Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 287 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 56**
##### English edition Information and Notices 3 October 2013

_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**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 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**

(2013/C 287 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-007801/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rights to musical works and multi-territorial licences — follow-up question

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 14

**E-008615/12** by Alexander Alvaro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Clean IT

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 16

**E-008616/12** by Alexander Alvaro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Website publishers' obligations to publish editorial information

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 17
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 18

**E-008617/12** by Mitro Repo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Safeguarding the right to industrial action in accordance with international standards

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

**E-008618/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Working conditions for women in the service industry

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 21
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 22

**E-008619/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Women's role in the ecological economy

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 23
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 24

C 287 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

**E-008620/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Production of solar installations in China

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 25
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 26

**E-008830/12** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Organ trafficking in Egypt

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 27
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 29

**E-008621/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Human trafficking in the Sinai

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 28
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 29

**E-008622/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Eurodac database

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

**E-008623/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cloud computing

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 33
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 34

**E-008624/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Elections in Belarus

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 35
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

**E-008625/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulating grapevine planting

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 38

**E-008626/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unrestricted purchasing of bonds

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 39
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 40

**E-008627/12** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Radio spectrum

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 41
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 42

**E-008628/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Relations between China and the EU — arms exports in Europe: a fresh Chinese miracle or the risk of a
breach of an embargo

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

**E-008629/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Abandoned mine shafts for geothermal energy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 45
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 46

**E-008630/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transfats and food safety: harmonisation measures between the different Member States

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 47
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

**E-008632/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Measles epidemic in Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 49
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 50

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 3

**E-008633/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Differently-abled pupils at school and obstacles encountered by them

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 51
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 53

**E-008634/12** by Andrea Zanoni, Nadja Hirsch, Jörg Leichtfried, Pavel Poc, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Keith Taylor,
Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Esther de Lange, Kriton Arsenis, Carl Schlyter, Sirpa Pietikäinen, David Martin and Dan
Jørgensen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Activities of ECVAM (European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods) and the Cosmetics
Directive

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 54
České znění ........................................................................................................................................................................ 56
Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 60
Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 62
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 64

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 66

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 68

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 70

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 72
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 74

**E-008635/12** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Work of the CMP and missing information

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 76
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 77

**E-008636/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ An EU agency to provide equitable support for exports from all Member States

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 78
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 79

**E-008637/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commodities prices

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 80
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 81

**E-008638/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ The intercultural dialogue situation in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 82
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 83

**E-008639/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Worker mobility in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 84
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 85

**E-008640/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ People with disabilities in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 86
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 87

**E-008641/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ The state of Lifelong Learning in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 88
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 89

**E-008642/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Workplace health, hygiene and safety in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 90
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 91

C 287 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

**E-008643/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ The situation of the elderly, and of intergenerational solidarity in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 92
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 93

**E-008644/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Language learning and study in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 94
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 95

**E-008645/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Road safety in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 96
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 97

**E-008646/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tourism in the European Union

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 98
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 99

**E-008647/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Consultative Committee of Former Presidents of the European Commission

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 100
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 101

**E-008648/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of nutrition and health in the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 102
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-008649/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation concerning the promotion and teaching of music in the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 104
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 105

**E-008650/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of SMEs and the craft industry in the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 106
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 107

**E-008651/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Roadworthiness Package

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 108

**E-008652/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Commission's Digital Agenda

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 109

**E-008653/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Airport slots and regional connectivity

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 110

**E-008654/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Eurojust engagement with national police forces

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 111

**E-008655/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ An EU definition of crime

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 112

**E-008656/12** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accountability of Europol to national police forces

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 113

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 5

**P-008657/12** by Michael Theurer to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Danube Strategy

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 114
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 115

**E-008658/12** by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission
_Subject:_ Alternative fuels

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 116
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 117

**E-008659/12** by Struan Stevenson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restrictive licensing conditions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 118

**E-008660/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Road haulage: updating rules governing the circulation within the EU of 44-tonne and 25.25-metre
vehicles

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 119
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 120

**E-008661/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Salvador Sedó i Alabart, Ana Miranda,
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Maria Badia i Cutchet and Raimon Obiols to the Commission
_Subject:_ Selection process for employment and training at the European institutions

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 121
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 122

**E-008662/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Supplementary question VI: management and financing of Spanish ports, fair competition and state aid
that may breach EU Treaties

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 123
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 125

**E-008663/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mediterranean Corridor and Port of Barcelona

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 126
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 127

**E-008664/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ List of 100 species threatened with extinction

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 128
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 129

**E-008665/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Largest port wine producer warns Unesco of the risks of the Foz Tua II dam

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 130
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 131

**E-008666/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mozambique — food production

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 132
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 133

**E-008667/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ United States: families throw away 40 % of the food they buy

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 134
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 135

**E-008668/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mexico: over three million birds dead

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 136
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 137

C 287 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

**E-008669/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ EUR 8.1 billion for research and innovation projects

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 138
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 139

**E-008670/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Measures for adapting to climate change

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 140
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 141

**E-008671/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Diabetes: gel for treating wounds

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 142
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 143

**E-008672/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Aquaculture

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 144
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 145

**E-008673/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statements by Hamid Karzai

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 146
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 147

**E-008674/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Russia: drought has destroyed 5.5 million hectares of crops

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 148
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 149

**E-008742/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Merger between EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) and BAE Systems

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 150
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 152

**E-008675/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Merger between Airbus and BAE

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 151
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 152

**E-008709/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ European aeronautical industry

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 151
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 152

**E-008676/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ OECD indicators for Portugal and the euro area

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 154
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 155

**E-008677/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ WindGEN3000 — micro wind generator

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 156
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 157

**E-008678/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Musculoskeletal disorders in agriculture and fishing

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 158
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 159

**E-008679/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ A new virus from the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) family identified

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 160
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 161

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 7

**E-008680/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dispute between Argentina and the IMF

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 162
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 163

**E-008681/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pipeline between Portugal and Spain

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 164
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 165

**E-008682/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ The FAO calls on the United States to suspend corn ethanol production

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 166
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 167

**E-008683/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tehran conference on Syria proposes a contact group

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 168
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 169

**E-008684/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Portugal: agricultural subsidies

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 170
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 171

**E-008685/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Brazilian researchers develop drought-resistant plants

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 172
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 173

**E-008686/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Development of a new method to diagnose leukaemia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 174
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 175

**E-008687/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ United Kingdom — Five million pounds in aid to the Syrian rebels

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 176
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 177

**E-008688/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria — Chemical arsenal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 178
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 179

**E-008689/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ US embassy attacks

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 180
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 181

**E-008691/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ International Monetary Fund (IMF) study on concentrated banking systems

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 182
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 183

**E-008692/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sardine stocks off the Iberian coast

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 184
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 185

**E-008696/12** by Thijs Berman to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Convictions for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 186
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 187

C 287 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

**E-008697/12** by Thijs Berman to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up — grant to Cameroonian banana sector

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 188
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 189

**E-008698/12** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal Case in Croatia Involving a Serbian Constituent (Follow up)

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 190

**E-008699/12** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pricing of medicines in Europe

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 191

**E-008700/12** by Franck Proust to the Commission
_Subject:_ Opening up high-speed rail lines to competition

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 192
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 193

**E-008702/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bisphenol A

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 194
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 195

**E-008703/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transgenic corn

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 196
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 197

**E-008704/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of the EU's financial interests

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 198
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 199

**E-008705/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ European unitary patent

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 200
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 201

**E-008706/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ The trade war between China and Japan

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 202
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 203

**E-008707/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ International recruitment of nurses

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 204
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 205

**E-008708/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Parliamentary elections in Belarus

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 206
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 207

**E-008710/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Serbian judges

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 208
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 209

**E-008711/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Third financial bail-out of Greece

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 210
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 211

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 9

**E-008712/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ High-speed electronic trading

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 212
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 213

**E-008713/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Human trafficking in Europe

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 214
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 215

**E-008714/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ New atypical pneumonia virus

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 216
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 217

**E-008715/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future redemption fund

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 218
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 219

**E-008716/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rwanda aid

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 220
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 221

**E-008717/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Clashes between Foxconn workers

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 222
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 223

**E-008718/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Consumer protection by the European Banking Authority

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 224
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 225

**E-008719/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible reduction in Community funds for Portugal between 2014 and 2020

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 226
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 227

**E-008720/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Customs duties on Burma/Myanmar exports

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 228
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 229

**E-008722/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Help for the European Bank

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 230
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 231

**E-008723/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future of the EU distant-water fishing fleet

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 232
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 233

**E-008724/12** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ New Eurostat rules on public debt accounting

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 234
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 235

**E-008725/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Closure of the Fundação das Salinas do Samouco

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 236
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 237

C 287 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

**E-008726/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ria Formosa shellfish gatherers going hungry

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 238
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 239

**E-008727/12** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — The situation in Syria

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 240
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 241

**E-008728/12** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Afghanistan — more civilian deaths during NATO bomb strikes

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 242
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 243

**E-008729/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Review of legislation on forest reproductive material

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 244
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 245

**E-008730/12** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation in the milk sector — conclusions of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 246
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 247

**E-008731/12** by Marian Harkin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Anti-dumping duties

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 248

**E-008732/12** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU and Hamas

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 249
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 250

**E-008733/12** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mandatory annual inspections for motorcycles more than six years old

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 251
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 252

**E-008734/12** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Council
_Subject:_ Classification of documents etc. in the EU institutions

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 253
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 255

**E-008735/12** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Classification of documents etc. in the EU institutions

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 257
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 259

**E-008736/12** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 261
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 262

**E-008737/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ European bank mergers since 2008

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 263
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 264

**P-009024/12** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Clean IT

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 265
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 267

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 11

**P-008738/12** by Judith Sargentini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Clean IT

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 266
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 267

**P-008739/12** by Maria Eleni Koppa to the Commission
_Subject:_ French activist on trial in Turkey

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 268
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 269

**E-008740/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ukraine's plans to raise import tariffs on a range of goods

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 270
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 271

**E-008741/12** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ Belarusian opposition activist on hunger strike

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 272
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 273

**E-008743/12** by Mojca Kleva to the Commission
_Subject:_ Media pluralism

Slovenska različica ............................................................................................................................................................ 274
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 275

**E-008744/12** by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Connecting Europe Facility — monitoring of projects by the Commission

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 276
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 277

**E-008745/12** by Marian Harkin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Third-level education fees for new citizens of Member States

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 278

**E-008746/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Hackers attacking network users more than ever

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 279
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 280

**E-008748/12** by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy and Marietje Schaake to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Video feature on bribes to be paid for a parliamentary seat in Azerbaijan

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 281
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 282

**E-008749/12** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ Position of Dutch banks on the mortgage market and credit market (I)

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 283
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 285

**E-008750/12** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ Position of Dutch banks on the mortgage market and credit market (II)

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 287
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 289

**P-008753/12** by Chris Davies to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU subsidies paid towards scrapping and modernisation of fishing vessels

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 291

**P-008754/12** by Richard Howitt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Corporate social responsibility in Burma/Myanmar

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 292

**E-008756/12** by Richard Howitt to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Corporate social responsibility in Burma/Myanmar

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 292

C 287 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

**P-008757/12** by Gay Mitchell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Right to free movement of goods

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 294

**E-008758/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Heavy metals in EU cosmetics

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 295
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 296

**E-008759/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Infringement procedures

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 297
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 298

**E-008760/12** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Infringement procedures against Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 299
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 300

**E-008761/12** by Claudio Morganti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Criminal exploitation of people with disabilities

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 301
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 303

**E-008762/12** by Giancarlo Scottà to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of a stock system to tackle extreme fluctuations in grain prices — Possible European coordination

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 305
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 306

**E-008763/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Nuclear emergency in Saluggia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 307
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 308

**E-008764/12** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Commission
_Subject:_ Children poisoned in Germany

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 309
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 310

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 13

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007801/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(4 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Derechos de obras musicales y licencias multiterritoriales — Repregunta

Ante mi preocupación por la fragmentación de los mercados audiovisuales, la Comisión me contestó
(E-004678/2012) el día 10 de julio de 2012 que «se permiten diferencias en las condiciones de acceso cuando estén
directamente justificadas por criterios objetivos» y que no constituía ninguna discriminación ilegal la falta de
prestación de un servicio a un consumidor cuando no se habían obtenido las oportunas licencias nacionales.

Al día siguiente, 11 de julio, la Comisión publicó la propuesta de Directiva europea para regular las licencias
multiterritoriales de derechos de obras musicales.

Por todo ello pregunto si la Comisión sigue considerando que no se discrimina cuando hay mercados fragmentados
en Europa o si propone licencias europeas.

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(14 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Comisión entiende que su Señoría se refiere al impacto de la propuesta de Directiva marco sobre gestión colectiva
de los derechos de autor en la posición de la Comisión reflejada en la respuesta dada por el comisario de Mercado
Interior y Servicios a la pregunta escrita E-004678/2012 ( [1] ).

La propuesta contiene una serie de reglas que fomentarán y facilitarán la concesión de licencias multiterritoriales de
obras musicales para usos en línea en la EU. Las sociedades de gestión colectiva son los principales interlocutores de
los proveedores de servicios de música en línea, ya que las mismas conceden las licencias de los derechos de autor que
estas precisen para prestar tales servicios. La propuesta tiene por objeto mejorar la concesión de licencias de los
derechos en línea por parte de las sociedades de gestión colectiva y la agregación de repertorios de obras musicales
con el fin de favorecer las licencias multiterritoriales.

La propuesta tiene por objeto reducir el número de licencias que un proveedor de Internet necesita obtener para
ofrecer sus servicios de música en línea a los consumidores de toda la UE. A este respecto, la propuesta debería ayudar
a superar el nivel actual de fragmentación del mercado de concesión de licencias de música de la UE.

Si bien la propuesta debe traducirse en un aumento de la concesión de licencias multiterritoriales y, en consecuencia,
facilitar la prestación de servicios en todos los Estados miembros de la UE, no impone licencias paneuropeas.
Actualmente, la propuesta se está debatiendo en el Consejo.

Los productores conceden normalmente licencias sobre las obras audiovisuales caso por caso. La gestión colectiva
desempeña un papel limitado en este sector. La Comisión pretende adoptar para finales de año una Comunicación en
la que se establecerá qué medidas deben adoptarse para facilitar la concesión de licencias y unos servicios en toda
la UE en el sector audiovisual.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 287 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007801/12**

**to the Commission**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(4 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Rights to musical works and multi-territorial licences — follow-up question

In its answer to my question about the fragmentation of the audiovisual market (E‐004678/2012), the Commission
said on 10 July 2012 that ‘differences in the conditions of access are allowed “when those differences are directly
justified by objective criteria”’ and that the non-provision of a service to a consumer does not constitute unlawful
discrimination in cases where the provider has not secured the necessary national licences.

The next day, 11 July 2012, the Commission published its proposal for a European directive to regulate multiterritorial licensing for rights in musical works.

Does the Commission still consider that the existence of fragmented markets in Europe does not give rise to
discrimination, or will it propose the introduction of European licences?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

The Commission understands that the Honourable Member refers to the impact of the proposal for a directive on the
collective management of copyright on the Commission's position reflected in the answer given by the Commissioner
for Internal Market and Services to Written Question E-004678/2012 ( [1] ).

The proposal contains a set of rules that will encourage and facilitate the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical
works for online uses in the EU. Collecting societies are the main interlocutors of providers offering online music
services as the former grant the licences for authors' rights that the latter need in order to provide such services. The
proposal aims to improve the licensing of online rights by collecting societies and the aggregation of musical works'
repertoire so as to foster multi-territorial licences.

The proposal aims to reduce the number of licences that an Internet provider needs to secure in order to offer its
online music services to consumers throughout the EU. In this regard, the proposal should assist overcoming the
current level of fragmentation in the EU music licensing market.

While the proposal should result in more multi-territorial licences being granted and hence facilitate services being
provided across EU Member States, it does not impose pan-European licences as such. At present, the proposal is
under discussion in the Council.

Audiovisual works are normally licensed on an individual basis by producers and collective management plays a
limited role in this sector. The Commissions aims to adopt by the end of the year a communication in which it will set
out what measures need to be taken to facilitate licensing and EU wide services in the audiovisual sector.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 15

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008615/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Alexander Alvaro (ALDE)**

_(27. September 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Clean IT

1. Was ist Clean IT?

2. Was ist das Ziel von Clean IT?

3. Wer ist an Clean IT beteiligt?

4. Wer hat Clean IT initiiert (in welcher Form und weshalb)?

5. Welche Rolle hat die Kommission bezüglich Clean IT?

6. Welche Generaldirektionen waren über Clean IT informiert?

7. Welche Personen innerhalb der Kommission waren bisher (in welcher Form) in Clean IT involviert?

8. Welche Zeitpläne bezüglich Clean IT gibt es?

9. Welche finanziellen Auswirkungen ergeben sich im Zusammenhang mit Clean IT auf den EU-Haushalt und die
Haushalte der Mitgliedstaaten?

Kann die Kommission besonders ausführliche Antworten erteilen, damit bei allen offenen Fragen vollständige
Transparenz hergestellt werden kann?

**Antwort von Frau Malmström im Namen der Kommission**

_(19. November 2012)_

Bezüglich der Fragen 1 bis 5 und 8 verweist die Kommission den Herrn Abgeordneten auf die Antwort der
Kommission auf die schriftlichen Anfragen P-8386/12, P-8569/12 und P-8906/12.

Bezüglich der Fragen 6 und 7: Kommissionsbeamte der Generaldirektionen Inneres sowie Binnenmarkt und
Dienstleistungen haben als Beobachter an den ersten Clean IT-Workshops teilgenommen.

Bezüglich der Frage 9: Das Projekt erhielt aus dem von der GD Inneres verwalteten Programm „Kriminalprävention
und Kriminalitätsbekämpfung“ („ISEC-Programm“) ( [1] ) einen Zuschuss in Höhe von 325 796,71 EUR, d. h. der
Gesamthaushalt beläuft sich nun auf 407 245,89 EUR. Der Restbetrag wird vom Projektkoordinator und seinen
Partnern gedeckt.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Liste der Finanzhilfen für maßnahmenbezogene Zuschüsse im Rahmen des ISEC-Programms, die 2010 über Partnerschaftsrahmenverträge

vergeben wurden:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/pdf/isec/2010_fpa_all_awarded.pdf

C 287 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008615/12**

**to the Commission**
**Alexander Alvaro (ALDE)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Clean IT

1. What is Clean IT?

2. What is the aim of Clean IT?

3. Who is participating in Clean IT?

4. Who initiated Clean IT, in what form and for what reason?

5. What is the role of the Commission with regard to Clean IT?

6. Which Directorates-General were informed of the plans for Clean IT?

7. Which persons in the Commission have been involved in Clean IT so far, and in what form?

8. What timeframe has been set for Clean IT activities?

9. What is the financial impact arising from Clean IT on both the EU budget and the Member State budgets?

I would request particularly detailed answers to be given so as to ensure that full transparency can be secured on all
open questions.

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 November 2012)_

Concerning questions 1 to 5, and 8, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission's joint reply to written
questions P-8386/12, P-8569/12 and P-8906/12.

As concerns questions 6 and 7, Commission officials from DGs Home Affairs and Internal Market and Services took
part in the initial Clean IT workshops as observers.

Regarding question 9, the project received a grant from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme (ISEC
Programme), managed by DG Home Affairs ( [1] ), of EUR 325 796.71 towards a total budget of EUR 407 245.89. The
difference is covered by the Project Coordinator and their partners.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) List of grants awarded for ISECAction Grants FPA Calls 2010:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/financing/fundings/pdf/isec/2010_fpa_all_awarded.pdf

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 17

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008616/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Alexander Alvaro (ALDE)**

_(27. September 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Impressumspflichten auf Webseiten

Wie sind in den 27 Mitgliedstaaten die Impressumspflichten für Webseiten geregelt?

**Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. November 2012)_

Die Kommission entnimmt der Anfrage, dass der Herr Abgeordnete eine Klarstellung über die Angaben wünscht, die
Anbieter von Onlinedienstleistungen, insbesondere Herausgeber von Webseiten, auf ihren Websites über sich selbst
machen müssen.

Die E-Commerce-Richtlinie 2000/31/EC ( [1] ) enthält verbindliche Mindestanforderungen an online tätige
Unternehmen (z. B. für Plattformen für den elektronischen Handel, Online-Musikverkaufstellen, Online-Zeitungen
oder Online-Reisebüros), wonach diese auf ihren Websites bestimmte Mindestinformationen offenlegen müssen.
Dazu gehören beispielsweise Name, geografische Anschrift, Kontaktangaben, E-Mail-Adresse und
Umsatzsteuer-Identifikationsnummer (Artikel 5).

Die Mitgliedstaaten können online tätige Unternehmen dazu verpflichten, auf ihren Websites weitere, über die
Mindestanforderungen hinausgehende Angaben zu machen. Dies muss allerdings im Rahmen des EU-Rechts
erfolgen, wobei insbesondere die Dienstleistungsrichtlinie und die Verbraucherschutzrichtlinie sowie die durch den
AEUV garantierten Grundrechte zu beachten sind.

Eine Verpflichtung, wonach Online-Diensteanbieter auf ihren Websites Haftungsauschlüsse veröffentlichen müssten,
sieht das EU-Recht nicht vor.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ABl. L 178 vom 17.7.2000, S. 1-16.

C 287 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008616/12**

**to the Commission**
**Alexander Alvaro (ALDE)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Website publishers' obligations to publish editorial information

What arrangements apply in the 27 different Member States with regard to website publishers' obligations to disclose
information about themselves (e.g. in the form of a site notice or disclaimer, known in German as an ‘Impressum’) on
their websites?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

The Commission understands that the Honourable Member seeks clarification on the information that providers of
online services, and in particular publishers, are required to give about themselves on their websites.

The E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC ( [1] ) lays down the mandatory minimum requirements for online businesses,
(eg. e-commerce platforms, online music stores, online newspapers or online travel agencies) to publish on their
websites certain basic information, such as their name, geographic address, contact details, e-mail address and VAT
number (Article 5).

Member States may oblige online businesses to provide on their websites other information going beyond these
minimum requirements. However, this should be within the limits of EC law, i.e. in particular the Services Directive,
the Consumer Rights Directive and/or the fundamental freedoms of the TFEU.

There is no EC law requirement obliging online service providers to publish any kind of disclaimers on their websites.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, pp. 0001-0016.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 19

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008617/12**

**komissiolle**
**Mitro Repo (S&D)**
_(27. syyskuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Työtaisteluoikeuden turvaaminen kansainvälisen normiston mukaisesti

EU:n tuomioistuimen antamat tuomiot (erityisesti Viking ja Laval) ovat herättäneet paljon kritiikkiä siitä, että EU:n
taloudelliset perusvapaudet menevät sosiaalisten oikeuksien edelle. Asiantilaa selkeyttääkseen komissio antoi
maaliskuussa 2012 ehdotuksen ns. Monti II ‐asetukseksi, jonka mukaan palvelujen tarjoamisen vapaus sekä
sijoittautumisvapaus ovat yhdenvertaisia työtaisteluoikeuden kanssa.

Asetusehdotusta kritisoitiin muun muassa siitä, ettei se tarpeeksi selkeästi ilmaise tavoitetta muuttaa vallitsevaa
oikeustilaa, vaan toteutuessaan vain vahvistaisi nykyisen käytännön. Lisäksi EU:n oikeuskäytännön on katsottu
olevan kansainvälisen työoikeuden periaatteiden vastaista erityisesti mitä tulee työtaistelutoimenpiteiden
suhteellisuusarviointiin.

Kansallisten parlamenttien antamien toissijaisuuslausuntojen ylitettyä vaaditun kynnysarvon asetusehdotus palautui
komissioon uudelleenarvioitavaksi. Myöhemmin komissio ilmoitti vetävänsä ehdotuksensa takaisin.

1. Mitä toimenpiteitä komissio harkitsee työtaisteluoikeuden turvaamiseksi taloudellisiin vapauksiin nähden
Monti II ‐asetuksen kaaduttua?

2. Aikooko komissio esittää kansainvälisen työoikeuden vaatimukset täyttävää lainsäädäntöehdotusta, jossa
tunnustetaan työmarkkinaosapuolten itsenäisyys ja liikkumavara sekä vain rajoitettu mahdollisuus tuomioistuimen
oikeudelliseen tarkasteluun?

3. Mitä mieltä komissio on määräenemmistöllä päätettävistä, SEUT-sopimuksen 26 artiklan 3 kohdan mukaisista
ja EU:n instituutioita sitovista suuntaviivoista työtaisteluoikeuden kunnioittamiseksi kansainvälisen normiston
mukaisesti? Harkitseeko komissio suuntaviivojen ehdottamista?

**László Andorin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(19. marraskuuta 2012)_

Komissio vahvistaa, että se on vetänyt takaisin ehdotuksensa asetukseksi työtaisteluoikeuden harjoittamisesta
suhteessa sijoittautumisvapauteen ja palvelujen tarjoamisen vapauteen (Monti II). Ehdotuksen peruuttaminen ei
tarkoita, että komissio olisi hylkäämässä työntekijöiden oikeudet. Työntekijöiden oikeudet on vahvistettu Euroopan
unionin perusoikeuskirjassa, josta on tullut osa perussopimusta. Elin‐ ja työolojen kohentaminen, riittävä sosiaalinen
suojeleminen ja työmarkkinaosapuolten välinen vuoropuhelu kuuluvat EU:n sosiaalipolitiikan keskeisiin tavoitteisiin
(SEUT-sopimuksen 151 artikla), joita komissio edistää jatkossakin.

C 287 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008617/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mitro Repo (S&D)**
_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Safeguarding the right to industrial action in accordance with international standards

Judgments given by the Court of Justice of the EU (particularly in the Viking and Laval cases) have met with much
criticism to the effect that, in the EU, fundamental economic freedoms take precedence over social rights. In
March 2012, in order to clarify the situation, the Commission submitted its proposal for a so-called Monti II
Regulation, under which freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment would be accorded equal status
with the right to industrial action.

The proposal for a regulation was criticised _inter alia_ because it did not sufficiently clearly express the intention of
altering the prevailing state of the law but, if adopted, would only have confirmed current practice. In addition, the
case law of the Court of Justice has been regarded as being contrary to the principles of international labour law,
particularly as regards assessments of the proportionality of industrial action.

As the opinions delivered by national parliaments regarding compliance with the subsidiarity principle exceeded the
required threshold, the proposal for a regulation was referred back to the Commission for a review. Later, the
Commission announced that it was withdrawing its proposal.

1. What measures is the Commission considering with a view to safeguarding the right to industrial action in
relation to economic freedoms, now that the Monti II regulation is no longer pending adoption?

2. Will the Commission submit a legislative proposal which complies with the requirements of international
labour law, recognising the autonomy and room for manoeuvre of employers and employees and providing for only
limited scope for judicial review?

3. What view does the Commission take of guidelines, which would be binding on the EU institutions, concerning
respect for the right to industrial action in accordance with international standards, to be adopted by a qualified
majority pursuant to Article 24(3) of the TFEU? Will the Commission consider proposing such guidelines?

**Answer given by M. Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 November 2012)_

The Commission confirms that it has withdrawn its proposal of a regulation on the exercise of the right to take
collective action within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Monti II).
Withdrawal of the proposal does not mean that the Commission is abandoning workers' rights. Workers' rights are
enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which has become part of the Treaty. Improved living and working
conditions, proper social protection and dialogue between management and labour are among the core objectives of
EU social policy (Article 151 TFEU) which the Commission will continue to promote.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 21

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008618/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Pracovné podmienky žien v sektore služieb

V odvetví služieb bolo v roku 2010 v EÚ zamestnaných celkovo 69,4 % osôb. Je tu zamestnaná najväčšia časť
pracujúcich žien: 83,1 % v porovnaní s 58,1 % pracujúcich mužov. Sektor služieb ale trpí problémom horizontálnej
segregácie a vertikálnej segregácie, ktoré sú následkom pretrvávajúcich stereotypov v tomto odvetví. Tie sú
v spoločnosti značne zakorenené. Predpokladá sa totiž, že existujú povolania mužské a ženské. Koncentrácia žien
v odvetví služieb je však vysoká: 25 % v porovnaní so 17 % mužov.

V sektore služieb okrem toho pretrvávajú aj výrazné rozdiely v odmeňovaní. Ženy celkovo v EÚ zarábajú o 17,1 %
menej ako muži, pričom približne 80 % osôb s nízkymi platmi sú ženy. Rozdiely v odmeňovaní sa dajú čiastočne
vysvetliť aj tým, že v službách pretrváva horizontálna segregácia a vertikálna segregácia súvisiaca s tzv. skleneným
stropom. Hospodárska kríza navyše prispieva k zhoršeniu tejto situácie, keďže sa obmedzujú alebo rušia opatrenia
zamerané na dosiahnutie rovnosti.

—
Plánuje Komisia v blízkej budúcnosti vypracovať návrh legislatívneho aktu, ktorý by zlepšil pracovné
podmienky žien v sektore služieb?

**Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie**

_(23. novembra 2012)_

Vo svojej Stratégii rovnosti žien a mužov (2010 – 2015) Komisia zdôrazňuje potrebu riešiť rodovú segregáciu na trhu
práce a znížiť rozdiely v odmeňovaní žien a mužov. Komisia zvyšuje povedomie o týchto problémoch najmä
prostredníctvom kampane za odstránenie rozdielov v odmeňovaní žien a mužov.

V tejto stratégii je preto riešenie problému odstraňovania rozdielov v odmeňovaní žien a mužov jednou z priorít
Komisie. Zásada rovnakej odmeny je zakotvená v zmluve a v smernici 2006/54/ES o rovnakom zaobchádzaní
s mužmi a ženami vo veciach zamestnanosti a povolania. Komisia neustále sleduje, či sa existujúci právny rámec
súvisiaci s otázkou rovnakého odmeňovania správne uplatňuje na vnútroštátnej úrovni. Správa o vykonávaní
smernice 2006/54/ES, ako aj o uplatňovaní ustanovení o rovnakej odmene je naplánovaná na rok 2013.

Komisia nedávno spustila iniciatívu „Equality Pays Off“ (Rovnosť sa vypláca), ktorá má v podnikoch zvýšiť povedomie
o rozdieloch v odmeňovaní žien a mužov. V rámci tejto iniciatívy sa budú pre podniky organizovať vzdelávacie
aktivity a podporia sa konkrétne nástroje na to, aby sa zvýšila informovanosť o „ekonomickom opodstatnení“
rodovej rovnosti a rovnakej odmeny. Okrem toho sa v Bruseli v roku 2013 v období okolo Európskeho dňa
rovnakého odmeňovania uskutoční podnikateľské fórum. Pre podniky bude predstavovať platformu výmeny
poznatkov o činnostiach zameraných na podporu rodovej rovnosti.

V rámci stratégie Európa 2020 a európskeho semestra venuje Komisia pozornosť aj spôsobom, akým členské štáty
podporujú rodovú rovnosť vo svojej politike zamestnanosti.

C 287 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008618/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Working conditions for women in the service industry

In the EU in 2010, a total of 69.4% of workers were employed in the service industry. Most working women are
employed in this sector: 83.1%, compared with 58.1% for men. However, the service industry suffers from problems
of horizontal and vertical segregation, which are a consequence of persisting stereotypes in the sector. These
stereotypes are deeply rooted in society. After all, there are certain professions that are thought of as ‘male’, and
certain that are thought of as ‘female’. The concentration of women in the service industry is high: 25%, compared
with 17% for men.

Significant pay differences also exist in the sector. On the whole, women in the EU earn 17.1% less than men, while
approximately 80% of low‐wage earners are women. Pay differences can partly be explained by the fact that
horizontal segregation and vertical segregation (‘glass ceiling’) still exist in the service industry. Moreover, the
economic crisis is exacerbating this situation, since measures aimed at achieving equality are being limited or
repealed.

—
Does the Commission plan to draw up a draft legislative act to improve the working conditions of women in
the service industry?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 November 2012)_

In its Strategy for equality between women and men (2010-2015) the Commission underlines the need to address the
gender segregation on the labour market and to reduce the gender pay gap. The Commission is raising awareness on
those issues notably through the gender pay gap campaign.

Tackling the gender pay gap is therefore one of the Commission's priorities in the strategy. The principle of equal pay
is enshrined in the Treaty and in Directive 2006/54/EC on equal treatment of women and men in employment and
occupation. The Commission is constantly monitoring whether the existing legal framework on equal pay is being
correctly applied at national level. A report on the implementation of Directive 2006/54/EC including the application
of the provisions on equal pay is envisaged for 2013.

The Commission has recently started the initiative ‘Equality Pays Off’ aimed at raising awareness in companies about
the gender pay gap. Training activities will be organised and specific tools will be promoted for companies to raise
awareness on the ‘business case’ for gender equality and equal pay. Moreover, a business forum will be organised in
Brussels around the European Equal Pay Day in 2013. It will be a platform of knowledge exchange for companies on
actions to foster gender equality.

In the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy and the European semester the Commission is also paying attention to
the ways Member States are promoting gender equality in their employment policies.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 23

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008619/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Úloha žien v ekologickom hospodárstve

Ekologické hospodárstvo je udržateľné hospodárstvo, pod čím sa rozumie sociálna a ekologická udržateľnosť.
Vzhľadom na rodové úlohy nie je vplyv žien na životné prostredie rovnaký ako vplyv mužov. Rodová nerovnosť
spojená s nedostatkom citlivosti voči odlišnému ekonomickému a sociálnemu stavu žien a ich potrebám spôsobuje,
že ženy zhoršovaním životného prostredia často neúmerne trpia. Dôsledky zmeny klímy pritom najviac postihnú
najchudobnejších ľudí, z ktorých ženy tvoria podľa odhadov až 70 %. V mnohých krajinách je navyše prístup žien
k zdrojom a možnostiam zvládnuť situáciu a prispôsobiť sa obmedzený, a to z dôvodu štrukturálnych noriem
a diskriminácie. Ženy navyše v ekologickom hospodárstve v nedostatočnej miere zastávajú odborné funkcie a sú
zjavne nedostatočne zastúpené v rámci rokovaní o životnom prostredí a rozpočte, ako aj pri prijímaní rozhodnutí
o tejto otázke. Absencia rodovej perspektívy v politikách životného prostredia výrazne zvyšuje rodovú nerovnosť.

—
Akým spôsobom začleňuje Komisia rodové hľadisko do svojich politík súvisiacich s ekologickým
hospodárstvom?

**Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie**

_(26. novembra 2012)_

Neexistuje žiadna dohodnutá definícia ekologického alebo zeleného hospodárstva. Komisia je prostredníctvom
Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie odhodlaná docieliť elimináciu nerovnosti a podporovať rovnosť medzi mužmi
a ženami vo všetkých oblastiach. V stratégii rovnosti žien a mužov (2010 – 2015) sa uvádza, že Komisia sa bude
podporovať ženy pri výbere netradičných profesií, napríklad v tzv. zelených a inovatívnych odvetviach.

C 287 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008619/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Women's role in the ecological economy

An ecological economy is a sustainable economy, implying social and ecological sustainability. Owing to gender
roles, women’s influence on the environment is not equal to that of men. Gender inequality and the lack of sensitivity
with regard to the different economic and social status of women and their needs mean that women often suffer to a
greater degree as a result of environmental degradation. The effects of climate change are most keenly felt by the
world’s poorest, of which women represent — according to estimates — 70%. Moreover, in many countries women’s
access to the resources and means to adapt and cope with their situation are limited as a result of structural norms and
discrimination. Additionally, women occupy an insufficient number of professional posts in the ecological economy
and are grossly underrepresented in discussions on the environment, budgetary issues and in the decision‐making
process in this area. The lack of a gender perspective in environmental policies significantly increases gender
inequality.

—
How is the Commission incorporating a gender perspective into its policies on the ecological economy?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 November 2012)_

There is no agreed definition of the ecological or green economy and the Commission is committed, through the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between
men and women in all its activities. The strategy for equality between women and men (2010-2015) states that the
Commission will seek to encourage women to enter non-traditional professions, for example in ‘green’ and
innovative sectors.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 25

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008620/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Výroba solárnych zariadení v Číne

Európska komisia nedávno dostala antidumpingovú sťažnosť proti dotáciám poskytovaným čínskym výrobcom
solárnych zariadení. V sťažnosti koalície EU ProSun je uvedené, že čínske štátne banky poskytujú čínskym výrobcom
nelegálne štátne dotácie, čím výrazne znevýhodňujú konkurenta na trhu. EU ProSun uvádza, že čínske vládne dotácie
sú dostupné len pre čínske firmy. Masívne dotácie a štátna intervencia podnietila nadmernú kapacitu vo výške viac
než 20-násobku celkovej čínskej spotreby a blízko dvojnásobku celkového svetového dopytu. Preto muselo ísť viac
než 90 % čínskej produkcie na vývoz. Bez vládnych dotácií by bola takáto iracionálna nadprodukcia, ktorá nedokáže
priniesť zisk, dôvodom na bankrot. V roku 2012 pritom vyhlásilo insolventnosť viac ako 20 veľkých európskych
solárnych výrobcov. Predchádzajúcu sťažnosť podala EU ProSun ešte v júli tohto roku. Čínske firmy majú
v súčasnosti viac než 50-percentný podiel na svetovej výrobe fotovoltaických zariadení.

—
Plánuje Komisia spustiť v tejto súvislosti ďalšie vyšetrovanie?

**Odpoveď pána De Guchta v mene Komisie**

_(24. októbra 2012)_
Komisia nesie zodpovednosť za vyšetrovanie obvinení, ktoré sa týkajú subvencií poskytovaných vyvážajúcim výrob­
com v krajinách mimo Európskej únie (EÚ). Základným antisubvenčným nariadením EÚ je nariadenie Rady (ES)
č. 597/2009 ( [1] ) z 11. júna 2009 o ochrane pred subvencovanými dovozmi z krajín, ktoré nie sú členmi Európskeho
spoločenstva, ktoré je v súlade s medzinárodnými povinnosťami EÚ, predovšetkým s dohodou Svetovej obchodnej
organizácie (WTO) o dotáciách a vyrovnávacích opatreniach. V rámci tohto právneho rámca, výrobcovia Únie môžu
podať antisubvenčný podnet. Ak by akýkoľvek takýto podnet bol podaný v súvislosti so solárnymi zariadeniami, a ak
by spĺňal požiadavky stanovené v základnom nariadení o začatí antisubvenčného konania, začne sa konanie.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:188:0093:0126:EN:PDF

C 287 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008620/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Production of solar installations in China

An anti‐dumping complaint was recently lodged with the Commission against subsidies offered to Chinese
manufacturers of solar installations. The complaint, levelled by the EU ProSun group, states that Chinese state banks
are offering Chinese manufacturers illegal state subsidies, thereby putting their market competitors at a clear
disadvantage. EU ProSun asserts that Chinese state subsidies are only made available to Chinese companies.
Enormous subsidies and state intervention have stimulated overcapacity to over 20 times total Chinese consumption
and close to two times total world demand. Over 90% of Chinese production therefore had to go to the export
market. In the absence of state subsidies, such irrational and unprofitable overproduction would lead to bankruptcy.
In 2012, though, more than 20 European manufacturers of solar installations announced their insolvency. EU ProSun
had already lodged a previous complaint in July 2012. Chinese firms currently represent over 50% of world
production of photovoltaic installations.

—
Does the Commission plan to investigate this matter further?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 October 2012)_

The Commission is responsible for investigating allegations of subsidies granted to exporting producers in countries
outside the European Union (EU). The EU's basic anti-subsidy Regulation is Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 ( [1] )
of 11 June 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community,
which complies with the EU's international obligations, in particular the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Within that legal framework, Union producers may lodge an
anti-subsidy complaint. Should any such complaint be lodged in respect of solar installations and meet
the requirements set under the basic Regulation for the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding, a proceeding will
be opened.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:188:0093:0126:EN:PDF

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 27

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008830/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**
_(2 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Εμπόριο οργάνων στην Αίγυπτο

Όταν το σαράντα τοις εκατό του πληθυσμού της Αιγύπτου ζει με 2 ευρώ την μέρα περίπου, το να κερδίσει κανείς 2 000 ευρώ
πωλώντας ένα νεφρό ή ένα κομμάτι του ήπατός του γίνεται ιδιαίτερα ελκυστικό.

Ένα μεγάλο ποσοστό των ανθρώπων που υφίστανται αυτές τις χειρουργικές επεμβάσεις αφαίρεσης οργάνων είναι αιτούντες
πολιτικό άσυλο και πρόσφυγες από άλλες αφρικανικές χώρες και δη από το Σουδάν, από την Ερυθραία και από την Αιθιοπία.

Ορισμένοι πρόσφυγες έχουν υποστεί αφαίρεση των οργάνων τους παρά την θέλησή τους.

Τον περασμένο Ιούνιο, η Αίγυπτος απαγόρευσε τις χρηματικές δοσοληψίες για ανθρώπινα όργανα αλλά δεν έχει μεριμνήσει
αποτελεσματικά για την εφαρμογή του νόμου.

Οι περισσότερες από αυτές τις παράνομες εγχειρήσεις πραγματοποιούνται με την χρησιμοποίηση αυτοσχέδιων μεθόδων και
χωρίς καμία τήρηση υγειονομικών κανόνων, γεγονός που καθιστά πολύ πιθανές τις μολύνσεις και τις περιπλοκές. Οι ασθενείς
δεν τυγχάνουν της δέουσας μεταχείρισης και αφήνονται να επιστρέψουν σπίτι τους αμέσως μετά την εγχείρηση, αν και ένας
ασθενής πρέπει να παραμείνει τουλάχιστον οκτώ ώρες μετά την εγχείρηση στο νοσοκομείο.

Τούτων δοθέντων, επιθυμώ να θέσω τις εξής ερωτήσεις στην Επιτροπή:

1. Γνωρίζει ότι υπάρχει θέμα εμπορίας οργάνων στην Αίγυπτο;

2. Σκοπεύει να επιχειρήσει να επηρεάσει την κατάσταση;

**Κοινή απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(20 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η ΕΕ παρακολουθεί εκ του σύνεγγυς, μέσω της Αντιπροσωπείας της στο Κάιρο, το ζήτημα της εμπορίας ανθρώπων στην
Αίγυπτο. Η ΕΕ εξέφρασε επανειλημμένα την ανησυχία της σχετικά με την εμπορία ανθρώπων στον Αιγύπτιο Υπουργό
Εξωτερικών και τον Υπουργό Εσωτερικών. Ο κ. Alexander Rondos, Ειδικός Εντεταλμένος της ΕΕ για το Κέρας της Αφρικής,
έθεσε το θέμα των προσφύγων του όρους Σινά στη συνάντησή του με τον Υπουργό Εξωτερικών κ. Amr στο Κάιρο, τον
Μάρτιο του 2012. Η ΕΕ θα συνεχίσει να παροτρύνει τις αιγυπτιακές αρχές να διασφαλίσουν τον πλήρη σεβασμό των
ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων των μεταναστών και των προσφύγων και τη λήψη των κατάλληλων μέτρων για την αντιμετώπιση
της εμπορίας ανθρώπων στη χώρα. Για παράδειγμα, το Γραφείο των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τους Πρόσφυγες (UNHCR) θα
πρέπει να είναι σε θέση να εκπληρώσει πλήρως την εντολή του σε ολόκληρη την επικράτεια της Αιγύπτου,
συμπεριλαμβανομένης της περιοχής του Σινά.

Μετά την εκλογή του Προέδρου Morsi, πραγματοποιήθηκε ριζικός ανασχηματισμός της στρατιωτικής ιεραρχίας που έθεσε
τέλος στη στρατιωτική κηδεμονία. Ωστόσο, χωρίς εκ βάθρων μεταρρύθμιση του τομέα της ασφάλειας και χωρίς πρόσθετα
μέσα για την καταπολέμηση της εμπορίας ανθρώπων και του οργανωμένου εγκλήματος, η κατάσταση δεν πρόκειται να
βελτιωθεί ουσιαστικά. Η ΕΕ είναι έτοιμη να συνδράμει τις αιγυπτιακές αρχές στη δίωξη των εμπόρων ανθρώπων και τον
έλεγχο των συνόρων με αποτελεσματικότερο τρόπο, και συγχρόνως στην εκπλήρωση των διεθνών δεσμεύσεών τους για τα
ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα. Δυστυχώς, η αιγυπτιακή πλευρά απέρριψε έως τώρα την προσφορά συνεργασίας μας για τη
μεταρρύθμιση του τομέα της ασφάλειας. Η επιδείνωση της κατάστασης όσον αφορά την ασφάλεια σε ορισμένες περιοχές της
Αιγύπτου συνδέεται επίσης στενά με τη φτώχεια και την έλλειψη οικονομικής ανάπτυξης, που ευρίσκονται στο επίκεντρο του
προγράμματος συνεργασίας της ΕΕ στη χώρα (το εθνικό ενδεικτικό πρόγραμμα 2011-2013 για την Αίγυπτο ανέρχεται σε
449 εκατ. ευρώ).

C 287 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008621/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Obchodovanie s ľuďmi v Sinaji

V Sinaji každoročne prídu o život alebo zmiznú tisíce žiadateľov o azyl a migrantov. Ďalší, vrátane mnohých žien
a detí, sa stávajú obeťami únosov a rukojemníkmi obchodníkov s ľuďmi. Obete takéhoto obchodovania sú vystavené
otrasnému zneužívaniu. Sú vystavované neustálemu násiliu, mučeniu, znásilňovaniu, sexuálnemu zneužívaniu
a nútenej práci. Každý mesiac údajne vstúpi do Izraela cez Sinaj priemerne 2 000 ľudí, mnohí z nich pomocou
pašerákov, ktorí si vytvorili v tejto oblasti rozsiahlu sieť. Podľa odhadov izraelskej vlády vstúpilo od roku 2005
nezákonne do Izraela cez Sinaj približne 50 000 Afričanov.

Polícia zatkla stovky nelegálnych migrantov a zadržiava ich na policajných staniciach a vo väzniciach v Sinaji
a v severnej časti Egypta. Nemajú prístup k Vysokému komisárovi pre utečencov, a tým sa im odopiera právo
požiadať o azyl. Podľa organizácií na ochranu ľudských práv sú tí, ktorí nezaplatia výkupné, zabití a vyberú im z tela
orgány, ktoré potom predávajú. Existujú správy o masových hroboch zabitých utečencov.

1. Považuje Komisia problematiku obchodovania s ľuďmi a porušovania ľudských práv a základných slobôd
žiadateľov o azyl v Sinaji za vysokú prioritu v jej politickom dialógu s Egyptom?

2. Ak áno, aké konkrétne kroky Komisia podnikla v tejto súvislosti v poslednom čase?

**Spoločná odpoveď podpredsedníčky Komisie/vysokej predstaviteľky Ashtonovej v mene Komisie**

_(20. novembra 2012)_

EÚ veľmi pozorne sleduje situáciu v oblasti obchodovania s ľuďmi v Egypte prostredníctvom svojej delegácie
v Káhire. EÚ vyjadrila svoje obavy v súvislosti s obchodovaním s ľuďmi pri viacerých príležitostiach egyptskému
ministerstvu zahraničných vecí a ministerstvu vnútra. Pán Alexander Rondos, osobitný zástupca EÚ pre Africký roh,
poukázal na problém utečencov prechádzajúcich cez Sinaj na stretnutí s ministrom zahraničných vecí Amrom
v Káhire v marci 2012. EÚ bude naďalej naliehať na egyptské orgány, aby zabezpečili dodržiavanie ľudských práv
migrantov a utečencov a prijatie primeraných opatrení na riešenie problémov obchodovania s ľuďmi v krajine.
Napríklad Agentúra OSN pre utečencov (UNHCR) by mala byť schopná uplatňovať svoj mandát na celom území
Egypta vrátane sinajského regiónu.

Od zvolenia prezidenta Morsiho došlo k dramatickým zmenám vo vojenskej hierarchii, ktoré mali za následok
ukončenie vojenskej správy. Bez rozsiahlej reformy sektora bezpečnosti a bez dodatočných prostriedkov na boj proti
obchodovaniu s ľuďmi a organizovanej trestnej činnosti je však nepravdepodobné, že by sa situácia mohla výrazne
zlepšiť. EÚ je pripravená podporiť egyptské orgány v boji proti pašerákom, pri efektívnejšom dozore nad hranicou
a súčasnom plnení ich medzinárodných záväzkov v súvislosti s dodržiavaním ľudských práv. Bohužiaľ, egyptské
orgány doposiaľ odmietajú našu ponuku na spoluprácu v oblasti reformy sektoru bezpečnosti. Zhoršovanie
bezpečnostnej situácie v niektorých oblastiach Egypta úzko súvisí aj s otázkou chudoby a nedostatočného
hospodárskeho rozvoja, ktoré sú hlavným obsahom programov spolupráce EÚ uskutočňovaných v krajine (Národný
indikatívny program (NIP) na roky 2011 – 2013 pre Egypt s rozpočtom 449 mil. EUR).

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 29

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008621/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Human trafficking in the Sinai

Thousands of asylum‐seekers and migrants lose their lives or disappear in the Sinai every year. Others, including
many women and children, are kidnapped and held hostage for ransom by human traffickers. The victims of human
trafficking are horribly abused. They are subject to systematic violence, torture, rape, sexual abuse and forced labour.
Each month, some 2 000 people reportedly enter Israel successfully through the Sinai, many with the assistance of
smugglers, who have established a sizeable network in this area. According to Israeli Government estimates, around
50 000 Africans have illegally entered Israel through the Sinai since 2005.

The police have arrested hundreds of illegal migrants and detain them in police stations and prisons in the Sinai and
northern Egypt. They do not have access to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for refugees, thus preventing
them from exercising their right to request asylum. According to human rights organisations, those who fail to pay
the price for their release are killed, whereupon their organs are removed and then traded. There are reports of mass
graves filled with murdered refugees.

1. Does the Commission view the issue of human trafficking and the violation of the human rights and
fundamental freedoms of asylum‐seekers in the Sinai as a high priority in its political dialogue with Egypt?

2. If so, what specific steps has the Commission taken recently in this matter?

**Question for written answer E-008830/12**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(2 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Organ trafficking in Egypt

Forty percent of Egypt’s population lives on around 2 euro per day, making the 2 000 euro profit from selling a
kidney or a liver very appealing.

A large percentage of the people undergoing these organ extraction surgeries are political asylum-seekers and
refugees from other African countries, especially Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Some of the refugees have had their organs harvested against their will.

Last June, Egypt banned payment for human organs but has not effectively reinforced the law.

Most of the illegal operations are done using crude methods in unsanitary conditions, making infections and
complications likely. The patients are not treated properly and are dismissed directly after surgery, in disregard of the
fact that a patient should, at a minimum, spend eight hours after surgery in a hospital.

In light of this, I would like to ask the Commission to answer the following:

1. Is it aware of the issue of organ trafficking in Egypt?

2. Does it plan on trying to influence this issue?

C 287 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

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

_(20 November 2012)_

The EU is following the issue of human trafficking in Egypt very closely through its Delegation in Cairo. The EU's
concerns on human trafficking have been expressed on numerous occasions to the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and to the Ministry of Interior. The EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, Mr Alexander Rondos,
raised the issue of the Sinai refugees in his meeting with Foreign Minister Amr in Cairo in March 2012. The EU will
continue to urge the Egyptian authorities to ensure that the human rights of migrants and refugees are fully respected
and that appropriate actions are taken to address human trafficking in the country. For instance, the United Nations
Refugee Agency (UNHCR) should be able to fully implement its mandate on the entire territory of Egypt, including
the Sinai region.

Since the election of President Morsi, a dramatic reshuffle of the military hierarchy ending the military tutorship has
been carried out. However, without a thorough reform of the security sector and without additional means to fight
trafficking and organised crime, it is unlikely that the situation will substantially improve. The EU stands ready in
supporting the Egyptian authorities to fight traffickers and to control the borders in a more efficient manner while
fulfilling their international human rights commitments. Unfortunately, the Egyptian side has so far declined our
cooperation offer on Security Sector Reform. The worsening of the security situation in some areas of Egypt is also
closely related to poverty and the lack of economic development which are at the core of the EU cooperation's agenda
in the country (National Indicative Programme (NIP) 2011-2013 for Egypt amounts to EUR 449 million).

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 31

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008622/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Databáza EURODAC

Nariadenie, podľa ktorého má vzniknúť Eurodac – nová európska databáza odtlačkov prstov žiadateľov o azyl
a niektorých skupín imigrantov, ktorej cieľom je zefektívniť boj proti ilegálnej imigrácii, prijala Rada pre
spravodlivosť a vnútorné záležitosti. Nariadenie obsahuje špecifické bezpečnostné opatrenia, pričom údaje
z databázy nesmú byť použité na iné účely. V máji 2012 však Komisia predložila návrh na zmenu predmetného
návrhu, podľa ktorého by k databáze mali mať prístup Europol a národné orgány činné v trestnom konaní. Európsky
dozorný úradník pre ochranu údajov v tom však vidí problém. Podľa jeho názoru ide o vážny zásah do práv
zraniteľnej skupiny ľudí, ktorú treba chrániť

1. Aký je dôvod Komisie na takýto vážny zásah do osobnej integrity žiadateľov o azyl a niektorých skupín
imigrantov?

2. Poskytne Komisia v blízkej budúcnosti dôkazy či štatistiky, ktoré dokazujú opodstatnenosť jej návrhu?

**Odpoveď pani Malmströmovej v mene Komisie**

_(22. novembra 2012)_

Podľa názoru Komisie je prístup orgánov presadzovania práva k systému Eurodac za prísnych podmienok
a s účinnými ochrannými opatreniami v osobitných prípadoch nevyhnutný a primeraný. Žiadatelia o azyl
predstavujú zraniteľnú skupinu, ktorá potrebuje osobitnú ochranu. Uvedené podmienky a ochranné opatrenia teda
tvoria základnú časť návrhu predloženého Komisiou 30. mája 2012, ktorým sa má orgánom presadzovania práva
umožniť prístup k systému Eurodac iba na účely predchádzania, odhaľovania a vyšetrovania terorizmu a inej
závažnej trestnej činnosti ( [1] ).

Súčasťou týchto opatrení je dvojfázový prístup, v rámci ktorého možno preverenie v systéme Eurodac realizovať iba
vtedy, ak sa najprv vykoná tzv. prümské preverenie ( [2] ), overenie overovacím orgánom, či sú v konkrétnom prípade
splnené prísne podmienky pre preverenie v systéme Eurodac, pričom platí zákaz systematického porovnávania
a zákaz prenosu údajov získaných zo systému Eurodac do tretích krajín. Komisia preto zastáva názor, že návrh je
v plnej miere v súlade s Chartou základných práv, a to predovšetkým pokiaľ ide o právo na azyl (článok 18) a ochranu
osobných údajov (článok 8).

Z dôvodovej správy k návrhu Komisie aj zo sprievodného posúdenia vplyvu [SEC(2009) 936] ( [3] ) vyplýva, že prístup
orgánov presadzovania práva k systému Eurodac je nevyhnutný na to, aby sa vyplnila štrukturálna medzera v oblasti
informácií a overovania. V súčasnosti nemajú orgány presadzovania práva k dispozícii žiaden nástroj na to, aby
mohli zistiť, ktorý členský štát má informácie o žiadateľovi o víza, ktorý je podozrivý zo spáchania závažného
trestného činu alebo ktorý je obeťou trestného činu. Komisia nemôže poskytnúť príklady využitia systému Eurodac
v rámci vyšetrovania trestnej činnosti, keďže súčasné pravidlá takéto využitie údajov systému Eurodac neumožňujú.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 254 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Podľa rozhodnutia Rady 2008/615/SVV.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009SC0936:EN:NOT

C 287 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008622/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Eurodac database

The Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted a regulation to establish Eurodac — a new European database of the
fingerprints of asylum‐seekers and some categories of immigrants that aims to combat illegal immigration more
effectively. The regulation contains specific security measures to ensure that data from the databases may not be used
for other purposes. However, in May 2012 the Commission submitted an amended proposal for a regulation
allowing Europol and national law enforcement agencies to access the database. The European privacy tsar, however,
sees a problem with this. In his opinion, this constitutes a serious breach of the rights of a vulnerable group of people
in need of protection.

1. What is the Commission’s purpose in so seriously violating the personal integrity of asylum‐seekers and certain
categories of immigrants?

2. Will the Commission provide evidence or statistics in the near future to back up its proposal?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 November 2012)_

In the Commission's view, law enforcement access to Eurodac is necessary and proportionate in specific cases under
strict conditions and with effective safeguards. Asylum-seekers are a vulnerable group in need of special protection,
and so such conditions and safeguards are an essential part of the proposal presented by the Commission on
30 May 2012 to allow law enforcement access to Eurodac only for the purpose of the prevention, detection or
investigation of terrorism and other serious crimes ( [1] ).

These safeguards include a two-step approach where a Eurodac check may only be made after a prior Prüm check ( [2] ),
the verification by a verifying authority whether the strict conditions for a EURODAC check are fulfilled in a specific
case, the prohibition of systematic comparisons and the prohibition to transfer any data obtained from Eurodac to
third countries. Therefore, in the Commission's view, the proposal fully complies with the Charter of Fundamental
Rights, in particular as regards the right to asylum (Article 18) and protection of personal data (Article 8).

Both the explanatory memorandum in the Commission proposal and the accompanying Impact Assessment
(SEC(2009) 936) ( [3] ) demonstrate that law enforcement access to Eurodac is necessary in order to address a structural
information and verification gap. There is currently no EU instrument available to law enforcement authorities to
determine the Member State that holds information on an asylum-seeker who is suspected of a serious crime or a
crime victim. It is not possible for the Commission to provide examples of cases where Eurodac data was used in a
criminal investigation, as such a use of Eurodac data is not allowed under current rules.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 254 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) under Council Decision 2008/615/JHA.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009SC0936:EN:NOT

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 33

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008623/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ „Cloud Computing“

Jedna z definícií pojmu „Cloud Computing“ hovorí, že je to spôsob, ako poskytovať kompletné alebo čiastočné
softvérové riešenia ako služby cez internet, kde sú tieto služby hostované v dynamicky škálovateľnom virtuálnom
prostredí, ktoré nazývame „the cloud“. Ide teda o akýsi súbor počítačov, služieb alebo infraštruktúry. Umožňuje
skladovanie dát na vzdialených serveroch. Univerzita v Miláne vo svojej štúdii z roku 2010 odhadla, že len v Európe
má „Cloud Computing“ potenciál vytvoriť v najbližších 5 rokoch približne 1,5 milióna nových pracovných miest.
Zároveň ide o jeden z najrýchlejšie rastúcich segmentov ekonomiky. Vládam, firmám, ale aj bežným užívateľom
sprístupňuje IT služby efektívnejšie a lacnejšie.

Až 65 % používateľov počítačov však vyhlásilo, že o tomto pojme nikdy nepočuli. Organizácia Business Software
Alliance ďalej na vzorke 4 000 respondentov zistila, že len necelá štvrtina z nich „Cloud Computing“ využíva.
V globále je to iba 34 %. Väčšina používateľov pojmu nerozumie a jeho nesporné výhody nevie zužitkovať.

—
Vzhľadom na nesporné množstvo výhod, ktoré „Cloud Computing“ európskej ekonomike prináša, bude sa
Komisia snažiť zlepšiť informovanosť o tejto problematike a motivovať európskych obyvateľov a firmy k lepšiemu
využívaniu tohto systému?

**Odpoveď pani Kroesovej v mene Komisie**

_(31. októbra 2012)_

Očakáva sa, že rozšírenie „cloud computingu“ bude mať zásadný priamy a nepriamy vplyv na rast ekonomiky
a zamestnanosti v EÚ vďaka prechodu na nový IT model, umožňujúci vyššiu mieru inovácie a produktivity. Európska
Komisia objednala od Medzinárodného dátového strediska IDC vypracovanie prieskumu v oblasti používania „cloud
computingu“ bežnými používateľmi a podnikmi ( [1] ). Výsledky tejto štúdie potvrdzujú, že od trhu „cloud computingu“
sa očakáva, že bude hnacím prvkom vytvárania nových pracovných miest v stredne dlhom horizonte. Štúdia IDC tiež
potvrdzuje, že väčšina bežných používateľov termín „cloud“ nepozná, aj keď drvivá väčšina si už služby založené na
„cloud computingu“ osvojila. Najpopulárnejšie sú bezplatné služby založené na „cloud computingu“ ako online hry,
e-mail, sociálne siete alebo zálohovacie služby. V prípade podnikov existuje vyššia informovanosť a väčšia
rôznorodosť využívania služieb založených na „cloud computingu“, aj keď úroveň osvojenia závisí od sektora a od
toho, ako sú podniky oboznámené s IT aplikáciami.

Prednedávnom prijaté oznámenie „Uvoľnenie potenciálu cloud computingu v Európe“ ( [1] ) sa zameriava na umožnenie
a uľahčenie rýchlejšieho zavedenia „cloud computingu“ v rámci všetkých sektorov hospodárstva v záujme zvýšenia
produktivity, rastu a počtu pracovných miest. Toto oznámenie predstavuje politický záväzok Komisie, plne
realizovať výhody „cloud computingu“ a jeho zámerom je vytvoriť priateľskejšie a aktívnejšie prostredie pre prístup
k výpočtovému výkonu a k obsahu. Táto európska stratégia „cloud computingu“, ktorá sa zaoberá požiadavkami
koncových používateľov a občianskych práv bude zavedená v úzkej spolupráci s rôznymi zainteresovanými stranami
a pre občanov a podniky bude zabezpečovať potrebné podmienky pre uľahčenie jeho zavádzania.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/quantitative_estimates.pdf

C 287 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008623/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Cloud computing

One of the definitions of cloud computing describes it as a way of offering complete or partial software solutions or
services over the Internet, with those services being hosted in a dynamically scalable virtual environment known as
‘the cloud’. The cloud is therefore a combination of computers, services and infrastructure. It enables data to be stored
on remote servers. In a 2010 study, the University of Milan estimated that cloud computing has the potential to create
some 1.5 million new jobs over the next five years in Europe alone. It is also one of the fastest‐growing sectors of the
economy. It makes more effective and cheaper IT services available to governments, companies and ordinary users.

However, as many as 65% of computer users claimed that they had never heard of the concept. The trade association
Business Software Alliance discovered that, from a sample of 4 000 people, just under a quarter of them used cloud
computing. Globally, that number is 34%. The majority of users did not understand the concept and were unfamiliar
with the indisputable benefits that it offers.

—
In view of the indisputable benefits that cloud computing can bring to Europe's economy, will the Commission
try to raise awareness of this issue and encourage European citizens and companies to make better use of this
technology?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 October 2012)_

The diffusion of cloud computing is expected to generate substantial direct and indirect impacts on economic and
employment growth in the EU, thanks to the migration to a new IT paradigm enabling greater innovation and
productivity. The European Commission contracted IDC to undertake a survey of the use of cloud computing by
consumers and enterprises ( [1] ). The findings of this study confirm that the cloud market is expected to be a driver of
net creation of employment in the medium term. The IDC study also confirms that most consumers do not recognise
the term ‘cloud’ even if the vast majority have already adopted cloud-based services. The most popular are free cloudbased services such as online games, email, social networking or backup services. In the case of companies, there is a
higher awareness and more diverse use of cloud-based services even if the level of adoption depends on the sector and
on how familiar companies are with IT applications.

The recently adopted Communication ‘Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe’ ( [2] ) aims at enabling
and facilitating faster adoption of cloud computing throughout all sectors of the economy in order to boost
productivity, growth and jobs. It represents a political commitment of the Commission to fully realise the benefits of
cloud computing and intends to create a friendlier and more active environment for access to computing power and
content. This Cloud Computing Strategy for Europe addresses the needs of the end users and the rights of the citizens,
will be implemented in close cooperation with the different stakeholders, and will provide the necessary conditions to
facilitate the take-up of cloud computing by citizens and companies.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/docs/quantitative_estimates.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/cloudcomputing/cloud_strategy/index_en.htm

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 35

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008624/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Voľby v Bielorusku

V nedeľu 23. septembra 2012 sa v Bielorusku konali parlamentné voľby. Tieto voľby však nemožno považovať za
slobodné ani za spravodlivé. Volebný proces nebol vykonaný v súlade s medzinárodnými štandardmi. Voľby mali
mnoho nedostatkov. Nie všetci kandidáti mali rovnaké možnosti vedenia predvolebnej kampane, proces sčítavania
hlasov nebol dostatočne transparentný. Do parlamentu sa nedostal ani jeden predstaviteľ opozície. Mnoho
opozičných politikov a aktivistov, ktorí boli odsúdení v politických procesoch, zostáva vo väzení. Demokracia
v Bielorusku je ohrozená. Krajina porušuje svoje záväzky v zmysle medzinárodnoprávnych noriem.

1. Budú mať septembrové parlamentné voľby v Bielorusku vplyv na sankcie voči autoritatívnemu režimu
bieloruského prezidenta, ktoré EÚ na krajinu uvalila už v minulosti?

2. Ovplyvnia voľby vzťahy Bieloruska s Úniou?

**Odpoveď podpredsedníčky Komisie/vysokej predstaviteľky Ashtonovej v mene Komisie**

_(5. novembra 2012)_

Vo vyhlásení z 24. septembra 2012 podpredsedníčka Komisie/vysoká predstaviteľka a komisár pre rozšírenie
a európsku susedskú politiku vyslovili poľutovanie, že Bielorusko nevyužilo príležitosť uskutočniť septembrové
parlamentné voľby tak, aby boli v súlade s medzinárodnými štandardmi.

Politika EÚ v oblasti reštriktívnych opatrení je naďalej otvorená a neustále sa preskúmava. Právne akty týkajúce sa
reštriktívnych opatrení obsahujú konkrétne kritériá, ktoré sa uplatňujú na zoznamy osôb alebo subjektov. Spôsob,
akým sa parlamentné voľby uskutočnili, je jedným z viacerých aspektov, ktoré Rada zohľadňuje pri zvažovaní
uloženia možných reštriktívnych opatrení, ako aj pri ďalšom vývoji vzťahov medzi EÚ a Bieloruskom.

C 287 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008624/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Elections in Belarus

On 23 September 2012, parliamentary elections were held in Belarus. It is, however, impossible to describe these
elections as free or fair. The election process was not conducted in accordance with international standards, and many
irregularities were reported. Not all candidates had equal opportunities to carry out pre‐election campaigns, and the
vote‐counting process was not sufficiently transparent. Not a single representative of the opposition was elected to
parliament. Furthermore, many opposition politicians and activists were convicted during political trials and remain
in prison. Democracy in Belarus is under threat. The country is violating its obligations with regard to international
standards.

1. Will the September parliamentary elections in Belarus have any impact on the sanctions already imposed by the EU
against the Belarusian President's authoritarian regime?

2. Will the elections have an impact on EU‐Belarus relations?

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

_(5 November 2012)_

In the statement of 24 September 2012 of HR/VP and the Commissioner responsible for Enlargement and European
Neighbourhood Policy, regret was expressed that the September parliamentary elections represented yet another
missed opportunity for Belarus to conduct elections in line with international standards.

The EU's policy on restrictive measures remains open and under constant review. The legal acts on restrictive
measures contain concrete criteria, which are used for the listings of persons or entities. The way in which the
parliamentary elections were conducted represents one of several elements that are taken into consideration in the
Council’s assessments regarding the imposition of possible restrictive measures and in the way EU-Belarus relations
will evolve.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 37

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008625/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Regulácia výsadby vinohradov

V Európskom parlamente dochádza v poslednom čase k výraznému lobingu v súvislosti so štyri roky starým
rozhodnutím zrušiť obmedzenia na výsadbu viniča. Roky realizované intervencie zo strany vlád, ktoré mali
pestovanie viniča stabilizovať a podporiť, majú byť totiž minulosťou. Súčasne platné pravidlá by mali vypršať v roku
2016, ale vlády ich platnosť môžu predĺžiť na ďalšie dva roky. Pestovatelia z krajín, ktoré sú najväčšími producentmi
vína v Európe, tvrdia, že zrušenie obmedzení výrazne oslabí sektor. Ten už aj tak bojuje s lacnejším dovozom,
nadprodukciou a klesajúcim dopytom. Medzinárodná organizácia vína poskytla údaje, z ktorých vyplýva, že za
posledných desať rokov klesla v Európe plocha pôdy kultivovanej na pestovanie viniča hroznorodého o 12 %.
Vinohradníctvo patrí medzi posledné oblasti poľnohospodárstva, kde doposiaľ k liberalizácii nedošlo.

1. Plánuje Komisia výsadbu vinohradov liberalizovať aj napriek upozorneniam zo strany významných európskych
pestovateľov?

2. Zaoberá sa Komisia týmito ich upozorneniami?

**Odpoveď pána Cioloșa v mene Komisie**

_(26. októbra 2012)_

Rozhodnutie nepredĺžiť prechodný režim práv na výsadbu na úrovni EÚ po 31. decembri 2015 (a v prípade
členských štátov po 31. decembri 2018) prijala Rada v súvislosti s reformou spoločnej organizácie trhu s vínom
z roku 2008. Bolo to jedno z niekoľkých rozhodnutí, ktoré prijala pokiaľ ide o politiku EÚ v oblasti vína. Toto
rozhodnutie zahŕňalo aj vytvorenie národných programov na podporu vinárskeho sektora, zavedenie trojročnej
schémy klčovania alebo revidovanú politiku v oblasti CHOP/CHZO a obohacovania, a to všetko s cieľom zlepšiť
konkurencieschopnosť vinárskeho sektora v EÚ.

Za posledné štyri roky sa situácia na trhu výrazne zlepšila najmä vďaka zníženiu výrobného potenciálu a zvýšeniu
vývozu do tretích krajín. Trh sa ocitol v situácii relatívnej rovnováhy s rastúcimi priemernými cenami, pričom k tejto
pozitívnej situácii prispela vinárska reforma. Vyhliadky na nadchádzajúce roky sú tak isto pozitívne.

Napriek tomu bola po obavách zo strany viacerých členských štátov, ktoré sú výrobcami vína, poslancov Európskeho
parlamentu a niekoľkých odvetvových organizácií zriadená skupina na vysokej úrovni zaoberajúca sa právami na
výsadbu viniča, aby o tejto záležitosti rokovala. Je zložená zo zástupcov 27 členských štátov, ako aj z hlavných
zainteresovaných organizácii na úrovni EÚ, ale aj z pozorovateľov z Európskeho parlamentu a Chorvátska. V roku
2012 sa konali už tri zasadnutia a posledné sa uskutoční 23. novembra. Záverečná správa so závermi skupiny na
vysokej úrovni týkajúcimi sa prediskutovaných záležitostí sa pošle Komisii koncom tohto roka.

C 287 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008625/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Regulating grapevine planting

Parliament has recently seen significant lobbying relating to the four‐year‐old decision to lift restrictions on the
planting of grapevines. For years, governments intervened in order to support and stabilise vine cultivation, but this is
set to be a thing of the past. The rules currently in force are set to expire in 2016, but governments may extend them
for another two years. Cultivators from Europe's major wine‐producing countries claim that the lifting of restrictions
will significantly weaken the sector, which is already facing challenges from cheaper imports, overproduction and
falling demand. Data from the International Organisation of Vine and Wine show that land under vine cultivation fell
in Europe over the past 10 years by 12 %. Viticulture is one of the last agricultural sectors to remain unliberalised.

1. Does the Commission plan to liberalise grapevine planting, despite warnings from major European producers?

2. Will the Commission address producers’ concerns?

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

_(26 October 2012)_

The decision not to extend the transitional planting rights regime at EU level beyond 31 December 2015 (and at
Member State level beyond 31 December 2018) was taken by the Council in the context of the wine CMO reform of
2008. It was one of several decisions taken regarding the EU wine policy, which also included the establishment of
national support programmes for the wine sector, the implementation of a 3-year grubbing-up scheme or the revised
policy on PDO/PGI and enrichment — all with the objective of improving the competitiveness of the EU wine sector.

In the past four years the market situation has significantly improved, due in particular to the reduction of production
potential and the boost in exports to third countries. The market came to a situation of relative balance with average
prices going up — the wine reform having contributed to this positive situation. The outlook for the coming years is
also positive.

Nevertheless, following the concerns expressed by a number of wine producing Member States, of Members of the
European Parliament and certain sectorial organisations, a High Level Group (HLG) on wine planting rights was
established to discuss on this matter. It is composed of representatives of the 27 Member States as well as key
stakeholder organisations at EU level and observers from the European Parliament and Croatia. Three meetings
already took place in 2012, and the last one will take place on 23 November. A final report with conclusions by the
HLG on the issues discussed will be sent to the Commission towards the end of this year.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 39

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008626/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Neobmedzené nakupovanie dlhopisov

Európska centrálna banka už v minulosti niekoľkokrát vyhlásila, že pre záchranu eura spraví všetko, čo bude
nevyhnutné. Jej sľuby však doposiaľ nenabrali konkrétnu podobu. Diskutuje sa aj o možnosti, že Európska centrálna
banka zasiahne na dlhopisových trhoch, s cieľom znížiť úroky talianskych a španielskych dlhopisov. O takýto druh
intervencie by ju však museli oficiálne požiadať vlády, ktoré by museli akceptovať podmienky. Španielsko je spolu
s generálnym tajomníkom OECD presvedčené, že by tieto nákupy dlhopisov mali byť neobmedzené. Opačný názor
má napríklad nemecká centrálna banka Bundesbank.

—
Mali by byť podľa názoru Komisie prípadné nákupy dlhopisov Európskou centrálnou bankou obmedzené,
alebo neobmedzené?

**Odpoveď pána Rehna v mene Komisie**

_(9. novembra 2012)_

Menová politika v eurozóne je vo výlučnej právomoci ECB, ktorej nezávislosť je zakotvená v zmluve. Do navrhovania
a vykonávania menovej politiky ECB Komisia nezasahuje.

Podrobné technické údaje týkajúce sa priamych menových transakcií možno nájsť na tejto webovej stránke:
http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html

Vo vyhlásenie sa objasňuje, že „pokiaľ ide o veľkosť priamych menových transakcií, nie sú stanovené žiadne _ex ante_
množstevné limity“.

C 287 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008626/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Unrestricted purchasing of bonds

The European Central Bank has announced several times previously that it will do whatever is necessary in order to
save the euro. However, its promises have still not taken on a specific form. Discussions are even taking place on the
possibility of the ECB intervening in the bond market in order to reduce the interest rates on Italian and Spanish debt.
This form of intervention would have to be officially requested by the governments, which would then have to accept
the conditions. Both Spain and the Secretary‐General of the OECD are convinced that such debt purchases should be
unlimited. However, the German Bundesbank does not share his view.

—
In the Commission’s opinion, should any eventual purchases of bonds by the European Central Bank be limited
or unlimited?

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

_(9 November 2012)_

Monetary policy in the euro area is the exclusive competence of the ECB, whose independence is enshrined in the
Treaty. The Commission does not interfere in the ECB's design and implementation of monetary policy.

Details on the technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs) can be consulted in the following
webpage: http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html

The statement clarifies that ‘no _ex ante_ quantitative limits are set on the size of Outright Monetary Transactions’.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 41

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008627/12**

**Komisii**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27. septembra 2012)_

_Vec:_ Problematika rádiového spektra

Rádiové spektrum je cenný a čoraz menej dostupný zdroj. Využíva sa totiž v širokopásmových službách, ktorých
obľuba v posledných rokoch prudko rastie. Niektoré zdroje dokonca uvádzajú, že celosvetový objem mobilných
dátových prenosov by mal do roku 2015 narásť o 26 %. Rádiové spektrum sa využíva aj v ďalších oblastiach, ako sú
napríklad inteligentné systémy či bezdrôtové snímače. Voľného rádiového spektra je však nedostatok. Rastúci dopyt
bude teda veľmi ťažké uspokojiť. Žiadne ďalšie voľné spektrum už totiž nie je k dispozícii a bez neho prestanú
fungovať mobilné siete aj širokopásmové služby. Európska komisia preto nedávno navrhla koordinovaný európsky
postup v zdieľaní rádiového spektra.

— Čo konkrétne chce Komisia novým európskym programom politiky rádiového frekvenčného spektra docieliť?

**Odpoveď pani Kroesovej v mene Komisie**

_(6. novembra 2012)_

Komisia v súčasnosti vykonáva program politiky rádiového frekvenčného spektra, ktorý bol schválený 14. marca
2012. To zahŕňa zabezpečenie dostupnosti dostatočného spektra s cieľom vyrovnať sa s rastúcim dopytom rôznych
aplikácií a vzťahuje sa na širokopásmové komunikácie, vysielanie, dopravu, satelitnú navigáciu, monitorovanie Zeme,
energetiku, verejnú bezpečnosť, civilnú ochranu a zmierňovanie následkov katastrof, výskum a vývoj, výrobu
programov a osobitné spoločenské podujatia a „internet vecí“.

Komisia zabezpečí, aby členské štáty splnili lehoty na schvaľovanie používania frekvenčného spektra určené
v programe politiky rádiového frekvenčného spektra s cieľom zaistiť zavedenie širokopásmových sietí, sprístupniť
aspoň 1 200 MHz pre širokopásmové bezdrôtové služby, vytvoriť spoločné používanie frekvenčného spektra, ako
uvádza vo svojom nedávnom oznámení ( [1] ), využiť výsledky EÚ v oblasti výskumu a vývoja a pripraviť koncepciu EÚ
v dôsledku rozhodnutia svetovej rádiokomunikačnej konferencie z roku 2012 otvoriť 700 MHz pásmo pre
bezdrôtové širokopásmové pripojenie popri vysielaní.

Komisia takisto zavádza analýzu stavu súčasného využívania frekvenčného spektra stanovenú v programe politiky
rádiového frekvenčného spektra a pripravuje sa na jej vykonávanie. Komisia požiadala aj o externé technické
poradenstvo: dokončila sa prvá štúdia o posúdení potenciálu zlepšenia efektívnosti spektra v EÚ ( [2] ) a prebieha druhá
štúdia týkajúca sa analýzy technologických trendov, budúcich potrieb a dopytu po frekvenčnom spektre. Komisia
predloží správu o výsledkoch analýzy vykonanej v rámci analýzy stavu.

Ako sa vyžaduje v programe politiky rádiového frekvenčného spektra, Komisia predloží Parlamentu a Rade správu
o vykonávaní uvedeného programu do 10. apríla 2014.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Oznámenie Európskej komisie COM(2012) 478 s názvom „Podpora zdieľaného využívania zdrojov rádiového frekvenčného spektra na

vnútornom trhu“ http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/radio_spectrum/_document_storage/com/com-ssa.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Pozri štúdiu „Inventory and review of spectrum use: Assessment of the EU potential for improving spectrum efficiency“ (Analýza stavu a prieskum

využívania spektra: posúdenie potenciálu EÚ v oblasti zlepšenia efektívnosti spektra), Wik Consult, Aegis, Idate, Plum, 2012.
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/radio_spectrum/_document_storage/studies/inventory_2012/cion_spectrum_inventory
_executive_summary_en.pdf

( **|**

C 287 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008627/12**

**to the Commission**
**Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D)**

_(27 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Radio spectrum

The radio spectrum is a valuable and increasingly hard‐to‐access resource. This is because it is used by broadband
services, which have grown enormously in popularity in recent years. Certain sources claim that the global volume of
mobile data transfers will increase by as much as 26 % by 2015. The radio spectrum is also used in other areas, such
as intelligent systems and wireless sensors. However, there is a shortage of free space on the radio spectrum. It will
therefore be extremely difficult to satisfy growing demand. There is no longer any free space available on the
spectrum, and without this, mobile networks and broadband services will cease to work. The Commission has
therefore proposed a coordinated European approach to sharing the radio spectrum.

— What exactly does the Commission hope to achieve with the new European Radio Spectrum Policy Programme?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 November 2012)_

The Commission is currently implementing the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP) adopted on
14 March 2012. This includes ensuring availability of sufficient spectrum to cope with increasing demand by various
applications, and covers broadband communications, broadcasting, transport, satellite navigation, Earth monitoring,
energy, public safety, civil protection and disaster relief, research and development, programme making and special
events equipment and the Internet of Things.

The Commission will ensure that Member States meet the deadlines for authorising use of spectrum identified by the
RSPP to ensure the roll-out of broadband networks, make available at least 1200 MHz for wireless broadband,
develop shared use of spectrum as presented in its recent Communication ( [1] ), exploit EU research and development
results and prepare an EU approach as a result of the 2012 World Radiocommunication Conference decision to open
the 700 MHz band to wireless broadband alongside broadcasting.

The Commission is also setting in place the inventory of existing uses of spectrum set up by the RSPP, and is
preparing for its implementation. The Commission has also sought external technical advice: a first study has been
completed on the assessment of the potential for improving spectrum efficiency in the EU ( [2] ) and a second study is
ongoing regarding the analysis of technology trends, future needs and demand for spectrum. The Commission shall
report on the results of the analysis conducted under the inventory.

As requested by the RSPP, the Commission shall report by 10 April 2014 to the Parliament and Council on the
implementation of the RSPP.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Commission Communication COM(2012) 478 on ‘Promoting the shared use of radio spectrum resources in the internal market',

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/radio_spectrum/_document_storage/com/com-ssa.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See study ‘Inventory and review of spectrum use: Assessment of the EU potential for improving spectrum efficiency’, Wik Consult, Aegis, Idate,

Plum, 2012.
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/radio_spectrum/_document_storage/studies/inventory_2012/cion_spectrum_inventory
_executive_summary_en.pdf

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 43

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008628/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Relazioni UE-Cina — Esportazioni di armi in Europa: un nuovo miracolo cinese o il rischio di un embargo
violato

Un altro vertice tra UE e Cina si è concluso e — sembra doveroso rilevarlo — non si registrano risultati significativi:
almeno sotto il profilo formale, non ci sono le basi di un accordo con la prima potenza economica mondiale. Il nodo
cruciale del «dialogo a senso unico» sulle politiche commerciali con la Cina è il bando all'esportazione di armi imposto
dall'Europa dopo la strage di piazza Tienanmen nel 1989. La posizione espressa dalle autorità cinesi durante il
summit — come riportato dai diversi quotidiani internazionali — lascia all'Europa una mina vagante «made in
China», a proposito del « _mancato riconoscimento come economia di mercato a tutti gli effetti e della possibilità di rivedere quel_
_divieto_ ». La stampa europea giunge alla conclusione caustica secondo cui « _sono trascorsi ormai diversi anni dal primo_
_summit del 1998 e la Cina è sempre più critica nei confronti della totale incapacità di agire dell'UE_ ».

Al di là dei discorsi ufficiali e di un'attività apparente, nella pratica, fuori dai corridoi diplomatici, lo stato dei fatti
mostra dati ben più allarmanti: il divieto imposto alla Cina è stato superato nel 2010 e «sacrificato» sull'altare degli
interessi economici, poiché i paesi dell'UE hanno concesso alla Cina licenze di esportazione per manufatti militari pari
a 218 milioni di euro. Rompono le fila e si allineano in controtendenza rispetto alla posizione «formale-ufficiale»
europea la Francia e il Regno Unito, che ormai da diversi anni hanno in attivo scambi commerciali di veicoli terrestri e
aerei, equipaggiamenti elettronici, missili e oltre 13 milioni di agenti tossici chimici e biologici, armi antisommossa e
materiali radioattivi.

Non è da meno la Germania: Berlino è infatti tra i maggiori investitori ed è pronta a cogliere le opportunità
economiche con lo scambio dei propri segreti tecnologici. L'UE resta il primo partner commerciale della Cina, e
questa ne rappresenta la prima fonte di importazioni. Nel 2011 gli scambi commerciali tra i due Paesi hanno
raggiunto i 567 miliardi di dollari (435 miliardi di euro), e l'Europa ha registrato un aumento degli investimenti cinesi
del 94 %, ovvero 4,46 miliardi di dollari (3,42 miliardi di euro).

Considerato che: — persistono le violazioni delle libertà fondamentali e continuano le torture, i maltrattamenti e le
detenzioni arbitrarie; — le imprese dell'UE da sempre manifestano una crescente preoccupazione per la mancanza di
parità di condizioni negli scambi commerciali con la Cina; chiedo alla Commissione quali misure intenda adottare a
garanzia delle restrizioni attualmente in vigore sulla vendita di tali armi, poiché non tutti gli Stati membri hanno
adottato un codice di condotta giuridicamente vincolante sulle esportazioni di armi e la Cina non ha di certo
compiuto passi concreti verso un miglioramento della situazione dei diritti umani nel Paese.

