legislazione uzbeca che vieta ogni forma di «attività di proselitismo». Abbiamo quindi
incoraggiato l'Uzbekistan a riformare questa legge.

L'UE utilizza l'intera gamma degli strumenti diplomatici e di cooperazione di cui dispone per affrontare il problema
della libertà di religione e di credo su base bilaterale, in particolare nell'ambito del dialogo annuale sui diritti umani.
Inoltre, l'UE ha ripetutamente invitato l'Uzbekistan a ratificare il protocollo facoltativo della convenzione contro la
tortura. A livello locale, le delegazioni dell'UE stanno monitorando la situazione per quanto riguarda la libertà di
religione e di credo e si impegnano per affrontare i problemi ad essa connessi laddove necessario.

Nelle sedi internazionali, l'UE si impegna a livello multilaterale per ottenere consenso sulle misure di libertà di
religione e di credo e sulla lotta all'intolleranza religiosa e alla violenza.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 545

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004494/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Rise in religious violence against Christians in Uzbekistan

According to recent news reports, there has been a sharp increase in persecutions of Christians in the Arab world, and
in Uzbekistan in particular, the police, who should be preventing such persecutions, are the perpetrators. For
example, four Christian families were arrested for possessing books and CDs about the Christian faith. The police
detained the members of those families for hours and subjected them to degrading treatment before finally destroying
the seized material. There have also been numerous attacks on missionaries and young converts, consisting of fines of
thousands of euros, as well as physical violence and moral coercion.

As Amnesty International highlights in its latest report, on 23 December 2008 Uzbekistan signed the Second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but has not yet ratified the Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

Furthermore, the European Parliament has adopted resolutions against religious persecution of Christians, in
particular Resolutions P6_TA(2007)0542 and P7_TA(2011)0021 and Resolution P6_TA(2007)0543, in which it
‘urges the Uzbek authorities to implement fully their international commitments to fundamental freedoms’.

1. Is the High Representative of the Union aware of these developments?

2. What measures has she already taken or does she intend to take in order to promote respect for freedom of
worship in Uzbekistan?

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

_(17 June 2013)_

As a universal human right, freedom of religion and belief (FoRB) is a high priority under EU's human rights policy.

The HR/VP has condemned violence and acts of terrorism worldwide, in particular against Christians and their places
of worship, Muslim pilgrims and other religious communities.

Although Uzbekistan has not remained totally immune to renewed manifestations of intolerance vis-à-vis Christian
groups, this phenomenon has fortunately not reached the magnitude seen in some other countries. We are
nonetheless concerned with some recent and regrettable occurrences involving Christians, often due to the strict
enforcement of the Uzbek legislation prohibiting any form of ‘proselytizing activity’. We have thus encouraged
Uzbekistan to reform this piece of legislation.

The EU uses the full range of its diplomatic and cooperation instruments to address FoRB on a bilateral basis, in
particular in the framework of the annual Human Rights Dialogue. Moreover, the EU has repeatedly called on
Uzbekistan to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. At local level, EU Delegations are
monitoring the state of FoRB and engage on such issues whenever necessary.

In international fora, the EU has recourse to multilateral engagement to gather consensus on FoRB standards and
against religious intolerance and violence.

C 33 E / 546 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004495/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Fondi erogati ai paesi in fase di preadesione attraverso lo strumento IPA

L'Unione europea ha costituito specifici strumenti finanziari per promuovere un progressivo avvicinamento di paesi
in fase di preadesione: Turchia, Croazia, ex Repubblica jugoslava di Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, BosniaErzegovina, Montenegro e Islanda.

Nel 2007 i precedenti strumenti finanziari messi a disposizione di tali paesi sono stati sostituiti dall'IPA (Instrument
for Pre-Accession Assistance).

Può la Commissione indicare l'ammontare dei fondi erogati attraverso l'IPA per ognuno di questi Stati e per ogni
singolo anno, dal 2007 ad oggi?

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004496/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Fondi erogati ai paesi in fase di preadesione dal 2000 al 2006

L'Unione europea ha costituito specifici strumenti finanziari per promuovere un progressivo avvicinamento di paesi
in fase di preadesione: Turchia, Croazia, ex Repubblica jugoslava di Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, BosniaErzegovina, Montenegro.

Prima del 2007 gli strumenti di preadesione attivati dall'UE erano: PHARE, PHARE-CBC, SAPARD, ISPA, il
regolamento finanziario per la Turchia e CARDS.

Può la Commissione indicare l'ammontare dei fondi erogati attraverso questi strumenti per ogni singolo Stato e per
ogni singolo anno fra il 2000 e il 2006?

**Risposta congiunta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(27 giugno 2013)_

La relazione annuale 2011 sull’assistenza finanziaria preadesione (IPA, PHARE ( [1] ), CARDS ( [2] ), strumento di
preadesione per la Turchia e strumento di transizione) e il relativo documento di lavoro [SWD(2012)385 final] ( [3] )
contengono informazioni sull’assistenza ai paesi dell’allargamento. Entrambi i documenti sono stati trasmessi al
Consiglio e al Parlamento subito dopo l’adozione da parte della Commissione.

I dati più recenti sugli esborsi relativi ai fondi pre-IPA (strumenti di preadesione 2000-2006) sono riportati a pagina
171 e 172 del documento di lavoro.

Gli esborsi relativi ai fondi IPA dal 2007 al 2011 sono pubblicati anche nella relazione annuale 2011 sull’assistenza
finanziaria preadesione e i dati più recenti figurano a pagina 24 e 25.

Il documento di lavoro contiene informazioni più dettagliate sui singoli paesi in fase di preadesione e sull’attuazione
della cooperazione finanziaria ( [4] ).

La relazione annuale 2012 sull’assistenza finanziaria preadesione (IPA, PHARE, CARDS, strumento di preadesione
per la Turchia e strumento di transizione) è in fase di elaborazione e dovrebbe essere adottata nel terzo trimestre
2013.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) PHARE = Programma comunitario di assistenza ai paesi dell’Europa centrale e orientale.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) CARDS = Assistenza comunitaria alla ricostruzione, allo sviluppo e alla stabilizzazione.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/2011_ipa_annual_report_with_annex_new_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Cfr. pagg. 23-24 per la Croazia, 49-50 per la Turchia, 56 per l’Islanda, 69-70 per l’ex Repubblica jugoslava di Macedonia, 88-89 per il

Montenegro, 104-105 per l’Albania, 121-122 per la Serbia, 135-135 per la Bosnia‐Erzegovina, 145-146 per il Kosovo e 165 per il programma
multibeneficiari.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 547

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004495/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Funds disbursed to pre-accession countries through the IPA

The European Union has established specific financial instruments to encourage pre-accession countries — Turkey,
Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro
and Iceland — gradually to move closer to the EU.

In 2007 the previous financial instruments available to these countries were replaced by the IPA (Instrument for PreAccession Assistance).

Can the Commission state the amount of the funds disbursed through the IPA for each of these States and for each
year, from 2007 until now?

**Question for written answer E-004496/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Funds disbursed to pre-accession countries between 2000 and 2006

The European Union has established specific financial instruments to encourage pre-accession countries — Turkey,
Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
Montenegro — gradually to move closer to the EU.

Prior to 2007 the pre-accession instruments established by the EU were: Phare, Phare CBC, Sapard, ISPA, the financial
instrument for Turkey and CARDS.

Can the Commission state the amount of the funds disbursed through these instruments for each individual State and
for each year between 2000 and 2006?

**Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 June 2013)_

Information on assistance to Enlargement countries is presented in the Annual Report on Financial Assistance for
Enlargement 2011 (IPA, Phare ( [1] ), CARDS ( [2] ), Turkey pre-accession Instrument and Transition Facility) and its
accompanying Staff Working Document [SWD(2012)385 final] ( [3] ). Both have been transmitted to Council and
Parliament upon adoption by the Commission.

The latest figures concerning the disbursements relative to pre-IPA (Instruments for Pre-Accession 2000-2006) Funds
are presented on pages 171 and 172 of the SWD.

The disbursements concerning IPA funds from 2007 to 2011 are also published in the Annual Report on Financial
Assistance for Enlargement 2011, and the latest figures can be found on pages 24 and 25.

More detailed information for each pre-accession country and related to the implementation of financial cooperation
is presented in the accompanying SWD per country ( [4] ) .

The 2012 Annual Report on Financial Assistance for Enlargement (IPA, Phare, CARDS, Turkey pre-accession
Instrument and Transition Facility) is under preparation and its adoption is foreseen in the course of the 3rd quarter
of 2013.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Phare = Programme of Community Aid to the Countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) CARDS = Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/key_documents/2012/2011_ipa_annual_report_with_annex_new_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See pages 23-24 for Croatia, 49-50 for Turkey, 56 for Iceland, 69-70 for The former Republic of Macedonia, 88-89 for Montenegro, 104-105 for

Albania, 121-122 for Serbia, 135-135 for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 145-146 for Kosovo and 165 for the Multi Beneficiary Programme.

C 33 E / 548 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004497/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Prestiti erogati dalla BEI ai Paesi in fase di preadesione

La Commissione può indicare l'ammontare dei prestiti erogati dalla Banca Europea per gli Investimenti (BEI) in favore
di ogni singolo Paese attualmente in fase di preadesione, per il periodo 2007-2013, dettagliando gli importi per anno?

La Commissione può altresì indicare per quali importi l'Unione europea si è fatta garante presso la BEI nonché le
conseguenze in termini economici per l'UE di un eventuale loro mancato rientro?

**Risposta di Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione**

_(17 luglio 2013)_

Alla fine del 2012 i finanziamenti concessi dalla BEI alla regione interessata dal processo di preadesione, coperti da
garanzie dell'UE, ammontavano a EUR 8,636 miliardi. La concessione della garanzia dell'Unione si fonda sulla
Decisione n. 1080/2011/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 25 ottobre 2011, che accorda alla Banca
europea per gli investimenti una garanzia dell'Unione in caso di perdite dovute a prestiti e garanzie sui prestiti a favore
di progetti realizzati al di fuori dell'Unione e che abroga la decisione n. 633/2009/CE. Va altresì ricordato che il fondo
di garanzia per le azioni esterne, istituito con regolamento (CE, Euratom) n. 480/2009 del Consiglio, del 25 maggio
2009, che istituisce un fondo di garanzia per le azioni esterne ( [1] ), rappresenta una riserva di liquidità per il bilancio
dell'Unione, in quanto esso compensa le perdite subite per inadempienze su finanziamenti erogati dalla BEI e fornisce
fondi per altre azioni esterne dell'Unione.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 145 del 10.6.2009, pag. 10.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 549

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004497/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EIB loans granted to pre-accession countries

Can the Commission reveal the total amount of the loans granted by the European Investment Bank (EIB) to each
individual country currently in the pre-accession phase, during the 2007‐2013 period, and specify the amounts
granted in each of those years?

Furthermore, can the Commission specify the amounts for which the European Union is acting as a guarantor to the
EIB, as well as the economic consequences for the EU of any failure to repay the loans?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 July 2013)_

At the end of 2012, EIB financing in the Pre-Accession region covered by the EU guarantee reached
EUR 8.636 billion. The coverage of the EU guarantee is specified in Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 granting an EU guarantee to the EIB against losses under loans and
loan guarantees for projects outside the Union and repealing Decision No 633/2009/EC. Moreover, it should be
recalled that the Guarantee Fund for external actions, established by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 480/2009
of 25 May 2009 establishing a Guarantee Fund for external actions ( [1] ), provides a liquidity cushion for the Union
budget against losses incurred on EIB financing operations and other Union external action.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 145, 10.6.2009, p. 10.

C 33 E / 550 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004498/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti per l'industria boschiva nel Comune di Lariano

Nel Comune di Lariano, in provincia di Roma, esiste da circa cinquant'anni una società leader nel settore dell'industria
boschiva, e precisamente nella lavorazione di travi, morali, doghettati e tavolame in castagno. Tale società è
impegnata principalmente nella produzione di prodotti di altissima qualità come tettoie e gazebi, oltre a lavorare il
lamellare di abete e palombelle, anche grazie alla sua eccellente manodopera altamente specializzata e a una continua
ricerca delle più moderne tecnologie.

Oggi tale società è impegnata in una strutturazione e riorganizzazione aziendale che prevede l'espansione della
propria produzione e distribuzione attraverso l'ampliamento del proprio sito industriale. L'idea, infatti, è quella di
migliorare la propria lavorazione in relazione anche alle mutate richieste di mercato. Tutto questo favorirà la
creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro e la creazione di un nuovo indotto in tutta l'area del Comune di Lariano.

Tutto ciò premesso, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. se esistono possibili finanziamenti per il progetto suesposto;

2. quali azioni o programmi sono previsti per il sostegno alle PMI nel settore dell'industria boschiva nella nuova
programmazione 2014-2020;

3. un quadro generale della situazione.

**Risposta di Johannes Hahn a nome della Commissione**

_(4 luglio 2013)_

Il progetto menzionato dall'onorevole deputata potrebbe essere finanziato a valere sulla priorità I «Ricerca,
innovazione e rafforzamento della base produttiva» del programma del Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR)
per il Lazio, che supporta gli interventi a favore delle PMI.
Tuttavia, in linea con il principio di gestione condivisa applicato all'amministrazione della politica di coesione, la
selezione e l'attuazione dei progetti rientrano nelle responsabilità delle autorità nazionali. Per ulteriori informazione
la Commissione suggerisce all'onorevole deputata di mettersi direttamente in contatto con l'autorità di gestione del
programma per il Lazio:

Autorità di gestione del programma operativo regionale per il Lazio 2007-2013
Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7 — 00145 Roma
adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it

Per il periodo 2014-2020, conformemente ai regolamenti proposti del Fondo strutturale e di investimento europeo
(ESIF), che devono essere ancora adottato, le regioni più sviluppate dell'UE quali il Lazio dedicheranno almeno il 60 %
dei finanziamenti del FESR a favore della ricerca e dell'innovazione e a sostegno della competitività delle piccole e
medie imprese operanti in tutti i settori economici tranne quelli esclusi dall'allegato I del trattato sul funzionamento
dell'UE (vale a dire i prodotti agricoli che potrebbero essere oggetto di un'organizzazione comune dei mercati nel
quadro delle politica agricola comune).

Gli obiettivi specifici regionali saranno definiti nei programmi 2014-2020 che dovranno essere sottoposti alla
Commissione dopo l'adozione dei regolamenti ESIF, parallelamente al perfezionamento dell'accordo di partenariato
italiano.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 551

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004498/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding for the timber industry in the municipality of Lariano

For around 50 years, the municipality of Lariano, in the province of Rome, has been home to one of the foremost
timber companies, particularly when it comes to manufacturing chestnut wood beams, joists, planks and boards. The
company mainly manufactures very high-quality products such as canopies and gazebos, and produces laminated
spruce and corbels, thanks to its exceptional and highly skilled workforce and its constant researching of the latest
technologies.

The company is currently undergoing restructuring and reorganisation, which involves expansion of its production
and distribution by enlarging its industrial site. The idea is to enhance its production in line with the changed
demands of the market. All this will foster the creation of new jobs and the creation of new economic activity
throughout the municipality of Lariano.

1. Is there any potential funding for the above project?

2. What action or programmes are planned to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the timber industry
in the new programming period 2014‐2020?

3. Can the Commission provide an overview of the situation?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 July 2013)_

The project referred to by the Honourable Member could potentially be financed under priority I ‘Research,
innovation and strengthening of production’ of the Lazio European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) programme,
which supports interventions in favour of SMEs.

However, in line with the shared management principle used for the administration of the cohesion policy, project
selection and implementation is the responsibility of the national authorities. For more information, the Commission
suggests that the Honourable Member contact directly the managing authority of the Lazio programme:

Managing authority regional operational programme Lazio for 2007-2013
Via R. R. Garibaldi, 7 00145 Roma
adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it

Regarding 2014-2020, according to proposed European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) regulations which
have yet to be adopted, the EU's more developed regions such as Lazio will dedicate at least 60% of ERDF funds in
favour of research and innovation and to support the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises
operating in all economic sectors except those excluded by Annex I of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU
(i.e. agricultural products which could be subject to a common market organisation in the framework of the common
agricultural policy).

Specific regional objectives will be defined in the 2014-2020 programmes which are to be submitted to the
Commission after the adoption of the ESIF regulations, in parallel with the finalisation of the Italian partnership
agreement.

C 33 E / 552 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004499/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti per il settore della pelletteria in Toscana

In provincia di Siena esiste da quarant’anni una società leader nel settore della moda e precisamente nella produzione
di prodotti di pelletteria. Tale società è impegnata principalmente nella produzione di prodotti di lusso e di alta moda.
Infatti, grazie alla sua eccellente manodopera altamente specializzata e ad una continua ricerca delle più moderne
tecnologie, da circa vent’anni fornisce il proprio know-how al Gruppo LVMH, leader mondiale di brand di lusso delle
più prestigiose griffe francesi.

Ad oggi tale società, oltre a garantire l’occupazione a 35 famiglie, riesce anche a generare un indotto per altre cinque
aziende locali. Recentemente, in un quadro di ristrutturazione e riorganizzazione aziendale, la società ha previsto
l'espansione della propria produzione attraverso l'ampliamento del proprio sito industriale, assorbendo così al suo
interno alcune aziende che già avevano collaborato in passato. L'idea, infatti, è quella di progettare insieme al Gruppo
LVMH una nuova linea di produzione che comprenda l'intero ciclo produttivo che va dalla progettazione fino al
prodotto finito. Tutto questo favorirà la creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro altamente specializzati, favorendo anche la
creazione di un nuovo indotto in tutta l'area senese.

Tutto ciò premesso, può la Commissione:

1. far sapere se esistono possibili finanziamenti per il progetto suesposto;

2. indicare quali azioni o programmi sono previsti per il sostegno alle PMI nella nuova programmazione 20142020;

3. fornire un quadro generale della situazione?

**Risposta di Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione**

_(25 giugno 2013)_

Per il periodo di programmazione 2014-2020 la Commissione ha presentato una proposta riguardante un nuovo
programma per la competitività delle imprese e le PMI (il programma COSME). La Commissione intende utilizzare
tale programma per fornire un sostegno finanziario e non finanziario, tra l'altro, a PMI dell'UE che fabbricano beni di
consumo con una marcata componente di design nei settori della pelletteria e delle calzature, come pure ad altre
industrie della moda. Il programma COSME comprende misure volte a migliorare l'accesso delle PMI a finanziamenti,
servizi per le imprese e innovazione.

Basandosi sul successo del programma quadro per la competitività e l'innovazione (CIP), i finanziamenti del COSME
saranno forniti sotto forma di garanzie e capitale proprio, disponibili tramite le istituzioni finanziarie che partecipano
al programma. Un sostegno alle PMI, finalizzato a promuovere la leadership industriale dell'Unione europea, è
proposto anche nel quadro del programma per la ricerca e l’innovazione Orizzonte 2020.

Sia per Orizzonte 2020 che per COSME sono in corso discussioni a livello interistituzionale per far sì che l'attuazione
dei programmi abbia inizio a partire dal 1 [o] gennaio 2014.

Altre possibilità di finanziamento sono offerte del Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale, per quanto riguarda la
Regione Toscana. Per il periodo 2007-2013 il programma operativo per la Regione Toscana ha destinato il 28 % circa
del suo bilancio complessivo a iniziative volte a promuovere la crescita delle PMI, in particolare sviluppando il loro
potenziale innovativo al fine di facilitare l'accesso a nuovi mercati nel contesto della globalizzazione economica.

La rete Enterprise Europe può fornire consulenze sulle fonti di finanziamento, a livello europeo e/o locale, che
possono essere adatte a sostenere una nuova linea di produzione o l'espansione di una linea già esistente.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 553

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004499/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roberta Angelilli (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding for the leather goods sector in Tuscany

For 40 years a leading company in the fashion industry and, more specifically, in leather goods manufacturing, has
been operating in the province of Siena. That company is mainly engaged in the production of luxury and high
fashion goods. In fact, thanks to its excellent and highly specialised workforce and to its constant search for the most
up-to-date technologies, for some 20 years it has been providing its know-how to the LVMH Group, the world leader
in luxury brands bearing the most prestigious French labels.