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

_(6 novembre 2012)_

Quest’anno si è rivelato proficuo per le relazioni tra l’UE e la Cina: abbiamo presentato il nostro programma di lavoro
con due vertici riusciti, abbiamo istituito un partenariato in materia di urbanizzazione sostenibile, il dialogo strategico
e il dialogo economico e commerciale ad alto livello sono stati integrati da un terzo dialogo imperniato sugli scambi
interpersonali, abbiamo convenuto di creare il quadro adeguato per affrontare le questioni dei visti e della mobilità e
infine abbiamo avviato una nuova cooperazione nel settore dell’innovazione, che rappresenta un importante aspetto
delle nostre strategie per la crescita. Entrambe le parti hanno avviato i preparativi per il varo di negoziati su un
accordo bilaterale in materia di investimenti.

Il vertice di settembre è stato un vertice di transizione, l’ultimo per il premier Wen. Illustrando i progressi registrati
dalle relazioni UE-Cina durante il suo mandato, il premier ha sottolineato con rammarico che l’UE non aveva ancora
concesso alla Cina lo status di economia di mercato e che restava in vigore l’embargo sulle armi. Tali temi non sono
stati però al centro delle discussioni.

Guardando all’ultimo decennio, emerge chiaramente che le due questioni non hanno ostacolato lo sviluppo delle
nostre relazioni con la Cina. Abbiamo firmato un partenariato strategico nel 2003 e gli scambi commerciali tra le
parti sono quasi quadruplicati da allora, raggiungendo circa 430 miliardi lo scorso anno.

L’embargo sulle armi è stato decretato nella dichiarazione del Consiglio europeo del 27 giugno 1989. L’UE non ha
modificato la propria posizione dal 2004, quando ha ribadito la volontà politica di continuare ad adoperarsi per
revocarlo. Inoltre, il controllo delle esportazioni di tecnologie ed attrezzature militari è disciplinato dal codice di
condotta dell’UE sulle esportazioni di armi. Per poter compiere passi avanti a tale riguardo, sarebbe utile che la Cina
compisse progressi nel campo dei diritti umani, in particolare ratificando il Patto internazionale sui diritti civili e
politici.

C 287 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008628/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Relations between China and the EU — arms exports in Europe: a fresh Chinese miracle or the risk of a breach
of an embargo

Another summit between the EU and China has come to an end, and — it seems only right to observe — no
significant results have emerged from it: at least from the formal point of view, there is no basis for an agreement with
the world’s number one economy. The crux of the ‘one-way dialogue’ with China on trade policy is the ban on arms
exports imposed by Europe after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. The position stated by the Chinese
authorities during the summit — as reported by various international newspapers — amounts to a floating mine
‘made in China’ drifting towards Europe as regards the ‘failure to recognise [China] as a full market economy or the
possibility of reviewing that ban’. The European press reaches the caustic conclusion that ‘a good few years have now
passed since the first summit in 1998, and China is increasingly critical of the total inability of the EU to act’.

Outside the realm of official speeches and an activity which in practice manifests itself outside diplomatic channels,
the actual state of affairs is considerably more alarming: the ban on China ceased to apply in 2010, having been
‘sacrificed’ on the altar of economic interests, as EU countries granted China export licences for military _matériel_ worth
EUR 218 million. The countries which broke ranks and acted contrary to Europe’s ‘formal/official’ position were
France and the UK, which for a number of years now have had a trade surplus in vehicles and aircraft, electronic
equipment, missiles and more than 13 million worth of toxic chemical and biological agents, riot control weapons
and radioactive materials.

Germany has been no less forthcoming: Berlin is among the biggest investors and is keen to seize the economic
opportunities by selling its technological secrets. The EU remains China’s number one trade partner, and China is the
biggest source of EU imports. In 2011, trade between the two countries amounted to USD 567 billion
(EUR 435 billion), and Chinese investment in Europe increased by 94%, or USD 4.46 billion (EUR 3.42 billion).

Breaches of fundamental freedoms are continuing, as are torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary detention. For as long as
anyone can remember, EU undertakings have been expressing growing concern about the unequal conditions which
apply to trade with China. What measures will the Commission take to guarantee the restrictions on the sale of such
arms which are currently in force, as not all Member States have adopted legally binding codes of conduct on arms
exports and China has certainly not taken concrete steps to improve the human rights situation in the country?

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

_(6 November 2012)_

This year has been successful for EU-China relations. We have pushed our agenda forward with two successful
Summits. We have established a Partnership on Sustainable Urbanisation, our Strategic and Trade and Economic
High Level Dialogues have been complemented by a third one focusing on People-to-People exchanges, we have
agreed to set up the right framework for addressing visa and mobility issues, and started new cooperation on
innovation, which is an important aspect of both our strategies for growth. Both sides have started preparations for
launching negotiations on a bilateral investment agreement.

The September Summit was a transitional one, being the last for Premier Wen. During his presentation of the
progress achieved in the EU-China relations during his mandate, he also noted his regret that the EU had not yet
granted China market economy status, and that the arms embargo was still in force. However, these were not the
focus of the discussion.

Looking back over the last decade, it is clear that these two issues have not impeded the development of our relations
with China. We signed a Strategic Partnership in 2003 and our two way trade has almost quadrupled since then,
reaching almost 430 billion last year.

Regarding the arms embargo, it was set out in the European Council Declaration of 27 June 1989. The EU has not
changed its position since 2004, when it reaffirmed its political will to continue to work towards lifting the
embargo. Furthermore, the control of exports of military technology and equipment is governed by the EU Code of
Conduct on Arms exports. Progress on human rights, and in particular the ratification by China of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, would be helpful in order to move forward on this issue.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 45

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008629/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Pozzi minerari dismessi per fornire energia geotermica

L’energia geotermica è una fonte di energia priva di carbonio, sostenibile e rinnovabile che fornisce continuamente e
ininterrottamente calore. Questa energia viene impiegata per riscaldare case e palazzi e per generare energia elettrica,
indipendentemente dal clima e dalle condizioni meteorologiche.

L’Europa è attualmente il leader mondiale in questa tecnologia che prevede l’impiego di sistemi di fratturazione
naturale potenziata e prevede l'iniezione a pressione elevata di acqua che viene poi riscaldata e riportata sulla
superficie terrestre attraverso vari pozzi di produzione; infine, uno scambiatore di calore trasferisce l'energia a un
secondo circuito che aziona un generatore a turbina per produrre energia elettrica.

In particolari situazioni idrogeologiche si sono formati, a varie profondità, fluidi geotermici costituiti dalle acque
penetrate nel sottosuolo e riscaldate per contatto con le rocce calde e impermeabili. Si sono creati in tal modo
acquiferi geotermici ad alta temperatura (oltre 300°) contenenti grandi quantità di vapore surriscaldato.

La British Geology Survey (BGS) ha condotto uno studio nella città di Glasgow sfruttando la presenza di falde
acquifere nel sottosuolo e mappando l’estesa rete di miniere, presenti nel sottosuolo cittadino, oggigiorno dismesse.
L’idea rivoluzionaria di questa ricerca è insita nel fatto che lo sfruttamento dell’energia geotermica potrebbe essere
conciliato con la fitta maglia mineraria presente in molte città di diversi Paesi. Lo studio ha dimostrato, infatti, che i
pozzi sotterranei potrebbero fornire fino al 40 % del riscaldamento della cittadina di Glasgow (Scozia, circa 600 000
abitanti).

Posto che l’industria mineraria è stata fonte di lavoro ed energia durante gran parte del secolo scorso, considerato che
l’energia geotermica è una fonte inesauribile e a bassissimo impatto ambientale, chiedo alla Commissione quali siano
gli attuali e futuri orientamenti che intende attuare al fine di incentivare la ricerca e l’attuazione di programmi dedicati
allo sviluppo di tale energia rinnovabile.

**Risposta di Guenther Oettinger a nome della Commissione**

_(15 novembre 2012)_

Mediante il Settimo programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico (7° PQ), la Commissione cofinanzia una
vasta gamma di tecnologie innovative incluse le tecnologie rinnovabili e le soluzioni in materia di efficienza
energetica, sia nella fase iniziale di ricerca sia in quella di dimostrazione precommerciale.

Ad esempio, nelle comunità di Heerlen (Paesi Bassi) e di Zagorje (Slovenia), entrambe partner di un progetto in corso
nell’ambito del 7° PQ intitolato Remining-Lowex (2007/2013), le risorse idriche rese disponibili sul posto in seguito
all’abbandono delle miniere saranno valorizzate e adoperate a fini di riscaldamento e di raffreddamento.

[Ulteriori informazioni sui progetti sono disponibili al seguente indirizzo: http://www.remining-lowex.org/.](http://www.remining-lowex.org/)

C 287 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008629/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Abandoned mine shafts for geothermal energy

Geothermal energy is a carbon free, renewable and sustainable source of energy, providing a continuous,
uninterrupted supply of heat. This can be used to heat houses and buildings and to generate electricity, and is not
dependent on the local climate or weather conditions.

Europe is currently the world leader in this technology where naturally fractured rock systems are enhanced and
injected with water at high pressure. The water is heated and returns to the surface through a system of production
shafts. A heat exchanger then transfers the energy to a second circuit that drives a turbine to generate electricity.

There are places where geothermal fluids can be found at various depths due to water that has penetrated
underground being heated on contact with hot impermeable rock. In this way high-temperature (over 300°)
geothermal aquifers have formed holding large quantities of superheated steam.

La British Geological Survey (BGS) has conducted a study in Glasgow exploiting the presence there of bedrock
aquifers and mapping the vast network of abandoned mines under the city. The revolutionary idea behind this
research lies in the fact that geothermal energy could be exploited by making use of the mine network already present
in many towns and cities in different countries. The study has shown that underground shafts could furnish up to
40 % of the heat needed for Glasgow’s population (Scotland, approximately 600 000 inhabitants).

The mining industry was a source of employment and energy for a large part of the last century and geothermal
energy is an inexhaustible source of energy with minimal environmental impact. In view of these facts, can the
Commission say what guidelines it is planning now and for the future to incentivise research into and
implementation of programmes to develop this renewable energy source.

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

_(15 November 2012)_

The Commission, through the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7),
co-funds a wide variety of innovative technologies including renewable technologies and energy efficiency solutions,
both in an early research and pre-commercial demonstration phase.

For example, in the communities of Heerlen (Netherlands) and Zagorje (Slovenia), both partners of an ongoing FP7
project entitled Remining-Lowex (2007/2013), locally available water from abandoned mines will be valorised and
used for heating and cooling purposes.

[Further information on the projects can be found at the following address: http://www.remining-lowex.org/.](http://www.remining-lowex.org/)

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 47

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008630/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Grassi TFA e sicurezza alimentare: quali misure di armonizzazione tra i diversi Stati Membri

Mangiare sano e bene in Europa, non solo come un buon proposito per una dieta sana ed equilibrata, ma anche come
diritto soggettivo, da riconoscere con la normativa comunitaria. Al riguardo, una tutela parziale è disciplinata dal
Regolamento (CE) n. 1924/2006 (come modificato da ultimo dal Regolamento (UE) n. 116/2010) che fornisce
indicazioni nutrizionali e sulla salute sui prodotti alimentari.

Particolarmente controversa è la questione relativa agli acidi grassi Trans, o grassi TFA, un tipo di lipidi utilizzati
dall’industria alimentare nella produzione di molti cibi derivati dall’idrogenazione di oli vegetali che, trattati in questo
modo, solidificano garantendo migliori prestazioni e una maggiore durata del prodotto. Se consumati in dose di 5 g al
giorno, questi grassi possono danneggiare la salute del consumatore aumentando del 23 % il rischio di problemi al
sistema cardiovascolare. Tali rischi sono stati evidenziati in una recente ricerca pubblicata sul British Medical Journal.
Nello studio sono stati inclusi i cibi che dichiarano tra gli ingredienti principali i c.d. «grassi vegetali parzialmente
idrogenati», presenti nella misura di oltre 15 g per 100 grammi di prodotto edibile (ad esempio, patatine fritte o
crocchette di pollo, torta, biscotti o wafer e popcorn per microonde).

I risultati delle analisi del 2005 hanno permesso di stabilire che in 5 Paesi dell’Europa orientale una porzione dei
suddetti cibi forniva rispettivamente tra i 30 g e i 100 g di TFA, mentre in 8 Paesi dell’Europa occidentale ne forniva
tra i 20 e i 30 g. Il follow-up condotto nel 2009 ha permesso di stabilire che il contenuto di TFA, sullo stesso
campione di alimenti, era significativamente diminuito in tutti i Paesi dell’UE. Al contrario, il contenuto di TFA nei
prodotti da forno e nei popcorn non si era ridotto nei Paesi dell’Europa orientale (in Polonia il contenuto di TFA era
tra i 10 e i 20 g, mentre in Francia era di 2 g). Ad oggi solo Danimarca, Austria e Islanda hanno emanato un
provvedimento legislativo al fine di limitare il livello di TFA al 2 % dei grassi totali presenti negli alimenti.

Considerando che una dieta variata e bilanciata costituisce un requisito fondamentale per una buona salute e che i
singoli prodotti hanno un’importanza fondamentale nel contesto nutrizionale e posto che la salute delle persone
debba essere tutelata attraverso campagne per una corretta alimentazione, chiedo alla Commissione quali misure
legislative di ravvicinamento e di armonizzazione tra i diversi Stati Membri intenda adottare per garantire una
maggiore sicurezza alimentare, soprattutto con riguardo ai menzionati grassi TFA.

**Risposta di Maroš Šefčovič a nome della Commissione**

_(31 ottobre 2012)_

La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputato alla propria risposta all'interrogazione scritta E‐003544/2012 ( [1] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=EN

C 287 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008630/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Transfats and food safety: harmonisation measures between the different Member States

Eating well and healthily is not just a good idea for a healthy and balanced diet but is also an individual right in
Europe, recognised in EU legislation. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (as last amended by Regulation (EU)
No 116/2010) on nutritional and health claims on foods provides some protection in this regard.

The question of trans fatty acids or transfats (TFA) is a particularly controversial one. Transfats are a form of lipids
used by the food industry in the production of many food products. They are produced by hydrogenating vegetable
oil which, when treated in this way, solidifies ensuring that the product performs better and lasts longer. A daily
intake of 5 g per day may threaten the health of consumers, increasing the risk of coronary heart disease by 23%.
These figures featured in a recent research paper published in the British Medical Journal which looked at foods whose
principal ingredients included more than 15 g of ‘partially hydrogenated vegetable fat’ per 100 g of edible product
(for instance, chips or chicken nuggets, cakes, biscuits or wafers and microwaveable popcorn).

The 2005 analysis showed that one portion of the aforementioned foods contained between 30 g and 100 g of TFA in
five countries in Eastern Europe, whereas in Western Europe they only contained between 20 g and 30 g. The 2009
follow-up showed that the TFA content in the same food range had dropped significantly in all EU countries.
However the TFA content in baked goods and popcorn had not fallen in eastern European countries (TFA content in
Poland was between 10 g and 20 g, whereas the figure in France was 2 g). To date, only Denmark, Austria and Iceland
have enacted legislation to restrict the level of TFA to 2% of the total fats present in food products.

A varied and balanced diet is a basic requirement for good health. Individual products are important in people’s diet
and their health should be protected through campaigns promoting good nutrition. In view of these facts, what
legislative Member State harmonisation or approximation measures is the Commission planning to adopt to ensure
greater food safety, particularly in regard to TFA fats.

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

_(31 October 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐003544/2012 ( [1] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=EN

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 49

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008632/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Epidemia di morbillo in Europa

Il morbillo è un virus a carattere endemico, altamente trasmissibile (è sufficiente un colpo di tosse di una persona
infetta) in continua diffusione in Europa.

I dati forniti dall’European Center Disease Control (ECDC) sono chiari: nel 2010 e nel 2011 sono stati segnalati
rispettivamente circa 30 000 nuovi casi, nel periodo luglio 2011 giugno 2012 sono stati registrati 10 427 casi, e nel
primo semestre del 2012 sono stati individuati 4 513 casi con un’incidenza di 2,05 casi per 100 000 abitanti. In
particolare gli Stati membri maggiormente esposti a questa epidemia sono Romania, Francia, Spagna, Italia e Regno
Unito che coprono il 90 % dei casi segnalati.

Queste cifre sono un indice inconfutabile di un decremento delle vaccinazioni sul territorio europeo, nonostante i
paesi membri del World Health Organisation (WHO) si siano assunti l’impegno di eliminare la trasmissione virale di
morbillo e rosolia entro il 2015. Per fronteggiare tale facile contagio sono state predisposte vaccinazioni a doppia
dose sul 95 % della popolazione di tali paesi che dovrà essere affiancata a una capillare sorveglianza sanitaria e a
effettive misure di controllo in caso di epidemie. Recenti studi hanno dimostrato come le persone maggiormente a
rischio siano coloro i quali non sono stati preventivamente infetti e/o vaccinati, spesso a causa di mancata
informazione o difficoltà di accesso a servizi sanitari territoriali.

Posto che sono necessari ancora molti sforzi da parte di tutti gli Stati membri e è opportuno valutare quali possano
essere i metodi più adeguati per informare e tutelare persone ormai adulte che non hanno avuto modo di vaccinarsi
durante la prima infanzia al fine di debellare questo virus a volte letale, può la Commissione far sapere quali siano le
linee guida pensate per far fronte a questa epidemia?

**Risposta di Maroš Šefčovič a nome della Commissione**

_(15 novembre 2012)_

Secondo gli standard internazionali per debellare il morbillo è necessaria una vaccinazione diffusa di almeno il 95 %
della popolazione usando un vaccino a doppia dose. Conformemente alle stime del 2010 realizzate
dall'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità in tema di vaccinazione, 10 Stati membri non raggiungono questa
copertura per la prima dose e 16 Stati membri non la raggiungono per la seconda dose.

Se è vero che le politiche in tema di vaccinazione rientrano nelle responsabilità primarie degli Stati membri, la
Commissione, operando di conserva con i Centri europei per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie, coadiuva gli
sforzi nazionali attraverso diverse iniziative dell'UE. Tra queste rientrano il rafforzamento della sorveglianza del
morbillo a livello dell'UE, la mappatura dei progressi realizzati dagli Stati membri sulla via dell'eradicazione del
morbillo, la preparazione di linee guida d'intervento per aumentare la diffusione della vaccinazione e rafforzare la
comunicazione in tema di vaccinazione per il morbillo.

Nel giugno 2011 il Consiglio ha adottato Conclusioni sulla vaccinazione infantile ( [1] ) . Il 16 e 17 ottobre 2012 la
Commissione ha organizzato una conferenza sulla vaccinazione infantile ( [2] ) per dar seguito alle conclusioni del
Consiglio.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:202:0004:0006:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/vaccination/events/ev_20121016_en.htm

C 287 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008632/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Measles epidemic in Europe

Measles is an endemic, highly‐contagious virus (just one cough from an infected persons is enough to transmit it)
which is continuing to spread throughout Europe.

The data provided by the European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) are clear: in 2010 and 2011 there were around
30 000 new cases reported respectively and 10 427 new cases were recorded in the period July 2011 to June 2012. In
the first half of 2012, 4 513 cases were reported at a rate of almost 2.05 per every 100 000. The Member States most
exposed to this epidemic are Romania, France, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom, which account for 90 % of all the
cases reported.

These figures are an indication of an irrefutable decrease in vaccination across Europe, despite the member states of
the World Health Organisation (WHO) having committed themselves to eliminating the transmission of the measles
and rubella viruses by 2015. In order to deal with this high risk of contagion, double dose vaccines were prepared for
95 % of the population of the member countries, with this being complemented with comprehensive health
surveillance and monitoring measures in case of epidemics. Recent studies have shown that the people most at risk
are those who have not been previously infected and/or vaccinated, often due to a lack of information or difficulties
accessing local health services.

Given that more efforts are needed by all member countries and that consideration should be given to what might be
the most appropriate means of informing and protecting people who are now adults but who did not have the chance
to be vaccinated in early childhood in order to eradicate this — sometimes fatal — virus, what are the Commission’s
guidelines for addressing this epidemic?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

To eliminate measles, according to international standards, a sustained vaccination coverage of at least 95% with two
doses of a measles-containing vaccine is required. According to the World Health Organisation vaccination coverage
estimates from 2010, 10 Member States do not reach this required coverage for the first dose, and 16 Member States
do not reach it for the second dose.

While vaccination policies are the primary responsibility of Member States, the Commission, with the European
Centres for Disease Prevention and Control, is supporting national efforts through a number of EU initiatives. These
include the strengthening of measles surveillance at EU level, the mapping of progress made by Member States
towards the elimination of measles, the preparation of guidelines for interventions to increase vaccination uptake,
and strengthening communication on measles vaccination.

In June 2011, the Council adopted Conclusions on childhood immunisation ( [1] ). On 16 and 17 October 2012, the
Commission organised a conference on childhood immunisation ( [2] ) to follow-up on the Council conclusions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2011:202:0004:0006:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/vaccination/events/ev_20121016_en.htm

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 51

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008633/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Diversamente abili a scuola, quali gli ostacoli

Le persone diversamente abili hanno bisogno di assistenza e servizi specializzati dedicati e, in tempo di crisi a livello
mondiale, subiscono maggiormente gli effetti di tagli e riduzione dei costi previsti dalle amministrazioni pubbliche.
Da sempre l'UE si occupa di sensibilizzare la partecipazione, il coinvolgimento e l'impegno di tutta la cittadinanza
attiva. I servizi per le persone diversamente abili o per chi ha bisogno di assistenza dovrebbero sempre essere
aggiornati e innovati al fine di supportare e legittimare l'unità sociale nell'ottica del massimo rispetto per la differenza
e l'accettazione delle persone con disabilità come parte della diversità umana.

Il contesto ideale per poter promuovere la crescita delle persone secondo questi principi è proprio la scuola: in Italia il
numero di studenti disabili è di 191 037, con una crescita in percentuale del 56 % rispetto a dieci anni fa. È
fondamentale per gli studenti diversamente abili poter seguire le lezioni ed essere ascoltati in un clima che favorisca
l'integrazione della disabilità. In Italia il sostegno necessario per la loro istruzione è stato fortemente decimato con
l'inizio del nuovo anno scolastico: sono stati apportati drastici tagli al personale specializzato per la loro istruzione e
per la loro assistenza, ma soprattutto le scuole sono luoghi caratterizzati da barriere architettoniche che non
permettono spostamenti in sicurezza in tutti gli ambienti.

I dati riportati da un'indagine condotta sul campo rivelano che il 76 % delle scuole italiane controllate non è in regola
con le certificazioni sulla sicurezza e il tutto si complica per gli studenti disabili che trovano scalini all'ingresso del
14 % delle scuole, mancanza di ascensore nel 54 % degli edifici e ascensore non funzionante nel 14 % di quelli che ne
sono dotati; barriere architettoniche sono presenti nel 18 % delle mense, nel 14 % degli ingressi, nel 13 % dei
laboratori, nel 12 % dei cortili, nell'11 % delle aule e dei laboratori multimediali, nell'8 % delle palestre. Nel 34 % delle
scuole non esistono bagni per disabili, e il 7 % di chi c'è l'ha presenta barriere architettoniche.

Considerato che lo stile di vita, i percorsi di crescita della consapevolezza e dell'abilitazione progressiva a gestire la vita
e a trovare soluzioni per lo svolgimento delle differenti attività sono peculiari di ogni persona, si chiede alla
Commissione quanto segue:

—
intende promuovere e incentivare programmi volti al sostegno di coloro che necessitano di servizi e assistenza
adeguati ai loro bisogni all'interno dell'European Disability Strategy (EDS) 2010-2020 e prevede di stanziare
fondi atti a migliorare la sicurezza delle scuole e dei servizi per gli alunni e in particolar modo per quelli
diversamente abili?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(26 novembre 2012)_

Nel quadro della strategia europea sulla disabilità 2010-2020, la Commissione promuove i seguenti obiettivi:
garantire alle persone con disabilità un sostegno adeguato nel sistema di istruzione generale, facilitare la loro
istruzione, fare in modo che venga fornita assistenza personalizzata in ambienti che favoriscano il massimo sviluppo
accademico e sociale. La Commissione, nel pieno rispetto della responsabilità degli Stati membri di decidere del
contenuto e dell’organizzazione dei sistemi nazionali di istruzione, appoggia l’obiettivo di un’istruzione e di una
formazione inclusive e di qualità. La comunicazione «Migliorare le competenze per il 21° secolo» ( [1] ) mette in luce i
vantaggi dell’insegnamento individuale che tiene conto delle esigenze dell’alunno all’interno di sistemi scolastici
inclusivi.

Comenius, il programma di finanziamento della Commissione per il settore dell’istruzione scolastica, incoraggia la
partecipazione attiva di alunni diversamente abili. La Commissione inoltre collabora con l’Agenzia europea per lo
sviluppo dell’istruzione per alunni con esigenze speciali, oltre a sostenerla finanziariamente.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SEC(2008) 2177.

C 287 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

Il regolamento (CE) n. 1083/2006 del Consiglio recante disposizioni generali sul Fondo europeo di sviluppo
regionale, sul Fondo sociale europeo e sul Fondo di coesione ( [2] ) sottolinea l’importanza di affrontare le questioni
relative alla disabilità e all’accessibilità nel periodo di programmazione in corso. L’articolo 16 stabilisce che:
«l’accessibilità per i disabili, in particolare, è uno dei criteri da osservare nel definire le operazioni cofinanziate dai
Fondi e di cui tener conto nelle varie fasi di attuazione».

Il regolamento (CE) n. 1080/2006 stipula che il FESR ( [3] ) possa essere utilizzato per investimenti nel settore
dell’istruzione, inclusi gli investimenti in infrastrutture. In tutti i progetti di infrastrutture finanziati dal FESR il criterio
dell’accessibilità deve essere rispettato: il Fondo non dovrebbe finanziare alcuna operazione che non ne tenga conto.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:210:0025:0078:IT:PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:210:0001:0011:IT:PDF

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 53

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008633/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Differently-abled pupils at school and obstacles encountered by them

Differently-abled persons need special assistance and services tailored to their needs and, at a time of worldwide
economic crisis, it is here that the effects of public spending cuts and savings are felt most keenly. The EU on the other
hand is concerned with heightening awareness and encouraging public involvement and commitment. Facilities for
the differently-abled or those needing assistance need to be constantly modernised and updated in order to establish
and strengthen social cohesion, showing maximum respect for those who are different and acceptance of persons
with disabilities as a manifestation of human diversity.

Schools provide the ideal environment for promoting the realisation of individual potential in accordance with these
principles. In Italy the number of students with disabilities is currently 191 037, 56% more than 10 years ago. It is
essential for differently-abled students to be able to follow lessons and make their voices heard in an environment
which encourages the integration of persons with disabilities. In Italy the support necessary for their education has
been strongly eroded since the beginning of the school year, with drastic cuts in the specialised staff assigned to assist
with their education. In addition to this schools themselves are not properly designed to enable them to move around
safely and unobstructed throughout the premises.

According to a survey, 76% of Italian schools inspected fail to meet requisite safety standards — the situation being
even more difficult for students with disabilities, who find themselves confronted with steps at the entrance to 14% of
schools, an absence of lifts in 54% of premises and non-operational lifts in 14% of those premises which do have
them; architectural barriers in 18% of refectories, 14% of entrances, 13% of laboratories, 12% of quadrangles, 11% of
lecture rooms and multimedia laboratories, and 8% of gymnasiums. 34% of schools do not have lavatories for the
disabled and 7% of those provided are obstructed by architectural barriers.

Considering that lifestyle, increased awareness, the progressive acquisition of time-management and problem-solving
skills in different areas of endeavour are a matter of individual development in every case, will the Commission
promote and encourage programmes designed for those needing facilities and assistance tailored to their needs under
the European Disability Strategy (EDS) 2010-2020 and does it intend to provide funding to improve safety standards
at schools and facilities for pupils, in particular the differently-abled?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 November 2012)_

With the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020, the Commission promotes the goal of ensuring that people with
disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their education, and that
effective individualized support is provided in environments that maximise academic and social development. With
full respect for the Member States' responsibility for the content and organisation of education, the Commission fully
supports the goal of inclusive, quality education and training. The communication ‘Improving competences for the
21st Century’ ( [1] ) notes the benefits of individualised teaching that takes into account each learner’s needs within fully
inclusive schools.

Comenius, the Commission’s funding programme in the field of school education, encourages active participation of
pupils of different abilities. The Commission also helps to fund, and collaborates with, the European Agency for
Development in Special Needs Education.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion
Fund ( [2] ) places great emphasis on addressing disability and accessibility in the current programming period.
Article 16 underlines that ‘accessibility for disabled persons shall be one of the criteria to be observed in defining
operations co-financed by the Funds and to be taken into account during the various stages of implementation’.

Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 stipulates that the ERDF ( [3] ) can be used for education investments including
education infrastructure. Accessibility has to be respected for all infrastructure projects supported by the ERDF and it
should not fund any operation not complying with accessibility.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SEC(2008) 2177.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:210:0025:0078:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:210:0001:0011:EN:PDF

C 287 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008634/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) y Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Actividades del Centro Europeo para la Validación de Métodos Alternativos (CEVMA) y la directiva relativa a
los cosméticos

Si bien la prohibición en 2013 relativa a la venta de cosméticos experimentados en animales debe aplicarse sin
demora por razones éticas, independientemente de la disponibilidad de pruebas alternativas sin animales, es
igualmente importante introducir cuanto antes métodos de experimentación sin animales y que se dé prioridad a su
desarrollo.

Un método alternativo puede sustituir a una prueba con animales solo si el Centro Europeo para la Validación de
Métodos Alternativos (CEVMA) lo ha validado previamente. No obstante, parece que si el CEVMA o la OCDE no
validan a tiempo métodos para la sustitución de pruebas con animales, la legislación de la UE destinada a sustituir el
uso de animales en pruebas de inocuidad no podrá entrar en vigor (por ejemplo, la Directiva relativa a los cosméticos).

1. ¿Cuáles son los métodos alternativos validados hasta la fecha por el CEVMA desde su creación?

2. ¿A cuánto asciende el importe total de las tareas asignadas al CEVMA en sus 20 años de actividad, y se han
cumplido todas?

3. ¿A cuánto asciende la dotación anual que recibe el CEVMA con cargo al presupuesto de la UE?

4. ¿Qué validaciones se están efectuando en la actualidad?

5. ¿Cuál es el calendario previsto para la completa sustitución de la experimentación con animales utilizada para el
desarrollo y la comercialización de nuevos ingredientes o productos cosméticos?

6. ¿Qué cambios se han realizado en el CEVAM desde la adopción de la Directiva 2010/63/UE relativa a la
protección de los animales utilizados para fines científicos y como consecuencia del aumento de responsabilidades
del CEVAM que se deriva de dicha Directiva?

7. ¿Qué pruebas se han transmitido a la OCDE y todavía no están aprobadas?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Geoghegan-Quinn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(26 de noviembre de 2012)_

La plena sustitución de los ensayos con animales no está ligada únicamente a la validación, sino que también depende
de la solución de los retos científicos, algunos de los cuales todavía requieren un esfuerzo considerable de
investigación.

El Centro Europeo de Validación de Métodos Alternativos (CEVMA) ha llevado a cabo 48 estudios de validación,
validando métodos de sustitución completa para la fototoxicidad y la irritación/corrosión/absorción/penetración de
la piel, así como métodos de sustitución parcial o reducción en la categoría de irritación o corrosión, sensibilización
cutánea, genotoxicidad, carcinogenicidad, toxicidad para la reproducción y toxicidad oral aguda. El CEVMA participa
ahora en la validación de catorce métodos de evaluación de la irritación ocular, la sensibilización cutánea, la
genotoxicidad, la carcinogenicidad, la toxicidad transmetabólica, las alteraciones endocrinas y la toxicidad
medioambiental. La validación de dos métodos para detectar los alteradores endocrinos se iniciará en 2013. En los
últimos años, el CEVMA ha gastado cerca de 8 millones de euros al año en personal científico o técnico, equipos y
otros gastos de funcionamiento.

Un informe reciente ( [1] ) indica que el dictamen científico predominante es que la plena sustitución no estará disponible
durante otros diez años, con una perspectiva más optimista para la sensibilización cutánea. La Comisión remite a Su
Señoría a las respuestas dadas a las preguntas escritas previas ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Informe técnico «Métodos alternativos de ensayo de cosméticos (sin animales): situación actual y perspectivas de futuro-2010», disponible en

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_ensayos/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E-012192/2011, E-006488/2011 y E-008576/2011; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 55

Las competencias del CEVMA abarcan ahora también la orientación de la creación de alternativas, facilitando su
aceptación y fomentando su uso. Se ha creado una red de laboratorios de validación en la EU.

El proyecto de directrices de ensayo de la OCDE se adoptará para la evaluación de la irritación ocular (tres métodos), la
carcinogenicidad (un método), la toxicidad medioambiental (un método) y las alteraciones endocrinas (un método).
En 2011, se presentaron a la OCDE dos métodos de sensibilización de la piel y, en 2012, se presentarán cinco (uno de
sensibilización cutánea, dos de perturbación endocrina y dos de toxicidad transmetabólica).

C 287 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(České znění)_

**Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-008634/12**

**Komisi**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), ((NI)I)adja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva**
**i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) a Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28. září 2012)_

_Předmět:_ Činnost ECVAM (Evropské středisko pro validaci alternativních metod) a směrnice o kosmetických
prostředcích

Zákaz prodeje kosmetiky testované na zvířatech z roku 2013 by měl být z etických důvodů zaveden bez prodlení
a bez ohledu na to, zda jsou k dispozici alternativní testy, které se neprovádějí zvířatech. Je však také důležité, aby
metody bez použití zvířat byly zavedeny co nejdříve a aby měl jejich vývoj prioritu.

Alternativní metoda může nahradit příslušné testy na zvířatech pouze tehdy, pokud ECVAM, Evropské středisko pro
validaci alternativních metod, její platnost předtím potvrdilo. Zdá se však, že pokud ECVAM nebo OECD neprovede
validaci metod nahrazujících testy na zvířatech včas, mohou vstoupit v platnost právní předpisy EU, jejichž cílem je
nahradit používání zvířat k testování bezpečnosti (např. směrnice o kosmetických prostředcích).

1. Které alternativní metody ECVAM od svého vzniku až do současnosti validovalo?

2. Jaký je celkový počet úkolů, které ECVAM za 20 let své činnosti dostalo, a byly všechny splněny?

3. Jaká částka z rozpočtu EU je ECVAM každý rok přidělována?

4. Které validace v současné době probíhají?

5. Jaký je předpokládaný harmonogram úplného nahrazení pokusů na zvířatech používaných pro vývoj nových
kosmetických přísad nebo výrobků a jejich uvádění na trh?

6. Jaké změny jsou prováděny v ECVAM po přijetí směrnice 2010/63/EU o ochraně zvířat používaných pro
vědecké účely a zvýšené povinnosti ECVAM stanovené touto směrnicí?

7. Které testy byly předloženy OECD, ale dosud nebyly schváleny?

**Odpověď paní Geoghegan-Quinnové jménem Komise**

_(26. listopadu 2012)_

Úplné nahrazení testů na zvířatech není vázáno pouze na validaci, ale závisí také na vyřešení vědeckých problémů,
z nichž některé stále ještě vyžadují značné úsilí v oblasti výzkumu.

ECVAM provedlo 48 validačních studií, v nichž byly validovány metody, které úplně nahrazují testy na zvířatech,
pokud jde o fototoxicitu a kožní iritaci/korozi/absorpci/penetraci, částečně je nahrazují nebo je redukují, pokud jde
o oční iritaci/leptavé účinky na oči, kožní senzitizaci, genotoxicitu, karcinogenitu, reprodukční toxicitu a akutní
orální toxicitu. ECVAM je v současné době zapojeno do validace 14 metod ke stanovení oční iritace, kožní
senzitizace, genotoxicity, karcinogenity, toxicity zprostředkované metabolismem, endokrinních poruch
a environmentální toxicity. Validace dvou metod pro zjišťování endokrinních disruptorů by měla být zahájena v roce
2013. V posledních letech bylo na vědecké a odborné pracovníky ECVAM, na vybavení a jiné další provozní náklady
každoročně vynaloženo přibližně 8 milionů EUR.

V poslední zprávě ( [1] ) bylo uvedeno, že podle převládajícího vědeckého stanoviska nebude úplné nahrazení testů na
zvířatech k dispozici ještě dalších deset let, přičemž u kožní senzitizace jsou vyhlídky o něco optimističtější. Komise si
dovoluje vážené poslance odkázat na své odpovědi na předchozí otázky ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Expertní zpráva „Alternativní metody (bez použití zvířat) testování kosmetických prostředků: současný stav a vyhlídky do budoucna – 2010“,

k dispozici na internetové stránce: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E-012192/2011, E-006488/2011 a E-008576/2011: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/cs/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 57

K současným úkolům ECVAM patří rovněž vypracování hlavních alternativ, usnadnění jejich přijetí a podpora jejich
používání. V EU se vytváří síť laboratoří provádějících validaci.

Návrhy metodiky OECD pro testování se přijímají pro oční iritaci (tři metody), karcinogenitu (jedna metoda),
environmentální toxicitu (jedna metoda) a endokrinní poruchy (jedna metoda). V roce 2011 byly OECD předloženy
dvě metody týkající se kožní senzitizace a pět metod bude předloženo v roce 2012 (jedna pro kožní senzitizaci, dvě
pro endokrinní poruchy, dvě pro toxicitu zprostředkovanou metabolismem).

C 287 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008634/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) og Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28. september 2012)_

_Om:_ Virksomheden i ECVAM (Det Europæiske Center for Validering af Alternative Metoder) og kosmetikdirektivet

Mens forbuddet fra 2013 om salg af kosmetik, der er testet på dyr, skal gennemføres uden forsinkelser af etiske
årsager, uanset om der findes alternative testmetoder uden anvendelse af dyr eller ej, er det vigtigt, at der indføres
testmetoder uden anvendelse af dyr så hurtigt som muligt, og at udviklingen af sådanne metoder prioriteres.

En alternativ metode kan kun erstatte dyreforsøg efter forudgående godkendelse fra ECVAM, Det Europæiske Center
for Validering af Alternative Metoder. Det ser imidlertid ud til, at EU‐lovgivningen, som tilsigter at erstatte
anvendelsen af dyr i sikkerhedstests (dvs. kosmetikdirektivet), ikke kan træde i kraft, hvis ECVAM og OECD ikke
validerer metoderne til erstatning for dyreforsøg i tide.

1. Hvilke alternative metoder har ECVAM valideret siden sin oprettelse?

2. Hvor stort er det samlede antal opgaver, som ECVAM har fået overdraget i sin 20‐årige eksistens, og hvordan er
de blevet løst?

3. Hvor stort et beløb udbetales der årligt til ECVAM fra EU‐budgettet?

4. Hvilke valideringer er for øjeblikket under behandling?

5. Hvad er den forventede tidshorisont for en fuldstændig erstatning af dyreforsøg i forbindelse med udvikling og
markedsføring af nye kosmetiske ingredienser eller produkter?

6. Hvilke ændringer er der sket i ECVAM efter vedtagelsen af direktiv 2010/63/EU om beskyttelse af dyr, der
anvendes til videnskabelige formål, og udvidelsen af ECVAM's ansvar i henhold til direktivet?

7. Hvilke tests er blevet forelagt OECD, men endnu ikke blevet godkendt?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Màire Geoghegan-Quinn**

_(26. november 2012)_

Fuldstændig erstatning af dyreforsøg hænger ikke kun sammen med validering, men afhænger også af, at der findes
løsninger på videnskabelige udfordringer, hvoraf nogle stadig kræver en betydelig forskningsindsats.

ECVAM har foretaget 48 valideringsundersøgelser, hvor man validerede metoder til fuldstændig erstatning
vedrørende fototoksicitet og hudirritation, hudætsning, hudabsorption og hudpenetration samt metoder til delvis
erstatning eller reduktion vedrørende øjenirritation/ætsning, hudsensibilisering, genotoksicitet, carcinogenicitet,
reproduktionstoksicitet og akut oral toksicitet. ECVAM er nu involveret i valideringen af 14 metoder vedrørende
øjenirritation, hudsensibilisering, genotoksicitet, carcinogenicitet, metabolisme-medieret toksicitet,
hormonforstyrrelser og miljøtoksicitet. I 2013 skulle man påbegynde validering af to metoder til påvisning af
hormonforstyrrende stoffer. I de seneste år er der i ECVAM-regi brugt omkring 8 mio. EUR pr. år på teknisk og
videnskabeligt personale og udstyr samt andre driftsomkostninger.

En nylig rapport ( [1] ) viste, at den fremherskende holdning blandt forskere er, at fuld erstatning ikke vil være en
mulighed de næste ti år, idet der dog er bedre udsigter for hudsensibilisering. Kommissionen henviser de ærede
medlemmer til sine svar på tidligere forespørgsler ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Den tekniske rapport "Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects — 2010" kan fås på:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E‐ 012192/2011, E‐ 006488/2011 og E-008576/2011:

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

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 59

ECVAM's mandat omfatter nu også vejledning om udvikling af alternativer samt fremme af accept og anvendelse
heraf. Der er ved at blive oprettet et net af EU-valideringslaboratorier.

Der er ved at blive vedtaget udkast til OECD-retningslinjer for øjenirritation (tre metoder), carcinogenicitet (en
metode), miljøtoksicitet (en metode) og hormonforstyrrelser (en metode). I 2011 blev der forelagt to metoder om
hudsensibilisering for OECD, og i 2012 vil der blive indgivet fem (en om hudsensibilisering, to om
hormonforstyrrelser og to om metabolisme-medieret toksicitet).

C 287 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008634/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**
**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) und Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28. September 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Tätigkeit des ECVAM (Europäisches Zentrum zur Validierung alternativer Methoden) und Kosmetik-Richtlinie

Da das für 2013 geplante Verkaufsverbot für Kosmetikerzeugnisse, die an Tieren getestet wurden, aus ethischen
Gründen unverzüglich umgesetzt werden sollte, unabhängig von alternativen Testverfahren, die keine Tierversuche
beinhalten, ist es wichtig, schnellstmöglich solche tierversuchsfreien Testverfahren einzuführen und diese bevorzugt
zu entwickeln.

Eine alternative Methode kann einen Tierversuch nur ersetzen, wenn das ECVAM, das Europäische Zentrum zur
Validierung alternativer Methoden, diese zuvor positiv bewertet. Es scheint jedoch, dass, wenn das ECVAM oder die
OECD nicht in der Lage sind, Ersatzmethoden für Tierversuche rechtzeitig zu validieren, die EU-Rechtsvorschriften
zur Ersetzung von Tieren bei Sicherheitstests nicht in Kraft treten können (z. B. die Kosmetik-Richtlinie).

1. Welche alternativen Methoden hat das ECVAM seit seiner Gründung bislang validiert?

2. Wie viele Aufgaben wurden dem ECVAM in den 20 Jahren seines Bestehens insgesamt übertragen? Wurden
diese alle erfüllt?

3. Was für Mittel erhält das ECVAM jährlich aus dem EU-Haushalt?

4. Welche Validierungen werden gegenwärtig durchgeführt?

5. Wann werden Tierversuche bei der Entwicklung und Vermarktung von neuen kosmetischen Inhaltsstoffen oder
Kosmetikerzeugnissen voraussichtlich endgültig ersetzt?

6. Welche Änderungen gab es im ECVAM nach Verabschiedung von Richtlinie 2010/63/EU zum Schutz der für
wissenschaftliche Zwecke verwendeten Tiere infolge der mit dieser Richtlinie erweiterten Zuständigkeiten des
ECVAM?

7. Welche Testverfahren wurden der OECD übertragen, aber noch nicht von ihr genehmigt?

**Antwort von Frau Geoghegan-Quinn im Namen der Kommission**

_(26. November 2012)_

Der vollständige Ersatz von Tierversuchen hängt nicht nur von der Validierung, sondern auch von der Lösung
wissenschaftlicher Probleme ab, die in einigen Bereichen noch beträchtliche Forschungsanstrengungen erfordern.

Das ECVAM hat 48 Validierungsstudien durchgeführt und dabei Methoden für einen vollständigen Ersatz in den
Bereichen Phototoxizität und Hautreizungen/-ätzungen/-resorption/-penetration sowie Teilersatzmethoden oder
Methoden zur Verringerung des Einsatzes von Tierversuchen in den Bereichen Augenreizungen/-ätzungen,
Hautsensibilisierungen, Genotoxizität, Kanzerogenität, Reproduktionstoxizität und akute orale Toxizität validiert.
Das ECVAM befasst sich nun mit der Validierung von 14 Methoden in den Bereichen Augenreizungen,
Hautsensibilisierung, Genotoxizität, Kanzerogenität, stoffwechselvermittelte Toxizität, hormonelle Wirkungen und
Umwelttoxizität. Mit der Validierung von zwei Methoden zur Ermittlung hormoneller Wirkungen soll 2013
begonnen werden. In den letzten Jahren wurden rund 8 Mio. EUR jährlich für das wissenschaftlich-technische
Personal des ECVAM sowie für Ausrüstung und weitere betriebliche Kosten bereitgestellt.

Einem aktuellen Bericht ( [1] ) zufolge ist nach der vorherrschenden wissenschaftlichen Meinung in den nächsten
10 Jahren — außer in Bezug auf Hautreizungen, bei denen die Aussichten besser sind — nicht mit einem
vollständigen Ersatz zu rechnen. Die Kommission verweist die Damen und Herren Abgeordneten auch auf ihre
Antwort auf frühere Anfragen ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Technischer Bericht „Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects — 2010“, abrufbar unter:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E-012192/2011, E-006488/2011 und E-008576/2011;

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

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 61

Die Zuständigkeiten des ECVAM umfassen nun auch die Anleitung der Entwicklung von Alternativen, die
Unterstützung ihrer Akzeptanz und die Förderung ihrer Anwendung. Derzeit wird in der EU ein Netz von
Validierungslabors eingerichtet.

Das Annahmeverfahren für Entwürfe von OECD-Prüfungsleitlinien für Augenreizungen (drei Methoden),
Kanzerogenität (eine Methode), Umwelttoxizität (eine Methode) und hormonelle Wirkungen (eine Methode) läuft
bereits. Zwei Methoden in Bezug auf Hautsensibilisierungen wurden der OECD 2011 vorgelegt, fünf Methoden (eine
in Bezug auf Hautsensibilisierungen, zwei zu hormonellen Wirkungen und zwei zu stoffwechselvermittelter
Toxizität) werden ihr 2012 übermittelt.

C 287 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008634/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) και Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δραστηριότητες του ECVAM (Ευρωπαϊκό Κέντρο για την Επικύρωση Εναλλακτικών Μεθόδων) και η οδηγία για τα
καλλυντικά

Ενώ η προβλεπόμενη για το 2013 απαγόρευση πώλησης καλλυντικών προϊόντων που δοκιμάζονται σε ζώα θα πρέπει να
εφαρμοστεί χωρίς καθυστέρηση για λόγους ηθικής, ανεξάρτητα από τη διαθεσιμότητα εναλλακτικών μορφών δοκιμών χωρίς
ζώα, είναι επίσης σημαντικό να καθιερωθούν το συντομότερο δυνατό μέθοδοι χωρίς ζώα και να δοθεί προτεραιότητα στην
ανάπτυξή τους.

Μια εναλλακτική μέθοδος μπορεί να αντικαταστήσει μια αντίστοιχη δοκιμή σε ζώα μόνο κατόπιν επικύρωσης από το
ECVAM, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κέντρο για την Επικύρωση Εναλλακτικών Μεθόδων. Ωστόσο, φαίνεται ότι εάν μια μέθοδος για την
αντικατάσταση δοκιμών σε ζώα δεν επικυρωθεί εγκαίρως από το ECVAM ή τον ΟΟΣΑ, δεν μπορεί να τεθεί σε ισχύ η
νομοθεσία της ΕΕ που αποσκοπεί στην αντικατάσταση της χρήσης ζώων σε δοκιμές ασφαλείας (π.χ. οδηγία για τα
καλλυντικά).

1. Ποιες είναι οι εναλλακτικές μέθοδοι που έχουν επικυρωθεί από το ECVAM από την ίδρυσή του μέχρι και σήμερα;

2. Ποιος είναι ο συνολικός αριθμός αποστολών που έχουν ανατεθεί στο ECVAM στα 20 χρόνια δραστηριότητάς του, και
έχουν εκπληρωθεί όλες;

3. Τι ποσό από τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ διατίθεται ως ετήσια χορηγία στο ECVAM;

4. Ποιες επικυρώσεις βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη;

5. Ποιο είναι το αναμενόμενο χρονοδιάγραμμα για την πλήρη αντικατάσταση των πειραμάτων σε ζώα τα οποία
χρησιμοποιούνται για την ανάπτυξη και την εμπορία νέων καλλυντικών συστατικών και προϊόντων;

6. Ποιες είναι οι αλλαγές που πραγματοποιούνται στο ECVAM μετά την έγκριση της οδηγίας 2010/63/ΕΕ περί
προστασίας των ζώων που χρησιμοποιούνται για επιστημονικούς σκοπούς, η οποία προβλέπει αυξημένες αρμοδιότητες για
το ECVAM;

7. Ποιες δοκιμές έχουν υποβληθεί στον ΟΟΣΑ, αλλά δεν έχουν εγκριθεί ακόμη;

**Απάντηση της κ. Geoghegan-Quinn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(26 Νοεμβρίου 2012)_

Η πλήρης υποκατάσταση των δοκιμών σε ζώα δεν συνδέεται μόνο με την επικύρωση, αλλά εξαρτάται και από την επίλυση
επιστημονικών προβλημάτων, για μερικά εκ των οποίων χρειάζονται ακόμη σημαντικές ερευνητικές προσπάθειες.

Στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κέντρο για την Επικύρωση Εναλλακτικών Μεθόδων (ECVAM) διενεργήθηκαν 48 μελέτες επικύρωσης, για την
εξακρίβωση της καταλληλότητας μεθόδων πλήρους υποκατάστασης των δοκιμών σε ζώα όσον αφορά τη φωτοτοξικότητα και
τον δερματικό ερεθισμό/τη διάβρωση του δέρματος/την απορρόφηση από το δέρμα/τη διείσδυση στο δέρμα, καθώς και
μεθόδων μερικής υποκατάστασης ή μείωσης των δοκιμών όσον αφορά τον ερεθισμό/τη διάβρωση των οφθαλμών, την
ευαισθητοποίηση του δέρματος, τη γονιδιοτοξικότητα, την καρκινογένεση, την τοξικότητα κατά την αναπαραγωγή και την
οξεία τοξικότητα από το στόμα. Στο ECVAM εκτελούνται πλέον 14 μελέτες για την επικύρωση μεθόδων που αφορούν τον
ερεθισμό των οφθαλμών, την ευαισθητοποίηση του δέρματος, τη γονιδιοτοξικότητα, την καρκινογένεση, την τοξικότητα
μέσω μεταβολισμού, την ενδοκρινική διαταραχή και την τοξικότητα για το περιβάλλον. Η επικύρωση δύο μεθόδων που
αφορούν την ανίχνευση των ενδοκρινικών διαταρακτών πρόκειται να αρχίσει το 2013. Τα τελευταία έτη, οι δαπάνες για το
επιστημονικό/τεχνικό προσωπικό και τον εξοπλισμό και άλλες λειτουργικές δαπάνες του ECVAM ανήλθαν σε περίπου
8 εκατ. ευρώ/έτος.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 63

Σε πρόσφατη έκθεση ( [1] ) αναφέρεται ότι, κατά την επικρατούσα επιστημονική άποψη, η πλήρης υποκατάσταση δεν θα είναι
δυνατή προτού παρέλθουν 10 έτη, ενώ είναι πιο αισιόδοξες οι προοπτικές όσον αφορά τις δοκιμές για την ευαισθητοποίηση
του δέρματος. Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει τα αξιότιμα μέλη του Κοινοβουλίου στις απαντήσεις της σε προηγούμενες
ερωτήσεις ( [2] ).

Η αποστολή του ECVAM καλύπτει πλέον και την καθοδήγηση της ανάπτυξης εναλλακτικών μεθόδων, τη διευκόλυνση της
αποδοχής και την προώθηση της χρήσης τους. Συγκροτείται δίκτυο εργαστηρίων επικύρωσης της ΕΕ.

Είναι υπό έκδοση σχέδιο κατευθυντηρίων γραμμών του ΟΟΣΑ για τις δοκιμές όσον αφορά τον ερεθισμό των οφθαλμών
(τρεις μέθοδοι), την καρκινογένεση (μία μέθοδος), την τοξικότητα για το περιβάλλον (μία μέθοδος) και την ενδοκρινική
διαταραχή (μία μέθοδος). Στον ΟΟΣΑ υποβλήθηκαν το 2011 δύο μέθοδοι δοκιμών όσον αφορά την ευαισθητοποίηση του
δέρματος και πέντε (μία όσον αφορά την ευαισθητοποίηση του δέρματος, δύο όσον αφορά την ενδοκρινική διαταραχή, δύο
όσον αφορά την τοξικότητα μέσω μεταβολισμού) θα υποβληθούν το 2012.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Τεχνική έκθεση «Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects — 2010» («Εναλλακτικές (χωρίς τη

χρήση ζώων) μέθοδοι δοκιμών για τα καλλυντικά: τρέχουσα κατάσταση και μελλοντικές προοπτικές — 2010»), αναρτημένη στην ιστοσελίδα:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E-012192/2011, E-006488/2011 και E-008576/2011.

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

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008634/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) e Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Attività dell'ECVAM (Centro europeo per la convalida dei metodi alternativi) e la direttiva sui cosmetici

Mentre nel 2013 il divieto di vendere prodotti cosmetici sperimentati su animali deve essere attuato senza indugio,
per motivi etici, indipendentemente dalla disponibilità di metodi alternativi ai test sugli animali, è anche importante
introdurre siffatti metodi alternativi al più presto, e che il loro sviluppo abbia la priorità.

Un metodo alternativo può sostituire un test su animali solo se l'ECVAM, il Centro europeo per la convalida dei
metodi alternativi, lo ha già convalidato. Tuttavia, sembra che ove l'ECVAM o l'OCSE non convalidassero in tempo
dei metodi sostitutivi della sperimentazione animale, la legislazione UE che mira a sostituire l'uso di test di sicurezza
su animali, non potrebbe entrare in vigore (ad esempio la direttiva sui cosmetici).

1. Quali sono i metodi alternativi convalidati dall'ECVAM, dalla sua creazione fino ad ora?

2. Qual è l'entità totale degli incarichi attribuiti all'ECVAM nei suoi 20 anni di attività e sono tutti stati adempiuti?

3. Qual è la dotazione annuale a titolo del bilancio UE assegnata all'ECVAM?

4. Quali convalide sono attualmente in corso?

5. Quali sono i tempi previsti per la sostituzione completa della sperimentazione animale utilizzata per lo
sviluppo e la commercializzazione di nuovi ingredienti o prodotti cosmetici?

6. Quali sono i cambiamenti in atto nell'ECVAM a seguito dell'adozione della direttiva 2010/63/UE sulla
protezione degli animali utilizzati a fini scientifici e nelle maggiori responsabilità dell'ECVAM che discendono da
codesta direttiva?

7. Quali tests sono stati sottoposti all'OCSE, ma non ancora approvati dall'OCSE?

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(26 novembre 2012)_

La sostituzione completa della sperimentazione animale non dipende soltanto dalla convalida dei metodi alternativi,
ma anche dalla possibilità di dare soluzione a problemi scientifici, alcuni dei quali richiedono tuttora un'ingente
attività di ricerca.

Il Centro europeo per la convalida di metodi alternativi ( _European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods_ —
ECVAM) ha svolto 48 studi di convalida riguardanti metodi per la completa sostituzione della sperimentazione
animale in relazione alla fototossicità e ai fenomeni di irritazione, corrosione, assorbimento e penetrazione cutanei,
nonché metodi per la sostituzione parziale o la riduzione in materia di irritazione e corrosione oculare,
sensibilizzazione cutanea, genotossicità, cancerogenicità, tossicità riproduttiva e tossicità orale acuta. L'ECVAM
partecipa attualmente alla convalida di 14 metodi riguardanti irritazione oculare, sensibilizzazione cutanea,
genotossicità, cancerogenicità, tossicità mediata dal metabolismo, alterazione del sistema endocrino e tossicità
ambientale. La convalida di due metodi per l'individuazione degli interferenti endocrini dovrebbe iniziare nel 2013.
Negli ultimi anni sono stati spesi circa 8 milioni di EUR l'anno per il personale tecnico-scientifico, per le
apparecchiature e per gli altri costi operativi dell'ECVAM.

Secondo una relazione recente ( [1] ), nella comunità scientifica predomina l'idea che per la sostituzione completa della
sperimentazione animale siano necessari ancora dieci anni (riguardo alla sensibilizzazione cutanea le previsioni sono
più ottimistiche). La Commissione rinvia gli onorevoli parlamentari alle risposte date a interrogazioni precedenti ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Relazione tecnica "Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects — 2010", consultabile alla

pagina: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E-012192/2011, E-006488/2011 ed E-008576/2011: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/it/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 65

Tra i compiti dell'ECVAM rientrano attualmente anche quelli di guidare lo sviluppo di metodi alternativi, di
agevolarne l'accettazione e di promuoverne l'uso. È in via di costituzione una rete di laboratori unionali di convalida.

È in via di adozione una bozza di linee guida OCSE sulla sperimentazione in materia di irritazione oculare
(tre metodi), cancerogenicità (un metodo), tossicità ambientale (un metodo) e alterazione del sistema endocrino (un
metodo). Due metodi sulla sensibilizzazione cutanea sono stati sottoposti al vaglio dell'OCSE nel 2011 e altri cinque
saranno sottoposti nel 2012 (uno sulla sensibilizzazione cutanea, due sull'alterazione del sistema endocrino e due
sulla tossicità mediata dal metabolismo).

C 287 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008634/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) en Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28 september 2012)_

_Betreft:_ De activiteiten van het ECVAM (Europees Centrum voor de validatie van alternatieve methoden) en de
cosmeticarichtlijn

Om ethische redenen moet zo snel mogelijk uitvoering worden gegeven aan het vanaf 2013 geldende verbod op de
verkoop van op dieren geteste cosmetica ongeacht of er al alternatieven voor dierproeven beschikbaar zijn. Het is
daarnaast echter ook belangrijk dat er zo snel mogelijk methoden zonder dierproeven worden ingevoerd en dat de
ontwikkeling van alternatieve testmethoden tot prioriteit wordt verheven.

Dierproeven kunnen alleen door alternatieve testmethoden worden vervangen als deze door het ECVAM, het
Europees Centrum voor de validatie van alternatieve methoden, zijn goedgekeurd. Het lijkt er echter op dat als het
ECVAM en de OESO er niet in slagen om tijdig vervangende testmethoden zonder dierproeven goed te keuren, de EUwetgeving waarmee wordt beoogd een einde te maken aan het gebruik van dieren voor het testen van de veiligheid
van producten (zoals de cosmeticarichtlijn) niet in werking kan treden.

1. Aan welke alternatieve testmethoden heeft het ECVAM sinds zijn oprichting zijn goedkeuring gehecht?

2. Hoeveel opdrachten tot het valideren van alternatieve methoden heeft het ECVAM in zijn 20-jarig bestaan
gekregen, en hoeveel validaties zijn er daadwerkelijk uitgevoerd?

3. Hoe hoog is het percentage van de EU-begroting dat jaarlijks aan het ECVAM wordt toegekend?

4. Welke alternatieve methoden worden er op dit moment gevalideerd?

5. Wat is het verwachte tijdschema voor de volledige afschaffing van dierproeven voor de ontwikkeling en het in
de handel brengen van nieuwe cosmetische ingrediënten of producten?

6. Welke veranderingen heeft het ECVAM doorgevoerd naar aanleiding van de aanneming van
Richtlijn 2010/63/EG betreffende de bescherming van dieren die voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden worden
gebruikt, waarin aan het EVCAM grotere verantwoordelijkheden worden toegekend?

7. Welke alternatieve methoden ter vervanging van dierproeven zijn momenteel nog bij de OESO in onderzoek?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Geoghegan-Quinn namens de Commissie**

_(26 november 2012)_

De volledige vervanging van dierproeven behelst niet uitsluitend de validering van alternatieve methoden: er moeten
ook wetenschappelijke problemen worden opgelost, waarvoor in sommige gevallen nog aanzienlijke
onderzoekinspanningen zijn vereist.

Het ECVAM heeft 48 valideringsstudies voltooid, die hebben geresulteerd in de validering van complete alternatieve
methoden voor fototoxiciteit en huidirritatie/‐corrosie/‐absorptie/‐penetratie, alsook van methoden ter gedeeltelijke
vervanging of vermindering van tests voor oogirritatie/‐corrosie, huidsensibilisering, genotoxiciteit, carcinogeniteit,
voortplantingstoxiciteit en acute orale toxiciteit. Het ECVAM houdt zich momenteel bezig met de validering van
14 methoden voor oogirritatie, huidsensibilisering, genotoxiciteit, carcinogeniteit, door de stofwisseling
geconditioneerde toxiciteit, ontregeling van de endocriene functies en milieutoxiciteit. De validering van twee
methoden voor het aantonen van stoffen die de endocriene functies verstoren, zal wellicht in 2013 worden aangevat.
De voorbije jaren is ongeveer 8 miljoen euro per jaar uitgetrokken voor personeelskosten (wetenschappelijk en
technisch personeel), de aankoop van apparatuur en andere huishoudelijke uitgaven van het ECVAM.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 67

In een recent rapport ( [1] ) wordt gesteld dat de meeste wetenschappers van mening zijn dat een volledige vervanging
van dierproeven wellicht nog tien jaar op zich zal laten wachten. Voor huidsensibilisering zijn de vooruitzichten wat
gunstiger. De Commissie verwijst de geachte Parlementsleden naar haar antwoord op eerdere parlementaire vragen( [2] ).

De opdracht van het ECVAM omvat nu ook het sturen van de ontwikkeling van alternatieven en het
vergemakkelijken van de aanvaarding en het bevorderen van het gebruik daarvan. Er wordt werk gemaakt van het
opzetten van een netwerk van EU-valideringslaboratoria.

Momenteel worden door de OESO ontwerp-richtsnoeren aangenomen voor proeven inzake oogirritatie (drie
methoden), carcinogeniteit (één), milieutoxiciteit (één) en verstoring van de endocriene functies (één). In 2011 zijn bij
de OESO twee methoden voor huidsensibilisering ingediend; in 2012 zullen er vijf methoden (één voor
huidsensibilisering, twee voor endocriene ontregeling en twee voor door de stofwisseling geconditioneerde toxiciteit)
worden ingediend.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Technisch rapport „Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects — 2010", beschikbaar op

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E‐ 012192/2011, E‐ 006488/2011 en E-008576/2011:

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

( **|**

C 287 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008634/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) şi Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28 septembrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Activitățile ECVAM (Centrul european pentru validarea metodelor alternative) și Directiva privind produsele
cosmetice

Odată cu implementarea interzicerii produselor cosmetice testate pe animale din 2013, fără întârzieri datorate unor
motive etice, indiferent dacă există o alternativă la aceste teste care să nu implice animale, este importantă și
introducerea cât mai rapidă a metodelor care nu implică animale, trebuind acordată prioritate elaborării unor astfel de
metode.

Testarea pe animale poate fi înlocuită printr-o metodă alternativă numai dacă a fost validată în prealabil de către
Centrul european pentru validarea metodelor alternative (ECVAM). Cu toate acestea, se pare că dacă ECVAM sau
OCED nu reușesc să valideze la timp metodele pentru înlocuirea testării pe animale, legislația UE care urmărește să
înlocuiască folosirea animalelor în testele privind siguranța produselor, nu poate intra în vigoare (de exemplu,
Directiva privind produsele cosmetice).

1. Care sunt metodele alternative validate de ECVAM de la înființarea acestuia până în prezent?

2. Care este numărul total de sarcini trasate ECVAM în cei 20 de ani de activitate și câte au fost îndeplinite?

3. Ce sumă din bugetul UE este alocată anual pentru ECVAM?

4. Ce procese de validare se desfășoară în momentul de față?

5. Care este orizontul de timp avut în vedere pentru înlocuirea completă a experimentelor pe animale folosite
pentru elaborarea și punerea pe piață a noilor ingrediente sau produse cosmetice?

6. Ce schimbări se fac la ECVAM în urma adoptării Directivei 2010/63/EU privind protecția animalelor utilizate în
scopuri științifice; care sunt responsabilitățile sporite ale ECVAM prevăzute de această directivă?

7. Ce teste au fost depuse la OCED și nu au fost încă aprobate de către aceasta?

**Răspuns dat de dna Geoghegan-Quinn în numele Comisiei**

_(26 noiembrie 2012)_

Înlocuirea completă a testelor pe animale depinde nu doar de aspecte de validare, ci și de soluționarea dificultăților de
ordin științific, unele necesitând încă eforturi considerabile de cercetare.

ECVAM a efectuat 48 de studii de validare prin intermediul cărora sunt validate metode care înlocuiesc complet
testele pe animale pentru evaluarea fototoxicității și a fenomenelor de iritație/coroziune/absorbție/penetrație la
nivelul tegumentului, precum și metode care înlocuiesc parțial sau reduc testele pe animale pentru evaluarea
iritației/coroziunii oculare, a sensibilizării tegumentului, a genotoxicității, a oncogenității, a toxicității pentru
reproducere și a toxicității orale acute. În prezent, ECVAM este implicată în validarea a 14 metode de evaluare a
iritației oculare, a sensibilizării tegumentului, a genotoxicității, a oncogenității, a toxicității metabolice, a tulburărilor
endocrine și a toxicității pentru mediu. Validarea a două metode pentru depistarea factorilor care pot cauza tulburări
endocrine urmează să înceapă în 2013. În ultimii ani, valoarea costurilor cu personalul științific/tehnic și cu
echipamentele ECVAM, precum și a altor costuri operaționale, a fost de aproximativ 8 milioane EUR/an.

Un raport recent ( [1] ) a arătat că poziția științifică dominantă este aceea că înlocuirea completă a testelor pe animale nu
va fi disponibilă în următorii 10 ani, perspectiva fiind mai optimistă pentru fenomenul de sensibilizare a
tegumentului. Comisia ar dori să aducă în atenția distinșilor membri răspunsurile sale la întrebări anterioare ( [2] ) .

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Raportul tehnic „Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current status and Future Prospects — 2010” [Metode alternative (care

nu implică animale) de testare a cosmeticelor: situația actuală și perspectivele — 2010], disponibilă la adresa:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E— 012192/2011, E— 006488/2011 și E-008576/2011:

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

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 69

În prezent, domeniul de competență al ECVAM cuprinde și îndrumarea elaborării unor metode alternative, facilitarea
acceptării acestora și promovarea utilizării lor. Este în curs de înființare o rețea de laboratoare de validare UE.

Sunt în curs de adoptare proiecte de ghiduri OCDE de testare pentru evaluarea iritației oculare (3 metode), a
oncogenității (1 metodă), a toxicității pentru mediu (1 metodă) și a tulburărilor endocrine (1 metodă). În 2011 au fost
transmise la OCDE două metode referitoare la sensibilizarea tegumentului, iar în 2012 vor fi transmise cinci metode
(una referitoare la sensibilizarea tegumentului, două la tulburările endocrine și două la toxicitatea metabolică).

C 287 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008634/12**

**komissiolle**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva**
**i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) ja Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28. syyskuuta 2012)_

_Aihe:_ Euroopan vaihtoehtoisten tutkimusmenetelmien keskuksen (ECVAM) toiminta ja kosmetiikkadirektiivi

Eläinkokeilla testatun kosmetiikan myynti kiellettiin vuonna 2013, ja eettisistä syistä kielto olisi pantava täytäntöön
viipymättä riippumatta siitä, onko vaihtoehtoisia koemenetelmiä käytettävissä. Lisäksi on tärkeää, että muita
menetelmiä kuin eläinkokeita otetaan käyttöön mahdollisimman pian ja että niiden kehitys asetetaan etusijalle.

Eläinkoe voidaan korvata vaihtoehtoisella menetelmällä vain, jos Euroopan vaihtoehtoisten tutkimusmenetelmien
keskus (ECVAM) on ensin validoinut sen. Vaikuttaa kuitenkin siltä, että jos ECVAM tai OECD ei validoi eläinkokeita
korvaavia menetelmiä ajoissa, unionin lainsäädäntö, jonka tarkoituksena on korvata eläinten käyttö
turvallisuuskokeissa, ei voi tulla voimaan (esimerkiksi kosmetiikkadirektiivi).

1. Mitä vaihtoehtoisia menetelmiä ECVAM on tähän mennessä validoinut perustamisestaan lähtien?

2. Kuinka paljon ECVAM:lle on annettu tehtäviä sen 20-vuotisen toiminnan aikana, ja onko ne kaikki suoritettu?

3. Kuinka suuri määrä unionin talousarviosta myönnetään vuosittain ECVAM:lle?

4. Mitä validointitehtäviä on tällä hetkellä käynnissä?

5. Mihin mennessä on odotettavissa, että uusien kosmetiikkatuotteiden ja niiden ainesosien kehityksessä ja
markkinoinnissa käytettävät eläinkokeet korvataan kokonaan muilla menetelmillä?

6. Mitä muutoksia ECVAM:ssa tehdään tieteellisiin tarkoituksiin käytettävien eläinten suojelusta annetun
direktiivin 2010/63/EU voimaantulon johdosta? Mitä ovat direktiivissä ECVAM:lle asetetut lisätehtävät?

7. Mitä sellaisia kokeita on annettu OECD:n tarkasteltavaksi, joita se ei ole vielä hyväksynyt?

**Máire Geoghegan-Quinnin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(26. marraskuuta 2012)_

Eläinkokeiden täydellinen korvaaminen ei riipu ainoastaan vaihtoehtoisten menetelmien validoinnista vaan myös
tieteellisten ongelmien ratkaisemisesta, ja joihinkin näistä tarvitaan vielä merkittävää tutkimusta.

ECVAM on tehnyt 48 validointitutkimusta ja validoinut täysin korvaavat menetelmät valomyrkyllisyyteen sekä
ihoärsytykseen/-syövyttävyyteen/-penetraatioon ja imeytymiseen ihon kautta. Osittain korvaavat menetelmät tai
kokeita vähentävät menetelmät on validoitu silmä-ärsytykseen/syövytykseen, ihon herkistymiseen, genotoksisuuteen,
karsinogeenisuuteen, lisääntymistoksisuuteen sekä akuuttiin oraaliseen toksisuuteen. ECVAM on parhaillaan
validoimassa silmä-ärsytykseen, ihon herkistymiseen, genotoksisuuteen, karsinogeenisuuteen, aineenvaihduntavälitteiseen toksisuuteen, hormonaalisiin häiriöihin ja ympäristötoksisuuteen liittyvää 14:ää menetelmää.
Hormonaalisten haitta-aineiden havaitsemiseen liittyvän kahden menetelmän validoinnin on määrä alkaa
vuonna 2013. Viime vuosina EVCAM:n tieteellisen/teknisen henkilöstön menoihin sekä välineisiin ja muihin
toimintakustannuksiin on käytetty noin 8 miljoonaa euroa vuosittain.

Hiljattain julkaistusta raportista ( [1] ) kävi ilmi, että vallitsevan tieteellisen käsityksen mukaan täydelliseen korvaaviin
menetelmiin siirtymiseen kuluu vielä 10 vuotta, vaikkakin ihon herkistymisen osalta tilanne näyttää lupaavammalta.
Komissio pyytää kysymyksen esittäjiä tutustumaan komission asiasta aiemmin antamiin vastauksiin ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Tekninen raportti ”Kosmeettisten valmisteiden testauksessa käytettävät eläinkokeille vaihtoehtoiset kokeet – nykytilanne ja tulevaisuudennäkymät

(2010)”, joka on saatavilla osoitteessa; http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E-012192/2011, E-006488/2011 ja E-008576/2011; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fi/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 71

ECVAM:n toimeksianto kattaa nyt myös vaihtoehtoisten menetelmien kehitystyön ohjaamisen, niiden hyväksymisen
helpottamisen ja käytön edistämisen. EU:n validointilaboratorioiden verkottaminen on käynnissä.

Testausta koskevat OECD:n yleisohjeluonnokset hyväksytään silmä-ärsytykselle (3 menetelmää),
karsinogeenisuudelle (1 menetelmä), ympäristötoksisuudelle (1 menetelmä) ja hormonaalisille häiriöille
(1 menetelmä). OECD:lle esitettiin kaksi ihon herkistymistä koskevaa menetelmää vuonna 2011 ja viittä muuta
menetelmää (yksi koskee ihon herkistymistä, kaksi hormonaalisia häiriöitä ja kaksi aineenvaihduntavälitteistä
toksisuutta) odotetaan esitettävän vuonna 2012.

C 287 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-008634/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**
**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D) och Dan Jørgensen**

**(S&D)**
_(28 september 2012)_

_Angående:_ Verksamheten hos Europeiska centret för validering av alternativa metoder (ECVAM) samt
kosmetikadirektivet

Förbudet att fr.o.m. 2013 sälja kosmetika som testats på djur bör införas utan dröjsmål av etiska skäl, oavsett om det
finns alternativa tester som inte utförs på djur, men det är också viktigt att metoder som inte inbegriper tester på djur
införs så snart som möjligt och att man prioriterar utvecklingen av dessa metoder.

En alternativ metod kan ersätta ett relevant djurförsök endast om Europeiska centret för validering av alternativa
metoder (ECVAM) i förväg har validerat den. Det verkar dock vara så att den EU-lagstiftning som syftar till att ersätta
användningen av djurförsök vid säkerhetsprövning (t.ex. kosmetikadirektivet) inte kan träda i kraft om ECVAM eller
OECD inte i tid validerar de metoder som ska ersätta djurförsöken.

1. Vilka alternativa metoder har ECVAM validerat sedan centret inrättades?

2. Hur många uppdrag totalt har ECVAM fått under sina 20 verksamhetsår, och har samtliga utförts?

3. Hur stort belopp från EU-budgeten får ECVAM som årligt anslag?

4. Vilka valideringar pågår för närvarande?

5. Vilken är den förväntade tiden för en fullständig ersättning av djurförsök som används för att utveckla och
marknadsföra nya kosmetikaingredienser eller kosmetikaprodukter?

6. Vilka förändringar har gjorts hos ECVAM efter att direktiv 2010/63/EU om skydd av djur som används för
vetenskapliga ändamål antogs, med anledning av ECVAMS utökade ansvar enligt detta direktiv?

7. Vilka tester har översänts till OECD, men ännu inte godkänts av denna organisation?

**Svar från Máire Geoghegan-Quinn på kommissionens vägnar**

_(26 november 2012)_

För att man helt ska kunna ersätta djurförsök måste man lösa både valideringsfrågan och vetenskapliga problem,
varav några fortfarande förutsätter betydande forskningsinsatser.

Europeiska centret för validering av alternativa metoder (Ecvam) har genomfört 48 valideringsstudier, där man har
validerat fullständiga ersättningsmetoder för fototoxicitet och hud‐ irritation/korrosion/absorption/penetration samt
metoder för delvis ersättning eller minskning för ögonirritation/korrosion, hudsensibilisering, genotoxicitet,
karcinogenicitet, reproduktionstoxicitet och akut oral toxicitet. Ecvam arbetar nu med att validera 14 metoder för
ögonirritation, hudsensibilisering, genotoxicitet, karcinogenicitet, metabolism-medierad toxicitet, endokrina
störningar och miljötoxicitet. Under 2013 bör det påbörjas validering av två metoder för att upptäcka
hormonstörande ämnen. Under de senaste åren har åtta miljoner euro per år spenderats på Ecvams
vetenskapliga/tekniska personal och utrustning och andra driftkostnader.

I en nyligen utkommen rapport ( [1] ) anges att den förhärskande vetenskapliga uppfattningen är att en fullständig
ersättning inte är möjlig förrän om ytterligare tio år, med en mer optimistisk prognos för hudsensibilisering.
Kommissionen hänvisar parlamentsledamöterna till sina svar på tidigare frågor ( [2] ) .

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Den tekniska rapporten om alternativ till djurförsök vid tester av kosmetika: expertrapport om nuläget och framtiden, 2010, finns på:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E-012192/2011, E-006488/2011 och E-008576/2011:

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

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 73

Ecvams mandat omfattar nu också utveckling av vägledande alternativ som ska underlätta godkännande och främja
användning av dessa. Ett nät av EU-valideringslaboratorier håller på att upprättas.

Ett utkast för testriktlinjer från OECD är på väg att antas för ögonirritation (3 metoder), karcinogenicitet (1 metod),
miljötoxicitet (1 metod) och endokrina störningar (1 metod). Två metoder för hudsensibilisering lämnades in till
OECD 2011 och fem (en för hudsensibilisering, två för endokrina störningar, två för metabolism-medierad toxicitet)
kommer att lämnas in 2012.

C 287 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008634/12**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Raül Romeva i**
**Rueda (Verts/ALE), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), Esther de Lange (PPE), Kriton**

**Arsenis (S&D), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), David Martin (S&D)**

**and Dan Jørgensen (S&D)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Activities of ECVAM (European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods) and the Cosmetics Directive

While the 2013 ban on selling cosmetics tested on animals should be implemented without delay for ethical reasons,
irrespective of the availability of alternative non-animal tests, it is also important that non-animal methods are
introduced as soon as possible, and that their development is prioritised.

An alternative method can replace a relevant animal test only if ECVAM, the European Centre for Validation of
Alternative Methods, has previously validated it. However, it seems that if ECVAM or the OECD fail to validate
methods for the replacement of animal tests in time, EU legislation that aims at replacing the use of animals in safety
testing cannot come into force (e.g. Cosmetics Directive).

1. Which are the alternative methods validated by ECVAM since its establishment until now?

2. What is the total amount of assignments given to ECVAM within its 20 years of activity, and have they all been
fulfilled?

3. What amount from the EU budget is given as a yearly allocation to ECVAM?

4. Which validations are currently underway?

5. What is the expected timeline for the complete replacement of animal experimentation used for the
development and marketing of new cosmetic ingredients or products?

6. What are the changes being made at ECVAM following the adoption of Directive 2010/63/EU on the
protection of animals used for scientific purposes and ECVAM’s increased responsibilities set out in this directive?

7. What tests have been submitted to the OECD but not yet approved by it?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

Full animal tests replacement is not linked only to validation but also depends on solving scientific challenges, some
still requiring significant research effort.

ECVAM carried out 48 validation studies, validating full replacement methods for phototoxicity and skin
irritation/corrosion/absorption/penetration, as well as partial replacement or reduction methods for eye
irritation/corrosion, skin sensitisation, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and acute oral toxicity.
ECVAM is now involved in validating 14 methods for eye irritation, skin sensitisation, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity,
metabolism-mediated toxicity, endocrine disruption and environmental toxicity. Validation of two methods for
detecting endocrine disrupters should start in 2013. In recent years around EUR 8 million/year were spent for
ECVAM scientific/technical staff and equipment and other operational costs.

A recent report ( [1] ) indicated that the predominant scientific opinion is that full replacement would not be available for
another 10 years, with a more optimistic outlook for skin sensitisation. The Commission would refer the Honourable
Members to its answers to previous questions ( [2] ).

The remit of ECVAM now covers also guiding alternatives development, facilitating their acceptance and promoting
their use. A network of EU validation laboratories is being established.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Technical Report ‘Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Cosmetics Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects — 2010’, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/animal_testing/final_report_at_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) E-010545/2011, E‐012192/2011, E‐006488/2011 and E-008576/2011:

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

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 75

Draft OECD test guidelines are being adopted for eye irritation (three methods), carcinogenicity (one method),
environmental toxicity (one method) and endocrine disruption (one method). Two methods on skin sensitisation
were submitted to the OECD in 2011, and five (one on skin sensitisation, two on endocrine disruption, two on
metabolism-mediated toxicity) will be submitted in 2012.

C 287 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008635/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(28. September 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Arbeit des CMP und fehlende Informationen

Nach Angaben des Ausschusses für die Vermissten in Zypern (CMP) enthielten von den 609 besichtigten und
geöffneten Grabstätten 373, also 60 %, keine menschlichen Überreste.

Hätten die türkischen Behörden bei den Nachforschungen zum Schicksal der vermissten Personen einen proaktiven
Ansatz verfolgt, was die Bereitstellung aller relevanten Informationen über Menschen und Orte umfasst hätte,
insbesondere im Hinblick auf Militärgebiete, sowie Archivinformationen und Berichte über Kampfstätten, wäre der
CMP eindeutig erfolgreicher gewesen. Für die betroffenen Familien wäre es eindeutig eine große Hilfe, wenn sie
Informationen über das Schicksal ihrer Angehörigen erhielten. Diese Schlussfolgerung wurde von den
Ministerstellvertretern im Europarat im Juni dieses Jahres unterstützt.

1. Sind der Kommission diese Umstände bekannt?

— Falls ja, welche konkreten Maßnahmen hat die Kommission bereits ergriffen, um die Arbeit des CMP im Hinblick
auf die Freigabe von Informationen durch die türkischen Behörden zu unterstützen?

— Falls nein, was beabsichtigt die Kommission nun zu tun, um an die Informationen zu gelangen, die erforderlich
sind, um die Arbeit des CMP zu unterstützen und dadurch zum Wohlergehen der betroffenen Familien beizutragen?

2. Kann die Kommission die Kosten angeben, die hätten gespart werden können, wenn die türkischen Behörden zu
der so dringend notwendigen Zusammenarbeit bezüglich der Freigabe der erforderlichen Informationen bereit
gewesen wären?

**Antwort von Herrn Füle im Namen der Kommission**

_(14. November 2012)_

Die Kommission kennt die Entscheidung des Ministerkomitees des Europarates, auf die sich die Frau Abgeordnete
bezieht.

Nach den der Kommission für die letzten fünf Jahre vorliegenden Angaben hat der CMP in 16 Fällen ausnahmsweise
einen Zugang zu türkischen Militärgebieten beantragt, der auch bewilligt wurde. Es ist von ausschlaggebender
Bedeutung, dass der Zugang zu Militärgebieten erforderlichenfalls gewährt wird, und die Kommission hofft in diesen
Fällen auf ein Entgegenkommen.

Wie der Frau Abgeordneten bekannt sein dürfte, ist die EU dank des starken Interesses und der Unterstützung des
Parlaments inzwischen der größte einzelne Geber für die Arbeiten des CMP und hat einschließlich der
Mittelzuweisung für 2012 insgesamt 7,5 Mio. EUR bereitgestellt. Allerdings ist die Kommission nicht in der Position,
für den CMP Entscheidungen über den zeitlichen Ablauf des Projekts oder die Modalitäten der Interventionen des
CMP zu treffen; dies ist vielmehr Sache der Mitglieder des CMP.

Zu der zweiten Frage der Frau Abgeordneten liegen der Kommission keine Angaben vor.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 77

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008635/12**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Work of the CMP and missing information

According to the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP), out of the 609 burial sites visited and opened 373,
i.e. more than 60 %, did not contain any human remains.

If the Turkish authorities had adopted a proactive approach in the investigations into the fate of the missing persons,
including providing all relevant information on people and places, especially concerning military zones, as well as
archives and battlefield reports, it is evident that the CMP would have had more success. It would definitely help the
families concerned to be informed of the fate of their loved ones. This conclusion was endorsed by the Committee of
Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe in June this year.

1. Is the Commission aware of these circumstances?

— If so, what concrete steps has the Commission already taken to support the work of the CMP with regard to the
release of information by the Turkish authorities?

— If not, what does the Commission intend to do now, in order to obtain the necessary information to support the
work of the CMP and thereby contribute to the concerned families’ wellbeing?

2. Can the Commission give an outline of the costs that would be saved, had the Turkish authorities shown the muchneeded cooperation with regard to the release of the required information?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to which the
Honourable Member refers.

According to the information available to the Commission over the last five years, the CMP requested 16 times an
exceptional access to Turkish military areas and this access has been granted. Access to military areas when needed
will be crucial and the Commission counts on positive responses in such cases.

As the Honourable Member is aware, with the strong interest and support from Parliament, the EU has become the
single biggest donor to the activities of the CMP with a total of EUR 7.5 million funding, including the 2012
allocation. However, the Commission is not in a position to decide on behalf of the CMP either the speed of the
project or the modality of the CMP interventions; this has to be decided by the members of the CMP.

Regarding the second issue the Honourable Members refers to, the Commission does not have any data.

C 287 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008636/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Agenzia UE per sostenere con equità l'export di tutti gli Stati membri

L'esistenza, solo in alcuni Paesi dell'UE, fra cui la Germania, di speciali condizioni e agevolazioni bancarie e finanziarie
in favore delle aziende esportatrici, crea un oggettivo disequilibrio fra i produttori europei in relazione alle loro
attività di export, con evidente distorsione del mercato.