To date that company, in addition to providing jobs for 35 families, has been able to generate work for five other local
businesses. As part of a recent restructuring and reorganisation exercise, the company sought to expand its
production by extending its industrial site and hence absorbing some firms with which it had already worked in the
past. The idea, in fact, is to design, together with the LVMH Group, a new production line that encompasses the whole
production cycle, from design right through to the finished product. All this will facilitate the creation of new and
highly specialised jobs, and will help stimulate new economic activity throughout the Siena area.

Can the Commission therefore:

1. Say whether possible funding exists for the above project?

2. Explain what actions or programmes are envisaged to support SMEs in the new 2014–2020 programming
period?

3. Provide an overview of the situation?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 June 2013)_

For the programming period 2014-2020, the Commission presented a proposal for a new Programme for the
Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (the COSME programme). The Commission is planning to use the COSME
programme to provide financial and non-financial support, _inter alia_, to EU design-based consumer goods
manufacturing SMEs of the leather and footwear sectors as well as other fashion industries. The COSME programme
includes measures to improve SMEs' access to finance, business services and innovation.

Building upon the success of the Competitiveness and Innovation framework Programme (CIP), COSME financing
will be provided in the form of guarantees and equity which are available through financial institutions participating
in the programme. Aimed at promoting European Union industrial leadership, support to SMEs is also proposed
within the framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020.

For both Horizon 2020 and COSME, interinstitutional discussions are ongoing with the aim of ensuring programme
implementation starting from 1 January 2014.

Another possibility of funding exists from the European Regional Development Fund, targeted at the Tuscany Region.
For the period 2007-2013, the Operational Programme for the Tuscany Region allocated some 28% of its total
budget to initiatives aimed at fostering the growth of SMEs, notably by developing their innovation potential with a
view to facilitating access to new markets in the economic globalisation context.

The Enterprise Europe Network can provide advice on sources of European and/or local funding which may be
appropriate in supporting a new production line or the expansion of an existing one.

C 33 E / 554 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-004500/13**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Siwiec (S&D)**

_(22 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Przepisy UE dotyczące swobody przemieszczania się

W dniu 25 marca 2013 r. premier Wielkiej Brytanii David Cameron oświadczył w przemówieniu dotyczącym
imigracji, że zamierza zmienić status imigrantów w Wielkiej Brytanii, którzy korzystają z przepisów UE dotyczących
swobody przemieszczania się, oraz że ograniczy ich dostęp do dodatków mieszkaniowych i krajowego systemu
opieki zdrowotnej. W szczególności zapowiedział, że:

—
osoby przybywające z państwa członkowskiego UE, które nie zdołają znaleźć pracy, utracą prawo do zasiłku
dla osób poszukujących pracy po sześciu miesiącach;

—
w odniesieniu do mieszkań socjalnych pierwszeństwo będą mieli obywatele Wielkiej Brytanii, a imigrantom
mieszkania takie będą przysługiwały dopiero po 2 latach pobytu;

—
zostaną podjęte działania ograniczające dostęp do służby zdrowia, co mogłoby oznaczać, że osobom spoza UE
udzielano by opieki medycznej dopiero po udowodnieniu, że posiadają ubezpieczenie.

Art. 45 Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej gwarantuje swobodę przepływu pracowników wewnątrz Unii
i zniesienie wszelkiej dyskryminacji ze względu na przynależność państwową w zakresie zatrudnienia,
wynagrodzenia i innych warunków pracy.

Czy w związku z tym Komisja uważa, że zapowiedzi te naruszają podstawową zasadę traktatową UE dotyczącą
prawa obywateli UE do swobodnego przemieszczania się? Czy według Komisji przytoczone powyżej oświadczenia są
sprzeczne z dyrektywą 2004/38/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 29 kwietnia 2004 r. w sprawie prawa
obywateli Unii i członków ich rodzin do swobodnego przemieszczania się i pobytu na terytorium państw
członkowskich, zmieniającą rozporządzenie (EWG) nr 1612/68 i uchylającą dyrektywy 64/221/EWG, 68/360/EWG,
72/194/EWG, 73/148/EWG, 75/34/EWG, 75/35/EWG, 90/364/EWG, 90/365/EWG i 93/96/EWG, a także
z rozporządzeniem Komisji (WE) nr 635/2006 z dnia 25 kwietnia 2006 r. uchylającym rozporządzenie (EWG)
nr 1251/70 dotyczące prawa pracowników do pozostania na terytorium państwa członkowskiego po ustaniu
zatrudnienia w tym państwie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Viviane Reding w imieniu Komisji**

_(23 maja 2013 r.)_

Prawo do swobodnego przemieszczania się jest jednym z najbardziej cenionych praw przez obywateli UE. Komisja
jest w pełni zaangażowana w ochronę tego prawa oraz zagwarantowanie, by obywatele UE mogli skutecznie z niego
korzystać na terytorium całej Unii.

W tym kontekście zgodność z prawem UE wszelkich środków przedstawionych przez brytyjski rząd w celu realizacji
tych planów może być – i będzie – dokładnie badana, z chwilą zgłoszenia projektu owych środków.

Mając na uwadze wzmocnienie ochrony praw pracowników w UE poprzez zapewnienie lepszego informowania
i wsparcia w zakresie egzekwowania praw UE, Komisja przyjęła w dniu 26 kwietnia 2013 r. wniosek dotyczący
dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie środków ułatwiających korzystanie z praw przyznanych
pracownikom w kontekście swobodnego przepływu pracowników (COM(2013)236).

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 555

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004500/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Siwiec (S&D)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU rules on freedom of movement

On 25 March 2013, the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, declared in a speech on immigration that he intends to
change the status of immigrants to the UK benefiting from the EU’s rules on freedom of movement and that he will
restrict their access to housing benefits and to the National Health Service (NHS). In particular, he announced that:

—
people arriving from an EU Member State who are not able to find a job will lose their right to the jobseekers’
allowance after six months;

—
regarding eligibility for council housing, local people will be given priority, and immigrants will not be eligible
until they have been in the country for 2 years;

—
measures will be taken in order to restrict access to health services which could mean non-EU nationals having
to prove they hold insurance before obtaining care.

Given that Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union guarantees the free movement of
workers within the territory of the Member States and outlaws all forms of discrimination on the basis of nationality
with regard to employment, reimbursement and other working conditions:

Does the Commission think that these announcements violate the EU’s fundamental treaty rule concerning the right
of EU citizens to move freely? Has the Commission considered whether the above statements are in conflict with
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the
Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC,
75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, as well as Commission Regulation (EC)
No 635/2006 of 25 April 2006 repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 on the right of workers to remain in the
territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The fundamental right of free movement is one of the rights most cherished by EU citizens and the Commission is
fully committed to safeguarding this right and ensuring that EU citizens can effectively enjoy it across the EU.

In this context, the compatibility with EC law of any measure presented by the UK Government to implement the
plans can be — and will be — closely monitored once draft measures are tabled.

To improve the rights of EU workers by ensuring better information and support as regards enforcement of EU rights,
the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures
facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the context of freedom of movement for workers on
26 April 2013 (COM(2013)236).

C 33 E / 556 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004501/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(22. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Neue Saatgutverordnung gefährdet Vielfalt der Flora

Umweltschutzorganisationen kritisieren die aktuellen Pläne für eine neue EU-Saatgutverordnung, aufgrund der viele
der seltenen und alten Sorten von Obst, Gemüse und Getreide, die in Österreich heimisch sind, für immer aussterben
würden.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Es wird kritisiert, dass aus den über 12 EU-Richtlinien nur eine EU-Verordnung werden soll und dass es bei der
Umsetzung keine nationalen Spielräume mehr geben würde. Wie steht die Kommission zu dieser Kritik?

2. Der endgültige Vorschlag der Kommission wird derzeit für Mitte 2013 erwartet. Wie ist der aktuelle Stand der
Pläne?

3. Die geplante EU-Saatgutverordnung fördert laut Berichten die Konzentration von Saatgut „in Händen weniger
multinationaler Agrarkonzerne“. Wie beurteilt die Kommission diese ernstzunehmende Kritik, und wie kann
sie dies verhindern?

4. Die Landwirte und Verbraucher fühlen sich durch die geplanten Rechtsvorschriften in ihrer Existenz bedroht.
Wie beurteilt die Kommission die Ängste, dass Agrarkonzerne künftig bestimmen würden, was angebaut wird
und natürlich auch was auf den Tellern der Menschen landet?

5. Derzeit beherrschen nach Angaben von Global 2000 die zehn größten Agrarkonzerne bereits 75 % des
Saatgutmarktes. Wie sieht die Kommission diese Entwicklung in Richtung einer Beschneidung der Vielfalt an
Saatgut?

6. Wäre eine EU-Saatgutverordnung, die eine Sortenvielfalt zulässt und seltene und alte Sorten nicht in die
Illegalität treibt, nicht viel besser für die Umwelt?

7. Wie beurteilt die Kommission die Forderungen der Umweltverbände und Umweltschützer, dass der Austausch
von Saat‐ und Pflanzgut legal bleiben muss und es keine verbindliche Sortenzulassung und keine Zertifizierung
für samenfestes Saat‐ und Pflanzgut geben darf.

**Antwort von Herrn Borg im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. Juni 2013)_

1. Ein Ziel des Vorschlags ( [1] ) besteht darin, die unterschiedliche Umsetzung der derzeitigen Richtlinien in den
Mitgliedstaaten abzustellen. In dem Vorschlag werden allgemeine Anforderungen für gelistete Arten und weniger
strenge Anforderungen für nicht gelistete Arten festgelegt, und die Mitgliedstaaten werden die Möglichkeit haben, auf
nationaler Ebene strengere Anforderungen festzulegen.

2. Der Vorschlag wurde am 6. Mai 2013 angenommen und wird nun vom Unionsgesetzgeber erörtert.

3.-5. Der Kommission liegen keine Daten vor, die darauf schließen lassen würden, dass der EU-Markt von
multinationalen Saatgutunternehmen beherrscht wird. So ergeben die vorliegenden Daten, dass der Saatgutmarkt in
der EU zum größten Teil aus Mikrounternehmen sowie KMU besteht. Mit der Verordnung soll gewährleistet werden,
dass sich der Markt auch weiterhin aus einer Vielfalt an Akteuren zusammensetzt und dass die Käufer aus einem breit
gefächerten Angebot (neue, getestete Sorten, althergebrachte Sorten, für Nischenmärkte bestimmtes Material) wählen
können.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2013)262 endg. Siehe: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/review_eu_rules/index_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 557

6. Mit dem Vorschlag wird die Vielfalt dadurch gefördert, dass althergebrachte Sorten unter Einhaltung geringer
Anforderungen registriert werden können, Mikrounternehmen von den Registrierungsgebühren befreit werden und
die Möglichkeit eingeräumt wird, auch für nicht gewerbliche Akteure, Nischenmarktmaterial ohne Registrierung auf
dem Markt bereitzustellen. Der Austausch von Saatgut zwischen nicht gewerblich tätigen Akteuren unterliegt nicht
den Bestimmungen der vorgeschlagenen Verordnung, und Landwirte und Gärtner können jedes beliebige Material
verwenden. Die Vorschriften der vorgeschlagenen Verordnung finden also lediglich Anwendung auf
Pflanzenvermehrungsmaterial, das auf dem Markt bereitgestellt sowie zur Bereitstellung auf dem Markt erzeugt wird.

7. Die Registrierung von Sorten dient dazu, einen transparenten Markt zu schaffen und die Verbraucher zu
schützen. Um den Verwaltungs‐ und Kostenaufwand zu senken, werden von Mikrounternehmen gemäß der
vorgeschlagenen Verordnung keine Registrierungsgebühren verlangt. Für aus althergebrachten Sorten gewonnenes
Vermehrungsmaterial ist keine Zertifizierung vorgeschrieben.

C 33 E / 558 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004501/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ New seed regulation threatens diversity in flora

Environmental; protection organisations are critical of current plans for a new EU seed regulation that would mean
extinction for many of the rare and old varieties of fruit, vegetables and cereals native to Austria.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. The criticism is raised that more than 12 EU directives are to become a single EU regulation and that there will
be no national discretion in relation to implementation. What is the position of the Commission with regard to
this criticism?

2. The final proposal from the Commission is currently expected in mid-2013. What is the current status of the
plans?

3. According to reports, the planned EU Seed Regulation will promote the concentration of seed ‘in the hands of a
small number of multinational agricultural concerns’. How does the Commission judge this serious criticism
and how can it prevent this?

4. Farmers and consumers are feeling that their existence is under threat as a result of the planned legal provisions.
How does the Commission assess the fears that in future agricultural concerns could decide what is cultivated
and, of course, what ends up on people’s plates?

5. At present, according to Global 2000, the ten largest agricultural concerns already control 75 per cent of the
seed market. How does the Commission regard this development in terms of reducing the diversity of seed?

6. Would it not be much better for the environment to have an EU seed regulation that permits diversity rather
than declaring rare and older seed varieties illegal?

7. How does the Commission view the demands of the environmental NGOs and protection groups that the
interchange of seed and plant material must remain legal and that there should be no binding approval of
varieties and no certification for heirloom seed and plant material?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

1. One objective of the proposal ( [1] ) is to overcome the varying implementation of the current directives in Member
States. The proposal defines common principles for listed species and light principles for non-listed species, while
giving the possibility to have stricter national rules.

2. The proposal was adopted on 6 May 2013 and now is being discussed by the legislator.

3-5. The Commission has no data to suggest that multinational seed companies dominate the EU market. Available
data show that the EU seed market is composed of mostly micro-enterprises and small and medium operators. The
aim of the regulation is to maintain this diversity of operators and to offer a broad choice (new, tested varieties;
traditional varieties; niche market material) to the buyer.

6. The proposal promotes diversity by offering low-burden options for registering traditional varieties, by
exempting micro-enterprises from variety registration fees and by giving the possibility, also to non-professionals, to
market niche market material without registration. Exchange in kind between two persons other than professional
operators is outside the proposed Regulation's scope and farmers and gardeners are free to use any material they like.
The proposed Regulation only concerns marketing and production with a view to marketing.

7. Registration of varieties serves the transparency of the market and consumers' protection. To reduce
administrative and financial burdens micro-enterprises are exempted by the proposal from registration fees. Material
from traditional varieties will not be certified.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 262 final; see http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/review_eu_rules/index_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 559

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004502/13**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up to Written Question E-002473/2013

In its answer to my Written Question E-002473/2013, the European Commission simply ignored the specific
questions. Therefore, could the Commission respond to the specific questions below:

1. If an EU Member State decides to leave the EU, what tariffs would it would face from the European Union were
it to exit the Union without an interim agreement?

2. Could the Commission confirm whether it is legally possible for a Member State to leave the European Union
through Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon but remain a member of the European Economic Area as an
independent signatory to the 1994 EEA agreement?

3. Could the Commission confirm whether Article 127 of the 1994 European Economic Area Agreement allows
continued free trade and movement for 12 months between a withdrawing state and the EEA, after a Member
State signals its withdrawal?

4. If a Member of the European Parliament wishes to submit a complaint about the European Commission
refusing to answer a parliamentary question, is there a Member of the Commission who is responsible for
ensuring that the complaint is heard?

**Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 June 2013)_

1 to 3. No Member State has decided to withdraw from the European Union.

Article 50 TEU provides that, in case a Member State would decide, in accordance with its own constitutional
requirements, to withdraw from the Union, an agreement shall be negotiated and concluded between the Union and
that State setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal; this agreement shall take into account the framework for
the future relationship of that State with the Union.

The Commission is not prepared to speculate on the legal consequences, including the consequences for international
agreements to which the Union and the Member States are Parties, of the hypothetical situation of absence of such an
agreement, while the treaty provides that such an agreement ‘shall be concluded’.

4. Answers to written questions given by one member of the Commission are given on behalf of the whole
Commission, in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility.

C 33 E / 560 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004503/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(22 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Nasilające się prześladowania chrześcijan w Nigerii

W ciągu ostatnich kilku miesięcy nasilające się prześladowania chrześcijan kosztowały życie kilkuset osób w Nigerii.

Tylko w okresie od stycznia do marca media donoszą o szeregu incydentów. Ponad 250 osób zginęło, zaś wiele
odniosło poważne obrażenia w brutalnych atakach w Musari, Nijiri, Saminaka, Ratas, Mangor i Matog, w regionach
Bokkos oraz Plateau, czy w ataku na wioskę w chrześcijańskiej części stanu Kaduna. W marcu w wyniku eksplozji
samochodu pułapki na dworcu autobusowym w chrześcijańskiej dzielnicy Sabon Gari w stanie Kano zginęło kolejne
co najmniej 60 osób. W Mubi chrześcijanie nie wychodzą z domów po 8 wieczorem, boją się uczestniczyć w Mszach
św., czy wychodzić na targ. W marcu w diecezji Maiduguri, w stanie Borno, zniszczonych zostało 50 z 52 kościołów
katolickich. Według szacunków organizacji Open Doors około 100 000 chrześcijan jest zmuszone ratować się
ucieczką na południe kraju.

Czy sytuacja ta jest znana Wysokiej Przedstawiciel i jeśli tak, jakie natychmiastowe kroki zostały podjęte w celu
ochrony praw chrześcijan w Nigerii?

Jakie działania podejmie Wysoka Przedstawiciel, aby pomóc zagwarantować bezpieczeństwo chrześcijanom
w Nigerii?

Czy można oczekiwać jednolitego stanowiska państw członkowskich UE wobec tej narastającej tragedii
humanitarnej?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Komisji Catherine Ashton**

**w imieniu Komisji**
_(20 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca jest świadoma eskalacji przemocy w północnej i środkowej części
Nigerii i wielokrotnie ją potępiała. Przemoc taka jest bardzo dużym problemem dla ludności przebywającej na
terytorium kraju i poza jego granicami, gdyż wymierzona jest przeciwko niewinnym cywilom, zarówno
chrześcijanom jak i muzułmanom.

Ważne jest, by nie postrzegać ataków terrorystycznych sekty Boko Haram tak, jakby była ona jedynie ruchem
religijnym, ani nie reagować tak na te ataki. Boko Haram jest zbitką szeregu grup terrorystycznych kierujących się
różnymi pobudkami, która dąży do destabilizacji Republiki Nigerii, wykorzystując w tym celu wszystkie możliwe
środki, a w szczególności pogłębianie różnic, w tym religijnych (które w ostatnich latach nie stanowiły w Nigerii
problemu). Reakcja wyłącznie na elementy religijne sprzyjałaby celom terrorystów.

UE będzie nadal współpracować zarówno z rządem, jak i społeczeństwem Nigerii, aby pomóc położyć kres obecnej
przemocy na drodze ciągłego dialogu politycznego na temat odpowiedniego podejścia do problemów, a także
ukierunkowanych działań w zakresie pomocy.

Rada wyraziła jednolite stanowisko UE, w którym potępia przemoc i wzywa do wszechstronnego rozwiązania
problemów związanych z bezpieczeństwem i ich przyczyn. W ramach dialogu na szczeblu ministerialnym UE‐
Nigeria, który miał miejsce w dniu 16 maja 2013 r. w Brukseli, UE podkreśliła potrzebę podjęcia aktualnych wyzwań
w dziedzinie bezpieczeństwa przy zastosowaniu kompleksowego podejścia do bezpieczeństwa i rozwoju; ponownie
zadeklarowała ona pomoc za pośrednictwem programu współpracy w Nigerii.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 561

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004503/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Growing persecution of Christians in Nigeria

In the last few months, growing persecution of Christians has claimed several hundred lives in Nigeria.

In the period from January to March alone, a whole series of incidents were reported in the media. More than 250
people have been killed and many others injured in brutal attacks in Musari, Nijiri, Saminaka, Mangor and Matog, in
the Bokkos and Plateau regions and in an attack on a village in a Christian part of Kaduna State. In March, a car‐bomb
exploded at a bus station in the Christian neighbourhood of Sabon Gari in Kano State, killing over 60 people. In Mubi,
Christians do not leave their houses after 20:00; they are scared to attend mass or go to the market. 50 of the 52
Catholic churches in the diocese of Maiduguri, Borno State, were destroyed in March. The Open Doors organisation
estimates that some 100 000 Christians have been forced to save themselves by escaping to southern Nigeria.

Is the High Representative aware of this situation? If so, what immediate steps have been taken to protect the rights of
Christians in Nigeria?

What action will the High Representative take to help ensure the safety of Christians in Nigeria?

Is it anticipated that the EU Member States will adopt a unified position on this growing humanitarian tragedy?