La Commissione non intende esaminare la proposta, intesa a risolvere tale pesante squilibrio nell'export europeo,
relativa alla creazione di un'agenzia europea unica incaricata di veicolare i sostegni all'export dei manifatturieri dei
Paesi membri, senza discriminazione fra Paesi a sistema finanziario forte e potente e Paesi più deboli?

**Risposta data da Joaquín Almunia a nome della Commissione**

_(16 novembre 2012)_

Per quanto riguarda gli strumenti finanziari collegati all'esportazione, va osservato che conformemente all'accordo
dell'OMC sulle sovvenzioni e sulle misure compensative, che vieta le sovvenzioni all'esportazione, le norme dell'UE in
materia di aiuti di Stato ai sensi degli articoli 107 e 108 del TFUE non autorizzano gli aiuti all’esportazione. Il
sostegno ai crediti all’esportazione che copre i rischi a medio e lungo termine è tuttavia considerato compatibile con
le norme dell’OMC, purché concesso in conformità dell'accordo dell'OCSE relativo ai crediti all'esportazione che
beneficiano di sostegno pubblico.

In linea di principio gli aiuti di Stato per l’assicurazione del credito all’esportazione a breve termine non sono
autorizzati dalle norme sugli aiuti di Stato dell'UE ( [1] ) per i rischi assicurabili sul mercato ( [2] ). Di conseguenza, gli Stati
membri possono fornire un'assicurazione del credito all’esportazione a breve termine soltanto se presentano singole
notifiche tali da dimostrare che l'assicurazione per gli esportatori in tale Stato membro è temporaneamente
indisponibile sul mercato da assicuratori privati del credito. Le disposizioni in materia di assicurazione dei crediti
all'esportazione a breve termine sono attualmente in fase di revisione e a dicembre 2012 dovrebbero essere adottate
nuove norme. Questa revisione ha lo scopo di chiarire le regole relative all’intervento dello Stato in questo campo e
contribuire a creare condizioni di parità. Non prevede la creazione di un'unica agenzia europea di credito
all’esportazione, che si ritiene essere di competenza degli Stati membri.

Va inoltre osservato che le norme dell'UE in materia di aiuti di Stato e l'accordo dell’OCSE sui crediti all'esportazione
che beneficiano di sostegno pubblico (che è stato integrato nel diritto dell'UE) sono strumenti intesi a garantire pari
condizioni tra i programmi nazionali di credito all'esportazione degli Stati membri dell'UE.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunicazione della Commissione agli Stati membri, a norma dell'articolo 93, paragrafo 1, del trattato CE, sull'applicazione degli articoli 92 e 93

del trattato all'assicurazione del credito all'esportazione a breve termine (GU C 281 del 17.9.1997, pag. 4).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) I rischi assicurabili sul mercato sono rischi commerciali e politici inerenti a debitori pubblici e privati residenti nell'UE e in alcuni paesi OCSE ad

alto reddito, con una durata di credito inferiore a due anni.

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 79

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008636/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ An EU agency to provide equitable support for exports from all Member States

Some EU countries, including Germany, offer special conditions and bank/financial facilities to support exporting
companies. This creates an objective imbalance between European producers in relation to their export activities, and
clearly distorts the market.

Will the Commission not consider a proposal to remedy this great imbalance in EU exports by setting up a single
European agency to channel support to exporting producers in the Member States, without discriminating between
countries with strong and powerful financial systems and weaker countries?

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

_(16 November 2012)_

With respect to export related financial facilities it should be noted that, in accordance with the WTO Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures Agreement, which prohibits export subsidies, the EU State aid rules under Article 107-108
TFEU do not allow export aid. Support to export credits covering medium and long term risks is, however, considered
compatible with WTO rules if it is granted in conformity with the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported
Export Credits.

State aid for short term export credit insurance is in principle not allowed under the EU State aid rules ( [1] ), for
marketable risks ( [2] ). Accordingly, Member States can only provide short term export credit insurance if they submit
individual notifications demonstrating that insurance for exporters in that Member State is temporarily unavailable
on the market from private credit insurers. The rules on short-term export credit insurance are currently being revised
and the adoption of new rules is planned for December 2012. This revision aims at clarifying the rules for State
intervention in this area and contributing to the creation of a level-playing field. It does not foresee the creation of a
single European export credit agency, which is considered to be a competence of Member States.

It should also be kept in mind that the EU State aid rules as well as the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported
Export Credits (which has been incorporated into EC law) are instruments that should ensure a level playing field
between the national export credit programs of EU Member States.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the Member States pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty

to short-term export-credit insurance, OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, p. 4.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Marketable risks are commercial and political risks on public and private debtors established in the EU and some high income OECD countries,

with a maximum risk period of less than two years.

( **|**

C 287 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008637/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Precios de las materias primas

Desde el mes de junio los precios de las materias primas alimentarias están subiendo a niveles que, según Rabobank
( [1] ), han provocado y provocarán un aumento importante y prolongado de los precios de la soja y el maíz, a la sazón
cereales básicos para la cabaña animal.

Esto pone de relieve que las crisis alimentarias, como la del año 2008-2009, no son pasajeras y que, tal vez, están para
quedarse. De hecho, se constata que, desde dicha campaña, los niveles de almacenamiento mundial no se han
recuperado, tensando aún más la rigidez de los mercados entre oferta y demanda.

A la luz de lo anterior y teniendo en cuenta la seguridad alimentaria europea y el incremento de la población y los
cambios de dieta a nivel mundial:

1. ¿Puede explicar la Comisión si estamos ante un problema coyuntural o estructural?

2. ¿Puede indicar la Comisión si el almacenamiento de materias primas puede jugar en el futuro un papel positivo
para evitar dichas crisis alimentarias?

3. ¿Tiene la Comisión datos sobre el incremento de los costes que puede suponer para los ganaderos, sobre todo
para la industria animal y láctea?

4. ¿Cree la Comisión que dicho incremento de costes podrá ser trasladado equitativamente en toda la cadena
alimentaria, llegando al consumidor?

**Respuesta del Sr. Cioloş en nombre de la Comisión**

_(13 de noviembre de 2012)_

Las elevadas cotas que han alcanzado los precios de los productos agrícolas y su creciente volatilidad a lo largo de los
últimos años pueden explicarse tanto por los extremos fenómenos climáticos que han afectado a la producción
agrícola como por factores estructurales entre los que cabe citar el aumento de la demanda mundial, el bajo nivel de
las existencias, la fluctuación simultánea con otros productos, los elevados precios del petróleo, las políticas en
materia de biocombustibles, la volatilidad de los tipos de cambio o una excesiva especulación financiera. No obstante,
el hecho de que sigan apareciendo numerosos estudios a favor de una u otra opción apunta a que no existe un
consenso sobre la importancia de cada factor por separado.

La historia de la gestión de existencias a nivel mundial pone de relieve que la organización y gestión de un sistema de
este tipo encierra problemas potencialmente graves. Además, la acumulación de existencias en años en que el
suministro de productos agrícolas pasa por estrecheces y los precios son elevados no haría sino agravar la situación.

La Comisión está siguiendo muy atentamente los precios agrarios y los costes de producción. Actualmente, en el caso
de la carne los altos precios al productor contrarrestan (al menos parcialmente) el incremento de los costes de los
piensos y garantizan a los ganaderos unos márgenes aceptables. En el sector lácteo, los precios no han sido tan
elevados en los últimos meses, pero los márgenes están mejorando gracias a una ligera recuperación de los precios y
una aminoración del coste de los piensos, tendencia que en principio debe continuar en un futuro próximo.

En lo que se refiere a la transmisión de los costes a lo largo de la cadena de suministro de alimentos, la Comisión está
haciendo un estrecho seguimiento de la cuestión, y ha establecido el _Food Price Monitoring Tool,_ que muestra la
evolución de los precios en cada eslabón de la cadena alimentaria ( [2] ) . La Comisión ha instituido el Foro de Alto Nivel
sobre la Mejora del Funcionamiento de la Cadena Alimentaria, cuyo objetivo es promover unas relaciones sostenibles
y basadas en el mercado entre los agentes de la cadena alimentaria, así como una mayor transparencia e integración
del mercado alimentario.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rabobank.com/content/images/Rabobank_Outlook2012.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 81

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008637/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commodities prices

Since June 2012 commodities prices have been rising to levels that, according to Rabobank ( [1] ), have caused and will
continue to cause a significant and prolonged increase in the price of soya beans and maize, both of which are
essential ingredients in animal feed.

This shows that food crises such as that of 2008-2009 are not passing phenomena, and are perhaps here to stay. It
would indeed appear that global food stocks have not recovered since that crisis, thus placing more strain than ever
on the fragile balance between supply and demand on the markets.

In light of the above facts, European food security concerns, global population growth and changes in diet worldwide,

1. Can the Commission say whether this is a cyclical or structural problem?

2. Can the Commission say whether the storage of commodities could play a positive role in the future to avoid
such food crises?

3. Does the Commission have data on the increased costs that this situation has incurred for farmers, especially
those in the livestock farming and dairy sectors?

4. Does the Commission believe that the increased costs will be transferred evenly throughout the food chain?

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

_(13 November 2012)_

The peaks in agricultural commodity prices and their rising volatility in recent years can be explained both by extreme
climatic events affecting agricultural production and by structural factors such as rise in global demand, low level of
stocks, co-movement with other commodities, high oil price, biofuel policies, volatility in the exchange rates or
excessive financial speculation. However, the growing number of studies supporting the one or the other option
shows that there is no consensus on the importance of each single factor.

The history of managing stocks at a global level is indicative of potential serious problems in terms of organisation
and management of such a system. In addition, accumulating stocks during years of tight agricultural supply and high
prices would aggravate the situation.

The Commission is closely monitoring agricultural prices and production costs. Currently high meat producer prices
offset (at least partly) the increase in feed costs and guarantee livestock producers acceptable margins. In the dairy
sector, prices have not been as high in the last months, but margins are improving thanks to a slight recovery in prices
and a slowdown in feed prices, a trend which should continue in the near future.

As to the transmission of costs along the food supply chain, the Commission is closely following this issue, and set up
a Food Price Monitoring Tool to show price developments at each stage of the food chain ( [2] ) [.] The Commission set up a
High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, aiming to promote sustainable, market-based
relationships between the actors in the food chain, higher transparency and integration of the food market.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.rabobank.com/content/images/Rabobank_Outlook2012.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring

C 287 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008638/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação do diálogo intercultural na União Europeia

As instituições europeias dedicaram o ano de 2008 ao diálogo intercultural. Não obstante esta predisposição para o
estabelecimento de pontes entre culturas, a União vem sendo infelizmente marcada por fenómenos de intolerância e
de violência entre comunidades que parecem obstinar-se em não conviver e em afrontar-se. Alguns dirigentes
europeus vêm manifestando preocupação face ao deflagrar desses fenómenos e a chanceler Merkel declarou mesmo
que as tentativas de construir uma sociedade multicultural falharam flagrantemente.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Recordando os propósitos europeus de 2008, como avalia a evolução do diálogo intercultural da União
Europeia?

2. De que dados dispõe a este respeito?

3. Quais são atualmente as prioridades europeias quanto a esta matéria?

4. Considera que os modelos de integração adotados pelos Estados-Membros têm resultado em maior diálogo e
maior integração das comunidades que mais recentemente neles residem?

5. Em que medida uma sociedade tolerante deve estabelecer limites claros quanto à intolerância que não tolera?

6. Não considera que os Europeus desconhecem a sua cultura, ela própria multicultural e com diferentes origens, e
que esse desconhecimento dificulta o contacto e o diálogo com civilizações que mantêm uma cultura própria
mais presente e vincada? E não considera que urgiria também contribuir para que este desconhecimento fosse
colmatado?

**Resposta dada por AndroullaVassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de novembro de 2012)_

As perguntas colocadas pelo Senhor Deputado são vastas e complexas; não é possível fornecer aqui uma análise da
situação em toda a UE. A avaliação do Ano Europeu do Diálogo Intercultural em 2008 mostrou que até o próprio
conceito de diálogo intercultural é compreendido de forma distinta por cada Estado-Membro. Relativamente ao
impacto específico do Ano Europeu, o Senhor Deputado pode consultar a avaliação externa em:
[(http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/evaluation_en.htm).](http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/evaluation_en.htm)

Para a União Europeia, o diálogo intercultural constitui uma troca aberta e respeitosa entre as pessoas, que as conduz
a uma compreensão mútua mais aprofundada. Como tal, encontra-se no centro do projeto europeu e é o alicerce de
todos os programas transacionais.

Por exemplo, no âmbito da política cultural, um grupo de peritos nacionais encontra-se atualmente a deliberar sobre
a forma como as artes e as instituições culturais podem promover a diversidade e o diálogo intercultural. Uma análise
das políticas e um manual de boas práticas serão elaborados em 2013.

O diálogo intercultural é também uma prioridade do programa «A Europa para os Cidadãos», que promove uma
cidadania europeia ativa e uma identidade europeia respeitosa, dinâmica e multifacetada. Os candidatos ao programa
são convidados a abordar questões com uma perspetiva europeia e a reconhecer e comparar diferentes pontos de
vista.

Um outro exemplo prende-se com as trocas entre os governos nacionais no que diz respeito a medidas de integração
de migrantes ao abrigo de uma série de instrumentos da UE. O objetivo é o de promover a participação dos migrantes
a nível económico, social e cultural nas sociedades de acolhimento para benefício tanto dos indivíduos como das
sociedades, com base no facto de a integração exigir empenho, respeito e adaptação mútua por parte dos migrantes e
das sociedades de acolhimento.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 83

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008638/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ The intercultural dialogue situation in the European Union

European institutions dedicated 2008 to intercultural dialogue. Despite this willingness to build bridges between
cultures, the Union has unfortunately been marked by instances of intolerance and violence between communities
who seem determined to live in conflict and to confront each other. Several European leaders have expressed concern
over these outbreaks and Chancellor Merkel has gone so far as to declare that attempts to construct a multicultural
society have clearly failed.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. Bearing in mind the European aims established in 2008, what is its assessment of the development of
intercultural dialogue in the European Union?

2. What information does it have on this?

3. What are the current European priorities for this area?

4. Does the Commission believe that the integration models adopted by Member States have resulted in increased
dialogue and greater integration for the newest members of their communities?

5. To what extent should a tolerant society establish clear limits in regard to what intolerance it will abide?

6. Does the Commission believe that Europeans are ignorant of their culture, which itself is multicultural and has
different roots, and that this ignorance hampers contact and dialogue with civilisations that have a more
present and pronounced culture? Should urgent steps be taken to overcome this ignorance?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 November 2012)_

The questions posed by the Honourable Member are vast and complex; it is not possible to provide here an analysis of
the situation across the EU. The evaluation of the 2008 European Year on Intercultural Dialogue showed that even the
concept of intercultural dialogue is understood differently throughout Member States. Regarding the specific impact
of the European year, the Honourable Member may refer to the external evaluation at:
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/key-documents/evaluation_en.htm.

The European Union views intercultural dialogue as an open and respectful exchange between people, leading to
deeper mutual understanding. As such, it is at the core of the European project and underpins all transnational

programs.

For example, in the field of culture policy, a group of national experts is currently deliberating how arts and cultural
institutions may promote cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue. An analysis of policies and a good practice
manual will be produced in 2013.

Intercultural dialogue is also a priority under the ‘Europe for citizens’ programme, which promotes active European
citizenship and a respectful, dynamic and multifaceted European identity. Applicants under the programme are
invited to tackle issues from a European perspective, and to recognise and compare different points of view.

A further example relates to exchanges between national governments on integration measures for migrants under a
number of EU instruments. The aim is to enhance migrants' economic, social and cultural participation in receiving
societies to the benefit both of individuals and societies, on the basis that integration requires engagement, respect
and mutual accommodation by migrants and the receiving societies.

C 287 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008639/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação da mobilidade dos trabalhadores na União Europeia

As instituições europeias dedicaram o ano de 2006 à mobilidade dos trabalhadores.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Recordando os propósitos europeus de 2006, como avalia a evolução da mobilidade dos trabalhadores no seio
da União Europeia?

2. De que dados dispõe a este respeito?

3. Quais são atualmente as prioridades europeias quanto a esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(19 de novembro de 2012)_

As informações sobre a mobilidade dos trabalhadores dentro do território da UE podem ser derivadas de dados a nível
da UE e a nível nacional ( [1] ). Desde 2006, a evolução das tendências tem sido analisada em vários relatórios ( [2] ). As
principais tendências podem ser sintetizadas como segue:

—
Forte aumento da mobilidade intra-UE após os alargamentos de 2004 e 2007;

—
Diminuição dos fluxos de mobilidade desde 2009, devido ao impacto negativo da crise na procura de mão-deobra;

—
Mais recentemente, surgiram os primeiros sinais de um aumento dos fluxos de mobilidade nos países europeus
de Sul para Norte, impulsionados pela acentuada divergência das taxas de desemprego ( [3] ) — embora a maioria
dos migrantes intra-UE recentes ainda provenha da Europa Central e Oriental.

Em termos globais, os atuais níveis de mobilidade são ainda relativamente baixos, se comparados com o potencial da
UE (especialmente para os jovens), e não são proporcionais ao que se poderia esperar de um verdadeiro mercado de
trabalho único.

Uma série de iniciativas visam melhorar a mobilidade dos trabalhadores na Europa:

—
Uma reforma estratégica da rede EURES pretende reforçar a sua capacidade de procura de postos adequados,
colocação e recrutamento em toda a Europa. A EURES será alargada por forma a apoiar regimes de mobilidade
orientados para destinatários específicos, tais como «O teu primeiro emprego EURES», concedendo incentivos
financeiros à mobilidade.

—
Um aperfeiçoamento da coordenação da segurança social é efetuado regularmente ( [4] ).

—
A transferibilidade de pensões complementares está em discussão no Conselho.

—
Uma Agenda para novas Competências e Empregos visa melhorar a adequação entre a procura e a oferta de
trabalho, bem como o reconhecimento das qualificações para além das fronteiras nacionais.

— Iniciativas para melhorar a informação sobre dos direitos dos trabalhadores em mobilidade e sua aplicação ( [5] )
estão também a ser preparadas.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eurostat Estatísticas relativas à migração, Inquérito Europeu às Forças de Trabalho, Eurobarómetros.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Mais recentemente, em «2011 Employment and Social Developments Review» e, em junho de 2012, «EU Employment and Social Situation

Quarterly Review».

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Ver «EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review», junho de 2012, pp.31-40.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Atualizações regulares dos Regulamentos (CE) n.° 883/2004 e (CE) n.° 987/2009.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Proposta de diretiva relativa a medidas para melhorar o exercício efetivo dos direitos dos trabalhadores migrantes.

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

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 85

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008639/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Worker mobility in the European Union

European institutions dedicated 2006 to worker mobility.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. Bearing in mind the European aims established in 2006, what is its assessment of the development of worker
mobility in the European Union?

2. What information does it have on this?

3. What are the current European priorities for this area?

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

_(19 November 2012)_

Information on intra-EU labour mobility can be derived from EU-wide and national data ( [1] ) . The trends have been
analysed in several reports since 2006 ( [2] ), The main trends over the last few years can be summarised as follows:

—
A strong increase of intra-EU mobility following the 2004 and 2007 enlargements;

—
A decrease in the mobility flows from 2009 due to the adverse impact of the crisis on labour demand;

—
More recently, early signs of a rise of mobility flows from South to North European countries driven by the
strong divergence in unemployment rates ( [3] ) — though the majority of recent intra-EU movers still come from
Central and Eastern Europe.

Overall, current levels of mobility are still relatively low compared to the EU potential (especially for young people)
and do not commensurate to what could be expected within a genuine single labour market.

A number of initiatives aim at improving the labour mobility in Europe:

—
A strategic reform of EURES aims at reinforcing its capacity for matching, placement and recruitment across
Europe. EURES will also be expanded to support targeted mobility schemes, such as ‘Your First EURES Job’
providing financial incentives for mobility.

— Further improvement of social security coordination is made regularly ( [4] )

—
Portability of supplementary pensions is under discussion in Council

—
An agenda for new Skills and Jobs aims at improving the match between labour demand and supply as well as
the recognitions of skills across borders.

— Initiatives for better information about and better enforcement of the rights of mobile workers ( [5] ) are also in
preparation.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eurostat migration statistics, EU-Labour force survey, Eurobarometers.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Most recently in the 2011 Employment and Social Developments Review and in the June 2012 EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly

Review.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review, June 2012, pp. 31-40.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Regular updates of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and No 987/2009.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive on measures facilitating the effective exercise of rights of migrant workers.

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

C 287 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008640/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação das pessoas com deficiência na União Europeia

As instituições europeias dedicaram o ano de 2003 às pessoas com deficiência. Dez anos volvidos, é inegável o
progresso que o tratamento e a integração dessas pessoas conheceram, bem como a persistência das limitações que
obstam a essa mesma integração e que não decorrem dos problemas físicos de que padecem. Barreiras físicas nas vias
públicas e nos edifícios, obstáculos ao uso dos meios de comunicação, entre outros, concorrem ainda para este
afastamento.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Recordando os propósitos europeus de 2003, como avalia a evolução da situação das pessoas com deficiência
na União Europeia?

2. De que dados dispõe a este respeito?

3. Considera existir hoje uma maior perceção pública e privada das barreiras que ainda tolhem a inclusão plena
destas pessoas e uma maior abertura para as remover?

4. Quais são atualmente as prioridades europeias quanto a esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(6 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão apresentou uma visão global da situação das pessoas com deficiência na União Europeia no documento
de trabalho dos seus serviços, que contém as informações de referência ( [1] ) para a Estratégia Europeia para a
Deficiência 2010-2020 ( [2] ) .

O referido documento contém igualmente uma lista extensa de fontes, às quais a Comissão acrescentou recentemente
a sua ferramenta em linha neste domínio ( [3] ) . Em 2013, a Comissão (Eurostat) concluirá a análise do módulo ad hoc do
Inquérito às Forças de Trabalho de 2011, sobre o emprego das pessoas com deficiência, acrescentando então mais
informações pormenorizadas.

A Estratégia Europeia para a Deficiência 2010-2020, bem como o documento de trabalho que a acompanha,
contendo as ações relevantes relativas ao período 2010-2015 ( [4] ), fornecem uma visão geral das atuais prioridades
europeias neste domínio, incluindo uma série de atividades de sensibilização.

O combate a este tipo de barreiras figura entre as prioridades atuais da Comissão, que está a preparar uma iniciativa
legislativa sobre a acessibilidade a ser apresentada em 2013.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:1323:FIN:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0060:pt:PDF.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.disability-europe.net/dotcom.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:1324:FIN:EN:PDF.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 87

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008640/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ People with disabilities in the European Union

European institutions dedicated 2003 to people with disabilities. Ten years on, it is undeniable that while progress has
been made in furthering and integrating these people, limitations still persist which hinder this very integration and
does not only arise from the physical difficulties affecting them. Physical barriers on streets and in buildings, and
communication obstacles, among other things, contribute to this sense of separation.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. Bearing in mind the European aims established in 2003, what is its assessment of the development of the
situation of people with disabilities in the European Union?

2. What information does it have on this?

3. Does it believe that there is now greater public and private awareness of the barriers that still prevent people
with disabilities from being fully integrated and a greater desire to eliminate the such barriers?

4. What are the current European priorities for this area?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 November 2012)_

A comprehensive overview of the situation of people with disabilities in the European Union was provided by the
Commission in the Staff Working Document with background information ( [1] ) to the European Disability Strategy
2010-2020 ( [2] ).

This document also contains an extensive list of sources, to which the Commission has recently added its Disability
Online Tool ( [3] ). In 2013, the Commission (Eurostat) will conclude the analysis of the 2011 Labour Force Survey adhoc module on the employment of disabled people, adding further detailed information.

Both the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and its accompanying Staff Working Paper with relevant actions
for the years 2010-2015 ( [4] ) give an overview of current European priorities in this area, including a number of
awareness raising activities.

Tackling such barriers is among the current priorities of the Commission and it is preparing a legislative initiative on
Accessibility to be proposed in 2013.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:1323:FIN:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:en:PDF.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.disability-europe.net/dotcom.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2010:1324:FIN:EN:PDF.

C 287 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008641/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação da educação e da formação ao longo da vida na União Europeia

As Comunidades Europeias dedicaram o ano de 1996 à educação e à formação ao longo da vida.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Recordando os propósitos europeus de 1996, como avalia a evolução da educação e da formação ao longo da
vida dos Europeus?

2. Quais são as prioridades europeias quanto a esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Androulla Vassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de novembro de 2012)_

A estratégia de aprendizagem ao longo da vida tem como objetivo promover a empregabilidade dos cidadãos, através
do desenvolvimento contínuo de competências num contexto de envelhecimento demográfico e de mercados de
trabalho mais voláteis. A aprendizagem ao longo da vida também visa reduzir a segmentação dos sistemas de
educação e de formação, tendo em vista facilitar a progressão dos formandos (por exemplo, entre o ensino
profissional e superior) e a ligação entre todas as formas de aprendizagem (por exemplo, em instituições, no local de
trabalho).

No seu relatório conjunto de 2012 intitulado «Educação e Formação numa Europa inteligente, sustentável e
inclusiva» ( [1] ), a Comissão e o Conselho assinalaram que a aprendizagem ao longo da vida não é ainda uma realidade
para todos os cidadãos europeus, tendo a participação na aprendizagem de adultos estagnado em 9 %, muito aquém
do objetivo de 2020 de 15 %. Não obstante, as políticas de aprendizagem ao longo da vida estão a desenvolver-se
através da criação de quadros nacionais de qualificações, uma melhor educação e orientação profissional, além do
desenvolvimento de sistemas de validação da aprendizagem não formal e informal. Estes instrumentos ajudam os
cidadãos a acederem à aprendizagem em todas as fases das suas vidas e a terem as suas competências adquiridas
transformadas em qualificações relacionadas com o emprego.

As prioridades atuais da UE destinam-se, em complemento das políticas dos Estados‐Membros a este respeito, a
promover as parcerias com as partes interessadas; a melhorar o desenvolvimento das competências de adultos pouco
qualificados, a alargar o acesso à educação e à formação, a integrar serviços de aprendizagem e a promover a
utilização dos instrumentos de referência europeus, como o Quadro Europeu de Qualificações, o Quadro de
Referência Europeu de Garantia da Qualidade para o Ensino e a Formação Profissionais, o Sistema Europeu de
Créditos do Ensino e Formação Profissionais e o Sistema Europeu de Transferência e Acumulação de Créditos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO 2012/C 70/05, 8.3.2012.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 89

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008641/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ The state of Lifelong Learning in the European Union

The European Communities declared 1996 to be the European Year of Lifelong Learning.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Recalling the European aims of 1996, what is its assessment of the evolution of lifelong learning in Europe?

2. What are the European priorities in this respect?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 November 2012)_

The EU lifelong learning (LLL) policy aims to promote the employability of citizens through continuous skills
development against the backdrop of demographic ageing and more volatile labour markets. The LLL approach also
aims to reduce the segmentation of education and training systems so to facilitate learners' progression (e.g. between
vocational and higher education) and to link all forms of learning (e.g. in institutions, in the workplace).

In their 2012 joint report ‘Education and Training in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ ( [1] ) the Commission
and the Council noted that LLL is not yet a reality for all European citizens, with learning participation of adults
stagnating at 9%, far below the 2020 target of 15%. Nevertheless LLL policies are gaining ground through the
establishment of national qualifications frameworks, better learning and career guidance and the development of
systems for the validation of non-formal and informal learning. These instruments help citizens to take up learning at
all stages of their lives and to have their acquired competences turned into employment-related qualifications.

Current EU priorities are, in complement to Member States policies in this regard, to promote partnerships with
stakeholders; to improve the competence development of low-skilled adults; to extend access to learning; to integrate
learning services; and to promote the use of the European reference tools such as the European Qualifications
Framework, European Quality Assurance in Vocational Education and Training, European Credit System for
Vocational Education and Training and the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ, 2012/C 70/05, 8.3.2012.

C 287 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008642/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação da saúde, higiene e segurança no trabalho na União Europeia

As Comunidades Europeias dedicaram o ano de 1992 à saúde, higiene e segurança no trabalho. Esta matéria
permanece na ordem do dia, tanto a nível interno, quanto a nível externo, porquanto é sabido que a ausência de
normas e práticas de saúde, higiene e segurança reduz os custos de empresas que competem diretamente com as
europeias e que sujeitam os seus trabalhadores a condições muitas vezes inumanas.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz do atual estado da saúde, higiene e segurança no trabalho na União, tendo nomeadamente
presente o seu estado aquando do ano europeu que lhe foi dedicado?

2. Quais considera serem os principais desafios que hoje se lhe colocam?

3. Que apoios está disponível para prestar?

4. Que esforços vem desenvolvendo, interna e externamente, para garantir elevados graus de proteção dos
trabalhadores e assegurar uma franca e leal concorrência entre empresas?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão considera que as legislações da UE e nacionais em matéria de saúde e segurança no trabalho, juntamente
com as estratégias europeias adotadas em 2002 e 2007 neste âmbito, contribuíram de forma eficaz para uma
melhoria do estado da saúde, da higiene e da segurança no trabalho na UE. De acordo com os dados do Eurostat, as
taxas de incidência ( [1] ) de acidentes no trabalho nos principais ramos da atividade económica diminuíram 64,3 % no
que diz respeito a acidentes fatais e 52,8 % a acidentes não fatais na UE-15 entre 1994 e 2009. Também se constatou
uma tendência decrescente nos dados recolhidos para a UE-27 entre 2005 e 2009.

A Comissão encontra-se atualmente a avaliar os resultados da Estratégia comunitária para a saúde e a segurança no
trabalho 2007-2012 ( [2] ) . As ações relativas ao apoio oferecido pela Comissão e a promoção da saúde e da segurança a
nível internacional também fazem parte da avaliação acima mencionada. Os resultados finais da avaliação serão
apresentados nos próximos meses.

Nos termos do artigo 17.°-A da Diretiva-Quadro 89/391/CEE ( [3] ), a Comissão irá produzir, o mais tardar até ao final
de 2015, um relatório único baseado numa avaliação exaustiva das 24 diretivas da UE em matéria de saúde e
segurança em termos de relevância, de resultados da investigação e de novos conhecimentos científicos nos diferentes
domínios em questão, assim como informar as outras instituições e organismos da UE dos resultados da avaliação e
de qualquer iniciativa destinada a melhorar o funcionamento do quadro normativo. Tal permitirá a identificação dos
principais desafios futuros.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Por cada 100 000 trabalhadores.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 62 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) JO L 183 de 29.6.1989.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 91

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008642/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Workplace health, hygiene and safety in the European Union

The European Community dedicated 1992 to workplace health, hygiene and safety. This subject remains on the
domestic and international agenda as it is known that the lack of health, hygiene and safety rules and practices
reduces costs for companies in direct competition with European companies and that subject their workers to
frequently inhumane conditions.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. What is its assessment of the current state of workplace health, hygiene and safety within the European Union,
bearing in mind its state in 1992?

2. What does it consider to be the main challenges currently being faced?

3. What support is it able to offer?

4. What efforts are being made internally and internationally to guarantee high levels of worker protection and to
ensure open and honest competition between businesses?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

The Commission considers that the EU and national legislations on health and safety at work, together with the
European Strategies adopted in 2002 and 2007 in this field, have effectively contributed to improve the state of
workplace health, hygiene and safety within the EU. According to data available in Eurostat, the incidence rates ( [1] ) of
accidents at work in the main branches of economic activity decreased by 64.3% for fatal accidents and 52.8% for
non-fatal accidents in the EU-15 between 1994 and 2009. Declining trend was also observed in data collected for
EU-27 between 2005 and 2009.

The Commission is currently evaluating the results of the EU Strategy on Health and Safety at Work 2007-2012 ( [2] ).
The actions regarding the support offered by the Commission and the promotion of health and safety at international
level are also part of the above evaluation. The final results of the evaluation will be presented in the forthcoming
months.

Pursuant to Article 17(a) of the framework Directive 89/391/EEC ( [3] ), the Commission will produce, by the end of
2015 at the latest, a single report based on a comprehensive review of the 24 EU health and safety directives in terms
of their relevance, of research and of new scientific knowledge in the various fields in question, and inform the other
EU institutions and bodies of the results and any suggestion on how to improve the operation of the regulatory
framework. This will allow identifying the main challenges ahead.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Per 100 000 workers.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 62 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

C 287 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008643/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação dos idosos e da solidariedade intergeracional na União Europeia

As comunidades europeias dedicaram o ano de 1993 aos idosos e à solidariedade entre gerações. Não obstante,
multiplicam-se as notícias de idosos abandonados pelas suas famílias.

Dez anos passados, em agosto de 2003, mais de dez mil pessoas morreram em França devido a uma vaga de calor
excecionalmente longa e intensa. As vítimas foram precisamente na sua maioria idosos, muitos deles residentes
solitários em grandes centros urbanos. As morgues e os hospitais esgotaram a sua capacidade e o próprio sistema de
saúde entrou em colapso. Para fazer face ao descalabro, as autoridades recorreram a câmaras, carrinhas frigoríficas e
até a tendas e hangares. Só em Paris, ficaram cerca 400 corpos por reclamar. As autoridades da cidade referiram-se ao
sucedido como um «drama coletivo».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz da situação dos idosos na União Europeia, tendo nomeadamente presente o seu estado
aquando do ano europeu que lhe foi dedicado e factos inquietantes como os relatados?

2. Que esforços vem desenvolvendo para garantir em conjunto com os Estados-Membros elevados padrões de
proteção dos idosos e assegurar-lhes uma inserção plena nas respetivas sociedades, que tanto perdem com a sua
exclusão?

3. Por que modos concretos promove a solidariedade intergeracional e em que medida considera essa promoção
bem sucedida?

4. Como classifica o grau de cumprimento da sua comunicação [COM(2007) 0244 final] acerca deste tema?

5. Que importância confere ao «family mainstreaming», analisando as implicações para as famílias no momento
de gizar e avaliar políticas concretas que afetam as populações?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de novembro de 2012)_

A situação dos idosos varia de forma significativa entre os Estados-Membros. Em janeiro de 2012, o Eurostat ( [1] )
apresentou, por ocasião do Ano Europeu do Envelhecimento Ativo e da Solidariedade entre as Gerações, uma
publicação que fornece uma panorâmica abrangente da situação da população mais idosa.

A Comissão elaborou, em maio de 2012 ( [2] ), a publicação «A contribuição da UE para um envelhecimento ativo e
solidariedade entre as gerações». Esta publicação descreve um vasto leque de medidas a nível da UE que podem
contribuir para padrões de vida elevados para os mais idosos. Em fevereiro de 2012, a Comissão adotou o Livro
Branco sobre as pensões ( [3] ), que explica quais os passos que a UE e os Estados-Membros podem dar a fim de melhor
garantir a garantir rendimentos adequados para os reformados.

O Ano Europeu 2012 promove o envelhecimento ativo, que é a base para a solidariedade entre gerações. Isto significa
que os idosos podem ter controlo sobre as suas próprias vidas e contribuir para a sociedade — e permite que se faça
mais pelos idosos que mais dependem do apoio de terceiros. Durante o Ano Europeu 2012, foram lançadas, a
diferentes níveis, centenas de iniciativas relacionadas com o envelhecimento ativo e a solidariedade entre gerações ( [4] ).

Foi atingido um bom nível de cumprimento da Comunicação de 2007 apesar de terem sido necessárias algumas
adaptações. Recentemente a Aliança Europeia para as Famílias foi reforçada através de um grupo de apoio técnico que
desenvolveu um quadro de avaliação de boas práticas ( [5] ) destinado a aumentar o potencial de aprendizagem mútua.

As avaliações de impacto, obrigatórias antes do lançamento de iniciativas da UE, não têm em conta as consequências
sociais pelo que abarcam os possíveis impactos negativos para as famílias.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eurostat (2011) Envelhecimento Ativo e Solidariedade entre as Gerações — panorama estatístico da União Europeia 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Comissão Europeia (2012) A contribuição da UE para um envelhecimento ativo e solidariedade entre as gerações.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1194&furtherNews=yes).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (http://europa.eu/ey2012/).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) (http://europa.eu/familyalliance/practices-that-work/index_en.htm).

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 93

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008643/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ The situation of the elderly, and of intergenerational solidarity in the European Union

The European Community dedicated 1993 to the elderly and to solidarity between generations. However, reports of
elderly people abandoned by their families are increasing.

In August 2003, 10 years later, over 10 000 people died in France due to an exceptionally long and intense heat wave.
The majority of the victims were elderly, many living alone in large urban centres. The morgues and hospitals were
filled to capacity and the health system began to collapse. In order to cope with the disaster, the authorities made use
of cold stores, refrigerated vans and even tents and hangers. In Paris alone, almost 400 bodies were left unclaimed.
The city’s authorities referred to the occurrence as a ‘collective tragedy’.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. What is its assessment of the situation of the elderly in the European Union, bearing in mind its state in the
European year dedicated to this subject and disturbing reports such as those above?

2. What efforts are being made in conjunction with Member States to guarantee high protective standards for the
elderly and to ensure that they play a full part in their respective societies, which have much to lose by
excluding them?

3. In what ways is intergenerational solidarity being promoted, and to what extent does the Commission consider
this promotion to be successful?

4. How would it classify the degree of compliance achieved with its communication [COM(2007) 0244 final] on
this subject?

5. What importance does it place on ‘family mainstreaming’, analysing the implications for families when
outlining and assessing specific policies that affect populations?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The situation of the elderly varies significantly across Member States. In January 2012, Eurostat ( [1] ) presented on the
occasion of the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations a publication providing a
comprehensive overview of the situation of older people.

The Commission has produced in May 2012 ( [2] ) the publication ‘The EU contribution to Active Ageing and Solidarity
between Generations’. It describes a wide range of measures at EU level that can contribute to high living standards for
the elderly. In February 2012, the Commission adopted a white paper on pensions ( [3] ) setting out how the EU and
Member States can best work towards ensuring adequate incomes in retirement.

The European Year 2012 promotes active ageing, which is the basis for solidarity between generations. It means that
older people can take charge of their own lives and contribute to society — and allows more to be done for those
elderly people who depend most on the support of others. During the European Year 2012 hundreds of initiatives
related to active ageing and solidarity between generations were launched at different levels ( [4] ) .

A fair degree of compliance to the 2007 Communication action has been achieved even if some adaptations have
been necessary. Just recently, the European alliance for families has been reinforced through a technical support
group which developed an evaluation framework for good practices ( [5] ) in order to increase the mutual learning
potential.

Impact assessments, required before launching EU initiatives, do take into account possible social consequences,
therefore including possible harmful impacts on families.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eurostat (2011) Active ageing and solidarity between generations: a statistical portrait of the European Union 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Commission (2012) The EU Contribution to Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1194&furtherNews=yes
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/ey2012/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/familyalliance/practices-that-work/index_en.htm

C 287 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008644/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação da aprendizagem e do estudo das línguas na União Europeia

A Comunidade Europeia dedicou o ano de 2001 às línguas. É sabido que algumas das línguas europeias são das mais
faladas no mundo e dispõem, por isso, de um elevado potencial comunicacional que extravasa as fronteiras da União.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Recordando os propósitos europeus de 2001, como avalia a evolução da aprendizagem das línguas por parte
dos europeus?

2. De que dados dispõe a este respeito?

3. Considera existir hoje uma maior perceção da verdadeira importância do seu conhecimento e uma maior
predisposição para a sua aprendizagem?

4. Quais são atualmente as prioridades europeias quanto a esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Androulla Vassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(9 de novembro de 2012)_

À luz do objetivo da UE segundo o qual todos os cidadãos da UE devem aprender pelo menos duas línguas
estrangeiras desde a mais tenra idade, a Comissão considera que ainda há margem para melhorias em muitos EstadosMembros. Consequentemente, a oferta de oportunidades de aprendizagem das línguas tem de ser alargada e o ensino
das línguas tem de se tornar mais eficiente.

Em setembro, o Eurostat e a Eurydice publicaram a edição de 2012 de _Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in_
_Europe (_ [1] _)_ _,_ que apresenta informação sobre vários aspetos do ensino das línguas, incluindo números sobre o real
conhecimento linguístico dos jovens europeus que se baseiam nos resultados recentes do primeiro inquérito europeu
sobre as competências linguísticas — _European Survey on Language Competences (_ [2] _)_ _._

Segundo o inquérito especial Eurobarómetro _Europeans and their languages (_ [3] _)_ _,_ os cidadãos da UE estão bem
conscientes da importância de aprenderem línguas (88 % consideram-no «muito útil» para si e 98 % para o futuro dos
seus filhos). Na conferência organizada pela Comissão Europeia em Chipre, em setembro de 2012, para comemorar o
Dia Europeu das Línguas, foi amplamente confirmado que os representantes das empresas e dos meios de
comunicação social partilham desta opinião.

As prioridades da política europeia em matéria de multilinguismo estão estreitamente ligadas às da estratégia «Europa
2020»: ajudar a Europa a melhorar as suas taxas de emprego e tornar a sua economia mais competitiva.

Até ao final do ano, a Comissão Europeia irá formular orientações políticas para os Estados-Membros sobre a forma
de melhor dotar os jovens com as competências linguísticas necessárias no mercado de trabalho. Além disso, a
Comissão irá propor um critério europeu para a aferição das competências linguísticas, de modo a melhor poder
acompanhar os progressos realizados neste domínio.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 95

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008644/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Language learning and study in the European Union

The European Community designated 2001 the European Year of Languages. It is well known that several European
languages are among the most widely spoken languages in the world, therefore having great communicational
potential that extends beyond the frontiers of the EU.

Can the Commission state:

1. Bearing in mind the European proposals for 2001, what is its assessment of current language learning by
Europeans?

2. What data does it have on the subject?

3. Does it believe there is now greater understanding of the true importance of languages and more enthusiasm
for learning them?

4. What are the current European priorities for this area?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 November 2012)_

In the light of its objective that all EU citizens should learn at least two foreign languages from a very early age, the
Commission considers that there is still room for improvement in many Member States. Consequently, the offer of
language learning opportunities has to be broadened, and language teaching has to be made more efficient.

In September, Eurostat and Eurydice published the 2012 edition of Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in
Europe ( [1] ), which complements data on various aspects of language teaching with figures on the actual language
proficiency of young Europeans based on the recently published results of the first ever European Survey on Language
Competences ( [2] ).

According to the special Eurobarometer survey Europeans and their languages ( [3] ), EU citizens are well aware of the
importance of language learning, with 88% defining it ‘very useful’ for themselves and 98% useful for their children's
future. A conference organised by the European Commission in Cyprus in September 2012 to celebrate the European
Day of Languages confirmed that businesses people and representatives of the media widely share this awareness.

The priorities of the European multilingualism policy are closely linked to those of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy: helping
Europe to improve its employment rates and to make its economy more competitive.

By the end of the year, the European Commission will provide policy guidance to Member States on how to better
equip young people with the language competences needed on the labour market. In addition, the Commission will
table a proposal for a European benchmark on languages for improved monitoring of progress in this field.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/143EN.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/languages/eslc/index.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf

C 287 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008645/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação da segurança rodoviária na União Europeia

O ano de 1986 foi dedicado pelas instituições europeias à tão necessária segurança rodoviária. Infelizmente, todos os
anos se registam, em todos os Estados‐Membros, da União mortes e ferimentos graves devido a acidentes rodoviários,
tornando-se necessário persistir na educação cívica dos condutores.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Quais são os índices de sinistralidade rodoviária de cada Estado-Membro? Quais considera serem as principais
razões subjacentes a esses índices?

2. Que avaliação faz do atual estado da segurança rodoviária na União, tendo nomeadamente presente o seu
estado aquando do ano europeu que lhe foi dedicado?

3. Quais considera serem os principais desafios que hoje se lhe colocam?

4. Que apoios está disponível a prestar?

**Resposta dada por Siim Kallas em nome da Comissão**

_(31 de outubro de 2012)_

As estatísticas dos 27 Estados‐Membros estão todas publicadas no sítio Web da Comissão ( [1] ), onde o Senhor
Deputado poderá obter os valores pormenorizados para cada país da UE.

Entre 2001 e 2010, o número de vítimas mortais em acidentes rodoviários nos Estados‐Membros da UE diminuiu em
43 %, de aproximadamente 54 500 para 31 000 vítimas por ano. A segurança rodoviária é uma questão complexa
em que intervêm vários fatores, como o comportamento dos utentes das vias públicas, a segurança dos veículos e a
segurança da infraestrutura rodoviária.

Entre os principais desafios, contam‐se: a proteção de utentes vulneráveis, a aplicação do código da estrada, a
utilização das novas tecnologias em benefício da segurança rodoviária, para além do reforço da segurança das
infraestruturas e dos veículos, incluindo o agravamento das normas mínimas da inspeção periódica de veículos na UE.

A responsabilidade pela aplicação da política de segurança rodoviária é partilhada a diferentes níveis, cabendo o ónus
principal aos Estados‐Membros. A Comissão Europeia contribui a nível europeu no âmbito das Orientações para a
Política de Segurança Rodoviária de 2011 a 2020 ( [2] ) . Nelas se destacam sete objetivos em que a Comissão pode
desempenhar um papel importante. Citam‐se, a título de exemplo: apoio de ações de sensibilização sobre segurança
rodoviária dirigidas aos jovens; proposta de um novo pacote «Inspeção Técnica Automóvel» ( [3] ) ; diretiva (alterada)
sobre a carta de condução ( [4] ) ; plataformas de intercâmbio de boas práticas entre os técnicos dos Estados‐Membros; e
estudos sobre a aplicação de um plano de ação sobre sistemas de transporte inteligentes.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/road_safety_citizen/road_safety_citizen_100924_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-555_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-06-370_en.htm?locale=en.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008645/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Road safety in the European Union

The European institutions designated 1986 the much-needed Road Safety Year. However, every year all Member
States experience deaths and serious injuries caused by road traffic accidents. There is therefore a need to persist with
civic education for drivers.

Can the Commission state:

1. What are the statistics for road traffic accidents in each Member State? What does it consider their main
underlying reasons?

2. What is its assessment of the current state of EU road safety, with particular reference to its state in the
European Road Safety Year?

3. What does it consider the current major challenges?

4. What support is available?

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

_(31 October 2012)_

All statistics for the 27 Member States are publicly available on the Commission website ( [1] ) where the Honourable
Member of the European Parliament may find detailed figures for any EU country.

The number of road accident fatalities in the EU Member States decreased by 43 % between 2001 and 2010, from
around 54,500 to 31,000 dead per year. Road safety is a complex issue where several factors are in play, such as road
users' behaviour, the safety of vehicles and the safety of road infrastructure.

Among the current major challenges are: the protection of vulnerable road users, enforcement of traffic rules, making
use of new technologies with road safety benefits, and further improving vehicle and infrastructure safety including
raising the minimum standards for periodic vehicle inspections in the EU.

Implementation of road safety policy is a shared responsibility of actors at different levels, with a primary
responsibility of Member States. The European Commission contributes on the European level within the framework
of its Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020 ( [2] ). This document highlights seven priority areas where the
European Commission can play an important role. Some few examples are: support for youth road safety awareness
projects; the proposal of a new Roadworthiness package ( [3] ); the amended Driving licence directive ( [4] ); platforms for
exchange of best practice among Member State experts; and work on deployment of an action plan for Intelligent
Transport Systems.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/road_safety_citizen/road_safety_citizen_100924_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12-555_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-06-370_en.htm?locale=en.

C 287 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008646/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação do turismo na União Europeia

É sabido que a União Europeia tem um potencial turístico enorme e que já atrai por ano milhões de visitantes que
querem conhecer partes do seu território. Este conhecimento e estas visitas contribuem para fomentar as economias
dos Estados‐Membros mediante a criação de empresas e empregos, para divulgar a cultura e tradições europeias e
para as tornar apelativas e acessíveis ao resto do mundo, bem como, de um ponto de vista estratégico, para aumentar
a capacidade de influência europeia — o «soft power» europeu — por via da identificação de terceiros com a sua
história, cultura e perspetiva face ao mundo.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz do atual estado do setor do turismo na União, tendo nomeadamente presente o seu estado
aquando do ano europeu que lhe foi dedicado (1990)?

2. Quais considera serem os principais desafios que hoje se lhe colocam?

3. Que apoios está disponível para prestar?

**Resposta dada por Antonio Tajani em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de novembro de 2012)_

1. Com 1,8 milhões de empresas, que empregam 5,2 % da mão de obra total, a indústria europeia do turismo gera
5 % do PIB da UE (terceira maior atividade socioeconómica da UE). Com os setores conexos, a contribuição do
turismo é ainda maior: 10 % do PIB e 12 % do emprego total.

2. A comunicação ( [1] ) de 2010outlines the sector's main challenges. A Europa é o primeiro destino turístico do
mundo (em 2011: 385 milhões de chegadas internacionais, ou seja, 39 % das chegadas de turistas internacionais) ( [2] ) .
Contudo, os novos destinos emergentes em países terceiros atraem um número crescente de turistas. Outros desafios
dizem respeito à evolução social, a novas tendências, à crise económica e financeira, a alterações climáticas, à falta de
competências, à má utilização das TIC, à sazonalidade e ao congestionamento dos destinos tradicionais. Em toda a
Europa, muitas comunidades locais têm utilizado as repercussões positivas da cultura e das indústrias conexas para
melhorar a sua competitividade e atratividade económica. Mas o seu potencial não está ainda suficientemente
explorado. Na sua comunicação sobre a promoção dos setores culturais e criativos para o crescimento e o emprego
na UE ( [3] ), a Comissão apela a um vasto leque de ações destinadas a promover as condições adequadas para os setores
cultural e criativo, contribuindo, assim, para o surgimento de ecossistemas criativos conducentes a um crescimento
inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo na UE.

3. O apoio ao turismo atividades é assegurado por várias iniciativas da UE através de projetos que visam a
diversificação dos produtos turísticos, a promoção de padrões sustentáveis, a visibilidade junto dos países terceiros,
uma melhor utilização das TIC, a inovação no setor, a qualidade dos serviços, o melhor conhecimento do setor e a
acessibilidade, entre outros ( [4] ) .

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Europa, primeiro destino turístico do mundo — novo quadro político para o turismo europeu» (COM(2010) 352)

(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/documents/communications/commission-communication-2010/index_en.htm)

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Organização Mundial de Turismo da ONU, Tourism highlights, edição de 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/documents/communication-sept2012.pdf)
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/contracts-grants/calls-for-proposals/index_en.htm)

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

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 99

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008646/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Tourism in the European Union

It is common knowledge that the European Union has tremendous tourism potential and that it attracts millions of
interested visitors every year. This knowledge and these visits stimulate Member States’ economies by creating
businesses and jobs, and promote European culture and traditions, thus making them more attractive and accessible
to the rest of the world. Moreover, strategically, they also increase European capacity for influence — European ‘soft
power’ — by enabling third parties to identify with its history, culture and outlook.

Can the Commission state:

1. What is its assessment of the current state of tourism in the EU, with particular reference to the European Year
of Tourism (1990)?

2. What does it consider the current major challenges?

3. What support is available?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

1. With 1.8 million businesses, employing 5.2% of the total workforce, the EU tourism industry generates 5% of
EU GDP (third EU largest socioeconomic activity). With the related sectors, tourism's contribution is greater: 10% of
the GDP and 12% of all jobs.

2. The 2010 Communication ( [1] ) outlines the sector's main challenges. Europe is the number 1 destination in the
world (in 2011: 385 million international arrivals, that is 39% of international tourist arrivals) ( [2] ) . However third
countries emerging destinations attracts increasing numbers of tourists. Other challenges are related to social
developments, new trends, the economic and financial crisis, climate change, lack of skills, poor use of ICT,
seasonality and congestion of traditional destinations. Across Europe, many local communities have been using the
positive spill-over effects of culture and related industries to improve their economic competitiveness and
attractiveness. But their potential is still not sufficiently used. In its communication Promoting Cultural and creative
sectors for growth and jobs in the EU ( [3] ) the Commission calls for a range of actions to promote the right conditions
for the cultural and creative sectors and thus to contribute to the emergence of creative ecosystems conducive to
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU.

3. Support to tourism activities is provided by a number of EU initiatives with projects aiming at the diversification
of the tourism products, promotion of sustainable patterns, the visibility in third countries, a better use of ICT,
innovation in the sector, quality in the services, increase knowledge of the sector, and accessibility, among others ( [4] ) .

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination — a new political framework for tourism in Europe’ (COM(2010) 352)

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/documents/communications/commission-communication-2010/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2012 Edition.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-policy-development/documents/communication-sept2012.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/contracts-grants/calls-for-proposals/index_en.htm

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

C 287 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008647/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Comissão Consultiva de Antigos Presidentes da Comissão Europeia

Propus recentemente a criação de uma Comissão Consultiva de apoio direto ao Presidente da Comissão Europeia
composta pelos antigos titulares deste cargo.

Tirando partido da vasta experiência e memória institucional destes atores de primeiro plano da vida europeia, esta
comissão teria por objeto exclusivo aconselhar o Presidente quanto às grandes linhas de direção política e das
prioridades da União Europeia podendo reunir preferencialmente antes dos Conselhos Europeus.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Não considera que os ex-presidentes da Comissão dispõem de experiência política, conhecimentos pessoais,
contactos e memória institucional, demasiado preciosos para serem desperdiçados?

2. Por que formas recorre hoje em dia aos seus contributos e pareceres?

3. Não considera que o Presidente da Comissão teria a ganhar se pudesse ser aconselhado de modo mais regular
por aqueles que o precederam no cargo?

4. Admite analisar e promover a criação de uma comissão deste teor?

**Resposta dada pelo Presidente José Manuel Barroso em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão partilha a opinião do Senhor Deputado de que a experiência política, a riqueza de conhecimentos e de
contactos, assim como a memória institucional dos seus antigos presidentes são de um valor inestimável para a
Comissão. É por esta razão que o Presidente da Comissão e os serviços que trabalham sob a sua autoridade consultam
frequentemente os antigos presidentes ou comissários com o propósito de conhecer os seus pontos de vista e/ou os
convidam a participar em determinados eventos.

Para aceder sua forma de aceder a este importante conjunto de conhecimentos e competências, a Comissão tem
preferência por uma abordagem mais flexível e orientada para objetivos específicos, em vez de uma estrutura fixa.
Com efeito, já houve eventos para os quais todos os anteriores Presidentes da Comissão foram convidados pelo atual
Presidente. Nestas ocasiões, tornou-se igualmente evidente que a grande quantidade de compromissos das agendas
destas personalidades colocam limites à criação de uma estrutura de caráter permanente.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 101

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008647/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Consultative Committee of Former Presidents of the European Commission

I recently proposed the creation of a consultative committee to support directly the President of the European
Commission. The committee would comprise former holders of that position.

Taking advantage of the vast experience and institutional memory of these major players at Europe’s top table, the
sole aim of this committee would be to advise the Commission President on the broad strokes of political direction
and the priorities of the European Union and it could meet, preferably, prior to European Council meetings.

Can the Commission state:

1. Does it not consider the political experience, personal knowledge, contacts and institutional memory of the
former Presidents of the Commission too precious to waste?

2. How are their contributions and opinions currently utilised?

3. Does it believe that the Commission President would benefit from the ability to receive more regular advice
from his predecessors?

4. Will it consider analysing and promoting the creation of a committee of this type?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

The Commission shares the opinion of the Honourable Member that the political experience, wealth of knowledge,
contacts and institutional memory of former Presidents are invaluable. This is why the President of the Commission
and services operating under his authority often engage with former Presidents or Commissioners seeking for their
views and/or inviting them to participate to targeted events.

The Commission would favour a more flexible and targeted approach compared to a permanent structure for
accessing this important pool of knowledge and expertise. Indeed, there were already occasions on which all past
Presidents of the Commission were invited by the President of the Commission. On these occasions, it became also
apparent that the heavy agendas of the personalities involved put limits to a more permanent structure.

C 287 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008648/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação dos hábitos alimentares na União Europeia

A Comunidade Europeia dedicou o ano de 1994 à alimentação e ainda hoje são patentes os maus hábitos alimentares
de parte da população. Aumentou o risco de obesidade e, em particular, de obesidade infantil, com todas as
complicações de saúde que dela derivam.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Recordando os propósitos europeus de 1994, como avalia a evolução dos hábitos alimentares dos Europeus?

2. Que principais riscos associa aos maus hábitos alimentares? Dispõe de dados quanto ao número de doenças
por eles provocados e ao seu impacto nos orçamentos da saúde nos Estados‐Membros?

3. O que julga deve ser feito no sentido de sensibilizar as famílias para a necessidade de adoção voluntária de
hábitos de vida saudáveis?

4. Quais são as prioridades europeias quanto a esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de novembro de 2012)_

1. A Comissão está consciente da tendência que marca os níveis de excesso de peso na UE e já em 2007 se
comprometeu com um abordagem integrada à escala da UE destinada a contribuir para reduzir os problemas de
saúde decorrentes de maus hábitos alimentares e da falta de atividade física.

2. Segundo a OMS, fatores de risco comportamentais, designadamente regimes alimentares pouco saudáveis, são
responsáveis por cerca de 80 % das doenças do foro cardíaco e cerebrovascular ( [1] ) . Os indicadores de saúde da
Comunidade Europeia ( [2] ) fornecem dados sobre estas doenças e sobre a forma como se repercutem nos sistemas de
cuidados de saúde em termos de recursos e despesas.

3. As crianças constituem um dos grupos prioritários no âmbito da estratégia da UE em matéria de nutrição,
excesso de peso e obesidade ( [3] ) . A Comissão contribui para ajudar as famílias a tomar decisões mais saudáveis,
concebendo campanhas responsáveis de publicidade e marketing dirigidas às crianças, melhorando a informação
prestada aos consumidores e trabalhando para pôr facilmente à disposição de todos a opção mais saudável. Por
exemplo, através do programa da UE «Fruta nas escolas» ( [4] ), a Comissão contribui para fomentar hábitos alimentares
mais saudáveis nas crianças. A Comissão promove igualmente a aplicação das orientações da UE em matéria de
atividade física nos Estados-Membros, que visam incentivar as pessoas a tornarem-se mais ativas fisicamente.

4. A estratégia da UE define seis áreas prioritárias: informar melhor os consumidores; tornar disponível a opção
saudável; encorajar a atividade física; desenvolver a base de conhecimentos para apoiar as decisões políticas;
desenvolver sistemas de monitorização e dar prioridade às crianças e aos grupos socioeconómicos mais
desfavorecidos. Os Estados-Membros são os principais responsáveis pelas políticas de saúde e as ações neste domínio
têm de ser implementadas aos níveis regional e local.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2012/en/)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/echi/list/index_en.htm)
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Livro branco sobre uma estratégia para a Europa em matéria de problemas de saúde ligados à nutrição, ao excesso de peso e à obesidade,

COM(2007) 279.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/index_en.htm)

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 103

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008648/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Situation of nutrition and health in the EU

The EU declared 1994 the European Year of nutrition and health, but the poor eating habits of part of the population
are still evident. The risk of obesity has increased, particularly in children, with all its attendant health complications.

1. Bearing in mind the European proposals made in 1994, how does the Commission view the evolution of eating
habits in Europe?

2. What are the main risks linked with poor eating habits? Does the Commission have any data concerning the
number of illnesses caused by them and their impact on health budgets in the Member States?

3. What does the Commission consider should be done to create awareness among families about the need to
choose a healthier lifestyle?

4. What are the European priorities in this field?

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

_(12 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of the trend of overweight levels across the EU and already committed in 2007 to an
integrated EU approach to contribute to reducing ill health due to poor nutrition and lack of physical activity.

2. According to the WHO, behavioural risk factors, including unhealthy diets, are responsible for about 80% of
coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease ( [1] ) . The European Community Health Indicators ( [2] ) provides data
on these diseases and on how they impact on the healthcare systems in terms of resources and expenditure.

3. Children are among the priority groups in the EU Strategy on nutrition, overweight and obesity ( [3] ) . By working
on responsible advertising and marketing to children, by improving consumer information, and by working to make
the healthier option easily available, the Commission contributes to help families take healthier decisions. For
instance, through the EU School Fruit Scheme ( [4] ), the Commission contributes to establishing healthier eating habits
in children. The Commission also promotes the implementation of EU Physical Activity Guidelines in the Member
States aimed at encouraging people to become more physically active.

4. The EU Strategy outlines six priority areas: better informed consumers; making the healthy option available;
encouraging physical activity; developing the evidence base to support policy making; developing monitoring
systems, and putting children and low socioeconomic groups as priority. Member States are primarily responsible for
health policies and actions need to be carried out at regional and local levels.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/gho/publications/world_health_statistics/2012/en/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/indicators/echi/list/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) White paper on a strategy for Europe on nutrition, overweight and obesity related health issues COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sfs/index_en.htm

C 287 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008649/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação do ensino e da divulgação da música na União Europeia

O ano de 1985 foi dedicado pelas instituições europeias à música, realidade imaterial indissociável da cultura e das
tradições humanas e, por maioria de razão, europeias. A Europa dispõe de um riquíssimo património
popular/tradicional e clássico que urge proteger e divulgar.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz do atual estado do ensino e da divulgação da música na União, tendo nomeadamente em
conta a sua situação em 1985, a sua evolução desde então e os objetivos traçados no decurso do referido ano
europeu?

2. Quais considera serem os principais desafios que se lhe colocam?

3. Que apoios está disponível para lhes prestar?

4. Aceitaria avaliar a possibilidade de patrocinar a disponibilização na Internet das principais obras que
constituem parte do património musical europeu?

5. Admitiria criar um sítio na Internet dedicado à música europeia, à imagem do Europeana, que já dispõe de
conteúdos áudio, que pudesse convocar a participação e o apoio dos principais intérpretes, das principais
orquestras e das principais editoras discográficas do continente? Ou ampliar e melhorar a oferta do Europeana
neste tocante, fazendo dele um verdadeiro repositório da melhor tradição musical europeia?

**Resposta dada por Androulla Vassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de novembro de 2012)_

A música é uma disciplina obrigatória em todos os Estados-Membros da UE no ensino primário e em quase todos os
Estados-Membros da UE no segundo e terceiro ciclos do ensino básico.

Um relatório da rede Eurydice (2009) ( [1] ) realça uma prática crescente por parte das escolas no sentido de
proporcionarem atividades artísticas e facilitarem o acesso a experiências de caráter cultural e artístico. O relatório
recomenda a criação de redes nacionais com o objetivo de promover o ensino das artes e da cultura e uma maior
cooperação entre as escolas e o mundo artístico/cultural.

O programa «Cultura» procura apoiar os profissionais e os organismos culturais, incluindo no setor da música, no
intuito de garantir a divulgação das suas obras junto de um público mais alargado na Europa e em todo o mundo. A
proposta da Comissão sobre o programa «Europa Criativa», para o período de 2014-2020, ajudará a superar os
desafios colocados pela fragmentação do mercado, a globalização e a passagem à era digital, a escassez de dados
comparáveis e a falta de financiamento privado.

No âmbito da Comunicação de 2010 «Uma Agenda Digital para a Europa», a Comissão tem facilitado a
disponibilidade transfronteiriça de conteúdos criativos em linha. Do mesmo modo, a diretiva recentemente adotada
sobre as obras órfãs visa facilitar a digitalização e a divulgação das obras culturais, incluindo no domínio da música. A
proposta de diretiva da Comissão relativa à gestão coletiva dos direitos de autor prevê uma simplificação do
pagamento transfronteiriço dos direitos de autor no que se refere às obras musicais.

O Europeana já disponibiliza conteúdos relevantes para o ensino da música. A recomendação da Comissão sobre a
digitalização, a acessibilidade em linha de material cultural e a preservação digital convida os Estados-Membros a
incentivar as instituições culturais, os editores e outros detentores de direitos de autor a disponibilizar o seu material
digital através do Europeana. Tal ajudará a projetar este sítio Web como ponto de referência para as tradições
musicais da Europa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Educação Artística e Cultural nas escolas da Europa», http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/113PT.pdf

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 105

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008649/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Situation concerning the promotion and teaching of music in the EU

The European institutions declared 1985 the European Year of Music, as an immaterial property inseparably linked to
human culture and traditions and, in particular, to those of Europe, which has an extremely rich popular, traditional
and classical heritage in need of protection and promotion.

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of the current state of teaching and promotion of music in the Union,
particularly with reference to its situation in 1985, its subsequent evolution and the objectives defined during the
European Year of Music?

2. What does the Commission consider to be the main challenges in this field?

3. What support can be provided to this sphere?

4. Would the Commission agree to support a plan to make available on Internet the main works forming part of
Europe’s musical heritage?

5. Would the Commission agree to the creation of an Internet site devoted to European music, along the lines of
Europeana — which already has audio content — with the participation and support of the continent’s main artists,
orchestras and record companies? Or could Europeana’s content be expanded in this respect, to make it a real
showcase for the best of Europe’s musical traditions?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 November 2012)_

Music is a compulsory subject in all EU Member States at primary level and in nearly all EU Member States in lower
secondary education.

A report of the Eurydice network (2009) ( [1] ) underlined the growing practice whereby schools provide artistic
activities and facilitate access to artistic and cultural experiences. The report recommended the establishment of
national networks to promote arts and cultural education and a strengthened collaboration between schools and the
arts/cultural world.

The Culture programme aims to support cultural professionals and organisations, including in the music sector, to
ensure that their works reach audiences across Europe and beyond. The Commission's proposal for the Creative
Europe programme 2014-2020 will help tackle the challenges of market fragmentation, globalisation and digital
shift, shortage of comparable data, and lack of private finance.

Following the 2010 Communication on a Digital Agenda for Europe, the Commission facilitates the cross-border
availability of creative content online. The recently adopted Directive on orphan works aims to facilitate the
digitisation and dissemination of cultural works including music. The Commission proposal for a directive on
collective management of copyright aims to simplify cross-border copyright clearance on music works.

Europeana already provides content relevant to music teaching. The Commission Recommendation on the
digitisation, online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation invites Member States to encourage
cultural institutions, publishers and other right holders to make their digitised material accessible through Europeana.
This will help the site to become a reference point for Europe's musical traditions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Arts and Cultural Education at school in Europe; http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/113EN.pdf

C 287 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008650/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação das PME e do artesanato europeus

O ano de 1983 foi dedicado pelas instituições europeias às PME e ao artesanato, realidades cuja viabilidade se
encontra particularmente exposta e vulnerável atendendo à crise económica e financeira que hoje experimentamos
em boa parte da União.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz do atual estado das pequenas e médias empresas e do artesanato europeus, tendo
nomeadamente em conta a sua situação em 1983, a sua evolução desde então e os objetivos traçados no
decurso do referido ano europeu?

2. Quais considera serem os principais desafios que se colocam às pequenas e médias empresas e ao artesanato
europeu no presente quadro político e económico?

3. Que apoios está disponível para prestar?

**Resposta dada por Antonio Tajani em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de novembro de 2012)_

1. Os dados sobre as PME agregados ao nível da UE só existem desde 1999. Por conseguinte, é difícil fazer análises
de séries cronológicas de maior alcance temporal. Num nível mais qualitativo, as PME, tal como acontece com a
maioria das outras empresas, foram sujeitas a uma pressão concorrencial muito mais intensa. A liberalização dos
mercados está a expor as PME na maioria dos setores a uma maior concorrência do que há 30 anos. Ao mesmo
tempo, a liberalização proporciona às PME mais oportunidades de expandir os seus negócios no estrangeiro. As PME
estão cada vez mais ativas no estrangeiro, mas ainda há espaço para ir mais além, já que a parte das PME que se
internacionaliza, especialmente para fora da UE, continua a ser bastante modesta ( [1] ) .

2. A Comissão publicou recentemente o relatório anual sobre as PME europeias ( [2] ), que mostra que as PME têm de
fazer face a diversos desafios, incluindo uma diminuição da procura e um acesso ao crédito mais difícil. Na realidade,
desde o início da crise financeira, as PME têm sido particularmente afetadas por condições de crédito mais restritivas e
enfrentam dificuldades em obter financiamento. Segundo o inquérito sobre o acesso ao financiamento das PME de
2011 ( [3] ), a seguir à angariação de clientes, o acesso ao financiamento é o segundo problema mais premente com que
as PME da UE se defrontam.

3. A Comissão promove medidas destinadas nomeadamente a mitigar os desafios específicos com que as PME
defrontam em cada país onde se encontram estabelecidas, como sejam a redução da burocracia e a melhoria do acesso
ao financiamento. A estas poderiam juntar-se outras medidas essenciais de apoio às PME, nomeadamente as
destinadas a incentivar a inovação (em sentido lato) e a internacionalização. Das experiências de países onde as PME
venceram a crise se conclui claramente que, quanto mais as PME se mostraram focadas na alta tecnologia, utilizadoras
intensivas de conhecimento, inovadoras e orientadas para a exportação, melhor foi o comportamento de todo o setor
das PME durante a crise.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ver estudo sobre o nível de internacionalização das PME europeias:

(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/market-access/internationalisation/index_en.htm).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) O estudo está disponível em: (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/finance/files/2011_safe_analytical_report_en.pdf).

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

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 107

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008650/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Situation of SMEs and the craft industry in the EU

The European institutions declared 1983 the European Year of SMEs and the craft industry. These sectors find
themselves particularly exposed and vulnerable to the economic and financial crisis currently afflicting a large part of
the Union.

1. How does the Commission assess the current situation of small and medium-scale enterprises and the craft
industry in Europe, with particular reference to their situation in 1983, their evolution since then and the objectives
defined during the European year dedicated to them?

2. What does the Commission see as being the main challenges facing SMEs and the craft industry in the current
political and economic context?

3. What support can be provided to these sectors?

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

_(7 November 2012)_

1. Data on SMEs on an EU-aggregated level have existed only since 1999. Therefore, longer time-series analyses
are difficult. On a more qualitative level, SMEs, as is the case for most other businesses, have found themselves under
much more intensive competitive pressure. The liberalisation of markets is exposing SMEs in most industries today to
much more competition than 30 years ago. At the same time liberalisation provides SMEs with more opportunities to
extend their business abroad. SMEs are increasingly doing business abroad but there is room for improvements, as the
share of SMEs going international, especially outside the EU, remains quite low ( [1] ).

2. The Commission has recently published the Annual Report on European SMEs ( [2] ) which shows that SMEs have
to cope with several challenges, including declining demand and more difficult access to credit. In fact since the
beginning of the financial crisis, SMEs have been particularly affected by tightening credit conditions and face
difficulties in accessing financing. According to the SMEs’ Access to Finance Survey 2011 ( [3] ), access to finance is the
second most pressing problem facing EU SMEs after finding customers.

3. The Commission promotes in particular measures addressing the specific challenges for SMEs in their individual
countries such as the reduction of red tape and enhancing access to finance. Other key actions providing support to
SMEs could be the ones stimulating and encouraging innovation (in a broad sense) and internationalisation. Lessons
from countries where SMEs have weathered the crisis indicate more clearly that the more SMEs are hi-tech,
knowledge-intensive, innovative and export-oriented, the better the overall SME sector has faired during the crisis.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See the study on the level of internationalisation of European SMEs:

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/market-access/internationalisation/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/performance-review/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The survey is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/finance/files/2011_safe_analytical_report_en.pdf

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

C 287 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008651/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Roadworthiness Package

With the ‘Roadworthiness Package’, the Commission proposes that vehicles be tested against their original
characteristics. While this may, in limited circumstances, be a useful comparison for modern vehicles, it is a
completely nonsensical gauge by which to measure the roadworthiness of classic cars. Northern Ireland has a number
of classic car associations with significant numbers of members.

1. Can the Commission confirm that this package will not have a detrimental effect on the ability of people in
Northern Ireland to continue their enjoyment of this worthwhile pursuit?

2. Does the Commission have plans to provide a separate and appropriate framework for testing the roadworthiness
of classic cars?

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

_(9 November 2012)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that in the framework of its proposal for a regulation
on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers ( [1] ) the Commission proposed to exempt vehicles
of historic interest from the scope of the periodic roadworthiness testing. Nevertheless Member States may maintain
or introduce testing of such historic vehicles if they wish so.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 380 final.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 109

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008652/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ The Commission's Digital Agenda

A recent report in Northern Ireland revealed that only 10 % of the population considers working in the information
and communication technologies (ICT) sector a worthwhile profession. This is reflected in practice by the
Commission’s most recent digital scoreboard which has released figures that suggest that around half of the people
competing on the European labour market do not have sufficient ICT skills to help them find new jobs, and that a
quarter of them do not have any ICT skills at all. The ICT sector is one of the few sectors actively recruiting employees
at this time of mass unemployment in many parts of Europe, and in particular in Northern Ireland where
unemployment figures have again increased.

While it is clear that the Commission’s Digital Agenda plays an essential part in reinvigorating the European single
market, it is not clear how the Commission intends to secure the involvement of the EU’s citizens in this initiative or
gain their support for it.

How does the Commission propose to address this knowledge deficit, and how does it intend to promote the ICT
sector, and the employment opportunities it offers, to the EU’s citizens?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 October 2012)_

Gaps in digital skills are due to the fast pace of technological change which characterises ICT. The main issue is
twofold: firstly, an issue of skills gaps for ICT practitioners and, secondly, in the skills for ICT users. There are more
than 4 million employed as ICT professionals in Europe and employment has been growing by around 3% a year, even
during the crisis. However, supply is not keeping pace with the demand: not enough young students are choosing ICT
studies; female participation is very low; there are skills mismatches — education and training are not fulfilling the
demands of the industry. With regard to ICT users, 18.5% of the workforce is ICT intensive. However, an overall 90%
require some level of ICT skills. Only 53% of the workforce is confident in their ICT skills if they were to look for a job
in the following 12 months.

The Commission recently adopted the ‘Employment package’ which identifies ICT as a source of job-rich recovery;
the package supports an increase in highly qualified ICT labour and promotes digital skills across the workforce. One
of its actions aims at setting up a multi-stakeholder partnership to: Identify mismatches in demand and supply of ICTrelated job profiles; mobilise organisations offering ICT skills training and certification; promote ICT careers to EU
citizens. The Vice-President and Member of the Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda made a call for what
she called a ‘Grand Coalition’, an effort that coordinates various stakeholders (employment services, ICT vendors, CIO
associations, education institutions, ESF management authorities, business chambers etc.) who should act at a more
local level. The idea is to promote training and facilitate placements, raising awareness and making ICT careers more
attractive.

C 287 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008653/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Airport slots and regional connectivity

In his report on the future of regional airports and air services in the EU, MEP Philip Bradbourn states that he
‘considers it essential for regional airports to have access to hubs’ ( [1] ) .

Can the Commission confirm that in its recent proposal concerning airport slots ( [2] ), it also supports a system whereby
Member States will have special powers to regulate the regional connectivity between central hub airports and
regional airports?

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

_(12 November 2012)_

The Commission shares the European Parliament's goal to ensure connectivity for EU citizens and Europe's regions.
The Internal aviation market has been delivering, ever since 1992, a great network of routes to enhance Europe's
internal connectivity. There are today 4 119 intra-EU routes compared to 1 732 in 1992, i.e. a 237% increase.

Congestion and operational restrictions at key airports of the European Union, notably in densely populated urban
areas, can create bottlenecks hampering citizens' mobility and impeding the development of new routes (domestic,
intra-EU or extra-EU).

In its proposal on the allocation of slots ( [3] ), the Commission carefully balanced the need for open and equal access to
slots at over-subscribed airports with the need to allow regional services to be protected. This is why the Commission
proposes to review the new entrant rule to favour intra-EU services. The Commission confirms that Member States
will have special power to regulate regional connectivity between central hubs and regional airports through the
Public Service obligations' system.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/search.do?type=REPORT&language=EN&term=7&author=4540 (paragraph 23).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?RechType=RECH_celex&lang=en&ihmlang=en&code=52011PC0827
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 0827 final.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 111

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008654/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Eurojust engagement with national police forces

While Eurojust’s engagement with national police forces has in the past five years improved significantly in some
Member States, testimony from a number of national police forces suggests that still more could be done to improve
relations and cooperation between the Eurojust and national police forces across the EU as a whole.

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce a framework which may facilitate and encourage Eurojust in their
endeavour to provide effective judicial cooperation with and between all national police forces in the EU?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 October 2012)_

Eurojust works successfully together with national police forces in the fight against serious crime. Joint investigation
teams and coordination meetings, where police and judicial authorities of several countries exchange information and
coordinate a common approach to investigations and prosecutions reflect this good cooperation. The latest Eurojust
annual report (2011) contains several recent examples.

The Commission intends to present a proposal to reform Eurojust in 2013. In this context, due consideration will be
given to ways of enhancing cooperation with all relevant law enforcement organisations, and with Europol, one of
Eurojust's most relevant partners.

C 287 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008655/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ An EU definition of crime

Eurojust considers that some of the most significant coordination problems it faces concerning cross-border police
action stem from the lack of a basic EU definition of ‘crime’ ( [1] ).

Would the Commission consider availing itself of the competences provided for under the Lisbon Treaty to formulate
an elective European definition that could be employed by Eurojust in cases of contention between discordant
national definitions?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 November 2012)_

The Lisbon Treaty grants the EU competence both in the field of criminal procedure and substantive criminal law. EU
criminal law legislation can add, within the limits of EU competence, important value to the existing national criminal
law systems.

In its communication ‘Towards an EU Criminal Policy’ ( [2] ), the Commission spelled out the principles which should
guide European Criminal law legislation.

Common rules and harmonised definitions can strengthen mutual trust among the judiciaries and law enforcement
authorities of the Member States if the definitions of the underlying criminal offences are compatible. There are a
number of EU criminal law instruments now in place that provide for common offences and approximate sanctions.
They are relevant in the daily work of Eurojust.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/corporate/eurojust%20Annual%20Reports/Annual%20Report%202011/Annual-Report-2011-EN.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 573 final.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 113

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008656/12**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Accountability of Europol to national police forces

Europol’s mission is to support its Member States in preventing and combating all forms of serious international
crime and terrorism. Its role is to help achieve a safer Europe for the benefit of all EU citizens by supporting EC law
enforcement authorities through the exchange and analysis of criminal intelligence. It is essential for the success of
this mission that Europol maintains strong communication lines with national law enforcement authorities.

How does the Commission propose to ensure that Europol is accountable to national law enforcement authorities?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 November 2012)_

Europol is accountable to its Management Board, which includes one representative of each Member State plus a
Commission representative ( [1] ) . In addition, the Heads of the Europol National Units — which represent national law
enforcement services — meet regularly with Europol in order to improve its operational effectiveness ( [2] ) .

In the forthcoming proposal for a new governing regulation for Europol, the Commission will ensure that the agency
— like other EU agencies — is accountable to the Council, representing the interests of the Member States, to the
Commission and to the European Parliament. As required by Article 88(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union, national parliaments will also be involved in the scrutiny of Europol's activities, thus ensuring a
permanent link to national concerns.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) see Article 37 of the Council Decision of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (2009/371/JHA).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article 8(7) of the Council Decision on Europol 2009/371/JHA.

C 287 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-008657/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Theurer (ALDE)**

_(28. September 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-Donauraumstrategie

Der Grundstein für die EU-Donauraumstrategie wurde 2010 mit der Mitteilung der Kommission vom 8. Dezember
2010 „Strategie der Europäischen Union für den Donauraum“ (KOM(2010)0715 endg.) gelegt. Seither wird diese
Strategie vor allem durch das Engagement der teilnehmenden Länder und auch durch bürgerschaftliches Engagement
getragen. Die EU-Donauraumstrategie bringt die Europäer entlang der Donau einander näher und trägt somit zu
einem der großen Ziele der europäischen Integration bei: Frieden! Deshalb sollte sie politische und auch finanzielle
Unterstützung erfahren.

Dafür wird ein Donau-Jugendwerk vorgeschlagen, das intereuropäische Jugendbegegnungen im Donauraum
finanziell fördert, ähnlich dem Prinzip des deutsch-französischen Jugendwerks. Dieses Prinzip entspricht dem oft
wiederholten Vorsatz, die Europäische Union „von unten“ zu stärken (Bottom-up-Ansatz).

1. Kann sich die Kommission die finanzielle Förderung eines Donau-Jugendwerks vorstellen und eine solche
Forderung in der Sache unterstützen?

2. Sind in der Finanzperiode 2007-2013 und 2014-2020 Haushaltsmittel für eine Förderung von europäischen
Jugendbegegnungen allgemein und im Donauraum im Besonderen vorgesehen?

3. Wenn ja, umfasst diese Förderung auch Begegnungen von Jugendlichen aus EU-Mitgliedstaaten und
Drittländern?

4. Wenn nein, sieht die Kommission Möglichkeiten, in der Finanzperiode 2014-2020 eine finanzielle Förderung
für europäische Jugendbegegnungen zu etablieren?

**Antwort von Herrn Hahn im Namen der Kommission**

_(5. November 2012)_

Derzeit sind weder im laufenden noch in einem künftigen Finanzierungszeitraum Mittel für die direkte Unterstützung
eines Jugendwerks im Donauraum vorgesehen.

Zwar kann die Kommission in der Regel ein Vorhaben wie das Donau-Jugendwerk nicht direkt finanzieren; ein
solches Projekt könnte jedoch möglicherweise entweder im Rahmen des Programms „Jugend in Aktion“ (sofern das
Projekt die Förderkriterien erfüllt) oder aus Mitteln für die transnationale Zusammenarbeit im Zuge der
Kohäsionspolitik finanziert werden.

Das derzeit laufende Programm „Jugend in Aktion“ (2007-2013) und die Jugend-Komponente des von der
Kommission vorgeschlagenen künftigen Programms „Erasmus für alle“ (2014-2020) ermöglichen die Förderung
länderübergreifender Projekte für junge Menschen, Jugendarbeiter und Jugendorganisationen, z. B.
Jugendaustauschprogramme, Freiwilligenarbeit im Rahmen des Europäischen Freiwilligendienstes, Ausbildungs- und
Vernetzungsmöglichkeiten.

Netzwerkprojekte können über die Programme für transnationale Zusammenarbeit im Rahmen der Kohäsionspolitik
finanziert werden. Für den Zeitraum 2007-2013 wurden zwar bereits alle Mittel zugewiesen, zurzeit befinden sich
jedoch die Programme für den Zeitraum 2014-2020 in Vorbereitung. Ihr Schwerpunkt soll hauptsächlich auf
Themen wie Innovation, KMU, erneuerbaren Energiequellen und Energieeffizienz gelegt werden.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 115

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008657/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Theurer (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU Danube Strategy

The foundation for the EU Danube Strategy was laid in 2010 in the Commission communication of 8 December of
that year entitled ‘European Union Strategy for Danube Region’ (COM(2010) 0715). Since then, the strategy has been
carried forward thanks mainly to commitment by the participating countries and to public involvement. The EU
Danube Strategy is about bringing Europeans along the length of the Danube closer together and it thus contributes
to one of the major aims of European integration, namely peace. For that reason it ought to be supported both
politically and financially.

That is why I am proposing the creation of a Danube Youth Foundation — similar in principle to the German-French
Youth Foundation — to provide financial support for meetings of European young people in the Danube region. This
is in line with the oft-repeated call for a bottom-up approach to strengthening the European Union.

1. Can the Commission envisage financially supporting a Danube Youth Foundation and will it, in practice,
provide such support?

2. Is any funding earmarked in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 budgetary periods for supporting European youth
foundations generally, and for the Danube region in particular?

3. If so, does the provision for support extend to youth meetings between EU Member States and third countries?

4. If not, does the Commission see any possibility of establishing financial support for meetings of European
young people in the 2014-2020 budgetary period?

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

_(5 November 2012)_

There is no funding currently earmarked for direct support to a Youth Foundation in the Danube Region in either the
current or future funding periods.

While the Commission cannot normally finance a project such as a Danube Youth Foundation directly, such a project
could be eligible for funding from either the Youth in Action Programme (provided it respects the eligibility criteria of
this programme) or from transnational cooperation funds under cohesion policy.

The current Youth in Action Programme (2007-2013) and the youth activities which will be part of the future
Erasmus for All Programme (2014-2020) proposed by the Commission allow for support to transnational projects
targeting young people, youth workers and youth organisations, like youth exchanges, volunteering through the
European Voluntary Service, training and networking opportunities.

Networking projects can be financed through transnational cooperation programmes under cohesion policy.
Although all funds for the 2007-2013 period have now been allocated, the programmes for the 2014-2020 period
are now beginning to be prepared. They will focus primarily on topics such as innovation, SME, renewable energies
and energy efficiency.