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

_(20 June 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware and has repeatedly condemned the escalating violence in the Northern states and the Middle Belt
of Nigeria. This violence is of great concern for those inside and outside the country since it targets innocent civilians,
both Christians and Muslims.

It is important not to perceive or to respond to the terrorist acts of Boko Haram as if it were only a religious-based
movement. Boko Haram is an amalgam of variously motivated terrorist groups seeking to destabilise the State of
Nigeria by all means and especially by seeking to widen all differences, including religious (which in recent years have
not been a problem in Nigeria). Responding on only religious grounds would play into the hands of terrorists.

The EU will continue to work with the Government and people of Nigeria to help bring an end to the current cycle of
violence through both continuous political dialogue on appropriate approaches to the problems, as well as targeted
aid interventions.

A unified EU position, condemning the violence and calling for a comprehensive solution to the security problems
and their underlying causes, has been expressed by the Council. At the EU-Nigeria Ministerial dialogue on
16 May 2013 in Brussels, the EU stressed the need to address the current security challenges with a comprehensive
security/ development approach; and it repeated its determination to help through its cooperation programme in
Nigeria.

C 33 E / 562 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004504/13**

**do Komisji**
**Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR)**

_(22 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zwalczanie nielegalnego alkoholu w Unii Europejskiej

Ze względu na specyfikę zagadnienia trudno jest precyzyjnie określić wielkość spożycia nielegalnego alkoholu w Unii
Europejskiej. Z pewnością ma ono jednak znaczące skutki ekonomiczne i społeczne, co jest szczególnie ważne
w obliczu kryzysu gospodarczego, z którym Unia będzie musiała się jeszcze zmagać w najbliższych latach. Stąd
warto precyzyjnie oszacować skalę zjawiska.

1. Czy Komisja posiada analizy dotyczące skali alkoholowej szarej strefy w Unii Europejskiej lub
w poszczególnych krajach UE?

2. Czy Komisja posiada analizy dotyczące strat ekonomicznych związanych z nielegalnym handlem alkoholem
dla budżetów poszczególnych państw, legalnych producentów oraz rolnictwa?

3. Czy Komisja prowadzi działania na rzecz monitorowania i przeciwdziałania alkoholowej szarej strefie? Jeśli tak,
to jakie działania i jakie nakłady finansowe są na to przeznaczane?

4. Jeśli nie, to czy Komisja w obliczu niedawnej sytuacji związanej z zatruciami alkoholem nieznanego
pochodzenia w Czechach ma w planach podjęcie działań zmierzających do określenia zagrożenia związanego
z istnieniem alkoholowej szarej strefy, zarówno w wymiarze ekonomicznym, jaki i zdrowotnym?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Algirdasa Šemetę w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 czerwca 2013 r.)_

Komisja wie o problemie szarej strefy alkoholu w pewnej liczbie państw członkowskich, nie posiada jednak analizy
skutków gospodarczych w UE. WHO, przy wsparciu Komisji, wydaje okresowe szacunki nierejestrowanego spożycia
alkoholu. Wynosi ono ok. 13 % łącznej ilości alkoholu spożytego w UE, przy znacznym zróżnicowaniu poziomów
pomiędzy poszczególnymi krajami europejskimi ( [1] ).

Nowy wniosek legislacyjny dotyczący decyzji Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie poważnych
transgranicznych zagrożeń zdrowia tworzy ramy przepisów służących do powiadamiania, oceny i koordynacji na
poziomie unii reakcji na potencjalne zagrożenia dla zdrowia związane z spożyciem alkoholu nieznanego
pochodzenia ( [2] ).

Ponadto jeśli chodzi o kwestię skażonego alkoholu, który wydaje się u przyczyną zatruć metanolem w Republice
Czeskiej, prace są w toku.

Na podstawie informacji, jakimi dysponuje Komisja, wydaje się, że część zanieczyszczonego alkoholu w Republice
Czeskiej była (początkowo) wytworzona w innym państwie członkowskim jako środek zapobiegający zamarzaniu.
W częściowo skażonym alkoholu zastosowano metodę skażania.

W celu ograniczenia możliwości nadużyć i ułatwienia kontroli podmiotom i państwom członkowskim, Komisja
niedawno zmieniła rozporządzenie w sprawie procedur całkowitego skażenia alkoholu etylowego ( [3] ). Kilka metod
skażania poddano przeglądowi i usunięto, po czym wprowadzono wspólną „euro”-metodę skażania ze skutkiem od
dnia 1 lipca 2013 r.

Zgodnie z zapowiedzią zawartą w planie działania, prowadzone są również prace w dziedzinie częściowo skażonego
alkoholu mające na celu wzmocnienie zwalczania oszustw podatkowych i unikania opodatkowania( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raport za 2012 r. pt. „Alkohol w Unii Europejskiej”: (http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/160680/e96457.pdf)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 0866 wersja ostateczna – 2011/0421 (COD).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) nr 162/2013 z dnia 21 lutego 2013 r. zmieniające załącznik do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 3199/93

w sprawie wzajemnego uznawania procedur całkowitego skażenia alkoholu etylowego do celów zwolnienia z podatku akcyzowego (Dz.U. L 49
z 22.2.2013). 4 COM(2012) 722 final; 6 grudnia 2012 r.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 722 final; 6 grudnia 2012 r.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 563

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004504/13**

**to the Commission**
**Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The fight against illegal alcohol in the European Union

It is difficult to determine the exact scale of illegal alcohol consumption in the European Union because of the specific
nature of this problem, but there can be no doubt that it has major economic and social implications. This is
particularly significant in view of the economic crisis which will continue to affect the EU over the coming years, and
so it would be useful to obtain an accurate estimate of the extent of the problem.

1. Is the Commission in possession of any analyses of the scale of the grey market in alcohol in the European
Union or in the individual Member States?

2. Is the Commission in possession of any analyses of the economic losses caused by the illegal trade in alcohol to
the budgets of the individual Member States, to legal manufacturers and to agriculture?

3. Is the Commission taking any steps to monitor and combat the grey market in alcohol? If so, which steps is it
taking, and what funding has been allocated for this purpose?

4. If not, and in view of the recent cases of poisoning in the Czech Republic caused by alcohol of unknown origin,
does the Commission have any plans for measures aimed at determining the economic and health risks associated
with the grey market in alcohol?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission has been informed about problems of the grey market in alcohol in a number of Member States, but
is not in possession of any analyses of the economic impact in the EU. The WHO, with the support of the
Commission, periodically estimates unrecorded alcohol consumption which is about 13% of all alcohol consumed in
the EU with marked differences between the European countries ( [1] ).

The new legislative proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on serious cross-border
threats to health sets a framework of provisions to notify, assess and coordinate at EU level the response to potential
health risks linked to the consumption of alcohol of unknown origin ( [2] ).

Moreover, in the area of denatured alcohol, which seems to be at the source of the methanol poisonings in the Czech
Republic, work is ongoing.

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, it seems that some of the contaminated spirit in the
Czech Republic was (originally) manufactured in another Member State as an anti-freeze product. A denaturing
method used in partially denatured alcohol was applied.

To reduce opportunities for fraud and ease control for operators and Member States, the Commission recently
amended its Regulation on procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol ( [3] ). Several denaturing methods were
revised and removed and a common ‘Euro’ denaturing method was introduced with effect from 1 July 2013.

Work is also underway in the field of partially denatured alcohol as announced in the Action plan to strengthen the
fight against fraud and tax evasion ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2012 report Alcohol in the European Union (http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/160680/e96457.pdf).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 0866 final — 2011/0421 (COD).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 162/2013 of 21 February 2013 amending the annex to Regulation (EC) No 3199/93 on the

mutual recognition of procedures for the complete denaturing of alcohol for the purposes of exemption from excise duty (OJ L 49, 22.2.2013).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 722 final, 6 December 2012.

( **|**

C 33 E / 564 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-004505/13**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(22 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Sprawa Magnickiego

Po raz kolejny zwracam się do Komisji z prośbą o interwencję w sprawie Siergeja Magnickiego – rosyjskiego
prawnika, który po wykryciu oszustw podatkowych sam został uwięziony, a następnie zmarł w więzieniu na skutek
tortur. Ostatnie zatrważające informacje mówią o pośmiertnym procesie wszczętym przez władze rosyjskie
przeciwko Magnickiemu. Sytuacja ta jest niedopuszczalna i niezgodna z międzynarodowymi uregulowaniami
w dziedzinie praw człowieka. Dodatkowo władze rosyjskie zdecydowały o wystosowaniu listu gończego za
Williamem Browderem, prezesem Hermitage Capital – firmy, dla której pracował Siergej Magnicki. Wczoraj Twerski
Sąd Rejonowy w Moskwie przystąpił do rozpatrywania wniosku policji o zaoczny areszt wobec Browdera. Nie
można oprzeć się przekonaniu, że sprawa ta jest motywowana politycznie.

W związku z powyższym pragnę zapytać Komisję, jaka jest jej pozycja w kwestii pośmiertnego procesu przeciwko
Siergejowi Magnickiemu oraz czy misja UE w Moskwie monitoruje tę kwestię.

Czy Komisja złożyła oficjalny sprzeciw wobec pośmiertnego procesu?

Czy Komisja będzie monitorować sprawę oskarżeń wobec Williama Browdera?

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

**Komisji**
_(11 czerwca 2013 r.)_

UE od dawna nalega na przeprowadzenie odpowiedniego dochodzenia celem zapewnienia, by wszelkie osoby
odpowiedzialne za śmierć S. Magnickiego oraz aferę korupcyjną, którą odkrył, zostały postawione przed sądem. UE
ponownie podniosła tę kwestię podczas szczytu UE-Rosja 21 grudnia oraz przy okazji wizyty Komisji złożonej
rosyjskiemu rządowi w dniach 21-22 marca 2013 r. Stanowisko UE jest jednoznaczne: tylko przeprowadzenie
wiarygodnego i skrupulatnego dochodzenia pomoże w Rosji zbudować zaufanie do państwa prawa.

Jak podkreśliła Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca w oświadczeniu wydanym 20 marca 2013 r., decyzja
Rosji o przedwczesnym zamknięciu przedmiotowej sprawy oraz równoczesne wszczęcie pośmiertnego procesu
przeciwko S. Magnickiemu stanowią dodatkowe źródło obaw co do funkcjonowania należytych procedur prawnych
w Federacji Rosyjskiej.

W dniu 17 maja, podczas ostatniej rundy konsultacji między UE a Rosją dotyczących praw człowieka, UE ponownie
wyraziła swoje zaniepokojenie pośmiertnym procesem S. Magnickiego oraz zwróciła się do władz rosyjskich
o wyjaśnienia dotyczące podstawy prawnej tego procesu. Delegatura UE w Moskwie będzie w dalszym ciągu uważnie
śledzić tę kwestię.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 565

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004505/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ The Magnitsky case

I should like to call on the Commission once more to intervene in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who,
having uncovered evidence of tax fraud, was himself imprisoned. He later died in prison after being tortured.
Alarming information has recently come to light showing that the Russian authorities are bringing a posthumous
trial against Magnitsky. This state of affairs is unacceptable and in breach of international human rights regulations.
Furthermore, the Russian authorities have decided to issue an arrest warrant for William Browder, CEO of Hermitage
Capital Management — the company for which Sergei Magnitsky worked. Yesterday, the Tver District Court in
Moscow began examining the Police’s request for the arrest _in absentia_ of Mr Browder. It would be hard not to
conclude that this case is politically motivated.

What is the Commission’s view on the posthumous trial of Sergei Magnitsky? Is the EU delegation in Moscow
monitoring this matter?

Has the Commission lodged a formal objection to the posthumous trial?

Will the Commission monitor the case of William Browder?

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

_(11 June 2013)_

The EU has for a long time been insisting on the need for a proper investigation that ensures that any person
responsible for the death of Mr Magnitsky and for the corruption scandal he uncovered is brought to justice. The EU
raised the case again at the EU-Russia Summit on 21 December and during the Commission visit to the Russian
Government on 21-22 March 2013. The EU’s position is clear: only a credible and thorough judicial investigation will
help creating confidence in the rule of law in Russia.

As noted in the statement issued by the High Representative/Vice-President on 20 March 2013, the Russian decision
to close this case prematurely, while at the same time opening a posthumous trial against Mr Magnitsky himself, is an
additional source of concern as to the state of the due process of law in the Russian Federation.

The EU has reiterated its concerns at the posthumous prosecution of Mr Magnitsky during the latest round of the EURussia human rights consultations on 17 May 2013 and sought clarifications from the Russian authorities on the
legal basis of this trial. The EU Delegation in Moscow is closely following the issue and will continue to do so.

C 33 E / 566 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004506/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(22 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Plata serviciilor medicale în străinătate

În ultimul timp, presa scrisă și audio-vizuală europeană a semnalat o serie de probleme cu care se confruntă cetățenii
europeni care locuiesc în Spania sau Grecia sau turiștii aflați în vacanță în aceste țări, legate de refuzul unor spitale
publice sau private de a recunoaște cartea europeană de asigurare medicală (CEAM).

Pe de altă parte, mai multe case de asigurări medicale atrag atenția asupra faptului că cetățenilor europeni care
călătoresc în străinătate sau locuiesc în alt stat membru li se cere să plătească facturile de la spital sau medicamentele
în numerar, la tarife superioare celor plătite de locuitorii din țările UE unde călătoresc sau se află persoanele
respective.

În ce măsură este Comisia la curent cu problemele semnalate și ce propune pentru evitarea situațiilor de acest gen, în
viitor?

**Răspuns dat de dl. Andor în numele Comisiei**

_(17 iunie 2013)_

Comisia este conștientă de plângerile referitoare la faptul că anumite spitale din Spania refuză CEASS și, prin urmare,
la data de 30 mai, a lansat o procedură privind încălcarea dreptului comunitar. Referitor la problema cetățenilor UE
care plătesc tarife mai ridicate, se pare că acest lucru rezultă din faptul că CEASS este refuzată și cetățenii respectivi
sunt nevoiți să achite costurile pentru îngrijiri medicale private.

Cardul european de asigurări sociale de sănătate (CEASS) certifică faptul că titularul este asigurat în sistemul public de
sănătate al unui stat membru și că are dreptul de a beneficia de îngrijiri de sănătate care se dovedesc a fi necesare din
motive medicale în timpul unei șederi temporare într-un alt stat membru. Acest drept este conferit de articolul 19 din
Regulamentul (CE) nr. 883/2004, care prevede faptul că titularul poate beneficia de servicii medicale în statul
membru gazdă, în aceleași condiții și la același preț ca și cetățenii țării respective. Cardul nu acoperă serviciile
medicale furnizate în sistemul privat și nu este destinat persoanelor care au reședința în țara-gazdă.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 567

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004506/13**

**to the Commission**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Payment for medical services abroad

There have been recent reports in the print and audiovisual media in Europe about a number of problems faced by
European citizens living in Spain or Greece or by tourists on holiday in these countries, relating to some public or
private hospitals refusing to recognise the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC).

On the other hand, several medical insurance funds are highlighting that European citizens travelling abroad or living
in another Member State are being asked to pay for hospital bills or medicines in cash at higher rates than those paid
by the inhabitants of the EU countries where these people are travelling or living.

To what extent is the Commission aware of the problems highlighted, and what is it proposing to do to prevent such
situations from arising in the future?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of complaints concerning the refusal of the EHIC by certain hospitals in Spain and therefore
it launched an infringement procedure on 30 May. As regards the question of EU citizens paying higher rates, this
appears to result from the fact that the EHIC is being refused and the citizens in question are being asked to pay the
cost of private healthcare.

The European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) certifies that the holder is insured under the public healthcare system of
one Member State and entitled to receive healthcare which becomes necessary on medical grounds during a
temporary stay in another Member State. This right is given by Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and it
entitles the holder to receive treatment within the host Member State's public healthcare system on the same terms
and at the same cost as nationals of the state concerned. It does not cover healthcare that is provided privately, nor
should it be used by persons who are in fact residing in the host state.

C 33 E / 568 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-004507/13**

**komissiolle**
**Riikka Manner (ALDE)**

_(22. huhtikuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Jatkokysymys luontodirektiivistä

Jätin luontodirektiiviä koskevan kirjallisen kysymyksen komissiolle tammikuussa (E-000550/2013). Sain 15.3.
komission jäsenen Potočnikin allekirjoittaman vastauksen, jossa ennen muuta viitattiin aiempiin kysymyksiin ja
vastauksiin luontodirektiivin ja erityisesti Suomen kohtaaman susiongelman tasapainosta.

Susien laajeneva elinpiiri sekä muuttuneet käyttäytymistottumukset ihmisen läheisyyteen nostattavat yhä enemmän
inhimillistä huolta Suomessa. Viranomaisohjeistus nojaa EU-lainsäädäntöön, ja kansalaisten tunne siitä, ettei
lainsäädäntö suojele ihmistä, on vahva. Haluan siksi tarkentaa edellistä kysymystäni ja samalla pyydän myös
komissiolta aiempaa syvempiä ja täsmällisempiä vastauksia.

Millä aikataululla komissio aikoo julkistaa toimenpiteitä, joilla ihmisten ja suurpetojen rinnakkaiselo saatetaan
nykyistä turvallisemmaksi ihmisten – erityisesti lasten – sekä maaseutualueiden elinkeinotoiminnan näkökulmista?
Toistan myös aiemman kysymyksen siitä, onko komissiossa arvioitu tai suunniteltu arvioitavan luontodirektiivistä
ihmisille koituvia negatiivisia vaikutuksia? Kuinka usein luontodirektiivin taustalla olevat kanta-arviot päivitetään
suojelutarpeen jatkuvan ajantasaisuuden varmistamiseksi? Onko komissio tietoinen, että Suomessa susien
aiheuttamat vaaratilanteet ja ongelmat ovat maantieteellisesti levinneet voimakkaasti viime vuosina?

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-004539/13**

**komissiolle**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(23. huhtikuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Suurpetojen kantojen säätely

Kansalaiset Suomessa ovat kokeneet suurpetojen määrän muodostavan uhan varsinkin lasten ja kotieläinten
turvallisuudelle, joten petoihin liittyvä keskustelu on ollut siellä varsin kiivasta. Sen jälkeen kun Suomi liittyi
Euroopan unioniin vuonna 1995, on esimerkiksi susien määrä Suomessa eräiden arvioiden mukaan
kolminkertaistunut. Sudet ovatkin tappaneet pihapiireissä olleita koiria ja vaikeuttanut lasten koulumatkoja ja
liikkumista ulkona. Maaseudulla lapset kulkevat kouluun hyvin yleisesti joko kävellen, polkupyörällä tai hiihtäen –
Suomessa autokuljetusta ei järjestetä alle kolmen tai alle viiden kilometrin koulumatkalle, oppilaan iästä riippuen.
Tällöin yksin liikkuva lapsi saattaa kohdata suden. Asutuksen liepeillä liikkuvista susista aiheutuva uhka ja huoli on
todellinen ja aiheellinen. Tämän lisäksi suurpetojen aiheuttamat vahingot Pohjois-Suomen porotaloudelle ovat
huomattavia.

Suurpedoilla on Suomessa myös puolustajansa. Heidän argumenttinsa pohjaavat oletettuihin EU:n määräyksiin
petojen suojelemiseksi. Heidän mukaansa petokannan supistaminen ei ole mahdollista nimenomaan EUlainsäädännön vuoksi. Komission taannoiseen kysymykseeni antama vastaus (E-006576/2012) osoittaa kuitenkin
tällaiset väitteet perusteettomiksi. Haluan tämän johdosta selvennykseksi kysyä, onko komissiossa jokin taho tai
määräys, joka estää petojen määrän vähentämisen Suomessa sellaiselle tasolle, että niistä ei olisi uhkaa tai vaaraa
ihmisille tai kotieläimille? Onko komissio suunnittelemassa tarkempaa ohjeistusta, joka selkeyttäisi tilanteen ja voisi
osaltaan rauhoittaa tulehtunutta tilannetta?