C 287 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008658/12**

**adresată Comisiei**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(28 septembrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Combustibilii alternativi

În contextul discuțiilor aprinse cu privire la diferitele metode tehnice pentru extracția și transportul combustibililor
fosili, preocupările de ordin ecologic par a fi ultima problemă care trebuie abordată. Cu toate acestea, discuțiile
referitoare la automobile care să funcționeze pe bază de combustibili alternativi au început cu decenii în urmă, din
momentul în care ideea, pe atunci neverosimilă, a unui automobil alimentat cu apă părea să semnaleze o mare
realizare științifică, chiar înainte de apariția preocupărilor legate de mediu și de schimbările climatice. În timp ce
tehnologia evoluează cu mare viteză în toate domeniile, în cel al transporturilor energia electrică este singura
modalitate alternativă de alimentare a motoarelor automobilelor în prezent, iar pătrunderea automobilelor electrice
pe piață pare a avea loc într-un ritm lent.

1. Ce măsuri concrete propune sau intenționează să adopte Comisia pentru a încuraja accelerarea activităților de
cercetare și a utilizării combustibililor inovatori?

2. Ce măsuri ia Comisia pentru a încuraja accesul pe piață al autovehiculelor alimentate cu combustibili alternativi
care nu dăunează mediului?

**Răspuns dat de dna Geoghegan-Quinn în numele Comisiei**

_(26 noiembrie 2012)_

1. De la începutul „Inițiativei europene privind autoturismele ecologice” ( [1] ), în 2008, electrificarea transportului
rutier și urban a devenit principala prioritate a cercetărilor în domeniul transportului rutier din cadrul PC7, peste
50 de proiecte de cercetare și de demonstrație fiind dedicate vehiculelor electrice deja existente. În cadrul PC7, au fost
sprijinite și cercetări în materie de combustibili alternativi pe bază de hidrocarburi (gaz natural și etanol). În plus, în
cadrul inițiativei tehnologice comune privind pilele de combustie și hidrogenul au fost investite 70 de milioane EUR
pentru aplicații în domeniul transporturilor.

2. Din punct de vedere al politicilor, obiectivul pentru 2020 de reducere a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră din
combustibilii folosiți în transporturi, inclus în Directiva privind calitatea combustibililor ( [2] ), va stimula utilizarea
energiei electrice și a altor combustibili alternativi, în măsura în care sunt mai ecologici decât principalii combustibili
utilizați în transporturi. De asemenea, Directiva privind energia din surse regenerabile ( [3] ) stabilește că, în sectorul
transporturilor, toate statele membre trebuie să atingă până în 2020 un procent de 10% pentru energia din surse
regenerabile. În cadrul „Strategiei europene privind vehiculele ecologice și eficiente din punct de vedere energetic” ( [4] ),
adoptată în 2010, Comisia a propus, în 2011, o revizuire a Directivei privind impozitarea energiei ( [5] ), pentru a
încuraja mai mult utilizarea eficientă a combustibililor convenționali și asimilarea treptată a combustibililor
alternativi cu emisii reduse de carbon.

Recenta propunere ILUC ( _Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels_ — impacturile indirecte ale combustibililor
generate de schimbarea destinației terenurilor) a Comisiei pledează pentru intensificarea cercetărilor privind
biocombustibilii de generația a doua.

De asemenea, Comisia plănuiește să adopte, până la sfârșitul anului 2012, „Pachetul privind energia nepoluantă
pentru transport”, care va cuprinde o comunicare și o posibilă propunere legislativă. Comunicarea va prezenta o
strategie cuprinzătoare privind combustibilii alternativi pentru înlocuirea pe termen lung a petrolului ca principală
sursă de energie în domeniul transporturilor.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/public/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Articolul 7a din Directiva 98/70/CE.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directiva 2009/28/CE.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/competitiveness-cars21/energy-efficient/index_en.htm#h2-1
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 168 final, 13.4.2011.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 117

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008658/12**

**to the Commission**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Alternative fuels

Amidst the fiery discussions on various technical methods of fossil fuel extraction and transportation, environmental
concerns seem to be the last issue to be addressed. Discussions about cars powered by alternative fuels go back
decades, however, ever since the then far-fetched idea of a water-fuelled car seemed to signal a breakthrough even
before environmental and climate-change concerns emerged. While technology evolves in all fields at great speed, in
the field of transportation electricity is the only alternative means of powering car engines today, and the emergence
of electric cars on the market appears to be slow.

1. What concrete measures does the Commission propose or plan to adopt to encourage accelerated research on
— and use of — innovative fuels?

2. What measures is the Commission taking to encourage market access to vehicles powered by alternative,
environment-friendly fuels?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

1. Since the start in 2008 of the European Green Cars Initiative ( [1] ), electrification of road and urban transport has
become the main priority of road transport research within FP7 with more than 50 research and demonstration
projects dedicated to electric vehicles already running. Within FP7 research on alternative hydrocarbon fuels (natural
gas and ethanol) was also supported. In addition, the JTI on fuel cells and hydrogen invested EUR 70 million in
transport applications.

2. From the policy side, the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target for transport fuels included in the Fuel Quality
Directive ( [2] ) will incentivise the usage of electricity and other alternative fuels as long as they are greener than the
mainstream transport fuels. Also the Renewable Energy Directive ( [3] ) establishes that in the transport sector, all
Member States have to reach a 10% share of renewable energy by 2020. In the framework of the ‘European Strategy
for Clean and Energy Efficient Vehicles’ ( [4] ) adopted in 2010, the Commission proposed in 2011 a revision of the
Energy Taxation Directive ( [5] ), in order to better incentivise the efficient use of conventional fuels and the gradual
uptake of alternative low-carbon emitting fuels.

The recent ILUC (Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels) proposal of the Commission advocates for stronger
research on second generation bio-fuels.

The Commission also plans to adopt by the end 2012 the ‘Clean Power for Transport Package’ which will comprise a
communication and a possible legislative proposal. The communication would lay out a comprehensive alternative
fuels strategy for the long-term substitution of oil as the primary energy source for transport.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/public/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article 7(a) of Directive 98/70/EC.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/28/EC.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/competitiveness-cars21/energy-efficient/index_en.htm#h2-1
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 168 final, 13.4.2011.

C 287 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008659/12**

**to the Commission**

**Struan Stevenson (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Restrictive licensing conditions

Early motor vehicles were first introduced to the London ‘hackney carriage’ market at the beginning of the last
century. Concerns at this time over rudimentary clutch mechanisms and the need to crank-start should a vehicle stall
led to the introduction of an unusually tight turning-circle requirement, so that drivers collecting passengers at the
Ritz could make a U‐turn rather than a three-point turn.

This requirement forced major manufacturers, including Ford and Renault, to withdraw from the market, which has
never since operated in a normal manner. Over the past half century the market has been heavily dominated by one
company (Manganese Bronze), whose vehicles make up 90 % of the current fleet. To this day, no standard production
vehicle meets the U‐turn requirement, although operational evidence shows that it is rarely used in practice.

Currently only two vehicle types are licensed in London — the Manganese Bronze TX4, which is based on a 1950s
chassis design and costs upwards of GBP 35 000, and the adapted Mercedes Vito, which costs GBP 42 000. In most
other UK cities, taxi owners/drivers have a wider choice of vehicles, including the modern E7 cab made by Peugeot
and Allied Vehicles, which costs from GBP 28 000 and uses 22 % less fuel than a TX4.

Moreover, a UK Office of Fair Trading report (OFT 676, 2003) highlighted various aspects of the regulation which the
OFT found to be anti-competitive and contrary to the public interest. Section 5.6 of the report says:

‘Only certain models of vehicle currently meet [the London taxi specifications]. (…) There is a danger that the
additional cost of [London conditions-] compliant vehicles may raise prices and deter entry to the market thus
limiting supply and leading to a poorer service for consumers’.

Furthermore, London’s unusual ‘turning circle’ prohibits market access to a wide range of other vehicles, such as the
E7 cab, which is supplied in the UK by Allied Vehicles and originates in France. Such a regulation is in clear
contradiction of Article 34 of the TFEU, a fact confirmed in recent case law (Alma Lunt and Allied Vehicles v
Liverpool City Council, High Court Admin, 2008).

Is the Commission aware of this anti-competitive regulation, and what steps will the Commission take to address this
issue?

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

_(31 October 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the situation, as it analysed a complaint in 2003 relating to the restrictive conditions for
licences to operate taxis in some cities in the United Kingdom. It concluded that the requirement, imposed by some
United Kingdom local authorities, that vehicles comply with various conditions to be operated as licensed taxis
represents only a limited, indirect restriction on intra-EU trade in purpose built taxis — such vehicles manufactured in
other Member States are in use in many cities in the United Kingdom. The Commission has not received any evidence
showing how many more of these vehicles would be marketed in the United Kingdom in the absence of the turning
circle requirement anywhere in the territory.

In the absence of harmonising rules on the technical specification of public taxis, Member States enjoy a considerable
margin of discretion when deciding which features of such vehicles should be obligatory. The question whether the
turning circle requirement constitutes an abuse of that discretion in the light of Articles 34 to 36 EC is key. The
central issue is whether any hindrance caused to trade by the requirement is proportional to the public interest
protected. As there is no harmonisation, the adherence by certain authorities to those conditions may be regarded as
the expression of a political choice as to certain values deemed worthy of protection, to be assessed by Member States.

A reference to the case Alma Lunt and Allied Vehicles v Liverpool City Council does not contradict this evaluation as
no precise calculations of the effect of the requirement on the United Kingdom taxi vehicles market were made.

The Commission has not recently received any complaints relating to this issue.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 119

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008660/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Transporte de mercancías por carretera — Actualización de la normativa referente a la circulación en la UE de
los vehículos de 44 toneladas y de los de 25,25 metros

En la mayoría de países de la UE ya está autorizada la circulación de vehículos de 44 t, así como la de los trenes de
carretera de 60 t y una longitud total de 25,25 m. En España se está estudiando por parte del Ministerio de Fomento la
posibilidad de autorizar la circulación de estos vehículos. El propio Ministerio de Fomento encargó un estudio a la
Fundación Cetmo, publicado en diciembre de 2011, donde se explican las ventajas de las 44 t ( [1] ).

También existe un estudio realizado por la Cátedra de Amelio Ochoa, patrocinado por la Fundación Corell, donde se
expone el efecto de la implantación del vehículo de 25,25 m y 60 t en España. En ambos estudios se expone la bondad
de estos cambios.

Creemos que una actualización de la legislación de la Unión Europea —en la que solo está autorizada la circulación
entre países de vehículos de 40 t, cuando en la mayoría de ellos ya se puede circular con 44 t— ayudará a armonizar e
igualar las legislaciones en los países.

A la luz de lo anterior:

1. ¿Considera necesario la Comisión cambiar la legislación actual para el transporte de mercancías por carretera,
autorizando la circulación entre países de la UE de los vehículos de 44 t, e instar a los países en los que aún no
está autorizada la circulación de dichos vehículos a hacerlo?

2. Dado que en la mayoría de los Estados miembros se puede circular internamente con 44 t, ¿no resulta
incongruente no hacerlo entre Estados miembros? ¿Cuál es la posición de la Comisión al respecto? Esta
pregunta es extensible a los vehículos de 25,25 m y 60 t.

**Respuesta del Sr. Kallas en nombre de la Comisión**

_(20 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Directiva 96/53/CE ( [2] ) establece pesos y tamaños máximos para la circulación de los vehículos de carretera y fija en
40 toneladas el peso máximo de los vehículos de cinco o seis ejes y en 44 toneladas el de los vehículos utilizados para
el transporte de contenedores de 40 toneladas como parte integrante de una operación de transporte combinado.
Algunos Estados miembros han autorizado que otros vehículos de cinco o seis ejes puedan transportar 44 toneladas o
han introducido vehículos modulares de longitud y peso variables ( [3] ) .

1. Las excepciones establecidas por los Estados miembros de conformidad con el artículo 4 de la Directiva
responden a circunstancias locales específicas, cuando la infraestructura, las necesidades del transporte y la red están
adaptadas a tales vehículos. No está en estudio una autorización de estos vehículos a escala de la UE como parte de la
revisión en curso de la Directiva.

2. Esta revisión se centrará en mejorar la aerodinámica de los vehículos y en facilitar el transporte intermodal. No
se está estudiando una introducción general de vehículos de mayores dimensiones por no ser concluyentes las
pruebas de los efectos de esa medida en la infraestructura.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fomento.gob.es/nr/rdonlyres/297f1834-3253-4245-a652-77bf3d33c829/108641/interaccionvehiculopesadocarretera.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DIRECTIVA 96/53 DEL CONSEJO, de 25 de julio de 1996, por la que se establecen, para determinados vehículos de carretera que circulan en la

Comunidad, las dimensiones máximas autorizadas en el tráfico nacional e internacional y los pesos máximos autorizados en el tráfico
internacional (DO L 235 de 17.9.1996, p. 59).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Un breve panorama de los Estados miembros correspondientes figura en:

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/IntOrg/road/pdf/weights.pdf

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008660/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Road haulage: updating rules governing the circulation within the EU of 44-tonne and 25.25-metre vehicles

Most EU countries already allow 44-tonne lorries and 60-tonne, 25.25-metre-long ‘road trains’ on their roads. In
Spain, the Ministry of Development is currently weighing up whether to authorise such vehicles, and commissioned a
report from the Fundación Cetmo, published in December 2011, which outlined the advantages of the 44-tonne
lorries ( [1] ). There is also a study by the Amelio Ochoa university chair, sponsored by the Fundación Corell, of the
impact of allowing 60-tonne, 25.25-metre vehicles in Spain. These studies concur that it would be wise to permit
these lorries.

EU legislation — which currently allows only vehicles of up to 40 tonnes to travel across borders, whereas most
Member States permit 44-tonne vehicles — should be updated in the interests of harmonisation.

1. Does the Commission consider that current road haulage legislation needs to be changed to allow the crossborder circulation of 44-tonne lorries, and to encourage countries that still do not allow them on their roads to
change their rules?

2. Given that most Member States allow 44-tonne lorries to circulate on their territory, would it not make sense to
permit them to travel across borders? What is the Commission’s stance on this? And what is its stance on 60-tonne,
25.25-metre vehicles?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

Directive 96/53/EC ( [2] ) sets maximum weights and dimensions for the circulation of road vehicles and sets the
maximum weight for vehicles with five or six axles at 40 tonnes, and for vehicles involved in the transport of 40
containers as part of a combined transport operation at 44 tonnes. Certain Member States have authorised other five
or six axle-vehicles to travel at 44 tonnes, or introduced modular vehicles of varying lengths and weights ( [3] ).

1. The derogations put in place by Member States under Article 4 of the directive respond to specific local
circumstances, where the infrastructure, transport requirements and network are adapted to such vehicles. An EUwide authorisation of such vehicles is not being considered as part of the ongoing review of the directive.

2. The revision of the directive will focus on improving the aerodynamics of vehicles and on facilitating
intermodal transport. A general introduction of larger vehicles is not being considered at present as evidence on the
impact of such a move on infrastructure is inconclusive.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fomento.gob.es/nr/rdonlyres/297f1834-3253-4245-a652-77bf3d33c829/108641/interaccionvehiculopesadocarretera.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised

dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic (OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 59).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) For a concise overview of the Member States concerned, see:

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/IntOrg/road/pdf/weights.pdf

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 121

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008661/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), Ana**

**Miranda (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D) y Raimon Obiols**

**(S&D)**
_(28 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Procesos de contratación y prácticas en las instituciones europeas

Anualmente miles de ciudadanos europeos optan a trabajar en las instituciones europeas, ya sea mediante sus
programas de prácticas, mediante contratos de interinidad o a través de los exámenes de la EPSO para trabajar en ellas
como funcionario o personal contractual. En los procesos de selección, con el fin de asegurar un alto nivel de
excelencia entre los trabajadores de las instituciones, se exige un elevado dominio de las lenguas de trabajo de las
instituciones, además de otras lenguas europeas. El dominio de diversas lenguas comporta, como es lógico, ventajas
en dichos procesos de selección.

La lengua catalana es la decimotercera más utilizada en todo el espacio de la Unión, con más de 10 millones de
hablantes. Al ser la lengua cooficial de las comunidades autónomas de Cataluña, Islas Baleares y Comunidad
Valenciana, es la lengua habitual de relación con las administraciones públicas de estas pobladas regiones en todos los
ámbitos.

Pese a todo ello, la lengua catalana no está reconocida oficialmente por la Unión Europea. Este hecho depende de la
decisión de los Estados miembros, pero, en cambio, que el conocimiento de la lengua catalana puntúe para entrar a
trabajar en las instituciones europeas depende totalmente de ellas. Por eso es sorprendente que no sea tenida en
cuenta, mientras que otras lenguas de fuera de la Unión sí lo son.

En el mismo caso se encuentran el gallego y el euskera. Ambas son lenguas oficiales en sus territorios y gozan de
reconocimiento, y sin embargo, su conocimiento no es tenido en cuenta en los procesos de selección para trabajar en
las instituciones europeas.

A la luz de lo anterior:

1. ¿Qué criterios de evaluación aplican la EPSO y la Comisión en los respectivos procesos de selección para
reconocer el dominio de las lenguas cooficiales de los Estados miembros, y en concreto de la lengua catalana?

2. ¿Considera la Comisión que la lengua catalana está suficientemente reconocida en los procesos de selección de
personal de la EPSO y de las instituciones europeas, teniendo en cuenta que, si bien no es reconocida
oficialmente por la Unión, representa a más de 10 millones de ciudadanos europeos?

3. ¿No cree la Comisión que no tener en cuenta el conocimiento del catalán, el gallego o el euskera (lenguas
cooficiales en un Estado miembro de la UE) va en contra del principio de igualdad entre todos los ciudadanos
europeos?

**Respuesta del Sr. Šefčovič en nombre de la Comisión**

_(22 de noviembre de 2012)_

La Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO) respeta la diversidad lingüística, así como el principio de igualdad
de trato, consagrados en el artículo 3 del TUE. Al organizar los procesos de selección de personal, la EPSO está
vinculada por la legislación pertinente de la UE, concretamente por los Tratados y el artículo 1 del Reglamento (CEE)
n° 1/1958 por el que se fijan las lenguas que han de utilizar las instituciones de la UE. Con arreglo al artículo 342 del
TFUE «el régimen lingüístico de las instituciones de la Unión será fijado por el Consejo» —y, por tanto, los Estados
miembros de la UE— «mediante reglamentos, por unanimidad».

En cuanto a los procedimientos de selección, la EPSO también está vinculada por el artículo 28, letra f), del Estatuto de
los funcionarios que establece que, para ser nombrado funcionario, debe justificarse el conocimiento en profundidad
de una de las lenguas de la UE y un conocimiento satisfactorio de otra de ellas, en la medida necesaria para el
desempeño de las funciones que entraña el cargo.

En vista del marco jurídico y de las consideraciones recién expuestos, la EPSO únicamente puede evaluar los
conocimientos que tengan los candidatos de las lenguas oficiales de la UE.

C 287 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008661/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Salvador Sedó i Alabart (PPE), Ana**
**Miranda (Verts/ALE), Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D) and Raimon Obiols**

**(S&D)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Selection process for employment and training at the European institutions

Every year thousands of European citizens apply to work at the European institutions, through traineeships,
temporary contracts or by sitting the EPSO exams for posts as officials or contract staff. In order to ensure a high level
of excellence among staff at the institutions, candidates are required, as part of the selection process, to be fluent in
the working languages of the institutions, as well as in other European languages. The ability to use several languages
is, logically, an advantage in the selection process.

The Catalan language is the thirteenth most widely used language in EU territory, with over 10 million speakers. As a
co-official language of the Autonomous Communities of Catalonia, the Balearic Islands and Valencia, it is the
language normally used for all types of communication with the public authorities of these populous regions.

Despite this, the Catalan language is not officially recognised by the European Union. Although this situation is a
matter decided by the Member States, the decision as to whether or not knowledge of Catalan is considered an asset
when applying to work at the European institutions depends entirely on the institutions. This makes it all the more
surprising that it is not taken into account, whereas other languages from outside the EU are considered.

The same applies to the Galician and Basque languages. Both are co-official languages in the areas where they are
spoken and are widely recognised, yet knowledge of them is not taken into account by the selection process for
employment in the European institutions.

In light of the above:

1. What assessment criteria do EPSO and the Commission apply in their respective selection processes with
regard to knowledge of the Member States co-official languages, with specific reference to the case of Catalan?

2. Does the Commission consider the Catalan language to be adequately recognised in the EPSO staff selection
procedures for the European institutions, bearing in mind that although it is not officially recognised by the
Union, it represents over 10 million EU citizens?

3. Does the Commission not consider that failure to take into account candidates’ knowledge of Catalan, Galician
or Basque (co-official languages in an EU Member State) goes against the principle of equality among all EU
citizens?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

EPSO respects linguistic diversity as well as the principle of equal treatment as enshrined in Article 3 TEU. When
organising staff selection procedures, EPSO is bound by the relevant EU legislation, namely the Treaties and Article 1
of Regulation (EEC) No 1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the EU institutions. Pursuant to Article 342
TFEU, ‘[t]he rules governing the languages of the institutions of the Union shall […] be determined by the Council’ —
and therefore the EU Member States — ‘acting unanimously by means of regulations’.

With particular regard to the selection procedures, EPSO is also bound by Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations which
provides that in order to be appointed as an official, one must produce evidence of a thorough knowledge of one EU
language and a satisfactory knowledge of another EU language, to the extent necessary in order to perform the duties
involved.

In the light of the above legal framework and considerations, EPSO is only in a position to assess candidates'
knowledge of the EU official languages.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 123

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008662/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Pregunta complementaria VI: Gestión y financiación de los puertos españoles, competencia leal y ayudas
estatales que podrían ser incompatibles con los Tratados de la UE

En su respuesta del 28 de octubre de 2010 a la pregunta E-007504/2010, el Comisario Sr. Almunia afirmó en
nombre de la Comisión: «La Comisión pedirá a España que proporcione información sobre la creación y
funcionamiento del Fondo de Compensación Interportuario».

En su respuesta del 22 de marzo de 2011 a la pregunta E-000935/2011, el Comisario Sr. Almunia afirmó en nombre
de la Comisión: «En este momento, la Comisión está evaluando la información remitida por las autoridades españolas
en respuesta a dicha petición».

En su respuesta del 19 de octubre de 2011 a la pregunta E-008285/2011, el Comisario Sr. Almunia afirmó en
nombre de la Comisión: «La Comisión ha recibido la respuesta detallada de las autoridades españolas sobre el
funcionamiento del Fondo de Compensación Interportuario, pero considera disponer de más información para
adoptar un criterio sobre este expediente. La Comisión solicitará algunas aclaraciones a las autoridades españolas».

En su respuesta del 12 de marzo de 2012 a la pregunta E-001185/2012, el Comisario Sr. Almunia afirmó en nombre
de la Comisión: «La Comisión ha recibido la respuesta de las autoridades españolas sobre el funcionamiento del Fondo
de Compensación Interportuario. La información adicional está siendo analizada por la Comisión. En este momento,
la Comisión no puede anticipar los resultados de esta investigación antes de su conclusión».

En su respuesta del 16 de julio de 2012 a la pregunta E-005150/2012, el Comisario Sr. Almunia afirmó en nombre de
la Comisión: «Las autoridades españolas no han informado sobre el Fondo de Compensación Interportuario de
conformidad con el artículo 108, apartado 3, del TFUE. Por lo tanto, la Comisión no ha investigado el Fondo en
profundidad».

1. ¿Ha pedido la Comisión a las autoridades españolas que informen sobre el Fondo de Compensación
Interportuario de conformidad con el artículo 108, apartado 3, del TFUE, para investigar el Fondo con profundidad, y
para garantizar que no infringen el principio de competencia leal y no represente ayudas estatales que podrían ser
incompatibles con los Tratados de la UE?

2. ¿Cuándo tiene previsto la Comisión publicar las conclusiones de su investigación?

**Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión**

_(9 de enero de 2013)_

1. La Comisión no puede pedir a un Estado miembros que notifique una medida o un régimen individual de
conformidad con el artículo 108, apartado 3, del TFUE. El Estado miembro decide si notifica una medida/un régimen,
teniendo en cuenta que sólo las medidas/regímenes que cumplan las condiciones establecidas en el artículo 107,
apartado 1, del TFUE constituyen ayuda estatal y deben ser notificados.

2. Actualmente, la Comisión no está realizando ninguna investigación sobre el Fondo de Compensación
Interportuario. La Comisión sólo publica los resultados de sus investigaciones en asuntos de ayuda estatal cuando dan
lugar a una decisión de conformidad con el artículo 4 del Reglamento (CE) n° 659/1999 ( [1] ). En su respuesta de 16 de
julio de 2012 (pregunta escrita E-005150/2012) ( [2] ), la Comisión explicó que las autoridades españolas habían
confirmado que los recursos del Fondo procedían de contribuciones individuales de las 28 autoridades portuarias y de
una contribución voluntaria de Puertos del Estado. Se señalaba también que las autoridades españolas explicaron que
la contribución de Puertos del Estado procede exclusivamente del porcentaje de las tasas portuarias que las
autoridades portuarias proporcionan a Puertos del Estado como fuente de financiación.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 83 de 27.3.1999, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/es/parliamentary-questions.html

C 287 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

La Comisión observa que en los Estados miembros existe una amplia variedad de planteamientos para la financiación
de los puertos. Asimismo, en la actualidad el sector portuario tiene que hacer frente a numerosos nuevos retos en lo
que concierne a la gestión y desarrollo de los puertos. En este sentido, la Comisión considera que, con el fin de
garantizar unas condiciones equitativas para la competencia entre los puertos, es necesario comprender mejor el
funcionamiento de los mismos, y, en particular, su actividad económica, las razones que justifican la intervención
pública y los factores que afectan al grado de competencia entre los puertos. Encargó un estudio sobre «financiación
pública de puertos marítimos», realizado por PWC y NEA que finalizó en junio de 2012. La Comisión está estudiando
los resultados.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 125

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008662/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Supplementary question VI: management and financing of Spanish ports, fair competition and state aid that
may breach EU Treaties

In his reply E‐7504/2010 of 28 October 2010, Mr Almunia stated on behalf of the Commission: ‘The Commission
will ask Spain to provide information on the setting-up and operation of the Puertos del Estado.’

In his reply E‐000935/2011 of 22 March 2011, Mr Almunia stated on behalf of the Commission: ‘The Commission is
currently assessing the information submitted by the Spanish authorities in reply to this request.’

In his reply E‐008285/2011 of 19 October 2011, Mr Almunia stated on behalf of the Commission: ‘The Commission
has received the reply of the Spanish authorities on the operation of the Inter-port Compensation Fund. Nevertheless,
the Commission considers that information is required to allow it to take position on this file. In this regard, a letter
requesting some clarifications will be sent to the Spanish authorities in the coming weeks.’

In his reply E‐001185/2012 of 12 March 2012, Mr Almunia stated on behalf of the Commission: ‘The Commission
has received the reply of the Spanish authorities on the operation of the Inter-port Compensation Fund. The
additional information is being analysed by the Commission. At this stage the Commission cannot anticipate the
results of this investigation before it is concluded.’

In his reply E‐005150/2012 of 16 July 2012, Mr Almunia stated on behalf of the Commission: ‘The Spanish
authorities have not notified the Inter-port Compensation Fund pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU. Therefore, the
Commission has not investigated the Fund in detail.’

1. Has the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to notify the Inter-port Compensation Fund pursuant to
Article 108(3) TFEU so that it can investigate the fund in detail and guarantee that the principle of fair competition is
not being breached and that the fund does not constitute state aid that may be incompatible with EU Treaties?

2. When does the Commission expect to publish the findings of its investigation?

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

_(9 January 2013)_

1. The Commission cannot ask a Member State to notify an individual measure or a scheme pursuant to
Article 108(3) TFEU. The Member State decides whether to notify a measure/scheme, bearing in mind that only
measures/schemes satisfying the conditions in Article 107(1) TFEU constitute state aid and have to be notified.

2. The Commission is currently not conducting any investigation on the Inter-port Compensation Fund. The
Commission only publishes the results of its investigations in state aid matters when they lead to a decision pursuant
to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 ( [1] ). In its reply of 16 July 2012 (Written Question E-005150/2012) ( [2] ),
the Commission explained that the Spanish authorities had confirmed that the Fund's resources come from individual
contributions by the 28 port authorities and from a voluntary contribution by Puertos del Estado. It also noted that
the Spanish authorities explained that the contribution of Puertos del Estado originates exclusively from the
percentage of port dues which the port authorities provide to Puertos del Estado as a source of financing.

The Commission notes that a wide variety of approaches to port financing exists in Member States. Also, the port
sector currently has to cope with many new challenges as regards port management and development. In this light,
the Commission considers that, in order to ensure a level playing field for competition between ports, there is a need
to understand port functioning better, notably their economic activity, reasons justifying public intervention and
factors affecting the degree of competition between ports. It has commissioned a study on ‘Public Financing of sea
ports’, prepared by PWC and NEA and finalised in June 2012. The Commission is now analysing the results.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 287 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008663/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 de septiembre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Corredor Mediterráneo y Puerto de Barcelona

La Ministra española de Fomento, Sra. Ana Pastor, ha presentado el Plan de Infraestructuras, Transporte y Vivienda
(2014-2020) en la Comisión de Fomento del Congreso de los Diputados. En este plan, la Ministra destaca la apuesta
del Gobierno español por la «alta velocidad» y por completar «todos los grandes corredores ferroviarios», que incluye
hasta quince trazados, porque dice que «se quiere satisfacer a todo el mundo», sin llegar a priorizar ni establecer un
orden para su ejecución ( [1] ).

Da la casualidad de que hoy mismo se inaugura, en el puerto de Barcelona, la terminal de contenedores más avanzada
del Mediterráneo, la terminal BEST, financiada y operada por la empresa Hutchinson Port Holdings ( [2] ).

Aunque el Gobierno español se comprometió en el año 2002 a construir unos nuevos accesos al puerto, la realidad es
que la nueva terminal se inaugura hoy sin estos accesos definitivos ( [3] ).

La empresa Hutchinson Port Holdings, que tiene previsto ampliar la inversión en el Puerto de Barcelona, ha
comentado que no invertirá más dinero hasta que no se construya el Corredor Mediterráneo ( [4] ). ¿Tiene previsto la
Comisión tomar alguna medida para que el Gobierno español ejecute el Corredor Mediterráneo en el menor tiempo
posible?

Da la casualidad de que hoy mismo se han aprobado los Presupuestos Generales del Estado para 2013 (PGE-2013) ( [5] ),
presupuestos que se enviarán en breve a Bruselas para su visto bueno. En el caso de que en estos presupuestos no se
contemplen las partidas para la ejecución de los accesos al Puerto de Barcelona y del Corredor Mediterráneo, ¿tiene
previsto la Comisión proponer un cambio en el PGE-2013 para que se ejecuten lo antes posible estas infraestructuras?

**Respuesta del Sr. Kallas en nombre de la Comisión**

_(9 de noviembre de 2012)_

El 19 de octubre de 2011, la Comisión adoptó una propuesta de Reglamento sobre las orientaciones de la Unión para
el desarrollo de la Red Transeuropea de Transporte (RTE-T) ( [6] ) .

La propuesta se centra en la realización de la futura RTE-T de aquí a 2050 y, para el subconjunto con más valor
añadido para la UE, la red principal, de aquí a 2030.

Con el fin de contribuir a la buena realización de la red principal, la Comisión ha propuesto el instrumento de
corredores multimodales de la red principal.

El puerto de Barcelona pertenece al corredor mediterráneo y estará plenamente integrado, por ferrocarril y por
carretera, en el corredor pertinente de aquí a 2030. Por lo tanto, 2013 no es un plazo para la ejecución de los tramos
del corredor mediterráneo mencionados por Su Señoría. Sin embargo, el corredor de la red principal actuará como un
instrumento que permitirá planificar y dar prioridad a esas infraestructuras con un alto valor añadido europeo que
pueden liberar el potencial del corredor, en el marco de la planificación de cada Estado miembro.

La ruta de acceso final a la nueva terminal del puerto de Barcelona es un excelente ejemplo de valor añadido entre una
serie de importantes inversiones que se están efectuando en el corredor mediterráneo.

Además, la Comisión desea recabar la atención de Su Señoría sobre una nueva convocatoria de RTE-T que se pondrá
en marcha antes de finales de año y que aportará nuevos fondos para infraestructuras de RTE-T fundamentales como
la mencionada anteriormente al amparo del programa de RTE-T vigente.

La evaluación por parte de la Comisión de los presupuestos de los Estados miembros se limita actualmente a
comprobar el cumplimiento de las condiciones establecidas en el Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.diaridegirona.cat/espanya-internacional/2012/09/27/ministra-foment-reitera-que-no-donara-prioritat-al-corredor-mediterrani/

583363.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20120927/54351923453/barcelona-terminal-contenedores-mediterraneo.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2012/09/hutchinson_consigue_su_via_de_mercancias_provisional_en_el_puerto_de_bcn_

33282.php

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.cadenaser.com/economia/articulo/hutchinson-anuncia-noves-inversions-catalunya-construeix-corredor-mediterrani/csrcsrpor/

20120716csrcsreco_1/Tes

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20120927/54351197368/ajustes-presupuestos-generales-del-estado-2013.html
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650.

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

( **|**

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

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 127

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008663/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mediterranean Corridor and Port of Barcelona

The Spanish Minister for Public Works, Ana Pastor, has presented the Transport and Housing Infrastructure Plan
(2014-2020) to the Spanish Parliament's Committee on Public Works. In this plan the Minister highlights the Spanish
Government's commitment to ‘high-speed’ and the completion of ‘all major rail corridors’, including up to 15 lines,
with the aim of ‘satisfying everyone’ but without establishing any priorities for their implementation ( [1] ).

Today sees the inauguration in the Port of Barcelona of the most advanced container terminal in the Mediterranean,
the BEST terminal, financed and operated by the company Hutchinson Port Holdings ( [2] ).

Even though in 2002 the Spanish Government gave a commitment to constructing new access routes to the port, the
new terminal is now being inaugurated without these final access routes ( [3] ).

The company Hutchinson Port Holdings, which plans to expand its investment in the Port of Barcelona, has now said
that it will not invest any more money until the Mediterranean Corridor has been built ( [4] ). Will the Commission take
any steps with the aim of ensuring that the Spanish Government completes the Mediterranean Corridor as soon as
possible?

Spain's General State Budgets for 2013 (PGE‐2013) ( [5] ) were approved today and will shortly be forwarded to Brussels
for its approval. If these budgets do not include headings for the completion of access routes to the Port of Barcelona
and the Mediterranean Corridor, will the Commission propose a change to the PGE‐2013 to ensure that this
infrastructure is completed as soon as possible?

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

_(9 November 2012)_

On 19 October 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation on the guidelines for the trans-European
Transport Network (TEN-T) ( [6] ) .

The proposal focuses on the completion of the future TEN-T by 2050, and, for the subset with most EU-added value,
the core network, by 2030.

In order to contribute to the smooth implementation of the core network, the Commission has proposed the
instrument of the multimodal core network corridors.

The Port of Barcelona belongs to the Mediterranean Corridor, and shall be fully integrated, both by rail and road,
within the relevant corridor by 2030 at the latest. Therefore, 2013 is not a deadline for the implementation of the
sections of the Mediterranean Corridor mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, the core network corridor
will act as a tool that shall allow to plan and prioritize those infrastructures with a high European added value which
might unleash the potential of the corridor, in the framework of each Member State's planning.

The final access route to the new terminal of the Port of Barcelona is an outstanding example of added value among a
series of important investments that are taking place in the Mediterranean Corridor.

Besides, the Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to a new TEN-T call, which will
be launched before the end of the year, making available further relevant amount of funding for key TEN-T
infrastructures such as the one mentioned above under the current TEN-T programme.

The Commission's appraisal of Member States' budgets is currently limited to ascertain the respect of the conditions
set by the Stability and Growth Pact.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.diaridegirona.cat/espanya-internacional/2012/09/27/ministra-foment-reitera-que-no-donara-prioritat-al-corredor-mediterrani/

583363.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20120927/54351923453/barcelona-terminal-contenedores-mediterraneo.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.economiadigital.es/es/notices/2012/09/hutchinson_consigue_su_via_de_mercancias_provisional_en_el_puerto_de_bcn_33282.php
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.cadenaser.com/economia/articulo/hutchinson-anuncia-noves-inversions-catalunya-construeix-corredor-mediterrani/csrcsrpor/

20120716csrcsreco_1/Tes

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20120927/54351197368/ajustes-presupuestos-generales-del-estado-2013.html
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650.

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

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

C 287 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008664/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Lista das 100 espécies em risco de extinção

A Sociedade Zoológica de Londres e a União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza elencaram as 100
espécies que mais correm o risco de desaparecer para sempre da face da Terra. Segundo alguns biólogos, a referida
lista pecará por defeito.

Por exemplo, e no que toca a Portugal, nesta lista não está incluído o lince ibérico ( _lynx pardinus_ ), que é considerado o
felino mais em risco de extinção em todo o planeta.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento da lista em questão? Que avaliação faz da mesma?

2. De que forma está a Comissão empenhada na luta contra a extinção de animais e plantas do nosso planeta?

3. Relativamente ao lince ibérico, que apoio tem atribuído a Portugal no que diz respeito ao programa de
reprodução e posterior repovoamento da espécie?

**Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento da lista da União Internacional para a Conservação da Natureza e da Sociedade
Zoológica de Londres, mas não participou na elaboração da mesma. Apenas uma espécie constante da lista existe na
Europa (a _Valencia letourneuxi_ ), uma espécie endémica com área de distribuição muito reduzida. Esta espécie figura no
anexo II da Diretiva Habitats ( [1] ), tendo sido estabelecidos 10 sítios Natura 2000 para a proteger.

A Comissão procura evitar a extinção de espécies na União Europeia zelando pela correta aplicação das disposições da
Diretiva Aves ( [2] ) e da Diretiva Habitats. Idêntico objetivo tem a Estratégia de Biodiversidade da UE para 2020 ( [3] ), que a
Comissão elaborou e cuja execução coordena. Esta estratégia visa ainda evitar perdas de biodiversidade a nível
mundial. Neste contexto, no estabelecimento das ações de conservação prioritárias são tidas em conta as Listas
Vermelhas Europeias, que contam com financiamento da UE.

Através do programa LIFE, a Comissão financiou vários projetos de restauração do habitat do lince em determinadas
áreas de Portugal, nas quais poderão ser postos em liberdade na natureza alguns exemplares desta espécie. A
Comissão não financiou o programa de reprodução referido pelo Senhor Deputado.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 92/43/CEE, de 21 de maio de 1992, relativa à preservação dos habitats naturais e da fauna e da flora selvagens (JO L 206 de 22.7.1992).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2009/147/CE, de 30 de novembro de 2009, relativa à conservação das aves selvagens (JO L 20 de 26.1.2010).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/index_en.htm

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 129

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008664/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ List of 100 species threatened with extinction

The Zoological Society of London and the International Union for Conservation of Nature have listed the 100 species
most at risk of extinction. According to several biologists, however, this list is flawed.

In the case of Portugal, for example, the list does not include the Iberian lynx (lynx pardinus), which is considered the
most critically endangered felid in the world.

Can the Commission state:

1. Is it aware of this list? What is its assessment thereof?

2. What efforts is the Commission making to combat the extinction of our planet’s animals and plants?

3. With regard to the Iberian lynx, what support has it given Portugal for the breeding programme and
subsequent reintroduction of the species into the wild?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the list prepared by IUCN and ZSL but was not involved in its elaboration. Only one
species on this list occurs in Europe — _Valencia letourneuxi._ This is an endemic species with very limited distribution. It
is listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive ( [1] ) and there are 10 Natura 2000 sites established for its protection.

The Commission endeavours to fight species extinction in the EU by ensuring proper implementation of the
provisions of the Birds ( [2] ) and Habitats Directive and by developing and coordinating the implementation of the EU
2020 Biodiversity Strategy ( [3] ), which also aims at averting global biodiversity loss. In this context, the European Red
Lists, financially supported by the EC, are taken into account to help define conservation action priorities.

The Commission has financed several projects through the LIFE programme on the restoration of the Lynx's habitat
in specific areas of Portugal. These areas could be used to release some specimens in the wild. The Commission has
not financed the breeding programme.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, Directive 2009/47/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/index_en.htm

C 287 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008665/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Maior grupo de vinho do Porto alerta Unesco para riscos da barragem no Tua

Segundo notícia recentemente publicada no jornal Público, o maior grupo e principal operador no setor dos vinhos
do Porto fez chegar, na semana passada, aos membros do Comité do Património Mundial da Unesco, uma carta
dando conta dos seus receios e preocupações face ao andamento da obra da barragem do Tua. Nessa mesma carta, é
referida «a preocupação de que a barragem cause danos irreversíveis à região do Douro», mas também o receio de que,
«no atual clima económico», a decisão de suspender a construção possa resultar «num cenário de edifícios
semiconstruídos, num estaleiro abandonado, nas margens do rio Tua desfeitas e numa paisagem destruída».

O referido documento associa também as eventuais alterações climatéricas decorrentes da existência futura de uma
albufeira e os seus efeitos para a produção de vinhos, afirmando ainda que esta matéria não terá sido devidamente
avaliada.

Considerando que:

—
A última resposta da Comissão à minha pergunta escrita E-012257/2011 refere que «não compete à Comissão
pronunciar-se sobre o cumprimento ou não dos critérios da Unesco»;

—
Ainda assim, na mesma resposta à minha pergunta escrita E-012257/2011, a Comissão sublinha que «No
entanto, a Comissão tenciona esclarecer se foi respeitada a legislação da União Europeia e, em especial, em que
termos a AIA (avaliação de impacto ambiental) abordou os impactos diretos e indiretos do projeto sobre os
bens materiais e o património cultural da zona em que o mesmo se encontra implantado, como exigido pela
Diretiva 2011/92/UE, de 13 de dezembro de 2011, relativa à avaliação dos efeitos de determinados projetos
públicos e privados no ambiente»;

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. A sua resposta à minha pergunta escrita E-012257/2011 data de 23 de fevereiro de 2012; volvidos quase sete
meses sobre a mesma, já possui algum esclarecimento adicional no que respeita ao assunto em questão?

2. No projeto e construção da barragem do Tua, considera terem sido cumpridos todos os requisitos relativos à
legislação da União Europeia, e, em especial, em termos de avaliação de impacto ambiental?

**Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de novembro de 2012)_

Dando seguimento à resposta da Comissão à pergunta escrita E-12257/11 do Senhor Deputado ( [1] ) e na sequência de
uma queixa, a Comissão deu início a um inquérito. Esse inquérito conduziu à troca de informações e de contactos
diretos entre a Comissão e as autoridades portuguesas. A última resposta recebida das autoridades portuguesas está a
ser apreciada atualmente à luz da legislação ambiental relevante da UE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 131

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008665/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Largest port wine producer warns Unesco of the risks of the Foz Tua II dam

According to an article recently published in the newspaper _Público_, the largest group and main operator in the port
wine sector sent a letter last week to the Unesco World Heritage Committee, setting out its fears and concerns on the
progress of work on the Foz Tua II dam. This letter mentions ‘the concern that the dam will cause irreversible damage
to the Douro region’ but also the fear that, ‘in the present economic climate’, the decision to suspend construction
could result ‘in a scenario of buildings half finished, a building site abandoned, devastation to the banks of the Tua
River and destruction of the landscape’.

The aforementioned letter also makes the connection between potential climate change resulting from a future
reservoir and its effect on wine production, further stating that this issue may not have been duly evaluated.

Given that:

—
The Commission’s answer to my last written question (E‐012257/2011) states that ‘it is not up to the
Commission to express views on whether or not Unesco criteria are fulfilled’;

—
However, in the same answer to my Written Question E‐012257/2011, the Commission stresses that ‘[it]
intends to clarify whether EU legislation has been respected and, in particular, in which terms the EIA has
addressed the direct and indirect impacts of the project on the material assets and the cultural heritage of the
area where the project is located, as required by Directive 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011 on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment’;

Can the Commission state:

1. In the almost seven months since its answer to my Written Question E‐012257/2011, dated
23 February 2012, has it acquired further clarification of the issue in question?

2. Does it consider the design and construction of the Foz Tua II dam to have met all the requirements of EU
legislation, particularly as regards assessing the environmental impact?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

Further to the Commissioner's reply to Written Question E-12257/11 by the Honourable Member ( [1] ) and the receipt
of a complaint, the Commission has initiated an investigation. This investigation has led to an exchange of
information and direct discussions between the Commission and the Portuguese authorities. The latest response from
the Portuguese authorities is currently being assessed in the light of the relevant EU environmental legislation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 287 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008666/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Moçambique — produção de alimentos

Segundo notícia veiculada pela comunicação social, e com base na obra publicada recentemente intitulada «Desafios
para Moçambique — 2012», chega-nos a informação de que Moçambique permanece muito vulnerável em termos
agrícolas, designadamente, com fracos resultados no que diz respeito à produção de alimentos.

Ao que tudo indica, a aposta de atrair o Investimento Direto Estrangeiro (IDE) da China, país que mais se
comprometeu em investir na agricultura em África, não estará a surtir efeito em Moçambique.

Pergunto, por isso, à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. A UE tem contribuído de alguma forma para o combate ao défice de produção de alimentos em Moçambique?

3. Considera ser possível estabelecer uma cooperação entre a UE e o governo moçambicano, de forma a atrair
investidores e produtores agrícolas da UE para este país?

**Resposta dada pelo Comissário Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de novembro de 2012)_

1. A UE está bem ciente da situação da segurança alimentar em Moçambique. Apesar dos progressos contínuos,
39 % da população continua a estar subalimentada ( [1] ), ao passo que cerca de metade das crianças com menos de cinco
anos de idade sofre de atrasos de desenvolvimento. O Índice Global da Fome ( [2] ) continua a considerar a situação de
Moçambique «alarmante».

Contudo, o crescimento no setor da agricultura é significativo — cerca de 7 % por ano. Há excedentes de milho e
mandioca, enquanto os défices de arroz e de trigo se mantêm devido a uma procura urbana crescente. O facto de o
crescimento agrícola não se traduzir imediatamente na redução da subnutrição demonstra que a segurança alimentar
depende de outros fatores, e não apenas da produção de alimentos.

O apoio chinês à produção de alimentos é limitado e centra‐se essencialmente no arroz (investigação, extensão,
fatores de produção, infraestrutura). Foram aprovados 10 projetos desde 2001 num total de 10,1 milhões de USD,
mediante uma combinação de investimentos públicos e privados, cujo valor é muito inferior aos níveis de apoio da
UE. Potenciais investimentos chineses mais significativos estão ainda numa fase inicial.

2. A UE apoiou o Ministério da Agricultura com 15 milhões de euros por ano no período de 2008-2010. Além
disso, em 2009, foram disponibilizados 22 milhões de euros da Facilidade Alimentar da UE para apoio à produção e
ao acesso aos mercados. A UE está atualmente a lançar um programa no valor de 67,3 milhões de euros ( [3] ) cujo
objetivo consiste em melhorar a segurança alimentar e cuja aplicação deverá começar em janeiro de 2013.

3. A UE apoia ativamente o Governo no sentido de melhorar o ambiente empresarial, e por conseguinte facilitar o
investimento estrangeiro, incluindo com o objetivo de colmatar as lacunas em matéria de infraestruturas e as
dificuldades ao nível do capital humano. No que se refere especificamente à agricultura, este apoio é prestado através
da participação na recentemente criada Nova Aliança para a segurança alimentar, do G8, bem como no âmbito do
processo mais vasto do Programa Integrado para o Desenvolvimento da Agricultura em África (CAADP).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) FAO, FIDA, PAM, O Estado da Insegurança Alimentar no Mundo, 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) IFPRI, Índice Global da Fome de 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) «Acelerar os progressos com vista à realização do ODM n.° 1 c) em Moçambique».

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 133

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008666/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mozambique — food production

From media reports and the recently published study entitled ‘Desafios para Moçambique 2012’ [Challenges for
Mozambique 2012], we have learned that Mozambique remains agriculturally vulnerable and, specifically, that it has
poor food production results.

All indications are that efforts to attract foreign direct investment from China, the country most committed to
investing in African agriculture, are having no effect in Mozambique.

Can the Commission state:

1. If it is aware of this situation?

2. If the EU has been contributing in some way to combating Mozambique’s food production shortfall?

3. If it thinks there is a possibility of establishing cooperation between the EU and the Mozambique Government
on attracting EU investors and agricultural producers to the country?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

1. The EU is well aware of the food security situation in Mozambique. Despite steady progress, 39% of the
population is still undernourished ( [1] ), while around half of all children below 5 are stunted. The Global Hunger
Index ( [2] ) continues to consider the situation in Mozambique as ‘alarming’.

Nevertheless, growth in agriculture is robust — around 7% per annum. There are surpluses for maize and cassava,
while deficits for rice and wheat remain, due to rising urban demand. The fact that agricultural growth does not
immediately translate in reduced malnutrition, underlines that food security depends on more factors than food
production alone.

Chinese support to food production is limited and mainly focuses on rice (research, extension, inputs, infrastructure).
10 projects have been approved since 2001 for a total of USD 10.1 million, through a mix of public and private
investments, which is much below the levels of EU support. Potential larger Chinese investments are still at inception
phase.

2. The EU has supported the Ministry of Agriculture with EUR 15 million per annum in the period 2008-2010. In
addition, in 2009, EUR 22 million were made available from the EU Food Facility to support production and market
access. The EU is now launching a EUR 67.3 million programme ( [3] ) dedicated to improving food security.
Implementation will begin in January 2013.

3. The EU actively supports government to improve the business climate, and hence facilitate foreign investment,
including by addressing the infrastructure gap and human capital constraints. For agriculture specifically this occurs
through participation in the recent G8 New Alliance for food security, as well as within the wider Comprehensive
Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) process.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) FAO, IFAD, WFP, The State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) IFPRI, 2012 Global Hunger Index.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) "Accelerate progress towards MDG 1c in Mozambique".

C 287 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008667/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ EUA: famílias desperdiçam 40 % dos alimentos que compram

Segundo um estudo do Conselho para a Defesa dos Recursos Naturais (NRDC), os norte‐americanos desperdiçam
40 % dos bens alimentares que compram por ano e que representam cerca de 131 685 milhões de euros.

O governo norte-americano estima que os supermercados dos Estados Unidos percam todos os anos cerca de
11 900 milhões de euros em fruta e legumes que não se vendem.

Considerando que uma resolução do Parlamento Europeu decreta que o ano de 2014 vai ser o Ano Europeu contra o
Desperdício de Alimentos, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz do estudo do NRDC?

2. Possui algum estudo semelhante ao nível da UE? Qual?

3. Estão previstas medidas específicas contra o desperdício alimentar? Quais?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão publicou um « _Estudo sobre resíduos alimentares na UE 27 (_ [1] _)_ » que estima que o desperdício de alimentos na
UE atinge cerca de 90 milhões de toneladas por ano e publicou orientações sobre a preparação de programas de
prevenção do desperdício de alimentos (« _Guidelines on the Preparation of Food Waste and Prevention Programes (_ [2] _)_ »).

A Comissão está a financiar o estudo Fusions ( [3] ) — um projeto de quatro anos sobre o desperdício de alimentos que
envolve universidades, institutos de conhecimento, organizações de consumidores e empresas. O projeto
desenvolverá uma definição e metodologias uniformes para calcular o desperdício de alimentos, criará uma
plataforma de diversas partes interessadas e desenvolverá orientações gerais para os governos nacionais e a UE. A
questão do desperdício de alimentos terá de ser integrada nas futuras investigações da UE, mas a Comissão Europeia
não pretende realizar uma avaliação do estudo do NRDC.

A Comissão está a abordar a questão do desperdício de alimentos através de ações de curto e médio prazo. A curto
prazo, a Comissão está a compilar boas práticas de forma a facilitar a sua aplicação. Esta compilação estará disponível
no sítio Web da Comissão sobre o desperdício de alimentos ( [4] ) . A Comissão está também a difundir informações
como, as «10 dicas para não desperdiçar alimentos», disponíveis em todas as línguas da EU, e a clarificação do
significado de «a consumir de preferência antes de …» e «data-limite de consumo».

A Comissão também está a analisar o papel específico das cidades na prevenção do desperdício de alimentos e a
considerar se a prevenção do desperdício de alimentos pode ser integrada no conceito de medidas de
acompanhamento no âmbito do programa «Fruta nas escolas» da UE.

A médio prazo, a Comissão está a reunir informações para identificar as ações mais adequadas a nível da UE. Nesse
sentido, está a consultar partes interessadas, Estados-Membros e peritos sobre o modo de minimizar o desperdício de
alimentos sem comprometer a segurança alimentar.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/reports.htm)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/prevention_guidelines.pdf)
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimizing waste prevention Strategies — pode ser seguido no Facebook (EU Fusions) e no Twitter

(@EU_Fusions).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/sustainability/index_en.htm)

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 135

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008667/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ United States: families throw away 40 % of the food they buy

According to a study by the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), people in the United States throw
away 40% of the food they buy every year, to a value of around EUR 131.685 billion.

The US Government estimates that the country’s supermarkets lose EUR 11.9 billion every year on fruit and
vegetables that go unsold.

Given that a European Parliament Resolution has decreed that 2014 will be the European Year against Food Waste,
can the Commission state:

1. What its assessment of the NRDC study is?

2. What, if any, similar studies does it have for the EU?

3. What, if any, specific measures against food waste are planned?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The Commission published a ‘Study on Food Waste in the EU-27’ ( [1] )which estimates that food waste in the EU
represents about 90 million tonnes per year and published ‘Guidelines on the Preparation of Food Waste Prevention
Programmes’ ( [2] ).

The Commission is funding the study FUSIONS ( [3] ) — a four-year project on food waste involving universities,
knowledge institutes, consumer organisations and businesses **.** The project will develop a standardised definition and
methodologies to calculate food waste, set up an EU multi-stakeholder platform and develop policy guidelines for
national and EU governments. Tackling food waste will need to be factored in future EU research activities but the
European Commission does not intend to carry out an assessment of the NRDC study.

The Commission is addressing food waste with short‐ and medium-term actions. In the short term the Commission is
compiling good practices in a user-friendly way. This compilation will be available on the Commission food waste
website ( [4] ). The Commission is also disseminating information such as: the ‘10 Tips to reduce food waste’ available in
all EU languages and the clarification of the meaning of ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates.

The Commission is also examining the specific role of cities in food waste prevention and is exploring whether food
waste prevention could be integrated in the concept of accompanying measures provided within the EU School Fruit
Scheme.

For the medium term the Commission is building knowledge in order to identify the most appropriate actions at EU
level. Therefore it is consulting stakeholders, Member States and experts on how to minimise food waste without
compromising food safety.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/reports.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/prevention_guidelines.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Food Use for Social Innovation by Optimising waste prevention Strategies — to be followed on Facebook (EU FUSIONS) and Twitter

(@EU_FUSIONS).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/sustainability/index_en.htm

( **|**

C 287 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008668/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ México: mais de três milhões de aves mortas

Cerca de 3,8 milhões de aves morreram no México e 9,3 milhões estão infetadas com gripe aviária em quintas de
Jalisco, no oeste do país, informaram na terça-feira as autoridades mexicanas.

Os 3,8 milhões de aves morreram devido à gripe ou tiveram de ser abatidas para evitar a propagação do vírus e, dos
16,5 milhões de aves que permanecem nos municípios de Tepatitlán e de Acatic, onde surgiu e epidemia a 18 de
junho, 9,3 milhões contraíram o vírus, revelam os dados avançados pelas autoridades locais.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento de recentes importações de aves ou ovos do referido país, que possam pôr em risco os efetivos
avícolas da UE?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de novembro de 2012)_

Em conformidade com a legislação da UE, não é atualmente permitida qualquer importação para a União de aves de
capoeira vivas, aves em cativeiro, ovos de incubação e ovos de mesa, nem de carne fresca de aves de capoeira
provenientes do México.

No entanto, a importação de ovos e ovoprodutos isentos de organismos patogénicos especificados (SPF) provenientes
do México na União é autorizada em conformidade com o Regulamento (CE) n.° 798/2008 da Comissão ( [1] ). Os ovos
SPF apenas se destinam a diagnóstico, investigação ou utilização farmacêutica e devem satisfazer exigências
extremamente rigorosas de polícia sanitária, incluindo no domínio da gripe aviária. As regras de importação da UE
exigem que os ovoprodutos tenham origem numa exploração avícola localizada numa zona sem restrições de gripe
aviária de alta patogenicidade (GAAP) e em que nenhum foco dessa doença tenha ocorrido nos últimos 30 dias. Além
disso, o tratamento térmico aplicado aos ovoprodutos durante o seu processo de fabrico reduz ainda mais qualquer
possível risco de gripe aviária. Se as condições sobre a localização da exploração de origem dos ovos não puderem ser
cumpridas, o ovoproduto deve ser tratado através de um método específico capaz de inativar o vírus da GAAP.

O México está igualmente autorizado a importar para a União produtos à base de carne que contenham ou sejam
constituídos por carne de aves de capoeira, em conformidade com a Decisão 2007/777/CE da Comissão ( [2] ). Os
produtos devem ser preparados a partir de aves de capoeira provenientes de uma exploração situada numa área sem
quaisquer restrições no âmbito da GAAP e em que nenhum foco dessa doença tenha ocorrido nos últimos 30 dias e
devem ter sido submetidos a um tratamento térmico (a uma temperatura mínima de 70 °C) adequado para inativar
quaisquer possíveis vírus presentes.

As referidas importações provenientes do México na União não são, por conseguinte, consideradas como suscetíveis
de constituírem um risco em matéria de gripe aviária para a União.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 226 de 23.8.2008, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 312 de 30.11.2007, p. 49.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 137

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008668/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mexico: over three million birds dead

Mexican authorities reported on Tuesday that around 3.8 million birds have died in Mexico and 9.3 million are
infected with avian influenza on farms in Jalisco, in the west of the country.

The 3.8 million birds died as a result of avian influenza or had to be killed so as to prevent the spread of the virus. Out
of the 16.5 million birds remaining in the municipalities of Tepatitlán and Acatic, where the epidemic broke out on
18 June, 9.3 million have contracted the virus, according to data supplied by the local authorities.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

Is it aware of any recent imports of birds or eggs from the aforementioned country that might endanger EU poultry
stocks?

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

_(7 November 2012)_

In accordance with EU legislation, no import into the Union of live poultry, captive birds, hatching and table eggs and
fresh poultry meat is currently allowed from Mexico.

However, import of specified pathogen-free (SPF) eggs and egg products from Mexico into the Union is authorised
according to Commission Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 ( [1] ). SPF eggs are only intended for diagnostic, research or
pharmaceutical use and must comply with extremely stringent animal health requirements, which include avian
influenza. EU import rules require that egg products must originate from a poultry holding located in an area with no
restrictions for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) and in which no outbreaks of that disease have occurred in
the last 30 days. In addition, the heat treatment applied to egg products during their manufacturing process further
reduces any possible avian influenza risk. If conditions on the location of the holding of origin of the eggs cannot be
met, the egg product must be treated by a specific method capable of inactivating the HPAI virus.

Mexico is also authorised for imports into the Union of meat products consisting of or containing meat of poultry
according to Commission Decision 2007/777/EC ( [2] ). The products must be prepared from poultry coming from a
holding located in an area with no restrictions for HPAI and in which no outbreaks of that disease have occurred in
the last 30 days and they must have undergone a heat treatment (a minimum temperature of 70 °C) suitable to
inactivate any possible present virus.

The abovementioned imports from Mexico into the Union are therefore not considered to pose a risk for avian
influenza into the Union.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 226, 23.8.2008, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 312, 30.11.2007, p. 49.

C 287 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008669/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ 8,1 mil milhões de euros para projetos de investigação e inovação

A Comissão Europeia anunciou recentemente o maior pacote de sempre de convites à apresentação de propostas no
domínio da investigação e inovação, tendo para este efeito destinado 8,1 mil milhões de euros para projetos que se
espera que criem crescimento e emprego.

Os 8,1 mil milhões de euros destinam-se a dinamizar a competitividade da Europa e a responder a desafios em áreas
distintas. Saúde humana e proteção do ambiente são algumas das áreas em que se pretende encontrar novas soluções
para os problemas relacionados, por exemplo, com a urbanização e a gestão de resíduos.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Até à data, quais os países comunitários que apresentaram candidaturas a este concurso e em que áreas?

2. De que forma tem sido divulgado este concurso pelos Estados-Membros e, mais concretamente, em Portugal?

3. Os referidos projetos preveem algum cofinanciamento dos Estados-Membros?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de novembro de 2012)_

1. Os convites à apresentação de propostas lançados em julho de 2012 estão, na sua maioria, ainda abertos, pelo
que é demasiado cedo para fornecer informações sobre o nível de participação. O relatório de acompanhamento do
Sétimo Programa-Quadro de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (7.° PQ, 2007-2013) ( [1] ) contém
informações sobre a participação nos convites anteriores, em 2011.

2. Para informação dos potenciais participantes, os convites foram anunciados no Jornal Oficial ( [2] ) e publicados no
sítio Web do portal dos participantes ( [3] ). Os pontos de contacto nacionais (PCN), que aconselham e assistem os
potenciais participantes nos Estados-Membros, foram informados. Em Portugal, existem cerca de 40 funções de PCN.
Além disso, foram organizadas jornadas de informação, inclusive um evento em Lisboa sobre a investigação em
matéria de ambiente, e um funcionário da Comissão apresentou os convites num evento realizado em Lisboa, no
início de julho, em que participaram cerca de 80 interessados e a imprensa.

3. No âmbito dos convites à apresentação de propostas publicados em julho de 2012, existem 18 temas para
atividades ERA-NET ( [4] ) ou ERA-NET Plus, num montante de cerca de 77,7 milhões de euros. As ações ERA-NET
destinam-se a ligar em rede programas de investigação realizados a nível nacional ou regional. As ações ERA-NET
Plus apoiam a organização de convites conjuntos de programas de investigação nacionais ou regionais.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO C 202 de 10.7.2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/fp7_calls)
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (http://www.cordis.europa.eu/coordination/era-net.htm)

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 139

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008669/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ EUR 8.1 billion for research and innovation projects

The European Commission recently announced the largest ever package of invitations to tender in the areas of
research and innovation, having set aside EUR 8.1 billion for projects that are expected to create growth and
employment.

The EUR 8.1 billion shall be used for boosting Europe’s competitiveness and meeting challenges in different areas.
Human health and environmental protection are some of the areas in which new solutions are sought for problems in
the areas of, inter alia, urbanisation and waste management.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

1. To date, which EU countries have applied for these tenders and in what areas?

2. How have these tenders been advertised within the Member States and, more specifically, in Portugal?

3. Do these projects foresee any level of joint financing by Member States?

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

_(13 November 2012)_

1. Most of the calls for proposals launched in July 2012 are still open, and it is therefore too early to report on the
level of participation. Information about participation in the previous calls in 2011 can be found in the Seventh
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013) Monitoring Report ( [1] ).

2. To inform the potential participants, the calls have been announced in the Official Journal ( [2] ) and published
onto the Participant Portal website ( [3] ). National Contact Points (NCPs) which in the Member States provide potential
participants with advice and individual assistance have been informed. In Portugal, they are around 40 NCP functions.
Furthermore, information days have been organised, including an event in Lisbon on Environment research. In
addition, an official from the Commission presented the calls in an event where around 80 stakeholders and the press
participated in Lisbon at the beginning of July.

3. As part of the calls for proposals published in July 2012, there are 18 topics for ERA-NET ( [4] ) or ERA-NET Plus
activities for an amount of around EUR 77.7 million. ERA-NET actions aim to network research programmes carried
out at national or regional level. ERA-NET Plus actions support the organisation of joint calls between national or
regional research programmes.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ C 202 of 10 July 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/fp7_calls
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.cordis.europa.eu/coordination/era-net.htm

C 287 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008670/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Medidas de adaptação às alterações climáticas

O Conselho informal «Agricultura» realizou-se recentemente em Chipre com a participação dos ministros da
agricultura da UE.

Os ministros da agricultura da UE demonstraram que estão firmemente empenhados em promover medidas de
adaptação às alterações climáticas através da nova PAC.

A escassez de água e o abandono das terras devido às condições climáticas desfavoráveis estiveram no centro do
debate.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
No quadro da futura PAC, tenciona a Comissão criar alguma medida específica para melhorar a gestão da água
e a proteção dos solos, de forma a ajudar os agricultores a adaptarem-se e a resistirem às alterações climáticas?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de novembro de 2012)_

As propostas da Comissão para a política agrícola comum após 2013 contemplam diversas medidas destinadas a
ajudar os agricultores a adaptarem-se às alterações climáticas e a atenuarem os efeitos destas.

No primeiro pilar da PAC, a condicionalidade continuará a subordinar diretamente os pagamentos diretos a uma série
de exigências ambientais, emanadas da legislação ambiental ou de disposições relacionadas com as boas condições
agrícolas e ambientais. Essas exigências relacionam-se, nomeadamente, com a proteção da água e dos solos (por
exemplo, a conservação da matéria orgânica edáfica).

A Comissão propôs igualmente que, no quadro da ecologização, uma parte dos pagamentos diretos aos agricultores
constituísse uma recompensa explícita por determinadas práticas agrárias benéficas para o ambiente e para o clima.

Por outro lado, duas das futuras «prioridades» da política de desenvolvimento rural visam a proteção dos
ecossistemas, o aproveitamento eficiente dos recursos e a economia hipocarbónica. As medidas disponíveis para
ajudar a respeitar estas prioridades preveem apoios ao investimento (por exemplo, para melhorar os sistemas de rega),
pagamentos anuais por superfície (por exemplo, para práticas voluntárias de gestão dos solos benéficas no contexto
das alterações climáticas) e apoios ao desenvolvimento tecnológico, à formação e ao aconselhamento profissional. A
Comissão está ainda a elaborar orientações sobre o modo de integrar aspetos ligados à adaptação às alterações
climáticas nos programas de desenvolvimento rural.

A Parceria Europeia de Inovação para a Produtividade e a Sustentabilidade Agrícolas também apoiará os esforços de
atenuação dos efeitos das alterações climáticas e de adaptação a estas últimas, em especial no contexto da política de
desenvolvimento rural e da política de investigação da União Europeia.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 141

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008670/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Measures for adapting to climate change

The informal Agriculture and Fisheries Council was recently held in Cyprus and was attended by EU ministers
involved in this policy area.

These ministers demonstrated their firm commitment to promoting measures for adapting to climate change using
the new common agricultural policy (CAP).

The main topic of debate was water scarcity and lands abandonment due to unfavourable climate conditions.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

—
Within the framework of the future CAP, does the Commission intend to adopt specific measures to improve
water management and soil protection, so as to help farmers adjust to and deal with climate change?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

Within its overall proposals for a post-2013 CAP, the Commission has set out a number of policy elements which
will help farmers to adjust to (and mitigate) climate change.

Within Pillar I of the CAP, cross-compliance will continue explicitly to link direct payments to a number of
environmental requirements flowing either from environmental legislation or from provisions related to Good
Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC). These requirements will be related — _inter alia_ — to water and to
soil protection (e.g. maintenance of soil organic matter).

The Commission has also proposed that, under the banner of ‘greening’, a proportion of farmers' direct payments be
an explicit reward for undertaking certain farming practices beneficial to the natural environment and the climate.

Furthermore, two of the ‘priorities’ of rural development policy will target care for ecosystems, resource-efficiency
and a low-carbon economy. The measures available to help meet these priorities will offer support for investments
(e.g. in improvements to irrigation systems), annual area-based payments (e.g. for voluntary climate-friendly soil
management practices), and support for technological development, training and professional advice. Besides, the
Commission is working on guidance on how to integrate climate change adaptation considerations in rural
development programmes.

The European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability will also support efforts at
climate change mitigation and adaptation, drawing in particular on rural development policy and EU research policy.

C 287 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008671/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Diabetes: gel para tratar feridas

Segundo notícias veiculadas pela comunicação social portuguesa, um investigador da Universidade de Coimbra acaba
de patentear um gel criado através de células estaminais do sangue do cordão umbilical, que trata de forma mais eficaz
as feridas crónicas, com principal destaque para os doentes diabéticos. Este é um problema que, só em Portugal, afeta
cerca de 150 mil doentes diabéticos, calculando-se que 15 % destes doentes tenham ulcerações no pé que não
cicatrizam.

Segundo a mesma notícia, a equipa deste investigador já está à procura de parceiros e financiadores.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta invenção portuguesa?

2. Considera que este projeto possa ser financiado pela União Europeia? De que forma?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(9 de novembro de 2012)_

1. A Comissão tem conhecimento da publicação referida pelo Senhor Deputado. Várias equipas de investigação
internacionais ( [1] ) ( [2] ) ( [3] ) demonstraram que as células estaminais mesenquimais extraídas do sangue do cordão
umbilical promovem a cicatrização de feridas cutâneas.

2. Embora atualmente não estejam a ser apoiadas pelo Sétimo Programa-Quadro de Investigação e
Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (7.° PQ, 2007-2013) ( [4] ) atividades de investigação especificamente relacionadas com
esta abordagem centrada nos doentes com diabetes, foram consagrados 12 milhões de euros ao estudo da aplicação
de células estaminais de adultos na medicina regenerativa, nomeadamente na cicatrização de feridas ( [5] ).

O último convite à apresentação de propostas do 7.° PQ na área da saúde, FP7-Health-2013-Innovation-1, foi
encerrado em 3 de outubro de 2012. No portal dos participantes na investigação e inovação ( [6] ) estão disponíveis
informações sobre os convites à apresentação de propostas atualmente abertos nos programas «Cooperação» e
«Capacidades», os domínios abrangidos e as condições de elegibilidade.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pedroso DCS, Tellechea A, Moura L, Fidalgo-Carvalho I, Duarte J, et al. (2011), «Improved Survival, Vascular Differentiation and Wound Healing

Potential of Stem Cells Co-Cultured with Endothelial Cells», PLoS ONE 6(1): e16114. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16114.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016114.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocvj/articles/V003/SI0001TOCVJ/43TOCVJ.pdf)
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Kim, J. Y.; Song, S-H.; Kim, K. L.; Maeng, Y-S.; Im, J-E.; Yie, S. W.; Ahn, Y. K.; Kim, D-K.; Suh, W., «Human Cord Blood-derived Endothelial

Progenitor Cells and their Conditioned Media Exhibit Therapeutic Equivalence for Diabetic Wound Healing», Cell Transplant. 19(12):1635-1644;
2010.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) (http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html)
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) (http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/103578_en.html)

(http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/103814_en.html)
(http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/102712_en.html)
(http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/92560_en.html)
(http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/92376_en.html)
(http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/93584_en.html)

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home)

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/capacities#sme)
(http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation)

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 143

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008671/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Diabetes: gel for treating wounds

According to a report in the Portuguese media, a researcher at the University of Coimbra has just patented a gel
created using umbilical cord stem cells and which is a more effective treatment for chronic wounds, particularly for
sufferers of diabetes. Diabetes is a problem suffered by around 150 000 people in Portugal alone and it is estimated
that 15% of these people have ulcers on their feet that will not heal.

According to the same report, this researcher’s team is seeking partners and financial backers.

Can the Commission state:

1. Is it aware of this Portuguese invention?

2. Does it believe this project could be financed by the European Union and how?

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

_(9 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of the publication mentioned by the Honourable Member. Several international
research teams ( [1] ) ( [2] ) ( [3] ) have demonstrated that mesenchymal stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood promote
cutaneous wound healing.

2. Although no specific research related to the effect of this particular approach in diabetes patients is currently
supported by the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 20072013) ( [4] ), EUR 12 million are devoted to the study of adult stem cell approaches to regenerative medicine including
wound healing ( [5] ).

The last FP7 call for proposals in the Health area, FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1, was closed on
3 October 2012. Information on currently open calls for proposals in the cooperation and capacities programmes,
areas addressed, and eligibility conditions are available at the Research and Innovation Participant Portal ( [6] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pedroso DCS, Tellechea A, Moura L, Fidalgo-Carvalho I, Duarte J, et al. (2011) Improved Survival, Vascular Differentiation and Wound Healing

Potential of Stem Cells Co-Cultured with Endothelial Cells. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16114. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.. PLoS ONE 6(1): e16114.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016114.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocvj/articles/V003/SI0001TOCVJ/43TOCVJ.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Kim, J. Y.; Song, S-H.; Kim, K. L.; Maeng, Y-S.; Im, J-E.; Yie, S. W.; Ahn, Y. K.; Kim, D-K.; Suh, W. Human Cord Blood-derived Endothelial

Progenitor Cells and their Conditioned Media Exhibit Therapeutic Equivalence for Diabetic Wound Healing. Cell Transplant. 19(12):1635-1644;
2010.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/103578_en.htm

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/103814_en.html
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/102712_en.html
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/92560_en.html
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/92376_en.html
http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/93584_en.html

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/home

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/capacities#sme
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008672/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Aquacultura

De acordo com a FAO, órgão das Nações Unidas responsável pelo estudo dos problemas da alimentação no mundo,
um hectare cultivado com peixes produz mais do que com qualquer outro animal. Atualmente, a aquacultura é
responsável pela produção da metade do peixe consumido pela população mundial.

No entanto, há outras opiniões relativamente à aquacultura, na medida em que, por exemplo, este tipo de exploração
tem vindo a afetar a qualidade dos peixes selvagens, particularmente do salmão.

Na aquacultura intensiva ou industrial, usam-se rações e outros produtos para maximizar a produção, que, entretanto
os efluentes podem prejudicar o ecossistema, se lançados no meio ambiente sem o devido tratamento.

Considerando que:

—
A Comissão Europeia prevê apoiar fortemente o desenvolvimento da aquacultura para satisfazer as
necessidades internas da UE;

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Possui algum estudo que revele o impacto da aquacultura no ambiente e na exploração de pescado selvagem
para fabrico de farinha de peixe?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de novembro de 2012)_

Com a reforma da política comum das pescas, a Comissão tenciona promover o crescimento sustentável da
aquicultura. A aquicultura europeia é muito diversa, com uma grande variedade de espécies, localizações geográficas e
condições ambientais. Daqui resulta uma vasta gama de sistemas e técnicas de cultivo que podem ter diferentes
impactos ambientais. No âmbito dos programas-quadro de investigação da UE (PQ), foram financiados diversos
projetos de investigação pertinentes relativos ao eventual impacto ambiental das atividades aquícolas, entre os quais
SAMI ( [1] ), ECASA ( [2] ), Seacase ( [3] ), Genimpact ( [4] ) e Aquatrace ( [5] ) .

No que se refere à utilização de farinha de peixe, a FAO está a examinar esta importante questão ao nível mundial,
tendo publicado, no ano passado, os resultados de um estudo ( [6] ) realizado no âmbito do seu programa de trabalho
regular. É importante salientar que a aquicultura não se resume à cultura de peixes carnívoros. Uma parte importante
da aquicultura animal abrange espécies que não se alimentam de pescado (por exemplo, carpas) ou moluscos bivalves
que não precisam de alimentos compostos para animais. Este tipo de aquicultura representa cerca de metade da
produção aquícola da UE. Além disso, a farinha e o óleo de peixe são igualmente utilizados na alimentação de espécies
terrestres (por exemplo, suínos, aves de capoeira e animais de companhia), bem como pelo setor dos nutracêuticos.
Graças aos resultados da investigação realizada com um financiamento considerável da UE, proveniente dos PQ ( [7] ), o
setor da aquicultura tem envidado, ao longo dos anos, esforços contínuos e muito bem sucedidos para se tornar
menos dependente do pescado selvagem na produção de alimentos para animais.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Synthesis of Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems Interactions», que expôs o estado atual dos conhecimentos no domínio das questões ambientais

relacionadas com a aquicultura marinha na Europa (6.° PQ).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) «Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable Aquaculture», que centrou os seus esforços no desenvolvimento de uma série de instrumentos,

nomeadamente modelos para uma diversidade de localizações na Europa (6.° PQ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) «Sustainable extensive and semi-intensive coastal aquaculture in Southern Europe», que mostrou os efeitos positivos da aquicultura extensiva e

semi-intensiva na proteção do ambiente e na recuperação em áreas de especial interesse ecológico (6.° PQ).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) «Evaluation of genetic impact of aquaculture activities on native populations: A European network», (6.° PQ).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) «The development of tools for tracing and evaluating the genetic impact of fish from aquaculture».
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) «The demand and supply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans. Trends and prospects», A. tacon, M. Hasan e M. metian. 2011. FAO,

Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper: 564.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Os projetos Aquamax (6.° PQ) e Arraina (7.° PQ) são projetos de investigação da UE importantes que contribuem/contribuirão para a otimização

da alimentação e para a substituição da farinha e do óleo de peixe na alimentação dos peixes.

( **|**

( **|**

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

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 145

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008672/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Aquaculture

According to the FAO, the UN body responsible for studying food problems around the world, fish-farming yields
more per hectare than any other kind of animal husbandry. Aquaculture currently produces half of all the fish
consumed worldwide.

However, there are other opinions on aquaculture, in particular on how this kind of production affects the quality of
wild fish, especially salmon.

Intensive and industrial scale aquaculture uses feed and other products to maximise production. If the effluent from
this is released into the environment and not adequately treated, it may harm the ecosystem.

Whereas:

—
The European Commission plans to strongly back the development of aquaculture to meet the domestic needs
of the EU;

Can the Commission answer the following question:

—
Is it aware of any study that reveals the impact of aquaculture on the environment and on the use of wild fish to
produce fish-meal?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 November 2012)_

With the reform of the common fisheries policy, the Commission intends to promote the sustainable growth of
aquaculture. The European aquaculture landscape is very diverse with many different species, geographical locations
and environmental conditions. This results in a wide range of farming techniques and systems which may involve
different environmental impacts. Many relevant research projects have been funded under the EU Research
Framework Programmes (FP) concerning the possible environmental impacts of aquaculture activities such as
SAMI ( [1] ), ECASA ( [2] ), Seacase ( [3] ), Genimpact ( [4] ), Aquatrace ( [5] ) etc.

With regard to the use of fish meal, FAO is addressing this important question at global level and, last year, it has
published the results of a study ( [6] ) carried out under its regular work programme. It is important to highlight that
aquaculture is not just about farming of carnivorous fish. An important part of aquatic animal farming consists in
non-fish eating species (e.g. carp) or bivalves molluscs which do not need artificial compound feed. These types of
aquaculture represent approximately half of the EU aquaculture production. Furthermore, fish meal and fish oil are
also used in the feeding of terrestrial species (e.g. pigs, poultry, pets), as well as by the nutraceutical sector. The
aquaculture sector has made continuous and very successful efforts over the years to decrease its reliance on wild fish
for the production of feed thanks to the results of research carried out with considerable EU funding coming from the
FP ( [7] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Synthesis of Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems Interactions’. It provided the state-of art on environmental issues of marine aquaculture in

Europe (FP6).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ‘Ecosystem Approach for Sustainable Aquaculture’. It has focused on the development of a range of tools, in particular, models for a variety of

location across Europe (FP6).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ‘Sustainable extensive and semi-intensive coastal aquaculture in Southern Europe’. It showed the positive effects of extensive and semi-intensive

aquaculture in the environmental protection and restoration in areas of particular ecological interest (FP6).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ‘Evaluation of genetic impact of aquaculture activities on native populations: A European network’ (FP6).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) ‘The development of tools for tracing and evaluating the genetic impact of fish from aquaculture’.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) ‘The demand and supply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans. Trends and prospects’. A. Tacon, M. Hasan and M. Metian. 2011.

FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper: 564.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) AQUAMAX (FP6), ARRAINA (FP7) are relevant EU research projects that have/will contribute at the optimisation of feeding and substituting fish

meal fish oil in fish feed.

( **|**

( **|**

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

( **|**

C 287 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008673/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Declarações de Hamid Karzai

O Presidente afegão, Hamid Karzai, aproveitou o aniversário do 11 de setembro para aconselhar o mundo a repensar
a sua abordagem do terrorismo e a forma como está a ser travada a guerra no seu país. Segundo Karzai, «a principal
fonte de terrorismo internacional continua a ser ignorada», numa referência implícita ao Paquistão, acusado de
alimentar a insurreição talibã.

Considerando que:

—
Foi aprovado, na última sessão plenária de Estrasburgo, o acordo de comércio com o Paquistão, que afetará
gravemente a indústria têxtil e do calçado da UE;

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que comentários faz às referidas declarações?

2. Tendo em conta que o líder da Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, foi morto no Paquistão, país que seria o refúgio e o
quartel-general do grupo, e refletindo agora nas declarações do Presidente afegão Hamid Karzai, não conclui a
Comissão que, de facto, o Paquistão possa ser um dos principais responsáveis pelo fomento do terrorismo
internacional?

3. Não considera que tais evidências e referências em relação ao Paquistão mereceriam por parte da Comissão
uma reavaliação de alguns acordos, celebrados e a celebrar, entre a UE e o Paquistão?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(6 de novembro de 2012)_

A AR/VP considera que a complexidade da situação no Afeganistão e no Paquistão não deve ser encarada de uma
forma excessivamente simplista: as instituições democráticas do Paquistão são relativamente novas, o país sofreu
pesadas perdas na luta contra o terrorismo — cerca de 30 000 civis, militares e polícias paquistaneses pereceram
desde 2001, e a grande maioria dos paquistaneses não apoia o extremismo violento, conforme demonstraram nas
eleições de 2008 e, agora de novo nas manifestações de repulsa que surgiram por todo o país, na sequência do ataque
perpetrado contra Malala Yousafzai.

A política da UE tem-se concentrado em apoiar a democracia no Paquistão, e todos os que estejam preparados para
assumir uma posição de princípio contra os promotores da violência no seio de uma sociedade dividida. Tal como a
história recente da própria Europa demonstrou, esta tarefa é por si só suficientemente difícil, mesmo sem ter que lidar
com perturbações económicas graves. A decisão da UE de conceder medidas comerciais autónomas de emergência ao
Paquistão, na sequência das inundações de 2010, deve ser vista como fazendo parte de uma estratégia coerente
destinada a esta parte conturbada do mundo.

A UE tem encorajado o Afeganistão e o Paquistão a superar as suas divergências e a perseguir o seu interesse comum,
evitando que o Afeganistão caia novamente numa situação de instabilidade, com as mais graves consequências para
todos os países vizinhos.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 147

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008673/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Statements by Hamid Karzai

The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, used the anniversary of the 11 September attacks to call on the world to rethink
its approach to terrorism and the way in which war is being waged in his country. According to Karzai, ‘the main
source of international terrorism continues to be ignored’, in an implicit reference to Pakistan, which has been
accused of fomenting Taliban insurgency.

Whereas:

—
The last plenary Strasbourg session approved a trade agreement with Pakistan which will have serious
repercussions on the EU textile and footwear industry;

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What is its response to these statements?

2. Bearing in mind that the leader of al-Qa’ida, Osama Bin Laden, was killed in Pakistan, a country that was the
group’s refuge and headquarters, and considering President Hamid Karzai’s recent statements, does the
Commission believe that Pakistan may be one of the main parties responsible for fomenting international
terrorism?

3. Does it believe that this evidence and these references to Pakistan indicate a need for the Commission to reevaluate certain existing and future agreements between the EU and Pakistan?

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

_(6 November 2012)_

The HR/VP does not believe that the complex situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be oversimplified.
Pakistan’s democratic institutions are relatively new. The country has suffered heavy losses in fighting terrorism —
some 30 000 Pakistani police, military and civilians — have perished since 2001. The vast majority of Pakistanis do
not support violent extremism, as shown in the 2008 elections and again, now, in the upsurge of revulsion
throughout the country which followed the attack on Malala Yousafzai.

The focus of EU policy has been to support democracy in Pakistan and to sustain those who are prepared to take a
principled stand against the proponents of violence in what is a divided society. As Europe’s own recent history has
shown, this task is difficult enough even without having to tackle major economic disruption. The EU’s decision to
accord emergency autonomous trade measures to Pakistan following the 2010 floods must be seen as part of a
coherent strategy towards this troubled part of the world.

The EU has encouraged Afghanistan and Pakistan to overcome their differences and pursue their common interest,
which is to prevent Afghanistan falling back into instability with the gravest consequences for all the country’s
neighbours.

C 287 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008674/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Rússia: seca destruiu 5,5 milhões de hectares de culturas

O Ministro da Agricultura russo, Nikolai Fiódorov, afirmou recentemente que a seca naquele país destruiu 5,5
milhões de hectares de culturas.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Como avalia a situação descrita, tendo em conta que a Rússia é o terceiro maior produtor de trigo do mundo?

2. De que forma o acentuado decréscimo na produção cerealífera russa poderá determinar o aumento substancial
dos preços do pão e da farinha no mercado internacional?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de novembro de 2012)_

1. A estimativa do _International Grains Council_ para a produção mundial de trigo na campanha de 2012/2013 é de
657 milhões de toneladas, quantidade inferior em 5,6 % à do ano transato (696 milhões de toneladas) e 7 milhões de
toneladas abaixo da média quinquenal. Nos últimos anos, a Rússia tem sido o quinto maior produtor mundial, a
seguir à União Europeia, à China, à Índia e aos Estados Unidos da América.