**Janez Potočnikin komission puolesta antama yhteinen vastaus**

_(11. kesäkuuta 2013)_

Komissio haluaa muistuttaa arvoisaa parlamentin jäsentä kirjallisiin kysymyksiin E-6576/2012 ( [1] ) ja E-0550/2013 ( [2] )
antamistaan vastauksista, joissa se jo viittasi antamiinsa suurpetokantojen hallintaa koskeviin ohjeisiin. Alan
asiantuntijat arvioivat yleisesti, että sudet aiheuttavat ihmisten turvallisuudelle vain pienen riskin tai vain lähes
olemattoman riskin, jos perustason varotoimia noudatetaan.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Samassa paikassa.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 569

Komissio käynnisti vuonna 2012 suurpetoja koskevan aloitteen, jonka tarkoituksena on suojella mm. susia ja
mahdollistaa niiden rinnakkaiselo ihmisten kanssa. Tähän aloitteeseen osallistuvat asianomaiset sidosryhmät, ja siinä
pyritään yksilöimään yhteisiä ratkaisuja ja kehittämään suurelle yleisölle kohdistettavia ohjeita, toimintasuunnitelmia
ja pilottitoimia.

Luontodirektiivissä ( [3] ) jäsenvaltioita edellytetään antamaan kertomus direktiivin täytäntöönpanosta kuuden vuoden
välein. Näissä kertomuksissa annetaan mm. päivitetyt tiedot direktiivillä suojattujen suurpetojen suojelun tilanteesta.

Komissio on tietoinen siitä, että suurpedot ovat palaamassa tietyille alueille useiden vuosien poissaolon jälkeen, ja
tämän aiheuttamista ongelmista. Kuten edellisiin kysymyksiin annetuissa vastauksissa ja edellä mainituissa ohjeissa
todetaan, komissio katsoo, että tiukasti suojeltuja suurpetokantoja voidaan direktiiviä noudattaen hallinnoida
asianmukaisella tavalla. Perustelluissa tapauksissa voidaan säännöksistä kuitenkin myöntää poikkeuksia.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direktiivi 1992/43/ETY, EYVL L 206, 22.7.1992.

C 33 E / 570 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004507/13**

**to the Commission**
**Riikka Manner (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up question concerning the Habitats Directive

In January, I tabled a written question to the Commission concerning the Habitats Directive (E-000550/2013). On
15 March, I received a reply signed by Commissioner Potočnik, which mainly referred to previous questions and
answers concerning the balance between the Habitats Directive and the wolf problem encountered particularly by
Finland.

The increasingly large area of wolf habitat and changes in the animals’ customary behaviour in the vicinity of humans
are causing more and more concern to people in Finland. The guidance provided by the authorities is based on EU
legislation, and there is a strong feeling amongst the public that this legislation does not protect human beings.
I should therefore like to make my question more specific than before and at the same time to ask the Commission for
more thorough and precise answers.

Within what time-frame will the Commission publish measures to make the coexistence of people and large
predators safer from the point of view of people — particularly children — and economic activity in rural areas? I
should also like to reiterate my previous question as to whether the Commission has assessed, or intends to assess,
adverse effects of the Habitats Directive on people. How often are estimates of population figures which are of
relevance to the Habitats Directive updated in order to ensure that assessments of the need for protection keep abreast
of the current situation? Is the Commission aware that the geographical area in Finland where wolves are presenting a
danger and causing problems has grown substantially in recent years?

**Question for written answer E-004539/13**

**to the Commission**
**Hannu Takkula (ALDE)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regulation of populations of large predators

In Finland, members of the public have had the feeling that the number of large predators presents a threat
particularly to the safety of children and domestic animals, as a result of which the debate concerning wild animals
has been quite heated there. For example, since Finland joined the European Union in 1995, the number of wolves in
Finland has tripled according to some estimates. Wolves have also killed dogs within the grounds of people’s own
homes and made it more difficult for children to travel to school and to spend time out of doors. In the countryside, it
is very common for children to travel to school on foot, by bicycle or on skis — in Finland, school buses are not
provided for journeys shorter than three or five kilometres, depending on the age of the pupils. This means that an
unaccompanied child may encounter a wolf. There is genuine and objective danger and good reason for the concern
occasioned by the presence of wolves around settlements. Moreover, large predators cause significant damage to
reindeer farming in Northern Finland.

Large predators also have their defenders in Finland. Their arguments are based on the EU legislation which is thought
to exist to protect wild animals. According to them, it is not possible to reduce wild animal populations precisely
because of EC law. However, the Commission’s answer to my recent question (E-006576/2012) shows that such
claims are unjustified. By way of clarification I should therefore like to ask whether there is any department or rule at
the Commission which would make it impossible to reduce the number of wild animals in Finland to a level where
they do not present a threat or danger to people and domestic animals. Is the Commission planning to provide more
precise guidance which will clarify the situation and which could to some extent calm the public agitation on this
subject?

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 571

**Joint answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its replies to Written Questions E-6576/2012 ( [1] ) and E0550/2013 ( [2] ) which already refer to Commission guidance on population level management of large carnivores in
the EU. The general assessment of experts is that the risks to human safety from wolves are minimal and close to zero
if basic precautions are observed.

The Commission has launched in 2012 a Large Carnivores Initiative aimed at reconciling the conservation of these
species with human co-existence. This initiative involves relevant stakeholders and aims to identify shared solutions
and develop further guidance, action plans and pilot actions that will be made available to the public.

The Habitats Directive ( [3] ) requires each Member State to provide a report on the implementation of the directive every
6 years. These reports include updated information on the conservation status of large carnivore species protected
under the directive.

The Commission is aware that large carnivores are re-colonising certain areas after absences of many years and of the
challenges that this presents. As explained in answers to previous questions and in its guidance document, the
Commission considers that strictly protected large carnivore populations may be appropriately managed under the
directive thorough application of derogations, where this is justified.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ibidem.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 1992/43/EEC, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

C 33 E / 572 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-004508/13**

**till kommissionen**
**Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 april 2013)_

_Angående:_ Olaglig export av svenskfångad Östersjölax till Frankrike

Ett företag i Karlskrona, Sverige, har under drygt två års tid (2011–2012) sålt över 105 ton Östersjölax till Frankrike.
Detta skrev det svenska Livsmedelsverket den 16 april 2013 i ett pressmeddelande. Karlskrona kommun har
polisanmält företaget efter att kommunens miljökontor spårat exporten till Frankrike. Lax från Östersjön har så höga
halter av miljögifter att den inte får säljas i andra EU-länder än Sverige, Finland och Lettland.

Att detta har fortgått utan åtgärd är uppseendeväckande, särskilt eftersom den svenska regeringen blev informerad
om laxexporten redan för två år sedan av Sveriges Sportfiske‐ och Fiskevårdsförbund.

2012 beviljades den svenska regeringen ett permanent undantag från gränsvärdet för dioxin i fisk. Inför regeringens
beslut om huruvida de skulle ansöka om ett undantag eller ej skrev Livsmedelsverket en rapport i vilken slutsatsen var
att det ur ett folkhälsoperspektiv vore bättre att låta EU:s gränsvärde gälla även i Sverige, eftersom kostråden om att
begränsa intaget av fet Östersjöfisk inte når fram till befolkningen i tillräckligt hög grad. Denna rapport skickade
Sveriges regering dock inte till kommissionen när regeringen ansökte om det permanenta undantaget från
gränsvärdena.

1. Det har framkommit att 105 ton Östersjölax har exporterats olagligt från Sverige till Frankrike. Vad avser
kommissionen att göra med anledning av detta?

2. Mot bakgrund av den olagligt exporterade laxen, tänker kommissionen ompröva beslutet att ge Sverige ett
permanent undantag från gränsvärdena?

3. Vad anser kommissionen om att Sveriges regering inte informerade kommissionen om Livsmedelsverkets
rapport om kostråd för Östersjölax när Sverige ansökte om undantag från gränsvärdena?

**Svar från Tonio Borg på kommissionens vägnar**

_(17 maj 2013)_

1. Efter konstaterandet att ett svenskt företag olagligt har sålt Östersjölax främst till Frankrike har den svenska
behöriga myndigheten vidtagit omedelbara åtgärder när det gäller de berörda företagen. De svenska myndigheterna
underrättade systemet för snabb varning för livsmedel och foder (RASFF) om den olagliga handeln den 1 mars 2013
(RASFF-anmälan 2013.0279) och angav uppgifter om distributionen. Efter de åtgärder som de svenska
myndigheterna vidtagit behövs inga ytterligare åtgärder från kommissionens sida.

2. Kommissionen anser att de svenska myndigheterna har vidtagit lämpliga åtgärder efter det att den olagliga
handeln med Östersjölax konstaterats. Kommissionen har också underrättats om det kontrollsystem som inrättats för
att förhindra sådan olaglig handel i framtiden. Kommissionen har därför inte för avsikt att se över det undantag som
Sverige beviljats vad gäller gränsvärden för dioxiner och PCB i fisk från Östersjöområdet.

3. Kommissionen kände till Livsmedelsverkets rapport om kostråd för Östersjölax när Sverige beviljades
undantaget genom kommissionens förordning (EU) nr 1259/2011 ( [1] ). De behöriga svenska myndigheterna har åtagit
sig att genomföra nödvändiga initiativ och åtgärder för att förbättra kostrådens effektivitet i syfte att minska utsatta
befolkningsgruppers exponering för dioxiner via konsumtion av fisk från Östersjöområdet. De måste lämna
bevisning om dessa åtgärders effektivitet till kommissionen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUT L 320, 3.12.2011, s. 18.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 573

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004508/13**

**to the Commission**
**Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Illegal exports of Baltic salmon caught by Swedish fishermen to France

Within a period of just over two years (2011‐2012), an undertaking in Karlskrona, Sweden, sold more than 105 tons
of Baltic salmon to France (press release of 16 April 2013 from the Swedish National Food Agency). The commune of
Karlskrona reported the undertaking to the police after the commune’s environmental department had discovered the
exports to France. Salmon from the Baltic contains such high levels of pollutants that its sale is prohibited in all EU
Member States except Sweden, Finland and Latvia.

It is surprising that this was able to continue without any intervention by the authorities, particularly as the Swedish
Angling and Fish Conservation Association had informed the Swedish Government about the salmon exports a full
two years ago.

In 2012 the Swedish Government was granted a permanent derogation from the limit value for dioxin in fish. Before
the government decided whether or not to apply for the derogation, the National Food Agency had written a report
which concluded that from the point of view of public health it would be better to retain the EU limit value in Sweden
as well, since the dietary recommendation to limit consumption of oily fish from the Baltic was not getting through to
the public sufficiently. However, the Swedish Government did not forward this report to the Commission when
applying for the permanent derogation from the limit values.

1. It has emerged that 105 tons of Baltic salmon has been illegally exported from Sweden to France. What action
will the Commission take in response to this?

2. In view of the illegal salmon exports, will the Commission review the decision to grant Sweden a permanent
derogation from the limit values?

3. What view does the Commission take of the fact that the Swedish Government did not inform it about the
National Food Agency’s report containing dietary advice on Baltic salmon when Sweden applied for a derogation
from the limit values?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

1. Following the finding of the illegal trade by a company in Sweden of Baltic salmon mainly to France, the
Swedish competent authority has taken immediate action as regards the involved companies. The Swedish authorities
informed the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) of this illegal trade on 1 March 2013 (RASFF notification
2013.0279) with distribution details. Following the actions undertaken by the Swedish authorities, no further actions
are needed from the Commission.

2. The Commission is of the opinion that the Swedish authorities have taken appropriate action following the
finding of the illegal trade of Baltic Salmon. The Commission has furthermore been informed of the control system
put in place in order to prevent such illegal trade in the future. Therefore the Commission has no intention to review
the derogation granted to Sweden as regards the maximum levels for dioxins and PCBs in fish from the Baltic region.

3. The Commission was aware of the National Food Agency's report on the dietary advice on Baltic Salmon when
the derogation was granted to Sweden by Commission Regulation (EU) 1259/2011 ( [1] ). The Swedish Competent
Authorities have committed to undertake the necessary initiatives and measures to improve the effectiveness of the
dietary recommendations to reduce human dioxin exposure of the vulnerable groups of the population from the
consumption of fish from the Baltic region. They have to provide evidence to the Commission of the effectiveness of
these measures.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 320, 3.12.2011, p. 18.

C 33 E / 574 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004509/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(22. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Kältemittel Tetrafluorpropen (R1234yf) — Bedenken der Automobilindustrie

Berichten der Süddeutschen Zeitung zufolge weigert sich der Stuttgarter Daimler Konzern, ein neues Kühlmittel für
Klimaanlagen einzusetzen, das bei Crashtests in Flammen aufging. Er verweist auf einfach zu reproduzierende
Versuche, welche die Selbstentzündung des Gas-Sauerstoffgemischs im heißen Motorraum zeigen. Laut Brüssel
verstoße der Konzern damit gegen EU-Recht; eine Ausnahmeregelung sei abgelehnt worden. Die Autohersteller
wehren sich vehement gegen das für Klimaanlagen neuer Autos seit Januar 2011 EU-weit vorgeschriebene Kältemittel
R1234yf, weil Crashtests belegen, dass das leicht entflammbare Kältemittel bei der Verbrennung hochgiftigen
Fluorwasserstoff freisetzt, so dass der Kontakt für Unfallopfer, aber auch für deren Helfer lebensbedrohliche Folgen
haben kann. Dennoch sollen Autohersteller durch die EU gezwungen werden, das brandgefährliche Kältemittel zu
verwenden.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Steht dieses Vorgehen nicht mehr im Interesse multinationaler Konzerne, und warum begibt man sich freiwillig
in eine Abhängigkeit zu einem Monopol/Oligopol?

2. Wie beurteilt die Kommission die Forderung der Autohersteller, dieses Gesetz anzupassen?

3. Beabsichtigt die Kommission, die Zulassung für neue Automodelle wie die neue A-Klasse und die neue S-Klasse
von Daimler zu sanktionieren?

4. Stimmt es, dass seitens der US-Chemieunternehmen Honeywell und Dupont Druck auf die Kommission
ausgeübt wird, das umstrittene Kühlmittel R1234yf verbindlich europaweit zu verwenden?

5. Daimler hat bei der zuständigen Generaldirektion der Kommission ein halbes Jahr Aufschub erbeten, um nach
ungefährlicheren Alternativen zu suchen. Warum lässt die Kommission den europäischen Autoherstellern
nicht mehr Zeit, um nach ungefährlicheren Alternativen zu suchen?

6. [Die Bundesanstalt für Materialprüfung in Berlin verweist auf ein Gutachten für das Umweltbundesamt, das](http://www.zeit.de/schlagworte/organisationen/umweltbundesamt)
bereits 2010 auf die Selbstentzündlichkeit des Stoffes ab 400 °C und den Austritt gefährlicher Flusssäure
hinweist. Warum wurde das Kältemittel R1234yf dennoch verbindend zugelassen?

7. Wird die Kommission angesichts der vorgelegten Fakten nach anderen, weniger gefährlichen
Kühlmittelalternativen suchen, etwa CO 2 oder Propan, so wie es in Australien verwendet wird?

**Antwort von Herrn Tajani im Namen der Kommission**

_(3. Juni 2013)_

In der Richtlinie 2006/40/EG über mobile Klimaanlagen ist festgelegt, dass mobile Klimaanlagen von neu
genehmigten Fahrzeugtypen mit einem Kältemittel mit geringem Treibhauspotenzial (global warming potential,
GWP) befüllt sein müssen. Es wird zur Einhaltung dieser Vorschrift jedoch kein bestimmtes Kältemittel oder System
vorgeschrieben. Weder werden deshalb Autohersteller dazu gezwungen, ein bestimmtes Produkt zu verwenden, noch
wurde die Verwendung eines solchen vorgeschrieben. Die Kommission hat nicht die Absicht, an dieser
Vorgehensweise etwas zu ändern.

Im Jahr 2009 hat sich die Automobilindustrie einvernehmlich dafür entschieden, den Bestimmungen der Richtlinie
durch den Einsatz des Kältemittels HFO 1234yf nachzukommen. Diese Entscheidung wurde nach der Analyse des
Einsatzes alternativer Kältemittel und nach einer Risikobewertung, in der die Verwendung des Kältemittels in mobilen
Klimaanlagen als sicher bezeichnet wird, getroffen. Diese Prüfverfahren wurden kürzlich nochmals von zehn
Herstellern durchgeführt, was zu gleichen Ergebnissen führte ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=1984

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 575

Die Kommission wurde von einem Unternehmen über Sicherheitsbedenken hinsichtlich der Verwendung von
HFO-1234yf in seinen Fahrzeugen in Kenntnis gesetzt. Jedoch liegen der Kommission keine Informationen darüber
vor, dass andere Hersteller diese Bedenken teilen oder die Verwendung des Kältemittels entschieden ablehnen. Der
Kommission liegen derzeit keine Anhaltspunkte dafür vor, dass es keine technischen Lösungen gäbe, die das Risiko
der Entflammbarkeit im Zusammenhang mit der Verwendung dieses Gases in mobilen Klimaanlagen verringern
könnten. Jedoch untersuchen die zuständigen nationalen Behörden diese Bedenken zurzeit noch.

Die Kommission wird nicht gezielt gegen einzelne Wirtschaftsakteure tätig. Im Falle der Nichteinhaltung der
EU-Rechtsvorschriften muss der für die Fahrzeugtypgenehmigung zuständige Mitgliedstaat geeignete
Abhilfemaßnahmen unmittelbar beim Hersteller durchführen. Die Kommission kann in ihrer Rolle als Hüterin der
Verträge Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen Mitgliedstaaten einleiten, die das EU-Recht nicht ordnungsgemäß
anwenden.

Ausführlichere Informationen zu den Bereichen Risikobewertung und Wettbewerb findet der Herr Abgeordnete in
den Antworten P-3477/13 und P-9817/12 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 576 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004509/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tetrafluorpropene refrigerant (R1234yf) — concerns in the automobile industry

According to reports in the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper, the Stuttgart-based Daimler Group has decided against
using a new refrigerant for air-conditioning systems that combusted during crash tests. It refers to easily reproduced
trials that indicate the self-ignition of the gas/oxygen mix in the hot engine compartment. According to Brussels, the
Group is therefore in contravention of EC law; a derogation has been refused. Car manufacturers are vehemently
opposed to the use of refrigerant R1234yf in the air-conditioning systems of new cars, despite this being required on
an EU-wide basis since January 2011. This is because crash tests show that the highly flammable refrigerant releases
highly toxic hydrogen fluoride during combustion, which can have life-threatening consequences for accident victims
and rescue services upon contact. Despite this fact, car manufacturers are to be forced by the EU to use this highly
flammable refrigerant.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is this procedure not more in the interests of multinational concerns and why are we voluntarily making
ourselves dependent on a monopoly/oligopoly?

2. How does the Commission assess the call from car manufacturers for this act to be modified?

3. Does the Commission intend sanctioning the approval for new car models, such as the new A class and the new
S class from Daimler?

4. Is it true that US chemical concerns Honeywell and Dupont are putting pressure on the Commission to allow
the controversial R1234yf refrigerant on a binding basis throughout Europe?

5. Daimler has asked the competent Directorate General of the Commission for a six-month extension so that
safer alternatives can be found. Why is the Commission unwilling to allow European car manufacturers more
time to find safer alternatives?

6. [The German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing in Berlin has drawn attention to an assessment](http://www.zeit.de/schlagworte/orte/berlin)
for the German Federal Environmental Agency dating from 2010, which already indicated that the material
could self-ignite at temperatures in excess of 400°C and that hazardous liquid acids could result. Why has the
R1234yf refrigerant been approved on a binding basis nonetheless?

7. In view of the facts presented, does the Commission intend to seek safer alternative refrigerants, such as CO 2 or
propane, which are used in Australia?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

Directive 2006/40/EC on mobile air-conditioning ( [1] ) stipulates that MAC of newly approved types of vehicles have to
be filled with a refrigerant with a low GWP. It does not prescribe any specific refrigerant/system to fulfil this
obligation. Hence, car manufacturers are not forced to use any particular product and no product has been made
binding. The Commission has no intention to propose to change this approach.

In 2009 car manufacturers decided, consensually, to use HFO-1234yf to implement the directive. This followed the
analysis of alternatives and a risk assessment concluding that the refrigerant was safe for use in MAC systems. These
procedures were recently repeated by 10 manufacturers, with equivalent results ( [2] ).

The Commission has been informed by a company that it had safety concerns on the use of HFO-1234yf in their
vehicles. It has no information that other manufacturers share these concerns or vehemently oppose the use of the
refrigerant. For the Commission there is so far no evidence that there are no technical solutions to mitigate the
flammability risks associated with the use of that gas in MAC systems. However, the competent national authorities
are still evaluating these concerns.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) MAC.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=1984.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 577

The Commission does not take action against specific economic operators. In cases of non-compliance with EU
legislation, the Member State responsible for the vehicle type-approval must apply appropriate corrective measures
directly with the manufacturer. The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaty, may launch infringement
proceedings against Member States that are not correctly applying EU legislation.

The Honourable Member may find more information on risk assessment and competition aspects in the replies to
P-3477/13 and P-9817/12 ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 33 E / 578 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-004510/13**

**adresată Consiliului**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(22 aprilie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Strategia pentru sănătatea copiilor

Datele publicate recent de UNICEF ( [1] ) indică un procent alarmant de copii supraponderali în țările UE. Judecând după
criteriul indicelui masei corporale, 20% din toți copiii de 11, 13 și 15 ani dintr-o serie de state membre sunt
supraponderali. Organizația Mondială a Sănătății vorbește acum de o „epidemie de obezitate”.

Președinția irlandeză și-a luat angajamentul de a aborda problema obezității infantile. În cadrul unei reuniuni cu
miniștrii sănătății desfășurate în perioada 4-5 martie 2013, ea a făcut un apel pentru lansarea unui plan de acțiune în
domeniul obezității infantile; s-a convenit ca de această solicitare să se ocupe Grupul la nivel înalt pentru nutriție și
activitate fizică.

Acest lucru este binevenit. Cu toate acestea, nu crede oare Consiliul că obezitatea infantilă ar trebui abordată ca parte a
unei strategii mai cuprinzătoare în domeniul sănătății copiilor, care să trateze toate problemele legate de sănătatea
copiilor?

O să sprijine Consiliul apelul meu pentru o strategie în domeniul sănătății copiilor — bazată pe măsuri concrete și
susținută prin fonduri corespunzătoare — care să fie adoptată de Comisie?

**Răspuns**
_(9 iulie 2013)_

Chestiunea sănătăţii copiilor face parte dintr-o strategie UE mai largă în domeniul sănătăţii, cu privire la care Consiliul
a adoptat concluzii în decembrie 2007 ( [2] ). Consiliul nu a discutat necesitatea unei strategii specifice a UE în domeniul
sănătăţii copiilor ca atare.

În acest sens, obezitatea infantilă trebuie abordată ca parte a unei abordări transsectoriale cuprinzătoare a problemei
obezităţii în Europa. În concluziile sale cu privire la punerea în aplicare a unei strategii UE privind problemele de
sănătate legate de nutriţie, supraponderalitate şi obezitate ( [3] ), Consiliul a salutat cartea albă a Comisiei pe această
temă ( [4] ) şi a solicitat statelor membre să colaboreze pentru dezvoltarea unor acţiuni comune cu părţile interesate
relevante şi cu Comisia, pentru a produce o schimbare reală în comportamentul legat de sănătate.

Chestiunea luptei împotriva obezităţii, inclusiv a obezităţii infantile, este urmărită, _inter alia,_ în cadrul Platformei UE
privind alimentaţia, activitatea fizică şi sănătatea, menţionată în concluziile Consiliului privind întărirea promovării
sănătăţii şi prevenirii bolilor prin intermediul unei nutriţii echilibrate şi a unei activităţi fizice suficiente ( [5] ).

Consiliul a recunoscut de asemenea problema obezităţii şi necesitatea promovării unui stil de viaţă sănătos prin
Rezoluţia Consiliului şi a reprezentanţilor guvernelor statelor membre, reuniţi în cadrul Consiliului din 20 noiembrie
2008, privind sănătatea şi bunăstarea tinerilor ( [6] ). Mai recent, Concluziile Consiliului şi ale reprezentanţilor
guvernelor statelor membre, reuniţi în cadrul Consiliului, din 27 noiembrie 2012 privind promovarea activităţilor
fizice care întăresc sănătatea (HEPA) ( [7] ) au menţionat de asemenea această chestiune.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/series/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A se vedea Cartea albă „Împreună pentru sănătate: O abordare strategică pentru UE 2008-2013” (14689/07) şi Concluziile Consiliului privind

strategia UE în domeniul sănătăţii (16137/08).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 15612/07.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 9838/07.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 9363/07.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) JO C 319, 13.12.2008, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) JO C 393, 19.12.2012, p. 22.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 579

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004510/13**

**to the Council**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Child health strategy

Data recently published by Unicef ( [1] ) reveals an alarmingly high percentage of overweight children in EU countries. In
terms of body mass index, over 20% of all 11-, 13‐ and 15-year-olds in a number of Member States are overweight.
The World Health Organisation now refers to an ‘obesity epidemic’.

The Irish Presidency has made a commitment to tackle childhood obesity. In a meeting with health ministers on 4 and
5 March 2013, it called for an Action Plan on Childhood Obesity; it was agreed that the High Level Group on
Nutrition and Physical Activity would respond to this request.

This action is to be welcomed. However, would the Council agree that childhood obesity should be tackled as part of a
broader child health strategy in order that all challenges linked to child health may be addressed?

Will the Council support my call for a child health strategy — based on concrete measures and backed by proper
funding — to be adopted by the Commission?

**Reply**
_(9 July 2013)_

The issue of child health is a part of a broader EU Health Strategy on which the Council adopted Conclusions in
December 2007 ( [2] ). The Council has not discussed the need for specific EU child health strategy as such.

In this sense, child obesity is to be tackled as part of the comprehensive cross-sectoral approach to the obesity
problem in Europe. In its Conclusions on Putting an EU strategy on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related Health
Issues into operation ( [3] ), the Council welcomed the Commission White Paper on this subject ( [4] ) and called upon
Member States to work together to develop joint actions with relevant stakeholders and with the Commission in
order to achieve the positive change in health behaviour.

The issue of fight against obesity, including child obesity, is pursued, _inter alia,_ in the framework of the EU Platform
for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, mentioned in the Council Conclusions on the strengthening of
health promotion and disease prevention by means of balanced nutrition and sufficient physical activity ( [5] ).

The Council also recognised the obesity problem and the need for promotion of a healthy lifestyle through the
Resolution of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the
Council of 20 November 2008 on the health and well-being of young people ( [6] ). More recently, the Conclusions of
the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, of
27 November 2012 on promoting health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) ( [7] ), also mentioned this issue.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/series/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) see the White Paper ‘Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013’ (14689/07) and Council Conclusions on EU Health

Strategy (16137/08).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 15612/07.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 9838/07.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 9363/07.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) OJ C 319, 13.12.2008, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) OJ C 393, 19.12.2012, p. 22.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

C 33 E / 580 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004511/13**

**to the Commission**
**Phil Prendergast (S&D)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Requirements for EU couples in instances where a spouse moves abroad

The spouse of a self-employed EU citizen whose fiscal residence is in his home Member State has moved to another
EU Member State, to seek employment.

Prior to her establishment abroad, she was entitled to avail of her self-employed spouse’s health insurance scheme.

Once she moved abroad, she lost her entitlement to her spouse’s health insurance scheme and was required to take
out health insurance in her host Member State.

Furthermore, the self-employed party was informed that following his spouse’s departure from his own home
Member State, entitlements to avail of a family income tax assessment as a couple were lost.

These stipulations will entail a loss of available income of approximately EUR 8 000 for 2013 alone.

Could the Commission indicate whether either of these two stipulations contravenes EU legislation?

If not, does the Commission view these stipulations as a barrier to the right to free movement of persons, as enshrined
in the Treaties?

Could the Commission further clarify, given that the self-employed citizen’s spouse also holds EU citizenship — albeit
from a third Member State — whether these situations would arise were she to hold citizenship of the same Member
State as her spouse?

If not, does the Commission view this as an instance of discrimination on the grounds of nationality?

Could the Commission indicate what action is foreseen to address the two abovementioned issues, or point towards
practical solutions which any citizen faced with a similar situation could pursue?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 June 2013)_

Free movement of persons is a fundamental freedom of EU citizens. However, EC law does not guarantee taxation or
social security neutrality on taking up residence in another Member State. It is for the citizen to weigh the pros and
cons when deciding whether to move to another country.

EC law ( [1] ) does not harmonise the national social security systems, including health insurance. It determines which
legislation is applicable to EU mobile citizens, but the benefits and the conditions for entitlement to them are laid
down by national law. The Honourable Member does not state which national legislation is concerned or describe the
personal situation of your constituent who moved within the EU to seek employment. Presumably, she had nonactive status and thus, would be subject to the legislation of her country of residence. Non-active EU citizens should
enjoy equal treatment and be treated in the same way as regards the access to benefits as the nationals of the country
of residence. Family members of EU citizens may enjoy independent or derivative rights to social security, depending
on their situation and the system of the Member State in which they reside.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems,
OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 581

The fact that a Member State does not grant to non-residents some tax benefits is not, as a rule, discriminatory since
they are not in comparable situation to residents ( [2] ). However, if your constituent has, under the terms of a treaty for
the avoidance of double taxation, maintained her tax residence in the country of her husband, a difference in
treatment might be discriminatory. This would depend on the law on tax assessment as a couple in that country and
on whether most of the income of the couple is earned there. Your constituent may contact the national Solvit
Centre ( [3] ) to examine if EC law was breached in her case.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Judgment of the Court of 14 February 1995 in Case C-279/93, Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt and Roland Schumacker, ECR 1995, p. I-249.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/site/index_en.htm

C 33 E / 582 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-004512/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(22 aprile 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Commercio di vino falso in Italia e nel Regno Unito per un valore di 10 milioni di euro

Tra il 16 e il 17 aprile un'operazione che ha visto coinvolti i Servizi Antisofisticazioni Vinicole provinciali della
Regione Piemonte, l'Agenzia delle dogane, le dogane inglesi e il NAS dei Carabinieri, sotto il coordinamento della
Procura della Repubblica di Vigevano (PV), ha portato all'arresto di tredici persone per associazione a delinquere
finalizzata alla frode, all'adulterazione di vino DOP e IGT, alla ricettazione di prodotti enologici e all'evasione fiscale
sia in Italia che nel Regno Unito.

Il Servizio Antisofisticazioni Vinicole delle province piemontesi, congiuntamente con l'Agenzia delle dogane
milanese, ha permesso la ricostruzione delle attività illecite messe in atto da operatori senza scrupoli che
immettevano sui mercati italiano e inglese vini contraffatti di bassissima qualità venduti come prodotti a
Denominazione di Origine Protetta (DOP) o a Indicazione Geografica Tipica (IGT).

Le ditte oggetto delle indagini acquistavano vino da tavola di bassissima qualità che successivamente veniva
imbottigliato come prodotto DOP o IGT per essere successivamente spedito e commercializzato nel Regno Unito.

Negli otto mesi in cui si sono svolte le indagini condotte dalle forze dell'ordine risulterebbero commercializzati
addirittura 3,5 milioni di bottiglie di vino per un giro d'affari di 10 milioni di euro, con un danno ingente sia sotto il
profilo dell'immagine sia dal punto di vista della concorrenza con vini realmente DOP e IGT.

È la Commissione a conoscenza dei fatti sopra esposti? Quali azioni intende intraprendere per tutelare i consumatori
e i produttori di vini di qualità dai danni arrecati da queste frodi e da questi commerci illeciti?

Quali misure ha intenzione di porre in atto per bloccare la circolazione di questi vini falsi nel mercato interno e in
particolare nel Regno Unito?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(3 giugno 2013)_

La Commissione non è stata informata del caso presentato nell’interrogazione dell’onorevole deputato. Di fatto,
conformemente alla normativa dell’Unione europea, gli Stati membri sono responsabili dei controlli, anche antifrode,
nel quadro stabilito.

In questo contesto, le norme europee garantiscono la tracciabilità dei prodotti vitivinicoli nell’Unione europea. Inoltre
permettono di controllare, durante la produzione e la commercializzazione, la conformità dei vini al diritto
dell’Unione e alle prescrizioni del disciplinare di produzione e, pertanto, le autorità nazionali sono pienamente
competenti in caso di frode ( [1] ).

La Commissione non prevede altre iniziative legislative in materia, ma può essere coinvolta nel controllo del mercato,
ove necessario, in collaborazione con gli Stati membri, a norma dell’articolo 192 del regolamento (CE) n. 1234/2007
del Consiglio ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regolamento (CE) n. 436/2009, in particolare gli articoli 24, 26 e 27, regolamento (CE) n. 555/2008 e regolamento (CE) n. 607/2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 299 del 16.11.2007.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 583

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004512/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sale of counterfeit wine worth EUR 10 million in Italy and the United Kingdom

Between 16 and 17 April 2013 an operation involving the Piedmont Region’s Provincial Wine Adulteration
Prevention Service, the Italian customs authority, the UK customs authority and the adulteration prevention branch
of the Carabinieri (NAS), coordinated by the Vigevano (Pavia) Public Prosecutor’s office, led to the arrests of 13 people
charged with criminal conspiracy aimed at fraud, the adulteration of protected designation of origin (PDO) and
_indicazione geografica tipica_ (IGT) wine, the handling of wine products and tax evasion in Italy and in the United
Kingdom.

The Piedmont Region’s Wine Adulteration Prevention Service, together with the Milan customs authority, helped to
reconstruct the illegal activities carried out by unscrupulous operators who sold very poor quality counterfeit wine as
PDO and IGT products in Italy and in the UK.

The companies targeted by the investigation bought very poor quality table wine that was subsequently bottled as a
PDO or IGT product before being shipped for sale in the United Kingdom.

During the eight months in which the law enforcement agencies conducted their investigations, it is thought that as
many as 3.5 million bottles of wine were sold, generating EUR 10 million in revenue and causing great harm both
from an image point of view and from the point of view of competition with genuine PDO and IGT wine.

Is the Commission aware of the facts set out above? What action does it intend to take to protect consumers and
producers of quality wine from the harm caused by these fraudulent activities and illegal sales?

What measures does it intend to take to prevent this counterfeit wine from circulating in the internal market and in
particular in the United Kingdom?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloș on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission had not been informed of the case set out in the question of the Honourable Member. In fact, in
accordance with EU rules, Member States are responsible for controls, including against fraud within the defined
framework.

In this context, the rules provided for by the EU legislation guarantee the traceability of wine products within the EU.
These rules also permit, during the production and marketing, to control the conformity of wine with EC law
including requirements laid down in product specifications and therefore national authorities are fully competent in
case of fraud ( [1] ).

The Commission does not consider additional legislative initiatives on the matter, but may be involved in the market
monitoring when necessary, in cooperation with Member States according to Article 192 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1234/2007 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 436/2009, in particular Articles 24, 26 and 27, Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 and (EC) 607/2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 299, 16.11.2007.

C 33 E / 584 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-004513/13**

**до Комисията**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(22 април 2013 г.)_

_Относно:_ Мерките в предложението за преразглеждане на Директивата за тютюневите изделия

Директива 2001/37/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета за сближаване на законовите, подзаконовите
и административните разпоредби на държавите членки относно производството, представянето и продажбата на
тютюневи изделия бе приета на 5 юни 2001 г.

От приемането ѝ изминаха над десет години. С оглед пазарното и научното развитие, както и това в международен
план, се появи необходимост посочената директива да бъде актуализирана и допълнена.

На 19 декември Европейската комисия (ЕК) прие предложението за преразглеждане на Директивата за тютюневите
изделия и в момента то се разглежда в Европейския парламент и съответните му комисии.

Според ЕК новите правила ще доведат до намаляване вредата от тютюнопушенето и ограничаване на потреблението на

тютюневи изделия.

В този смисъл:

Разполага ли ЕК с анализ за това как предложените мерки ще повлияят на производството и заетостта в сектора на
тютюна, особено що се отнася до малките и средните земеделски производители?

Как предложените мерки ще се отразят на конкурентоспособността на ЕС на световния пазар на тютюна и предвиждат

ли се мерки за ограничаване на вноса на тютюневи изделия, включително от трети страни, които не отговарят на
разпоредбите на настоящата директива?

Какви мерки ще предприеме ЕК в защита на европейските тютюнопроизводители срещу вноса от трети страни на
тютюн и тютюневи изделия с неизвестно качество и състав?

**Отговор, даден от г-н Borg от името на Комисията**

_(31 май 2013 г.)_

На 19 декември 2012 г. Комисията прие предложение за преразгледаната версия на директивата за тютюневите
изделия. Приемането му беше предшествано от задълбочен анализ на икономическите, социалните и здравните
последици от политическите мерки, в това число въздействието на мерките върху търговията на дребно. В раздел 6
от доклада за оценка на въздействието и в приложение 5 към него е направен преглед на икономическото въздействие
върху тютюневата промишленост, нейните доставчици нагоре по веригата — включително тютюнопроизводителите,
доставчиците на съставки и хартиената промишленост, както и върху дистрибуторите надолу по веригата (на едро и
дребно).

Нито една от приетите мерки не би трябвало да води до допълнителни разходи за привеждане в съответствие за
селскостопанските производители или да окаже несъразмерно отражение върху производителите на специфични
видове тютюн, включително „Бърлей“ и ориенталски тютюни.

Селскостопанските производители може да бъдат засегнати непряко от очакваното намаление от 2 % на потреблението
на тютюн през следващите пет години. Това би могло да доведе до общо намаление на приходите на
тютюнопроизводителите в целия ЕС в размер на приблизително 13 милиона евро годишно. През последните години,
обаче, намаляването на потреблението на тютюневи изделия в ЕС и земеделската продукция не са пряко свързани.

Всички мерки, залегнали в предложението на Комисията, се прилагат по еднакъв начин за всички тютюневи изделия,
които са пуснати законно на пазара, независимо от това дали са произведени или внесени в ЕС. Въпросът за
незаконната търговия също е разгледан чрез въвеждането на система за следене и обратно проследяване и на видими
защитни елементи. Освен това правилата, залегнали в предложението на Комисията, не се прилагат за изделия, които

са предназначени за износ.

Според Комисията предложението е балансирано, без да оказва несъразмерно отражение върху земеделските
производители и конкурентоспособността на ЕС.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 585

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004513/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Measures featuring in the proposal for revising the Tobacco Products Directive

Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco
products was adopted on 5 June 2001.

More than 10 years have passed since it was adopted. In line with market, scientific and international developments,
the need has arisen for this directive to be updated and supplemented.

On 19 December the Commission adopted the proposal for revising the Tobacco Products Directive, and it is
currently being examined by Parliament and its relevant committees.

The Commission believes that the new rules will help reduce the harm caused by smoking and restrict the
consumption of tobacco products.

In this context:

Does the Commission have any analysis showing what impact the proposed measures will have on production and
employment in the tobacco sector, especially with regard to small and medium-sized agricultural producers?

How will the proposed measures affect the EU’s competitiveness in the global tobacco market, and are there measures
planned on restricting the import of tobacco products, including from third countries, which fail to comply with the
provisions of this directive?

What measures will the Commission adopt to protect European tobacco producers against tobacco and tobacco
products being imported from third countries of unknown quality and content?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

The Commission adopted a proposal for a revised Tobacco Products Directive on 19 December 2012. The adoption
was preceded by a thorough analysis of the economic, social and health impacts of policy measures, including the
effects of measures on the retail sector. The Impact Assessment Report provides an overview of the economic impacts
on the tobacco industry, their upstream suppliers including growers, ingredients suppliers and paper industry, and
downstream distributors (wholesale, retail), in its Section 6 and Annex 5.

None of the adopted measures should lead to additional compliance costs for agricultural producers or
disproportionally affect growers of specific tobacco types, including Burley and Oriental.

Agricultural producers could be affected, indirectly, by the expected 2% reduction in tobacco consumption over five
years. This could result in a total revenue loss for tobacco growers in the whole of the EU of approximately 13 million
euro per year. In recent years, however, the reduction in smoking consumption in the EU and farming output are not
directly correlated.

All measures put forward in the Commission proposal apply equally to all tobacco products placed legally on the
market irrespective of whether they are manufactured in or imported into the EU. The issue of illicit trade is also
addressed the by introduction of a tracking and tracing system and visible security features. In addition, the rules put
forward in the Commission proposal do not apply to products which are to be exported.

In the view of the Commission the proposal is balanced without disproportionate impact on agricultural producers
and the EU's competitiveness.