Devido à seca, a estimativa da colheita russa é de 39 milhões de toneladas, o que representa uma redução prevista de
31 % relativamente à campanha anterior. A estimativa da colheita chinesa para a campanha de 2012/2013 mantémse em 120 milhões de toneladas (máximo histórico), em virtude da maior colheita de sempre de trigo de inverno
(cerca de 114 milhões de toneladas), que se deve a rendimentos superiores à média e a um aumento ligeiro da área
cultivada. Nos EUA, terminada a colheita, a estimativa da produção é de 62 milhões de toneladas, o que representa
um acréscimo de 13 % face ao ano transato, graças ao aumento da superfície cultivada e a rendimentos maiores.
Apesar do decréscimo na Rússia, a disponibilidade de trigo em 2012/2013, com base nas existências acessíveis no
mercado mundial, é suficiente para suprir a procura total no mundo.

2. Tendo em conta a disponibilidade de trigo no mercado mundial, para a qual a Rússia contribuiu igualmente,
com exportações, numa fase anterior da campanha, é improvável que os preços da farinha e do pão aumentem
substancialmente devido à seca nesse país. Todavia, é importante que os grandes exportadores de cereais se
abstenham de decisões políticas unilaterais — como a proibição das exportações cerealíferas, que poderiam gerar
tensões no mercado mundial — e cooperem intensamente a nível internacional, designadamente no âmbito da FAO e
da iniciativa AMIS. Em termos mais gerais, reafirma-se a necessidade de investimentos de longo prazo no setor
agrícola.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 149

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008674/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Russia: drought has destroyed 5.5 million hectares of crops

The Russian Minister of Agriculture, Nikolay Fyodorov, recently stated that the Russian drought has destroyed
5.5 million hectares of crops.

Can the Commission state:

1. What is its appraisal of the situation, given that Russia is the third-largest wheat producer in the world?

2. Might the steep reduction in Russia’s cereal production lead to a substantial rise in bread and flour prices on the
world market?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

1. The 2012/13 world wheat production forecast is estimated, by the International Grains Council, at 657 millions
tonnes, i.e. 5.6% lower than the previous year’s record (696 millions tonnes) and 7 millions tonnes below the five year
average. During recent years, Russia is the fifth-largest world producer, after the European Union, China, India and the
USA.

Due to the drought, the Russian harvest is estimated at 39 millions tonnes, which represents a 31% forecast reduction
as compared to last year. China’s crop estimate for 2012/13 is unchanged at a record 120 millions tonnes, following
the largest-ever winter wheat crop of about 114 millions tonnes — the result of above-average yields and a slightly
larger area. In the US, with harvesting now complete, production is estimated at 62 millions tonnes, up 13% year to
year owing to both increased plantings and higher yields. Despite that reduction in Russia, total availabilities of wheat
at the world level for 2012/13 are satisfactory to meet the world demand level, taking into account the world opening
stocks.

2. In view of the availability of wheat at world level, to which Russia contributed as well through exports earlier in
the season, a substantial further rise in bread and flour prices as a consequence of the Russian drought is not likely.
However, it will be important for all major grain exporters to avoid unilateral policy decisions, such as grain export
bans, which could create tension on world markets, and to pursue strong international cooperation, in particular
through the FAO and the AMIS initiative. More broadly, the need for long term investment in agriculture is again
underscored.

C 287 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008742/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(28. September 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Fusion zwischen EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) und BAE Systems

Medienberichten zufolge wollen die europäischen Konzerne „European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company“
(EADS) und „BAE Systems plc“ (BAE) fusionieren. Beide Unternehmen stellen vor allem Rüstungs- und
Informationssysteme und Luftfahrzeuge her und sind in diesen Bereichen weltweit führende Akteure.

Das europäische Wettbewerbsrecht räumt der Kommission das Recht ein, den Zusammenschluss von europäischen
Unternehmen mit einem weltweiten Umsatz von mehr als 5 Mrd. EUR zu untersuchen.

1. Sieht die Kommission eine Gefahr, dass der Zusammenschluss von EADS und BAE den Wettbewerb im
Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum gefährdet? Insbesondere betreffend:

a. Rüstungsgüter,

b. den kommerziellen Flugzeugbau,

c. Informationstechnologien.

2. Sieht die Kommission mögliche positive Effekte für die EU-Wirtschaft?

EADS und BAE sind auch wichtige Lieferanten für europäische Raumfahrtprogramme.

3. Wird eine EADS-BAE-Fusion nach Ansicht der Kommission Folgen — z. B. Kostensteigerungen oder
Verzögerungen — für EU-Raumfahrtprogramme oder das Galileo-Satellitennavigationssystem haben?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission**

_(31. Oktober 2012)_

Da die beteiligten Unternehmen ihre Fusionsverhandlungen abgebrochen haben, sind die Fragen des Herrn
Abgeordneten nicht mehr relevant.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 151

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008675/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Fusão entre grupo da Airbus e BAE

Foi recentemente noticiado pelo jornal _Público_ que a fusão entre o grupo europeu EADS, dono da Airbus, e a
fabricante britânica de defesa _BAE Systems_ foi aparentemente mal recebida pelo Governo alemão, que tem fortes
reservas em relação ao negócio.

O negócio, a ser realizado, será o maior de sempre neste setor, mas precisará de receber a «luz verde» dos Estados
francês e alemão, cada um com cerca de 22,5 % da EADS.

Por seu lado, o Reino Unido também será decisivo, uma vez que é o detentor de uma _golden share_, que confere ao
referido país um poder de voto decisivo na BAE.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que avaliação faz da hipotética fusão?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008709/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Indústria aeronáutica europeia

Considerando que:

—
A megafusão entre a franco-alemã EADS (dona da Airbus) e a britânica BAE poderia revolucionar a indústria
aeronáutica europeia;

—
O reforço da indústria militar europeia tem efeitos significativos na política de defesa da Europa;

—
O negócio geraria 38 mil milhões de euros;

—
As empresas europeias deste setor têm uma dimensão relativamente reduzida, defendendo-se há muito a
necessidade de uma fusão.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
No que respeita à provável utilização de golden shares por parte dos Estados acionistas, a legislação Europeia
apenas permite a existência de golden-shares em empresas quando estão em risco questões de segurança
nacional. Sabendo que a Airbus (detida pela EADS), que seria um dos principais ativos do novo grupo, tem
como principal negócio a aviação civil, considera que tal constitui um obstáculo à realização do negócio?

—
Tendo em conta os orçamentos cada vez mais apertados e sob pressão para acompanhar o investimento militar
norte-americano, não considera que esta fusão significaria a concretização de um projeto militar europeu de
grande dimensão?

**Resposta conjunta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(31 de outubro de 2012)_

Como as partes interessadas já concluíram as respetivas discussões sobre a fusão, as perguntas do Senhor Deputado já
não são relevantes.

C 287 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008675/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Merger between Airbus and BAE

The newspaper _Público_ recently announced that the planned merger between the European group EADS, which owns
Airbus, and the British defence company BAE Systems appears to have come as unwelcome news to the German
Government, which has grave reservations about the deal.

The planned merger would be the largest of its kind in the sector, but it needs the ‘green light’ from France and
Germany, each of which owns around 22.5% of EADS.

The United Kingdom’s response will also be decisive as it holds a golden share, which gives the country decisive
voting power within BAE.

Can the Commission answer the following:

—
What is its assessment of the hypothetical merger?

**Question for written answer E-008709/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ European aeronautical industry

Whereas:

—
The megamerger between the Franco-German company EADS (owner of Airbus) and the British company BAE
could revolutionise the European aeronautical industry;

—
The strengthening of the European defence industry has a significant impact on Europe’s defence policy;

—
The deal would generate EUR 38 billion;

—
European representation in this sector is relatively low, which is why the need for a merger has long been
advocated.

I therefore ask the Commission:

—
As regards the likely use of golden shares by the countries that own them, European legislation only allows
golden shares to exist in companies when issues concerning national security are at stake. Given that Airbus
(owned by EADS), whose core business lies in civil aviation, would be an integral part of the new group, does
the Commission believe that this could hinder the deal?

—
In view of the increasingly tight budgets and the pressure to monitor North America’s defence investment, does
the Commission not believe that this merger would lead to the establishment of a large-scale European defence
project?

**Question for written answer E-008742/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Merger between EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company) and BAE Systems

According to media reports, the two firms European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) and BAE
Systems plc (BAE) are seeking to merge. The core business of both of these European firms is the manufacture of
defence and IT systems and aircraft, and in these areas they are world leaders.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 153

European competition law gives the Commission the right to investigate any merger between European undertakings
with a worldwide turnover of over EUR 5 billion.

1. Does the Commission think there is any risk that the merger between EADS and BAE will be harmful to
competition in the European economic area, in particular in the following sectors:

a. defence equipment

b. commercial aircraft construction

c. IT?

2. Does the Commission perceive any positive effects of this merger for the European economy?

EADS and BAE are also major suppliers for European space programmes.

3. Does the Commission believe an EADS-BAE merger will have any effects — such as price rises or delivery delays
— on EU space programmes or the Galileo satellite navigation system?

**Joint answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 October 2012)_

As the parties have terminated their merger discussions, the Honourable Members' questions are no longer relevant.

C 287 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008676/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Indicadores da OCDE para Portugal e para a zona euro

Considerando que:

—
Os indicadores recentemente avançados pela OCDE revelam que a economia portuguesa poderá melhorar nos
próximos meses;

—
Apesar desta ligeira inversão no caso português, no resto da zona euro a OCDE aponta para a degradação da
situação económica;

Pergunto à Comissão:

— Tem conhecimento dos indicadores da OCDE? Como os avalia?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de dezembro de 2012)_

As previsões macroeconómicas da Comissão têm em conta um vasto número de indicadores, entre os quais os da
OCDE. Considerando os dados disponíveis, incluindo o anteprojeto de orçamento para 2013, a Comissão prevê a
continuação da contração da economia portuguesa ainda no próximo ano. As previsões do outono da Comissão, que
incluem a fundamentação pormenorizada das projeções para Portugal, foram publicadas a 7 de novembro e nelas se
inclui a atualização dos principais indicadores de todas as economias, incluindo a portuguesa.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 155

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008676/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ OECD indicators for Portugal and the euro area

Whereas:

—
Recent indicators from the OECD reveal that the Portuguese economy may improve in the coming months;

—
Despite this slight reversal in the case of Portugal, the OECD points to a deteriorating economic situation in the
rest of the euro area;

Can the Commission answer the following:

—
Is it aware of the OECD indicators? What is its opinion of them?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

The Commission's macroeconomic forecasts consider a large number of leading indicators, among them those of the
OECD. Given the currently available data, including the 2013 budget proposal, the Commission projects a continued
contraction of the Portuguese economy also for next year. The Commission Autumn forecast including a detailed
reasoning for the projections on Portugal was published on 7 November and provides an updated outlook on the
main indicators of all economies, including Portugal.

C 287 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008677/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ WindGEN3000 — microgerador eólico

Segundo notícias veiculadas pelo jornal _Público_, «dois jovens licenciados portugueses apostaram no desenvolvimento
de um microgerador eólico que pudesse satisfazer as necessidades de uma família em qualquer lugar, de forma
simples e com custos acessíveis». O microgerador eólico foi registado com o nome de WindGEN3000 e destaca-se
pelo seu alto rendimento, até 30 % superior ao dos equipamentos existentes no mercado a nível mundial.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento deste microgerador eólico português?

—
Considera que este projeto possa ser financiado pela União Europeia? De que forma?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento da existência do microgerador eólico.

A Comissão não financia diretamente máquinas ou instalações que utilizam tecnologias disponíveis no mercado. Os
Estados‐Membros podem promover e apoiar este tipo de instalações, nomeadamente através de projetos específicos
(financiados pelos fundos estruturais e de coesão), ou regimes de apoio.

Todavia, a Comissão apoia investigação e projetos de demonstração altamente inovadores no setor das energias
renováveis, através do 7. [o] PQ ( [1] ). Está aberto um convite à apresentação de propostas ( [2] ) que inclui o tópico
«Geradores eólicos de pequenas e médias dimensões» (Energy 2013.2.3.2), que poderá ter interesse para a tecnologia
desenvolvida.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 7. [o] PQ: Sétimo programa-quadro de investigação da União Europeia (2007-2013). As propostas devem ser apresentadas nos termos dos convites

anuais do 7. [o] PQ, que enunciam as prioridades, regras de participação, critérios de elegibilidade e instrução das propostas.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Convite FP7-Energy-2013-1. Data de publicação: 10/07/2012 — Prazo: 28/11/2012. Para informações sobre este convite à apresentação de

propostas, consultar: (https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-Energy-2013-1).

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 157

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008677/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ WindGEN3000 — micro wind generator

According to a report in the newspaper _Público_, ‘two young Portuguese graduates have designed a micro wind turbine
that can simply and economically meet the needs of a household, wherever it may be’. The micro wind turbine has
been registered under the name WindGEN3000 and is remarkable for its efficiency, which exceeds that of any other
equipment sold in the world by up to 30%.

Can the Commission answer the following:

—
Is it aware of this Portuguese micro wind turbine?

—
Does it believe this project could be financed by the European Union? If so, in what way?

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

_(12 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the existence of this micro wind turbine.

The Commission does not provide direct support to machines or installations using technologies that are available in
the market. Member States may promote and support such installations, for instance through specific projects (which
may be financed by the structural and cohesion funds) or by support schemes.

However, through FP7 ( [1] ), the Commission does support highly innovative research and demonstration projects in
the renewable energy sector. In an ongoing call ( [2] ) there is a topic called ‘Small to medium-sized wind turbines’
(ENERGY 2013.2.3.2) which could be of interest with regard to the technology developed.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) FP7: The 7th Framework Programme for Research of the European Union (2007-2013). Proposals should be submitted following the annual FP7

calls which describe the priorities, the rules for participation, the eligibility criteria and explain the preparation and submission of a proposal.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Call FP7-ENERGY-2013-1. Date of publication: 10/07/2012 — Deadline: 28/11/2012. Details about the call can be found at the following

address: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-ENERGY-2013-1

( **|**

C 287 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008678/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Doenças musculoesqueléticas na agricultura e nas pescas

Segundo dados da Agência Europeia para a Segurança e Saúde no Trabalho, «aproximadamente 60 % dos
trabalhadores do setor da agricultura e da pesca estão expostos a posturas dolorosas no trabalho durante metade do
tempo ou mais». Estes são os setores com a percentagem mais elevada de todos os setores.

As doenças musculoesqueléticas afetam milhões de trabalhadores europeus em todos os setores de atividade e custam
milhares de milhões de euros aos empregadores europeus.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento desta situação?

—
Que medidas de combate e prevenção das doenças musculoesqueléticas existem ou estão previstas pela
Comissão?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem pleno conhecimento da situação referida pelo Senhor Deputado. De acordo com os mais recentes
dados disponíveis, cerca de 11 milhões de trabalhadores na UE sofrem de doenças musculoesqueléticas ligadas ao
trabalho, com um custo total para a economia e para a sociedade de quase 163 mil milhões de euros numa base
bienal ( [1] ). As informações sobre a situação atual nos Estados-Membros mostram que existe, na maior parte deles, uma
tendência a três e/ou dez anos de aumento da taxa de doenças musculoesqueléticas ligadas ao trabalho ( [2] ).

Foram empreendidas várias iniciativas na UE desde a década de 1980 para fazer face a estes problemas. Juntamente
com as disposições gerais da «Diretiva-Quadro» 89/391/CEE ( [3] ), existem várias diretivas que abordam especificamente
as doenças musculoesqueléticas ligadas ao trabalho, em particular a Diretiva 90/269/CEE ( [4] ) sobre a «movimentação
manual de cargas», a Diretiva 90/270/CEE ( [5] ) sobre o «trabalho com equipamentos dotados de visor» e a Diretiva
2002/44/CE ( [6] ) sobre «vibração». De momento a Comissão está a avaliar se o acervo legislativo existente é suficiente
para responder aos principais desafios ou se são necessárias medidas adicionais para abranger um maior número de
fatores de risco e melhorar as medidas preventivas no âmbito da ergonomia. A Comissão encontra-se atualmente a
analisar diversas opções, tanto regulamentares como não regulamentares, com o objetivo de reduzir a prevalência de
doenças musculoesqueléticas ligadas ao trabalho.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Estudo para analisar e avaliar o impacto socioeconómico de possíveis iniciativas comunitárias na área da ergonomia, em particular no que respeita

à prevenção de doenças musculoesqueléticas ligadas ao trabalho e a problemas de visão associados aos equipamentos dotados de visor na União
Europeia. Comissão Europeia — DG Emprego, Assuntos Sociais e Igualdade de Oportunidades, 2011.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Painel de avaliação 2009 da Estratégia europeia para a saúde e segurança no trabalho 2007-2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Diretiva 89/391/CEE do Conselho, de 12 de junho de 1989, relativa à aplicação de medidas destinadas a promover a melhoria da segurança e da

saúde dos trabalhadores no trabalho, JO L 183 de 29.6.1989, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Diretiva 90/269/CEE do Conselho, de 29 de maio de 1990, relativa às prescrições mínimas de segurança e de saúde respeitantes à movimentação

manual de cargas que comportem riscos, nomeadamente dorsolombares, para os trabalhadores (quarta Diretiva especial na aceção do artigo 16. [o],
n. [o] 1, da Diretiva 89/391/CEE) JO L 156 de 21.6.1990, p. 14.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Diretiva 90/270/CEE do Conselho, de 25 de Junho de 2002, relativa às prescrições mínimas de segurança e de saúde respeitantes ao trabalho com

equipamentos dotados de visor (quinta Diretiva especial na aceção do artigo 16. [o], n. [o] 1, da Diretiva 89/391/CEE) JO L 156 de 21.6.1990, p. 14.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2002/44/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 25 de Junho de 2002, relativa às prescrições mínimas de segurança e saúde

respeitantes à exposição dos trabalhadores aos riscos devidos aos agentes físicos (vibrações) (décima sexta diretiva especial na aceção do n. [o] 1 do
artigo 16. [o] da Diretiva 89/391/CEE). JO L 177 de 6.7.2002, p. 14.

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

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|**

( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 159

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008678/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Musculoskeletal disorders in agriculture and fishing

According to data from the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, ‘almost 60% of workers in agriculture
and fishing are exposed to painful positions at work half the time or more, the highest of any sector’. These are the
sectors with the highest percentage of any sector.

Musculoskeletal disorders affect millions of European workers in all sectors of activity and cost European employers
billions of euros.

I therefore ask the Commission:

— Is the Commission aware of this situation?

—
What measures does the Commission plan to take for combating and preventing musculoskeletal disorders and
are there currently any in place?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

The Commission is fully aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member. According to the most recent
evidence available, about 11 million of workers in the EU suffer from work-related musculoskeletal disorders
(WRMSDs), with a total cost for the economy and society of almost EUR 163 billion on a two-year basis ( [1] ) .
Information on the current situation in the Member States shows in most of them an upward three‐ and/or ten-year
trend in the rate of WRMSDs ( [2] ) .

Many initiatives have been taken in the EU since the 1980s to tackle these problems. Next to the general provisions of
the ‘Framework’ Directive 89/391/EEC ( [3] ), a number of individual Directives specifically address WRMSDs, in
particular Directive 90/269/EEC ( [4] ) on the ‘manual handling of loads’, Directive 90/270/EEC ( [5] ) on the ‘work with
display screen equipment’, and Directive 2002/44/EC ( [6] ) on ‘vibration’. The Commission is currently assessing
whether the existing legislation ‘acquis’ is sufficient to address the key challenges or additional action is required in
order to cover a wider range of risk factors and enhance preventive measures in the field of ergonomics. Different
options, both regulatory and non-regulatory, are currently under scrutiny by the Commission with the aim of
reducing the prevalence of WRMSDs.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Study to analyse and evaluate the socioeconomic impact of possible Community initiatives in the area of ergonomics, in particular with regard to

the prevention of work-related musculoskeletal disorders and display screen vision problems in the European Union, European Commission —
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG, 2011.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Scoreboard 2009 of the European Strategy on health and safety at work 2007-2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 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, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Council Directive 90/269/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the manual handling of loads where there is a

risk particularly of back injury for workers (4th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). OJ L 156,
21.6.1990, p. 14.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements for work with display screen equipment

(5th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). OJ L 156, 21.6.1990, p. 14.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding

the exposure of the workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (16th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
Directive 89/391/EEC). OJ L 177, 6.7.2002, p. 13.

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

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|**

( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008679/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Identificado novo vírus da família da SARS (Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Severa)

A Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS) está a investigar as implicações para a saúde de um novo vírus, da família do
que causa a Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Severa (SARS), identificado em dois pacientes nos últimos meses.

A OMS está a recolher mais informação para determinar as implicações destes dois casos para a saúde pública, mas
não recomenda, para já, quaisquer restrições a viajar.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

—
Que dados possui acerca deste novo vírus da família da SARS?

—
Pondera efetuar alguma comunicação preventiva ao nível dos 27 Estados-Membros?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão foi informada acerca do novo vírus mencionado pelo Senhor Deputado. O vírus pertence à família dos
vírus corona, mas é diferente do vírus que causou a Síndrome Respiratória Aguda (SRA). A doença provocada por este
novo vírus corona é também muito diferente da SRA, em termos do seu padrão epidemiológico e da sua capacidade
de propagação entre os seres humanos. Embora sejam necessárias mais investigações para compreender melhor o
mecanismo de infeção e as suas implicações para a saúde pública, já se encontra disponível uma série de dados
científicos nos sítios Web do Centro Europeu de Prevenção e Controlo das Doenças (CEPCD) ( [1] ) e da Organização
Mundial de Saúde (OMS) ( [2] ) .

No que diz respeito à comunicação preventiva aos 27 Estados-Membros, imediatamente após o Reino Unido ter
comunicado a doença através do sistema de alerta rápido e resposta da UE, em 23 de setembro de 2012, a Comissão,
em 24 de setembro de 2012 e nos dias seguintes, realizou várias reuniões de coordenação com os Estados-Membros,
o CEPCD e a OMS para partilha de informações. Essa coordenação deverá ajudar a assegurar uma resposta eficiente
para minimizar qualquer risco possível da propagação do novo vírus. Foi ativada a vigilância de outros casos possíveis
a nível da UE e, até à data, não foram detetados quaisquer novos casos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/RRA-Novel-coronavirus-final20120924.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/csr/don/2012_10_10/en/index.html

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 161

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008679/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ A new virus from the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) family identified

The World Health Organisation (WHO) is investigating the health implications of a new virus from the family that
causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), identified in two patients in recent months.

WHO is collecting additional information to assess the consequences of these two cases to public health, but it is yet
to recommend any travel restrictions.

Can the Commission answer the following:

—
What information does it have regarding this new virus from the SARS family?

—
Is it considering any preventive communication to the 27 Member States?

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

_(7 November 2012)_

The Commission has been informed about the new virus mentioned by the Honourable Member. The virus belongs
to the family of corona viruses, but it is different from the virus which has caused Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
(SARS). The disease caused by this new corona virus is also very different from SARS, in terms of its epidemiological
pattern and its ability to spread from human to human. Although additional investigations are needed in order to
better understand the mechanism of infection and its implications for public health, a number of scientific facts are
already available on the website of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) ( [1] ) and of the
World Health Organisation (WHO) ( [2] ).

As far as the preventive communication to the 27 Member States is concerned, immediately after the UK notified the
disease through the EU Early Warning and Response System on 23 September 2012, on 24 September 2012 and the
following days, the Commission held several coordination meetings with the Member States, the ECDC and the WHO
to share information. Such coordination should help ensure an efficient response to minimise any possible risk of the
new virus spreading. Surveillance of other possible cases has been activated at EU level, and so far no new cases have
been identified.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/RRA-Novel-coronavirus-final20120924.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/csr/don/2012_10_10/en/index.html

C 287 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008680/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Diferendo entre a Argentina e o FMI

A diretora-geral do FMI, Christine Lagarde, afirmou recentemente que o Fundo vai mostrar «um cartão vermelho» à
Argentina, se o país não resolver os problemas de estatística, que lhe valeram já um procedimento de sanção no
âmbito dessa instituição internacional.

Por sua vez, a presidente da Argentina, Cristina Kirchner, no seu discurso na Assembleia-Geral das Nações Unidas
afirmou que, «o meu país não é uma equipa de futebol, é uma nação soberana que toma as suas decisões de forma
soberana e que não se deixará submeter a nenhuma pressão nem a nenhuma ameaça».

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz dos factos descritos?

2. Como comenta a possível saída da Argentina do Fundo Monetário Internacional?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de novembro de 2012)_

O Fundo Monetário Internacional tem observado, em várias ocasiões, faltas de exatidão e de integridade na
comunicação de dados pela Argentina e apelou às autoridades deste país para que melhorem a qualidade das
estatísticas fornecidas sobre o CPI-GBA ( [1] ) e o PIB, em sintonia com as obrigações decorrentes do artigo VIII, secção 5,
dos Estatutos do FMI ( [2] ).

A Comissão recorda a necessidade de os membros do FMI respeitarem plenamente as suas obrigações à luz dos
referidos Estatutos ( [3] ). Para que o Fundo possa assumir as responsabilidades que lhe incumbem, a Comissão salienta
que é importante que os membros do FMI respeitem essas obrigações ( [4] ). Gostaríamos de sublinhar em especial a
necessidade de exatidão estatística nas comunicações enviadas ao Fundo. Neste contexto, a Comissão espera que
sejam rapidamente resolvidas as diferenças de pontos de vista sobre a qualidade dos indicadores estatísticos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Índice de preços no consumidor para a grande área metropolitana de Buenos Aires.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) No artigo VIII, secção 5, respeitante às obrigações gerais dos membros em matéria de fornecimento de informações, os Estatutos do FMI

especificam que os membros se comprometem a fornecer as informações requeridas de forma tão completa e exata quanto possível.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Nomeadamente o acesso a informações que sejam tão oportunas, completas e exatas quanto possível é essencial para todos os aspetos das

atividades do Fundo, incluindo a prevenção e resolução de crises.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Em matéria de fornecimento de informações nos termos do artigo VIII, secção 5, dos Estatutos.

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

( **|**

( **|**

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

**|** )

**|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 163

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008680/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Dispute between Argentina and the IMF

The International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) managing director, Christine Lagarde, stated recently that the IMF will issue
Argentina with a ‘red card’ if it fails to improve the quality of its statistics — an issue which has already triggered a
sanctions procedure against the country.

In an address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Argentinian President, Cristina Kirchner said that
her country was not a football team but rather a sovereign country that makes decisions in a sovereign manner and
that will not be forced to give in to any pressure or threat.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

1. What is its assessment of the facts described above?

2. How does it feel about the possibility of Argentina leaving the IMF?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

On various occasions, the IMF has observed a lack of accuracy and integrity in Argentina's data reporting and has
called on the authorities to improve the quality of the statistics provided for the CPI-GBA ( [1] ) and for the GDP, in line
with the obligations under Article VIII, Section 5 of the IMF's Agreement ( [2] ).

The Commission recalls the need for IMF members to fully respect their obligations under the articles of said
Agreement ( [3] ). In order for the Fund to be able to carry out its responsibilities, the Commission stresses the
importance for IMF members to respect their obligations ( [4] ). In particular, we would like to highlight the need for
statistical correctness in reporting to the Fund. Against this background, the Commission hopes that the differences
of view on the quality of statistical indicators will be rapidly resolved.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Consumer Price Index for Greater Buenos Aires.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) In its Article VIII, Section 5, on Members' general obligations related to furnishing information, the IMF's Constitutive Agreement specifies that

‘Members undertake to furnish the desired information in as detailed and accurate a manner as is practicable […]’.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) In particular, access to information that is as timely, complete and accurate as possible is essential for every aspect of Fund's activities, including

crisis prevention and resolution.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Regarding the provision of information according to Article VIII, Section 5 of the IMF's Agreement.

( **|**

( **|**

C 287 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008681/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Gasoduto entre Portugal e Espanha

Segundo notícias veiculadas pela Lusa, o Governo português pretende que o terceiro gasoduto entre Portugal e
Espanha seja considerado «um projeto de interesse comum» no âmbito do novo regulamento sobre redes
transeuropeias de energia e possa beneficiar de financiamento comunitário.

Após a inauguração da expansão do terminal de gás de Sines, o secretário de Estado da Energia, Artur Trindade,
explicou que a terceira interligação para o transporte de gás pode ser enquadrada no projeto europeu, porque «a partir
do momento que é para servir um eixo europeu, a fonte de financiamento também adota automaticamente uma
lógica europeia».

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem a Comissão conhecimento do referido projeto Luso-Espanhol?

2. Que avaliação faz do mesmo?

3. Prevê o financiamento do referido projeto? Em que condições?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de novembro de 2012)_

1. A Comissão tem conhecimento do projeto. Antes de mais, é de referir que o Programa Energético Europeu para
o Relançamento (EEPR) ( [1] ) atribuiu 10,7 milhões de euros para garantir o reforço e a reversibilidade da rede de gás
portuguesa, necessária para a terceira interconexão com a Espanha. Em segundo lugar, o projeto foi proposto
conjuntamente pelos operadores de sistemas de transporte espanhol (Enagas) e português (REN-Gasoduto), para ser
considerado como um potencial projeto de interesse comum.

2. Nos termos da proposta de regulamento ( [2] ), a avaliação caberá a grupos regionais a criar depois da adoção do
mesmo. Por conseguinte, é prematuro comentar o projeto.

3. É prematuro comentar qualquer projeto específico. A proposta de regulamento prevê que os projetos de
interesse comum recebam apoio financeiro da União europeia sob a forma de estudos e instrumentos financeiros. São
igualmente elegíveis para subvenções para obras em determinadas condições, ou seja, se os projetos não forem
comercialmente viáveis e demonstrarem efeitos externos positivos, tais como a segurança do aprovisionamento, a
solidariedade ou a inovação.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento (CE) n.° 663/2009 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 13 de julho de 2009, que estabelece um programa de concessão de

apoio financeiro comunitário a projetos no domínio da energia para o relançamento da economia, JO L 200 de 31.7.2009.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 658 final.

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 165

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008681/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Pipeline between Portugal and Spain

According to reports by the Portuguese news agency Lusa, the Portuguese Government is hoping that the third
pipeline between Portugal and Spain will be considered ‘a common interest project’ under new regulations on transEuropean energy networks, and will be able to benefit from Community funding.

After the completion of the Sines gas terminal expansion, the Secretary of State for Energy Artur Trindade explained
that this third line for gas transmission could be part of the European project, as ‘from the moment it serves a
European axis, funding should also take on European logic’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it aware of this project between Portugal and Spain?

2. What is its assessment of it?

3. Does it envisage funding the project? If so, under what conditions?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of this project. Firstly, the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR) ( [1] ) has
granted EUR 10.7 million to secure the reinforcement and reversibility of the Portuguese gas network, which is
necessary for the third interconnection with Spain. Secondly, this project has been jointly proposed by the Spanish
(ENAGAS) and Portuguese (REN-GASODUTO) Transmission Sysytem Operators (TSOs) to be considered as a
potential project of common interest (PCI).

2. According to the draft Regulation ( [2] ), the assessment will be carried out in the regional groups to be established
upon the adoption of the draft Regulation. It is thus premature to comment on the project.

3. It is premature to comment on any specific project. The draft Regulation foresees that PCIs are eligible to receive
European Union financial assistance in the form of studies and financial instruments. They are also eligible for grants
for works under certain conditions, i.e. if the project is not commercially viable and demonstrates positive
externalities such as security of supply, solidarity or innovation.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 663/2009 of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a programme to aid economic recovery by

granting Community financial assistance to projects in the field of energy, OJ L 200, 31.7.2009.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 658 final.

( **|**

C 287 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008682/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ FAO pede suspensão da produção americana de etanol e milho

Segundo um artigo publicado pelo jornal britânico Financial Times, o diretor geral da Organização das Nações Unidas
para a Alimentação e a Agricultura (FAO) pediu aos Estados Unidos a suspensão da produção de etanol à base de
milho para evitar uma crise alimentar mundial.

O diretor da FAO destacou que «uma suspensão imediata e temporária da legislação americana, que destina quotas
das colheitas de milho para a produção do biocombustível, daria um certo alívio ao mercado e permitiria destinar
mais grão para a alimentação humana e animal».

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual a posição da Comissão relativamente a esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão conhece o artigo do Secretariado-Geral da FAO, publicado no _Financial Times_ de 9 de agosto de 2012,
relativo à produção de etanol a partir de milho nos Estados Unidos da América, mas não se pronuncia sobre possíveis
decisões futuras do governo dos EUA sobre esta matéria.

Em 17 de outubro de 2012, a Comissão adotou uma proposta ( [1] ) com vista à redução das emissões provenientes das
alterações indiretas do uso do solo. Segundo a proposta, a quantidade de biocombustíveis da primeira geração (ou
seja, os produzidos a partir de culturas utilizadas para obter alimentos destinados à alimentação humana ou animal)
passível de ser contabilizada para efeitos das metas da Diretiva Fontes de Energia Renováveis não poderia exceder 5 %
do consumo final de energia no setor dos transportes. A Comissão propôs, igualmente, a adoção de incentivos de
mercado a favor dos biocombustíveis avançados produzidos a partir de matérias‐primas não concorrentes de culturas
alimentares, tais como algas, palha e diversos tipos de resíduos.

A União Europeia participa ativamente no debate internacional com os EUA sobre as políticas agrícola e da segurança
alimentar e nutricional, designadamente no G8, no G20 e no Comité da Segurança Alimentar Mundial. Juntamente
com os Estados Unidos da América, tem envidado esforços tendentes a evitar que os preços dos alimentos sofram
oscilações excessivas, mediante informação mais atempada, rigorosa e transparente sobre o mercado mundial, no
âmbito do sistema de informação sobre os mercados agrícolas (AMIS) preconizado pelos ministros da agricultura do
G20 em 2011.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 595 final, disponível em: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/land_use_change_en.htm

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 167

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008682/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ The FAO calls on the United States to suspend corn ethanol production

According to an article published in British newspaper _The_ _Financial Times_, the Director-General of the United Nations’
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has called on the United States to suspend corn ethanol production, to
avert a world food crisis.

The director of the FAO stated that ‘an immediate, temporary suspension of that [ethanol] mandate would give some
respite to the market and allow more of the crop to be channelled towards food and feed uses’.

Can the Commission answer the following:

What is its position on this issue?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the article by the Secretariat General of the FAO published in the _Financial Times_ on
9 August 2012 related to corn ethanol production in the U.S., but does not comment on potential future decisions of
the U.S. government on this matter.

On 17 October 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal ( [1] ) to reduce emissions from indirect land use change.
According to the proposal, the amount of first generation biofuels (i.e. biofuels produced from food and feed crops)
that can count towards the Renewable Energy Directive targets would be limited to 5% of the final energy
consumption in the transport sector. The Commission has also proposed that market incentives for advanced
biofuels produced from feedstock that are not based on food crops, including algae, straw, and various types of waste
be provided.

The EU is actively involved in policy discussions on agriculture and food and nutrition security with the United States
at an international level, including through the G8 / G20 and the Committee on World Food Security. The EU and the
United States work together on addressing excessive food price volatility through more timely, accurate and
transparent information on global markets in the framework of AMIS — an agricultural market information system
called for by G20 agriculture ministers in 2011.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 595 final. The proposal is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofuels/land_use_change_en.htm

C 287 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008683/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Conferência de Teerão propõe grupo de contacto sobre a Síria

Segundo notícias veiculadas pela imprensa portuguesa, teve lugar em Teerão uma conferência que juntou cerca de 30
países para discutir a situação na Síria. Na referida conferência foi proposta a criação de um grupo de contacto para
pôr termo à violência e promover o diálogo entre o Governo sírio e a oposição.

Segundo a imprensa internacional, chega-nos a notícia de que Teerão manifestou o desejo de incluir o Iraque e a
Venezuela neste grupo.

Pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

1. Tem conhecimento da aludida intenção?

2. Que explicação encontra na vontade de Teerão de incluir Hugo Chavez na resolução de um problema do Médio
Oriente?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(16 de janeiro de 2013)_

A UE tem conhecimento da proposta relativa à Síria expressa na Conferência de Teerão, realizada em 9 de agosto de
2012.

A UE está profundamente preocupada com a situação na Síria, tendo apelado reiteradamente ao cessar-fogo para que
assim se possa pôr fim à opressão e a toda a violência, prestar ajuda humanitária a todos os que dela necessitem, e
evitar o aumento da instabilidade na região.

Para esse efeito a Comissão apoia plenamente os esforços realizados pelo Representante Especial Conjunto das
Nações Unidas e da Liga dos Estados Árabes, Lakhdar Brahimi, relativamente à Síria. A UE salienta a necessidade de
concentrar esforços internacionais e regionais para resolver a crise síria através de uma solução política. Convida por
isso os principais intervenientes na região, incluindo o Irão, e todos os membros do Conselho de Segurança das
Nações Unidas, a assumirem as suas responsabilidades nesta questão apoiando os esforços de Brahimi. Embora todos
os esforços internacionais para resolver a crise da Síria sejam bem-vindos, estes deverão ser coordenados para garantir
que se conseguem resultados coerentes.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 169

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008683/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tehran conference on Syria proposes a contact group

According to reports in the Portuguese press, Tehran hosted a conference to discuss the situation in Syria, with
delegates from around 30 countries. At the conference it was proposed that a contact group be established to put an
end to the violence and to promote dialogue between the Syrian Government and the opposition.

According to reports in the international press, Tehran would like to include Iraq and Venezuela in this group.

Can the VP/HR answer the following:

1. Is she aware of this wish?

2. What explanation does she have for Tehran’s desire to include Hugo Chavez in the resolution of a problem in
the Middle East?

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

_(16 January 2013)_

The EU is aware of the proposal made by the Tehran conference on Syria, held on 9 August 2012.

The EU is extremely concerned with the situation in Syria, and has continuously called for a ceasefire in order to end
oppression, stop all violence, deliver humanitarian aid for all those in need, and prevent further regional instability.

To this end, it fully supports the endeavours of Lakhdar Brahimi as Joint Special Representative of the United Nations
and the League of Arab States for Syria. The EU emphasises the need to focus international and regional efforts to
solve the Syrian crisis through a political solution. It calls on key actors in the region, including Iran, and all members
of the UN Security Council, to uphold their responsibilities and support Brahimi's efforts. Whilst all international
efforts to solve the Syrian crisis are welcome, they must be coordinated to ensure a coherent outcome.

C 287 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008684/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Portugal: Subsídios para a agricultura

Segundo notícias veiculadas pela comunicação social, um estudo recentemente divulgado pela Comissão Europeia
revela que, a Grécia recebe ajudas equivalentes a 25 % da sua produção. Já Portugal, fica-se pelos 12,6 %, abaixo da
média europeia que é de 13,3 %.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual ou quais as razões para a discrepância verificada na atribuição dos subsídios para a agricultura aos diferentes
Estados-Membros?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de novembro de 2012)_

As diferenças das ajudas do setor agrícola entre os diferentes Estados‐Membros podem explicar‐se pelas diferenças
dos tipos de produção agrícola entre eles e por diferenças históricas dos regimes de apoio anteriores à criação do
regime de pagamentos diretos. No que respeita ao desenvolvimento rural, as dotações distribuídas pelos Estados‐
Membros relativas ao período 2007-2013 baseavam‐se no desempenho constatado.

Na comparação entre Estados‐Membros, é possível utilizar vários indicadores económicos, que podem revelar
resultados muito diferentes consoante a estrutura da produção agrícola de cada país. Para mais informações,
remetemos o Senhor Deputado para o relatório « _Agriculture in the European Union — Statistical and economic_
_information» (_ [1] ), especialmente o quadro 2.0.1.2.

A título de exemplo, se compararmos a despesa do Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Garantia e o «valor agrícola
acrescentado» do Estado‐Membro, em vez do seu «valor agrícola bruto», as percentagens para Portugal e a Grécia
diferem substancialmente.

Quando à política agrícola comum relativa ao período posterior a 2013, a Comissão estabeleceu o objetivo de
redução das diferenças históricas que continuam a existir em matéria de ajudas, obtendo assim uma distribuição mais
equilibrada dos pagamentos diretos entre agricultores e entre Estados‐Membros. No que respeita ao desenvolvimento
rural, a Comissão propôs a atribuição de dotações aos Estados‐Membros com base em critérios objetivos relacionados
com a política de desenvolvimento rural e o desempenho constatado.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/agricultural/2011/pdf/full-report_en.pdf

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 171

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008684/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Portugal: agricultural subsidies

The media are reporting that a study recently published by the European Commission shows Greece to be in receipt
of subsidies equivalent to 25 % of its production. Portugal, by contrast, receives 12.6 %, below the European average
of 13.3 %.

Can the Commission state:

What reason(s) it has for this discrepancy in the allocation of agricultural subsidies to the various Member States?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

The differences in the agricultural support to various Member States can be explained by the differences between the
Member States in the types of agricultural production as well as the historical differences in the support scheme prior
to the establishment of the direct payment scheme. As regards rural development, the allocation of the envelope
among Member States for the period 2007-2013 was based on past performance.

Various economic indicators may be used for comparisons between Member States, which can give very different
results depending on the agricultural production structure of the individual Member States. Further information is
available in the report ‘Agriculture in the European Union — Statistical and economic information’ ( [1] ), in particular in
Table 2.0.1.2.

As an example, when comparing the expenditure of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund with the ‘agricultural
value added’ of Member States instead of their ‘gross agriculture value’, the percentages for Portugal and Greece differ
significantly.

For the reform of the common agricultural policy for the period after 2013, the Commission has set the objective to
reduce the historical differences in the support level that still exist today and thus achieve a more balanced
distribution of the direct payments among farmers and among Member States. For rural development, the
Commission has proposed to allocate the envelope among Member States based on objective criteria related to the
rural development policy as well as past performance.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/agricultural/2011/pdf/full-report_en.pdf

C 287 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008685/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Investigadores brasileiros criam plantas resistentes à seca

Segundo notícia veiculada pela comunicação social brasileira, investigadores brasileiros estão a testar em laboratório
plantas transgénicas capazes de resistir a longos períodos de seca, numa resposta às alterações climáticas. Esta
descoberta será agora testada em cinco culturas comerciais, entre elas alguns dos principais produtos de exportação
brasileira: cana-de-açúcar, soja, arroz, trigo e algodão.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. Quais as garantias dadas pela Comissão acerca da segurança na importação dos referidos produtos do Brasil
para a UE?

3. Está em condições de garantir a segurança daqueles produtos, assim geneticamente modificados?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento de que estão a ser realizadas investigações a uma série de culturas geneticamente
modificadas para resistir à seca no Brasil, mas não tem conhecimento dos detalhes mencionados pelo Senhor
Deputado.

De acordo com o Regulamento (CE) n. [o] 1829/2003 ( [1] ) relativa a géneros alimentícios e alimentos para animais
geneticamente modificados, os OGM só podem ser importados na UE após a concessão da autorização de introdução
no mercado da UE. O procedimento de autorização é bastante rigoroso e inclui uma avaliação exaustiva por parte da
Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos (AESA) dos riscos potenciais do produto OGM para a saúde
humana e animal e para o ambiente. Os OGM mencionados pelo Senhor Deputado não serão, portanto, importados
sem antes serem submetidos com êxito ao processo de avaliação do risco e de serem autorizados na UE.

Além disso, os Estados-Membros têm de garantir que as inspeções e outras medidas de controlo, incluindo controlos
por amostragem e testes com base nos critérios estabelecidos, são efetuadas para assegurar a conformidade com a
legislação em matéria de OGM.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 268 de 18.10.2003.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 173

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008685/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Brazilian researchers develop drought-resistant plants

According to news published by the Brazilian media, Brazilian researchers are carrying out laboratory tests on
transgenic plants capable of resisting long periods of drought, in response to climate change. This discovery will now
be tested on five commercial crops, including some of the main Brazilian export products: sugarcane, soy, rice, wheat
and cotton.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it aware of this situation?

2. What guarantees can the Commission provide regarding the safety of the aforementioned Brazilian export
products coming into the EU?

3. Is it able to guarantee the safety of these genetically modified products?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware that research on a series of GM drought tolerant crops is being carried out in Brazil, but is
not aware of the details referred to by the Honourable Member.

According to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 ( [1] ) on GMO food and feed, GMOs can be imported in the EU only after
having been granted an EU marketing authorisation. The authorisation procedure is very strict, and includes a
thorough assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of the potential risks of the GM product on
human and animal health and on the environment. The GMOs mentioned by the Honourable Member will therefore
not be imported before having successfully completed this stringent risk assessment process and be authorised in
the EU.

Furthermore, the Member States have to ensure that inspections and other control measures, including sample checks
and testing as appropriate, are carried out to ensure compliance with the GMO legislation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

C 287 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008686/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Descoberta de novo método de diagnóstico da leucemia

Segundo informou recentemente a Agência Brasil, cientistas do Brasil e dos Estados Unidos desenvolveram um novo
método para o diagnóstico da leucemia, mais rápido e preciso, que antecipará o início do tratamento contra a doença.

O novo método, ao contrário dos atuais, que analisam as células uma a uma, permitirá estudar ao mesmo tempo
cerca de 30 mil células.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta importante descoberta?

2. Possui quaisquer dados que confirmem estas conclusões?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(9 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento da publicação a que se refere o Senhor Deputado, elaborada pelo «National Institutes
of Health» nos Estados Unidos e a Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto no Brasil ( [1] ).

A investigação no domínio das abordagens de diagnóstico e terapêuticas da leucemia tem vindo a ser financiada ao
abrigo do Sexto e Sétimo Programas-Quadro de Investigação e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (6.° PQ, 2002-2006 —
7.° PQ, 2007-2013), tendo sido afetados até à data aproximadamente 35 milhões de euros. O projeto Diatools ( [2] ),
destinado a caracterizar biomarcadores na leucemia, linfomas e tumores sólidos, está a desenvolver abordagens de
diagnóstico similares (a citometria de fluxo), como as referidas pelo Senhor Deputado.

A avaliação da natureza replicativa da investigação, bem como do seu valor e impacto potencial está a ser efetuada
pela própria comunidade científica através de um processo de publicações em revistas científicas objeto de revisões
pelos pares. Por conseguinte, a Comissão não está em condições de confirmar os dados citados pelo Senhor
Deputado.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/early/2012/08/29/blood-2012-05-434266.abstract
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.diatools.org/

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 175

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008686/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Development of a new method to diagnose leukaemia

According to Agência Brasil [the Brazilian national broadcasting agency], scientists from Brazil and the United States
have developed a new, faster and more precise method of diagnosing leukaemia, that will allow for earlier treatment
for those with the disease.

Unlike traditional methods that analyse individual cells, the new method will allow the simultaneous study of around
30 000 cells.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it aware of this important discovery?

2. Does it have any data that confirms these findings?

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

_(9 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the publication mentioned by the Honourable Member, performed by the National
Institutes of Health in the United States and the Ribeirão Preto Medical School in Brazil ( [1] ).

Research on diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for leukaemia has been funded across the Sixth and Seventh
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development (FP6, 2002-2006 — FP7, 2007‐2013) with
some EUR 35 million currently devoted so far. The project DIATOOLS ( [2] ), aimed at characterising biomarkers in
leukaemia, lymphoma and solid tumours, is developing similar diagnostic approaches (flow cytometry) as those
referred to by the Honourable Member.

The assessment of the replicative nature of research as well as of its value and potential impact is done by the scientific
community itself through a process of peer reviewed publications in scientific journals. The Commission is therefore
not in a position to confirm the data referred to by the Honourable Member.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/early/2012/08/29/blood-2012-05-434266.abstract.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.diatools.org/.

C 287 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008687/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Reino Unido — Ajuda de cinco milhões de libras aos rebeldes sírios

O Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros britânico, William Hague, anunciou recentemente uma ajuda suplementar de
cinco milhões de libras para comunicações e material médico aos rebeldes sírios.

A intenção do Ministro britânico é «aprofundar relações com todos os grupos políticos que preparam um futuro sem
Assad» e «ajudá-los a unirem-se e a apresentarem uma alternativa política».

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual é a posição da UE relativamente à ajuda financeira a rebeldes neste ou em outros conflitos?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de novembro de 2012)_

A UE tem insistido em que uma oposição coordenada e abrangente é essencial para se iniciar uma transição política.
A UE continua a apelar todos os grupos da oposição, no interior e no exterior da Síria, a esquecerem as suas
divergências e a chegarem a acordo sobre um conjunto de princípios comuns, bem como a começarem a trabalhar no
sentido de uma economia inclusiva, e uma transição harmoniosa e pacífica na Síria.

A UE continuará a trabalhar em estreita ligação com a Liga dos Estados Árabes e a facilitar as iniciativas de diálogo, de
modo a complementar os seus esforços para incentivar a oposição a formar uma plataforma inclusiva. Todos os sírios
devem ter um lugar na nova Síria e desfrutar de igualdade de direitos, independentemente da sua origem, filiação
política, religião, crenças ou género.

A UE continua empenhada em cooperar estreitamente e de forma global com parceiros internacionais no sentido de
assegurar um rápido apoio à Síria é dado rapidamente logo que a transição tenha lugar. A UE também se
comprometeu a reforçar o seu apoio ao reforço da capacidade da sociedade civil para participar na futura Síria.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 177

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008687/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ United Kingdom — Five million pounds in aid to the Syrian rebels

The British Foreign Minister, William Hague, has recently announced additional aid of five million pounds for
communications and medical supplies to the Syrian rebels.

The purpose of the British Minister is to strengthen the relationships with all the political groups preparing for a
future without Assad and to help them unite and present a political alternative.

Can the Commission answer the following question:

What is the EU’s position regarding financial aid to rebels in this or other conflicts?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The EU has repeatedly recalled that an inclusive and coordinated opposition is essential to start a political transition.
The EU continues to urge all opposition groups, inside and outside Syria, to put aside their differences and to agree on
a set of shared principles and start working towards an inclusive, orderly and peaceful transition in Syria.

The EU will continue to work closely with the League of Arab States and facilitate further dialogue initiatives to
complement its efforts to encourage the opposition towards forming an inclusive platform. All Syrians must have a
place in the new Syria and enjoy equal rights, regardless of their origin, affiliations, religion, beliefs of gender.

The EU remains committed to working closely and comprehensively with international partners to ensure rapid
support to Syria once transition takes place. The EU also commits to strengthening its support in building the
capacity of civil society to participate in a future Syria.

C 287 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008688/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Síria — Arsenal Químico

Recentemente, tem sido veiculado pela comunicação social internacional que o Governo sírio possa estar na
iminência de utilizar o seu arsenal químico contra os seus opositores, fazendo com que o até agora conflito interno
passe a ter a intervenção de países terceiros.

Pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Como avalia a esta ameaça?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de novembro de 2012)_

A UE advertiu as autoridades sírias de que a crescente militarização e a radicalização do conflito e da violência sectária
só podem trazer mais sofrimento ao país, havendo o risco de ter um impacto trágico na região.

A intensificação da violência e a série de ataques terroristas ocorridos demonstram a necessidade urgente de uma
transição política que vá ao encontro das aspirações democráticas do povo sírio e que traga estabilidade à Síria. A este
respeito, a União Europeia está profundamente preocupada com o aumento do afluxo de armas ao país, tendo instado
todos os Estados a absterem-se de fornecer armas ao país.

A UE também está seriamente preocupada com a potencial utilização de armas químicas na Síria. Por essa razão
acompanha de perto os acontecimentos no país e mantém-se em contacto com a Organização para a Proibição das
Armas Químicas (OPAQ). Esta organização tem vindo a preparar-se para fornecer qualquer assistência que possa ser
pedida pelas Nações Unidas a este respeito.

A Síria não é parte contratante na Convenção Sobre as Armas Químicas, apesar dos apelos feitos pela OPAQ durante
os últimos dez anos. Contudo, a UE faz notar que a Síria é parte no Protocolo de Genebra de 1925, que proíbe a
utilização de métodos químicos e bacteriológicos para fins bélicos, tendo ratificado sem reservas, esse Protocolo em
1968. A Síria renunciou assim formalmente à utilização de armas químicas ou biológicas contra qualquer Estado,
tanto para efeitos ofensivos, como para fins de retaliação.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 179

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008688/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President / High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria — Chemical arsenal

News has recently been channelled through international social media that the Syrian government might be on the
verge of using its chemical arsenal against its opponents, resulting in the intervention of third countries in what is
currently an internal conflict.

Can the VP/HR answer the following question:

What is its assessment of this threat?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The EU has warned the Syrian authorities against further militarisation and radicalisation of the conflict and sectarian
violence which can only bring further suffering to Syria and risks having a tragic impact in the region.

The intensification of violence and the series of terrorist attacks demonstrate the urgent need for a political transition
that would meet the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people and bring stability to Syria. In this regard, the EU is
deeply concerned about the increasing influx of weapons into Syria and has called on all States to refrain from
delivering arms to the country.

The EU is seriously concerned about the potential use of chemical weapons in Syria. It is following closely the
developments in Syria and is in contact with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
which has been preparing for any assistance it may be asked to provide to the UN in this respect.

Syria is not Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) despite the calls made by OPCW over the past
10 years. The EU notes, however, that Syria is a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of chemical
and bacteriological methods of warfare. It ratified the Protocol in 1968 without reservations. Thus, Syria has formally
renounced both first and retaliatory use of chemical or biological weapons against any State.

C 287 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008689/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Ataques a embaixadas dos EUA

Depois do ataque à embaixada norte-americana em Bengazi, que vitimou o próprio embaixador, e dos confrontos à
porta da embaixada do Cairo, agora surge a notícia da invasão da embaixada dos EUA em Sanaa, no Iémen.

Da mesma forma, conhecem-se ameaças após a publicação de caricaturas de Maomé em França.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Qual o grau de risco, nas reações aos casos indicados, dentro da UE?

**Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de novembro de 2012)_

Tal como referido nas respostas às perguntas escritas E-009410/11, E-011087/11, E-012195/11/12, E-03294/12 e
E-03426/12 ( [1] ), a Comissão não avalia os riscos ou perigos provenientes de grupos ou indivíduos extremistas.

No que diz respeito ao grau de risco associado às reações aos casos indicados na pergunta, a capacidade operacional
para avaliar o perigo destas potenciais ameaças e da competência dos Estados-Membros.

No entanto, a Comissão está preocupada com as possíveis consequências que este tipo de eventos pode causar,
nomeadamente com a possível ameaça do extremismo violento e da radicalização. Neste domínio, o papel da
Comissão é apoiar os Estados-Membros no desenvolvimento de mecanismos de prevenção e de políticas que
permitam a deteção precoce de sinais de radicalização ou de ameaças associadas a estes «eventos desencadeadores»,
nomeadamente através da rede de sensibilização para a radicalização. Uma descrição completa e pormenorizada da
rede é apresentada na resposta às perguntas escritas E-08264/11 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Disponível em (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ibid.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 181

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008689/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ US embassy attacks

Following the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, which caused the death of the ambassador, and the clashes
outside the gate of the embassy in Cairo, news is now emerging that the US embassy in Sana’a, Yemen, has been
breached.

There have also been threats following the publication of caricatures of Muhammad in France.

Can the Commission state:

What are the dangers associated with reactions to the aforementioned cases within the EU?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 November 2012)_

As pointed out in the answers to written questions E-009410/11, E-011087/11, E-012195/11, E-03294/12 and
E-03426/12 ( [1] ), the Commission does not assess threats or dangers coming from extremist groups or individuals.

As for the risks associated with reactions to the cases mentioned in the question, in terms of danger, the operational
capacity to assess potential related threats lies in the hand of the Member States.

However, the Commission is concerned about the consequences that this kind of events can provoke, particularly on
the possible threat of violent extremism and radicalisation. In this area, the Commission’s role is to assist Member
States in developing prevention mechanisms and policy, to allow the early detection of signs of radicalisation or
threats related to those ‘trigger events’, notably through the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN). A full detailed
description of the Network is presented in the answer to written questions E-08264/11 ( [2] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ibid.

C 287 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008691/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Estudo do FMI sobre a concentração na banca

De acordo com um estudo do FMI feito em 58 países entre 1998 e 2010, um sistema bancário com muitos bancos
estrangeiros é mais suscetível de criar instabilidade e de prejudicar a economia. Esse estudo defende que um sistema
concentrado é menos passível de criar crises.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento deste estudo?

2. Tem a intenção de analisar este estudo, para que se possam evitar crises futuras no sistema bancário?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de novembro de 2012)_

A análise incluída na «Global Financial Stability Reform» de outubro, citada pelo Senhor Deputado, apresenta ideias
sobre a forma como as estruturas financeiras em mutação estão relacionadas com os resultados económicos e a
estabilidade financeira. Sugere que uma única estrutura financeira não é a melhor solução em quaisquer
circunstâncias. A Comissão partilha este ponto de vista. A UE é composta por países cujos mercados financeiros são
caracterizados por tradições e sistemas jurídicos diferentes. A Comissão pondera, relativamente a qualquer iniciativa
legislativa que toma, as vantagens decorrentes da adoção de um regulamento, que aplica regras harmonizadas em
toda a União (por exemplo, o conjunto único de regras aplicável ao quadro regulamentar financeiro uniforme na UE),
em detrimento de uma diretiva, que é transposta para o ordenamento jurídico dos Estados-Membros de acordo com
as circunstâncias locais.

No que diz respeito à presença de bancos estrangeiros num sistema financeiro, a Comissão concorda com a opinião
expressa no relatório do FMI, segundo a qual as ligações transfronteiriças através de bancos estrangeiros são, de modo
geral, benéficas, podendo constituir, em caso de crise, um canal de transmissão de choques. Por conseguinte, a
Comissão tem participado em várias iniciativas destinadas a acompanhar e apoiar a atividade bancária transfronteiras
na UE, que vão desde os testes de resistência da EBA até à Iniciativa de «Viena» relativa à Coordenação Bancária
Europeia, incluindo o setor financeiro em programas de assistência financeira, sempre que necessário. Por último, a
Comissão continuará a trabalhar para reforçar a regulamentação e supervisão a nível nacional, europeu e mundial, em
consonância com as conclusões do relatório e a sua própria agenda para uma União Bancária.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 183

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008691/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ International Monetary Fund (IMF) study on concentrated banking systems

According to an IMF study carried out in 58 countries between 1998 and 2010, a banking system containing many
foreign banks is more likely to create instability and harm the economy. This study argues that crises are less likely to
occur in a concentrated system.

Therefore, I ask the Commission:

1. Is it aware of this study?

2. Will it analyse this study to avoid future banking system crises?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

The analysis included in the October Global Financial Stability Reform, referred to by the Honourable Member,
presents ideas about how the evolving financial structures relate to economic outcomes and financial stability. It
suggests that no single financial structure is best under all circumstances. The Commission shares this view. The EU
consists of countries whose financial markets feature different level of, traditions and legal systems. For any legislative
initiative it is undertaking, the Commission is weighting the benefits of a regulation, which applies harmonised rules
across the Union (e.g. the Single Rulebook for uniform financial regulatory framework in the EU), versus a directive,
which is implemented in the Member States' legal orders according to local circumstances.

As far as the presence of foreign banks in a financial system is concerned, the Commission agrees with the view
presented in the IMF report that cross-border connections through foreign banks are generally beneficial whereas in a
crisis they can constitute a shock transmission channel. Therefore, the Commission has been involved in many
initiatives aimed at monitoring and supporting cross border banking in the EU, ranging from the EBA stress tests and
the European Banking Coordination ‘Vienna’ Initiative, including financial sector into financial assistance
programmes, where necessary. Finally, the Commission will continue the work on strengthening of domestic,
European and global regulation and supervision, in line with the report's conclusion and its own agenda for a Banking
Union.

C 287 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008692/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ «Stock» de sardinha na costa ibérica

Nos últimos anos tem havido uma diminuição para cerca de metade do «stock» de sardinha na costa ibérica.

Segundo noticiou recentemente o jornal Público, «os desembarques de peixe dos barcos pesqueiros portugueses
desceram 11 % entre janeiro e julho deste ano, em comparação com o mesmo período do ano passado, e a sardinha,
que é geralmente a espécie mais pescada nas águas portuguesas, foi a principal responsável por esta quebra».

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. Possui algum estudo que revele as causas da baixa capacidade de renovação dos «stocks» de sardinha ibérica?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento do nível relativamente baixo dos «stocks» de sardinha nos últimos anos.

A sardinha é uma espécie pelágica de vida curta, cujos «stocks» ( [1] ) conhecem grandes flutuações naturais de uns anos
para os outros, devidas sobretudo a variações do recrutamento ( [2] ) resultantes de fatores ambientais. De acordo com o
parecer do Conselho Internacional de Exploração do Mar (CIEM) ( [3] ), o recrutamento de sardinha tem‐se situado
abaixo da média a longo prazo desde 2005. A mortalidade por pesca ( [4] ) (principal fator de influência da situação dos
«stocks» de sardinha) aumentou entre 2007 e 2010. Em 2012, Portugal e a Espanha acordaram num plano de gestão
para conter a mortalidade por pesca. A Comissão acompanha de perto a aplicação deste plano, bem como a avaliação
da CIEM sobre as vantagens que o mesmo possa apresentar em termos de conservação e, sendo caso disso, adotará
medidas de salvaguarda do «stock» de sardinha, no sentido de manter a exploração a níveis capazes de gerar
rendimento máximo sustentável (RMS) ( [5] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) População de uma dada espécie que constitui uma unidade reprodutiva e desova raramente ou nunca com outras unidades. O «stock» total

abrange juvenis e adultos e a biomassa do «stock» de desova incide na população adulta.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Por «recrutamento» entende-se a quantidade de peixe adicionada à parte explorável da população, em resultado do crescimento do peixe (de

juvenis para adultos).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Parecer do CIEM, 2012, Livro 7.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Exprime o ritmo do esgotamento dos «stocks» por operações de pesca.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Teoricamente, o rendimento (ou captura) máximo que é possível obter das existências de uma espécie durante um período ilimitado. É a

exploração sustentável máxima de um recurso renovável sem pôr em perigo a sua renovação por crescimento e reprodução naturais.

( **|**

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

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008692/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Sardine stocks off the Iberian coast

In recent years, sardine stocks along the Iberian coast have almost halved.

According to a recent report in the newspaper Público, fish caught by Portuguese fishing boats shrank by 11 %
between January and July this year compared to the same period last year. Sardines, generally the most fished species
in Portuguese waters, were the main cause of this decline.

Can the Commission state:

1. Is it aware of this situation?

2. Are there any studies explaining the reasons for Iberian sardines’ low replenishment capacity?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 November 2012)_

The Commission is well aware of the relative low level of the sardine stock over the last years.

Sardine is a short-lived pelagic fish. Its stock ( [1] ) experiences natural large inter-annual fluctuations in abundance
caused mainly by variations in recruitment ( [2] ) driven by environmental factors. According to the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) ( [3] ) sardine recruitment has been below the long term average since 2005.
Fishing mortality ( [4] ), the other major factor influencing the state of the sardine stock, has increased from 2007 to
2010. To contain fishing mortality, in 2012 Portugal and Spain agreed on a plan to manage the fishery. The
Commission is following closely the implementation this management plan as well as ICES assessment on its
conservation merits and, as appropriate, will take measures to ensure that the sardine stock is exploited at levels
capable of generating maximum sustainable yield (MSY) ( [5] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The population of a given species that forms a reproductive unit and spawns little if at all with other units. The total stock refers to both juveniles

and adults, while spawning stock biomass refers to the adult population.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Recruitment is the number of new fish added to the exploitable portion of the stock resulting from growth of juvenile fish into adults.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ICES Advice 2012, Book 7.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) An expression of the rate at which fish are removed from the stock from fishing operations.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Theoretically the largest yield (or catch) that can be taken from a species stock over an infinite period of time. It is the maximum use that a

renewable resource can sustain without impairing its renewability trough natural growth and reproduction.

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

C 287 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008696/12**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter — Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**

**Thijs Berman (S&D)**

_(28 september 2012)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — veroordelingen wegens hekserij in Saudi-Arabië

De afgelopen maanden is er in het nieuws herhaaldelijk melding gemaakt van de opsluiting en terechtstelling van
mensen in Saudi-Arabië. Zo werd er in april een Sri Lankaanse vrouw aangehouden omdat zij een dertienjarig meisje
zou hebben behekst, en in juni werd een Saudi-Arabische man op beschuldiging van hekserij onthoofd.

Volgens Amnesty Internatio.a. staat in Saudi-Arabië op een brede waaier aan vergrijpen — gaande van moord tot
hekserij en zelfs homoseksualiteit — de doodstraf. Vreemd genoeg worden hekserij en toverij niet als misdaden
beschouwd.

1. Is de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de EU op de hoogte van deze veroordelingen in Saudi-Arabië?

2. Spreekt de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de EU op regelmatige basis over de mensenrechten met de
Saudi-Arabische overheid?

3. Is de kwestie van de doodstraf, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot veroordelingen wegens hekserij, in het kader van
deze gesprekken onlangs aan bod gekomen?

4. Indien ja: welk standpunt heeft de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de EU ingenomen en wat was het
resultaat hiervan?

5. Indien nee: kan de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de EU uitleggen waarom deze kwestie niet ter
sprake is gekomen?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(27 november 2012)_

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter en haar diensten zijn op de hoogte van de door het geachte Parlementslid
genoemde feiten. Er worden regelmatig gesprekken gehouden met Saudi-Arabië en andere Golfstaten over
mensenrechten en fundamentele vrijheden, ook in het kader van de institutionele vergaderingen tussen de EU en de
Samenwerkingsraad van de Golf (GCC), zoals de recentste gezamenlijke raad en ministeriële bijeenkomst tussen
de EU en de GCC op 25 juni 2012 in Luxemburg.

De EU gebruikt elke gelegenheid, zowel publiekelijk als tijdens de verschillende formele en informele vergaderingen
en contacten, om aan Saudi-Arabië duidelijk te maken dat zij zeer principieel is over de doodstraf en dat zij bezorgd is
over het hoge aantal personen dat wordt terechtgesteld in het koninkrijk. De EU vraagt Saudi-Arabië regelmatig om
ten minste de mogelijkheid van een moratorium op terechtstellingen te overwegen. Wanneer zij worden
geconfronteerd met dit verzoek, stellen de Saudische autoriteiten dat de doodstraf deel uitmaakt van hun cultuur,
traditie en godsdienst en dat het islamitische recht niet kan worden veranderd.

Ondanks deze moeilijkheden zal de EU haar uiterste best blijven doen om haar dialoog over deze thema's met SaudiArabië en de Golfstaten voort te zetten. De EU-mensenrechtenstrategie stelt de kwestie van de uitvoering van
minimale internationale normen inzake procesvoering, met inbegrip van het afschaffen van de doodstraf voor
jongeren, in Saudi-Arabië als een doel op korte termijn.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 187

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008696/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Thijs Berman (S&D)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Convictions for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia

Over the past months there have been recurrent news reports on the imprisonment and execution of people in Saudi
Arabia. For example, a Sri Lankan woman was arrested on suspicion of casting a spell on a 13-year old girl in April,
and a Saudi man was beheaded on charges of sorcery and witchcraft in June.

According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia applies the death penalty to a wide range of offences, from murder
to sorcery and even homosexuality. Surprisingly, the charges of witchcraft and sorcery are not defined as crimes.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of these convictions in Saudi Arabia?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative have a regular human rights dialogue with the Government of Saudi
Arabia?

3. Has the issue of the death penalty, in particular in relation to the convictions for sorcery and witchcraft, recently
been discussed within this dialogue?

4. If so, what message did the Vice-President/High Representative convey and what has been the result?

5. If not, could the Vice-President/High Representative explain why this has not been done?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

The HR/VP and her services are well aware of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member. Exchanges of views on
human rights and fundamental freedoms with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries take place regularly,
including in the context of the institutional meetings between the EU and the Gulf Cooperation Council, such as the
latest EU-GCC Joint Council and Ministerial Meeting that took place in Luxembourg on 25 June 2012.

The EU uses every opportunity to flag to Saudi Arabia, whether publicly or in the different formal and informal
meetings and contacts, its principled line on death penalty and its concerns over the high number of individuals
executed in the Kingdom. The EU regularly asks Saudi Arabia to consider at least the possibility of a moratorium on
executions. When confronted with this request, the Saudi authorities argue that death penalty is enshrined in their
culture, tradition and religion and that the Islamic law cannot be changed.

In spite of these difficulties, the EU will continue to do its utmost to pursue its dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf countries on these topics. The EU human rights strategy sets out the short-term objective on the issue of Saudi
Arabia’s implementation of minimum international trial standards, including the elimination of juvenile death
penalty.

C 287 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008697/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Thijs Berman (S&D)**

_(28 september 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Follow-up — subsidie voor de bananensector in Kameroen

In haar antwoord op schriftelijke vraag nr. E-005777/2012 verklaart de Commissie dat zij momenteel de ontwerplandenstrategie voor Kameroen voorbereidt en dat zij er tijdens deze redactiefase voor zal zorgen dat in overleg tussen
de Commissie, de regering van Kameroen en de belanghebbenden sociale en milieu-indicatoren worden vastgesteld.

1. Kan de Commissie uitleggen welke belanghebbenden zij bedoelt? Gaat het onder andere om vakbonden van
werknemers in de bananensector? Indien niet, kan de Commissie uitleggen waarom deze vakbonden niet bij het
overleg worden betrokken?

2. In haar antwoord verwijst de Commissie naar een aantal studies en evaluaties dat sinds het eind van de jaren ’90 is
ondernomen. Kan zij aangeven of deze studies en evaluaties openbaar zijn gemaakt en waar het publiek ze kan
vinden?

**Antwoord van de heer Piebalgs namens de Commissie**

_(14 november 2012)_

1. Wat betreft de betrokkenheid van belanghebbenden werd de bezorgdheid van de vakbonden en de
afgevaardigden van het personeel inzake de problematiek van de bananensector in Kameroen beschreven en
geconsolideerd in de geactualiseerde nationale strategie van de sector (2010-2019) ( [1] ) . De nationale strategie werd
vervolgens gebruikt als leidraad bij het opstellen van de meerjarenstrategie voor de steun aan de bananensector van
Kameroen. Bij de voorbereiding van de documenten inzake de steunmaatregelen voor bananen werden de indicatoren
voor sociale en ecologische impact beschouwd als integrerend onderdeel van de totale steun die gepland is voor de

sector.

2. De toegang tot evaluatiestudies en verslagen wordt geregeld in Verordening (EG) nr. 1049/2001 inzake de
toegang van het publiek tot documenten van het Parlement, de Raad en de Commissie. De EU-delegatie in Yaoundé,
alsook de diensten van de Commissie in Brussel, zullen elk verzoek om toegang tot documenten overeenkomstig de
geldende regelgeving bekijken. Een lijst van de beschikbare documenten van de delegatie in Yaoundé en van de
Commissie is als bijlage toegevoegd. Bovendien kan het geachte parlementslid de volgende website raadplegen:
[http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports_by_year_en.htm voor de verslagen die](http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports_by_year_en.htm)
rechtstreeks toegankelijk zijn voor het publiek.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Nota nr.704 van 3 juni 2012 van de EU-delegatie in Kameroen aan de Commissie te Brussel.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 189

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008697/12**

**to the Commission**
**Thijs Berman (S&D)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up — grant to Cameroonian banana sector

In its answer to Written Question E‐005777/2012, the Commission states that it is currently drafting the country
strategy for Cameroon and during this formulation stage it will assure that social and environmental indicators will be
jointly agreed by the Commission, the Government of Cameroon and stakeholders.

1. Could the Commission explain which stakeholders it is referring to? Are banana workers’ unions among these
stakeholders? If not, could the Commission explain why these unions are not involved?

2. In its answer, the Commission refers to a number of studies and evaluations that have been carried out since the
end of the 1990s. Could the Commission indicate if these studies and evaluations have been made public, and where
the public would be able to find them?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M. Piebalgs au nom de la Commission**

_(14 novembre 2012)_

1. Concernant l'implication des parties prenantes, les préoccupations des syndicats et délégués du personnel sur les
problématiques de la filière bananière du Cameroun ont été communiquées et consolidées dans la stratégie nationale
actualisée de la filière (2010-2019) ( [1] ). La stratégie nationale a ensuite servi de fil conducteur à la rédaction de la
stratégie pluriannuelle d'appui au secteur bananier (MSS) du Cameroun. Dans la préparation des documents relatifs
aux Mesures d'Appui à la Banane (MAB), les indicateurs d'impact environnemental et social ont été considérés comme
partie intégrante de l'intervention globale envisagée pour la filière.

2. L'accès aux études et aux rapports d'évaluation est régi par le règlement (CE) n° 1049/2001 relatif à l'accès du
public aux documents du Parlement, du Conseil et de la Commission. La Délégation de l'Union européenne à
Yaoundé ainsi que les services de la Commission à Bruxelles restent à la disposition des personnes intéressées pour
analyser toute demande d'accès aux documents conformément à la réglementation en vigueur. Une liste des
documents disponibles à la Délégation à Yaoundé et à la Commission est jointe en annexe. Par ailleurs, l'Honorable
Parlementaire voudra bien se référer au site suivant:
[(http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports_by_year_en.htm)](http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/reports_by_year_en.htm)
pour les rapports directement accessibles au public.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Note n° 704 du 3 juin 2012 de la Délégation de l'UE au Cameroun à la Commission à Bruxelles.

C 287 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008698/12**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Legal case in Croatia involving a Serbian constituent (follow-up)

Following my Written Question E‐006856/2012, could the Commission confirm:

1. Whether it plans to investigate any possible discrimination by the Croatian legal system against people of
Serbian origin?

2. Whether it intends to take any steps to ensure that the Croatian authorities conclude my constituent’s case and
other outstanding court cases involving ethnic Serbs in a speedy and unbiased manner?

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

_(4 December 2012)_

The European Commission continues to closely monitor Croatia's compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria
for accession, which include the principle of rule of law as well as respect for and protection of minorities. In its last
Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Croatia, published on 10 October 2012, the Commission stressed the need for
Croatia to continue fostering a spirit of tolerance towards minorities, in particular Croatian Serbs resident in Croatia,
and to take measures to protect those who may still be subjected to acts of discrimination. At the same time, the
Commission also reiterated its call upon Croatia to ensure that the country meets the commitments it undertook
during its accession negotiations and to continue its efforts to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, including the
reduction of the backlog of unresolved court cases. The Commission however does not intervene in individual cases.

In line with the Act of Accession, the Commission will continue to monitor developments with regard to the nondiscrimination of minorities and in the judicial sector of Croatia until the latter's accession to the EU, envisaged for
1 July 2013. It will maintain a close dialogue with Croatia with a view to guiding and assisting the country in its
efforts to address any issues of concern. In Spring 2013 the Commission will again report on Croatia's state of
preparedness for EU membership.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 191

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008699/12**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Pricing of medicines in Europe

I have been contacted by a constituent who tells me that the retail price of his medication varies by as much as 400%
between different EU Member States.

Could the Commission confirm:

1. if it has any plans to complete the single market in pharmaceutical products by ensuring that medicines can be
traded across national borders at a competitive price without any subsidy or price regulation by national
governments?

2. that when additional charges are imposed on consumers, such as prescription charges, the levels of these
additional charges are transparent and clear to consumers at the point of sale?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The organisation of the social security systems and the funding of healthcare services fall within the responsibility of
each Member State ( [1] ) . It is, therefore, up to each Member State to set the prices of medicinal products and in
particular their retail prices.

With regard to the specificities of the pharmaceutical market, most Member States have price regulations in place in
order to ensure access to affordable medicines for their patients. One important step towards a better functioning of
the internal market is Council Directive 89/105/EEC ( [2] ) which lays down a series of procedural rules applicable to any
national measure regulating prices ( [3] ) of medicines and their inclusion in the scope of health insurance systems. This is
meant to ensure that there are common procedural rules at EU level that ensure that the principle of nondiscrimination is respected. Directive 89/105/EEC is currently being reviewed ( [4] ) .

As to Directive 98/6/EC ( [5] ), its Article 4 lays down that the selling price must be unambiguous, easily identifiable and
clearly legible.

However, besides these rules, the Commission cannot intervene in an area of national competences to determine the
prices of medicinal products or the retail prices.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 168(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for

human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems [1989] OJ L40/8.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Ex-factory price and not the retail price.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal

products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of public health insurance systems COM(2012) 84 final.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of

products offered to consumers.

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

( **|**

C 287 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008700/12**

**à la Commission**
**Franck Proust (PPE)**

_(28 septembre 2012)_

_Objet:_ Grande vitesse: ouverture à la concurrence

L'ouverture progressive à la concurrence des liaisons à grande vitesse amène plus de flexibilité et de visibilité pour les
usagers. Elle peut être aussi une source de problèmes quant à l'obligation de service public. Comme, par exemple,
quand la compagnie historique décide de concentrer ses investissements au profit de la grande vitesse plutôt qu'au
désenclavement des territoires.

1. Quels sont les premiers enseignements tirés par la Commission de l'ouverture à la concurrence dans le secteur
ferroviaire?

2. Quel état des lieux fait-elle spécifiquement pour la grande vitesse?

3. La mise en concurrence a-t-elle permis une amélioration de la tarification, pour les liaisons nationales? Et
internationales?

**Réponse donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission**

_(20 novembre 2012)_

L'ouverture des marchés dans le secteur du transport ferroviaire de passagers en vertu du droit de l'Union n'est
applicable que depuis janvier 2010 et se limite aux services internationaux. Néanmoins, plusieurs États membres ont
pris l'initiative de libéraliser leur marché national du transport de passagers, y compris sur les lignes à grande vitesse.
Cette ouverture à la concurrence des marchés nationaux s'est traduite par une amélioration sensible des performances
du transport ferroviaire de passagers au Royaume-Uni et en Suède, au cours des quinze dernières années.

L'expérience récente d'opérateurs nationaux de transport à grande vitesse, tels que NTV en Italie, montre que le
développement de nouveaux services d'accès libre («open access») a eu une incidence positive sur la qualité et la
fréquence des services, sur le volume du trafic, ainsi que sur le prix des billets. Des estimations préliminaires indiquent
que la politique d'optimisation de la recette unitaire («yield management») introduite par NTV sur la ligne Rome-Milan
a conduit à des réductions de prix allant jusqu'à 70 %. L'utilisation de l'infrastructure de la ligne à grande vitesse
Rome-Milan est presque deux fois supérieure à celle de la ligne Madrid-Barcelone; les deux itinéraires couvrent
presque la même distance et sont parmi les plus empruntés en Europe (les deux liaisons figurent aussi parmi les cinq
liaisons aériennes les plus empruntées).

De la même manière, l'expérience des services internationaux d'Eurostar entre le Royaume‐Uni et la France montre
également que la coexistence de services d'accès libre pour les grandes lignes et de services publics pour les liaisons
non rentables présente des avantages réciproques, puisque le développement d'un type de trafic peut se répercuter de
manière positive sur l'autre.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 193

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008700/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franck Proust (PPE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Opening up high-speed rail lines to competition

The gradual opening of the high-speed rail sector has brought greater flexibility and visibility for passengers but could
also lead to problems in respect of the public service obligation, as would be the case if, for example, a company were
to decide to focus investment on high-speed services to the detriment of links to less well connected regions.

1. What initial conclusions would the Commission draw from the opening of the rail sector to competition?

2. What view would it take of developments in the high-speed rail sector?

3. Has greater competition led to more attractive pricing on domestic and/or international routes?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

Market opening for rail passenger transport under EC law is applicable only since January 2010 and limited to
international services. However various Member States have taken the initiative to open their domestic passenger
market to competition, including on high speed lines. Opening of domestic passenger markets resulted in significant
improvements of the performance of the passenger railways of both the UK and Sweden during the last fifteen years.

Recent experience with domestic high speed operators, such as NTV in Italy, shows that the development of new
open access services have had a positive impact on service frequency and quality, traffic volume as well as on ticket
prices. Preliminary estimations show that the introduction of yield management in the Rome-Milan route by NTV has
led to price reductions going as far as 70%. The usage of the Rome-Milan high-speed line infrastructure is almost
double to the usage of the Madrid-Barcelona route, which have the almost the same distance and are among the most
travelled routes in Europe (both rank also among the five most travelled air routes).

In the same manner the Eurostar experience with international services between the UK and France indicates also that
open access services on main lines and public services on non-profitable routes are mutually beneficial as the
development of one type of traffic may have positive repercussions on the other.

C 287 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008702/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Bisfenol A

Foi publicado no _Journal of the American Medical Association_ um estudo de investigadores norte-americanos sobre
saúde e nutrição de 2003-2008, que associa os níveis elevados de bisfenol A, uma resina usada para o revestimento
das latas de refrigerantes, a um risco de obesidade maior. O recurso ao bisfenol A para o fabrico de biberões foi
recentemente proibido em diversos países (como Portugal e Itália), tendo sido associado a riscos para os bebés. O
estudo associa ainda o bisfenol A a problemas endócrinos com consequência para as funções hormonais.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Existindo agora alertas para outras possíveis fontes de exposição a esta resina, nomeadamente, as latas de
refrigerantes, qual o parecer da Comissão sobre esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão remete o Senhor Deputado para a resposta às questões escritas E-005593/2012 e E-005621/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2012-005593&language=EN.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 195

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008702/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Bisphenol A

A study by North American researchers regarding health and nutrition from 2003 to 2008, published in the _Journal of_
_the American Medical Association,_ links high levels of bisphenol A, a resin used in the coating of soft drink cans, to a
higher risk of obesity. The use of bisphenol A in the production of baby bottles was recently banned in several
countries (such as Portugal and Italy), having been linked to risks to babies’ health. The study also links bisphenol A to
endocrine problems with consequences for hormonal functions.

Can the Commission answer the following:

As warnings now exist regarding other possible sources of exposure to this resin, namely soft drink cans, what is the
Commission’s view on this matter?

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

_(7 November 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to written questions E-005593/2012 and
E-005621/2012 ( [1] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=P-2012-005593&language=EN

C 287 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008703/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de Setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Milho transgénico

Foi publicado um estudo de investigadores franceses que põe gravemente em causa a inocuidade, a longo prazo, do
milho transgénico. O estudo foi realizado por investigadores da Universidade de Caen durante dois anos, tendo
concluído que os ratos alimentados com o milho geneticamente modificado tinham uma maior taxa de mortalidade e
desenvolviam grandes tumores. O referido estudo provocou o alerta imediato da agência de segurança sanitária
europeia e da autoridade europeia de segurança dos alimentos. O milho em causa não pode ser produzido na Europa,
mas pode ser importado para consumo humano e animal desde 2004.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Confirma os dados do citado estudo?

2. Consegue assegurar que o milho assim produzido não entra no mercado do consumo humano?

3. Considera que o mesmo estudo questiona a propalada segurança no recurso aos cereais geneticamente
modificados?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de novembro de 2012)_

1. e 3. A Comissão tomou em devida consideração a publicação de Séralini et al. e pediu à Autoridade Europeia
para a Segurança dos Alimentos (AESA) para a analisar com urgência, em colaboração com as agências de segurança
alimentar dos Estados-Membros. Em 4 de outubro de 2012, a AESA publicou uma análise científica inicial que
identificou insuficiências na conceção, na comunicação de resultados e na análise do estudo. A AESA convidou os
autores a partilharem informações adicionais fundamentais de forma a garantir uma compreensão total do estudo.
Nas próximas semanas será entregue uma segunda e exaustiva análise que terá como base esses dados adicionais e os
resultados das atividades de avaliação dos Estados-Membros. A Comissão irá estudar de forma cuidada o parecer final
da AESA sobre a publicação de Séralini et al., assim que este for formulado e tomará todas as medidas de
acompanhamento, se tal for necessário, para garantir a proteção da saúde humana e animal e do ambiente.

2. O milho NK603 examinado no estudo de Séralini et al. foi autorizado para utilização como género alimentício e
alimento para animais na UE ( [1] ), no seguimento dos pareceres da AESA, que concluiu que este milho geneticamente
modificado é tão seguro para a saúde do ser humano e dos animais e para o ambiente como o seu equivalente
convencional. Qualquer género alimentício ou alimento para animais que consista ou seja produzido a partir de
NK603 tem de ser rotulado de acordo com o disposto no Regulamento (CE) n.° 1829/2003 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/gm_register_auth.cfm?pr_id=16)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 268 de 18.10.2003.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 197

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008703/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Transgenic corn

A study has been published by French researchers that calls into question the long term safety of transgenic corn. The
study was conducted by researchers from Caen University over two years and concluded that mice fed with
genetically modified corn had a higher mortality rate and developed large tumours. The study prompted an
immediate alert by the European Health Safety Agency and the European Food Safety Authority. This type of corn
cannot be produced in Europe but, since 2004, can be imported for human and animal consumption.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it confirm the data from the abovementioned study?