C 33 E / 586 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004514/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(22 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Κοινοτικοί πόροι για την αντιμετώπιση της λαθρομετανάστευσης

Η Ελλάδα έχει απροσδιόριστο αριθμό λαθρομεταναστών οι οποίοι μπαίνουν παρανόμως και παραμένουν στην χώρα, λόγω
του άδικου Κανονισμού «ΔΟΥΒΛΙΝΟ 2».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Ποια είναι τα ποσά που έχουν δοθεί στην Ελλάδα από το 2008 και ως σήμερα για την αντιμετώπιση της χαώδους
κατάστασης που δημιούργησαν οι λαθρομετανάστες στη χώρα; Ποιο το ποσό που δόθηκε την ίδια περίοδο ειδικώς από
το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Προσφύγων προς την Ελλάδα και ποια τα ποσά που δόθηκαν στις υπόλοιπες χώρες της ΕΕ;

2. Ποιες κοινοτικές πρωτοβουλίες έχουν μείνει ανεκμετάλλευτες εκ μέρους των ελληνικών αρχών και ανενεργές εξαιτίας
καθυστερήσεων των υπηρεσιών των Οργάνων της ΕΕ;

**Απάντηση της κ. Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(4 Ιουλίου 2013)_

Σχετικά με τα κονδύλια που διατίθενται σε κάθε κράτος μέλος στο πλαίσιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου για τους Πρόσφυγες
(ΕΤΠ), η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος στο διαδραστικό εργαλείο του δικτυακού τόπου της Γενικής Διεύθυνσης
Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων σχετικά με τα τέσσερα Ταμεία του γενικού προγράμματος «Αλληλεγγύη και διαχείριση των
μεταναστευτικών ροών» (κονδύλια «SOLID»):

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/mapping-funds/index_en.htm

Πέραν των εθνικών ετήσιων κονδυλίων στο πλαίσιο των Ταμείων του προγράμματος «SOLID», από το 2008 η Ελλάδα έχει
λάβει περαιτέρω 24,7 εκατ. ευρώ ως έκτακτη στήριξη στα πλαίσια του ΕΤΠ, κυρίως για την ενίσχυση της ικανότητας
υποδοχής της προκειμένου να διαχειριστεί την ιδιαίτερη πίεση που έχει να αντιμετωπίσει η χώρα. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, μεταξύ
του 2008 και 2011, στην Ελλάδα είχε χορηγηθεί συμπληρωματική χρηματοδότηση ύψους 10,96 εκατ. ευρώ στο πλαίσιο
των συγκεκριμένων δράσεων του Ταμείου Εξωτερικών Συνόρων με στόχο την αντιμετώπιση των αδυναμιών στα εξωτερικά της
σύνορα.

Η Επιτροπή στηρίζει συνεχώς τις προσπάθειες της Ελλάδας για μεταρρύθμιση των πολιτικών της σχετικά με το άσυλο, τη
μετανάστευση και τα σύνορα και για αντιμετώπιση των τρεχουσών προκλήσεων στον τομέα αυτό. Εκτός από την οικονομική
συμμετοχή της δυνάμει των Ταμείων του προγράμματος «SOLID», η Επιτροπή διατηρεί επίσης στενή συνεργασία με τις
αρμόδιες ελληνικές αρχές σε μόνιμη βάση, τόσο στο στάδιο του προγραμματισμού όσο και κατά την εφαρμογή των σχετικών
έργων, με την παροχή εμπειρογνωμοσύνης και συμβουλών, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των τακτικών επισκέψεων στην Ελλάδα.

Η Επιτροπή δεν γνωρίζει καμία πρωτοβουλία σε επίπεδο ΕΕ που έχει παραμεληθεί ή παρέμεινε αναξιοποίητη λόγω
καθυστερήσεων από τις υπηρεσίες των θεσμικών οργάνων της ΕΕ. Η Επιτροπή στηρίζει επίσης την Ελλάδα μέσω της
δημιουργίας ειδικής ομάδας εργασίας για την Ελλάδα, προκειμένου να μεγιστοποιηθεί η απορρόφηση της χρηματοδοτικής
βοήθειας της ΕΕ.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 587

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004514/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Community resources for tackling illegal immigration

Greece has an indeterminate number of illegal immigrants who enter illegally and remain in the country because of
the unjust ‘DUBLIN 2’ Regulation.

Will the Commission say:

1. How much has been disbursed to Greece since 2008 to address the chaotic situation created by illegal
immigrants in the country? What amount has been allocated over the same period in particular by the
European Refugee Fund to Greece and what amounts have been allocated to other EU Member States?

2. Which Community initiatives have been neglected by the Greek authorities or have remained unused because
of delays by the services of the EU institutions?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 July 2013)_

On the allocations provided to each Member State under the European Refugee Fund (ERF), the Commission refers
the Honourable Member to the interactive tool on the Directorate General Home Affairs website concerning the four
Funds of the General Programme Solidarity and Migration of Migration Flows (‘the SOLID Funds’):

[http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/mapping-funds/index_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/mapping-funds/index_en.htm)

In addition to the national annual allocations under the SOLID Funds, since 2008 Greece has received a further
EUR 24.7 million as emergency support under the ERF, mainly for reinforcing its reception capacities in order to
manage the particular pressure the country has been confronted with. In this context, between 2008 and 2011,
Greece was awarded additional funding of EUR 10.96 million under the Specific Actions of the External Borders Fund
to address weaknesses at its external borders.

The Commission has been continuously supporting the efforts of Greece to reform its policies on asylum, migration
and borders and address the current challenges in this field. Apart from the financial contribution under the SOLID
Funds, the Commission is also maintaining close cooperation with the competent Greek authorities on a regular
basis, both at the planning stage and during the implementation of relevant projects, with the provision of expertise
and advice, including regular visits to Greece.

The Commission is not aware of any initiative at EU level which has been neglected or remained unused because of
delays by the services of the EU institutions. The Commission is supporting Greece, also via the establishment of the
Task Force for Greece, to maximise the absorpion of EU financial assistance.

C 33 E / 588 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004515/13**

**to the Commission**
**George Lyon (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cohesion funds package and rural areas (Scotland)

What measures have been proposed by the Commission in the cohesion funding package, in recognition of the
particular difficulties — sparse population density, extended distance from markets, long-term unemployment and
restricted transport and energy network connections ‐encountered in rural areas of EU regions, such as in Scotland?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

Territorial challenges are recognised and addressed in the Commission’s legislative proposals for cohesion policy in
the 2014-2020 period.

Programmes shall specify how they address demographic challenges of regions and the specific needs of geographical
areas which suffer severe permanent natural or demographic handicaps as defined by Article 174 of the Treaty.
Where appropriate, Partnership Agreements shall set out an integrated approach to territorial development to address
these challenges and needs.

Further details and strategic guiding principles on addressing demographic change and key territorial challenges are
provided in the Common Strategic Framework which is part of the legislative provisions.

The Commission has also proposed that low population density (below 12.5 inhabitants/km [2] at NUTS level 3) is a
factor which will be taken into consideration for defining the allocation of funding by Member States to the more
developed regions.

Concerning the UK more specifically, supporting the employability of the long term-unemployed via the European
Structural and Investment Funds is one of the specific objectives addressed by the Commission in its UK position

paper.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 589

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004516/13**

**to the Commission**
**George Lyon (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regional state aid guidelines for the period 2014-2020 — SME intervention levels — Scotland

In relation to the proposed Commission reform of the regional state aid guidelines for the period 2014-2020:

Does the Commission acknowledge that reducing the maximum intervention level for small and medium size
enterprises (SMEs) will have a significant impact on many rural Scottish regions, given that investment in the form of
regional state aid is extremely valuable in addressing the unique issues encountered in these areas, such as sparse
population density, extended distance from markets, and limited transport and energy network connections?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(12 July 2013)_

The maximum aid intensities currently applicable for regional investment aid in favour of SMEs in Scotland are 30%
for medium-sized enterprises and 40% for small enterprises located in the Highlands and Islands region, and
respectively 20% and 30% or 25% and 35% in the other assisted areas designated under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

In the Regional aid guidelines applicable in the period 2014-2020, aid intensities will be reduced by five percentage
points, compared to these levels, the maximum aid intensities applicable in areas designated under Article 107(3)(c).
The maximum aid intensities applicable for SMEs would therefore be respectively 25% and 35% in sparsely populated
areas and 20% and 30% in other assisted areas designated under Article 107(3)(c).

Reducing the aid intensities is consistent with the Commission’s approach in favour of better targeted aid as well as
with the logic that, as the economic development of regions in Europe progresses, the level of aid necessary to
compensate for regional handicaps should also be reduced.

C 33 E / 590 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004517/13**

**to the Commission**
**George Lyon (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU budget — 2012 outstanding commitments ( _reste à liquider_ (RAL)) — Commission estimates

In relation to the RAL figure of EUR 207 billion from the end of 2012, could the Commission detail what level of
outstanding commitments had been predicted and estimated:

1. when the financial framework for the period 2007-2013 was adopted?

2. when the 2012 draft budget was proposed?

3. when draft amending budget 6/2012 was proposed?

**Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

1. At the beginning of 2007 taking into account the level of actual RAL at the end of 2006, the forecast for the
RAL at the end of the financial framework in 2013 was EUR 181 billion.

2. The actual RAL at the beginning of 2012 was EUR 207.4 billion, and at the end of 2012 it had increased to
EUR 217.8 billion, i.e. an increase of EUR 10.4 billion. This can be explained as follows:

— The level of commitments in 2012 was EUR 151.3 billion

—
The total payments made (including all amending budgets) amounted to EUR 138.7 billion

— Decommitments amounted to EUR 2.2 billion.

—
Therefore: 207.4 + (151.3-138.7-2.2) = 217.8.

On this basis, when the Draft Budget (DB) 2012 was proposed, the Commission’s assumption was that the RAL
would grow by EUR 14.7 billion (DB Commitments — DB Payments). This would have increased the RAL from
EUR 207.4 billion at end 2011 to EUR 222.1 billion. In fact, in the voted budget for 2012, the gap between
commitments and payments was much greater, and the RAL could have grown by as much as EUR 18.1 billion.

3. By the time the DAB 6/2012 was proposed in October 2012, other amending budgets had adapted the
situation, so the difference between the commitments and payments in the budget, and therefore the likely additional
RAL at the year end, was EUR 18.8 billion. In DAB 6/2012, the Commission proposed some EUR 9 billion in
additional payments, and so the forecast was for a RAL which would grow in 2012, not by EUR 18.8 billion, but by
EUR 9.8 billion. In the end, the AB 6/2012 was approved for some EUR 6.1 billion, but thanks to a further
EUR 2.2 billion in decommitments, the growth of the RAL was limited to some EUR 10.4 billion as explained in
point 2.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 591

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004518/13**

**to the Commission**
**George Lyon (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU budget — postponement of EUR 2.6 billion and suspended payments

With reference to the payments totalling EUR 2.6 billion that have been deferred to 2013 following the negotiations
concerning draft amending budget 6/2012 and the 2013 budget, and to which the Joint Declarations signed in
December 2012 refer:

Can the Commission detail to which Member States, funding programmes and projects this EUR 2.6 billion in
payment appropriations is due?

**Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The EUR 2.6 billion of payments postponed to 2013 following the negotiations on the draft amending budget
No 6/2012 and the 2013 Budget are the sum of EUR 1.4 billion of payment claims for 2007-2013 programmes
subject to interruption/suspension and EUR 1.2 billion of payments for the closure of 2000-2006 programmes and
projects ( [1] ).

The detailed breakdown by Member State and Fund of the postponed payment amounts both for 2007-2013
interruptions/suspensions and 2000-2006 closure is shown in the annex sent directly to the Honourable Member
and to Parliament's Secretariat.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Another EUR 0.3billion for 2000-2006 closures were paid via the year-end transfer in December 2012.

C 33 E / 592 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004519/13**

**to the Commission**
**George Lyon (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU budget — outstanding commitments (RAL) at the end of 2012 — funding programmes

Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown per Member State of the EUR 207 billion of outstanding
commitments (RAL) at the end of 2012, identifying the funding programme to which the commitments are assigned?

**Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Honourable Member is advised that a reply was given in the context of E-2557/2013 ( [1] ).

A breakdown of the RAL by Member State (in Annex) is basically only possible for shared management Funds related
to structural actions, i.e. the Cohesion Policy Funds ERDF, ESF and CF (Heading 1b of the 2007-2013 Multiannual
Financial Framework MFF) and the structural‐type Funds within Heading 2 of the MFF (EAFRD and EFF and their
2000-2006 predecessors EAGGF-Guidance and FIFG). As compared to the overall end 2012 RAL by Heading as of
end 2012, the breakdown by MS therefore does not include:

a) for Heading 1b: the RAL for technical assistance, contribution to cross-border cooperation programmes
managed outside H1b and residual pre-2000 RAL,

b) for Heading 2: the RAL for technical assistance and residual pre-2000 RAL and all RAL outside structural-type
funds, i.e. for LIFE+, animal and plant health, agriculture direct payments and market measures, fisheries
markets etc.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 593

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004520/13**

**to the Commission**
**George Lyon (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU budget — draft amending budget (DAB) 2/2013 — justification

In relation to DAB 2/2013, can the Commission provide a detailed justification for the additional EUR 11.2 billion
payment request, and can it clarify its reason for publishing the DAB at this early stage of the financial year?

**Answer given by Mr Lewandowski on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

The Commission has provided detailed explanations of its request in the explanatory memorandum of the proposed
DAB 2/2013 (COM(2013) 183.

The timing took account of the time it could take the budgetary authority to take a decision, and when the
appropriations on certain budget lines would run out. It also took account of the cash-flow situation. The DAB
should be approved in due time to ensure that the additional resources can be called from the Member States,
sufficiently early in the year to ensure that the payments can be made.

C 33 E / 594 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004521/13**

**to the Commission**
**George Lyon (ALDE)**

_(22 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regional state aid guidelines for the period 2014-2020 — large enterprise intervention support — Scotland

In relation to the proposed Commission reform of the regional state aid guidelines for the period 2014‐2020:

Does the Commission acknowledge that removing the facility to provide support for large enterprises in certain
categories of regions will have a significant impact on many rural Scottish regions, given that investment in the form
of regional state aid is extremely valuable in addressing the unique issues encountered in these areas, such as sparse
population density, extended distance from markets, and limited transport and energy network connections?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 July 2013)_

The Commission has decided to adopt a stricter approach on regional aid for investments made by large enterprises in
geographical areas designated under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union.

Evidence shows that the decisions by large enterprises to invest in areas designated under Article 107(3)(c) are often
attributable to factors such as the pre-existence of production facilities, the availability of production factors
(workforce, land, capital, etc.) or the general economic context (taxes, business environment), rather than to state aid.
An important concern is that large enterprises would often make such investments even without financial support.

Therefore, Member States will be allowed to grant aid to large enterprises for investments in areas designated under
Article 107(3)(c) that bring new economic activity, for initial investments for the diversification of existing
establishments into new products or new process innovations, as it is more likely that such investments are carried
out as a result of the aid. However, in areas designated under Article 107(3)(a), i.e. regions with a GDP per capita
below 75% of EU average, Member States will continue to be allowed to grant regional aid for other types of
investments by large enterprises.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 595

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-004522/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ General Data Protection Regulation — impact on trade

In relation to the legislative proposal on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data,
and the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation (COM(2012) 11 final)), has the Commission
fully and properly considered the impact on trade?

If so, what has been done?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

In accordance with the European Commission's Impact Assessment Guidelines ( [1] ), the legislative proposal for a
General Data Protection Regulation ( [2] ) was accompanied by a thorough impact assessment ( [3] ) which assessed three
broad categories of impacts, namely economic, social and environmental impacts.

Within economic impacts, impacts on trade were analysed in Section 6 of the abovementioned impact assessment, as
well as in Annexes 5 and 10. Annex 10 in particular is entirely devoted to analysing the trade impacts of the preferred
policy option, looking _inter alia_ at how this policy option will affect the global competitive position of EU firms, its
possible impact on productivity, its impact on innovation, cost and price competitiveness, its effects on trade barriers,
and possible impacts on cross-border investment flows.

According to this analysis, the trade impacts will be positive. The approach of the preferred policy option to increase
harmonisation at EU level through a regulation will have a positive impact on enterprises and enhance the
attractiveness of Europe as location to do business, at the same time as strengthening the EU in its global promotion
of high data protection standards. The cost of the current fragmentation in national rules will be removed and the
resources made available through the total overall estimated savings of EUR 2.3 billion will potentially be used by
businesses to enhance their investment strategies, both within the EU and beyond.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SEC(2009)92 — European Commission Impact Assessment Guidelines of 15 January 2009, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012)11 — Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of

personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) SEC(2012)72 final — available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/document/review2012/sec_2012_72_en.pdf

( **|**

( **|**

C 33 E / 596 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004523/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Herbert Reul (PPE)**

_(23. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Zeitumstellung in der EU ab 2015

Der österreichischen Presse war zu entnehmen, dass die aktuell gültige Vereinbarung über die Zeitumstellung in der
EU im Jahr 2015 auslaufen würde („Der Kampf gegen die Zeitumstellung“, Kurier vom 22.3.13). Trifft diese neue
Information zu?

Oder handelt es sich vielmehr um eine Fehlinterpretation der alle 5 Jahre fälligen Evaluierung der bestehenden
Sommerzeit-Richtline 2000/84/EG, die 2015 das nächste Mal ansteht?

Wenn ja, welche Evaluierung plant die Kommission für 2015? Beabsichtigt die Kommission, umfassendere und
belastbarere Studienergebnisse zu den gesundheitlichen Beeinträchtigungen bei Menschen und Tieren sowie zu den
tatsächlichen Energieeinsparungen durch die Zeitumstellung als in der Vergangenheit einzubeziehen?

Welche konkreten Folgen hätte eine negative Evaluation dieser Richtlinie? Sieht die Kommission die Notwendigkeit
einer Beibehaltung der Zeitumstellung zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt weiterhin gegeben?

**Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission**

_(11. Juni 2013)_

Die Richtlinie 2000/84/EG ( [1] ) ist unbefristet gültig und sieht auch keine fünfjährliche Überprüfung vor.

Im Jahr 2007 legte die Kommission gemäß Artikel 5 der Richtlinie 2000/84/EG auf der Grundlage der Angaben der
Mitgliedstaaten über die Funktionsweise und die Auswirkungen der Bestimmungen der Richtlinie über die
Sommerzeit einen Bericht ( [2] ) vor. Dieser führte zu dem Schluss, dass die Sommerzeit abgesehen von verstärkten
abendlichen Freizeitaktivitäten und kleinen Energieeinsparungen nur wenig Auswirkungen hat.

Die derzeitigen Regelungen scheinen in keinem Mitgliedstaat Anlass zu Bedenken zu geben, und seit der
Veröffentlichung des Berichts hat kein Mitgliedstaat die Kommission gebeten, eine Änderung der geltenden
Regelungen in Erwägung zu ziehen.

Die Kommission ist daher der Ansicht, dass die Sommerzeitregelungen der Richtlinie 2000/84/EG weiterhin ihren
Zweck erfüllen. Im Interesse eines funktionierenden Binnenmarktes — der den Hauptzweck der Richtlinie darstellt —
ist es vor allem wichtig, einen harmonisierten Zeitplan für die Umstellung von und zur Sommerzeit beizubehalten.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2000/84/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 19. Januar 2001 zur Regelung der Sommerzeit, ABl. L 31 vom 2.2.2001.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat, das Europäische Parlament und den Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss gemäß Artikel 5 der

Richtlinie 2000/84/EG zur Regelung der Sommerzeit, KOM(2007)739 endg.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 597

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004523/13**

**to the Commission**
**Herbert Reul (PPE)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Time shift in the EU from 2015 onwards

According to information in the Austrian press, the current agreement on time shifts in the EU will expire in 2015
(‘ _Der Kampf gegen die Zeitumstellung_ ’ [The fight against the time shift], _Kurier_, 22 March 2013). Is this information
correct?

Or is it instead a misinterpretation of the evaluation of the existing Summer-time Directive 2000/84/EC, which takes
place every five years and is next due to be carried out in 2015?

If so, what evaluation is the Commission planning for 2015? Does the Commission intend to include more
comprehensive and robust results of studies on the damage to the health of people and animals and on actual energy
savings as a result of the time shift than it has done in the past?

What would the consequences be, in specific terms, of a negative evaluation of this directive? Does the Commission
still consider it necessary to retain the time shift at the present time?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

Directive 2000/84/EC ( [1] ) does not contain any expiry date, nor does it foresee an evaluation every five years.

In 2007, as required by art. 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC the Commission presented a report based on information
provided by Member States on the functioning and impact of the summertime provisions of this directive ( [2] ). The
report concluded that besides encouraging evening leisure activities and generating small energy savings summer
time has little impact.

The current arrangements do not appear to be a cause of concern to any Member State and since the publication of
the report no Member State has asked the Commission to consider modification of the current arrangements.

The Commission therefore believes that the summer time arrangements as established by Directive 2000/84/EC
remain suitable. It is important in particular to maintain the harmonisation of the timetable for changing to and from
summer time to ensure a proper functioning of the internal market, which constitutes the essential objective of this
directive.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2000/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 January 2001 on summer-time arrangements, OJ L 31, 2.2.2001.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee under

Article 5 of Directive 2000/84/EC on summer-time arrangements, COM(2007)739 final.

C 33 E / 598 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004524/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(23. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Vogelschutz und Biodiversitätsziele 2020

Vielfach wurde bereits darauf hingewiesen, dass die Zahl der Vögel, vor allem jener, die in und an landwirtschaftlichen
Nutzflächen leben, signifikant zurückgeht. Gründe dafür sind die modernen Methoden der Landwirtschaft, der
Einsatz von Chemikalien und Pestiziden sowie die Zerstörung des Lebensraumes.

1. Gibt es — abgesehen von den Maßnahmen, die durch mehr „Greening“ in der GAP in Europa erreicht werden
können — von der Europäischen Union geförderte Programme zum Erhalt der europäischen Vogelarten und
-populationen?

2. Wildvogelarten sind nach Aussagen der Organisation BirdLife ein wichtiger Indikator für die Biodiversität. Wie
bewertet die Kommission den signifikanten Rückgang der Populationen wie auch der Artenvielfalt im Hinblick auf die
Erreichung der Biodiversitätsziele 2020?

**Antwort von Herrn Potočnik im Namen der Kommission**

_(30. Mai 2013)_

1. Entscheidend für die Erhaltung der in der EU lebenden Vögel ist die vollständige Umsetzung der
Vogelschutzrichtlinie ( [1] ). Diese sieht vor, dass wild lebende Vogelarten durch von den Mitgliedstaaten eingerichtete
besondere Schutzgebiete im Rahmen des Natura-2000-Netzes geschützt werden, welche die am besten geeigneten
Lebensräume der in Anhang I der Richtlinie aufgeführten bedrohten Arten und/oder Zugvogelarten umfassen.
Maßnahmen zur Unterstützung der Umsetzung dieser Richtlinie und zum Schutz des Natura-2000-Netzes kommen
für Zuschüsse aus allen größeren EU-Fonds einschließlich des Fonds für die ländlichen Entwicklung, des Fonds für
maritime Angelegenheiten und Fischerei, des Regional‐ und des Kohäsionsfonds sowie für Zuschüsse aus dem
LIFE-Programm infrage. Es gibt viele Beispiele von Projekten, die auf die Erhaltung von Vögeln abzielen und aus
unterschiedlichen EU-Fonds ( [2] ) finanziert werden. Die neue Veröffentlichung „LIFE Managing Habitats for Birds“
(Bewirtschaftung der Lebensräume von Vögeln im Rahmen des LIFE-Programms, nur Englisch) gibt einen guten
Überblick über Vogelschutzprojekte, die aus dem LIFE-Programm finanziert werden ( [3] ).

Im Jahr 2011 hat die Kommission ein Arbeitspapier zur Finanzierung von Natura 2000 ( [4] ) angenommen, in dem die
Strategie zur Investition in Natura 2000 für die kommenden Jahre erläutert wurde.

Außerdem hat die EU die Erarbeitung von Artenschutzplänen für etwa 50 Vogelarten finanziell unterstützt ( [5] ). Zudem
hat sie einen Zeitplan für die Bekämpfung des illegalen Tötens und Fangens von und des Handels mit Vögeln erstellt.

2. Die Verbesserung des Erhaltungszustands von gefährdeten Arten einschließlich Vögeln ist eines der Hauptziele
der EU-Biodiversitätsstrategie bis 2020 ( [6] ). Ein Ziel dieser Strategie ist, dass bis 2020 die Zahl der Artenbewertungen
nach der Vogelschutzrichtlinie, die einen verbesserten Erhaltungszustand zeigen, um 50 % steigt. Die breite Palette
der im Rahmen dieser Strategie durchgeführten Aktionen und Maßnahmen dürfte zur Erreichung dieses Ziels
beitragen.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2009/147/EG.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/examples_Natura2000_projects_financing.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/birds2013.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SEK(2011)1573 endg.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) KOM(2011)244 endg.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 599

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004524/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protection of birds and 2020 biodiversity targets

It has already been pointed out on many occasions that bird numbers, in particular those living in and on agricultural
land, are showing a significant decline. The reasons for this decline are modern farming methods, the use of chemicals
and pesticides and the destruction of their habitat.

1. Apart from the measures that can be achieved in Europe as a result of more greening in the common
agricultural policy, are there any programmes for the conservation of European bird species and populations that are
supported by the European Union?

2. According to the organisation BirdLife, wild bird species are an important indicator of biodiversity. How does
the Commission view the significant decline in populations, as well as species diversity, in relation to achieving the
2020 biodiversity targets?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

1. The key to the conservation of birds in the EU is the full implementation of the Birds Directive ( [1] ). It establishes
protection of wild birds through Special Protection Areas set up by the Member States as part of the Natura 2000
network covering the most suitable habitats of threatened and/or migratory bird species listed in Annex I to the
directive and for migratory bird species. Measures supporting the implementation of the directive and the protection
of the Natura 2000 network are eligible for co-financing from all major EU funds, including rural development,
maritime/fisheries, regional, cohesion funds and the LIFE programme. There are many examples of projects aimed at
the conservation of birds co-financed from different EU funds ( [2] ). A recent publication ‘LIFE managing habitats for
birds’ gives a good overview of bird conservation projects financed by the LIFE Programme ( [3] ).

In 2011 the Commission adopted a Staff Working Paper on financing Natura 2000 ( [4] ) in which the strategy of
investing in Natura 2000 in the coming years was presented.

Additionally, the EU has funded the development of Species Action Plans for around 50 bird species ( [5] ). The EU has
also developed a roadmap for combating illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds.

2. Improvement of the conservation status of endangered EU species, including birds, is one of the main objectives
of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy ( [6] ). The strategy includes the specific target that by 2020, compared to the
current situation, 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive show an improved conservation status. A
wide range of actions and measures undertaken as part of the strategy should help to achieve this objective.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/EC.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/examples_Natura2000_projects_financing.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/birds2013.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 1573 final.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 244 final.

C 33 E / 600 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004525/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(23. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Nachfrage zur Anfrage E-002356/2012 — jugendliche Arbeitslose

Die Kommission teilt in ihrer Antwort auf die Frage, wie der Arbeitslosigkeit in Portugal Abhilfe geschaffen werden
könne, mit, es werde geprüft, ob Strukturfondszuweisungen neu programmiert werden könnten, um verstärkt
Maßnahmen zur Beschäftigung junger Menschen durchzuführen.

Wie ist der derzeitige Stand dieser Überprüfungen zur Anpassung der Strukturfondszuweisungen, insbesondere
angesichts weiter steigender Arbeitslosenquoten, vor allem unter Jugendlichen?

Wurden — sollte die Überprüfung wurde zwischenzeitlich abgeschlossen sein — Strukturfondszuweisungen „neu
programmiert“, um die Förderung der Beschäftigung von Jugendlichen in Portugal zu verbessern?

Wenn ja, in welcher Höhe wurden Mittel für diese Zwecke bereitgestellt, und woher stammen sie?

**Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. Juni 2013)_

Die Kommission hat die allgemeine Neuprogrammierung des nationalen strategischen Rahmenplans Portugals im
Dezember 2012 gebilligt.

Insgesamt wurden für _Impulso Jovem_ 344,1 Mio. EUR (200,9 Mio. EUR aus dem Europäischen Fonds für regionale
Entwicklung und 143,2 Mio. EUR auf dem Europäischen Sozialfonds) an EU-Mitteln umgewidmet. Weitere
10 Mio. EUR aus einem Transfer vom Europäischen Fonds für regionale Entwicklung wurden dem operationellen
Programm RUMOS-Madeira zugewiesen mit dem Ziel, die Unterstützung für Beschäftigte und Arbeitslose zu
verstärken, insbesondere durch die Förderung der Beschäftigungsfähigkeit junger Menschen.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 601

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004525/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up question to Question E-002356/2012 — unemployed young people

In its answer to the question concerning what can be done about unemployment in Portugal, the Commission stated
that consideration was being given to the possibility of reprogramming Portugal’s Structural Funds allocation with a
view to enhancing the measures to promote youth employment.

What is the current status of this examination of the possibility of adjusting the Structural Funds allocation, in
particular in view of the further rise in unemployment rates, among young people in particular?

Assuming the examination has now been completed, has the Structural Funds allocation been ‘reprogrammed’ in
order to improve the promotion of youth employment in Portugal?

If so, how much in the way of financing is being made available for this and where is it coming from?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission approved the overall reprogramming of the Portuguese National Strategic Framework in
December 2012.

Total EU funding reallocated to _Impulso Jovem_ was EUR 344.1 million (EUR 200.9 million from the European
Regional Development Fund and EUR 143.2 million from the European Social Fund). An extra EUR 10 million
resulting from a transfer from the European Regional Development Fund was allocated to the RUMOS-Madeira
operational programme in order to step up support for employment and the unemployed, in particular by promoting
the employability of young people.

C 33 E / 602 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004526/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(23. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Nachfrage zur Arbeitslosigkeit in Portugal

Die Lage der Menschen in Portugal verschlechtert sich zusehends. Im Februar 2013 lag die Zahl der Arbeitslosen bei
ca. 939 000; die durchschnittliche Arbeitslosenquote lag im Januar 2013 bei 15,8 %. Die Arbeitslosenquote im
Dezember 2011 betrug 13,6 %.

In ihrer Antwort auf die Anfrage E-002356/2012 schrieb die Kommission: „Die […] in Kürze durchzuführenden
Reformen sollten die Funktionsfähigkeit des Arbeitsmarktes mittelfristig verbessern und die Beschäftigungsquote im
ganzen Land steigern“.

1. Kann die Kommission angesichts der drastisch gestiegenen Zahl von Arbeitslosen in Portugal innerhalb eines
Jahres wie auch der Meldungen, für die Wirtschaft 2013 werde eher eine Verschlechterung erwartet, mitteilen, wie sie
die Entwicklung des Arbeitsmarktes in Portugal bewertet?

2. Ist in einer „mittelfristigen“ Verbesserung der Lage eine vorübergehende Verschlechterung mit einberechnet
worden?

3. Wurden die ebenfalls in der Antwort genannten „Neuprogrammierungen“ des ESF und des EFRE im Jahr 2012
durchgeführt?

3.1  Wenn ja, welche Auswirkungen haben die daraus resultierenden Unterstützungsmechanismen für KMU bis dato
auf den Arbeitsmarkt in Portugal gehabt?

4. In welchem Zeitrahmen erwartet die Kommission eine Verbesserung des Arbeitsmarktes? (Es wird um eine
Definition des Begriffes „mittelfristig“ in diesem Kontext gebeten.)

**Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission**

_(17. Juni 2013)_

1./2. Die Kommission teilt die Auffassung, dass die Arbeitsmarktlage und die sozialen Bedingungen in Portugal
derzeit düster sind und dass den Prognosen zufolge die Arbeitslosigkeit bis 2014 steigt. Portugal hat energische
Maßnahmen zur Anpassung des Arbeitsmarkts ergriffen; dessen Erholung hängt allerdings hauptsächlich von einer
positiven Entwicklung der Ausfuhren und des Finanzmarkts des Landes ab. Die Wirtschaftsaussichten dürften sich
2014 verbessern, wodurch auch die Beschäftigungsaussichten günstiger ausfallen sollten ( [1] ).

3./4. Die Kommission stimmte der umfassenden Neuprogrammierung des von dem Mitgliedstaat vorgelegten
nationalen strategischen Rahmenplans zwecks Umschichtung von Mitteln der Strukturfonds, insbesondere im
Hinblick auf die Förderung der Jugendbeschäftigung, die Möglichkeiten unternehmerischer Initiative und den Zugang
von KMU zu Finanzierungen, im Dezember 2012 zu; dieser neue Plan wird nun umgesetzt. Die Wirkung dieses Plans
kann erst beurteilt werden, wenn ausreichend Zeit verstrichen ist.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Europäische Kommission, European Economic Forecast (Frühjahr 2013), abzurufen unter:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2013_spring/pt_en.pdf

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 603

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004526/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Supplementary question in relation to unemployment in Portugal

The position of people in Portugal is deteriorating rapidly. In February 2013, unemployment figures stood at approx.
939 000; average unemployment in January 2013 lay at 15.8%. The unemployment rate in December 2011 was
13.6%.

The Commission in its reply to Question E-002356/2012 wrote: ‘The reforms which have been, or are soon to be,
implemented … are expected to improve the way the labour market functions in the medium term and increase the
rate of employment across the country.’

1. In view of the drastic increase in unemployment in Portugal within one year and the reports forecasting a likely
further deterioration for the economy in 2013, can the Commission indicate its assessment of the development of the
labour market in Portugal?

2. Has the forecast for a ‘medium-term’ improvement in the situation also taken account of a temporary
deterioration?

3. Has the ‘new reprogramming’ of the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) in 2012, also mentioned in the answer, actually taken place?

3.1. If so, what has been the impact of the resulting support mechanisms for SMEs on the Portuguese labour market
to date?

4. In what time frame is the Commission expecting an improvement in the labour market? (A definition of the
term ‘medium term’ is requested in this context.)

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 June 2013)_

1 and 2. The Commission agrees that current labour market and social conditions in Portugal are grim and that
unemployment is forecast to increase until 2014. While Portugal has taken bold measures to adjust its labour market,
any recovery of the employment market will depend mainly on positive developments in Portugal’s exports and on its
financial market. The economic outlook is expected to improve in 2014, which should bring more promising
employment prospects ( [1] ).

3 and 4. The overall reprogramming of the National Strategic Framework submitted by the Member State with a view
to reallocating Structural Fund resources, in particular to increase youth employment, entrepreneurship
opportunities and SMEs’ access to finance was approved by the Commission in December 2012 and is now being
implemented. Its impact can only be gauged after sufficient time has passed.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Commission, European Economic Forecast (Spring 2013), at:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2013_spring/pt_en.pdf

C 33 E / 604 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004527/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL)**

_(23. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-Mittel für die Eisenbahnachse Fehmarnbelt

Die EU beteiligt sich im Rahmen des Vorrangigen Vorhabens 20 „Eisenbahnachse Fehmarnbelt“ der
Transeuropäischen Verkehrsnetze (TEN-V) an der Finanzierung der festen Fehmarnbelt-Querung.

Im Februar 2011 erteilte der dänische Verkehrsminister seinen Vorhabensträger, Femern A/S, die Anweisung, die
ausschreibungsreifen Pläne und die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen mit Vorrang für eine Tunnellösung zu erstellen.
Er begründete seine Anweisung mit erheblich gestiegenen Baukosten und mehreren technischen Problemen für die
zuvor favorisierte Brückenlösung. Seine Anweisung stellt eine wesentliche und kostensteigernde Änderung des
Projektkonzepts dar.

Seit 2011 hat die EU dieses Projekt mit 93,581 Mio. EUR aus dem TEN-V gefördert.

Das dänische Projektierungsgesetz vom 15.4.2009 zur festen Fehmarnbeltquerung wurde u. a. anhand einer von
COWI‐Danskforskning 2004 erstellten volkswirtschaftlichen Studie begründet. Laut letzterer beträgt der
Netto-Nutzen einer Tunnellösung etwa Null. Es liegt deswegen die Vermutung nahe, dass die EU-Förderung des
Vorhabens seit Februar 2011 nicht mehr die Voraussetzungen des Artikel 30 der Verordnung (EU, Euratom)
Nr. 966/2012 erfüllt.

1. Hat die Kommission geprüft, ob das Projektkonzept nach seiner wesentlichen Änderung im Februar 2011
durch die dänische Regierung weiterhin die in der EU-Haushaltsordnung verankerten Grundsätze der
Wirtschaftlichkeit und Wirksamkeit (Artikel 30) erfüllt?

2. Wenn ja, wann und wie erfolgte diese Prüfung und welches Ergebnis erbrachte sie?

3. Falls nein, welche Schritte wird die Kommission unternehmen, damit die erforderliche Prüfung baldmöglichst
durchgeführt wird?

**Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission**

_(19. Juni 2013)_

Im Februar 2011 erklärte der dänische Verkehrsminister, die „bevorzugte“ Lösung für die feste Fehmarnbelt-Querung
sei ein Absenktunnel. Diese Lösung basierte auf einem Empfehlungsbericht der Planungs‐ und Betreibergesellschaft
Femern S/A, in dem die Ergebnisse aller verfügbaren Studien und Untersuchungen anhand von Parametern wie
Wirtschaft, Umwelt, Sicherheit, Navigation usw. bewertet wurden. Die Studien sind allerdings noch nicht
abgeschlossen und mit der endgültigen Entscheidung des dänischen Parlaments (Verabschiedung des Baugesetzes)
wird für Ende 2014 gerechnet.

Der finanzielle Beitrag der EU dient derzeit zur Finanzierung der Studien, vor allem im Hinblick auf die vorstehend
genannten Parameter, auf die sich die Entscheidung des dänischen Parlaments stützen wird.

Da der Kofinanzierungssatz der TEN-V heute relativ niedrig ist, sind weiterhin die Mitgliedstaaten die mit Abstand
wichtigsten Geldgeber für das Projekt. Die Mitgliedstaaten sind für Fragen wie die am besten geeignete technische
Lösung, die Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse sowie die Einhaltung der einschlägigen EU-Rechtsvorschriften (UVP, SUP,
Lebensräume, Wasser‐ und Meeresschutzrichtlinien usw.) zuständig. Über die weitere EU-Förderung der Arbeiten an
der festen Querung wird möglicherweise im Rahmen künftiger Aufforderungen zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen
entschieden.

Im Rahmen des Bewertungsverfahrens durch die TEN-V-Exekutivagentur und die Kommission wird jedes Projekt u. a.
auf seine Relevanz hin geprüft, d. h. hinsichtlich seines Beitrags zu den TEN-V-Prioritäten (wie sie in den
TEN-V-Leitlinien dargelegt sind) und der Ziele der Aufforderung zur Einreichung von Vorschlägen sowie des
sozioökonomischen Nutzens auf EU-Ebene.

Die Agentur und die Kommission überprüfen dann die ordnungsgemäße und fristgerechte Durchführung des Projekts
auf der Grundlage der Bestimmungen des entsprechenden Finanzierungsbeschlusses.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 605

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004527/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU funding for the Fehmarn Belt railway axis

Within the framework of priority project 20, the ‘Fehmarn Belt railway axis’ of the Trans European Transport
Networks (TEN-V), the EU is involved in funding the Fehmarn Belt Bridge fixed link.

In February 2011, the Danish Transport Minister instructed his project promoters, Femern A/S, to prepare the plans
for the tendering stage and to draw up the environmental impact assessments with the focus on a tunnel solution. He
explained his instructions by referring to the significantly increased construction costs and several technical problems
with the previously favoured bridge solution. His instructions constitute a significant change to the project concept
that will lead to higher costs.

Since 2011, the EU has funded this project from the TEN-V budget to the tune of EUR 93.581 million.

The Danish Project Planning Act of 15 April 2009 concerning the Fehmarn Belt Bridge fixed link was based on an
economic study produced by COWI‐Danskforskning in 2004. According to this study, the net benefit of a tunnel
solution is roughly zero. There is therefore reason to suppose that the EU funding for the project since February 2011
no longer meets the requirements of Article 30 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012.

1. Has the Commission checked whether the project concept still meets the principles of efficiency and
effectiveness (Article 30) anchored in the EU Financial Regulation, following a significant change in February 2011 by
the Danish Government?