2. Can it guarantee that this type of corn does not enter the market for human consumption?

3. Does it consider that this study calls into question the purported safety of genetically modified cereals?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

1 and 3. The Commission has taken careful note of the publication by Séralini et al. and asked the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) to analyse it as a matter of urgency, in liaison with the food safety agencies of the Member
States. On 4 October 2012 EFSA published an initial scientific review, which identified inadequacies in the design,
reporting and analysis of the study. EFSA invited the authors to share key additional information to enable the fullest
understanding of the study. A second and comprehensive analysis will be delivered in the upcoming weeks, based on
these additional data and outcomes of Member States' assessment activities. The Commission will carefully study
EFSA’s final opinion on the publication by Séralini et al., once adopted, and take the appropriate follow-up measures,
if necessary, to ensure the protection of human and animal health and the environment.

2. The maize NK603 which was examined in the study by Séralini et al. is authorised for food and feed use in the
EU ( [1] ), following opinions by EFSA concluding that this GM maize is as safe for human and animal health and for the
environment as its conventional counterpart. Any food or feed containing, consisting of, or produced from NK603
has to be labelled in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/gm_register_auth.cfm?pr_id=16
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003.

C 287 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008704/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Proteção dos interesses financeiros da União Europeia

Considerando que:

—
As políticas da União Europeia são financiadas pelo orçamento comunitário;

—
Deve existir uma proteção eficaz dos interesses financeiros da União, garantindo que o dinheiro dos
contribuintes seja utilizado corretamente;

—
Atualmente, a situação é caracterizada por uma enorme discrepância em termos de moldura penal aplicável.
No Reino Unido e na Irlanda, por exemplo, não existe sequer uma pena mínima para estes ilícitos, enquanto na
Áustria essa pena é de 6 meses, em Portugal de 3 anos e na Roménia pode chegar a 12 anos de prisão;

—
Qualquer medida de prevenção e de combate à fraude lesiva dos interesses financeiros da União adotada pela
UE, com vista a assegurar uma proteção eficaz e equivalente em todo o território, exige uma avaliação prévia
das estruturas de que a UE dispõe para enfrentar tal desafio;

Pergunto à Comissão:

De acordo com o artigo 85.° do TFUE, nomeadamente a sua alínea a), o Eurojust tem competência para a abertura de
investigações criminais, lançar inquéritos penais e para propor a instauração de ações penais no domínio das
infrações lesivas dos interesses financeiros da União, designadamente, comportamentos de fraude, corrupção e outras
atividades ilegais na utilização de fundos comunitários.

Considera a Comissão que está a ser tirado pleno partido das possibilidades consagradas no Tratado de Lisboa, que
permite um reforço da ação penal na União, através de uma ação concertada e eficaz do Eurojust?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de novembro de 2012)_

A proteção do dinheiro dos contribuintes, combatendo eficazmente a fraude lesiva dos interesses financeiros da
União, não só é uma obrigação decorrente do Tratado (artigo 325.° do TFUE), como também é uma das prioridades
da Comissão.

Em maio de 2011, a Comissão adotou a Comunicação sobre a proteção dos interesses financeiros da União Europeia
pelo direito penal e os inquéritos administrativos ( [1] ). Esta comunicação apelou à aplicação de uma abordagem
integrada destinada a reforçar a proteção dos interesses financeiros da UE.

Em 11 de julho de 2012, a Comissão apresentou a proposta de Diretiva relativa à luta contra a fraude lesiva dos
interesses financeiros da União através do direito penal ( [2] ). Esta proposta visa clarificar, harmonizar e reforçar a
legislação penal dos Estados-Membros em matéria de infrações relacionadas com o orçamento da UE. Estabelece as
definições comuns de fraude e de infrações relacionadas com fraude lesivas dos interesses financeiros da União,
propondo também um regime de sanções que inclui sanções mínimas de 6 meses de prisão por delitos de fraude
implicando um prejuízo de, pelo menos, 100 000 euros, aplicável a todos os Estados-Membros.

Nos termos do artigo 85.° do TFUE, uma das funções da Eurojust no futuro poderá ser dar início a investigações
penais, incluindo as relativas a infrações lesivas dos interesses financeiros da União. O artigo 86.° do TFUE constitui a
base jurídica para a criação de uma Procuradoria Europeia (PE) a partir da Eurojust, competente para investigar,
processar judicialmente e levar a julgamento infrações lesivas dos interesses financeiros da União.

Tal como previsto no seu programa de trabalho para 2013 ( [3] ), a Comissão irá propor uma iniciativa legislativa que
estabeleça o enquadramento e as condições para a criação de uma Procuradoria Europeia, que será acompanhada por
propostas para a reforma da Eurojust com vista à proteção dos interesses financeiros da UE.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 293.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 363.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 629.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 199

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008704/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Protection of the EU's financial interests

The EU’s policies are funded by the Community budget.

The Union’s financial interests should be effectively protected in order to guarantee that tax-payers money is correctly
used.

At present the situation varies enormously in terms of the applicable frameworks of criminal law. I n the United
Kingdom and Ireland, for example, there is not even a minimum sentence for crimes of this type, whereas in Austria a
6-month sentence applies, in Portugal it is three years and in Romania the penalty can be as much as 12 years in jail.

Any measures adopted by the EU to combat fraud against the Union’s financial interests and ensure effective and
equivalent protection throughout its territory requires a prior assessment of the structures already in place in the EU
with which to address this challenge.

According to Article 85 of the TFEU and, in particular, paragraph (a) thereof, EUROJUST is responsible for launching
criminal investigations and proceedings and proposing the initiation of prosecutions relating to offences against the
financial interests of the Union, particularly fraud, corruption and other illegal activities related to the use of
Community funds.

Does the Commission consider that the best possible use is being made of the possibilities enshrined in the Lisbon
Treaty, which allow the Union to strengthen its legal response to such crimes through concerted and effective action
by EUROJUST?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 November 2012)_

Protecting taxpayers' money by effectively fighting fraud against the Union's financial interests is not only a Treaty
obligation (Article 325 TFEU) but also one of the Commission's priorities.

In May 2011, the Commission adopted a communication on the protection of the financial interests of the European
Union by criminal law and by administrative investigations ( [1] ). This communication called for an integrated approach
to achieve increased protection of those financial interests.

The Commission, on 11 July 2012, presented a proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's
financial interests by means of criminal law ( [2] ).The proposal aims to clarify, harmonise and strengthen Member State's
criminal law on offences related to the EU budget. It sets common definitions of fraud and fraud-related offences
against the Union's financial interests and proposes a system of sanctions, including minimum sanctions of 6 months
imprisonment for crimes of fraud with a damage of EUR 100 000 and above, applicable to all Member States.

Under Article 85 TFEU Eurojust's tasks may in the future include the initiation of criminal investigations, including
those related to offences against the financial interests of the Union. Article 86 TFEU is the legal basis for establishing
a European Public Prosecution Office (EPPO) from Eurojust, to investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment crime
affecting the financial interests of the Union.

As set out in the 2013 Work Programme ( [3] ), the Commission will put forward a legislative initiative setting out the
framework and conditions for establishing the European Public Prosecutor's office. It will be accompanied by
proposals on the reform of Eurojust for the protection of the financial interests of the EU.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 293.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 363.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 629.

C 287 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008705/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Patente unitária Europeia

Considerando que:

—
Atualmente, o procedimento para obtenção de uma patente para uma invenção é difícil e dispendioso;

—
Depois de ser obtida junto do Instituto Europeu de Patentes, a mesma deve ainda ser validada em cada pais da
UE em que se pretenda proteger a invenção;

—
Os custos deste procedimento podem atingir os 32 000 euros, sendo que 23 000 euros são custos de tradução;

—
Esta situação se traduz num obstáculo à inovação, empreendedorismo e competitividade;

—
Ao abrigo da cooperação reforçada — conceito introduzido pelo Tratado de Amesterdão que permite que nove
ou mais Estados‐Membros aprofundem a cooperação entre si num domínio específico — a Comissão Europeia
apresentou, em 2011, projetos de regulamentação no que respeita à criação de uma patente europeia;

—
O dossier foi enviado ao Parlamento Europeu, tendo este introduzido diversas alterações;

—
Após o acordo inicial do Conselho, com a aprovação do relatório agendada para a sessão plenária de julho
passado, o Conselho sugeriu a remoção de alguns artigos do Regulamento considerados artigos-chave para o
Parlamento Europeu.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tendo em conta que o processo se encontra suspenso, sem acordo alcançado entre o Parlamento e o Conselho, após
anos de iniciativas, debates, avanços e recuos, a legislação europeia sobre a patente unitária é um processo com
dificuldades em atingir o seu termo. Que avaliação faz a Comissão sobre os entraves causados à inovação e
competitividade pela falta de legislação Europeia numa matéria tão importante como a Patente Europeia?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de novembro de 2012)_

O atual sistema europeu de patentes é complexo e oneroso: obter uma proteção de patente à escala europeia pode
custar cerca de 36 000 euros (dos quais mais de 32 000 representam custos de validação, em especial referentes a
traduções). Este aspeto é particularmente pesado para as PME que assim não podem proteger as suas inovações a
custos comportáveis. Em comparação, os custos de uma patente nos EUA elevam-se apenas a cerca de 2 000 euros.
Por este motivo, a Comissão apresentou duas propostas de regulamentos para a criação da proteção de patente
unitária. Ao abrigo do novo sistema, as empresas poderão obter proteção de patente em 25 Estados-Membros (todos
os Estados-Membros da UE, com exceção da Itália e de Espanha) com base num pedido único, sem formalidades
adicionais nos Estados-Membros e a um custo consideravelmente reduzido. Tal irá ajudar a estimular a investigação, o
desenvolvimento e o investimento na inovação, contribuindo igualmente para o crescimento económico da UE.

As negociações sobre o dossiê das patentes ainda estão a decorrer. A Comissão está confiante de que será alcançado,
até ao final do presente ano, um acordo final.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 201

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008705/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ European unitary patent

Whereas:

—
The current procedure for obtaining a patent for an invention is difficult and expensive;

—
Once it has been obtained from the European Patent Office, the patent must still be approved in each of the EU
countries for which protection is sought;

—
This procedure can cost as much as EUR 32 000, with EUR 23 000 covering translation costs;

—
This situation hinders innovation, entrepreneurship and competitiveness;

—
In 2011, under enhanced cooperation — a concept introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam that authorises
nine or more Member States to improve their cooperation in a specific area — the European Commission
tabled draft regulations regarding the creation of a European patent;

—
The file was sent to the European Parliament, and several modifications were made;

—
Following its initial approval of the report, which was scheduled to be adopted at the plenary session in July, the
Council suggested the removal of some Articles of Regulation that the European Parliament believed to be
crucial.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

The introduction of European legislation on the unitary patent is proving to be a difficult process, given that the
process has now been suspended without an agreement having been reached between Parliament and the Council
following years of initiatives, debates, advances and setbacks. What is the Commission’s view on the setbacks to
innovation and competitiveness due to the lack of European legislation on an issue as important as the European
Patent?

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

_(13 November 2012)_

The current European patent system is complex and costly: obtaining European-wide patent protection may cost
about EUR 36 000 (including more than 32 000 of validation costs, in particular for translations). This is in particular
cumbersome for SMEs which are deprived from access to protection of their innovations at affordable cost. In
comparison, a patent for the US costs only about EUR 2 000. For this reason, the Commission has presented two
proposals for regulations for the creation of unitary patent protection. Under the new system companies will be able
to obtain patent protection for 25 Member States (all EU Member States but Italy and Spain) on the basis of one single
application, without additional formalities in the Member States and at a considerably reduced cost. This will help
stimulate research, development and investment in innovation and contribute to economic growth in the EU.

The negotiations on the patent dossier are still ongoing. The Commission is confident that a final agreement will be
found by the end of this year.

C 287 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008706/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Guerra comercial entre a China e o Japão

Considerando o seguinte:

—
A disputa territorial entre a China e o Japão de pequenas ilhas desabitadas do Mar do Leste da China foi
agravada pelo anúncio da sua compra por parte do Japão;

—
A tensão social marcada pelas sucessivas manifestações e o envio de navios de patrulha por parte da China para
as ilhas disputadas com o Japão;

—
A situação está a transformar-se numa guerra comercial, com várias empresas japonesas a encerrarem na
China, como os fabricantes de automóveis Nissan, Toyota e Mazda, o grupo de eletrónica Panasonic e a Canon.

—
As trocas comerciais entre a China e o Japão representaram 345 mil milhões de dólares em 2011;

—
O Japão é o segundo maior parceiro comercial da China e a China é o principal parceiro do Japão;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tendo em conta o agravamento da tensão entre os dois países, que avaliação faz do caso supra descrito?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(16 de novembro de 2012)_

O Serviço Europeu para a Ação Externa tem acompanhado de perto o recente aumento das tensões em determinadas
zonas do leste Asiático, em especial através da rede de delegações que a UE tem no terreno nesta região. Conforme
ficou claro na comunicação emitida pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente em nome da UE em 25 de setembro de
2012, a UE instou todas as partes a tomarem medidas para acalmar a situação e procurar soluções pacíficas e de
cooperação, que estejam em conformidade com o direito internacional. Continuaremos a acompanhar a situação e, se
necessário, faremos o que estiver ao nosso alcance para reduzir as tensões na zona, de modo que os países da região
possam beneficiar de relações pacíficas, estáveis e prósperas. A comunidade internacional poderá assim interagir
plenamente com as atividades desta parte do mundo que goza de um grande dinamismo e onde estão em jogo
interesses estratégicos e económicos muito significativos.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 203

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008706/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ The trade war between China and Japan

The territorial dispute between China and Japan over uninhabited islands in the East China Sea has worsened
following the news that the islands have been purchased by Japan. Tensions have escalated, driven by a series of
protests and by China sending patrol boats to the islands.

The situation is turning into a trade war, with various Japanese businesses closing in China. These include the car
manufacturers Nissan, Toyota and Mazda, the Panasonic electronics group and Canon.

Trade between China and Japan was worth USD 345 billion in 2011. Japan is China’s second largest trading partner
and China is Japan’s largest partner.

I ask the Commission:

What is its assessment of the situation described above, given the growing tensions between the two countries?

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

_(16 November 2012)_

The European External Action Service has been closely following recent increases in tension in parts of East Asia, in
particular through our network of EU Delegations on the ground in the region. As was made clear in the Declaration
issued by the High Representative/Vice-President on behalf of the EU on 25 September 2012, the EU has called on all
parties to take steps to calm the situation as well as to seek peaceful and cooperative solutions in line with
international law. We will continue to monitor the situation and, if necessary, do what we can to reduce tensions so
that countries in the region can enjoy peaceful, stable and prosperous relations and thereby allow the wider
international community to participate fully in this dynamic part of the globe where there are significant strategic and
economic interests at stake.

C 287 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008707/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Recrutamento internacional de enfermeiros

Considerando que:

—
O contexto de crise económica nacional, aliado a uma escassez frequente de profissionais de saúde pela Europa,
criou uma vaga de emigração de enfermeiros portugueses;

—
Esta vaga de emigração tem sido catalisada por um conjunto de agências de recrutamento internacional que se
desloca a Portugal para recrutar jovens profissionais;

—
Neste cenário, vários enfermeiros têm sido confrontados com práticas de recrutamento duvidosas, com
contratos pouco transparente e, em alguns casos, sendo alvo de ameaças no caso de rescindirem os contratos
ou denunciarem atitudes incorretas destas agências;

—
Em maio de 2012, na 63. [a] Assembleia Mundial de Saúde, a Organização Mundial de Saúde adotou o Código
Global de Prática para o Recrutamento de Profissionais de Saúde que, no seu artigo 3.°, n.° 5, estabelece que « _O_
_recrutamento internacional dos profissionais de saúde deverá ser conduzido de acordo com os princípios da transparência,_
_justiça e promoção da sustentabilidade dos sistemas de saúde nos países em desenvolvimento. Os Estados‐Membros, em_
_conformidade com a legislação nacional e os instrumentos legais internacionais aplicáveis, dos quais fazem parte, deverão_
_promover e respeitar as práticas laborais justas para todos os profissionais de saúde. Todos os aspetos do emprego e_
_tratamento dos profissionais de saúde migrantes devem ser conduzidos sem distinções ilegais de qualquer tipo»._

Pergunto à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento do caso supra descrito?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem um conhecimento parcial da situação em Portugal, graças a informações fortuitas. A Comissão não
dispõe de dados completos e atualizados sobre a mobilidade dos profissionais da saúde e as circunstâncias do seu

recrutamento.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 205

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008707/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ International recruitment of nurses

Whereas:

—
The context of the national economic crisis, combined with frequent shortages of health personnel across
Europe, has created a wave of emigration of Portuguese nurses;

—
This wave of emigration has been catalysed by a group of international recruitment agencies that travel to
Portugal to recruit young professionals;

—
As such, several nurses have been the target of dubious recruitment practices and contracts lacking
transparency, and, in some cases, they have even come under threat for terminating their contracts or reporting
the bad practice of these agencies;

—
In May 2012, at the 63rd World Health Assembly, the World Health Organisation adopted the Global Code of
Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, which states in Article 3(5) that ‘ _International_
_recruitment of health personnel should be conducted in accordance with the principles of transparency, fairness and_
_promotion of sustainability of health systems in developing countries. Member States, in conformity with national_
_legislation and applicable international legal instruments to which they are a party, should promote and respect fair labour_
_practices for all health personnel. All aspects of the employment and treatment of migrant health personnel should be_
_without unlawful distinction of any kind_ ’.

I would therefore ask the Commission:

Is it aware of the situation described above?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the situation in Portugal to a certain extent, based on anecdotal evidence. The
Commission does not dispose of fully updated and comprehensive data on mobility of health professionals and the
circumstances of their recruitment.

C 287 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008708/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Eleições legislativas na Bielorússia

Considerando que:

—
As eleições legislativas do dia 23 de setembro na antiga república Soviética da Bielorrússia foram marcadas por
aparente fraude eleitoral;

—
Ativistas dissidentes foram aprisionados;

—
Foram bloqueados vários sites de Internet que tinham publicado dados divergentes dos oficiais relativamente à
afluência às urnas;

—
A liberdade de imprensa é quase inexistente;

—
Os dois principais partidos políticos apelaram ao boicote e retiraram os seus candidatos da corrida às
legislativas, denunciando violações durante a campanha;

—
O resultado foi o de um Parlamento composto unicamente por deputados favoráveis ao Presidente,
Luckachenko, que governa a Bielorrússia há mais de 18 anos.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Alvo já de sanções por parte da UE, o Presidente Luckachenko mantém-se no poder de forma descrita. Como
avalia a situação descrita?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(8 de novembro de 2012)_

Tal como indicado na declaração conjunta da Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente da Comissão e do Comissário para
o Alargamento e a Política Europeia de Vizinhança no dia seguinte às eleições legislativas de 23 de setembro de 2012
na Bielorrússia, estas eleições constituíram mais uma oportunidade falhada de realizar eleições em conformidade com
as normas internacionais. Embora se tenham registado alguns progressos no processo eleitoral, nomeadamente a
melhoria do código eleitoral, infelizmente as eleições realizaram‐se num clima geral de repressão e intimidação. Nem
todos os presos políticos foram libertados e nenhum preso libertado foi reabilitado.

A UE reafirma o seu empenhamento na política de relacionamento crítico com a Bielorrússia, nomeadamente através
da aplicação de medidas restritivas, da vertente multilateral da Parceria Oriental e da assistência à sociedade civil
bielorrussa.

A UE deixou claro em muitas ocasiões que um maior desenvolvimento das relações bilaterais entre a UE e a
Bielorrússia depende dos progressos realizados pelas autoridades em matéria de respeito dos direitos humanos, do
Estado de direito e da democracia.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 207

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008708/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Parliamentary elections in Belarus

The parliamentary elections in the former Soviet republic of Belarus on 23 September were marked by claims of
electoral fraud. Dissident activists were imprisoned. Several Internet sites were blocked after publishing polling
station returns differing from official figures. Freedom of the press barely exists.

In a denunciation of the election campaign, the two main political parties called for a boycott and withdrew their
candidates from the elections.

The resulting Parliament consists wholly of supporters of President Lukashenko, who has governed Belarus for more
than 18 years.

I ask the Commission:

—
President Lukashenko, who is already a target of EU sanctions, still retains power using the methods described.
What is the Commission’s assessment of this situation?

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

_(8 November 2012)_

As noted in the common statement by the High Representative/Vice-President and the Commissioner responsible for
Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy on the day following the 23 September 2012 parliamentary
elections in Belarus, the latter represented yet another missed opportunity to conduct elections in line with
international standards. While there were some improvements in the electoral process, such as an improved Electoral
Code, regrettably the elections took place against the background of an overall climate of repression and intimidation.
Not all political prisoners have been released and no released prisoner has been rehabilitated.

The EU remains committed to its policy of critical engagement towards Belarus, including through the application of
restrictive measures, the Eastern parternship's multilateral track, and assistance to Belarusian civil society.

The EU has made clear on many occasions that the broader development of bilateral relations between the EU and
Belarus is conditional on progress by the authorities towards the principles of human rights, the rule of law and
democracy.

C 287 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008710/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Magistrados sérvios

Considerando que:

—
Em dezembro de 2009, pelo menos um terço dos juízes e procuradores da Sérvia foram exonerados, sem
qualquer processo legal ou formal;

—
A coberto de uma proclamada «reforma judiciária», 800 juízes foram saneados pelo poder político, sem um
procedimento imparcial e justo, por decisão meramente administrativa, secreta e sem qualquer tipo de
contraditório;

—
Após forte pressão internacional, a Sérvia foi obrigada a rever tais decisões, mas o processo tem sido lento e
pouco transparente;

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
A União Europeia é um espaço de liberdade e justiça, pelo que a independência do poder judicial tem de ser um
dos valores fundamentais a defender por todos os seus Estados-Membros. Tendo em consideração que a Sérvia
é um país candidato à adesão à União Europeia, como avalia o enfraquecimento do poder judicial, num
expresso atentado aos pressupostos essenciais de um Estado de Direito?

**Resposta dada por Štefan Füle em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de novembro de 2012)_

A Sérvia está empenhada desde 2006 numa reforma judiciária, cujos objetivos, tal como figuram na estratégia
nacional de reforma, são os seguintes: reforço da independência, eficácia, responsabilidade e transparência.

No quadro da reforma judiciária, foi levado a cabo um processo de renomeação de juízes e procuradores no segundo
semestre de 2009. O exercício de renomeação padeceu de um certo número de deficiências, que suscitaram um forte
reação por parte da Comissão. O reexame que se seguiu das renomeações dos juízes e procuradores efetuadas em
2011 não corrigiu as deficiências existentes e foi anulado em 11 e 18 de julho de 2012 pelo Tribunal Constitucional,
que ordenou a reintegração de todos os juízes e procuradores que tinham interposto recurso por não terem sido
nomeados novamente.

Em consequência, as autoridades sérvias têm de avaliar a forma como a reforma judiciária poderá prosseguir. Os
processos decididos pelo Tribunal Constitucional devem ser tratados com diligência e em conformidade com as
decisões do referido Tribunal.

A Comissão considerou, no seu último relatório (2012) sobre os progressos efetuados pela Sérvia, que os enormes
desafios que o poder judicial sérvio enfrenta têm de ser abordados a partir de uma perspetiva sistémica. A fim de
responder a estes desafios, aguarda‐se, prioritariamente, uma nova estratégia para a reforma judiciária, juntamente
com um plano de ação de execução, com base numa análise funcional do poder judicial.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 209

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008710/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Serbian judges

Whereas:

—
In December 2009, at least one third of Serbian judges and prosecutors failed to be reappointed without any
formal legal procedure;

—
During an alleged ‘judicial reform’, 800 judges were sacked, without a fair and impartial trial by the competent
authority merely for administrative reasons not made public and were denied the right to be heard;

—
After strong international pressure, Serbia was forced to review those decisions, but the process has been slow
and lacking transparency;

I therefore ask the Commission:

—
Given that the European Union is an area of freedom and justice, the independence of the judiciary has to be
one of the fundamental values supported by all its Member States. Considering that Serbia is a candidate
country for accession to the European Union, how does it evaluate the weakening of the judiciary, in a clear
attack on the basic principles of the Rule of Law?

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

_(14 November 2012)_

Serbia is engaged since 2006 in a reform of its judicial system for which the objectives, as they stand in the National
Reform Strategy, are: strengthening of independence, efficiency, accountability and transparency.

As a part of the judicial reform, a re-appointment procedure for judges and prosecutors was carried out in the second
half of 2009. The reappointment exercise was affected by a number of shortcomings which triggered strong reaction
from the Commission. The subsequent review of reappointments of judges and prosecutors carried out in 2011 did
not correct the existing shortcomings and was overturned on 11 and 18 July 2012 by the Constitutional Court who
ordered the reinstatement of all judges and prosecutors that had appealed their non-reappointment.

As a result, the Serbian authorities need to evaluate how the judicial reform can be further advanced. Cases returned
by the Constitutional Court will need to be processed diligently and in accordance with the Constitutional Courts
decisions.

The Commission assessed in its latest 2012 Progress Report on Serbia that the huge challenges the Serbian judiciary
faces need to be addressed from a systemic perspective. To meet these challenges a new strategy for judicial reform is
awaited as a matter of priority, together with an implementing action plan, based on a functional review of the
judiciary.

C 287 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008711/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Terceiro resgate financeiro à Grécia

Considerando que:

—
O representante da Grécia no conselho de administração do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) afirmou que
a Grécia vai necessitar de um terceiro pacote de resgate financeiro;

—
O presidente do Eurogrupo, Jean-Claude Juncker, admitiu já que não exclui a possibilidade de um terceiro plano
de ajuda à Grécia;

—
As autoridades internacionais estão na Grécia a avaliar a implementação das medidas de ajustamento que
acompanharam o segundo pacote de financiamento concedido à Grécia.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Confirma a necessidade de um terceiro pacote de financiamento à Grécia?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de dezembro de 2012)_

A Comissão permite‐se chamar a atenção do Senhor Deputado para a declaração do Eurogrupo, de 27 de novembro
de 2012 ( [1] ). Nela figuram propostas de taxas de juro aplicadas à Grécia, para adiar em 15 anos os prazos de
vencimento dos empréstimos bilaterais e do Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira (FEEF), e prorrogar por vários
anos o pagamento dos juros ao FEEF; pretende‐se assim aumentar a sustentabilidade da dívida grega e a estabilidade
global da economia. Além disso, na declaração do Eurogrupo é igualmente expresso o compromisso de concessão do
apoio adequado à Grécia durante e após a vigência do programa, até o país ter acesso aos mercados, desde que sejam
cumpridos todas as disposições e objetivos do programa de ajustamento.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ver http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/133857.pdf

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 211

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008711/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Third financial bail-out of Greece

Greece’s representative on the executive board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said that Greece will need
a third financial rescue package.

The President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, has admitted that he is not excluding the possibility that Greece
may need a third bail-out.

The international authorities are currently visiting Greece to assess the implementation of the adjustment measures
which accompanied the second financial rescue package granted to Greece.

Can the Commission confirm whether it will be necessary to grant a third funding package to Greece?

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

_(21 December 2012)_

The Commission wishes to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the Eurogroup statement of
27 November 2012 ( [1] ). It includes proposals to lower the interest rates charged to Greece, to extend the maturities of
the bilateral and European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) loans by 15 years, and to defer interest payments to the
EFSF for a number of years; these aim to increase the sustainability of the Greek debt and the stability of the economy
as a whole. Moreover, in its statement the Eurogroup expressed its commitment to providing adequate support to
Greece during the life of the current programme and beyond until Greece has gained market access, provided that
Greece fully complies with the requirements and objectives of the adjustment programme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/133857.pdf

C 287 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008712/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Negociação de alta velocidade

Considerando que:

A prática de negociação com recurso a computadores de alta velocidade terá provocado o _flash-crash_ do Dow Jones,
há dois anos. Segundo notícias veiculadas pela imprensa internacional a Europa pretende estudar medidas para
limitar a «negociação de alta-frequência», para precaver um _flash-crash_ na Europa, reduzir a volatilidade e a
«especulação excessiva».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma a pretensão de vir a ser limitada a utilização das «negociações de alta frequência»?

2. Tal limitação não pode levar a que os grandes investidores abandonem as praças europeias?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de novembro de 2012)_

1. Um dos objetivos das propostas da Comissão que alteram a Diretiva relativa aos mercados de instrumentos
financeiros (a revisão da DMIF) ( [1] ) consiste em abordar as mudanças tecnológicas e em incorporar as lições extraídas
da crise financeira. Uma das mais importantes evoluções do mercado nas últimas décadas tem sido a crescente
tendência para a utilização da negociação eletrónica automatizada conhecida por negociação algorítmica, que inclui a
negociação de alta frequência (NAF).

A revisão da DMIF contém um certo número de disposições destinadas a combater os riscos associados à negociação
algorítmica. Estas disposições introduzem uma série de salvaguardas, tanto para os participantes no mercado que
utilizam algoritmos como parte das suas estratégias de negociação, como para as plataformas de negociação em que
se realizam negociações algorítmicas e de alta frequência.

Ao mesmo tempo, a Comissão adotou as suas propostas de revisão da Diretiva relativa ao abuso de mercado ( [2] ). Estas
propostas esclarecem de que forma as disposições relativas ao abuso de mercado se aplicam a certas formas de
negociação algorítmica. Todas estas propostas estão atualmente em fase de negociação no Parlamento Europeu e no
Conselho, ao abrigo do processo legislativo ordinário.

2. Os mercados financeiros devem continuar a servir a economia real. O objetivo da Comissão no que respeita à
NAF é melhorar a qualidade da liquidez dos mercados europeus, em termos de profundidade, estabilidade e
regularidade. Tal tornará os mercados europeus mais atraentes para todos os investidores.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, relativo aos mercados de instrumentos financeiros e que altera o Regulamento

[EMIR] relativo aos derivados OTC, às contrapartes centrais e aos repositórios de transações (COM(2011) 652) e proposta de Diretiva do
Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, relativa aos mercados de instrumentos financeiros, que revoga a Diretiva 2004/39/CE do Parlamento
Europeu e do Conselho (COM(2011) 656): (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0656:FIN:EN:PDF).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo ao abuso de informação privilegiada e à manipulação de mercado (abuso

de mercado) (COM(2011) 0651): (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0651:FIN:EN:HTML).

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 213

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008712/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ High-speed electronic trading

Trading carried out using high-speed computers may have caused the Dow Jones Flash Crash two years ago.
According to international press reports, Europe is examining ways of limiting ‘high-speed trading’, as a precaution
against a European flash crash and to reduce market volatility and ‘excessive speculation’.

Therefore, can the Commission state:

1. Does it intend to limit ‘high-speed trading’?

2. Could such a limitation lead to major investors deserting European financial centres?

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

_(13 November 2012)_

1. One of the objectives of the Commission proposals amending the directive on Markets in Financial Instruments
(the MiFID review) ( [1] ) is to address technological changes and to incorporate lessons learned from the financial crisis.
One of the most significant market developments over the past few decades has been the increasing trend towards the
use of automated electronic trading known as algorithmic trading which includes high frequency trading (HFT).

The MiFID review contains a number of provisions to address the risks associated with algorithmic trading. These
provisions introduce a series of safeguards both on market participants who use algorithms as part of their trading
strategies, as well as on trading venues where algorithmic and high-frequency trading takes place.

At the same time, the Commission adopted its proposals to review the Market Abuse Directive ( [2] ) . These proposals
clarify how the market abuse provisions apply to certain forms of algorithmic trading. All these proposals are
currently under negotiation in the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure.

2. Financial markets should continue to serve the real economy. The Commission's objective with regard to HFT is
to improve the quality of the liquidity of the European markets in terms of depth, stability and regularity. This will
make European markets more attractive for all investors.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation [EMIR] on

OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (COM(2011) 652) and Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of
the Council on markets in financial instruments repealing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(COM(2011) 656): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0656:FIN:EN:PDF

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse)

(COM(2011) 0651): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0651:FIN:EN:HTML

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008713/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Tráfico humano na Europa

A Europol tem vindo a referir que «o ambiente económico atual tem feito com que cada vez mais europeus estejam a
ser angariados por redes de tráfico humano».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta realidade?

2. O que tem feito para combater esta situação?

**Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de novembro de 2012)_

O tráfico de seres humanos constitui um crime grave e uma violação grosseira dos direitos humanos. A Comissão, na
Estratégia para a Erradicação do Tráfico de Seres Humanos, identifica uma série de causas profundas para o tráfico de
seres humanos, tais como a vulnerabilidade face à pobreza, as desigualdades entre homens e mulheres e a violência
contra as mulheres, as situações de conflito e pós-conflito, a falta de integração social, a falta de oportunidades de
emprego, a falta de acesso à educação, o trabalho infantil e a discriminação. Este fenómeno evolui consoante a
mudança das circunstâncias socioeconómicas.

A Comissão realiza constantes esforços para combater o tráfico de seres humanos, bem como para incentivar
ativamente os Estados-Membros a transpor atempadamente a Diretiva 2011/36/UE, relativa à prevenção e luta contra
o tráfico de seres humanos e à proteção das vítimas ( [1] ), e a adotar uma nova estratégia integrada ( [2] ). Esta estratégia
propõe uma série de ações, dando especial ênfase à prevenção, proteção, repressão e criação de parcerias,
nomeadamente com países terceiros e organizações internacionais. A estratégia apela, igualmente, à criação de
unidades nacionais pluridisciplinares de serviços de polícia, à adoção de medidas para melhorar a identificação das
vítimas e ao estabelecimento de mecanismos de orientação nacionais e transnacionais para melhor detetar, orientar,
proteger e assistir as vítimas.

As sete agências da UE em matéria de Justiça e Assuntos Internos emitiram uma declaração conjunta ( [3] ), em que
assumiram o compromisso de abordar o tráfico de seres humanos de forma coordenada, coerente e abrangente,
estabelecendo parcerias entre si, com os Estados‐Membros e com outras instituições da UE.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2011/36/UE relativa à prevenção e luta contra o tráfico de seres humanos e à proteção das vítimas, e que substitui a Decisão-Quadro

2002/629/JAI do Conselho.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Estratégia da União Europeia para a erradicação do tráfico de seres humanos 2012-2016, COM(2012) 286 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/download.action?nodeId=7082e411-aa8d-4ead-ae57-3b955bd301a3&fileName=Joint+statement+of+the+

Heads+of+the+EU+Justice+and+Home+Affairs+Agencies.pdf&fileType=pdf)

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

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 215

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008713/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Human trafficking in Europe

Europol has stated that the current economic climate has led to increasing numbers of European citizens being
solicited by human trafficking networks.

Therefore, can the Commission state:

1. Is it aware of this fact?

2. What has it done to combat this situation?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 November 2012)_

Trafficking in human beings is a serious crime and a gross violation of human rights. The Commission in the strategy
towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings identifies a series of root causes to trafficking in human
beings such as vulnerability to poverty, 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 and evolves with changing socioeconomic circumstances.

The Commission is making constant efforts to address trafficking in human beings. As well as actively encouraging
Member States to transpose Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combatting trafficking in human beings and
protecting its victims ( [1] ), in a timely manner, as well adopting the new and integrated Strategy ( [2] ) . The strategy
proposes a series of actions, including a focus on prevention, protection, prosecution and creating partnerships, _inter_
_alia_ with third countries and international organisations. The strategy also calls for the establishment of national
multidisciplinary law enforcement units, steps to improve the identification of victims and the establishment of
national and transnational referral mechanisms to better identify, protect and assist victims.

All seven EU Justice and Home Affairs Agencies have issued a Joint Statement ( [3] ) committing to address trafficking in
human being in a coordinated, coherent and comprehensive manner, in partnership with each other, with Member
States and EU institutions.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework

Decision 2002/629/JHA.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012‐2016, COM(2012) 286 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/download.action?nodeId=7082e411-aa8d-4ead-ae57-3b955bd301a3&fileName=Joint+statement+of+the+

Heads+of+the+EU+Justice+and+Home+Affairs+Agencies.pdf&fileType=pdf

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

C 287 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008714/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Novo vírus da pneumonia atípica

Segundo notícias, um homem de 49 anos, proveniente do Qatar e agora hospitalizado em Londres, foi infetado com
um novo vírus da pneumonia atípica, ou síndrome respiratória aguda, que em 2003 provocou uma epidemia que
matou 800 pessoas. Este é o segundo caso de infeção por este novo vírus (o primeiro, que se revelou fatal, registou-se
num doente na Arábia Saudita).

A Organização Mundial de Saúde está a obter mais informação para determinar as implicações na saúde pública
destes dois casos e a ameaça que o novo vírus coloca. Mas Peter Openshaw, do Imperial College, pensa que o vírus
não será perigoso. «Enquanto o vírus da síndrome respiratória aguda infetou rapidamente o pessoal hospitalar, este
novo vírus não parece estar no mesmo patamar».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento do ataque deste novo vírus?

2. Que medidas pensa tomar para controlar este vírus?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão está informada acerca do novo vírus mencionado pelo Senhor Deputado. O vírus pertence à família de
vírus corona. Precisamos de fazer pesquisas suplementares para compreender melhor o mecanismo de infeção e as
suas implicações para a saúde pública. Com base na informação epidemiológica disponível até à data, o vírus não tem
capacidade para se propagar na população em geral. Existe mais informação nos _websites_ do Centro Europeu de
Prevenção e Controlo das Doenças (ECDC) ( [1] ) e da Organziação Mundial da Saúde (OMS) ( [2] ).

Sobre as ações planeadas para controlar o vírus, o Reino Unido prontamente notificou o caso através do sistema de
alerta rápido e de resposta para a prevenção e controlo das doenças transmissíveis. Imediatamente após o Reino
Unido ter comunicado a doença em 23 de setembro de 2012, em 24 de setembro e nos dias seguintes, a Comissão
organizou várias reuniões de coordenação com os Estados-Membros, o ECDC e a OMS para partilhar informações e
minimizar eventuais riscos de propagação transfronteiriça do novo vírus. Está atualmente a decorrer a vigilância ativa
ao nível da UE e, até à data, não foram detetados quaisquer novos casos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/RRA-Novel-coronavirus-final20120924.pdf)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2012_10_10/en/index.html)

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 217

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008714/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ New atypical pneumonia virus

It has been reported that a 49-year-old man from Qatar currently hospitalised in London has been infected by a new
atypical pneumonia virus, or acute respiratory syndrome — which led to an epidemic in 2003 that killed 800 people.
This is the second case of this new virus; the first, which proved fatal, was detected in a patient in Saudi Arabia.

The World Health Organisation is gathering more information on the public health implications of these two cases
and the threat posed by the new virus. However, Peter Openshaw of Imperial College London thinks that the virus
will not be dangerous: ‘Given that the acute respiratory syndrome virus infected hospital staff very quickly, this new
virus does not seem to be on the same level’.

Therefore, can the Commission state:

1. Is it aware of this new virus outbreak?

2. What will it do to control this virus?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

The Commission is informed about the new virus mentioned by the Honourable Member. The virus belongs to the
family of coronaviruses. Additional investigations are needed to better understand the mechanism of infection and its
implications for public health. On the basis of the epidemiological information available so far, the virus does not
have the capacity to spread in the general population. Additional information is available on the websites of the
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) ( [1] ) and of the World Health Organisation (WHO) ( [2] ) .

Concerning the actions planned to control the virus, the United Kingdom promptly notified the event through the EU
alerting system for communicable diseases, namely the Early Warning and Response System. Immediately after the
UK notified the disease on 23 September 2012, on 24 September and the following days the Commission held several
coordination meetings with the Member States, the ECDC and the WHO to share information and to minimise any
possible risk of cross-border spread of the new virus. The active surveillance is currently ongoing at EU level and so
far no new cases have been identified.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/RRA-Novel-coronavirus-final20120924.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.who.int/csr/don/2012_10_10/en/index.html

C 287 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008715/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Futuro Fundo de Resgate

A imprensa alemã noticiou que «a zona euro está a estudar uma forma de alavancar o futuro fundo de resgate até aos
dois biliões de euros, de modo a ter capacidade para prestar apoio aos grandes países em dificuldades como a Espanha
e a Itália».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta pretensão?

2. De que forma irá ser feita esta alavancagem?

3. Os privados irão ter alguma intervenção desta fórmula?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão não se pronuncia sobre notícias de imprensa, de natureza especulativa.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 219

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008715/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Future redemption fund

The German press has reported that the euro area is looking at ways to leverage the future redemption fund up to
EUR 2 trillion, in order to be able to provide support to the major countries in difficulty, such as Spain and Italy.

I ask the Commission:

1. Is it aware of this claim?

2. How will this leverage be achieved?

3. Will the private sector have any involvement in this process?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

The Commission does not comment on speculations in the press.

C 287 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008716/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Ajuda ao Ruanda

A organização não-governamental Human Rights Watch (HRW) pediu ao Banco Mundial para «rever» a ajuda ao
Ruanda, alegando provas de violações dos direitos humanos e o apoio das forças armadas ruandesas a grupos
armados na R. D. Congo.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. O que tem sido feito pela UE para acabar com a violação dos direitos humanos no Ruanda, bem como com o
apoio do Ruanda a grupos armados na R. D. do Congo?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(8 de novembro de 2012)_

A UE está a acompanhar de perto a situação no Ruanda e no leste da República Democrática do Congo (RDC). Está
igualmente ao corrente dos relatórios da Human Rights Watch e em contacto com outras ONG, bem como com as
restantes partes interessadas nestas questões.

A UE condenou em várias ocasiões as ações de sedição do grupo M23, tendo apelado também ao Governo do Ruanda
no sentido de assegurar o fim de todo o apoio concedido aos grupos rebeldes através do seu território. A UE também
instou a RDC a abordar as questões de governação mais críticas. Ambos os países devem trabalhar em conjunto a fim
de encontrar uma solução duradoura para a crise atual. A AR/VP emitiu duas declarações sobre a situação no leste do
Congo e reuniu-se com os Presidentes Kagame e Kabila.

A UE, juntamente com os seus Estados-Membros, refletiu aturadamente sobre este assunto, a fim de manter uma
abordagem coerente em matéria de ajuda ao desenvolvimento. A maior parte desta ajuda concentra-se na redução da
pobreza e no apoio ao povo do Ruanda. A UE irá manter esta ajuda, mas decidiu adiar novas decisões em matéria de
apoio orçamental até que a questão do envolvimento do Ruanda no leste da RDC seja clarificada.

A UE está também a apoiar a Conferência Internacional sobre a região dos Grandes Lagos, que envolve todos os países
da região, incluindo a República Democrática do Congo e o Ruanda, nos seus esforços para restabelecer a paz e a
segurança na região. Estes esforços incluem iniciativas de fomento da confiança, propostas de mediação política e
uma possível força internacional neutra. O mecanismo de verificação das fronteiras terrestres comuns já foi
mobilizado.

O diálogo político entre a UE e o Ruanda acontece regularmente, nele delibera-se sobre a situação no leste da RDC e
os direitos humanos no Ruanda.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 221

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008716/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Rwanda aid

The non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch has urged the World Bank to ‘review’ its aid to Rwanda,
reporting evidence of human rights violations and support for armed groups by Rwandan armed forces in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Therefore, I ask the Commission:

1. Is it aware of this situation?

2. What has been done by the EU to end human rights violations in Rwanda and to end Rwandan support for
armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

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

_(8 November 2012)_

The EU is closely monitoring the situation in Rwanda and in the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC). It is aware of the Human Rights Watch reports and is in contact with other NGOs and stakeholders concerned
by these issues.

The EU has on different occcasions condemned the M23 sedition and called on the governement of Rwanda to ensure
that all support to rebel groups from its territory ceases. The EU also called on the DRC to address critical governance
issues. Both countries should work together in finding a lasting solution to this crisis. The HR/VP has issued two
statements on the situation in Eastern Congo, and has held meetings with Presidents Kagame and Kabila.

The EU has given considerable thought, together with its Member States, to maintaining a coherent approach on
development assistance. The bulk of this is focused on poverty reduction and support to the people of Rwanda. The
EU is continuing this assistance but it decided to postpone new decisions on budget support until the question of
Rwanda's involvement in Eastern DRC is clarified.

The EU is also supporting the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, which involves all the countries in
the region including the DRC and Rwanda, in its efforts to restore peace and security in the region. These include
confidence building initiatives, proposals for political mediation, and a possible neutral international force. The joint
border verification mechanism has already been mobilised.

The political dialogue between the EU and Rwanda takes place regularly during which the situation in Eastern DRC
and human rights in Rwanda are deliberated.

C 287 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008717/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Conflitos entre trabalhadores da Foxconn

A Foxconn é a empresa responsável pelo fabrico do iphone na China e emprega cerca de 70 000 trabalhadores. Foi
noticiada recentemente a existência de confrontos entre trabalhadores face às condições de trabalho em que vivem.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento destes conflitos?

2. Conhece as condições de trabalho com que esses trabalhadores se defrontam?

3. Nos recentes encontros com as autoridades chinesas, foram abordadas estas situações relacionadas com
condições de trabalho que levam a uma concorrência desleal entre os produtos produzidos na China e os
produzidos na Europa?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de novembro de 2012)_

A União Europeia está ao corrente dos recentes confrontos ocorridos na fábrica Foxconn em Taiyuan (região de
Shanxi), cujas causas exatas estão ainda por determinar. Tais incidentes, juntamente a sequência de suicídios
ocorridos em 2011, têm chamado a atenção sobre as duras condições de trabalho na fábrica Foxconn. Em resposta a
estes acontecimentos, a Foxconn aceitou recentemente reduzir as horas de trabalho, proteger, pagar e melhorar a
representação do pessoal.

Na União Europeia existe uma política de responsabilidade social das empresas, que a Comissão formalizou numa
comunicação em 2011 ( [1] ). Esta comunicação apela a um maior respeito pelas orientações internacionais em matéria
de responsabilidade social das empresas. Uma destas orientações é particularmente relevante — os princípios
orientadores das Nações Unidas (ONU) sobre as empresas e os direitos humanos, que a União Europeia tem vindo a
implementar.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 681 final.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 223

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008717/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Clashes between Foxconn workers

Foxconn, the company that manufactures the iPhone in China, employs around 70 000 workers. Clashes have
recently been reported about workers protesting against their working conditions.

1. Is the Commission aware of these clashes?

2. Is it aware of these workers' working conditions?

3. In the recent meetings with the Chinese authorities, did it discuss the situation, including working conditions,
which leads to unfair competition between products manufactured in China and those manufactured in Europe?

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

_(26 November 2012)_

The European Union is aware of the recent clashes that occurred in the Foxconn Factory in Taiyuan (Shanxi province),
the precise causes of which have yet to be established. Such incidents, added to a string of suicides in 2011, have
further highlighted the harsh working conditions at the Foxconn factory. In reaction, Foxconn recently agreed to
reduce hours, protect pay and improve staff representation.

The European Union has a policy on corporate social responsibility (CSR) which the Commission formalised in a
communication in 2011 ( [1] ) . This urges the utmost respect for international CSR guidelines. One of these guidelines is
particularly relevant — the United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on business and human rights — which the
European Union has begun to implement.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 681 final.

C 287 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008718/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Defesa do consumidor pela Autoridade Bancária Europeia

Considerando que:

Em recente audição no Parlamento Europeu o secretário-geral da Autoridade Bancária Europeia (EBA), anunciou que
esta instituição iria focar-se mais na proteção do consumidor. Foi até referido que casos como o da Libor, com a
concertação ilegal entre operadores na fixação de taxas de juro de mercado, estariam no âmbito da EBA.

Assim pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma que a defesa do consumidor será um dos principais objetivos da EBA?

2. Em que moldes e com que mecanismos se fará essa proteção?

3. Face à exiguidade dos meios e à grandeza do setor financeiro não será um objetivo difícil de concretizar?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de novembro de 2012)_

O Regulamento (UE) n.° 1093/2010, que cria a Autoridade Bancária Europeia (EBA), estipula que um dos principais
objetivos da EBA é contribuir para reforçar a proteção dos consumidores (artigo 1.°, n.° 5, alínea f). A EBA tem vários
instrumentos ao seu dispor para cumprir esta responsabilidade. O artigo 9.° do Regulamento confere-lhe os poderes
necessários para controlar as atividades financeiras, novas e existentes, formular alertas no caso de uma atividade
financeira constituir uma ameaça para o cumprimento dos seus objetivos e, em circunstâncias específicas, proibir ou
restringir temporariamente determinadas atividades financeiras. Por outro lado, a EBA tem poderes para elaborar
projetos de normas técnicas em domínios estabelecidos especificamente nos atos legislativos abrangidos pelo seu
âmbito de atuação, bem como para emitir recomendações e orientações. Dada a natureza transetorial da questão, a
EBA colaborará também, regular e estreitamente, com as agências suas congéneres (ESMA e EIOPA) no domínio da
proteção dos consumidores, o que é facilitado pelo Comité Conjunto.

O papel, o funcionamento e os poderes da EBA, assim como das outras autoridades europeias de supervisão e do
sistema europeu de supervisão financeira no seu todo, serão avaliados em 2013, devendo a Comissão publicar um
relatório geral até 2 de janeiro de 2014. Nesse relatório será igualmente aferido se as competências da EBA no
domínio da proteção dos consumidores carecem de reforço e se os recursos de que dispõe são adequados para o
cumprimento das suas responsabilidades.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 225

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008718/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Consumer protection by the European Banking Authority

In a recent European Parliament hearing, the Chairperson of the European Banking Authority (EBA) announced that
the institution will focus more on consumer protection. It was even suggested that cases such as the LIBOR case,
where traders cooperated illegally to fix market interest rates, will come within the scope of the EBA.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Can it confirm that consumer protection will be one of the main objectives of the EBA?

2. What model and mechanisms will be used for providing this protection?

3. Does it believe this objective will be difficult to achieve given the lack of resources and the size of the financial
sector?

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

_(30 November 2012)_

Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing the European Banking Authority (EBA) stipulates that one of the main
objectives of the EBA shall be to contribute to enhancing consumer protection [Article 1(5)(f)]. The EBA has several
instruments at its disposal to carry out this responsibility. Article 9 of the regulation entrusts the EBA with the
necessary powers to monitor new and existing financial activities, issue warnings in the event that a financial activity
poses a threat to fulfilling its objectives, and, under specific circumstances, temporarily prohibit or restrict certain
activities. Furthermore, the EBA has the power to develop draft technical standards in areas set out specifically in
legislative acts that fall under the scope of its action, as well as to issue guidelines and recommendations. Due to the
cross-sectoral nature of the issue EBA shall also cooperate regularly and closely with its sister agencies (ESMA and
EIOPA) in the area of consumer protection which is facilitated by the Joint Committee.

The role, functioning and powers of the EBA but also of the other European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the
European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) as a whole, will be evaluated in 2013 and the Commission will
publish a general report by 2 January 2014. This report will also assess whether the competences of the EBA in the
area of consumer protection need to be further strengthened and whether the resources of the EBA are adequate to
carry out its responsibilities.

C 287 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008719/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Fundos comunitários podem reduzir, para Portugal, entre 2014 e 2020

Considerando que:

Segundo informação da Direção Geral da Política Regional — Unidade Portugal na Comissão Europeia, o novo
quadro financeiro de fundos comunitários para Portugal entre 2014 e 2020 deverá sofrer uma redução.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma esse facto?

2. A que se deve essa redução?

3. Podendo Portugal estar a inverter a crise, que atravessa neste momento, em 2014 não seria desejável que o nível
de apoios se mantivesse ou até fosse aumentado?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de novembro de 2012)_

Não foi facultada qualquer informação pela Comissão sobre uma possível redução dos fundos estruturais para
Portugal para o período de 2014-2020.

A informação distribuída há algumas semanas pela agência noticiosa Lusa relativa a uma eventual redução não estava

correta.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 227

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008719/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Possible reduction in Community funds for Portugal between 2014 and 2020

According to information provided by the Directorate-General for Regional Policy’s Portugal unit, there is to be a
reduction in the new financial framework of Community funding for Portugal for the 2014-2020 period.

1. Can the Commission confirm this?

2. Why is the funding being cut?

3. If Portugal is to overcome the crisis affecting it at the moment, would it not be preferable for the level of
support in 2014 to remain at present levels or even be increased?

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

_(7 November 2012)_

There has been no information provided by the Commission concerning a possible reduction of Structural Funds for
Portugal for the 2014-2020 period.

The information distributed a few weeks ago by the Lusa news agency regarding a potential reduction was inaccurate.

C 287 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008720/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Direitos aduaneiros às exportações birmanesas

Considerando que a Comissão Europeia propôs recentemente o restabelecimento das preferências comerciais entre a
União Europeia e a Birmânia para apoiar as reformas políticas no país, acabando com os direitos aduaneiros às
exportações birmanesas para a Europa, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma esta pretensão?

2. Há estudos sobre o impacto desta medida na economia europeia?

3. Que tipo de controlo vai haver para evitar o _dumping_ social e outras formas de concorrência desleal praticadas
por este país?

**Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de outubro de 2012)_

Em 1997 foram retiradas as preferências SPG à Birmânia/Myanmar devido a violações da convenção da Organização
Internacional do Trabalho (OIT) sobre o trabalho forçado.

Em junho de 2012, a OIT concluiu que houve progressos significativos na Birmânia/Myanmar nesta matéria e que
deixou de haver violações graves e sistemáticas. Nesta base, a Comissão propôs, em 17 de setembro, restabelecer as
preferências do SPG para a Birmânia/Myanmar. Enquanto país menos desenvolvido, a Birmânia/Myanmar poderá
beneficiar da iniciativa «Tudo menos armas», que concede um acesso com isenção de direitos e de contingentes para
as importações de todos os produtos, exceto as armas.

Apesar de este restabelecimento ir estimular as exportações da Birmânia/Myanmar, o impacto na economia da UE
deverá ser negligenciável. O país tem uma capacidade de exportação extremamente limitada (as atuais exportações
são marginais e representam cerca de 0,01 % do total das importações da UE) e está sujeito a condicionalismos
estruturais que o impedem de expandir substancialmente essa capacidade num futuro previsível.

O regulamento SPG contém disposições que garantem que a Birmânia/Myanmar não beneficiará de práticas
comerciais desleais. Mais concretamente, em caso de violação grave e sistemática das convenções da OIT, as tarifas
preferenciais podem ser retiradas (tal como em 1997). As preferências podem igualmente ser retiradas se houver
práticas comerciais desleais, graves e sistemáticas que tenham um efeito adverso na indústria da UE. Existe igualmente
um mecanismo de salvaguarda se um aumento súbito de exportações causar graves dificuldades. De resto, continuam
aplicáveis instrumentos de defesa do comércio, em conformidade com as regras da OMC e a legislação da UE.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 229

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008720/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Customs duties on Burma/Myanmar exports

The European Commission recently proposed reinstating trade preferences between the European Union and
Burma/Myanmar to support political reform in the country, ending customs duties on exports from Burma/Myanmar
to Europe.

1. Can the Commission confirm this claim?

2. Are there studies on this measure's impact on the EU economy?

3. What controls will be created to avoid social dumping and other forms of unfair competition practised by
Burma/Myanmar?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 October 2012)_

In 1997 GSP preferences were withdrawn from Myanmar/Burma because of violations of the International Labour
Organisation (ILO)’s convention on forced labour.

In June 2012, the ILO concluded that there has been significant progress in Myanmar/Burma in this area, and that
there were no more serious and systematic violations. On this basis, the Commission proposed on 17 September to
reinstate GSP preferences for Myanmar/Burma. As a Least Developed Country, Myanmar/Burma would benefit from
the Everything But Arms arrangement, which grants duty-free quota-free access to imports of all goods but arms.

While reinstatement would stimulate exports from Myanmar/Burma, the impact on the EU economy is expected to
be negligible. The country has an extremely limited export capacity (current exports are marginal at around 0.01% of
all EU imports) and suffers from structural constraints to expand such capacity substantially in the foreseeable future.

The GSP regulation contains provisions ensuring that Myanmar/Burma will not benefit from unfair trade practices. In
particular, if serious and systematic breaches of ILO conventions occur, preferential tariffs can be withdrawn (as in
1997). Preferences may also be withdrawn if serious and systematic unfair trading practices have an adverse effect on
EU industry. There is also a safeguard mechanism in case export surges cause serious difficulties. In addition, trade
defence instruments in accordance to WTO rules and EU legislation remain applicable.

C 287 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008722/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Ajudas à banca europeia

Considerando que:

—
Entre outubro de 2008 e outubro de 2011, a Comissão Europeia aprovou 4,5 biliões de euros em medidas de
auxílio estatal a instituições financeiras; que a injeção, equivalente a quase 40 % do PIB da União Europeia,
permitiu evitar o colapso do sistema bancário e perturbações económicas mais dramáticas, embora tenha
imposto aos contribuintes, ao mesmo tempo, um agravamento das finanças públicas;

—
Uma das contrapartidas da ajuda estatal era a obrigação de uma gestão mais prudente por parte dos bancos
resgatados;

—
No entanto, e segundo um estudo do Banco Internacional de Pagamentos (BIS), que utilizou um universo de
87 grandes bancos internacionalmente ativos, 40 resgatados e 47 não resgatados, chega-se à conclusão de que,
«na verdade — conclui o BIS —, os nossos resultados sugerem que o risco relativo dos empréstimos aumentou»
e que existe «uma atitude mais relaxada em relação ao risco por parte dos bancos resgatados».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento deste estudo?

2. O que tem sido feito para supervisionar a «qualidade» da gestão, bem como o tipo de operações de risco, das
instituições financeiras resgatadas?

**Resposta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(16 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão analisou cuidadosamente o estudo ( [1] ) a que o Senhor Deputado se refere. Este estudo incide
exclusivamente sobre o mercado de empréstimos concedidos por consórcios internacionais, o que, como os autores
reconhecem nas suas observações finais, não permite tirar qualquer conclusão sobre o perfil de risco global dos
bancos incluídos na amostra.

Além disso, a Comissão gostaria de salientar que, no caso dos bancos que receberam auxílios estatais na aceção do
artigo 107.°, n.° 1, do TFUE, a Comissão tinha a possibilidade de pedir a alteração do seu modelo comercial, atuando
assim sobre a sua abordagem em matéria de gestão dos riscos, mas apenas se os bancos estivessem obrigados a
realizar um processo de reestruturação, o que acontece normalmente quando os bancos são recapitalizados (mas não
se recebem apenas garantias de refinanciamento) ( [2] ). Nestes casos, a Comissão assegurou nas suas decisões, em
especial, que: a) as atividades com riscos mais elevados do banco na origem das suas dificuldades fossem
abandonadas; b) as fontes de erros de gestão anteriores fossem eliminadas e que c) o risco moral fosse tido em conta.
Em relação a este último ponto, as alterações no domínio da gestão foram consideradas um fator positivo.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1209h.pdf)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Comunicação da Comissão sobre o regresso à viabilidade e avaliação, em conformidade com as regras em matéria de auxílios estatais, das medidas

de reestruturação tomadas no setor financeiro no contexto da atual crise (JO C 195 de 19.8.2009, p. 9).

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 231

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008722/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Help for the European Bank

Between October 2008 and October 2011, the European Commission approved EUR 4.5 billion in state aid for
financial institutions. This cash injection, equivalent to nearly 40% of the European Union GDP, averted the banking
system's collapse and more serious economic disruption, but also placed a heavy burden on taxpayers and public
finances.

A state aid quid pro quo was imposed on the rescued banks to manage their affairs more carefully.

However, a Bank for International Settlements' study on a sample of 87 internationally operating large banks (40 had
received bail-outs and 47 had not) concluded that ‘Our findings suggested that the relative lending risk has increased’,
and that there is ‘a more relaxed attitude to risk in the banks that received bail-outs’.

I therefore ask the Commission:

1. Is it aware of this study?

2. What steps have been taken to supervise the ‘quality’ of management and the type of high-risk operations made
by rescued banks?

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

_(16 November 2012)_

The Commission has indeed carefully analysed the study ( [1] ) the Honourable Member refers to. The study focuses
exclusively on the international syndicated loans market, which, as the authors acknowledge in their concluding
remarks, does not allow for any conclusion regarding the overall risk profile of the banks in the sample.

The Commission also would like to point out that for the banks that have received state aid in the sense of
Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission could insist on changes to their business model and thereby address their
approach to risk-taking only if they were under an obligation to restructure, which is generally the case if they have
been recapitalised (but not when they received refinancing guarantees only) ( [2] ). In these cases, the Commission
ensured in its decisions in particular that a) the risky business of the bank which led to its problems was abandoned;
b) the sources of past mismanagement were tackled; and c) moral hazard was addressed. As for the latter,
management changes are considered as a positive element.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1209h.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis

under the state aid rules, OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, p. 9.

C 287 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008723/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Futuro da frota de pesca longínqua da UE

Considerando que:

—
O consumo de pescado tem vindo a aumentar substancialmente a nível mundial;

—
Há cada vez mais uma pressão sobre os recursos marinhos;

—
A UE é o maior consumidor de pescado a nível mundial;

—
Países como a China e a Rússia têm vindo a aumentar a sua frota de pesca longínqua, sem aparentemente
adotarem critérios de exploração biologicamente sustentáveis;

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Faz sentido a UE reduzir a capacidade da sua frota de pesca, retirando-lhe as devidas ajudas, para depois ter de
importar pescado dos países mencionados, que não cumprem os mesmos critérios da frota da UE?

2. Não estaremos assim, e desta forma, a aumentar a pressão sobre os já limitados recursos marinhos?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de novembro de 2012)_

A reforma proposta para a política comum das pescas consiste em criar as condições necessárias a uma pesca
sustentável, requisito fundamental para um futuro melhor, quer para o peixe quer para a atividade da pesca. Pescar
sustentavelmente significa pescar a níveis que não põem em perigo a reprodução das unidades populacionais e que,
ano após ano, geram o rendimento máximo sustentável. Uma pesca sustentável permitirá capturas substancialmente
superiores.

O excesso de capacidade da frota continua a ser um obstáculo importante à consecução de uma pesca sustentável.
A eliminação dos subsídios que demonstraram contribuir direta ou indiretamente para manter — ou mesmo
aumentar — a capacidade de pesca acima dos níveis sustentáveis faz parte da reforma proposta.

São necessários esforços suplementares para reduzir a capacidade da frota à escala internacional, de modo a que a
gestão sustentável dos recursos marinhos possa ser assegurada também fora das águas da União Europeia. Para o
efeito, a Comissão tenciona lançar uma iniciativa política de alto nível, para discutir vias de redução da capacidade à
escala mundial durante 2013.

Por outro lado, em conformidade com a comunicação da Comissão sobre a dimensão externa da PCP, a UE promove
e aplica medidas no âmbito de organizações regionais de gestão das pescas, que visam precisamente uma gestão
sustentável, incluindo o ajustamento da capacidade de pesca às possibilidades, como o plano de recuperação do
atum-rabilho do Mediterrâneo e do Atlântico, na Comissão Internacional para a Conservação dos Tunídeos do
Atlântico (ICCAT), que conduziu a um decréscimo substancial da capacidade de pesca da frota de atum-rabilho.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 233

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008723/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Future of the EU distant-water fishing fleet

—
Global fish consumption has been rising substantially;

—
There is increasing pressure on marine resources;

—
The EU is the largest fish consumer in the world;

—
Countries like China and Russia are expanding their distant-water fishing fleets, apparently without adopting
biologically sustainable fishing practices;

1. Does it make sense for the EU to reduce the capacity of its fishing fleet and withdraw subsidies only then to
have to import fish from these two countries, which do not abide by the same rules as the EU fleet?

2. In doing this, will we not increase pressure on already limited marine resources?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 November 2012)_

The proposed reform of the common fisheries policy is about putting in place the conditions needed for sustainable
fisheries, a pre-condition for a better future for fish and fisheries alike. Fishing sustainably means fishing at levels that
do not endanger the reproduction of stocks and that provide the maximum sustainable yield year after year.
Sustainable fishing will allow for substantially higher catches.

Fleet overcapacity remains an important obstacle to achieving sustainable fisheries. The elimination of subsidies that
have shown to contribute directly or indirectly to maintain or even increase fishing capacity above sustainable levels
is part of the proposed reform.

Additional efforts are needed to reduce fleet capacity internationally, so as to help ensure sustainable marine resource
management also outside Union waters. To this effect, the Commission intends to launch a high-level political
initiative to discuss the avenues for capacity reduction at a global level during 2013.

Furthermore, in line with the Commission's Communication on the External Dimension of the CFP, the EU promotes
and implements measures within Regional Fisheries Management Organisations that aim at sustainable fisheries
management, including the adjustment of fishing capacity to opportunities, such as the recovery plan for
Mediterranean and Atlantic Bluefin tuna in the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT) which has led to a substantial decrease in fishing capacity of the Bluefin tuna fleet.

C 287 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008724/12**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Contabilização da dívida pública, novas regras do Eurostat

Segundo as novas regras do Eurostat para a contabilização de dívida pública que entram em vigor no próximo ano, os
Estados-Membros vão ser obrigados «a que os pagamentos em atraso aos fornecedores contem para a dívida sempre
que forem alvo de _factoring_ ou haja uma renegociação dos prazos e/ou taxas de juro de pagamento. Até agora eram
registados como créditos comerciais».

Assim pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma as novas regras de contabilização do Eurostat?

2. De que forma pode esta nova forma de contabilização vir a ser prejudicial para os Estados-Membros,
nomeadamente aqueles que estão intervencionados pela troika, face ao potencial aumento do rácio da dívida
em relação ao PIB?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de janeiro de 2013)_

1. O Eurostat é uma Direção-Geral da Comissão Europeia independente no que diz respeito à metodologia
estatística.

2. Se, por um lado, a definição de dívida das administrações públicas consagrada em Maastricht inclui os
empréstimos recebidos pelo Governo, por outro, exclui os denominados créditos comerciais, ou seja, as faturas dos
fornecedores que ainda não foram pagas pelo Estado. É, por conseguinte, importante distinguir os créditos comerciais
dos empréstimos. Após uma consulta da comunidade estatística, a Comissão (Eurostat) decidiu que sempre que as
condições financeiras de pagamentos não regularizados a fornecedores se alterarem de molde a que estes créditos
comerciais se tornem equivalentes a empréstimos, então também deveriam ser equivalentes a empréstimos na
contabilidade pública. Em primeiro lugar, o valor total da dívida das administrações públicas (que inclui tanto os
empréstimos como os créditos comerciais) não é afetado pelas alterações das normas de contabilidade. Por
conseguinte, as necessidades de financiamento do Estado também se mantêm inalteradas. Em segundo lugar, os
programas de ajustamento macroeconómico dos países beneficiários de assistência financeira incluem, na maior
parte dos casos, um plano de ação destinado a reduzir o volume dos pagamentos em atraso que aponta na mesma
direção de reconhecer gradualmente estes passivos na avaliação de Maastricht da dívida pública. No entanto, uma vez
que os mercados financeiros dão, normalmente, especial destaque aos valores oficiais da dívida pública (devido à
alteração na aplicação das novas regras), há que prestar particular atenção à comunicação adequada da evolução das
estatísticas referentes à dívida.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 235

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008724/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ New Eurostat rules on public debt accounting

According to the new Eurostat rules on public debt accounting due to come into force next year, Member States will
have to ensure that delayed payments to suppliers count towards debt if they are subject to factoring or when the
payment date and/or interest rate on the payment has been renegotiated. Until now these were recorded as trade
credits.

1. Is the Commission in agreement with the new Eurostat accounting rules?

2. How might this new accounting method be harmful for Member States, specifically those which have been the
object of interventions by the Troika, given the potential increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio?

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

_(11 January 2013)_

1. Eurostat is a Directorate-General of the European Commission which is independent as regards statistical
methodology.

2. While the Maastricht definition of government debt includes loans received by the government it excludes so
called trade credits, i.e. suppliers' bills that are not yet paid by the government. It is therefore important to distinguish
trade credits from loans. The Commission (Eurostat) has decided, after a consultation of the statistical community,
that whenever the financial conditions of unsettled payments to suppliers change in a way that makes these trade
credits equivalent to loans then they should also be treated in government accounting equivalent to loans. First of all,
the total liabilities of the government (which includes both loans and the trade credits) are not affected by the change
in the accounting rules. Therefore, the government's financing need also remains unchanged. Secondly, the
macroeconomic adjustment programmes in countries receiving financial assistance in most cases includes an action
plan to reduce the overhang of unpaid bills which points in the same direction of gradually recognising these
liabilities in the Maastricht measure of government debt. However, since financial markets often place particular
emphasis on the official government debt figures (that do change due to the application of the new rules) particular
attention should be given to communicating properly the changes in the debt statistics.

C 287 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008725/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Extinção da Fundação das Salinas do Samouco

O governo português decidiu recentemente extinguir a Fundação para a Proteção e Gestão Ambiental das Salinas do
Samouco.

Esta Fundação é responsável pelo investimento em ações de conservação do complexo das salinas do Samouco, local
de grande importância para a avifauna, inserido na Zona de Proteção Especial para a conservação das aves selvagens
do Estuário do Tejo. Tem desenvolvido um trabalho meritório, competente e dedicado, não só em prol da
conservação dos valores naturais, mas também em prol das populações locais, como o demonstra o projeto de Hortas
Sociais, em pleno funcionamento. É todo este trabalho e a sua continuidade que, de acordo com diversas
Organizações Não-Governamentais da área do Ambiente (ONGA), pode agora estar em causa.

A criação da Fundação surgiu na sequência de uma luta tenaz de várias ONGA, desde os anos 90, para que fossem
compensados os danos causados na Zona de Proteção Especial do Tejo (criada pela Diretiva Aves), na sequência da
construção da Ponte Vasco da Gama.

Tendo em conta que algumas ONGA anunciaram já que solicitariam à Comissão Europeia que acompanhasse e se
pronunciasse sobre este processo, pergunto:

1. Tem a Comissão conhecimento desta situação?

2. Que avaliação faz da mesma?

**Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de novembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tomou recentemente conhecimento de que o Governo português tenciona extinguir algumas fundações,
incluindo a Fundação para a proteção e Gestão Ambiental das Salinas do Samouco.

A Comissão pretende contactar as autoridades portuguesas para se informar sobre a forma como tencionam
proceder, na sequência do acordo sobre medidas de compensação pelos impactos gerados pela construção da Ponte
Vasco da Gama. A Comissão acompanhará atentamente a situação.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 237

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008725/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Closure of the Fundação das Salinas do Samouco

The Portuguese Government recently decided to close down the Fundação para a Proteção e Gestão Ambiental das
Salinas do Samouco (Foundation for the Protection and Environmental Management of the Samouco Salt Pans).

This foundation is responsible for funding conservation activities within the Samouco salt pans complex, an area of
great importance for birdlife, and part of the Special Protection Area for the conservation of wild birds in the Tejo
estuary. Its work has been praiseworthy, competent and dedicated, not just in preserving the natural environment but
also for local people, as shown by the Communal Gardens project that is running well. According to several
environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), all this work and its continuation may now be at risk.

The Foundation was created as a result of the prolonged battle waged by various NGOs since the 1990s for
compensation for the damage caused to the Tejo Special Protection Area (created under the Birds Directive) by the
construction of the Vasco da Gama bridge.

Considering that several NGOs have already announced their intention to call on the European Commission to follow
up and comment on this issue:

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What is its view on the matter?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

The Commission recently became aware of the intention of the Portuguese Government to close down some
‘Fundações’ including the ‘Fundação para a proteção e Gestão Ambiental das Salinas do Samouco’.

The Commission intends to contact the Portuguese authorities and to seek an explanation on how they intend to
pursue the activities foreseen, following the agreement on compensatory measures for the impacts identified when
the Vasco da Gama bridge was built. The Commission will follow the situation closely.

C 287 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008726/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Fome entre os mariscadores da Ria Formosa

Em Portugal, o Sindicato das Pescas do Sul denunciou hoje a existência de situações de fome em famílias de
mariscadores da Ria Formosa, impedidos de apanhar bivalves desde 21 de agosto, devido à existência de toxinas. As
autoridades interditaram a captura de todas as espécies de bivalves em várias zonas da Ria Formosa a 21 de agosto. No
início de setembro, a interdição foi alargada a toda a Ria, da Quinta do Lago a Cacela Velha.

De acordo com o Sindicato, as situações de «carência profunda» deverão estar a afetar cerca de 6 000 trabalhadores
dos viveiros, a que se juntarão muitos outros apanhadores de bivalves. As condições em que estes trabalhadores
podem requerer o fundo de garantia salarial ficam aquém das necessidades. Muitos dos trabalhadores agora
impedidos de apanhar bivalves não podem sequer requerer qualquer subsídio.

A proposta de regulamento do futuro Fundo Europeu das Pescas e dos Assuntos Marítimos (FEAMP) prevê medidas
de apoio a título de compensação pela suspensão temporária, por motivos de saúde pública, da colheita de moluscos
cultivados, mas apenas quando a suspensão da colheita durar mais de quatro meses consecutivos (artigo 55.°). Ora, a
situação vivida pelos mariscadores da Ria Formosa vem dar razão aos alertas já antes feitos por inúmeras entidades de
que este período é manifestamente excessivo e desadequado. Neste caso, passou pouco mais de um mês e a situação é
já, como se pode constatar, dramática.

Em face do exposto, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Que medidas de emergência poderão ser acionadas para apoiar os mariscadores da Ria Formosa em situação de
carência profunda?

2. Está disponível para rever o período mínimo de suspensão de colheita de moluscos, a partir do qual podem ser
acionados apoios financiados pelo FEAMP, reduzindo-o substancialmente face aos atuais quatro meses?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de novembro de 2012)_

A proposta da Comissão relativa ao Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e das Pescas (FEAMP) ( [1] ) contempla
disposições que visam compensar com apoios os moluscicultores pela suspensão temporária da apanha de moluscos
de viveiro exclusivamente por razões de saúde pública. Esta compensação circunscreve-se apenas às medidas de saúde
pública, não abrangendo reduções da capacidade de pesca.

A Comissão está muito atenta aos problemas que surgem em cada região da União Europeia e considera a sua
proposta bastante equilibrada, pois estabelece duas condições não‐cumulativas de acesso ao apoio: a suspensão deve
prolongar-se por mais de quatro meses consecutivos ou a perda do moluscicultor resultante da suspensão da apanha
deve representar mais de 35 % do volume de negócios anual da empresa em causa.

Em outubro de 2012, o Conselho chegou a um acordo sobre parte de uma abordagem geral no tocante ao referido
fundo, designadamente no que respeita à maior parte dos artigos que definem as medidas elegíveis, entre as quais a
ajuda aos moluscicultores conforme inicialmente proposta pela Comissão. O debate da proposta relativa ao FEAMP
prossegue no Conselho e no Parlamento Europeu, estando a adoção do regulamento prevista para 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 425 — Proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo à política comum das pescas.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 239

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008726/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Ria Formosa shellfish gatherers going hungry

Today in Portugal, the Sindicato das Pescas do Sul (Southern Fishery Workers Union) announced that the families of
shellfish gatherers along the Ria Formosa, who have been prohibited from harvesting bivalves since 21 August due to
the presence of toxins, were going hungry. The authorities banned the harvesting of all species of bivalves in several
areas of the Ria Formosa on 21 August. At the beginning of September, the ban was extended to the whole of the Ria
Formosa, from Quinta do Lago to Cacela Velha.

According to the union, ‘severe deprivation’ is affecting around 6 000 mollusc bed workers, along with many other
bivalve mollusc gatherers. These workers do not meet the necessary conditions to be able to apply to the wages
guarantee fund. Many of the workers now prohibited from harvesting bivalves cannot claim any subsidy at all.

The proposal for a regulation on the European Maritime Fisheries Fund (EMFF) provides for support measures to
compensate for the temporary suspension of harvesting of farmed molluscs on public health grounds, but only when
the suspension of harvesting lasts for more than four months consecutively (Article 55). Now the situation of the Ria
Formosa shellfish gatherers shows how well-founded were the concerns already expressed by many organisations,
namely that this period is clearly excessive and inappropriate. In this case little more than a month has passed and
already the situation is manifestly serious.

1. What emergency measures can be put in place to help the Ria Formosa shellfish gatherers, who are in dire
straits?

2. Is the Commission prepared to revise the minimum period of suspension of mollusc harvesting before EMFF
financial aid can be granted, substantially reducing it from the current four months?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 November 2012)_

The Commission's proposal for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) ( [1] ) contains provisions to support
compensation to mollusc farmers for the temporary suspension of harvesting of farmed molluscs exclusively for
reasons of public health. This compensation is foreseen only in the framework of public health measures and not for a
reduction in fishing capacity.

The Commission is very attentive to the problems arising in each region of Union territory, and considers this
proposal well-balanced since it establishes two non-cumulative conditions for access to support. The cessation should
be longer than four consecutive months, or the farmer's loss resulting from the suspension of the harvest should
amount to more than 35% of the annual turnover of the business concerned.

In October 2012, the Council agreed on a partial general approach on the EMFF, including most of the articles
defining eligible measures which include aid to mollusc farmers as originally proposed by the Commission.
Discussions on the EMFF proposal are ongoing in Council and the European Parliament, with adoption of the
regulation foreseen in 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 425 — Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common fisheries policy.

C 287 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008727/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Situação na Síria

A Alta Comissária para os Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas, a Organização _Human Rights Watch_ (HRW) e o
relator da Comissão de Inquérito da ONU para a Síria admitem que a chamada «oposição síria» está a cometer todo o
tipo de barbaridades na campanha para derrubar o governo de Bashar al-Assad. Navi Pillay referiu-se à utilização de
menores como soldados, ao recurso a franco-atiradores que disparam contra civis e a torturas, detenções arbitrárias e
execuções sumárias.

As declarações da Alta Comissária surgem depois de o relator da Comissão da ONU para o território, Paulo Pinheiro,
ter alertado para a progressão exponencial das «violações flagrantes dos direitos humanos em número, ritmo e
intensidade». No seu relatório, Paulo Pinheiro confirmou igualmente a «crescente e alarmante» presença de
combatentes islamitas estrangeiros entre os milicianos e acusou-os de radicalizarem o conflito.

Nos últimos dias, o exército do Líbano anunciou a confiscação de mais um carregamento de armas destinado aos
mercenários sírios. Por outro lado, às mãos da chamada «oposição» terão chegado 400 toneladas de equipamento
pesado. Entre o material bélico estão mísseis terra-ar e lança-foguetes provenientes da Líbia.

O tráfico faz-se através da Turquia, onde estão agentes secretos norte-americanos, franceses, alemães e britânicos em
tarefas de suporte aos grupos armados.

Parte da sua missão será a triagem dos candidatos a mercenários, os quais poderão aumentar significativamente de
número caso se confirme o acordo secreto firmado recentemente entre os EUA, a Arábia Saudita e um senhor da
guerra iemenita para a transferência de milhares de jihadistas para a Síria.

Face ao exposto, perguntamos à Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente da Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz destes acontecimentos? Teve oportunidade de discutir com algum(ns) dos países envolvidos
(França, Reino Unido, Alemanha, EUA, Turquia, Arábia Saudita) as consequências da sua estratégia de guerra,
que está a destruir a Síria e a provocar um intolerável sofrimento humano? Pensa fazê-lo ainda?

2. Que esforços concretos tem vindo a desenvolver a UE tendo em vista uma solução pacífica e diplomática para o
conflito na Síria?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de dezembro de 2012)_

Recordando que a responsabilidade pela atual crise é principalmente das autoridades sírias, a UE advertiu que a
crescente militarização e a radicalização do conflito, bem como a violência sectária, só podem trazer mais sofrimento
à Síria, havendo também o risco de ter um impacto trágico na região.

A intensificação da violência e a série de ataques terroristas recentemente ocorridos demonstram a necessidade
urgente de uma transição política que vá ao encontro das aspirações democráticas do povo sírio e que traga
estabilidade à Síria. A este respeito, a União Europeia está profundamente preocupada com o aumento do afluxo de
armas ao país, tendo instado todos os Estados a absterem-se de fornecer armas ao país.

A UE apoiou inteiramente a missão do enviado especial conjunto da ONU e da Liga dos Estados Árabes, Kofi Annan, e
o seu plano de 6 pontos. Também participou no Grupo de Ação em Genebra em 30 de junho, congratulando-se com
o resultado desta reunião, em particular com o apelo à criação de um órgão diretivo de transição com plenos poderes
executivos, composto por representantes do Governo e da oposição formado por mútuo acordo. A UE apoiou
também a missão de supervisão da ONU na Síria.

A UE reitera o seu pleno apoio aos esforços de Lakhdar Brahimi como enviado especial conjunto da ONU e da Liga
Árabe na Síria e mostra-se disponível para reforçar a cooperação com as suas atividades. A UE enfatiza igualmente a
necessidade de concentrar os esforços internacionais e regionais para resolver a crise síria através de uma solução
política e convidou os principais intervenientes e todos os membros do Conselho de Segurança da ONU a assumirem
as suas responsabilidades, apoiando os esforços do Sr. Brahimi.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 241

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008727/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — The situation in Syria

The United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) organisation and the
Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria accept that the so-called ‘Syrian opposition’ is carrying out all kinds
of atrocities in their campaign to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad. Navi Pillay has reported the use of
child soldiers, snipers who fire on civilians, torture, arbitrary detention and summary executions.

The High Commissioner’s statements were made after the Chair of the UN Commission for the region, Paulo Pinheiro,
drew attention to the continuing escalation ‘in number, in pace and in scale’ of gross violations of human rights. In his
report, Paulo Pinheiro also confirmed the ‘growing and alarming’ presence of foreign Islamist fighters among the
opposition militias and accused them of radicalising the conflict.

In recent days the Lebanese army has announced that they have confiscated another consignment of weapons
destined for Syrian mercenaries. In addition, 400 tonnes of heavy artillery have come into the possession of the socalled ‘opposition’. Surface-to-air missiles and rocket launchers from Libya were among the weaponry.

Weapons are smuggled through Turkey, where there are US, French, German and British secret agents carrying out
support tasks for the armed groups.

Part of their mission is to screen would-be mercenaries, whose numbers could grow significantly if the secret
agreement recently concluded between the United States, Saudi Arabia and a Yemeni warlord to channel thousands of
jihadists to Syria is implemented.

1. What is the High Representative/Vice-President’s view of these events? Has she had the opportunity to hold
discussions with any of the countries involved (France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States, Turkey,
Saudi Arabia) as to the consequences of this war strategy, which is destroying Syria and causing untold human
suffering? Will she do so?

2. What concrete efforts has the European Union made to bring about a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the
Syrian conflict?

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

_(12 December 2012)_

While recalling that the main responsibility for the current crisis lies with the Syrian authorities, the EU has warned
against further militarisation and radicalisation of the conflict and sectarian violence which can only bring further
suffering to Syria and risks having a tragic impact in the region.

The intensification of violence and the recent series of terrorist attacks demonstrate the urgent need for a political
transition that would meet the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people and bring stability to Syria. In this regard,
the EU is deeply concerned about the increasing influx of weapons into Syria and has called on all States to refrain
from delivering arms to the country.

The EU has fully supported the Joint UN-League of Arab States Special Envoy Kofi Annan’s mission and his six point
plan. The EU also participated and welcomed the outcome of the Action Group meeting in Geneva on 30 June and in
particular the call for the establishment of a transitional governing body with full executive powers made up of
opposition and government representatives and formed by mutual consent. The EU also supported the UN
Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS).

The EU reiterates its full support for the endeavours of Lakhdar Brahimi as Joint Special Representative of the UN and
the Arab League for Syria and stands ready to strengthen its cooperation with him. The EU emphasises the need to
focus international and regional efforts to solve the Syrian crisis through a political solution and has called on key
actors and all members of the UN Security Council to uphold their responsibilities and support Brahimi’s efforts.

C 287 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008728/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Situação no Afeganistão — mais mortes de civis durante bombardeamentos da NATO

A morte de civis durante um bombardeamento da NATO e as perdas humanas e materiais das forças ocupantes
transformaram as últimas semanas num dos períodos mais negros dos últimos anos no Afeganistão.

Um ataque aéreo da Aliança Atlântica matou oito mulheres e feriu pelo menos outras cinco. Num primeiro
momento, a NATO qualificou o raide aéreo como «cirúrgico» e alegou que os alvos atingidos seriam cerca de 50
taliban, mas face às provas apresentadas pelas autoridades locais e aos testemunhos populares, a NATO admitiu,
posteriormente, que o bombardeamento também vitimou as oito mulheres que se encontravam num vale a recolher
lenha.

Entretanto recrudesceram também os ataques de grupos taliban a bases da NATO e incidentes violentos entre
membros das forças ocupantes e das forças de segurança afegãs. Uma investida levada a cabo por um grupo de quase
duas dezenas de homens vestidos com uniformes dos EUA, provocou as perdas materiais mais significativas num
ataque do género em dez anos de ocupação. Seis aviões foram destruídos, outros dois ficaram fortemente danificados,
bem como pontos de abastecimento e hangares.

Na sequência destes desenvolvimentos, a NATO decidiu restringir a realização de patrulhas conjuntas entre soldados
da ISAF e militares e polícias afegãos, cuja adesão à resistência à ocupação é cada vez mais relevante.

Em face dos acontecimentos, perguntamos à Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente da Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz de mais estes acontecimentos?

2. Tendo em conta que na resposta à pergunta E-006622/2012, sobre vítimas civis dos raides aéreos da NATO, a
Comissão diz lamentar estas vítimas mas desresponsabiliza-se do sucedido, afirmando que a «responsabilidade
pela conduta das operações militares no Afeganistão é da exclusiva competência da NATO e dos respetivos
países membros», não considera que a continuação desta chacina justifica uma tomada de posição pública a
favor do fim imediato da ocupação do Afeganistão pelas forças da NATO?

3. Tendo em conta o papel de apoio à ocupação da missão EUPOL Afeganistão, e em face do fracasso desta missão
que a situação no terreno evidencia, considera a possibilidade da sua retirada imediata?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de novembro de 2012)_

A UE lamenta a morte de civis durante estes incidentes e apoia os esforços que estão a ser realizados no sentido de
negociar um fim pacífico do conflito no Afeganistão. A UE acredita que qualquer solução deverá ser liderada pelos
afegãos e preservar os progressos feitos durante a última década, incluindo a renúncia a qualquer associação com o
terrorismo e com grupos terroristas, o respeito pela constituição afegã e em particular o estatuto das mulheres.

Tal como indicado na resposta referida pelos Senhores Deputados, as operações militares no Afeganistão são
conduzidas sob o controlo político ou estratégico da UE. A UE chama a atenção para a recente decisão do Conselho
de Segurança das Nações Unidas de prorrogar o mandato da Força Internacional de Assistência à Segurança.
Considerando os termos da Resolução do CSNU e o pedido feito pelo governo afegão, a situação no Afeganistão não
poder ser considerada uma ocupação.

Na cimeira de Chicago, em maio de 2012, a UE reiterou o seu compromisso a longo prazo de apoiar os esforços
afegãos para reforçar o policiamento civil. A missão EUPOL no Afeganistão constitui um contributo importante para
o cumprimento deste compromisso proporcionando formação especializada e formação em liderança à polícia
nacional do Afeganistão, e apoiando o governo afegão a articular as reformas no setor da polícia com a reforma do
sistema mais vasto de justiça criminal. O Conselho conferiu à EUPOL um mandato para continuar a sua missão até
maio de 2013 _,_ quaisquer decisões sobre o futuro desta missão após esta data, serão tomadas no momento oportuno.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 243

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008728/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Afghanistan — more civilian deaths during NATO bomb strikes

Civilian deaths during a NATO bomb strike, and the deaths and material losses of the occupying forces has turned the
past weeks into one of the darkest periods in Afghanistan’s recent history.

A NATO air strike killed eight women and injured at least a further five. At first, NATO described the air strike as
‘surgical’ and claimed that around 50 members of the Taliban had been struck. However, in light of the evidence
presented by local authorities and local eyewitness accounts, NATO later admitted that the strikes also claimed the
lives of eight women who were collecting firewood in a valley.

Meanwhile the number of attacks by Taliban groups on NATO bases, and violent incidents between members of the
occupying forces and Afghan security forces have increased. An attack carried out by a group of nearly two dozen
men dressed in the uniforms of US troops, caused the most significant material losses in an attack of its kind in
10 years of occupation. Six aeroplanes were destroyed and a further two were seriously damaged, along with supply
points and hangars.

Following these developments, NATO decided to restrict joint patrols between International Security Assistance
Force soldiers, and Afghan soldiers and police, who are increasingly opposing foreign occupation.

In the light of these events, we would ask the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission:

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of these latest events?

2. In view of the response to Question E‐006622/2012 on civilian victims of NATO air strikes in which the
Commission states that while it regrets the loss of life, it does not accept responsibility therefor, and claims that
‘the responsibility for the conduct of military operations in Afghanistan is the exclusive competence of NATO
and its Member States’, does it not believe that this continuous massacre justifies a public stance in favour of an
immediate end to the occupation of Afghanistan by NATO forces?

3. In view of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan’s role to support the occupation, and in the light
of their failure to do so as confirmed by the situation on the ground, is the Commission considering the
possibility of immediate withdrawal?

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

_(29 November 2012)_

The EU regrets the loss of civilian life in these incidents. The EU supports the efforts which are being made to
negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict in Afghanistan. The EU believes any settlement must be Afghan-led and
preserve the gains made in the past decade, including renouncing any association with terrorism and terrorist groups
and respecting the Afghan constitution, in particular the status of women.

As noted in the reply which the Honourable Members refer to, the military operations in Afghanistan are not
conducted under the political control and strategic direction of the EU. The EU notes the recent decison by the United
Nations Security Council to extend the mandate of the International Support to Afghanistan Force. In light of the
terms of the UNSCR and the request of the Afghan Government, the situation in Afghanistan cannot be referred to as
occupation.

At the Chicago summit in May 2012, the EU reiterated its long-term commitment to support Afghan efforts to
strengthen civilian policing. The EUPOL mission in Afghanistan makes an important contribution to fulfilling this
commitment by providing specialised and leadership training to the Afghan National Police and by assisting the
Afghan Government to link reforms in the police sector to reform of the wider criminal justice system. EUPOL is
mandated by the Council to continue its mission until May 2013. Any decisions on the future of the mission beyond
that date will be made in due course.

C 287 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008729/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Revisão da legislação sobre Materiais Florestais de Reprodução

Diversas associações e empresas do setor florestal têm vindo a demonstrar a sua viva preocupação com as propostas
da Comissão Europeia tendo em vista a alteração à Diretiva comunitária dos Materiais Florestais de Reprodução
(1999/105/CE).

Este tipo de material tem legislação própria, uma vez que a floresta difere substancialmente da agricultura. A intenção
da Comissão de incluir plantas e sementes florestais e agrícolas numa só Diretiva é, assim, vista pelas organizações do
setor como mais um entrave ao seu desenvolvimento. Estas organizações consideram que as exigências impostas ao
material agrícola não podem nem devem ser iguais às impostas ao material florestal, pois como é natural, sendo parte
da cadeia alimentar, o material agrícola tem regras completamente diferentes, tempos de colheita, etc. De acordo com
o setor, a Diretiva de 1999 foi implementada em 2003, com sucesso. Implicou custos avultados, a que se poderão
somar agora os custos de uma nova — e injustificada — mudança de legislação, o que muito prejudicaria a sua
atividade.

Importa não esquecer que este setor tem vindo a enfrentar inúmeras dificuldades, de que as pragas e os fogos florestais
são exemplo maior. A estes constrangimentos da fase adulta poderão agora somar-se outros na fase inicial.

O setor queixa-se ainda dos procedimentos seguidos pela Comissão, tentando apressar todo o processo e excluindo o
setor da necessária e devida participação.

Em face do exposto, solicito à Comissão Europeia que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Por que razão está este processo legislativo a ser apressado, com exclusão do setor da necessária e devida
participação? Está disposta a corrigir este procedimento, envolvendo o setor na discussão?

2. Está disposta a considerar as críticas do setor e a proceder às devidas alterações na proposta que apresentou?

3. Tendo em conta que no caso das infeções com Fusarium sp. houve viveiros a ter de destruir mais de um milhão
de plantas sem qualquer apoio, que programas e medidas comunitárias poderão apoiar o setor no futuro em
situações semelhantes?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de novembro de 2012)_

1. Na sequência de uma avaliação exaustiva da legislação da UE sobre a comercialização de sementes e propágulos
em 2007-2008 ( [1] ) e de amplas consultas, que incluíram uma consulta pública sobre um «documento de opções e
análise» em 2011, a Comissão está neste momento a concluir o reexame. Desde 2007 que todo o setor, incluindo o
setor florestal, participa no processo de reexame.

2. Quando finalizar a sua proposta, a Comissão terá em conta as características específicas do setor florestal.

3. Ao abrigo do regime fitossanitário da UE ( [2] ), os Estados-Membros podem receber, a seu pedido, uma
contribuição financeira da União para financiar as medidas de erradicação ou contenção de organismos prejudiciais
regulamentados. O único fungo Fusarium regulamentado é o Fusarium circinatum (= Gibberella circinata). A
aplicação correta e oportuna de medidas de urgência da UE para esse organismo prejudicial (Decisão 2007/433/CE da
Comissão) é um pré-requisito para garantir esse cofinanciamento.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2000/29/CE do Conselho, de 8 de Maio de 2000, relativa às medidas de proteção contra a introdução na Comunidade de organismos

prejudiciais aos vegetais e produtos vegetais e contra a sua propagação no interior da Comunidade (JO L 169 de 10.7.2000, p. 1).

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 245

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008729/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Review of legislation on forest reproductive material

Several forestry associations and companies have been expressing their concern about the European Commission’s
proposals to amend Directive 1999/105/EC on forest reproductive material.

This type of material has its own legislation, since forestry is substantially different from agriculture. The
Commission’s intention to include forest and agricultural plants and seeds in a single directive is thus, for forestry
organisations, one more obstacle to the sector’s development. These organisations believe that the requirements
applicable to agricultural material cannot and should not be the same as those applied to forest material because
agricultural material, being part of the food chain, naturally has completely different rules, harvest times, etc.
According to the sector, the 1999 Directive was successfully implemented in 2003. It involved substantial costs, to
which the costs of a new — and unjustified — change in legislation will now be added, which will do great harm to
the sector’s activity.

It should be remembered that this sector has faced many difficulties, of which forest pests and fires are prime
examples. In addition to these constraints that affect mature forests there will now be others in the inception phase.

The sector also objects to the Commission trying to rush the process and excluding the sector from necessary and
proper involvement.

1. Why is this legislative process being rushed, without the necessary and proper involvement of the sector? Will
the Commission rectify this process and involve the sector in the discussion?

2. Will it consider the sector’s criticisms and make the appropriate amendments to the tabled proposal?

3. Considering that in the case of the _Fusarium sp._ infections there were nurseries that had to destroy more than a
million plants with no support, which EU programmes and measures could support the sector in similar situations in
the future?

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

_(15 November 2012)_

1. Following a comprehensive evaluation of the EU legislation on the marketing of seed and propagating material
in 2007-2008 ( [1] ) and the broad consultations, including a public consultation on an ‘options and analysis paper’ in
2011, the Commission is now concluding the review. Since 2007 the whole sector, including the forest sector, has
participated in the review process.

2. When finalising its proposal, the Commission will take account of the specific characteristics of the forestry

sector.

3. Under the EU plant-health regime ( [2] ), Member States may receive, at their request, a financial contribution from
the Union to finance measures for the eradication or containment of regulated harmful organisms. The only regulated
_Fusarium_ fungus is _Fusarium circinatum_ (= _Gibberella_ _circinata_ ). The timely and correct implementation of EU emergency
measures for that harmful organism (Decision 2007/433/EC) is a prerequisite to grant that co-financing.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/propagation/evaluation/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or

plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1).

C 287 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008730/12**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 de setembro de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação no setor do leite — conclusões do Conselho de Ministros da Agricultura

Face às preocupações apresentadas na última reunião do Conselho de Ministros da Agricultura por diversos países
sobre a situação crítica que se vive no setor do leite, a Comissão Europeia considerou que não são necessárias medidas
extraordinárias de apoio aos produtores.

Com esta atitude a Comissão Europeia revela a mais profunda insensibilidade face à dramática situação de muitos
produtores de leite, que se encontram a braços com as dificuldades resultantes do vertiginoso aumento dos fatores de
produção (rações, combustíveis, adubos, entre outros) e do esmagamento dos preços pagos à produção.

As medidas anunciadas até à data pelo Comissário da Agricultura — como as antecipações dos pagamentos diretos de
2012 e a possibilidade de conceder ajudas nacionais _de minimis_ — não resolvem uma situação que é indissociável da
estratégia de «aterragem suave», com o aumento gradual da quota, que levou ao encharcamento dos mercados por
parte dos países que tinham produção excedentária (recorde-se, por exemplo, que, no final do período da chamada
«aterragem suave», o aumento da quota leiteira na Alemanha, de 1 % anual, corresponde a quase toda a produção
portuguesa!).

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tendo em conta a sucessão de crises no setor, a situação dramática vivida em vários países e a posição que
diversos Estados-Membros têm vindo a assumir a este respeito, não considera que já existem provas suficientes
do falhanço da estratégia delineada para o setor?

2. Considera, finalmente, a possibilidade de inverter o processo de desmantelamento das quotas leiteiras tendo em
conta o papel fundamental deste instrumento na regulação da produção?

3. Considera a possibilidade de alargar a atribuição das ajudas _de minimis_ para um teto de 15 000 euros, por um
período de três anos — uma medida essencial para minorar as atuais dificuldades dos produtores portugueses?

4. Que justificação concreta apresentou a Comissão para a recusa de cada uma das medidas de emergência
propostas no último Conselho de Ministros da Agricultura?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão**

_(31 de outubro de 2012)_

1. Não se regista qualquer crise no setor do leite a nível da UE. No primeiro semestre de 2012 observou‐se,
contudo, alguma pressão dos preços no produtor, devido ao perfil sazonal da produção de leite e ao aumento da
oferta, tanto interna como de fora da UE. O mercado absorveu bem as quantidades adicionais e o preço médio do leite
no produtor na UE nunca foi inferior ao limiar de 30 cêntimos/kg, registando, em agosto, um ligeiro aumento para
31,3 cêntimos/kg. Embora os custos elevados dos alimentos para animais tenham exercido uma certa pressão sobre
as margens de benefício, os últimos dados disponíveis apontam para uma melhoria da situação.

2. A decisão de abolir o regime de quotas leiteiras foi tomada pelo Conselho. A reintrodução de quotas leiteiras
pode ser decidida apenas pelo Conselho e o Parlamento Europeu.

3. O atual regulamento _de minimis_ caduca em 31 de dezembro de 2013. A Comissão trabalha atualmente com
vista à adoção de um novo regulamento antes dessa data, analisando se, e até que nível, os auxílios _de minimis_
nacionais e individuais podem ser prorrogados sem gerar distorções de concorrência.

4. As condições de ativação das medidas de emergência não se encontravam reunidas, uma vez que o preço médio
do leite cru na UE era da ordem de 31 cêntimos/kg, valor bastante superior ao nível da rede de segurança.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 247

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008730/12**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Situation in the milk sector — conclusions of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council

In view of the concerns raised by several countries at the last meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on the
critical situation of the milk sector, the European Commission considered that no extraordinary measures were
required to support producers.

As such, the European Commission is displaying a complete lack of consideration for the dramatic situation of many
dairy farmers, who are grappling with the difficulties stemming from the drastic increase in production costs (feed,
fuel, fertilisers, among others) and the slashing of production prices.

To date, the measures announced by the Commissioner for agriculture and rural development — such as the advance
of direct payments for 2012 and the possibility to grant _de minimis_ state aid — do not solve a situation that is
inextricably linked to the ‘soft landing’ strategy, with the gradual quota increase, which led to the flooding of markets
by countries that had surplus production (remember, for example, that at the end of the so-called ‘soft landing’ period,
the annual increase in Germany’s milk quota of 1% almost corresponds to the entire Portuguese production).

Therefore, I ask the Commission:

1. In view of the succession of crises in the sector, the dramatic situation in several countries and the stance that
several Member States have been taken in this respect, does it not believe there is already sufficient proof that
the devised strategy for the sector has failed?

2. Finally, is it considering the possibility of reintroducing milk quotas, in view of the fundamental role of this
instrument in regulating production?

3. Is it considering the possibility of extending the allocation of _de minimis_ aid to a maximum of EUR 15 000 for a
period of three years — a key measure in alleviating the current problems for Portuguese producers?

4. What is the Commission’s specific justification for rejecting all of the emergency measures proposed at the last
meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council?

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

_(31 October 2012)_

1. There is no crisis in the milk sector at EU level. However, some pressure came on farm gate milk prices in the
first half of 2012 due to the seasonal pattern of milk production and increased milk supply in and outside the EU. The
market has well absorbed the additional quantities and the EU average farm gate milk price has never fallen below the
30 c/kg mark and is slightly increasing in August to 31.3 c/kg. While high feed costs have put pressure on margins,
latest available information point in the direction of an improvement of the situation.

2. The abolition of the milk quota system was a decision taken by the Council. A decision to reintroduce milk
quotas can only be taken by the Council and the European Parliament.

3. The current _de minimis_ Regulation will expire on 31 December 2013. The Commission is therefore currently
working towards the adoption of a new Regulation before that date and is examining if and up to which level the
national and individual _de minimis_ allocations can be extended without creating distortions of competition.

4. The conditions to activate the emergency measures were not met, given that the average EU raw milk price was
around 31 c/kg, well above the safety net level.

C 287 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008731/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marian Harkin (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Anti-dumping duties

Can the Commission say when it proposes to make a decision regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duties
concerning imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China (Notice of
Initiation 2012/C 44/07)?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 October 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to previous Written Question
E-007907/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=EN

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 249

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008732/12**
**til Kommissionen (Næstformand / Højtstående repræsentant)**

**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28. september 2012)_

_Om:_ VP/HR — EU og Hamas

Vil den højtstående repræsentant/næstformanden i Kommissionen i forlængelse af svaret på forespørgsel
E-6773/2012 nærmere oplyse om det præcise indhold af EU's politik i forhold til Hamas, og vil den højtstående
repræsentant herunder oplyse, om hun på noget tidspunkt har holdt møde(r) med repræsentanter for Hamas?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af den højtstående repræsentant/næstformand Catherine Ashton**

_(8. januar 2013)_

EU betragter Hamas som en terrororganisation. Organisationen er opført på EU's såkaldte terrorliste, som juridisk set
forhindrer finansielle strømme til organisationen (Rådets afgørelse 2009/1004/FUSP af 22. december 2009 om
ajourføring af listen over de personer, grupper og enheder, som er omfattet af artikel 2, 3 og 4 i fælles holdning
2001/931/FUSP om anvendelse af specifikke foranstaltninger til bekæmpelse af terrorisme).

EU understreger, at vold og terror er uforenelige med den demokratiske proces og har på det kraftigste opfordret
Hamas og alle andre palæstinensiske fraktioner til at afstå fra vold, anerkende Israels ret til at eksistere og nedlægge
våbnene. Den højtstående repræsentant/næstformand har ikke haft nogen møder med repræsentanter for
organisationen.

C 287 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008732/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU and Hamas

Following on from her response to Question E‐6773/2012, would the High Representative/Vice-President provide
more details of the precise content of the EU’s policy in relation to Hamas, and would she also tell us whether she has
at any time held a meeting or meetings with representatives of Hamas?

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

_(8 January 2013)_

The EU regards Hamas as a terrorist organisation. The organisation in its entirety has been placed on the so-called EU
terrorist list which legally prevents financial flows to the organisation (Council Decision 2009/1004/CFSP of
22 December 2009 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common
Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism).

Underlining that violence and terror are incompatible with democratic processes, the EU has urged Hamas and all
other Palestinian factions to renounce violence, to recognise Israel's right to exist, and to disarm. The High
Representative/Vice-President has not held any meetings with representatives of the organisation.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 251

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008733/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28. september 2012)_

_Om:_ Obligatorisk syn af motorcykler over 6 år

Vil Kommissionen nærmere redegøre for og herunder begrunde forslaget om obligatorisk årligt syn af motorcykler
over 6 år?

Idet spørgeren opfatter noget sådant som et medlemsstatsprærogativ, bedes Kommissionen yderligere oplyse, hvorfor
forslaget efter Kommissionens vurdering ikke strider mod subsidiaritetsprincippet?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Siim Kallas**

_(20. november 2012)_

Kommissionen vil gerne oplyse det ærede medlem om, at der er en klar forbindelse mellem køretøjernes, herunder
motorcyklernes, alder, og hvor ofte de optræder i ulykker, som beskrevet i den konsekvensanalyse, som
Kommissionen har baseret sit forslag til køretøjssikkerhedspakken på. Konsekvensanalysen samt oplysninger om de
anvendte rapporter og undersøgelser kan findes på:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2012_07_13_press_release_en.htm

I forbindelse med spørgsmålet om nærhedsprincippet vil Kommissionen gerne henlede det ærede medlems
opmærksomhed på resuméet af konsekvensanalysen, som ledsager Kommissionens forslag, hvor der står:
»Vejtransport, det være sig privatbilisme, passagerbefordring eller navnlig erhvervstransport, har en udpræget
grænseoverskridende karakter. Det er særlig vigtigt i håndhævelsessammenhænge, hvor effektiviteten afhænger af en
uhindret strøm af oplysninger — om køretøjers tekniske tilstand, om reglerne tidligere er overholdt og om afsløring
af svig — mellem forskellige myndigheder i forskellige medlemsstater. Tilsvarende foregår køretøjsfabrikation på
globalt plan, og tiltag med henblik på at få udleveret fabrikanternes data til brug for periodisk teknisk kontrol må
tydeligvis iværksættes på det højest mulige niveau.

Under de nuværende regler har medlemsstaterne et stort råderum med hensyn til at gennemføre direktiverne —
navnlig med hensyn til at fastsætte højere standarder for periodisk teknisk kontrol. Erfaringen viser, at denne
mulighed ikke er taget i brug af alle medlemsstater, hvilket medfører, at prøvningens karakter er uensartet fra land til
land. Denne udviklingstendens kan kun vendes med en samordnet indsats på EU-plan.«

C 287 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008733/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mandatory annual inspections for motorcycles more than six years old

Will the Commission clarify and justify its proposal for mandatory annual inspections of motorcycles more than six
years old?

Given that this can be regarded as a Member State prerogative, the Commission is also asked to explain why it
considers the proposal not to be contrary to the subsidiarity principle?

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

_(20 November 2012)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is a clear link between the age of vehicles
including motorcycles and their involvement in accidents as it has been elaborated in the impact assessment on which
the Commission's proposal for the roadworthiness package is based. The Impact Assessment including information
on the reports and studies used is available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/events-archive/2012_07_13_press_release_en.htm

Related to the question on the subsidiarity principle, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's
attention to the summary of the impact assessment accompanying the Commissions proposal where it is stated:
‘Road transport — individual, passenger and particularly commercial — has a strong cross border aspect. This is
particularly important for enforcement, where effectiveness depends on the seemless flow of information about the
technical state of vehicles, the compliance history and fraud detection between different authorities in different
Member States. Similarly, vehicle manufacturing is global, and action addressing the provision of data for periodic
technical inspections (PTI) purpose by the manufacturers clearly has to be taken at the highest possible level.

Under current rules, Member States have a lot of flexibility in the application of the directives, allowing them notably
to establish higher PTI standards. Experience shows that this opportunity has not been seized by all the MS, resulting
in a diversity of testing qualities across the continent. This trend can be only reversed by concerted action at EU level.’

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 253

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008734/12**

**til Rådet**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28. september 2012)_

_Om:_ Klassifikation af dokumenter mv. i EU's institutioner

Kan Rådet bekræfte, at der den 4. maj 2011 blev indgået en aftale om klassificering af dokumenter og andet materiale,
som kan have »en negativ indvirkning« på EU, således som det fremgår af vedføjede artikel af den danske avis
Notat ( [1] )?

Vil Rådet i givet fald oplyse nærmere:

—
Hvad er det præcise indhold af aftalen?

—
Vil Rådet oversende den fulde aftaletekst til spørgeren eller oplyse, hvor den kan findes?

—
Hvor bredt skal begrebet »negativ indvirkning« på EU forstås?

—
Indeholder aftalen præcise kriterier for, hvornår dokumenter og andet materiale skal klassificeres, herunder
hvilken klassifikationsgrad, der skal anvendes?

—
Hvordan sikres det i givet fald, at disse kriterier anvendes ensartet i alle medlemsstater?

—
Indeholder aftalen mekanismer, der kan sikre, at den laveste klassifikation, »Til tjenestebrug«, ikke blot
anvendes af (politiske) bekvemmelighedshensyn eller for at forhindre en offentlig debat om sager, der ikke
indebærer nogen reel sikkerhedstrussel mod EU?

—
Finder Rådet ikke, at følsomme oplysninger på eksempelvis det forsvars‐ og sikkerhedspolitiske område
allerede i dag kan håndteres tilstrækkelig sikkert ved brug af NATO's klassifikationsregler (der er stort set
identiske med de i artiklen nævnte) og/eller de klassifikationsregler de enkelte landes udenrigstjenester benytter
(som også minder om de i artiklen nævnte)?

—
Er Rådet således enig i, jf. spørgsmålet ovenfor, at EU's institutioner slet ikke har brug for sit eget
klassifikationssystem eller reelt kun har brug for de højere klassifikationstrin, mens det laveste trin i EU‐
sammenhæng åbner for misbrug?

—
Er Rådet enig i, at den politiske proces i EU bør hvile på størst mulig åbenhed og gennemsigtighed i
beslutningsforløbet?

**Svar**
_(3. december 2012)_

Rådet kommenterer ikke artikler i pressen.

Som svar på de spørgsmål, som det ærede medlem har rejst, bekræfter Rådet, at repræsentanterne for regeringerne for
Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater, forsamlet i Rådet, den 4. maj 2011 undertegnede en aftale om beskyttelse af
klassificerede informationer, der udveksles i Den Europæiske Unions interesse. Aftalen er offentliggjort i Den
Europæiske Unions Tidende (C 202 af 8.7.2011, s. 13). Den træder i kraft, så snart alle medlemsstaterne har
underrettet generalsekretæren for Rådet om afslutningen af de fornødne interne procedurer.

Aftalen, der gælder parallelt med Rådets sikkerhedsregler ( [2] ), er med til at styrke den ordning, der gælder for
beskyttelse af klassificerede informationer i EU, ved:

a) at understrege, at medlemsstaterne skal træffe alle de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at sikre, at de
klassificerede informationer, som videregives til dem af EU's institutioner, agenturer, organer eller kontorer, er
korrekt beskyttet

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.notat.dk/danmark-skal-hemmeligstemple-negative-eu-oplysninger/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Rådets afgørelse 2011/292/EU af 31. marts 2011 (EUT L 141 af 27.5.2011, s. 17).

C 287 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

b) klart og tydeligt at sikre, at klassificerede informationer, som EU har modtaget fra tredjelande og internationale
organisationer, skal garanteres et passende beskyttelsesniveau i medlemsstaterne, når de fremsendes til dem af
EU's institutioner, agenturer, organer eller kontorer, og

c) at skabe en ramme for beskyttelse af nationale klassificerede informationer, der udveksles mellem
medlemsstaterne i EU's interesse, hvor medlemsstaterne ikke har indgået nogen bilaterale sikkerhedsaftaler med
hinanden.

I aftalen er der fastsat bestemmelser for at sikre, at den ikke berører nationale love og bestemmelser om beskyttelse af
klassificerede informationer (samt aktindsigt og beskyttelse af personoplysninger). Den fastsætter ingen kriterier for,
hvornår dokumenter og andet materiale skal klassificeres, eller for, hvilken klassifikationsgrad der skal anvendes, men
pålægger parterne at træffe alle passende foranstaltninger (i overensstemmelse med deres respektive nationale love og
bestemmelser) til at sikre, at klassificerede informationer, der udveksles i EU's interesse, beskyttes på et niveau, som er
ækvivalent med det, der gælder i henhold til Rådets regler for sikkerhedsbeskyttelse af EU's klassificerede
informationer.

I henhold til Rådets sikkerhedsregler forstås ved »EU's klassificerede informationer« (EUCI) informationer eller
materiale mærket med en EU-sikkerhedsklassifikation, hvis uautoriserede videregivelse kunne forvolde Den
Europæiske Unions eller en eller flere af medlemsstaternes interesser skade i forskellig grad. Ordningen for beskyttelse
af disse informationer er baseret på fire klassifikationsgrader:

—
TRÈS SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET

—
SECRET UE/EU SECRET

—
CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL

—
RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED.

Klassificering af informationer som EUCI indebærer, at udstederen vurderer og træffer afgørelse om, at videregivelse
af disse informationer til uautoriserede personer vil kunne være til skade for Den Europæiske Unions eller en eller
flere af medlemsstaternes interesser. Sådanne afgørelser bagatelliseres ikke; der tages behørigt hensyn til
informationernes faktiske indhold og følsomhed, inden der træffes afgørelse om, at de skal klassificeres. Når der er
truffet afgørelse om at klassificere informationerne, foretages der en vurdering af, hvilken klassifikationsgrad der er
berettiget. Den praktiske klassifikationsvejledning vedlagt »Politik for udarbejdelse af EU's klassificerede
informationer«, som Rådet har godkendt (jf. Rådets dokument 10872/11), indeholder kriterier, ud fra hvilke
klassifikationsafgørelser træffes af den udstedende tjeneste.

NATO's klassifikationsregler gælder kun for NATO og ikke for EU. Rådets sikkerhedsregler og aftalen om beskyttelse
af klassificerede informationer, der udveksles i Den Europæiske Unions interesse, afspejler nødvendigheden af at
etablere en sammenhængende og overordnet generel ramme for beskyttelse af klassificerede informationer, der a) er
udfærdiget i medlemsstaterne i Den Europæiske Unions interesse, b) er udfærdiget i Den Europæiske Unions
institutioner eller i agenturer, organer eller kontorer, som EU-institutionerne har oprettet, eller c) som modtages fra
tredjelande eller internationale organisationer i denne forbindelse.

Rådet er enigt i, at beslutninger bør træffes så åbent som muligt og så tæt på borgerne som muligt i overensstemmelse
med artikel 1 i TEU og artikel 15 i TEUF. Derfor forhandler og stemmer Rådet offentligt om alle lovgivningsforslag ( [3] )
og gør ca. 75 % af de dokumenter, der er indført i sit offentlige register, tilgængelige for offentligheden, så snart de er
rundsendt ( [4] ) .

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Alle dokumenter, der er opført på Rådets dagsorden med henblik på offentlig forhandling eller offentlig debat, gøres tilgængelige for

offentligheden, så snart de er rundsendt (jf. artikel 11, stk. 5, litra b), i bilag II til Rådets forretningsorden (EUT L 325 af 11.12.2009, s. 36).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) I 2011 blev 184 634 nye dokumenter (omfattende alle sprogudgaver) indført i Rådets offentlige register, og 74,3 % heraf (dvs. 137 141) blev gjort

tilgængelige for offentligheden, så snart de var rundsendt.

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 255

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008734/12**

**to the Council**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Classification of documents etc. in the EU institutions

Can the Council confirm that on 4 May 2011 an agreement was reached on the classification of documents and other
material that may have ‘a negative impact’ on the EU, according to the attached article from the Danish _Notat_ ( [1] _)_
newspaper?

If so, will the Council answer the following questions?

—
What are the precise terms of the agreement?

—
Will the Council send the full text of the agreement to the author or indicate where this can be found?

—
How widely should the term ‘negative impact’ on the EU be understood?

—
Does the agreement contain specific criteria on when documents and other material are to be classified,
including the classification level to be used?

—
If so, what can be done to make sure that these criteria are applied uniformly in all Member States?

—
Does the agreement contain mechanisms to ensure that the lowest classification level, ‘For official use’, is not
simply used for (political) convenience or to avoid a public debate on matters that do not involve any real security
threat to the EU?

—
Does the Council not think that sensitive information on defence and security policy matters, for example, can
already be handled sufficiently safely at present by using NATO’s classification rules (which are virtually identical to
those mentioned in the article) and/or the classification rules used by individual Member States’ foreign services
(which are also similar to those mentioned in the article)?

—
Does the Council therefore agree — cf. the previous question — that the EU institutions simply do not need
their own classification system, or only actually need the higher classification level, whilst the lowest level is open to
abuse in the EU context?

—
Does the Council agree that the political process in the EU should be based on the greatest possible openness
and transparency in the decision-making process?

**Reply**
_(3 December 2012)_

The Council does not comment on press articles.

In response to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Council confirms that the representatives of the
governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, signed an Agreement, on
4 May 2011, regarding the protection of classified information exchanged in the interests of the European Union. The
Agreement has been published in the _Official Journal of the European Union_ (C 202, 8.7.2011, p. 13). It will enter into
force once all Member States have notified the Secretary-General of the Council of the completion of the requisite
internal procedures.

The Agreement, which exists alongside the Council’s security rules ( [2] ), helps reinforce the system governing the
protection of classified information within the EU by:

(a) reinforcing the obligation for Member States to take all appropriate measures to ensure that classified
information provided to them by EU institutions, agencies, bodies or offices is properly protected;

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.notat.dk/danmark-skal-hemmeligstemple-negative-eu-oplysninger
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Decision 2011/292/EU of 31 March 2011, OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p. 17.

C 287 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

(b) enshrining visibly and clearly the obligation that classified information received by the EU from third States and
international organisations is guaranteed an appropriate level of protection within Member States when it is
forwarded to them by EU institutions, agencies, bodies or offices; and

(c) creating a framework for protecting national classified information exchanged between Member States in the
interests of the EU where Member States do not have bilateral security agreements with each other.

Provision is made in the Agreement to ensure that it is without prejudice to national laws and regulations regarding
the protection of classified information (as well as public access to documents and the protection of personal data). It
does not lay down criteria on when documents and other material are to be classified or the classification level to be
used, but lays down an obligation on the Parties to take all appropriate measures (in accordance with their respective
national laws and regulations) to ensure that classified information exchanged in the interests of the EU is protected at
a level equivalent to that afforded by the Council’s security rules for protecting EU classified information.

Under the Council’s security rules, ‘EU classified information’ (EUCI) is any information or material designated by an
EU security classification, the unauthorised disclosure of which could cause varying degrees of prejudice to the
interests of the European Union or of one or more of the Member States. The system for protecting such information
is based on four classification levels:

—
TRÈS SECRET UE/EU TOP SECRET;

—
SECRET UE/EU SECRET;

—
CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL;

—
RESTREINT UE/EU RESTRICTED.

Classifying information as EUCI involves an assessment and a decision by the originator that the disclosure of such
information to unauthorised persons would cause a degree of prejudice to the interests of the European Union or of
one or more of the Member States. Such decisions are not taken lightly; due consideration is given to the actual
content and sensitivity of the information before deciding that it needs to be classified. Once a decision has been made
to classify the information, an assessment is made of the classification level it warrants. The practical classification
guide attached to the ‘Policy on creating EU classified information’ approved by the Council (see Council document
No 10872/11) contains criteria on the basis of which classification decisions are taken by the originating department.

NATO's classification rules apply only to NATO and not to the EU. The Council's security rules and the Agreement
regarding the protection of classified information exchanged in the interests of the European Union reflect the need to
put in place a coherent and comprehensive general framework for the protection of classified
information (a) originating in the Member States in the interests of the European Union, (b) originating in European
Union institutions or in agencies, bodies or offices established by the latter, or (c) received from third States or
international organisations in this context.

The Council agrees that decisions should be taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen, in
accordance with Article 1 TEU and Article 15 TFEU. To that effect, the Council deliberates and votes in public on any
legislative proposals ( [3] ) and makes approximately 75% of the documents recorded in its public register available to the
public upon circulation ( [4] ).

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) All documents which are listed on the Council's agenda for a public deliberation or a public debate are made available to the public upon

circulation (see Article 11(5)(b) of Annex II to the Council's Rules of Procedure, OJ L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 36).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) In 2011, 184 634 new documents (including all language versions) were recorded in the Council's Public Register, 74,3% of which (i.e. 137 141)

were made public upon circulation.

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 257

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008735/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28. september 2012)_

_Om:_ Klassifikation af dokumenter mv. i EU's institutioner

Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at der den 4. maj 2011 blev indgået en aftale om klassificering af dokumenter og andet
materiale, som kan have »en negativ indvirkning« på EU, således som det fremgår af vedføjede artikel af den danske
avis Notat ( [1] )?

Vil Kommissionen i givet fald oplyse nærmere:

—
Hvad er det præcise indhold af aftalen?

—
Vil Kommissionen oversende den fulde aftaletekst til spørgeren eller oplyse, hvor den kan findes?

—
Hvor bredt skal begrebet »negativ indvirkning« på EU forstås?

—
Indeholder aftalen præcise kriterier for, hvornår dokumenter og andet materiale skal klassificeres, herunder
hvilken klassifikationsgrad, der skal anvendes?

—
Hvordan sikres det i givet fald, at disse kriterier anvendes ensartet i alle medlemsstater?

—
Indeholder aftalen mekanismer, der kan sikre, at den laveste klassifikation, »Til tjenestebrug«, ikke blot
anvendes af (politiske) bekvemmelighedshensyn eller for at forhindre en offentlig debat om sager, der ikke
indebærer nogen reel sikkerhedstrussel mod EU?

—
Finder Kommissionen ikke, at følsomme oplysninger på eksempelvis det forsvars‐ og sikkerhedspolitiske
område allerede i dag kan håndteres tilstrækkelig sikkert ved brug af NATO's klassifikationsregler (der er stort
set identiske med de i artiklen nævnte) og/eller de klassifikationsregler de enkelte landes udenrigstjenester
benytter (som også minder om de i artiklen nævnte)?

—
Er Kommissionen således enig i, jf. spørgsmålet ovenfor, at EU's institutioner slet ikke har brug for sit eget
klassifikationssystem eller reelt kun har brug for de højere klassifikationstrin, mens det laveste trin i EU‐
sammenhæng åbner for misbrug?

—
Er Kommissionen enig i, at den politiske proces i EU bør hvile på størst mulig åbenhed og gennemsigtighed i
beslutningsforløbet?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Maroš Šefčovič**

_(3. december 2012)_

Den aftale, som der henvises til, er Aftale mellem Den Europæiske Unions medlemsstater, om beskyttelse af
klassificerede informationer, der udveksles i Den Europæiske Unions interesse, som blev undertegnet af
medlemsstaternes repræsentanter den 25. maj 2011 ( [2] ) . Da der er tale om en mellemstatslig aftale mellem
medlemsstaterne forsamlet i Rådet, henviser Kommissionen det ærede medlem til Rådet for svar angående aftalens
anvendelsesområde, indhold og virkning.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.notat.dk/danmark-skal-hemmeligstemple-negative-eu-oplysninger/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EUT C 202 af 8.7.2011.

C 287 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt EU-institutionerne har brug for deres eget system til at klassificere
information frem for at anvende NATO-systemet, bør det pointeres, at NATO-systemet ikke kan overføres til EU og
medlemsstaterne, især eftersom nogle EU-medlemsstater ikke er medlem af NATO. Derfor gik Rådet og
Kommissionen i 2011 videre med at indføre deres egne regler til beskyttelse af EU's klassificerede informationer. For
Kommissionens vedkommende resulterede det i vedtagelsen af Kommissionens afgørelse 2001/844/EF, EKSF,
Euratom, af 29. november 2001 om ændring af dens forretningsorden ( [3] ) . For at sikre overensstemmelse mellem de
systemer, der anvendes af institutionerne og medlemsstaterne, og således lette udvekslingen af klassificerede
informationer, blev det besluttet, at Rådet og Kommissionen skulle anvende tilsvarende regler baseret på NATO's, idet
disse blev tilpasset deres respektive institutionelle, organisatoriske og operationelle behov.

Hvad angår gennemsigtighed i beslutningsprocessen, sigter forordning (EF) nr. 1049/2001 om aktindsigt i EuropaParlamentets, Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter ( [4] ) netop på en sådan gennemsigtighed, samtidig med at den
sikrer beskyttelsen af visse offentlige interesser (såsom offentlig sikkerhed) og private interesser (beskyttelse af
personoplysninger), hvor det er nødvendigt.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EFT L 317 af 3.12.2001.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) EFT L 145 af 31.5.2001.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 259

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008735/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Classification of documents etc. in the EU institutions

Can the Commission confirm that on 4 May 2011 an agreement was reached on the classification of documents and
other material that may have ‘a negative impact’ on the EU, according to the attached article from the Danish _Notat_ ( [1] )
newspaper?

If so, will the Commission answer the following questions?

—
What are the precise terms of the agreement?

—
Will the Commission send the full text of the agreement to the author or indicate where this can be found?

—
How widely should the term ‘negative impact’ on the EU be understood?

—
Does the agreement contain specific criteria on when documents and other material are to be classified,
including the classification level to be used?

—
If so, what can be done to make sure that these criteria are applied uniformly in all Member States?

—
Does the agreement contain mechanisms to ensure that the lowest classification level, ‘For official use’, is not
simply used for (political) convenience or to avoid a public debate on matters that do not involve any real security
threat to the EU?

—
Does the Commission not think that sensitive information on defence and security policy matters, for example,
can already be handled sufficiently safely at present by using NATO’s classification rules (which are virtually identical
to those mentioned in the article) and/or the classification rules used by individual Member States’ foreign services
(which are also similar to those mentioned in the article)?

—
Does the Commission therefore agree — cf. the previous question — that the EU institutions simply do not
need their own classification system, or only actually need the higher classification level, whilst the lowest level is
open to abuse in the EU context?

—
Does the Commission agree that the political process in the EU should be based on the greatest possible
openness and transparency in the decision-making process?

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

_(3 December 2012)_

The agreement referred to is the Agreement between the EU Member States regarding the protection of classified
information exchanged in the interests of the EU, signed by the representatives of the Member States on
25 May 2011 ( [2] ). As this is an intergovernmental agreement between the Member States meeting in the Council, the
Commission refers the Honourable Member to the Council for answers regarding scope, content and impact of the
agreement.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.notat.dk/danmark-skal-hemmeligstemple-negative-eu-oplysninger/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ C 202, 8.7.2011.

C 287 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

As to whether the EU institutions need their own system for classifying information rather than applying the NATO
system, it should be pointed out that the NATO system does not apply to the EU and the Member States — the more
so as some EU Member States are not member of NATO. Hence, Council and Commission proceeded in 2001 to
adopting their own rules for protecting EU Classified Information. For the Commission this resulted in the adoption
of Commission Decision 2001/844/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of
Procedure ( [3] ). So as to ensure compatibility between the systems applied by the institutions and by the Member States,
and thus to facilitate exchange of classified information, it was decided that Council and Commission would apply
equivalent rules, based on those of NATO, while adapting these to their respective institutional, organisational and
operational needs.

As to transparency of the decision-making process, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to EP,
Council and Commission documents ( [4] ) is aimed at such transparency, while making sure to safeguard where
appropriate certain public interests (such as public security) or private ones (protection of personal data).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 317, 3.12.2001.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 261

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008736/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28. september 2012)_

_Om:_ Optagelse af Bulgarien og Rumænien i Schengensamarbejdet

Kan Kommissionen bekræfte de oplysninger, der fremgår af vedføjede pressemeddelelse ( [1] ) fra det bulgarske
indenrigsministerium, herunder de nævnte tidsfrister?

Vil Kommissionen yderligere oplyses, hvorvidt sagen nu er avanceret, og hvad den aktuelle status er?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Cecilia Malmström**

_(16. november 2012)_

Hvad angår Rumæniens og Bulgariens medlemskab af Schengenområdet, træffer Rådet efter høring af EuropaParlamentet enhver afgørelse om udvidelsen af Schengenområdet, hvorigennem kontrollen ved de indre grænser
ophæves.

Der er på Det Europæiske Råds anmodning fra marts 2012 peget på foranstaltninger, der kan bidrage til en vellykket
udvidelse af Schengenområdet, således at det også omfatter Rumænien og Bulgarien. Disse foranstaltninger er
ved at blive gennemført og omfatter fælles Frontex-operationer ved landegrænser og større lufthavne i
Rumænien og Bulgarien, foranstaltninger til bekæmpelse af falske dokumenter og identitetssvig, supplerende
uddannelsesprogrammer for grænsevagter samt regelmæssig og målrettet risikoanalyse.

Rådet for Retlige og indre anliggender nåede ikke på samlingen i oktober til enighed om enstemmigt at vedtage en
afgørelse om ophævelse af den indre grænsekontrol, og formandskabet har derfor opfordret til, at man fortsat gør en
indsats for at nå frem til en sådan afgørelse.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://press.mvr.bg/en/News/news120611_01.htm

C 287 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008736/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Accession of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen

Can the Commission confirm the information contained in the attached press release from the Bulgarian Interior
Ministry ( [1] ), including the deadline indicated?

Will the Commission further state how much progress has now been made, and what the current state of affairs is?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 November 2012)_

As for the membership of Romania and Bulgaria in the Schengen area, any decision on the extension of the Schengen
area through which internal border control is lifted is taken by the Council, after consultation of the European
Parliament.

Further to the request of the March 2012 European Council, measures that would serve to contribute to the successful
enlargement of the Schengen Area to include Romania and Bulgaria have been identified. These measures are being
implemented and include Frontex joint operations at land borders and major airports in Romania and Bulgaria,
measures in the fight against false documents and identity fraud, additional training programmes for border guards,
and regular and targeted risk analysis.

Given that the necessary unanimity in Council for a decision on the lifting of internal border control has not yet been
reached at the meeting of the October Justice and Home Affairs Council, the Presidency called for continuing efforts
in order to adopt such a decision.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://press.mvr.bg/en/News/news120611_01.htm

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 263

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008737/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(28. September 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Europäische Bankenfusionen seit 2008

Im Zuge der Diskussion über das „Too big to fail“-Problem und das damit verbundene systemische Risiko von
Großbanken ist es relevant zu verfolgen, welche Banken sich zusammengelegt haben und welche Großbanken
kleinere (regionale und überregionale) Finanzinstitute aufgekauft haben.

1. Verfügt die Kommission über eine Übersicht aller Fusionen und/oder Firmenübernahmen im Finanzsektor in
der EU für den Zeitraum seit September 2008?

2. Wenn ja, welche Banken haben welche anderen Finanzinstitute für welche Beträge, zu welchen Konditionen
und in welchem Jahr aufgekauft?

3. Wenn nein, warum nicht?

**Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission**

_(5. November 2012)_

Die Kommission verfügt nicht über eine vollständige Übersicht über alle Fusionen und Übernahmen, die im Bereich
Finanzdienstleistungen während der Krise durchgeführt wurden. Seit Krisenbeginn sind eine Reihe von Vorhaben bei
der Kommission angemeldet und nach den EU‐Fusionskontrollvorschriften genehmigt worden. Jedoch handelt es
sich dabei nur um einen Teil aller Fusionen und Übernahmen, da die EU‐Fusionskontrollvorschriften nur für
Vorhaben gelten, die bestimmte Voraussetzungen erfüllen. Andere Zusammenschlüsse können von den
einzelstaatlichen Wettbewerbsbehörden geprüft worden sein oder brauchten, je nach Umsatz der beteiligten
Unternehmen, unter Umständen gar nicht kontrolliert zu werden.

Alle bei der Kommission angemeldeten Zusammenschlüsse sind im entsprechenden Register auf der Website der
Generaldirektion für Wettbewerb unter folgendem Link zu finden:
[http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm)

C 287 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008737/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ European bank mergers since 2008

In the context of the debate on the ‘too-big-to-fail’ issue and the associated systemic risk posed by large banks it has
become relevant to examine which banks have merged and which major banks have bought up smaller (regional or
supra-regional) financial institutions.

1. Does the Commission have an overview of all mergers and/or takeovers in the EU financial sector in the period
since September 2008?

2. If so, which banks have purchased which other financial institutions, for which amounts, under which
conditions and in which year?

3. If not, why not?

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

_(5 November 2012)_

The Commission has no complete overview of mergers and takeovers in the area of financial services during the crisis.
A number of transactions have been notified to and cleared by the Commission since the beginning of the crisis under
the EU merger control rules. However, they only represent a portion of overall mergers and acquisitions, since the EU
merger control rules only cover transactions that meet certain conditions. Other transactions might have been dealt
with by national competition authorities or might not have been subject to any scrutiny under merger control rules,
depending on their size.

All concentrations which have been notified to the Commission can be found in the case register on the Director
[General for Competition's website via the link: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm)

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 265

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-009024/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 de octubre de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ CleanIT

El pasado 21 de septiembre de 2012, European Digital Rights (EDRI), una organización de defensa de los derechos de
los ciudadanos, publicó un documento escrito por el proyecto CleanIT, financiado por la Comisión, sobre el uso de
Internet con fines terroristas ( [1] ). Este documento ha generado una gran inquietud respecto a la compatibilidad de las
actividades y propuestas del proyecto con los derechos fundamentales, incluso tras haberse asegurado en la página
web del proyecto que «el objetivo no es restringir la libertad en Internet, aunque sí nos preocupa la seguridad y nos
gustaría limitar el uso de Internet con fines terroristas» ( [2] ). La Comisión está también financiando otros proyectos,
como la «Coalición de los CEOs», que lucha contra la pornografía infantil en Internet.

¿Ha hablado la Comisión con los responsables del proyecto acerca de las reservas formuladas por EDRI? ¿Les ha
señalado las obligaciones que debe cumplir el proyecto en relación con los derechos fundamentales (especialmente, el
artículo 52 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, los artículos 8 y 10 del Convenio
Europeo de Derechos Humanos y el artículo 49 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos)?

**Respuesta conjunta del Señor Malmströmon en nombre de la Comisión**

_(26 de noviembre de 2012)_

Todos los proyectos financiados con cargo al programa específico «Prevención y lucha contra la delincuencia» (ISEC)
están sujetos a minuciosos controles durante los procedimientos de selección y adjudicación, también en lo relativo a
su Programa de Trabajo Anual y a la calidad de la concepción y organización del proyecto. El Programa de Trabajo
Anual 2013 reconoce que todas las acciones respetarán y se aplicarán conforme a los derechos y principios
consagrados en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea ( [3] ). Las propuestas de la Comisión sobre
nuevos instrumentos financieros en el ámbito de los asuntos de interior en el marco del próximo MFP incluyen
también la norma de que la UE sólo financia acciones que sean conformes con el derecho nacional y de la Unión en
vigor ( [4] ).

En lo que respecta al proyecto Clean IT en sí mismo, se invita a sus Señorías a que consulten la respuesta conjunta de
la Comisión a las preguntas escritas P-8386/12, P-8569/12 y P-8906/12 ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.edri.org/cleanIT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.cleanitproject.eu/faq/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 6402 final de 19.9.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Véase el artículo 4 del COM(2011) 752 final.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/es/parliamentary-questions.html

C 287 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-008738/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)**

_(28 september 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Clean IT

Op 21 september 2012 heeft European Digital Rights een door de Commissie gefinancierd en door het project
Clean IT opgesteld document gepubliceerd over het gebruik van het internet voor terroristische doeleinden ( [1] ). In het
document wordt bezorgdheid geuit over de verenigbaarheid van de activiteiten en de voorstellen van het project met
de grondrechten, ondanks de volgende geruststellende tekst op de website van het project): „Het project beoogt niet
het beperken van de internetvrijheid, maar we maken ons wel zorgen om de veiligheid en we willen het gebruik van
het internet voor terroristische doeleinden aan banden leggen” ( [2] ). De Commissie kent ook financiering toe aan
projecten als de CEO Coalition to fight child abuse material op het internet.

Heeft de Commissie voorafgaand aan het besluit betreffende de toekenning van financiering aan het project Clean IT
gekeken naar de verenigbaarheid van het project met de grondrechten, en kan de Commissie akkoord gaan met een
wijziging van de regels van het Fonds voor interne veiligheid waarmee een dergelijke beoordeling van de
verenigbaarheid met de grondrechten in de toekomst verplicht wordt gesteld?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Malmström namens de Commissie**

_(26 november 2012)_

Alle projecten die in het kader van het specifieke programma „Preventie en bestrijding van criminaliteit” (ISEC)
worden gefinancierd, worden tijdens de selectie‐ en gunningsprocedures onderworpen aan grondige controles, onder
andere wat betreft de conformiteit met het jaarlijkse werkprogramma en de kwaliteit van het ontwerp en de
organisatie van een project. Het jaarlijkse werkprogramma van 2013 erkent dat alle acties in overeenstemming zijn
met en worden uitgevoerd conform de rechten en beginselen die zijn vastgelegd in het Handvest van de grondrechten
van de Europese Unie ( [3] ). De in het kader van het volgende maarjarig financieel kader gedane voorstellen van de
Commissie voor nieuwe financiële instrumenten op het gebied van binnenlandse zaken, bevatten ook de regel dat
de EU enkel acties financiert die in overeenstemming zijn met het toepasselijk recht van Unie en van de lidstaten ( [4] ).

Wat het project Clean IT betreft, worden de geachte Parlementsleden verwezen naar het gezamenlijke antwoord van
de Commissie op de schriftelijke vragen P-8386/12, P-8569/12 and P-8906/12 ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.edri.org/cleanIT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.cleanitproject.eu/faq/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 6402 definitief, van 19.9.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Zie artikel 4 van COM(2011) 752 definitief.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 267

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008738/12**

**to the Commission**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Clean IT

On 21 September 2012, European Digital Rights published a document, funded by the Commission and drawn up by
the CleanIT project, regarding the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes ( [1] ). The document raises serious concerns
regarding the fundamental rights compatibility of the project’s activities and proposals, despite the assurance on the
project’s website that ‘This project does not aim to restrict Internet freedom, but we do have security concerns and
want to limit the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes’ ( [2] ). The Commission is also funding projects such as the
CEO Coalition to fight child abuse material on the Internet.

Did the Commission assess the fundamental rights compatibility of the CleanIT project before deciding to allocate
funding, and would it support an amendment to the internal security fund aimed at imposing such an obligation in
the future?

**Question for written answer P-009024/12**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Clean IT

On 21 September 2012, European Digital Rights (EDRI), a civil rights organisation, released a document written by
the Commission-funded Clean IT project on the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes ( [1] ). The document raises
serious concerns regarding the compatibility of the project’s activities and proposals with fundamental rights, despite
the assurances on the project’s website that the ‘project does not aim to restrict Internet freedom, but we do have
security concerns and want to limit the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes’ ( [2] ) The Commission is also funding
projects such as the ‘CEO Coalition’ to fight child abuse material on the Internet.

Has the Commission discussed the concerns raised by EDRI with the project leaders, and has it pointed out to them
the fundamental rights obligations that the project is to comply with (in particular, Article 52 of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights, Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 49 of the
International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights)?

**Joint answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 November 2012)_

All projects funded under the Specific Programme ‘Prevention of and Fight against Crime’ (ISEC) are subject to
thorough checks during the selection and award procedures including on conformity with the annual work
programme and the quality of a project's conception and organisation. The Annual Work Programme for 2013
recognises that ‘any actions shall respect and shall be implemented in line with the rights and principles enshrined in
the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’ ( [3] ). The Commission's proposals for new financial
instruments in the Home Affairs field under the next MFF also include the rule that the EU only finances actions which
comply with applicable EC law and national laws ( [4] ).

Concerning the Clean IT project itself, the Honourable Members are referred to the Commission's joint reply to
Written Questions P-8386/12, P-8569/12 and P-8906/12 ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.edri.org/cleanIT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.cleanitproject.eu/faq/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 6402 final, 19.9.2012.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See Article 4 of COM(2011) 752 final.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 287 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-008739/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D)**

_(28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δίωξη Γαλλίδας ακτιβίστριας στην Τουρκία

Στις 26 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012, στο κακουργιοδικείο της Προύσας ξεκίνησε η δίκη της Σεβίλ Σεβιμλί, η οποία κατηγορείται από
τις τουρκικές αρχές ως ηγετικό στέλεχος της ακροαριστερής τρομοκρατικής οργάνωσης DHKP-C (Επαναστατικό Λαϊκό
Απελευθερωτικό Μέτωπο-Κόμμα) και κινδυνεύει με ποινή κάθειρξης μέχρι και 32 έτη.

Κατηγορούμενη είναι μια 20χρονη Γαλλίδα φοιτήτρια-ακτιβίστρια, τουρκικής καταγωγής, η οποία στο πλαίσιο του
ευρωπαϊκού προγράμματος ανταλλαγής φοιτητών Erasmus, βρέθηκε στην Προύσα, όπου συμμετείχε σε διαδηλώσεις και
πορείες διαμαρτυρίας. Μόνο μέσα στο 2012 έχουν συλληφθεί και τεθεί υπό κράτηση στην Τουρκία περισσότεροι από 700
φοιτητές και μαθητές για συμμετοχή σε ακτιβιστικές εκδηλώσεις. Η Σεβιμλί μάλιστα είχε δηλώσει στον τουρκικό Τύπο την
αλληλεγγύη στους υπόλοιπους φυλακισμένους φοιτητές της χώρας.

Η νεαρή φοιτήτρια συνελήφθη σπίτι της στις 10 Μαΐου, όπου μετά από έρευνα βρέθηκαν βιβλία όπως το Κεφάλαιο του Μάρξ
και το Κουμμουνιστικό Μανιφέστο τα οποία θεωρήθηκαν ύποπτα. Παρέμεινε υπό καθεστώς κράτησης για 3 μήνες, μαζί με
άλλους 5 φοιτητές, μέχρι την απελευθέρωσή της με περιοριστικούς όρους τον Αύγουστο.

Στη Γαλλία πραγματοποιείται μεγάλη κινητοποίηση υπέρ της νεαρής φοιτήτριας, η επιτροπή υποστήριξης έχει συγκεντρώσει
125 000 υπογραφές. Όμως η Τουρκία δεν αναγνωρίζει τη διπλή υπηκοότητα και η Σεβίλ θεωρείται από τις τοπικές αρχές
απλή τουρκάλα πολίτης.

Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Ποια είναι η στάση της απέναντι στην υπερβολική πρακτική των τουρκικών αρχών να συλλαμβάνουν
διαμαρτυρόμενους φοιτητές και μαθητές απειλώντας τους με πολυετείς καθείρξεις;

2. Τι σκοπεύει να πράξει προκειμένου να υπερασπιστεί τα δικαιώματα της νεαρή Ευρωπαίας φοιτήτριας που κινδυνεύει να
περάσει 32 χρόνια σε μια τουρκική φυλακή;

**Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(29 Οκτωβρίου 2012)_

Στην έκθεση προόδου της Τουρκίας για το 2012, η Επιτροπή εκφράζει τις ανησυχίες της για το γεγονός ότι πάνω από 2 800
σπουδαστές ευρίσκονται υπό κράτηση, κυρίως με κατηγορίες σχετικές με τρομοκρατία. Το νομικό πλαίσιο για το
οργανωμένο έγκλημα και την τρομοκρατία παραμένει ασαφές και περιλαμβάνει ορισμούς που επιδέχονται καταστρατήγηση
και οδηγούν σε διάφορες κατηγορίες και καταδικαστικές αποφάσεις. Επιπλέον, η ερμηνεία του από εισαγγελείς και
δικαστήρια είναι ανομοιογενής και δεν συνάδει με την Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση για τα δικαιώματα του ανθρώπου ή τη νομολογία
του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου των δικαιωμάτων του ανθρώπου. Η Τουρκία πρέπει να τροποποιήσει τον ποινικό της κώδικα
και την αντιτρομοκρατική νομοθεσία ώστε να γίνεται σαφής διάκριση μεταξύ της υποκίνησης σε βία και της έκφρασης
ειρηνικών απόψεων. Η Επιτροπή ελπίζει ότι μια τέταρτη δέσμη μέτρων για τη μεταρρύθμιση του δικαστικού συστήματος, η
οποία έχει εξαγγελθεί από την κυβέρνηση, θα υποβληθεί σύντομα στο πρόγραμμα του Κοινοβουλίου και θα δώσει λύση στις
ανησυχίες που αναφέρονται πιο πάνω.

Η Επιτροπή γνωρίζει τη συγκεκριμένη υπόθεση στην οποία αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου. Στις 7
Αυγούστου 2012, το 6ο Κακουργιοδικείο της Προύσας αποφάσισε να αποφυλακίσει την Sevil Sevimli, μέχρι την δίκη της,
αλλά δεν της επιτρέπεται να ταξιδέψει. Η Επιτροπή θα εξακολουθήσει να παρακολουθεί εκ του σύνεγγυς την υπόθεση και θα
επιστήσει την προσοχή των τουρκικών αρχών σχετικά με αυτήν, αν χρειαστεί.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 269

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008739/12**

**to the Commission**
**Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ French activist on trial in Turkey

On 26 September 2012 Sevil Sevimli, a 20-year old French student and activist of Turkish origin, who took part in
demonstrations and protest marches while in Bursa as part of the Erasmus European student exchange programme,
was put on trial before the Bursa Criminal Court, having been accused by the Turkish authorities of being a leading
member of the far left extremist group, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party — Front), charges which
may carry a sentence of up to 32 years imprisonment. In 2012 alone, over 700 students and pupils have been
arrested and detained in Turkey on charges of taking part in protests and demonstrations. Sevil Sevimli has also been
reported by the Turkish press as expressing her solidarity with other imprisoned students in Turkey.

She was arrested on 10 May at her home, where a number of books regarded as suspicious, including ‘Das Kapital’ by
Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, were found. She, together with five other students, remained under arrest
for three months before being given conditional release in August.

Her case has unleashed a wave of sympathy in France, her support committee having gathered 125,000 signatures.
However, Turkey does not recognise dual nationality and Sevil Sevimli is considered by the authorities to be a Turkish
national. In view of this:

1. What view does the Commission take of the excesses being committed by the Turkish authorities in arresting
student demonstrators and threatening them with years of incarceration?

2. What action will it take to uphold the rights of this young European student, who is now facing the prospect of
32 years in a Turkish jail?

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

_(29 October 2012)_

In its 2012 Progress Report on Turkey, the Commission expresses its concerns at the fact that more than 2 800
students are in detention, mostly for terrorism related charges. The legal framework on organised crime and terrorism
is still imprecise and contains definitions which are open to abuse, leading to numerous indictments and convictions.
Moreover, its interpretation by prosecutors and courts is uneven and is not in line with the European Convention on
Human Rights or the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey needs to amend its penal code and
anti-terror legislation to make a clear distinction between the incitement to violence and the expression of nonviolent
ideas. The Commission is hopeful a fourth judicial reform package, announced by the government, will be put on the
Parliament's agenda rapidly and that it will address the concerns referred to above.

The Commission is aware of the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member. On 7 August 2012, the
6th Bursa Heavy Penal Court decided to release Sevil Sevimli, pending her trial, but she is not allowed to travel. The
Commission will continue to closely monitor the case and to bring it to the attention of the Turkish authorities as
appropriate.

C 287 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008740/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Piani dell'Ucraina per aumentare le tariffe all'importazione su tutta una serie di prodotti

In sede OMC si sono manifestate preoccupazioni in ordine alle misure commerciali protezionistiche di recente
previste dall'Ucraina. Il governo di Kiev ha annunciato questa settimana che sta per aumentare le tariffe su più di 350
prodotti con conseguenze per le importazioni per un valore di $ 4,6 miliardi. Tra i prodotti che saranno interessati
dagli aumenti tariffari figurerebbero automobili, camion, macchine agricole, carne, fiori, frutta, verdura, lavatrici e
siringhe. Grazie all'articolo 28 della Raccolta di regole dell'OMC sull'Accordo generale sulle tariffe doganali e sul
commercio (GATT) che in passato è stato usato raramente e di solito per meno di 10 tariffe per volta, l'Ucraina è
autorizzata ad effettuare le modifiche. In questo caso sembrano eccessive.

Secondo la «Nona relazione sulle misure commerciali potenzialmente restrittive» dell'UE, l'Ucraina dal 2008 aveva in
vigore solo 2 misure commerciali potenzialmente restrittive e tra l'ottobre 2008 e il primo maggio 2012 ne aveva
rimosse 9. L'Unione europea è il secondo partner commerciale dell'Ucraina dopo la Russia.

Alla luce delle informazioni di cui sopra:

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza del piano dell'Ucraina per attuare nuove misure commerciali restrittive con
l'aumento delle tariffe doganali alle importazioni? La Commissione sta intraprendendo qualche azione in
merito?

2. Qual è la posizione della Commissione sulle misure suggerite? Ritiene la Commissione che tali misure
influiranno negativamente sugli scambi annuali dell'UE con l'Ucraina? In caso affermativo, di quanto?

**Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione**

_(13 novembre 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza della notifica fatta dall'Ucraina in forza dell'articolo XXVIII dell'Accordo generale
sulle tariffe doganali e sul commercio (GATT).

Le procedure per i negoziati in forza dell'articolo XXVIII del GATT prevedono che altri membri dell'Organizzazione
mondiale del commercio (OMC) dovrebbero manifestare interesse entro un periodo di 90 giorni dalla diffusione delle
statistiche sull'importazione; l'UE ha tempo fino al 12 dicembre 2012 per presentare la propria manifestazione di
interesse in merito ai prodotti elencati dall'Ucraina.

Attualmente, la Commissione valuta la notifica dell'Ucraina anche di concerto con altri membri dell'OMC interessati.

La Commissione è preoccupata quanto al fatto che l'azione proposta dall'Ucraina sollevi gravi criticità sistemiche per
il sistema commerciale multilaterale. La Commissione ha già intrattenuto specifici scambi bilaterali con l'Ucraina su
tale questione. Secondo l'Ucraina, l'intenzione di detto paese di negoziare una modifica delle aliquote di dazio
consolidate delle importazioni ha il fine di creare un margine di manovra politica per tali prodotti. Le autorità ucraine
hanno affermato che forniranno informazioni sulla modifica delle aliquote di dazio consolidate ai paesi coinvolti nei
negoziati bilaterali e che si stabilirà una compensazione in forma di accordo di compromesso con i paesi interessati
per quanto concerne le linee tariffarie da modificarsi.

Per il momento, l'Ucraina ha soltanto annunciato la propria intenzione di modificare le proprie tariffe
all'importazione e ha fatto presente che fornirà informazioni sul livello che intende proporre per riconsolidare le linee
tariffarie in questione soltanto ai paesi che hanno diritto di intavolare negoziati in forza dell'articolo XXVIII.

Pertanto, in questa fase è impossibile valutare esattamente l'impatto di questa modifica sui flussi commerciali; da
stime preliminari emerge che il volume degli scambi potenzialmente in gioco si situa intorno ai 2 miliardi di euro di
esportazioni UE.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 271

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008740/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Ukraine's plans to raise import tariffs on a range of goods

Concern has been raised at the WTO over trade protectionist measures newly proposed by Ukraine. The Government
in Kiev announced this week that it was going to raise tariffs on more than 350 goods, affecting imports worth
USD 4.6 billion. Products that would be affected by the tariff increases include cars, trucks, agricultural machinery,
meat, flowers, fruit, vegetables, washing machines and syringes. Article 28 of the WTO rulebook on the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does allow Ukraine to make these changes, but the article has rarely been used in the
past, and then usually for fewer than 10 tariffs at a time. In this instance they are seen as excessive.

According to the EU’s ‘Ninth Report on Potentially Trade Restrictive Measures’, Ukraine has only had two potentially
trade restrictive measures in place since 2008, and between October 2008 and 1 May 2012 it had removed nine. The
European Union is Ukraine’s second largest trading partner after Russia.

In light of the information above, can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is the Commission aware of Ukraine’s plan to implement new trade restricting measures by increasing import
tariffs? Is the Commission taking any action on the matter?

2. What is the Commission view on the suggested measures? Does the Commission believe that these measures
will negatively affect the EU’s annual trade with Ukraine, and, if so, by how much?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 November 2012)_

The Commission is aware of Ukraine's notification under Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT).

The procedures for negotiations under Article XXVIII of the GATT foresee that other World Trade Organisation
(WTO) Members should claim interest within a period of 90 days following the circulation of import statistics; the EU
has until 12 December 2012 to introduce its claim of interest on the products listed by Ukraine.

Currently, the Commission is assessing Ukraine's notification and this also in coordination with other affected WTO
Members.

The Commission is concerned that Ukraine's proposed action raises serious systemic concerns for the multilateral
trading system. The Commission has already had dedicated bilateral exchanges on this issue with Ukraine. According
to Ukraine, their intention to negotiate a modification of bound import duty rates is aimed at creating policy space for
these goods. They stated that they will provide information concerning the modification of bound duty rates to the
countries interested in bilateral negotiations and that compensation will be determined as a compromise agreement
with interested countries concerning the tariff lines to be modified.

For the time being, Ukraine has only announced its intention to modify its import tariffs and noted that it will only
disclose information on the level it would propose to re-bind the affected tariff lines only to those countries holding a
right to enter negotiations under Article XXVIII.

Therefore, at this stage it is impossible to assess precisely the impact of this adjustment on trade flows; preliminary
estimations indicate that the amount of trade potentially affected is close to EUR 2 billion of EU exports.

C 287 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008741/12**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(28 września 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Protest głodowy białoruskiego opozycjonisty

Białoruski więzień polityczny Dzmitrij Daszkiewicz ogłosił głodówkę w kolonii karnej w Mozyrzu, dokąd
przeniesiono go 19 września. Narzeczona opozycjonisty poinformowała, że w kolonii Daszkiewicz spotkał się ze
zniewagami, naciskami i prześladowaniami z powodów religijnych.

Białoruskie władze wciąż prześladują i wywierają naciski na więźniów politycznych. Opozycjoniści przenoszeni są
do karcerów, izolatek, wywiera się na nich presję psychiczną, by podpisali prośby o ułaskawienie. Jak pokazuje
przykład Daszkiewicza, administracja kolonii wszczyna również przeciwko więźniom politycznym dodatkowe
sprawy karne, tak by przedłużyć ich wyroki.

W związku z tym zwracam się z zapytaniem, czy Komisja posiada informacje na temat represji stosowanych przez
władze kolonii w stosunku do Dzmitrija Daszkiewicza i ma zamiar podjąć interwencję w tej sprawie?

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

**Komisji**
_(12 listopada 2012 r.)_

Dnia 5 października 2012 r. Dzmitrij Daszkiewicz zakończył swój piętnastodniowy protest głodowy po
umożliwieniu mu spotkania z adwokatem i polepszeniu traktowania go przez administrację kolonii karnej. Według
pana Daszkiewicza przyczyniły się do tego interwencje publiczne w jego sprawie, także ze strony społeczności
międzynarodowej.

UE jest świadoma faktu, że warunki traktowania więźniów politycznych mogą się wprawdzie polepszyć, jednak
równie dobrze mogą się one pogorszyć. Z tego powodu UE będzie wciąż bacznie się przyglądać przedmiotowemu
przypadkowi, jak i jemu podobnym. UE będzie również kontynuowała działania publiczne i dwustronne mające na
celu natychmiastowe uwolnienie i rehabilitację wszystkich więźniów politycznych na Białorusi. W dalszym ciągu
będzie także wywierać nacisk na władze białoruskie, aby podjęły odpowiednie kroki na rzecz poszanowania praw
człowieka, praworządności oraz zasad demokracji.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 273

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008741/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Belarusian opposition activist on hunger strike

Belarusian political prisoner Dzmitry Dashkevich announced a hunger strike at the prison in Mazyr where he has
been held since 19 September 2012. The opposition activist’s fiancee reported that Dashkevich had faced insults,
pressure and persecution on religious grounds while in prison.

The Belarusian authorities are still persecuting and putting pressure on political prisoners. Opposition activists are
placed in solitary confinement, and psychological pressure is put on them to sign requests for pardon. As the
Dashkevich case demonstrates, the prison authorities also launch additional criminal cases against political prisoners
in order to prolong their sentences.

In this connection, does the Commission have any information on the persecution of Dzmitry Dashkevich by the
prison authorities, and does it intend to intervene in the matter?

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

_(12 November 2012)_

On 5 October 2012 Dzimtry Dashekvich ended his 15-day hunger strike, after having been able to meet with his
lawyer and following an improvement in his treatment by prison authorities. Mr Dashkevich attributed these
developments to the impact of public interventions in his support, including from the international community.

The EU is aware that, just as conditions for political prisoners can improve, they can also worsen. For this reason
the EU will remain vigilant in following this and other such cases closely. The EU will continue to work both publicly
and bilaterally for the immediate release and rehabilitation of all political prisoners in Belarus. The EU will also
continue to insist on appropriate steps being taken by the Belarusian authorities towards the respect for human
rights, the rule of law and democratic principles.

C 287 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Slovenska različica)_

**Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-008743/12**

**za Komisijo**
**Mojca Kleva (S&D)**
_(28. september 2012)_

_Zadeva:_ Pluralnost medijskega prostora

Televizijsko oglaševanje naj ne bi presegalo petdeset odstotkov celotnega deleža oglaševanja, saj to pomembno vpliva
na večjo izravnanost medijskega prostora in manjšo moč posameznih akterjev. Omejitve televizijskega oglaševanja so
seveda pomembne za zaščito pluralnosti medijskega prostora. V srednji in vzhodni Evropi se soočamo s problemom
pluralnosti medijev, zato sem bila opozorjena na postopek, ki ga je Evropska komisija sprožila proti družbi CME –
investicijski družbi, ki se je usmerila v vlaganje v televizijske projekte. V medijih je bilo mogoče razbrati, da je ta
družba pridobila monopol nad medijskim prostorom z diktiranjem cen oglaševanja. Zaradi zgoraj navedenega me
torej zanima:

1. V kateri fazi je trenutno ta postopek? Je Evropska komisija že prišla do zaključka?

S podobnim primerom smo se soočili tudi v Sloveniji, ko se je norveška družba Norkring umaknila iz države zaradi
privilegiranega položaja RTVS (nacionalnega televizijskega programa), ki naj bi z določanjem nepoštenih cenovnih
pogojev preprečeval družbi Norkring, da bi učinkovito upravljala komercialni multipleks v skladu s poslovnim
načrtom. Družba Norkring naj bi zaradi neurejenih razmer na področju digitalnega oddajanja televizijskih programov
tudi sprožila postopek proti Sloveniji pri Evropski komisiji.

2. Zanima me, ali je Komisija že začela zbirati podatke in ali je že sprejela odločitev o morebitnem postopku proti
Sloveniji?

3. Prav tako me zanima, kakšni predpisi veljajo v EU glede telekomunikacijskih podjetij, ki želijo oddajati tudi
informativni televizijski program?

**Odgovor komisarja Almunie v imenu Komisije**

_(26. november 2012)_

1. Domnevne protikonkurenčne prakse na slovenskem trgu televizijskega oglaševanja, o katerih sprašuje
spoštovana poslanka, preiskuje Urad RS za varstvo konkurence. Komisija ni v položaju, da bi komentirala slovenski
postopek.

2. Komisija ni uvedla postopka za ugotavljanje pomanjkljivega izvajanja primerne ureditve digitalnega
televizijskega oddajanja v Sloveniji. Slovenski organi so spremenili Zakon o digitalni radiodifuziji (ZDRad-B) tako, da
je mogoče prosto uporabljati frekvence, ki so bile dodeljene neposredno RTV Sloveniji. Namen navedenih
zakonodajnih sprememb je bil prenos člena 5(2) Direktive o odobritvi, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo o boljši
pripravi zakonodaje 2009/140/ES ( [1] ) .

3. Kadar telekomunikacijski operater uresničuje svojo uredniško odgovornost za vsebine, predvajane širši javnosti
(na primer informativni programi), zanj veljajo pravila iz Direktive 2010/13/EU z dne 10. marca 2010 ( [2] ) o
usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o opravljanju avdiovizualnih medijskih storitev
(Direktiva o avdiovizualnih medijskih storitvah). Nasprotno pa, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 26 k Direktivi,
Direktiva o avdiovizualnih medijskih storitvah ne ureja storitev razširjanja programov, ki spadajo pod uredniško
odgovornost tretje osebe.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direktiva 2009/140/ES z dne 25. novembra 2009, UL L 337, 18.12.2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direktiva 2010/13/EU z dne 10. marca 2010, UL L 95, 15.4.2012.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 275

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008743/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mojca Kleva (S&D)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Media pluralism

In order to have a better balance across the media market and reduce the power of individual actors, the share of total
advertising accounted for by television advertising should not exceed 50%. Restrictions on television advertising are,
of course, important for protecting media pluralism. In Central and Eastern Europe media pluralism is a problem. My
attention has been drawn to a procedure launched by the Commission against the company CME, which invests in
television projects. Based on reports in the media, it appears that this company has acquired a monopoly in the media
market by dictating advertising prices. I would therefore like to ask:

1. What stage has that procedure reached? Has the Commission already come to a conclusion?

We had a similar case in Slovenia when the Norwegian company Norkring withdrew from the country because of the
privileged position held by the national broadcast RTVS, which, by stipulating unfair price conditions, prevented
Norkring from effectively operating a commercial multiplex in accordance with its business plan. Norkring has also
apparently launched a procedure with the Commission against Slovenia because of the unregulated nature of digital
television broadcasting in the country.

2. Has the Commission already begun to gather information and has it yet taken a decision on any potential
proceedings against Slovenia?

3. I would also like to know what regulations apply in the EU with regard to telecommunications companies
wishing to broadcast a news programme.

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

_(26 November 2012)_

1. The alleged anti-competitive practices in the Slovenian television advertising market, to which the Honourable
Member refers, are investigated by the Slovenian Competition Authority. The Commission is not in a position to
comment on the Slovenian procedure.

2. The Commission has not opened any infringment procedure for lack of implementation of adequate regulation
of digital television broadcasting in Slovenia. Slovenian Authorities amended the Digital Broadcasting Act (ZDRad-B)
modifying the legislation allowing the free use of frequencies that were directly assigned to RTV Slovenija. Those
legislative changes were aimed at the transposition of Article 5(2) of the Authorisation Directive as amended by the
Better Regulation Directive 2009/140/EC ( [1] ) .

3. Provided that it exercises its editorial responsibility over the content broadcast to the general public (for instance
news programmes), a telecommunications operator falls under the rules set out in Directive 2010/13/EU of
10 March 2010 ( [2] ) on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive). On the
contrary, as indicated in Recital 26 of the directive, a service merely distributing programmes which are under the
editorial responsibility of third parties is not regulated by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/140/EC of 25 November 2009, OJ L 337, 18.12.2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2010/13/EU of 10 March 2010, OJ L 95, 15.4.2012.

C 287 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008744/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(28 septembrie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Mecanismul Conectarea Europei — Monitorizarea proiectelor de către Comisie

Comisia Europeană a prezentat prin Propunerea de Regulament al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului de
instituire a mecanismului Conectarea Europei, COM(2011) 0665 final, intenția de a crea un nou instrument integrat
pentru investițiile în priorități de infrastructură din domeniul transporturilor, al energiei și al telecomunicațiilor:
mecanismul Conectarea Europei.

Aceste rețelele sunt o condiție absolut necesară pentru realizarea pieței unice europene, iar investițiile în elemente
esențiale de infrastructură cu o valoare adăugată ridicată pentru UE pot stimula pozitiv competitivitatea Europei. În
plus, astfel de investiții în infrastructură sunt esențiale pentru realizarea obiectivelor de creștere durabilă ale UE,
subliniate în cadrul Strategiei Europa 2020, precum și a obiectivelor „20-20-20” în materie de politică energetică și
climatică.

Tocmai de aceea introducerea în orientările TEN-T a unei noi cerințe juridice stricte pentru ca statele membre ale
căror proiecte beneficiază de finanțare pentru rețeaua centrală să aibă o obligație legală de a finaliza proiectele
respective până în 2030 este mai mult decât binevenită și va constitui un stimulent clar pentru ca statele membre să
avanseze în realizarea proiectelor de transport.

1. Din punct de vedere juridic, doresc să întreb Comisia sub ce formă vor fi obligate statele membre să finalizeze
proiectele: se va solicita înapoierea finanțării pentru proiectele în cauză, se vor aplica penalități sau se va ajunge chiar
până la suspendarea accesului statului membru respectiv la viitoarele fonduri și programe europene în acest
domeniu?

2. De asemenea, pentru a evita periclitarea proiectelor, are în vedere Comisia introducerea unor evaluări
intermediare prin care să observe eventualele abateri de la planul de implementare și în urma cărora statele membre
respective să fie avertizate pentru a lua măsuri de corecție?

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

_(30 octombrie 2012)_

1. În propunerea sa privind revizuirea orientărilor TEN-T ( [1] ), Comisia a propus ca statele membre să creeze un
cadru mai strict pentru a asigura dezvoltarea rețelei centrale până în 2030. În plan juridic, această abordare se traduce
prin faptul că, în locul unei decizii adresate exclusiv statelor membre, Comisia propune un regulament pentru lua în
considerare faptul că alte părți interesate, precum managerii de infrastructură, joacă un rol-cheie în dezvoltarea
infrastructurii de transport.

Pentru a contribui la implementarea rețelei centrale, Comisia propune crearea unor coridoare ale rețelei centrale, ceea
ce va permite o mai bună coordonare între statele membre și actorii implicați și, prin urmare, va duce la luarea unor
decizii mai bune în materie de investiții.

De asemenea, mijloacele financiare prevăzute în mecanismul Conectarea Europei ( [2] ) vor fi orientate în principal spre
rețeaua centrală. Pe durata implementării mecanismului, se va aplica abordarea „folosești sau pierzi”, ceea ce înseamnă
că banii pot fi retrași din proiectele care se confruntă cu întârzieri considerabile pentru a fi sprijinite alte proiecte mai

avansate.

2. În conformitate cu articolul 59 din propunerea Comisiei privind revizuirea orientărilor TEN-T, în caz de
întârziere semnificativă în ceea ce privește demararea sau completarea lucrărilor la rețeaua centrală, Comisia poate
solicita informații statelor membre în cauză pentru a monitoriza implementarea și pentru a ajuta statele membre să
dezvolte rețeaua centrală până în 2030. Cu toate acestea, trebuie respectat principiul subsidiarității, așa cum este
consacrat în temeiul juridic relevant din tratat (articolul 172 din TFUE).

În plus, Comisia prevede evaluări la jumătatea perioadei pentru toate proiectele care primesc sprijin financiar în
cadrul mecanismului Conectarea Europei.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Propunere de Regulament al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind orientările Uniunii pentru dezvoltarea rețelei transeuropene de

transport, COM(2011) 650.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Propunere de Regulament al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului de instituire a mecanismului Conectarea Europei, COM(2011) 665.

( **|**

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 277

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008744/12**

**to the Commission**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Connecting Europe Facility — monitoring of projects by the Commission

The Commission made known its intention, in the proposal for a regulation of the European Council and of the
Council establishing a Connecting Europe Facility (COM(2011) 0665 final), to create a new integrated instrument for
investing in EU infrastructure priorities on its transport, energy and telecommunications networks: the Connecting
Europe Facility.

Those networks are a necessary precondition for the completion of the European single market, while investments in
key infrastructure with high European added value can boost Europe’s competitiveness. Also, such investments are
instrumental in allowing the EU to meet its sustainable growth objectives outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy and
the EU’s ‘20‐20‐20’ objectives in the area of energy and climate policy.

That is precisely why the inclusion among the TEN‐T guidelines of stringent new legal requirements under which
Member States whose projects receive core network funding are legally obliged to complete the projects in question
by 2030 is more than welcome and will provide a clear stimulus to the Member States to implement their transport
projects.

1. From a legal perspective, can the Commission state what pressure will be exerted on the Member States to
ensure they complete the projects in question: whether financial advances can be requested for those projects,
whether penalties will be applied, and whether Member States may even be excluded from future European funding
and programmes in this field?

2. Similarly, in order not to risk jeopardising the projects, will the Commission introduce mid‐term evaluations so
as to detect any divergence from the implementing plan, following which Member State(s) concerned would be
requested to take remedial action?

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

_(30 October 2012)_

1. In its proposal on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines ( [1] ), the Commission has proposed that Member States
engage on a more stringent framework in order to ensure the development of the core network by 2030. From a legal
point of view, this approach is reflected by the fact that the Commission proposes a regulation instead of a decision
which is only addressed to Member States in order to take into account the fact that other stakeholders such as
infrastructure managers play a key role in transport infrastructure development.

In order to help the implementation of the core network, the Commission proposes the creation of core network
corridors which will allow better coordination between Member States and concerned actors and will therefore lead

to better investments decisions.

Also, the financial means foreseen in the Connecting Europe Facility ( [2] ) will be primarily targeted on the core network.
During the implementation of the Facility, the ‘use it or lose it’ approach will apply, meaning that money can be
withdrawn from projects facing considerable delay in order to support other projects which are more mature.

2. Article 59 of the Commission proposal on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines provides for the possibility for
the Commission, in case of significant delay in starting or completing the core network, to request information from
the Member States concerned in order to monitor the implementation and help the Member States to develop the
core network by 2030. However, the principle of subsidiarity has to be respected, as enshrined in the relevant legal
base in the Treaty (Article 172 TFEU).

In addition, the Commission foresees mid-term evaluations for all projects which receive financial support under the
Connecting Europe Facility.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport

network, COM(2011) 650.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, COM(2011) 665.

( **|**

C 287 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008745/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marian Harkin (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Third-level education fees for new citizens of Member States

Can the Commission state whether the following situation contravenes European legislation?

A Russian citizen living in Ireland commenced third-level education before receiving Irish citizenship. She paid her
third-level fees as an international student for two years. She then received Irish citizenship, but is still being required
to pay fees at the same rate as an international student, rather than the lesser amount paid by Irish citizens.

Does the Commission agree that such a situation discriminates between Irish-born citizens and new citizens of a
Member State?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 November 2012)_

In accordance with Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, any discrimination on
grounds of nationality is prohibited within the scope of application of the Treaties.

According to the information in possession of the Commission services, in order to be eligible for the reduced rate of
fees, applicants must have spent 3 of the last 5 years in full-time study or work in an EU Member State prior to the
commencement of the courses. These requirements are applied to Irish nationals as well as to nationals of the other
Member States.

The complainant should therefore be entitled to reduced tuition fees as from next year.

Under these circumstances, the situation described by the Honorable Member would appear to be in accordance with
the relevant provisions of EC law.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 279

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008746/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(28 settembre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Attacchi sempre più frequenti degli hacker agli utenti della rete

Secondo l'ultimo rapporto diffuso da un'azienda specializzata nella realizzazione di software «The Geografy of
Cybercrime: Western Europe and North America» il 43,5 % degli utenti della rete in Italia è stato vittima dell'azione
degli hacker.

Il rapporto evidenzia che i principali obbiettivi sono i sistemi di internet banking. L'Italia è al primo posto nella
classifica dei 15 paesi occidentali principale bersaglio degli attacchi «malware» e «spam».

Gli attacchi degli hacker sono sempre più sofisticati e scelgono come canali privilegiati la violazione di dati d'accesso
ai conti bancari e ai codici di sicurezza delle carte di credito.

Le violazioni s'intensificano anche nei confronti del mobile banking in funzione della crescente diffusione di
smartphone e tablet che non sono ancora dotati di sistemi di sicurezza in grado di fronteggiare gli attacchi.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. quali misure intende adottare per far sì che l'UE possa arginare la diffusione del fenomeno, alla luce della
crescente popolarità dei servizi bancari utilizzati on line,

2. quali sono i dati relativi agli attacchi illegittimi all'attività on line degli utenti della rete all'interno degli altri Stati
membri?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(23 novembre 2012)_

A giugno 2012 il Parlamento europeo e il Consiglio hanno raggiunto un accordo politico sulla proposta di direttiva
della Commissione relativa agli attacchi contro i sistemi di informazione; la direttiva penalizza sia l’uso che la
produzione e la vendita di strumenti, come i «botnet», che servono a commettere attacchi informatici su vasta scala
contro qualsiasi impresa, comprese le istituzioni finanziarie.

Nel 2013 verrà creato, in ambito Europol, il Centro europeo per la lotta alla criminalità informatica che potenzierà la
capacità dell’Unione di contrastare la criminalità informatica e offrirà un sostegno operativo più esteso agli Stati
membri.

I servizi della Commissione, insieme al Servizio europeo per l’azione esterna, stanno inoltre elaborando una strategia
europea per la sicurezza informatica che mira a garantire un ambiente digitale sicuro e resiliente e a prevenire
efficacemente la criminalità informatica, nel rispetto dei diritti fondamentali e dei valori europei. La strategia proporrà
un’ampia gamma di azioni: promuovere la preparazione, la risposta e la cooperazione per prevenire e affrontare i
rischi e le minacce informatiche anche grazie a una proposta di direttiva sulla sicurezza delle reti e dell'informazione;
sviluppare nell’UE un mercato interno integrato dei prodotti/servizi per la sicurezza informatica; continuare a
sostenere la prevenzione della criminalità informatica e la risposta; promuovere campagne di sensibilizzazione e
formazioni sulla sicurezza informatica; promuovere gli investimenti in R&S; garantire all’Unione una linea coerente
in materia di sicurezza informatica in ambito internazionale; sviluppare la capacità di difesa informatica nel quadro
della politica di sicurezza e di difesa comune e la capacità e la cooperazione internazionale in materia di sicurezza
informatica.

Lo studio di fattibilità per la creazione di un centro per la criminalità informatica svolto da _RAND Europe_ per la
Commissione europea fornisce una serie di dati sulla portata e sui tipi di reati informatici che minacciano l’Europa.

C 287 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008746/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Hackers attacking network users more than ever

‘The Geography of Cybercrime: Western Europe and North America’, the latest report by a firm specialising in
software development, states that 43.5% of network users in Italy have been the victims of hacker attacks.

The report stresses that these attacks focus mainly on Internet banking systems. Italy heads the list of 15 western
countries that are the prime targets for malware and spam attacks.

Attacks by hackers are becoming more and more sophisticated with their main targets being data to access bank
accounts and credit card security codes.

Attacks on mobile banking are growing with the increasingly widespread use of smartphones and tablets that do not
have security systems capable of fending off these attacks.

1. What steps is the EU taking to stop this problem spreading, in light of the growing popularity of online banking
services?

2. What data are targeted in illegal attacks on online networks in other Member States?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 November 2012)_

In June 2012, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on a Commission proposal for
a directive on attacks against information systems, which criminalises the use as well as the production and sale of
tools (such as ‘botnets’) to commit large-scale cyber-attacks against businesses including financial institutions.

The launch of a European Cybercrime Centre within Europol in 2013 will give the EU a stronger capability to fight
cybercrime via stronger operational support for Member States.

Furthermore the Commission services, with the European External Action Service, are currently working on a joint
European Strategy for Cyber Security aiming at ensuring a safe and resilient digital environment and effectively
preventing cybercrime, in respect of fundamental rights and European values. The strategy aims at putting forward a
comprehensive set of actions: foster preparedness, response and cooperation to prevent and respond to cyber risks
and threats including a proposal for a directive on Network and Information Security; develop an integrated EU
internal market for cyber security products/services; support further the prevention of and response to cybercrime;
promote awareness raising campaigns and cyber security training; foster R&D investments; ensure a coherent
international cyber security policy for the EU; develop cyber defence capabilities in the framework of Common
Security and Defence Policy and advance cyber security capacity and cooperation globally.

Some information on the scale and types of cybercrime facing Europe can be found in the feasibility study on the
setting up of the Cybercrime Centre which was prepared for the European Commission by RAND Europe.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 281

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008748/12**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter — Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**

**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE) en Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(28 september 2012)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — Video over smeergeld voor parlementszetel in Azerbeidzjan

Op 25 september 2012 werd er een filmpje op YouTube geplaatst van een gesprek tussen Gular Ahmadova lid van
het Azerbeidzjaanse parlement, en Elshad Abdullayev, voormalig rector van de Internationale Universiteit
Azerbeidzjan, die thans als politiek vluchteling in Frankrijk woont. Het gesprek ging over de som die deze laatste aan
smeergeld moest betalen om een zetel in het parlement te krijgen. De opnames waren kennelijk kort voor de
parlementsverkiezingen van november 2010 gemaakt. In het gesprek was sprake van a) een door de president
goedgekeurde lijst kandidaten voor een parlementszetel en b) de vaardigheden van Gular Ahmadova om zaken bij de
Raad van Europa en de Organisatie voor Veiligheid en Samenwerking in Europa te „regelen”.

1. Heeft de ondervoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger het filmpje gezien?

2. Is de ondervoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger bereid de Azerbeidzjaanse autoriteiten te vragen hierover
opheldering te verschaffen?

3. Is de ondervoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger voornemens op een onafhankelijk internationaal onderzoek aan
te dringen?

4. Is de ondervoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger bereid, gelet op de kennelijke betrokkenheid van de Raad van
Europa en de Organisatie voor Veiligheid en Samenwerking in Europa aan te dringen op een onderzoek naar
mogelijke corruptie rond de verkiezingswaarneming in Azerbeidzjan door deze organisaties?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(28 november 2012)_

De EU is op de hoogte van de videobeelden en de achtergrond van de vermeende zaak van omkoperij waarbij Gular
Ahmadova en Elshad Abdullayev zijn betrokken. De centrale verkiezingscommissie heeft op 3 oktober aanvaard dat
mevrouw Ahmadova afstand doet van haar parlementaire zetel en de regerende partij „New Azerbaijan” heeft haar
uitgesloten van de politieke raad van de partij. Het openbaar ministerie in Bakoe heeft een onderzoek geopend. Op
6 oktober werd een tweede video met aanvullend materiaal geüpload op de website van de oppositiepartij Musavat.
De EU volgt de ontwikkelingen in verband met deze zaak aandachtig. Meer algemeen heeft de EU bij verschillende
gelegenheden haar bezorgdheid geuit over corruptie in Azerbeidzjan, onder meer in het ENB-voortgangsverslag van
mei 2012 over het door Azerbeidzjan uit te voeren ENB-actieplan tussen de EU en Azerbeidzjan en in bilaterale
vergaderingen op officieel niveau.

C 287 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008748/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE) and Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Video feature on bribes to be paid for a parliamentary seat in Azerbaijan

On 25 September 2012, a video was posted on YouTube in which a member of the Azerbaijani Parliament, Ms Gular
Ahmadova, is seen and heard discussing with Mr Elshad Abdullayev, formerly rector of the Azerbaijan International
University and now a political refugee in France, the bribe he needs to pay in order to become a Member of the
Azerbaijani parliament. The video was apparently shot just before the November 2010 parliamentary elections in
Azerbaijan. In the discussion between the two individuals mentioned, references are made a) to a list of candidates for
parliamentary seats approved by the President, and b) to the ability of Ms Ahmadova to ‘take care of’ the Council of
Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

1. Has the Vice-President/High Representative taken notice of this video?

2. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to ask for clarifications from the Azerbaijani authorities?

3. Will the Vice-President/High Representative demand an independent international investigation into the
matter?

4. Since the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe are also mentioned in
the video, will the Vice-President/High Representative demand an investigation into possible corrupt practices within
both institutions concerning their role in observing the elections in Azerbaijan?

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

_(28 November 2012)_

The EU is aware of the video footage and the background of the alleged bribery case involving Gular Ahmadova and
Elshad Abdullayev. The Central Election Commission accepted the resignation of Ms Ahmadova from her
parliamentary seat on 3 October and the ruling party New Azerbaijan excluded her from her seat at the party’s
Political Council. An investigation has been opened by the Baku Prosecutor’s Office. On 6 October a second video
was uploaded on the website of the Musavat opposition party with additional material. The EU is closely following
developments concerning this case. More generally, the EU has expressed its concerns about corruption in Azerbaijan
on several occasions, including in the spell out ENP Progress Report of May 2012 on the implementation, by
Azerbaijan, of the EU-Azerbaijan ENP Action Plan and in bilateral meetings at official level.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 283

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008749/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 september 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Positie van Nederlandse banken op de hypotheekmarkt en de kredietverleningsmarkt I

1. Vrijdag 14 september heeft het Nederlandse tv-programma „Zembla” onthuld hoe specifieke
staatssteuncondities die de Commissie eind 2009 en begin 2010 heeft opgelegd aan Nederlandse banken de
concurrentie in de Nederlandse hypothecaire markt hebben beperkt. Het gaat daarbij om zogenaamde „price
leadership bans”. De Nederlandse mededingingsautoriteit (NMa) zou de Commissie voor dit gevaar gewaarschuwd
hebben, maar die waarschuwing werd genegeerd. Heeft de Commissie kennis genomen van de uitzending van
Zembla ( [1] )?

2. Deelt de Commissie de analyse dat het besluit van de Nederlandse regering verregaande gevolgen heeft op de
Nederlandse hypotheekmarkt? Kan de Commissie zich vinden in de analyse van experts, zoals die uit de uitzending
van Zembla blijkt, dat het besluit van de Nederlandse regering mede ertoe heeft geleid dat in Nederland geen
concurrerende markt meer is voor de hypotheekverstrekking?

3. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat de correspondentie tussen de NMa en de Commissie die Zembla onthulde
authentiek en volledig is? Mochten er volgens de Commissie belangrijke delen van de correspondentie ontbreken, is
de Commissie bereid om deze te openbaren?

4. Is de Commissie bereid om mogelijk relevante verslagleggingen van, en (interne) communicatie over de
beraadslagingen naar aanleiding van de waarschuwing van de NMa en de wijze waarop de Commissie aan die
waarschuwing gehoor heeft gegeven te openbaren?

5. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat er, zoals uit de uitzending van Zembla blijkt, het aanbod van commissaris
Kroes was om in Nederland geen prijsleiderschapsverbod voor ING op te leggen?

6. Waarom en door wie binnen de Commissie is tussen de eerste waarschuwing van de NMa (email 29 oktober) en
het antwoord van de heer Lienemeyer (email 10 november) besloten om in het tussentijds aan ING gedane aanbod
om in Nederland geen prijsleiderschapsverbod voor ING op te leggen, tevens zwaardere condities over ING Direct op
te nemen, en niet eenvoudig alleen de prijsleiderschapsverboden tot buiten Nederland te beperken?

7. Is het juist, zoals de heer Lienemeyer stelt in zijn email van 10 november, dat artikel 44 van de Restructuring
Guidelines een verzwaring van andere condities vereiste, indien het prijsleiderschapsverbod voor ING tot buiten
Nederland zou worden beperkt in dat stadium van de onderhandelingen? Was het de Commissie toegestaan om
alleen de prijsleiderschapsverboden tot buiten Nederland te beperken in het op dat moment meest recente
herstructureringsplan van ING? Zo ja, waarom is niet voor dit aanbod aan ING gekozen?

**Antwoord van de heer Almunia namens de Commissie**

_(22 november 2012)_

1. De Commissie heeft kennis genomen van de uitzending van Zembla, en heeft de waarschuwing van de NMa niet
genegeerd. De Commissie is eveneens op de hoogte van de bezorgdheid van de NMa over mogelijke prijsbeperkingen
bij de verstrekking van leningen aan kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen — dit is een van de redenen waarom de
Commissie aan de goedkeuring van de fusie tussen ABN AMRO en FBN de voorwaarde heeft verbonden dat HBU zou
worden afgestoten. Wat de Nederlandse hypotheekmarkt betreft, heeft de Commissie de Nederlandse overheid en
ING de gelegenheid gegeven om zich opnieuw te beraden over, bijvoorbeeld, maatregelen om de
mededingingsverstoringen in het herstructureringsplan van ING uit de weg te ruimen.

2. Daarnaast zijn de volgende elementen van belang met betrekking tot de Nederlandse hypotheekmarkt ( [2] ) [,] ( [3] ):

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) De uitzending van Zembla vindt u hier: http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews%Btt_news%5D=70881&tx_ttnews%5

BbackPid%5D=1974&cHash=9f7692088247749d998e2decc748c144.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Voor nadere informatie zie http://www.dnb.nl/en/binaries/Overview%20of%20Financial%20Stability,%20Spring%202012_tcm47-273633.pdf

http://www.dnb.nl/binaries/OFS_Najaar12_WEB_tcm46-279389.pdf
http://www.nma.nl/images/Samenvatting%20hypothekenonderzoek22-188438.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) De staatssteunbesluiten van de Commissie bevatten tevens structurele maatregelen voor de Nederlandse retailbankmarkt, zoals de afstoting van

Westland Utrecht Bank door ING, ten einde de mededingingsvervalsing als gevolg van de door ING ontvangen herstructureringssteun, te
beperken.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

Het is ABN AMRO en ING niet verboden lagere prijzen te hanteren dan Rabobank. Deze gesteunde banken mogen
evenwel geen gunstiger prijzen hanteren dan een ruime steekproef van de laagst geprijsde concurrenten ( [4] ) [,] ( [5] ). Verder
is het moeilijk om een verband vast te stellen tussen de herstructureringsbesluiten van de Commissie en de stijging
van de hypotheektarieven in Nederland. Deze hogere hypotheektarieven dateren van het voorjaar van 2009, voordat
de prijsleiderschapsverboden werden opgelegd ( [6] ).

3-5. De correspondentie over het prijsleiderschapsverbod is authentiek en volledig. Verdere publicaties door de
Commissie zijn niet te verwachten.

6-7. De Commissie moet ervoor zorgen dat de in een herstructureringsplan vervatte maatregelen de
levensvatbaarheid herstellen, dat de steun tot het noodzakelijke minimum beperkt blijft en dat het plan voldoende
maatregelen bevat om ongerechtvaardigde mededingingsverstoring te beperken. Punt (44) van de
herstructureringsmededeling ( [7] ) bepaalt dat in gevallen waarin beperkingen inzake tariferingspraktijken van de
begunstigde niet passend zijn, „de lidstaten andere, geschiktere corrigerende maatregelen dienen voor te stellen om
een daadwerkelijke mededinging te verzekeren”. Indien Nederland een andere maatregel had voorgesteld, zou de
Commissie deze aan een onderzoek hebben onderworpen.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Steekproeven van concurrerende banken zijn bijvoorbeeld de [X] grootste spelers qua marktaandeel, of zelfs de gehele Nederlandse banksector

(met inbegrip van zeer kleine spelers).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Indien de speler met de scherpste prijzen een van de overblijvende kleinere partijen is, is het de onderneming waaraan een prijsleiderschapsverbod

is opgelegd wel toegestaan gunstiger prijzen te hanteren dan die welke bijvoorbeeld door Rabobank worden aangeboden. Uit figuur 4.2 van de
studie van de NMa blijkt dat de kleinere spelers van oudsher stelselmatig gunstiger tarieven hanteerden dan de grote banken.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Het eerste prijsleiderschapsverbod werd pas opgelegd op 18 november 2009. De suggestie van sommige commentatoren dat het prijsgedrag van

de banken vóór die datum voorzichtig zou zijn geweest door „anticipatie”, wordt niet gestaafd. In werkelijkheid waren de prijzen van een aantal
gesteunde banken, bijvoorbeeld wat de spaarrente betreft, in die periode zeer concurrerend.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Herstructureringsmededeling, PB C 195 van 19.8.2009, blz. 9.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 285

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008749/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Position of Dutch banks on the mortgage market and credit market (I)

1. On Friday, 14 September, the Dutch TV programme ‘Zembla’ revealed how specific state aid conditions
imposed on Dutch banks by the Commission at the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010 had restricted competition
on the Dutch mortgage market. What is at issue is ‘price leadership bans’. The Dutch competition authority (NMa)
apparently warned the Commission of this danger, but its warning was ignored. Is the Commission aware of this
Zembla programme ( [1] )?

2. Does the Commission agree with the analysis that the Netherlands Government’s decision has a far-reaching
impact on the Dutch mortgage market? Does the Commission endorse the analysis by experts, as indicated by the
Zembla broadcast, that the Netherlands Government’s decision had the result, _inter alia_, that there is no longer a
competitive market for the granting of mortgage loans in the Netherlands?

3. Can the Commission confirm that the correspondence between the NMa and the Commission which Zembla
revealed is authentic and complete? If, according to the Commission, significant parts of the correspondence are
lacking, will the Commission publish them?

4. Will the Commission publish any reports which may be relevant and any communications (particularly
internal) concerning the consultations which followed the warning by the NMa and the way in which the
Commission responded to that warning?

5. Can the Commission confirm that, as indicated in the Zembla broadcast, the offer made by Commissioner
Kroes was that no price leadership ban should be imposed on ING in the Netherlands?

6. Why and by whom within the Commission was the decision taken, between the first warning by the NMa (email of 29 October) and the answer by Mr Lienemeyer (e-mail of 10 November), to include in the offer which had in
the meantime been made to ING not to impose a price leadership ban on ING in the Netherlands, more stringent
conditions relating to ING Direct, and not simply to restrict the price leadership bans to areas outside the
Netherlands?

7. Is it true, as stated by Mr Lienemeyer in his e-mail of 10 November, that Article 44 of the Restructuring
Guidelines required other conditions to be made more stringent if the price leadership ban for ING was to be
restricted to areas outside the Netherlands at that stage of the negotiations? Was the Commission permitted to restrict
the price leadership bans to areas outside the Netherlands in what was then ING’s most recent restructuring plan? If
so, why did it not opt to make this offer to ING?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of the Zembla programme, and did not ignore the NMa comments. The Commission
is also aware of the NMa's worries about potential pricing restrictions in lending to small and medium-sized
enterprises, which was one reason why the Commission made its approval of the ABN AMRO-FBN merger
conditional on the divestment of HBU. As for the Dutch mortgage market, the Commission gave the Dutch State and
ING the opportunity to rethink e.g. the measures to address distortions of competition in the ING restructuring plan.

2. Additional important elements regarding the Dutch mortgage market ( [2] ) ( [3] ):

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Zembla programme can be found at: http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews%Btt_news%5D=70881&tx_ttnews%5

BbackPid%5D=1974&cHash=9f7692088247749d998e2decc748c144

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) For additional information see: http://www.dnb.nl/binaries/OFS_Najaar12_WEB_tcm46-279389.pdf

http://www.dnb.nl/en/binaries/Overview%20of%20Financial%20Stability,%20Spring%202012_tcm47-273633.pdf
and http://www.nma.nl/images/Samenvatting%20hypothekenonderzoek22-188438.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The Commission's State aid decisions also provided for structural measures in the Dutch retail bank market such as the Westland Utrecht Bank

divestment by ING as a measure to limit distortions of competition caused by the restructuring aid received by ING.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

—
BN AMRO and ING are not prevented from undercutting Rabobank. Those aid beneficiaries are not allowed to
out-price the best offered price(s) on the market compared to a large peer sample ( [4] ) ( [5] ). It is also difficult to
establish a link between the Commission's restructuring decisions and higher mortgage rates in the
Netherlands. Those higher mortgage rates date from spring 2009, before the price leadership bans were
introduced ( [6] ).

3-5. The correspondence on the price leadership ban is authentic and complete. No additional publications by the
Commission should be expected.

6-7. The Commission has to ensure that the measures presented in a restructuring plan restore viability, ensure that
the aid is the minimum necessary and contain sufficient measures to address undue distortions of competition. Point
(44) of the Restructuring Communication ( [7] ) foresees that when limitations on the pricing behaviour of a beneficiary
may not be appropriate, ‘Member States should propose other, more suitable remedies to ensure effective
competition’. Had the Netherlands presented an alternative measure, the Commmission would have assessed this
alternative.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Examples of peer samples include the [X] biggest players in terms of market share or even the entire Dutch banking system (including very small

players).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) If the best-priced player is one of the remaining fringe players, the company under a price-leadership ban is not prevented from offering better

prices than those proposed by e.g. Rabobank. Chart 4.2 of the NMa study shows that historically the fringe players systematically offered better
prices than the big banks.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) The first price leadership ban was only introduced on 18 November 2009. The speculations by some commentators that the pricing behaviour of

the banks would have been cautious before that date by ‘anticipation' is not substantiated. In fact the pricing by some of the State aided banks in
e.g. savings was during the same period highly competitive.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Restructuring Communication, OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, p. 9.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 287

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008750/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 september 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Positie van Nederlandse banken op de hypotheekmarkt en de kredietverleningsmarkt II

1. Vrijdag 14 september heeft het Nederlandse tv-programma „Zembla” onthuld hoe specifieke
staatssteuncondities die de Commissie eind 2009 en begin 2010 heeft opgelegd aan Nederlandse banken de
concurrentie in de Nederlandse hypothecaire markt hebben beperkt. Het gaat daarbij om zogenaamde „price
leadership bans”. De Nederlandse mededingingsautoriteit (NMa) zou de Commissie voor dit gevaar gewaarschuwd
hebben, maar die waarschuwing werd genegeerd. Heeft de Commissie kennis genomen van de uitzending van
Zembla ( [1] ) ?

2. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat, nadat ING het voorstel van de Commissie naar aanleiding van de NMawaarschuwing van 20 oktober had afgewezen, de Commissie nog altijd voldoende juridische mogelijkheden had om
een herziening van het herstructureringsplan van ING te verlangen, waarin de prijsleiderschapsverboden alsnog
zouden zijn beperkt — met of zonder verzwaring op het punt van ING Direct?

3. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat de eerdere beslissing in verband met de Commerzbank geen bindend
precedent was op basis waarvan ook de Nederlandse banken, te beginnen met ING, een prijsleiderschapsverbod
moest worden opgelegd?

4. Is er door de Commissie voor de beslissing de prijsleiderschapsvoorwaarden op te willen leggen (zoals
tenminste al op 24 april 2009 in een bijeenkomst aan ING is medegedeeld) een analyse gemaakt over de mogelijke
gevolgen voor de Nederlandse markt?

5. Hebben de economen van de Commissie de mogelijke negatieve gevolgen van de prijsleiderschapsvoorwaarden
voor Nederland gesignaleerd? Zo ja, was dat dan al in een eerder stadium dan de waarschuwing van de NMa van
29 oktober 2009? Zo ja, waarom is niet in een eerder stadium besloten het prijsleiderschapsverbod voor ING tot
buiten Nederland te beperken?

6. Is er na het opleggen van de prijsleiderschapsvoorwaarden aan ING een evaluatie gemaakt over de gevolgen van
de maatregelen voor de Nederlandse markt?

7. Waarom heeft de Commissie, ondanks de waarschuwing van de NMa op 29 oktober 2009, die ook Fortis-ABN
Amro betrof, ook in haar later opgelegde staatssteuncondities voor Fortis‐ABN Amro prijsleiderschapsverboden voor
Nederland opgenomen?

8. Is de Commissie bereid om, of al voornemens, de prijsleiderschapsverboden te herzien, in het licht van de
recente inzichten in hun mededingingsbeperkende effecten op de Nederlandse bancaire markt — bijvoorbeeld op
verzoek van de toekomstige Nederlandse regering?

**Antwoord van de heer Almunia namens de Commissie**

_(27 november 2012)_

1. De Commissie verwijst naar het antwoord op geschreven vraag E-008749/2012 ( [2] ).

2. Uit een procedureel oogpunt is het belangrijk om te begrijpen dat de Nederlandse Staat en ING een
herstructureringsplan met verbintenissen hebben voorgesteld, met het verzoek aan de Commissie om
overeenkomstig artikel 4, lid 3, van procedureverordening, Verordening (EG) nr. 659/1999 ( [3] ) een beslissing te
nemen. De Commissie heeft dat plan beoordeeld en verklaarde de steun verenigbaar ( [4] ) . Aangezien er
voldoende elementen waren om de staatssteun in kwestie verenigbaar te verklaren, was er geen reden om een formeel
onderzoek overeenkomstig artikel 6 van de procedureverordening te openen.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) De uitzending van Zembla vindt u hier: http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews%Btt_news%5D=70881&tx_ttnews

%5BbackPid%5D=1974&cHash=9f7692088247749d998e2decc748c144

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) PB L 83 van 27.3.1999, blz. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Het bevatte voldoende maatregelen voor het herstel van de levensvatbaarheid, om de steun te beperken tot het strikt noodzakelijke en ook enkele

maatregelen om buitensporige vervalsingen van de mededinging aan te pakken.

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

C 287 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

3. Of een maatregel zoals een prijsleiderschapsverbod ( [5] ) wordt genomen, hangt af van de algemene context van de
zaak ( [6] ) . Bij het beoordelen van een herstructureringsplan moet natuurlijk rekening worden gehouden met
zaakspecifieke elementen en andere maatregelen in het herstructureringsplan. Het besluit in de zaak-Commerzbank
moet in deze context worden geïnterpreteerd.

4. De Commissie heeft de Nederlandse markt voor retailbanking grondig bestudeerd.

5. De prijsleiderschapsverboden ( [7] ) zijn zorgvuldig ontworpen. Voor meer informatie over het ontwerp van
prijsleiderschapsverboden, zie het antwoord op schriftelijke vraag E-008749/2012.

6. De Commissie heeft met hulp van monitoring trustees de markten gemonitord.

7. Zie het antwoord op vraag 5.

8. De Commissie benadrukt dat gedragsmaatregelen (zoals de prijsleiderschapsverboden) altijd tijdelijk zijn.

( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Het prijsleiderschapsverbod is een van de manieren die in de herstructureringsmededeling worden genoemd als een mogelijke gedragsmaatregel

ter beperking van de concurrrentieverstoring.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Bijvoorbeeld als een bedrijf een hoge vergoeding betaalt van de staatssteun, is de steun minder verstorend en is het mogelijk om de steun

verenigbaar te verklaren met minder maatregelen om buitensporige vervalsingen van de mededinging aan te pakken. Zo zou een desinvestering
van hoge kwaliteit in de thuismarkt van een bedrijf kunnen inhouden dat er minder gedragsmaatregelen nodig zijn.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Sommige externe marktwaarnemers gebruiken de term „prijsleider” om een situatie te beschrijven waarin een bedrijf zijn prijs bepaalt, terwijl de

andere concurrenten de zogenaamde „prijsleider” slechts volgen. Sommige commentatoren lijken ook te denken dat het bedrijf met het
hoogste marktaandeel (d.w.z. Rabobank) automatisch de prijsleider is. Het is duidelijk dat deze alternatieve definities fundamenteel afwijken van
de definitie die de Commissie gebruikt voor „prijsleiderschap”. De definitie van de Commissie verwijst gewoon naar het bedrijf dat de beste prijs
aanbiedt op de markt, ongeacht de omvang of het tijdstip van zijn prijswijzigingen.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 289

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008750/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Position of Dutch banks on the mortgage market and credit market (II)

1. On Friday, 14 September, the Dutch TV programme ‘Zembla’ revealed how specific state aid conditions
imposed on Dutch banks by the Commission at the end of 2009 and beginning of 2010 had restricted competition
on the Dutch mortgage market. What is at issue is ‘price leadership bans’. The Dutch competition authority (NMa)
apparently warned the Commission of this danger, but its warning was ignored. Is the Commission aware of this
Zembla programme ( [1] )?

2. Can the Commission confirm that, after ING had rejected the Commission’s proposal because of NMa’s warning
of 20 October, the Commission still had sufficient judicial means at its disposal to demand a review of ING's
restructuring plan so as to limit the scope of the price leadership ban — with or without tougher measures applicable
to ING Direct?

3. Can the Commission confirm that the previous decision relating to Commerzbank was not a binding precedent
on the basis of which Dutch banks too, starting with ING, had to be subjected to a price leadership ban?

4. Before the decision to seek to impose price leadership conditions (as, at least, ING was informed at a meeting on
24 April 2009), did the Commission analyse the possible consequences for the Dutch market?

5. Did the Commission’s economists draw attention to the possible negative impact of the price leadership
conditions on the Netherlands? If so, did they do so before the NMa’s warning of 29 October 2009? If so, why was it
not decided at an earlier stage to restrict the price leadership ban on ING to areas outside the Netherlands?

6. After the price leadership conditions had been imposed on ING, was the impact of the measures on the Dutch
market assessed?

7. Why did the Commission, despite the warning from NMa on 29 October 2009, which also related to FortisABN Amro, also include price leadership bans for the Netherlands in the state aid conditions which it subsequently
imposed on Fortis-ABN Amro?

8. Will the Commission, or does it already intend to, review the price leadership bans in the light of the recent
elucidation of how they limit competition on the Dutch banking market — for example, at the request of the future
Netherlands Government?

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

_(27 November 2012)_

1. The Commission refers to the answer given in Written Question E-008749/2012 ( [2] ) .

2. From a procedural viewpoint it is important to understand that the Dutch State and ING presented a
restructuring plan with commitments, asking the Commission to take a decision in line with Article 4(3) of
Procedural Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 ( [3] ) . The Commission evaluated that plan and declared the aid compatible ( [4] ) .
As there were sufficient elements to find the state aid in question compatible there was no ground to open a formal
investigation in line with Article 6 of the Procedural Regulation.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Zembla programme can be found at: http://zembla.vara.nl/Afleveringen.1973.0.html?&tx_ttnews%Btt_news%5D=70881&tx_ttnews

%5BbackPid%5D=1974&cHash=9f7692088247749d998e2decc748c144

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) It contained enough measures to restore viability, measures to limit the aid to the minimum necessary and also some measures to address undue

distortions of competition.

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

C 287 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

3. Whether a measure like a price leadership ban ( [5] ) is provided depends on the overall context of the case ( [6] ) .
Indeed, case-specific elements and other measures in the restructuring plan must be taken into account when
evaluating the restructuring plan. The Commerzbank decision should be interpreted against this background.

4. The Commission extensively studied the Dutch retail banking market.

5. The price leadership bans ( [7] ) are diligently designed. For more information on the design of price leadership
bans, see the reply given in Written Question E-008749/2012.

6. The Commission has monitored the markets with the help of monitoring trustees.

7. See the answer to question 5.

8. The Commission wishes to underline that behavioural measures (as the price leadership ban) are always
temporary in nature.

( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The price leadership ban is one of the means identified in the Restructuring Communication as a possible behavioural measure to mitigate

distortions of competition.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) For example, if a company pays e.g. a high remuneration on the state aid, the aid is less distortive and fewer measures to address undue distortions

of competition can allow declaring the aid compatible. Likewise, a high quality divestment on a company's home market might imply that fewer
behavioural measures are necessary.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Some outside market watchers use the term ‘price leader’ to describe a situation where one firm sets its price while the other competitors merely

follow the so-called ‘price leader’. Some commentators also seem to think that the company with the highest market share (i.e. Rabobank) is
automatically the ‘price leader’. Obviously, these alternative definitions differ fundamentally from the ‘price leadership’ definition of the
Commission. The Commission's definition just refers to the company that offers the best price in the market, irrespective of its size or of the
timing of its price changes.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 291

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008753/12**

**to the Commission**
**Chris Davies (ALDE)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU subsidies paid towards scrapping and modernisation of fishing vessels

1. How much has been paid from the EU budget towards the total cost of scrapping, renovating and modernising
fishing vessels in each Member State for the period 1999 to the most recent day for which figures are available?

2. Will the Commission state, in the case of each Member State, how these payments have been distributed among
regions or the home ports of the vessels to which the money has been apportioned?

3. What proportion of the total payments or, if the information is available, of the payments to each Member
State has been distributed to the owners of small-scale fishing vessels?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 November 2012)_

From 2000-2006, construction of new vessels accounted for 13% of the FIFG ( [1] ) envelope; vessel modernisation
represented approximately 4%; scrapping, 15%.

From 2007-2013 ( [2] ), scrapping accounts for approximately 18% of the total EFF ( [3] ) expenditure. In absolute terms,
this amounts to EUR 475 million. The percentage of the EFF allocation to each Member State:

Portugal (11.4%), France (51,5%), Sweden (21.2%), Spain (22,9%), Belgium (32%), Poland (5.9%), Denmark (20.4%),
Cyprus (8.9%), Ireland (97.4%), Lithuania (12.9%), Greece (33.25%), Italy, (39.6%), Latvia (18.1%), the Netherlands
(24.1%), Malta (54.7%), United Kingdom (7.9%), Estonia (10.3%), Bulgaria (9.9%), Romania (1.5%).

Investment on board fishing vessels, including investments in modernisation and selectivity, and engine replacement,
accounted for 0.84% of the total EFF expenditure, EUR 20 million in absolute terms. The information available
indicates that the use of engine replacement is very small, less than 0.2% of the EFF expenditure until 31 July 2012.

The Commission believes that substantial investment is needed for modernisation to help fishermen move to more
sustainable fishing practises and improve safety on board. The current economic situation makes it even more
essential that the EU funding is targeted to effectively underpin the CFP reform. It is for that reason that the
Commission has not included aid for scrapping and engine replacement in its proposal for the EMFF ( [4] ) .

In reply to the other questions, the selection of projects, including their distribution to individual vessel owners,
small-scale fishing vessels, or home ports, falls under the responsibility of the Member States' Managing Authorities.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EFF Data concerning the period until 31 July 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) European Fisheries Fund.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.

C 287 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008754/12**

**to the Commission**
**Richard Howitt (S&D)**

_(28 September 2012)_

_Subject:_ Corporate social responsibility in Burma/Myanmar

The Commission communication entitled ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility’
(COM(2011) 0681) states that all European enterprises are expected to meet the corporate responsibility to respect
human rights, as defined in the UN Guiding Principles. The EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and
Democracy (11855/12) also commits the EU to working to contribute to the implementation of the UN Guiding
Principles on business and human rights.

The High Representative and the Trade Commissioner stated on 15 June 2012 that ‘responsible investment and
bilateral trade [are] crucial elements for helping the country [Burma/Myanmar] recover and flourish’.

In light of these commitments:

What has the Commission done, in concrete terms, to give effect to the stated commitments to promote human and
labour rights and the highest standards of corporate social responsibility amongst European companies seeking to do
business in Burma/Myanmar?

How will the Commission ensure and monitor that EU companies with business relationships in Burma/Myanmar
carry out their activities in line with the UN Guiding Principles?

It is imperative to ensure that new investment does not perpetuate existing inequities, but instead provides equal
opportunity for all. Will the Commission ensure that EU businesses planning to invest conduct initial human rights
impact assessments and ongoing due diligence in line with the UN Guiding Principles, consulting local and
international civil society, academia, officials and independent experts?

**Question for written answer E-008756/12**

**to the Commission**
**Richard Howitt (S&D)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Corporate social responsibility in Burma/Myanmar

The Commission Communication entitled ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility’
(COM(2011) 0681) states that all European enterprises are expected to meet the corporate responsibility to respect
human rights, as defined in the UN Guiding Principles. The EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and
Democracy (11855/12) also commits the EU to working to contribute to the implementation of the UN Guiding
Principles on business and human rights.

The High Representative and the Trade Commissioner stated on 15 June 2012 that ‘responsible investment and
bilateral trade [are] crucial elements for helping the country [Burma/Myanmar] recover and flourish.’

In light of these commitments:

What has the High Representative done, in concrete terms, to give effect to the stated commitments to promote
human and labour rights and the highest standards of corporate social responsibility amongst European companies
seeking to do business in Burma/Myanmar?

How will the High Representative ensure and monitor that EU companies with business relationships in
Burma/Myanmar carry out their activities in line with the UN Guiding Principles?

It is imperative to ensure that new investment does not perpetuate existing inequities, but instead provides equal
opportunity for all. Will the High Representative ensure that EU businesses planning to invest conduct initial human
rights impact assessments and ongoing due diligence in line with the UN Guiding Principles, consulting local and
international civil society, academia, officials and independent experts?

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 293

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

_(29 October 2012)_

In its contacts with Myanmar stakeholders on possible collaboration on trade and investment, the Commission
stresses the importance of a broad-based, equitable and sustainable economic growth, as well as of responsible
investment and use of best practices by European companies. In framing its trade-related assistance, it considers
supporting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) while avoiding overlap with other donors active in this area.

In its contribution to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Commission is developing
human rights guidance for enterprises in three sectors, including oil and gas. While not country-specific, this should
be relevant for oil and gas enterprises investing in Myanmar. In this respect, the Commission welcomes Myanmar's
interest in joining the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, which will require involvement and participation
of the civil society. The Commission also follows the work of the UN Global Compact on CSR in Myanmar.

Following the Resolution of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Commission proposed to reinstate
Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) for Myanmar. The proposal is now with the Parliament and the Council. As a
GSP beneficiary, Myanmar will have to respect the principles of the core UN/ILO human and labour rights
conventions. The Commission will follow closely the assessments of the relevant monitoring bodies.

We are in the early stages of our reengagement with Myanmar and still developing our policy. In this process, all
options are being examined carefully. Any initiatives in the area of investment will have at its core the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Guiding Principles and the EU's own CSR strategy.

C 287 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008757/12**

**to the Commission**

**Gay Mitchell (PPE)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Right to free movement of goods

A case has been brought to my attention which puts into question the right to free movement of goods within the
European Union.

A wholly-owned subsidiary of Mercedes Benz in the United Kingdom — Mercedes-Benz Retail Group UK — has
refused to sell one of my constituents a vehicle simply because he lives in Ireland.

1. Will the Commission agree that this is in contravention of the single market rules and the right to free
movement of goods?

2. Secondly, I raised this issue by private correspondence with the Commission on 5 June 2012. I have yet to
receive a response to the said letter. Attempts to check the status of the letter have been made at various times. It is
understood that the correspondence has been passed on to different DGs. This is unacceptable and brings the
Commission into disrepute. Why has this happened?

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

_(21 November 2012)_

1. The Commission has in the past fined car manufacturers that sought to prevent their dealers from selling to
consumers from other Member States. This was done on the basis of Article 101 TFEU, which prohibits anticompetitive agreements between independent undertakings. In contrast, the matters raised by the Honourable
Member seem to involve Mercedes Benz and its subsidiary rather than firms that are commercially separate from one
another, and Article 101 is therefore not applicable. Since Mercedes-Benz is unlikely to be in a dominant position,
Article 102 TFEU would not apply either, and there are therefore no grounds for taking action under the EU
competition rules.

2. With regard to the internal market, discrimination on the basis of nationality or residence is dealt with by
Article 20(2) of the Services Directive, which prohibits discriminatory provisions relating to the nationality or place
of residence of the recipients. However, differences in access conditions may be allowed if these are directly justified
by objective criteria. National authorities and courts are competent to assess whether Mercedes' refusal to sell to Irish
consumers may be justified on this basis. The Commission notes that although the UK Office of Fair Trading has
stated that it will not take action, the Honourable Member's consituent remains free to pursue the case through the
national courts.

3. The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of replying in a timely manner to
correspondence, and regrets that on this occasion, administrative errors may have delayed this process.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 295

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008758/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(1_ _[o]_ _ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Metalli pesanti in cosmetici comunemente usati

Uno studio svolto in Canada dall'autorevole «Environmental Defence» ha rilevato la presenza di diversi metalli pesanti
tossici, come piombo, arsenico e cadmio in una gamma di cosmetici di uso comune. Lo studio ha testato cosmetici
commercializzati da marche più o meno note, riscontrando che il nickel era presente nel 100 % dei prodotti, il
piombo nel 96 %, il berillio nel 90 % e il cadmio nel 51 %. Lo studio ha anche evidenziato che la presenza dei suddetti
metalli non era indicata sull'etichetta di nessuno dei cosmetici presi in esame. Secondo il parere delle case produttrici,
questi metalli pesanti sono da considerare «sostanze contaminanti involontarie» e, di conseguenza, non sarebbe
obbligatorio indicarne la presenza sulle etichette.

È da ricordare che alcuni metalli pesanti sono soggetti a processi dannosi per la salute quali il bioaccumulo, ovvero la
loro sedimentazione nell'organismo umano, o la biomagnificazione, ossia l'aumento delle sostanze metalliche
presenti nell'organismo in caso di aumento di massa corporea.

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza dello studio menzionato?

2. Intende avviare uno studio sui cosmetici commercializzati nell'UE al fine di verificare i risultati ottenuti dallo
studio canadese, per garantire ai cittadini UE l'accesso a un mercato dei cosmetici trasparente e consapevole?

3. Anche la legislazione UE classifica i metalli pesanti come «sostanze contaminanti involontarie»?

4. Ritiene che i cittadini UE debbano essere informati della presenza di detti metalli nella composizione dei
cosmetici di uso quotidiano?

**Risposta di Maroš Šefčovič a nome della Commissione**

_(22 novembre 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza dello studio al quale si riferisce l'onorevole parlamentare.

I metalli oggetto dello studio sono proibiti dalla direttiva relativa ai cosmetici 76/768/CE ( [1] ), che dall'11 luglio 2013
sarà sostituita dal regolamento (CE) n. 1223/2009 ( [2] ) . È tuttavia ammessa l'eventuale presenza accidentale di una
modica quantità di una sostanza proibita («contaminanti involontari»), derivante da impurità degli ingredienti naturali
o sintetici, dal processo produttivo, dall'immagazzinamento o dalla confezione, quando risulti tecnicamente
inevitabile pur in presenza di buone prassi produttive, ma solo a condizione che tale presenza non metta in pericolo
la salute umana nelle condizioni d'uso normali e ragionevolmente prevedibili.

Gli Stati membri effettuano con regolarità operazioni di sorveglianza del mercato per verificare l'osservanza delle
norme suindicate. Qualora siano riscontrati casi di inosservanza si prendono provvedimenti che vengono notificati al
sistema RAPEX ( [3] ) . Dal 2005 ad oggi lo 0,9 % delle notifiche RAPEX relative a rischi gravi ha riguardato prodotti
cosmetici contenenti quantità eccessive di metalli pesanti. Tale cifra è confermata da una recente ricerca europea sul
piombo nei rossetti svolta dal Centro comune di ricerca ( [4] ) della Commissione, dalla quale si evince che i campioni
analizzati contengono solo quantità molto modeste di piombo, compatibili con la normativa riguardante le tracce
involontarie di sostanze proibite.

La Commissione rimanda altresì l'onorevole parlamentare alla risposta fornita all'interrogazione scritta
E-005498/2012 ( [5] ) .

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 262 del 27.9.1976.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 342 del 22.12.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) RAPEX è il sistema di allarme rapido dell'Unione che agevola il veloce scambio di informazioni tra gli Stati membri e la Commissione in merito a

provvedimenti presi per prevenire o limitare la commercializzazione o l'uso di prodotti di largo consumo che costituiscono un grave rischio per la
salute e la sicurezza. La base giuridica di tale sistema è la direttiva 2001/95/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 3 dicembre 2001,
relativa alla sicurezza generale dei prodotti, GU L 011 del 15.1.2002, pagg. 4-17.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) JRC technical note — P. Piccinini, M. Piecha and S. Fortaner Torrent, Results of European Survey on Lead in Lipsticks (Risultati della ricerca

europea sul piombo nei rossetti) reperibile all'indirizzo:
http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/food-cons-prod/european-survey-on-lead-in-lipsticks

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-005498&language=IT

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008758/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Heavy metals in EU cosmetics

A study carried out in Canada by the influential organisation Environmental Defence has revealed the presence of
various toxic heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and cadmium in a range of widely used cosmetics. The study tested
some of the leading cosmetics available on the market and found that nickel was present in all of the products, that
96% contained lead, that 90% contained beryllium and that 51% contained cadmium. The study also highlighted that
none of the metals mentioned above were listed on the label of the cosmetics tested. According to the manufacturers,
these heavy metals should be regarded as ‘unintentional contaminants’ and it should therefore not be compulsory to
indicate their presence on labels.

It should be noted that some heavy metals are involved in processes that are harmful to health such as bioaccumulation, namely their absorption into the human body, or bio-magnification, i.e. the increase in metallic
substance levels in the body in the event of weight gain.

1. Is the Commission aware of this study?

2. Does it intend to carry out a study on cosmetics on sale in the EU in order to verify the results produced by the
Canadian study, to ensure that EU citizens are fully aware of the facts and that there is transparency in the cosmetics
market?

3. Does EU legislation classify heavy metals as ‘unintentional contaminants’?

4. Does the Commission believe that EU citizens should be informed about the presence of such metals in
cosmetics that they use on a daily basis?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

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

The metals covered in the study are prohibited by the Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EC ( [1] ), which will be replaced by
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on 11 July 2013 ( [2] ) . However, the unintended presence of a small quantity of a
prohibited substance (‘unintentional contaminants’), stemming from impurities of natural or synthetic ingredients,
the manufacturing process, storage or migration from packaging, which is technically unavoidable in good
manufacturing practice, is permitted provided that such presence is safe for human health under normal and
reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.

Market surveillance actions are regularly carried out by the Member States to check compliance with the rules stated
above. In the cases where incompliances are detected, action is taken and notified in RAPEX ( [3] ) . Since 2005, 0.9% of
all RAPEX notification in case of serious risk was about cosmetic products containing too high quantities of heavy
metals. This figure is confirmed by a recent European survey on lead in lipsticks carried out by the Commission's Joint
Research Centre ( [4] ), which showed that the samples analysed contained only very small quantities of lead, compatible
with the rules on unintended traces of prohibited substances.

The Commission invites the Honourable Member to also refer to its response to Written Question
E-005498/2012 ( [5] ) .

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 342, 22.12.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) RAPEX is the EU rapid alert system that facilitates the rapid exchange of information between Member States and the Commission on measures

taken to prevent or restrict the marketing or use of consumer products posing a serious risk to health and safety. The legal basis for this system is
Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, OJ L 011, 15.1.2002,
pp. 4-17.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) JRC technical note — P. Piccinini, M. Piecha and S. Fortaner Torrent, Results of European Survey on Lead in Lipsticks, available on:

http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our_activities/food-cons-prod/european-survey-on-lead-in-lipsticks

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

( **|**

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 297

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008759/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(1_ _[o]_ _ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Procedure di infrazione

L'articolo 258 TFUE, ex 226 TCE, fornisce alla Commissione uno strumento fondamentale per il controllo
dell'adempimento degli obblighi derivanti dai trattati in capo ai singoli Stati membri: la procedura di infrazione.

Può la Commissione, partendo dall’introduzione nei trattati di questo strumento fino ad oggi, comunicare quanto

segue:

—
Quali Stati membri, oltre l'Italia, sono stati sottoposti a procedure di infrazione?

—
Qual è il numero delle procedure di infrazione aperte nei confronti degli altri paesi, per quali settori e in quale
stadio sono esse giunte?

—
Qual è l'ammontare delle sanzioni (somme forfettarie o penalità di mora) comminate ad essi e per quali casi
specifici?

**Risposta di José Manuel Barroso a nome della Commissione**

_(3 dicembre 2012)_

1. Procedure di infrazione a norma dell'articolo 258 del TFUE (ex articolo 226 del TCE) sono avviate nei confronti
di tutti gli Stati membri, Italia compresa.

2. Attualmente i procedimenti di infrazione in corso, ai sensi del citato articolo, nei confronti di diversi Stati
membri sono 1309. Di questi, 713 sono in fase di costituzione in mora, 364 di parere motivato, 109 allo stadio di
decisione di adire la Corte di giustizia ai sensi dell’articolo 258, 111 già giudicati dalla Corte di giustizia e, infine, 12
procedimenti sono oggetto di decisione di adire la Corte ai sensi dell'articolo 260, paragrafo 2, del TFUE.

3. Ad oggi 14 procedimenti si sono conclusi con una sentenza della Corte di giustizia ai sensi dell'articolo 260,
paragrafo 2, del TFUE. Delle 14 sentenze, 11 condannano lo Stato membro al pagamento di una sanzione finanziaria.
Per quanto riguarda l’importo che uno Stato membro condannato dalla Corte di giustizia è tenuto a versare, la
Commissione fa notare che la Corte stessa fissa in ogni sentenza la somma forfettaria e la penalità; tuttavia l'importo
delle penalità è direttamente collegato al periodo di ritardo previsto perché lo Stato membro si conformi alla sentenza
e può pertanto essere calcolato integralmente solo una volta che lo Stato condannato si è conformato alla sentenza
stessa. A tal proposito, la Commissione invita l'onorevole parlamentare a consultare le diverse sentenze della Corte
nelle cause C-387/97, C-278/01, C-304/02, C-177/04, C-70/06, C-121/07, C-568/07, C-369/07, C-109/08,
C-407/09 e C/496/09.

C 287 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008759/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Infringement procedures

Article 258 TFEU (formerly Article 226 TEC), offers the Commission a vital tool in ensuring that individual Member
States fulfil their obligations in treaties: the infringement procedure.

With reference to the period since this tool was incorporated into the Treaties up to the present time, can the
Commission provide answers to the following:

—
Which Member States, other than Italy, have been subject to the infringement procedure?

—
How many infringement procedures are currently open against other countries, what are the countries
involved and what stage have these procedures reached?

—
How much in total has been applied in sanctions (lump sums or penalty payments) and in relation to which
specific situations?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M. Barroso au nom de la Commission**

_(3 décembre 2012)_

1. Comme l'Italie, tous les autres États membres ont fait l'objet d'une procédure d'infraction ouverte à leur
encontre au titre de l'article 258 TFUE (ex 226 TCE).

2. Actuellement, 1 309 cas de procédures d'infraction sont ouverts à l'encontre desdits États membres au titre de
l'article 258 TFUE. Parmi ces cas, 713 ont atteint au plus le stade de la mise en demeure; 364 au plus, l'avis motivé;
109 sont au stade de la décision de saisine au titre de l'article 258 et 111 ont fait l'objet d'un arrêt de la Cour de justice;
12 cas enfin, ont fait l'objet d'une décision de saisine au titre de l'article 260, paragraphe 2 TFUE (ex 228 TCE).

3. Jusqu'à ce jour, 14 cas ont donné lieu à un arrêt de la Cour de justice au titre de l'article 260, paragraphe 2 TFUE.
Parmi ces 14 arrêts, 11 condamnent l'État membre au payement d'une sanction financière. En ce qui concerne
la question des montants à payer par un État membre condamné par la Cour de justice, la Commission
attire l'attention sur le fait que si le montant de la somme forfaitaire — tout comme celui de l'astreinte — est fixé par la
Cour elle-même dans chaque arrêt, le montant des astreintes à payer est directement lié à la période de retard
concédée par l'État membre pour se conformer audit arrêt et ne peut donc être déterminé dans sa globalité qu'au
moment de la mise en conformité à l'arrêt en question; dans ce contexte, l'Honorable Parlementaire est invité à se
référer aux différents arrêts de la Cour dans le cadre des affaires C-387/97, C-278/01, C-304/02, C-177/04, C-70/06,
C-121/07, C-568/07, C-369/07, C-109/08, C-407/09 et C-496/09.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 299

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008760/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(1_ _[o]_ _ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Procedure di infrazione per l'Italia

La procedura di infrazione è uno strumento a disposizione della Commissione (articolo 258 TFUE, ex 226 TCE) per
vigilare sul rispetto degli obblighi derivanti dal diritto comunitario in capo ai singoli Paesi membri.

Può la Commissione, partendo dall'introduzione nei trattati di questo strumento fino ad oggi, comunicare quanto

segue:

—
Quante procedure di infrazione sono state avviate nei confronti dell'Italia, in seguito a quali violazioni e in
quale stadio dell'iter esse sono giunte?

—
Quali procedure di infrazione sono attualmente ancora in corso contro l'Italia e in quale fase si trovano?

—
Quali procedure sono giunte alla sentenza definitiva della Corte di giustizia e quali sono le ammende (somme
forfettarie o penalità di mora) che l'Italia è stata condannata a pagare?

—
Quali sono i soggetti autori delle violazioni oggetto di tali procedure?

**Risposta di José Manuel Barroso a nome della Commissione**

_(20 novembre 2012)_

La Commissione invita l'onorevole parlamentare a consultare le diverse relazioni annuali sul controllo
dell'applicazione del diritto dell'Unione europea e le relazioni annuali sull'attività della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione
europea, per contestualizzare le informazioni statistiche relative ai procedimenti di infrazione che riguardano tutti gli
Stati membri.

La ripartizione dei casi d'infrazione aperti nei confronti dell'Italia al 18 ottobre 2012 è la seguente: il 45,1 % è nella
fase di costituzione in mora; il 28,65 % è nella fase del parere motivato; il 16,5 % allo stadio della decisione di adire la
Corte di giustizia mentre per il 9,8 % è già stata pronunciata una sentenza. Infine, lo 0,40 % dei casi è stato oggetto di
una decisione di ricorso per inottemperanza a una sentenza della Corte. Nello 0,1 % dei casi la Corte ha pronunciato
una sentenza in cui constata che l'Italia non si è conformata alla sentenza in cui si constatava l'inadempimento ( [1] ).

Alla stessa data, 110 casi di infrazione risultano aperti contro l'Italia in virtù dell'articolo 258 del TFUE. Di questi, 65
sono nella fase di costituzione in mora; 23 nella fase del parere motivato; 9 allo stadio della decisione di adire la Corte
di giustizia e 12 sono stati oggetto di una sentenza; 1 caso infine è stato oggetto di una decisione di adire la Corte ai
sensi dell'articolo 260, paragrafo 2, del TFUE.

I procedimenti di infrazione avviati ai sensi dell'articolo 258 o dell'articolo 260 del TFUE e le sentenze pronunciate
dalla Corte riguardano sempre lo Stato membro in quanto tale ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Per quanto concerne gli importi che uno Stato membro è tenuto a pagare in base a una sentenza della Corte, la Commissione attira l'attenzione sul

fatto che se l'importo della somma forfettaria (e della penalità) è stabilito dalla Corte stessa, l'importo totale delle penalità da pagare dipende dal
tempo impiegato dallo Stato membro per conformarsi a detta sentenza e deve dunque essere calcolato solo al termine di questo periodo; a questo
proposito si rimanda alla sentenza nella causa C-496/09.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Si prega di fare riferimento alla causa 8/70, Commissione contro Repubblica italiana.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 287 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008760/12**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Infringement procedures against Italy

The infringement procedure is a tool that the Commission can use (Article 258 TFEU, formerly Article 226 TEC), to
ensure that individual Member States fulfil their obligations under EC law.

With reference to the period since this tool was incorporated into the Treaties up to the present, can the Commission
provide answers to the following:

—
How many infringement procedures were launched against Italy, in response to which violations and what
stage did they reach?

—
How many infringement procedures are currently open against Italy and what stage are they at?

—
Which of the procedures have had a final judgment from the Court of Justice and what fines (lump sums or
penalty payments) has Italy been ordered to pay?

—
Who is responsible for the violations that are the object of these procedures?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M. Barroso au nom de la Commission**

_(20 novembre 2012)_

La Commission prie l'Honorable Parlementaire de se référer aux différents rapports annuels sur l'application du droit
de l'Union européenne (UE) et aux rapports annuels sur les activités de la Cour de justice de l'UE (CJ), lesquels
permettent de mettre en perspective des informations statistiques portant sur les procédures d'infraction concernant
tous les États membres.

La répartition des cas d'infraction qui ont été ouverts contre l'Italie au 18 octobre 2012 est la suivante: 45,1 % ont
atteint au plus le stade de la mise en demeure; 28,65 % au plus, l'avis motivé; 16,5 % le stade de la décision de saisine
de la CJ et 9,8 % ont fait l'objet d'un arrêt de la CJ; 0,40 % enfin, ont fait l'objet d'une décision de saisine pour nonrespect d'un arrêt de la CJ. 0,1 % par ailleurs ont donné lieu à un arrêt de la CJ constatant que l'Italie ne s'était pas
conformée à l'arrêt de la Cour ayant constaté le manquement ( [1] ).

À la même date, 110 cas d'infraction sont toujours ouverts contre l'Italie au titre de l'article 258 TFUE. Parmi ceux-ci,
65 ont atteint au plus le stade de la mise en demeure; 23 au plus, l'avis motivé; 9 sont au stade de la décision de saisine
de la CJ et 12 ont fait l'objet d'un arrêt par cette dernière; 1 cas enfin, a fait l'objet d'une décision de saisine au titre de
l'article 260, paragraphe 2 TFUE.

Les procédures d'infraction engagées sur base des articles 258 ou 260 TFUE et les arrêts rendus par la Cour, visent
toujours l'État membre en tant que tel ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) En ce qui concerne les montants à payer par un État membre tels qu'établis par arrêt de la Cour, la Commission attire l'attention sur le fait que si le

montant de la somme forfaitaire — tout comme celui de l'astreinte — est fixé par la Cour elle-même, le montant final des astreintes à payer
dépend du délai mis par l'État membre pour se conformer audit arrêt et ne peut donc être déterminé dans sa totalité qu'à l'issue de cette période;
dans ce contexte, il y a lieu de se référer à l'arrêt dans le cadre de l'affaire C-496/09.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Voir notamment l'affaire 8/70 Commission contre République italienne.

( **|**

**|** )

( **|**

**|** )

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 301

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008761/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(1_ _[o]_ _ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Sfruttamento criminale delle persone con disabilità

Nelle strade di diverse città europee capita sempre più spesso di imbattersi in mendicanti affetti da disabilità più o
meno gravi. Recenti indagini svolte sul territorio italiano hanno dimostrato che a gestire il tutto vi sono vere e proprie
organizzazioni criminali: dopo oltre un anno d'indagini, la Polizia Municipale di Milano ha infatti arrestato un gruppo
di Rom romeni che gestiva 32 persone con differenti tipi di disabilità, «comprati» in Romania per pochi euro e poi
costretti a chiedere l'elemosina sui marciapiedi della città. A Torino, nei giorni scorsi, è stata sbaragliata un'analoga
organizzazione che obbligava alcuni mutilati a chiedere l'elemosina lungo le vie del capoluogo piemontese. Indagini
di questo tipo si sono susseguite in Italia e in altri Paesi europei, facendo sorgere il sospetto dell'esistenza di una vasta
rete europea che gestisce l'intero traffico criminale.

Decine di portatori di handicap sono «comprati» o «affittati» dalle famiglie in Romania e trasportati poi, in condizioni
disumane, nei diversi luoghi di destinazione, tra cui figura l'Italia, che sembra essere la meta privilegiata. Disabili di
varia natura, persone nella maggior parte dei casi non in grado di intendere e di volere, sono quindi ridotti in schiavitù
e messi agli angoli delle strade a chiedere l'elemosina.

Accanto a questo fenomeno ve ne è un altro parallelo, anch'esso di estrema gravità: spesso infatti, oltre a queste
persone sfruttate che hanno un'effettiva disabilità, sono dedite all'attività di accattonaggio anche persone che fingono
una disabilità, che in realtà però non è presente ma solo simulata al fine di ottenere maggiore compatimento.

I fatti sopra descritti rappresentano quanto di peggio vi possa essere come lesione dei diritti delle persone con
disabilità, sanciti anche dalla relativa Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite: ci troviamo infatti ad avere, oltre a uno
sfruttamento diretto delle persone con disabilità, anche uno sfruttamento del concetto stesso di disabilità, per meri
fini lucrativi e criminali.

1. È la Commissione a conoscenza di questi fenomeni che interessano diversi Paesi dell'Unione?

2. Quali misure intende attuare per porre fine a questo vergognoso sistema di sfruttamento delle persone con
disabilità?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(4 dicembre 2012)_

La Commissione nutre particolare apprensione per i casi di persone disabili vittime dei trafficanti nell’Unione
europea. I dati preliminari presentati nella strategia dell’UE per l’eradicazione della tratta degli esseri umani ( [1] )
indicano che, nella maggioranza dei casi registrati, le vittime sono sfruttate a fini sessuali (76 % nel 2010) e che nel
periodo 2008-2010 il 79 % delle vittime di sfruttamento sessuale erano donne (di cui il 12 % ragazze). Secondo
quanto segnalato dalla maggior parte degli Stati membri, le vittime provengono principalmente dall’Unione europea,
in particolare da Romania e Bulgaria.

Secondo la valutazione di Europol ( [2] ), i gruppi criminali rumeni (principalmente di etnia Rom) sono caratterizzati da
un'elevata mobilità e sono tra i più temibili per quanto concerne la tratta di esseri umani. Allo stesso tempo i Rom
sono tra i gruppi vulnerabili più esposti al rischio di cadere vittime della tratta di esseri umani.

La strategia dell’UE presta particolare attenzione ai gruppi vulnerabili, come i disabili (soprattutto minori), e prevede
una serie di azioni indirizzate specificatamente a questo gruppo. La strategia esorta inoltre gli Stati membri a
potenziare l'azione penale nei confronti dei trafficanti, intensificando le indagini, istituendo unità nazionali
multidisciplinari di contrasto della criminalità e incrementando la cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria
transfrontaliera.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) La strategia dell’UE per l’eradicazione della tratta degli esseri umani (2012-2016), COM(2012) 286 definitivo.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OCTA 2011: EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment, Europol; https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/octa_2011_1.pdf

C 287 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

Inoltre, nel 2014 la Commissione assicurerà che siano disponibili finanziamenti nell’ambito del programma di ricerca
per comprendere meglio i gruppi ad alto rischio e intervenire in modo più mirato e coerente in futuro.

La nuova direttiva dell’UE sui diritti delle vittime ( [3] ) istituisce diritti minimi per le vittime in tutto il territorio dell'UE ( [4] )
e mira a garantire una protezione adeguata dei più vulnerabili, tra cui bambini e disabili.

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) GU L 315 del 14.11.2012, pag. 57.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Vari strumenti dell'UE di diversi settori contribuiscono a contrastare la tratta di esseri umani. La legislazione dell'UE sul diritto delle vittime della

tratta di esseri umani di risiedere nell'UE, relativa allo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori, e alle sanzioni nei confronti di datori di lavoro che
impiegano cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare integra la direttiva sulla tratta di esseri umani. L’impegno della Commissione per
prevenire e contrastare tale fenomeno si concretizza in numerose iniziative, misure e programmi di finanziamento disponibili sin dagli anni '90
per questo settore, sia nell’ambito dell'UE che di paesi terzi: la comunicazione «Lotta contro la tratta degli esseri umani: un approccio integrato e
proposte per un piano d’azione», (COM(2005) 514 definitivo), il piano UE sulle migliori pratiche, le norme e le procedure per contrastare e
prevenire la tratta di esseri umani (GU C 311 del 9.12.2005, pag. 1) e il documento di lavoro «Evaluation and monitoring of the implementation
of the EU Plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings», (COM(2008) 657
definitivo).

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 303

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008761/12**

**to the Commission**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Criminal exploitation of people with disabilities

On the streets of European cities it is becoming increasingly common to come across beggars who are disabled in one
way or another. Surveys carried out recently in Italy have shown that the situation is being controlled by serious
criminal organisations: after more than a year of investigation into the matter, the Municipal Police of Milan arrested a
group of Romanian Rom who were managing 32 people with different disabilities, who had been ‘bought’ cheaply in
Romania and then forced to beg on the city streets. A similar organisation was recently uncovered in Turin and found
to be forcing a number of disabled people to beg on the streets of the Piedmont region’s capital. Investigations of this
type have taken place in Italy as well as in other European countries, raising the suspicion that there is a huge
European network which oversees all criminal trafficking.

Dozens of disabled people have been ‘bought’ or ‘rented’ from families in Romania before being transported, in
inhumane conditions, to different destinations, including Italy, which seems to be a favoured point of arrival. People
with disabilities of various kinds, who are typically unable to understand their situation or express their wishes, are in
this way forced into slavery and positioned on street corners to beg for spare change.

There is another, similar, phenomenon which is also extremely worrying: very often, alongside these people with real
disabilities, there are other beggars who only pretend to be handicapped, putting on a pretence of disability with the
aim of gaining more sympathy.

The facts described above represent the worst possible abuses of the rights of people with disabilities, also sanctioned
by the United Nations Convention dedicated to this subject: we find ourselves faced with a situation in which there is
not only direct exploitation of people with disabilities, but also exploitation of the very concept of disability, for
financial and criminal ends.

1. Is the Commission aware of this phenomenon which affects numerous EU countries?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to put an end to this shameful system of exploitation of
people with disabilities?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 December 2012)_

The Commission notes with concern various reports on people with disabilities that fall prey to human traffickers.
Preliminary data in the EU Strategy for Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings ( [1] ) show that most of registered
victims in Member States are used for sexual exploitation (76% in 2010). It also shows that female victims accounted
for 79% (12% girls) in 2008-2010. Most Member States reported that victims predominantly come from within
the EU, and mainly from Romania and Bulgaria.

Europol ( [2] ) has identified Romanian (mostly of Roma ethnicity) criminal groups as extremely mobile and one of the
most threatening regarding trafficking in human beings. At the same time Roma people are among the vulnerable
groups at greater risk of being victims of human trafficking.

The EU Strategy attaches special attention to vulnerable groups, such as people (especially children) with disabilities
and foresees actions tailored to this category. The strategy also calls on Member States for increased prosecution of
traffickers, by stepping up investigations, establishing national multidisciplinary law enforcement units, and by
increasing cross-border police and judicial cooperation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012-2016, COM(2012) 286 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Europol, Organised Crime Threat Assessment: OCTA 2011; https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/octa_2011_1.pdf

C 287 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

Furthermore, the Commission will in 2014 ensure that funding is available under the research programme to increase
understanding of such high-risk groups, for more targeted actions in a more coherent manner in the future.

The new EU Directive on victims' rights ( [3] ), sets out minimum rights for victims wherever they are in the EU ( [4] ), and
aims to ensure vulnerable victims, such as children and persons with disabilities, are properly protected.

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) A number of other EU instruments in various policy areas contribute to addressing trafficking in human beings. EU legislation on the right of

victims of human trafficking to reside in the EU, on the sexual exploitation of children, and on sanctions against employers who knowingly
employ illegally staying third country workers, complement the directive on trafficking in human beings. The Commission's commitment to
prevent and fights this phenomenon is reflected in a large number of initiatives, measures and funding programmes available in the area both
within the EU and third countries as early as in the 1990s: Communication on fighting trafficking in human beings — an integrated approach and
proposals for an action plan (COM(2005) 514 final), the EU Plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing
trafficking in human beings (2005/C 311/01) and the Evaluation and monitoring of the implementation of the EU plan (COM(2008) 657 final).

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 305

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008762/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(1_ _[o]_ _ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Utilizzo del sistema delle scorte per fronteggiare l'eccessiva volatilità dei prezzi del grano — Eventuale
creazione di un coordinamento europeo

L'eccessiva volatilità dei prezzi dei prodotti agricoli desta preoccupazione, in particolare per quanto riguarda il grano.

Le recenti ondate di siccità e le relative conseguenze sulla produzione cerealicola rischiano di aggravare ulteriormente
la situazione.

Inoltre, le previsioni per i prossimi 10 anni sono allarmanti. Infatti, come riportato dal Direttore generale della FAO,
José Graziano da Silva, i prezzi agricoli «rimarranno alti e conosceranno una grande volatilità».

Ricordando la grave crisi del 2007-2008 ed essendo ampiamente riconosciuta l'utilità del sistema delle scorte per
tenere sotto controllo i prezzi, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Ha preso in esame la possibilità di utilizzare il sistema delle scorte per gestire la situazione?

2. Sarebbe possibile costituire a livello di Unione europea un coordinamento che si occupi della gestione di tali
scorte?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloş a nome della Commissione**

_(19 novembre 2012)_

Le cause dell'elevata volatilità delle materie prime, che non ha precedenti, sono molteplici: avverse condizioni
meteorologiche, aumento della domanda, andamento legato ad altre materie prime, prezzo del petrolio, politiche in
materia di biocarburanti, volatilità dei tassi di cambio, eccessiva speculazione finanziaria, ecc. Non vi è consenso
sull'importanza relativa di ogni singolo fattore, il che dimostra che non vi è una soluzione semplice e facile del
problema. Ma il fatto che tutti questi fattori abbiano subito un andamento tale da determinare un movimento al rialzo
dei prezzi ne ha accentuato l'impatto sulla volatilità dei prezzi.

Rarefazione dei mercati e basso livello delle scorte rientrano chiaramente tra questi fattori. Tuttavia, la proposta di
costituire un sistema di scorte di prodotti agricoli solleverebbe una serie di problemi in termini di _governance_ e di
organizzazione di un tale sistema, soprattutto in considerazione del fatto che le norme in materia di costituzione,
gestione e messa a disposizione relative ad un regime pubblico di scorte dovrebbero essere applicate in modo
trasparente e regolamentato, mentre i mercati di riferimento presentano spesso problemi dovuti proprio alla
mancanza di trasparenza.

La Commissione sorveglia la situazione dei mercati cerealicoli anche in collaborazione con gli Stati membri (comitati
di gestione) e con i portatori di interesse (gruppi consultivi). La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole parlamentare alla
risposta all'interrogazione scritta E-770/2012 dall'onorevole Niculescu ( [1] ).

Inoltre, a livello internazionale l'UE partecipa attivamente all'iniziativa del G20 sul sistema di informazione sui
mercati agricoli (AMIS), intesa a migliorare la trasparenza, e trasmette aggiornamenti mensili del bilancio di
approvvigionamento delle principali colture.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 287 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008762/12**

**to the Commission**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of a stock system to tackle extreme fluctuations in grain prices — Possible European coordination

Extreme fluctuation in prices of agricultural products is cause for concern, especially in terms of grain.

The recent periods of drought and the effects wrought on cereal crops have led to the risk of further deterioration of
the situation.

Moreover, forecasts for the next 10 years are alarming. Indeed, as José Graziano da Silva, the Director-General of the
Food and Agriculture Organisation, has said, the price of agricultural products ‘will remain elevated and will be highly
volatile’.

Keeping the serious crisis of 2007‐2008 in mind and recognising how effective the stock system is as a means of
keeping prices under control, can the Commission state:

1. Whether the possibility of using a stock system to manage the situation has been considered?

2. Whether it would be possible to establish an EU‐wide coordination group to oversee the management of
stocks?

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

_(19 November 2012)_

The causes of the unprecedented high level of commodities volatility are several: weather events, rise in demand, comovement with other commodities, oil price, biofuel policies, volatility in exchange rates, excessive financial
speculation, etc… There is no consensus on the relative importance of each single factor, and this shows that there is
no simple and easy solution to the problem. But the fact that all of these factors moved in the direction of influencing
an upward move of prices compounded their impact on price volatility.

Thin markets and low stocks levels are clearly quoted as one of these factors. However, the proposal of constituting
stocks of agricultural products would raise a number of questions in terms of governance and organisational rules of
such a system, especially since the setting up, management and release rules of a public stock-holding scheme would
have to operate in a transparent and regulated way within the context of markets that often raise questions of lack of
transparency.

The Commission monitors the cereals markets situation also with Member States (Management Committees) and
stakeholders (Advisory Groups). The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question
E-770/2012 by Mr Niculescu ( [1] ) .

Moreover, at international level, the EU participates actively to the G-20 initiative on Agricultural Market Information
System (AMIS) to improve transparency and transmits monthly updates of supply balance sheets for main crops.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 307

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008763/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(1_ _[o]_ _ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Emergenza nucleare di Saluggia

A causa delle piogge invernali, una delle vasche di stoccaggio dell'impianto nucleare EUREX di Saluggia (Vercelli)
rischia di traboccare. Situazione che potrebbe dar luogo a una vera e propria emergenza ambientale. L'allarme è stato
lanciato in quanto è elevatissimo il rischio di sversamento dell'acqua sul piazzale del sito e, di conseguenza, di
infiltrazione di tale acqua nelle falde sottostanti con rischi ambientali incalcolabili.

L'impianto è dotato di due vasche di raccolta e le acque in esse contenute sono abitualmente scaricate nella Dora
Baltea, procedimento che garantisce il rispetto dell'ambiente limitrofo esclusivamente se il livello di radioattività delle
acque non supera determinati limiti.

L'ISPRA, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale, ha riscontrato in questo caso livelli elevatissimi
di radioattività delle acque che non ne consentono lo sversamento in condizioni di sicurezza.

Ad aggravare la situazione contribuisce, altresì, la costruzione di un deposito di scorie radioattive che sorgerà
all'interno del sito EUREX. Le attività di cantiere comportano un frequente traffico di mezzi pesanti che scaricano
cemento notte e giorno nei pressi delle vasche incrementando il rischio di lesione delle stesse o di urtarvi contro con
conseguenze potenzialmente disastrose.

L'emergenza andrebbe fronteggiata, secondo l'ISPRA, innanzitutto effettuando delle analisi in grado di verificare i
livelli di radioattività delle acque sulla base dei risultati, mettendo a punto un piano di trattamento del liquido
contenuto nelle vasche.

Alla luce di quanto precede, si interroga la Commissione per sapere:

1. Se è a conoscenza dell'emergenza ambientale di Salluggia.

2. Se la direttiva 2008/99/CE sulla tutela penale dell'ambiente è applicabile in casi simili e, in caso di risposta
positiva, quali provvedimenti intende adottare per garantirne il rispetto?

**Risposta di Günther Oettinger a nome della Commissione**

_(22 novembre 2012)_

1. Sì, la Commissione è stata informata dal competente organismo di regolamentazione italiano (ISPRA) che il
liquido contenuto nella vasca di stoccaggio dell'impianto EUREX ha un livello di radioattività che non consente uno
sversamento nell'ambito dei valori inferiori al valore limite per gli scarichi.

L'ISPRA ha informato la Commissione di aver chiesto al gestore dell'impianto di presentare una proposta per il
trattamento dell'acqua contenuta nella vasca, nonché dei sedimenti. Inoltre l'ISPRA ha informato la Commissione che,
in previsione di future attività di disattivazione dell'impianto, il gestore sta costruendo una copertura sopra le vasche
esistenti, nonché appositi pozzi vicini alle vasche onde evitare che le precipitazioni diluiscano l'acqua accumulata e
finiscano per provocare uno straripamento nel fiume.

Il controllo della radioattività ambientale, nonché il controllo dell'osservanza delle norme di sicurezza vigenti ( [1] )
(compresi i limiti di dose per la popolazione) sono di competenza dello Stato membro interessato.

2. Sì, la direttiva 2008/99/CE ( [2] ) dispone che gli Stati membri si adoperino affinché la produzione, la detenzione, il
trattamento, l'uso, la conservazione, il deposito, il trasporto, l'importazione, l'esportazione e lo smaltimento di
materiali nucleari o di altre sostanze radioattive pericolose, che provochino o possano provocare il decesso o lesioni
gravi alle persone o danni rilevanti all'ambiente, costituiscano reati qualora tali attività siano illecite e poste in essere
intenzionalmente o quanto meno per grave negligenza. Le giurisdizioni nazionali sono competenti per l'applicazione
della normativa nazionale che recepisce la direttiva.

L'Italia ha notificato alla Commissione le misure adottate ai fini del recepimento della presente direttiva e la
Commissione sta attualmente controllando che la direttiva sia correttamente recepita.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Articolo 35 del trattato Euratom.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2008/99/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 19 novembre 2008, sulla tutela penale dell'ambiente, GU L 328 del 6.12.2008.

C 287 E / 308 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008763/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Nuclear emergency in Saluggia

Due to winter rainfall, one of the storage tanks at the EUREX nuclear plant in Saluggia (Province of Vercelli) is at risk
of overflowing. This situation could cause a real environmental emergency. The alarm was raised as there is a very
high risk of water spilling on to the ground at the site and penetrating the underlying aquifers — which would have
incalculable environmental risks.

The plant has two collection tanks and the water contained in them is usually discharged into the Dora Baltea river, a
process that guarantees the surrounding environment is respected as long as the radioactivity levels in the water do
not exceed certain limits.

In this case, ISPRA, the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, has found very high levels of
radioactivity in the water, which means it cannot be discharged safely.

To make matters worse, a radioactive waste storage facility is also being constructed within the EUREX site. The
building work involves frequent traffic of heavy vehicles continually depositing cement near the tanks, increasing the
risk of them being damaged or hit, with potentially disastrous consequences.

According to ISPRA, the emergency should be dealt with first by carrying out analyses that make it possible to verify
the water radioactivity levels, and developing a plan to treat the liquid contained in the tanks.

1. Is the Commission aware of the environmental emergency at Saluggia?

2. Can it say whether Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law is
applicable in similar cases and if so, what measures does it intend to take to ensure compliance with it?

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

_(22 November 2012)_

1. Yes the Commission is informed by the competent Italian regulatory body (ISPRA), that the liquid contained in
the pond of the Eurex plant has a radioactivity content that does not allow a discharge below the value of the
discharge limit.

ISPRA has informed the Commission that it had requested the operator to present a proposal for the treatment of the
stored water as well as of the pond sediments. In addition, ISPRA informed the Commission that, in view of future
decommissioning activities of the plant, the operator is constructing a cover over the existing ponds and specific wells
close to these ponds to prevent rainfall diluting the stored water and causing an eventual overflow into the river.

Environmental radiological monitoring and ensuring compliance with the applicable safety standards ( [1] ) (including
dose limits for members of the public) are the responsibility of the Member State concerned.

2. Yes, Directive 2008/99/EC ( [2] ) requires that Member States ensure that the production, possession, handling, use,
holding, storage, transport, import, export or disposal of nuclear materials or other hazardous radioactive substances
constitute criminal offences if they cause or are likely to cause death or serious injury to any person or substantial
damage to the environment, when committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence. It is the responsibility
of national courts to apply the national legislation implementing the directive.

Italy has notified the Commission of the measures taken to transpose this directive, and the Commission is currently
monitoring that transposition is done correctly.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/99/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law,

OJ L 328, 6.12.2008.

3.10.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287 E / 309

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008764/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(1_ _[o]_ _ottobre 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Caso dei bambini intossicati in Germania

Negli ultimi giorni almeno quattromila bambini sono rimasti intossicati in quattro differenti Stati federali della
Germania, dopo aver mangiato cibo fornito dalle mense scolastiche. Accusano tutti i sintomi di una gastroenterite e
tre di loro sono stati ricoverati.

Stando a quanto si è appreso, le mense delle scuole e degli asili frequentati dai bambini intossicati erano rifornite dalla
stessa ditta. Si sospetta un contagio da norovirus.

Alla luce di quanto precede si chiede alla Commissione:

1. È a conoscenza della vicenda? L'EFSA ha in precedenza svolto indagini su episodi simili e, in caso di risposta
negativa, non intende, dopo i casi riscontrati in Germania, intervenire sulla questione?

2. Quali sono le normative europee che regolano la distribuzione dei cibi nelle mense e in generale nei luoghi
pubblici, con particolare riferimento alle norme di sicurezza alimentare.

**Risposta di Maroš Šefčovič a nome della Commissione**

_(9 novembre 2012)_

La Commissione ha ricevuto la prima segnalazione di questo importante focolaio di gastroenterite il 30 settembre
2012 da parte delle autorità tedesche attraverso il Sistema di allarme rapido per gli alimenti ed i mangimi e ne ha
informato immediatamente gli Stati membri per il tramite del Sistema di allarme rapido e di reazione della
Commissione.

La direttiva 2003/99/CE ( [1] ) fa obbligo agli Stati membri di procedere all'indagine epidemiologica dei focolai di
tossinfezione alimentare sul loro territorio. Poiché finora il focolaio in questione appare limitato alla Germania, né
l'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare né il Centro europeo per la prevenzione e il controllo delle malattie
sono stati invitati a coordinare le indagini.

La Germania ha indicato quale fonte del focolaio partite di fragole congelate contaminate da _Norovirus_, constatazione
che è stata corroborata da studi epidemiologici e da un reperto in una partita sospetta.

Tutti gli operatori del settore alimentare sono interessati dalla legislazione europea in tema di igiene alimentare, in
particolare dai regolamenti (CE) nn. 178/2002 ( [2] ), 852/2004 ( [3] ), 853/2004 ( [4] ) e 2073/2005 ( [5] ).

La Germania ha inoltre definito diverse linee guida nazionali in materia di igiene, ad esempio quelle relative alla
ristorazione collettiva nonché una «Guida alle buone pratiche igieniche nel settore della ristorazione e del catering».
Queste linee guida nazionali possono essere utilizzate per coadiuvare i controlli ufficiali condotti dalle autorità
competenti.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 325 del 12.12.2003, pagg. 31‐40.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 31 dell'1.2.2002, pagg. 1‐24.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) GU L 139 del 30.4.2004, pagg. 1‐54.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) GU L 139 del 30.4.2004, pagg. 55‐205.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) GU L 338 del 22.12.2005, pagg. 1‐26.

C 287 E / 310 EN Official Journal of the European Union 3.10.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008764/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(1 October 2012)_

_Subject:_ Children poisoned in Germany

In the last few days, at least 4 000 children have been poisoned across four different federal states in Germany after
having eaten food served in school canteens. All of the children complained of gastroenteritic symptoms and three
have been admitted to hospital.

According to new information, the school canteens and nurseries in question were supplied by the same company.
An outbreak of norovirus is believed to be the cause.

Can the Commission state:

1. Whether it is aware of this situation? Has the EFSA ever conducted surveys into similar outbreaks and, if not,
does it intend, following the cases reported in Germany, to intervene in this matter?

2. What European legislation pertains to the supply of food to canteens and to public places in general,
particularly in relation to food safety standards?

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

_(9 November 2012)_

The Commission was first notified of this major outbreak of gastro-enteritis on 30 September 2012 by the German
authorities via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed and informed immediately the Member States through the
Early Warning and Response System of the Commission.

Directive 99/2003/EC ( [1] ) obliges Member States to carry out investigations on foodborne outbreaks on their territory.
As the outbreak was so far restricted to Germany, neither the European Food Safety Agency nor the European Centre
for Disease Prevention and Control were asked to coordinate the investigations.

The source of the outbreak was indicated by Germany to be frozen strawberries contaminated with _Norovirus_, which
was supported both by epidemiological studies and by detection in a suspected batch.

The European legislation on food hygiene is addressed to all food business operators and in particular Regulation (EC)
No 178/2002 ( [2] ), 852/2004 ( [3] ), 853/2004 ( [4] ) and 2073/2005 ( [5] ).

Moreover Germany has established several national hygiene guides e.g. dedicated to ‘mass catering’ and a ‘Guide to
Good Hygiene Practice in the restaurant and catering sector’. Such national guides can be used as support for official
controls of the competent authorities.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 325, 12.12.2003, p. 31‐40.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1‐24.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1‐54.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55‐205.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 338, 22.12.2005, p. 1‐26.

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