2. If so, when and how was this check carried out and what was the result?

3. If not, what steps will the Commission take to ensure that the necessary checks take place as soon as possible?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

In February 2011, the Danish Transport Minister announced that the ‘preferred’ solution for the fixed link was an
immersed tunnel. This solution was based on a recommendation report prepared by the implementing body, Femern
S/A, which evaluated the results of all the available studies and investigations based on parameters such as economic,
environmental, safety, navigation etc. However, studies are still ongoing and the final decision (the passing of the
construction Act) by the Danish Parliament is expected by the end of 2014.

For the moment, the EU financial contribution is used for the studies, notably to address the abovementioned
parameters, which shall support the decision of the Danish Parliament.

Since the co-funding rate of the TEN-T is today rather low, Member States remain the first and foremost important
financiers of the project. Member States are responsible for issues such as the most appropriate technical solution, the
cost-benefit analysis (CBA), as well as the compliance with the relevant EU legislation (EIA, SEA, Habitats, Water and
Marine Directives etc). Further EU support for the works concerning the fixed link may be decided under the future
calls for proposals.

During the evaluation process by the TEN-T Executive Agency and the Commission, each project is examined among
others for its relevance, i.e. for its contribution to the TEN-T priorities (as laid out in the TEN-T Guidelines) and the
objectives described in the call for proposals, as well as to the macro socioeconomic benefits at EU level.

The Agency and the Commission are then checking the proper and timely implementation of the project, based on
the provisions of the corresponding funding decision.

C 33 E / 606 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-004528/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL)**

_(23. April 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Atommüllfässer im Atlantik

Wie viele Atommüllfässer lagern im Atlantik, die von europäischen Firmen dort bis heute verklappt wurden, und wie
will man die rostenden Fässer, die teilweise schon aufplatzen, aus dem Meer holen, deren Herstellungsland feststellen
und wo an Land lagern?

Welche Art von radioaktiven Abfällen ist in den Fässern enthalten, und wie hoch ist die Aktivität (Becquerel) der
gesamten eingeleiteten Abfälle?

Wie schätzt die Kommission die Auswirkungen der ausgetretenen Radioaktivität auf das maritime Ökosystem und
damit auch die Verbraucher ein?

**Antwort von Herrn Oettinger im Namen der Kommission**

_(5. Juli 2013)_

1. Das Einbringen radioaktiver Abfälle in das Meer ist bereits seit den 1970er-Jahren aufgrund internationaler
Übereinkünfte ( [1] ) verboten. Die Überwachung der Einhaltung dieser Übereinkommen fällt nicht in die Zuständigkeit
der Kommission.

Innerhalb der EU sind die Mitgliedstaaten dafür zuständig, die Radioaktivitätswerte in ihren Hoheitsgewässern (sowie
im Boden und in der Luft) kontinuierlich zu überwachen und die Einhaltung der grundlegenden Sicherheitsnormen
sicherzustellen ( [2] ).

2. Der Kommission liegen keine Informationen über europäische Vorhaben zur Rückholung radioaktiver Abfälle
vom Meeresgrund vor.

3. Die Kommission ist nicht über das Herkunftsland und die Lage der Fässer informiert.

4. Die IAEO ( [3] ) hat wichtige Arbeiten zur Zusammenstellung von Daten über die Art der Abfälle und die Höhe der
Radioaktivität ( [4] ) durchgeführt.

5. Die Kommission hat die Strahlengefährdung der EU durch die Radioaktivität in nordeuropäischen Meeren in
einer Studie ( [5] ) untersucht ( [6] ). Abgesehen von Freisetzungen von Radioaktivität, die auf
Kernbrennstoff-Wiederaufarbeitungsanlagen zurückgehen, wurde im Rahmen der Programme der Mitgliedstaaten
zur langfristigen Überwachung in den letzten 30 Jahren keine signifikante Zunahme der Radioaktivität in
Meeresgewässern festgestellt ( [7] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Siehe insbesondere das Londoner Übereinkommen über die Verhütung der Meeresverschmutzung durch das Einbringen von

Abfällen und anderen Stoffen, das 1972 verabschiedet wurde und 1975 in Kraft trat. Auch das Basler Übereinkommen über die
Kontrolle der grenzüberschreitenden Verbringung von gefährlichen Abfällen und ihrer Entsorgung (1989) und das
internationale Übereinkommen zur Verhütung der Meeresverschmutzung durch Schiffe (1973) sehen Verbote der Entsorgung
verschiedener Gefahr- und Schadstoffe im Meer vor.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Artikel 35 Euratom-Vertrag.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) IAEA TECDOC 1105, „Inventory of radioactive waste disposals at sea“, August 1999.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) MARINA II, 2003. Aktualisierung des MARINA-Projekts über die Strahlengefährdung der Europäischen Gemeinschaften durch

die Radioaktivität in nordeuropäischen Meeren: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/radprot. Europäische Kommission,
Radiation Protection 132, 2003.

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Die Kommission beteiligt sich auch an der Arbeit des für radioaktive Stoffe zuständigen OSPAR-Ausschusses und verfolgt

einschlägige Arbeiten im Rahmen anderer regionaler Meeresschutzübereinkommen sowie die Arbeiten der IAEO.

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Sollte die Kommission Informationen darüber erhalten, dass die Radioaktivität wesentlich zugenommen hat, würde sie

Nachprüfungen gemäß Artikel 35 des Euratom-Vertrages vornehmen.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 607

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004528/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Radioactive waste containers in the Atlantic

How many radioactive waste containers have been dumped in the Atlantic by European companies in a practice still
continuing today? How is it planned to retrieve the rusting containers, some of which are already ruptured, from the
sea? How is their country of origin to be determined and where are these containers to be stored on dry land?

What type of radioactive waste is held in these containers and how high is the radioactivity level (in Becquerels) of all
the waste introduced?

How does the Commission assess the impact of leaking radioactivity on the maritime ecosystem and therefore on
consumers?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(5 July 2013)_

1. Dumping of radioactive waste in the sea was forbidden by international instruments, adopted already in the
1970s ( [1] ). Supervision of the implementation of these Conventions is not the Commission's responsibility.

It has to be noted that within the EU, Member States are responsible for carrying out continuous monitoring of the
level of radioactivity in their territorial waters (as well as in the air and soil) and accordingly to ensure compliance
with the basic safety standards ( [2] ).

2. The Commission has no information on any European project aiming to retrieve radioactive waste from the
seabed.

3. The information on the country of origin and location of the containers is not known to the Commission.

4. The IAEA ( [3] ) has carried out significant work in maintaining information on type of waste and activity ( [4] ).

5. The Commission has carried out a study on the radiological exposure of the EU from radioactivity in North
European marine waters ( [5] ) ( [6] ). Apart from releases originating from nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities, long-term
monitoring programmes carried out by the Member States have detected no significant increases in marine
radioactivity over the last 30 years ( [7] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See, in particular, the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, which was adopted in

1972 and which came into force in 1975. Prohibitions on ocean disposal of various hazardous wastes and polluting substances have also been
introduced by the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (1989) and the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (1973).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) International Atomic Energy Agency.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) IAEA TECDOC 1105, Inventory of radioactive waste disposals at sea, August 1999.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) MARINA II, 2003. Update of the MARINA Project on the radiological exposure of the European Community from radioactivity in North

European marine waters; http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/radprot. European Commission, Radiation Protection 132, 2003.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) The Commission also participates in the work of the OSPAR Radioactive Substances Committee and monitors related work under other regional

marine conventions and the IAEA.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) In the event that the Commission is informed that levels of radioactivity have significantly increased, it would carry out verifications under

Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

C 33 E / 608 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004529/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(23 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Στάση ΕΕ στις έντονες αντιδράσεις της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας της Αιγύπτου στην πρόσφατη Διακήρυξη του
ΟΗΕ για τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών

Οι πρόσφατες έντονες αντιδράσεις της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας της Αιγύπτου στη διακήρυξη του ΟΗΕ για τα
δικαιώματα των γυναικών που, όπως ισχυρίζονται, θα επέτρεπε στις γυναίκες να ταξιδεύουν, να εργάζονται και να
χρησιμοποιούν μέσα αντισύλληψης χωρίς την έγκριση των συζύγων τους και να διαχειρίζονται την περιουσία της
οικογένειας ( [1] ) προκάλεσαν έντονη ανησυχία για τη δημοκρατική εξέλιξη, κάτι το οποίο ενισχύεται από παρεμφερείς
αντιδράσεις κι άλλων μουσουλμανικών και μη κοινωνιών, κυρίως όσον αφορά στα δικαιώματα σεξουαλικής ελευθερίας και
αναπαραγωγής. Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη το ψήφισμα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου της 14ης Μαρτίου 2013 σχετικά με την
κατάσταση στην Αίγυπτο, στο οποίο μεταξύ άλλων καλούνται οι αρχές της Αιγύπτου « _να εξασφαλίσουν τον πλήρη σεβασμό_
_των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και των θεμελιωδών ελευθεριών, περιλαμβανομένων των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών» (_ [2] )
καθώς και τα συμπεράσματα της Έκθεσης Προόδου 2012 για την Αίγυπτο στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Πολιτικής Γειτονίας,
όπου τονίζεται ότι η μετάβαση στη δημοκρατία « _δεν είναι χωρίς σοβαρά εμπόδια, όπως … η έλλειψη προόδου στα_
_ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα» (_ [3] ), ερωτάται η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή:

1. Πώς κρίνει τις τελευταίες αυτές εξελίξεις;

2. Υπάρχουν παρόμοιες αντιδράσεις σχετικά με τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών από την αιγυπτιακή πλευρά στο πλαίσιο της
εταιρικής σχέσης ΕΕ-Αιγύπτου;

3. Πώς σκοπεύει η Επιτροπή να αντιμετωπίσει τη στάση αυτή της αιγυπτιακής ηγεσίας στο πλαίσιο της πολιτικής
γειτονίας αλλά και σε διεθνές επίπεδο;

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-004530/13**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(23 Απριλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Στάση ΕΕ στις έντονες αντιδράσεις της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας της Αιγύπτου στην πρόσφατη
Διακήρυξη του ΟΗΕ για τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών

Οι πρόσφατες έντονες αντιδράσεις της Μουσουλμανικής Αδελφότητας της Αιγύπτου στη διακήρυξη του ΟΗΕ για τα
δικαιώματα των γυναικών που, όπως ισχυρίζονται, θα επέτρεπε στις γυναίκες να ταξιδεύουν, να εργάζονται και να
χρησιμοποιούν μέσα αντισύλληψης χωρίς την έγκριση των συζύγων τους και να διαχειρίζονται την περιουσία της
οικογένειας ( [4] ) προκάλεσαν έντονη ανησυχία για τη δημοκρατική εξέλιξη, κάτι το οποίο ενισχύεται από παρεμφερείς
αντιδράσεις κι άλλων μουσουλμανικών και μη κοινωνιών, κυρίως όσον αφορά στα δικαιώματα σεξουαλικής ελευθερίας και
αναπαραγωγής. Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη το ψήφισμα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου της 14ης Μαρτίου 2013 σχετικά με την
κατάσταση στην Αίγυπτο, στο οποίο μεταξύ άλλων καλούνται οι αρχές της Αιγύπτου « _να εξασφαλίσουν τον πλήρη σεβασμό_
_των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και των θεμελιωδών ελευθεριών, περιλαμβανομένων των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών» (_ [5] )
καθώς και τα συμπεράσματα της Έκθεσης Προόδου 2012 για την Αίγυπτο στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Πολιτικής Γειτονίας,
όπου τονίζεται ότι η μετάβαση στη δημοκρατία « _δεν είναι χωρίς σοβαρά εμπόδια, όπως … η έλλειψη προόδου στα_
_ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα» (_ [6] ), ερωτάται η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος:

1. Πώς κρίνει η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος τις τελευταίες αυτές εξελίξεις;

2. Υπάρχουν παρόμοιες αντιδράσεις σχετικά με τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών από την αιγυπτιακή πλευρά στο πλαίσιο της
εταιρικής σχέσης ΕΕ-Αιγύπτου;

3. Πώς σκοπεύει η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος να αντιμετωπίσει τη στάση αυτή της αιγυπτιακής ηγεσίας στο πλαίσιο της
πολιτικής γειτονίας αλλά και σε διεθνές επίπεδο;

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us-women-un-rights-idUSBRE92E03D20130315
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0095+0+DOC+XML+V0//EL
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-245_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us-women-un-rights-idUSBRE92E03D20130315
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0095+0+DOC+XML+V0//EL
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-245_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 609

**Κοινή απάντηση της Ύπατης εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου κ. Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(28 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η Διακήρυξη των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών εγκρίθηκε συναινετικά στις 15 Μαρτίου 2013. Υπήρξε
έντονη εσωτερική συζήτηση σχετικά με τη θέση της Αιγύπτου όσον αφορά τη Διακήρυξη.

Ο σεβασμός και η προώθηση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών, αποτελεί
μέρος των αξιών της ΕΕ. Ειδικότερα, η ΕΕ είναι πλήρως αφοσιωμένη στη στήριξη του ρόλου των γυναικών κατά τη διάρκεια
της πολιτικής μετάβασης που συντελείται στις αραβικές χώρες, συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της Αιγύπτου. Έχουν
κινητοποιηθεί σημαντικές προσπάθειες και χρηματοδοτικοί πόροι προς τον σκοπό αυτόν.

Η αντιπροσωπεία της ΕΕ διοργάνωσε πρόσφατα ένα σεμινάριο γυναικών υπό την προεδρία της ΥΕ/ΑΠ με θέμα «Αιγύπτιες
Γυναίκες — Πορεία προς το μέλλον», κατά τη διάρκεια του οποίου υπεγράφη σύμβαση ύψους 4 εκατ. ευρώ για τη στήριξη
της δράσης των γυναικών των Ηνωμένων Εθνών που έχει ως στόχο την παροχή δελτίων ταυτότητας στις Αιγύπτιες.

Η ΥΕ/ΑΠ εξέφρασε την ανησυχία της ΕΕ όσον αφορά τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών κατά τη διάρκεια της επίσκεψης της τον
Απρίλιο του 2013. Η ΕΕ θα συνεχίσει να παρακολουθεί εκ του σύνεγγυς την κατάσταση και να συμμετέχει στην πλήρη
υποστήριξη των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών στην Αίγυπτο σύμφωνα με την αναθεωρημένη Ευρωπαϊκή Πολιτική Γειτονίας.

C 33 E / 610 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004529/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU position regarding Muslim Brotherhood backlash in Egypt against recent UN declaration on women's
rights

The vehemence of recent reactions by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the UN declaration on women’s rights,
allegedly calling for women to be allowed to travel, work, use contraceptives without their husband’s permission and
administer family finances, for example, ( [1] ) has prompted major concerns regarding progress towards democracy,
particularly in view of similar objections from other quarters, both Muslim and non-Muslim, particularly regarding
the right to sexual and reproductive freedom. In view of the European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2013 on the
situation in Egypt, calling on the Egyptian authorities ‘to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, including women’s rights’ ( [2] ) and the conclusions of the 2012 Progress Report for Egypt in the framework
of European neighbourhood policy, pointing out that that democratic transition ‘has not been without serious
setbacks, such as … lack of progress on human rights’:

1. What view does the Commission take of these developments?

2. Is the question of women’s rights provoking similar reactions from Egyptian interlocutors in the context of EUEgypt partnership arrangements?

3. What action does the Commission intend to take in response to the stance adopted by the Egyptian leadership
in the context of neighbourhood policy and at international level?

**Question for written answer E-004530/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU position regarding Muslim Brotherhood backlash in Egypt against recent UN declaration on
women's rights

The vehemence of recent reactions by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the UN declaration on women’s rights,
which calls for women to be allowed to travel, work, use contraceptives without their husband’s permission and
administer family finances, for example ( [3] ), has prompted major concerns regarding has prompted major concerns
regarding progress towards democracy, particularly in view of similar objections from other quarters, both Muslim
and non-Muslim, principally concerning the right to sexual and reproductive freedom. In view of the European
Parliament resolution of 14 March 2013 on the situation in Egypt, calling on the Egyptian authorities ‘to ensure full
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including women’s rights’ ( [4] ) and the conclusions of the 2012
Progress Report for Egypt in the framework of European neighbourhood policy, pointing out that that democratic
transition ‘has not been without serious setbacks, such as … lack of progress on human rights’ ( [5] ):

1. What view does the High Representative take of these developments?

2. Is the question of women’s rights provoking similar reactions from Egyptian interlocutors in the context of EUEgypt partnership arrangements?

3. What action does the High Representative intend to take in response to the stance adopted by the Egyptian
leadership in the context of neighbourhood policy and at international level?

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

_(28 June 2013)_

The UN declaration on women's rights was adopted by consensus on 15 March 2013. There was a vivid internal
discussion on the position of Egypt to the declaration.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us-women-un-rights-idUSBRE92E03D20130315.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0095+0+DOC+XML+V0//EL
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us-women-un-rights-idUSBRE92E03D20130315
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0095+0+DOC+XML+V0//EL
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-245_en.htm

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 611

The respect for and promotion of human rights, including the rights for women, is part of the values of the EU. In
particular, the EU is fully dedicated to supporting the role of women in the political transitions going on in the Arab
countries, including in Egypt. Significant efforts and financial resources have been mobilised in this regard.

The EU Delegation recently organised a women’s seminar chaired by the HR/VP on ‘Egyptian Women — the Way
Forward’ during which a EUR 4 million contract in support of United Nations Women’s action to provide Egyptian
women with Identity (ID) cards was signed.

The HR/VP raised the EU's concern on women rights during her visit in April 2013. The EU will continue to monitor
the situation closely and stay involved in fully supporting the rights of women in Egypt in line with the revised
European Neighbourhood Policy.

C 33 E / 612 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.2.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004531/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU aid to Darfur

Could the Commission provide details of how much EU aid has been provided to Darfur since the beginning of the
conflict in 2003? What are the Commission’s priorities for the EUR 27.5 million of additional aid recently announced
for Darfur? How much of this fund will be set aside for basic services?

**Answer given by Ms Georgieva on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 July 2013)_

The EU is one of the largest humanitarian donors in Sudan, and in Darfur in particular, with EUR 591.5 million
provided for humanitarian assistance to Darfur since 2003. The Commission is financially supporting a number of
specialised UN agencies and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for the emergency provision of
food, healthcare, clean water and sanitation, hygiene, shelter and protection. Commission (DG ECHO) experts based
in Sudan are closely monitoring the situation and liaising with relief organisations.

|Year|Total Fund/Euro|% of the total fund of Sudan and South Sudan|
|---|---|---|
|2012|35 575 000|87% of fund allocated Sudan (North)|
|2011|77 211 159|52%|
|2010|77 910 730|58%|
|2009|96 400 000|73%|
|2008|71 835 253|71%|
|2007|71 835 253|67%|
|2006|72 322 215|75%|
|2005|14 766 319|33%|
|2004|71 614 392|79%|
|2003|2 000 000|9%|
|Total|591 470 321||

The pledge of EUR 27.5 million announced by the Commission at the International Donor Conference for Darfur on
7 and 8 April 2013 in Doha constitutes the first development initiative of the European Union in Darfur. This pledge,
part of which will start implementation on the ground before the end of 2013, will contribute to lift the vulnerable
people of Darfur out of extreme poverty by supporting greater access to, and quality of, basic services in health and
education, and by facilitating the improvement of agriculture and livestock productivity, as well as the management
of natural resources.

5.2.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 33 E / 613

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-004532/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(23 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Renewable energy consumption in the EU

It has become evident that the EU will need to dramatically increase its use of renewable energy resources in order to
meet its 2020 targets. Could the Commission detail the percentage of current energy output produced from
renewable resources for every Member State?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 June 2013)_

In the Renewable Energy Progress Report adopted on 27 March 2013 ( [1] ) the Commission has presented its most
recent analysis of developments in the renewable energy sector including the share of renewable energy in energy
consumption per Member State. According to this report the total share of renewable energy in the EU reached 12,7%
in 2010 and 13% in 2011.

Further Member State data on 2011 are available from Eurostat:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/energy/data/main_tables

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 175. Cf. Also SEC(2013) 102. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/reports_en.htm

EUR-Lex (http://new.eur-lex.europa.eu) offers direct access to European Union legislation free of
charge. The Official Journal of the European Union can be consulted on this website, as can the
Treaties, legislation, case-law and preparatory acts.

For further information on the European Union, see: http://europa.eu

# Publications Office of the European Union EN

2985 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG