Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 12 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 57**
##### English edition Information and Notices 16 January 2014

_Notice to reader_

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

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

### **EN**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

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

**by a European Union institution**

(2014/C 12 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-003263/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Combating racism and xenophobia

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

**E-003264/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of austerity measures on the living conditions of disabled persons

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 28

**E-003265/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protecting birds in the Llobregat Delta (Catalonia, Spain)

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 29
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 30

**E-003266/13** by Martin Kastler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Combating and recording of religious hate crimes in Europe

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 31
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

**E-003267/13** by Martin Kastler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reductions in confessional religious education at European Schools

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 33
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 34

**P-003412/13** by Bernd Posselt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Religious education at the European Schools

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 33
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 34

C 12 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003268/13** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation regarding constitutional change in Hungary

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 35

**E-003269/13** by Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restrictions on tobacco imports from other Member States

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 36
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 37

**E-003271/13** by Daniël van der Stoep to the Commission
_Subject:_ Access for women to the Athos peninsula

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 38
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 39

**E-003272/13** by Philip Claeys to the Commission
_Subject:_ Complaints about the quality of meals at the Commission

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 40
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 41

**E-003273/13** by Philip Claeys to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commissioner De Gucht's participation in Rabat mission

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 42
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 43

**E-003274/13** by Iosif Matula and Iuliu Winkler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Removal of obstacles hindering the exploitation of geothermal energy

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 44
Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 45
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 46

**E-003275/13** by Jens Rohde to the Commission
_Subject:_ Untethered sows

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 47
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

**E-003276/13** by Erik Bánki, Alajos Mészáros, Csaba Sógor, Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska and Petru
Constantin Luhan to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘A Better Internet for Kids’ Programme

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 51
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

**E-003277/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future revision of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 on access to the road haulage market

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 53
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 54

**E-003278/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ New type of drug-resistant swine flu

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 55
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 56

**E-003279/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compensation for losses for Romanian milk producers following the aflatoxin crisis

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 57
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 58

**E-003283/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Consumer Classroom programme

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 59

**E-003284/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Day for the Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 60

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 3

**E-003285/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Farmers’ markets and diversification of high street shopping

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 61

**E-003286/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fuel laundering

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 62

**E-003287/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Human rights abuses in China

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 63

**E-003288/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Large denomination banknotes

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 64

**E-003289/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Poverty in Romania

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

**E-003290/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Progress of EU in reducing greenhouse gas emissions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 66

**E-003291/13** by Jürgen Creutzmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Promotion of company split-ups by structural funds in Rhineland-Palatinate

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 67
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 68

**E-003292/13** by Alyn Smith to the Commission
_Subject:_ Homelessness and Europe 2020 strategy

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 69

**E-003293/13** by Alyn Smith to the Commission
_Subject:_ Homelessness statistics in the EU

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 70

**E-003294/13** by Andrea Zanoni, Nadja Hirsch, Raül Romeva i Rueda, David Martin, Dan Jørgensen, Pavel Poc,
Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu and Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Joint Management Committee of the International Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards (IAHTS)
(follow-up to Written Question E-010289/2012)

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 71
České znění ........................................................................................................................................................................ 73
Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 77
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 79

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 81

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 83
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 85

**P-003295/13** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Energy poverty

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 87
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 88

**P-003296/13** by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission
_Subject:_ Privatisation of Croatian state-owned shipyards

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 89
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 90

**P-003297/13** by Carlo Casini to the Commission
_Subject:_ European development cooperation funding

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 91
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 92

C 12 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003298/13** by María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra and Pablo Zalba
Bidegain to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revision of Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC) — impact on international trade

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 93
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-003299/13** by Horst Schnellhardt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation of Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 95
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 96

**E-003300/13** by Martina Anderson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fairness and transparency in programmes between Member States

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 97

**E-003301/13** by Carl Schlyter, Eva Lichtenberger, Christian Engström, Amelia Andersdotter, Malika BenarabAttou, Judith Sargentini and Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU-US trade agreement and obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 98
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 99
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 100
Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 101

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 102
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-003302/13** by Martina Anderson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Funding to tackle transgender discrimination

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 104

**E-003303/13** by Roger Helmer to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU aid to Palestine

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 105

**E-003304/13** by Liam Aylward to the Commission
_Subject:_ Nutrition and healthy eating in hospitals and nursing homes

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 106

**E-003305/13** by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission
_Subject:_ Establishment of a public register for the 8th, 9th and 10th European Development Funds

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 107
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 108

**E-003306/13** by Monica Luisa Macovei to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increasing the transparency of OLAF's website with regard to public procurement

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 109
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 110

**E-003307/13** by Fiona Hall to the Commission
_Subject:_ National policies regarding electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure across the EU

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

**E-003308/13** by Lambert van Nistelrooij and Esther de Lange to the Commission
_Subject:_ Achievements of the Geriatric Expert Group in keeping medicines safe for older people

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 112
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 113

**E-003309/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ SOA certification

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 114
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 115

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 5

**E-003310/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible further infringement by Italy of the procedures laid down in Directive 2004/18/EC in relation to
the Pedemontana Veneta expressway, currently under construction

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 116
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 117

**E-003311/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible breach of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and
Regulation (EU) No 737/2010 of the Commission

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 118
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 119

**E-003312/13** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ Polish woman unlawfully held in Belarus

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 120
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 121

**P-003313/13** by Julie Girling to the Commission
_Subject:_ Delay in signing off shark finning ban

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 122

**E-003314/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Maritime tourism — Application of IEDMT in Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 123
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 124

**E-003315/13** by Werner Langen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Inquiry into potential aid for large electricity consumers exempted from network charges in Germany

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 125
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 126

**E-003316/13** by Malika Benarab-Attou to the Commission
_Subject:_ U-Multirank

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 127
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 128

**E-003317/13** by Andrea Cozzolino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementation in Italy of Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 129
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 130

**E-003318/13** by Eleni Theocharous and Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Action via the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to address the impact of the economic
crisis in Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 131
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 132

**E-003319/13** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Worker reintegration programme

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 133
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 134

**P-003321/13** by Richard Seeber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Interpretation of Directive 2009/43/EC with regard to optical weapon sights

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 135
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 136

**E-003322/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Forest management

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 137
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 138

C 12 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003323/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Deposit limits

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 139
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 140

**E-003324/13** by Jens Rohde to the Commission
_Subject:_ Approval of Danish aid for biogas

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 141
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 142

**E-003325/13** by Norbert Neuser to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU State aid procedure — ‘Nürburgring’ race track

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 143
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 144

**E-003326/13** by Catherine Stihler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Avoidance of EU tax duty

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 145

**E-003328/13** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increase of registration fee by Antwerp City Council

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 146

**E-003330/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lack of transparency in EU funding process of NGOs active in Arab-Israeli conflict — limited access to
the related documentation

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 147
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 150

**E-003386/13** by Sari Essayah to the Commission
_Subject:_ Improvements to the transparency of EU funding for certain NGOs

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 149
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 150

**E-003331/13** by Laima Liucija Andrikienė to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU-Armenia cooperation

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 152
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 153

**E-003332/13** by Arlene McCarthy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Non-bank finance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 154

**E-003334/13** by Marietje Schaake to the Council
_Subject:_ NATO cyber warfare manual and the EU's cybersecurity strategy

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 155
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 157

**E-003335/13** by Marietje Schaake to the Commission
_Subject:_ NATO cyber warfare manual and the EU's cybersecurity strategy

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 159
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 161

**E-003336/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Draft EU-US bilateral agreement

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 163
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 164

**E-003337/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exportability of social security benefits across EU Member States

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 165
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 166

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 7

**E-003338/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Standard charger for mobile phones

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 167
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 168

**E-003339/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Penalties for outlets that fail to recover waste electrical and electronic equipment

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 169
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 170

**E-003341/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ European legislation to establish a minimum distance between aeroplane seats

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 171
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 172

**E-003343/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reference to mark-ups on the labels of pre-packaged foodstuffs

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 173
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 174

**E-003344/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Standardising electrical plugs and sockets in Europe

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 175
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 176

**E-003345/13** by Philippe Boulland to the Commission
_Subject:_ Future of the United Kingdom in Europe

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 177
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 178

**E-003347/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exposure to electromagnetic fields in European countries — what measures should be taken?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 179
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 180

**E-003348/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Diplomatic clash between Italy and India — EU position in the case of the Italian marines and
legal protection from the EU with regard to compliance with the Vienna Convention

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 181
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 182

**E-003349/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ New addictions and mental health at times of crisis — what measures are being taken at EU level?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 183
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 185

**E-003350/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ What does the future hold for producing and using artificial retinas?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 187
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 189

**E-003351/13** by Bastiaan Belder to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tackling unfair trade practices in the food chain

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 191
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 192

**E-003352/13** by Bart Staes to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arms exports from the EU to Israel

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 193
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 194

**E-003353/13** by Bart Staes to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cooperation with Israel within FP7

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 195
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 196

C 12 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003355/13** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Agreement with the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical markings on agricultural
products and foodstuffs

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 197
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 198

**E-003356/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ TTIP negotiations and their impact on agriculture

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 199
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 200

**E-003358/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ New competition authority

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 201
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 202

**E-003359/13** by Pablo Zalba Bidegain to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trade facilitation

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 203
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 205

**P-003808/13** by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Development of a trade facilitation programme (TFP)

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 203
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 205

**E-003360/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Free trade area China-Japan-South Korea

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 207
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 208

**E-003361/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bankruptcy of the banks in Cyprus despite passing the bank stress tests with flying colours

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 209
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 210

**E-003362/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bank tax — violation of democratic principles

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 211
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 213

**E-003363/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Deposit guarantee scheme — protection for savers

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 214
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 215

**E-003364/13** by Andreas Mölzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Particulate matter pollution from printers and photocopiers

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 216
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 217

**E-003365/13** by Bart Staes to the Commission
_Subject:_ Planned oil drilling in the waters between Morocco and the Canary Islands

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 218
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 220

**E-003366/13** by Peter van Dalen to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU staff cuts

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 222
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 223

**E-003367/13** by Lucas Hartong and Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Discrimination during the Dutch broadcasters' ‘networking day’

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 224
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 225

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 9

**E-003368/13** by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission
_Subject:_ Expansion of the market for e-cigarettes in the European Union

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 226
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 227

**E-003369/13** by Minodora Cliveti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Inclusion of paid internships in the calculation of pensions

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 228
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 229

**P-003370/13** by Angelika Werthmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up to Question E-000750/2013 of 21 March 2013

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 230
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 231

**E-003371/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unequal treatment regarding preferred shares

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 232
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 233

**E-003373/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ The case of the Italian marines

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 234
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 235

**E-003375/13** by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Council
_Subject:_ Speech by Shimon Peres — Iran and Syria

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

**E-003376/13** by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Speech by Israeli President Shimon Peres

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

**E-003377/13** by Inês Cristina Zuber and Elisa Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation at Açomonta

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 240
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 242

**E-003423/13** by Edite Estrela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exploitation of Portuguese workers in Luxembourg

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 240
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 242

**E-003378/13** by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Council
_Subject:_ MEPs denied entry to Morocco

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

**E-003379/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal regulations for the drug Avastin

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

**E-003380/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Level of bacterial contamination in packaged unprocessed vegetables

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

**E-003381/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Biometric residence permits’ for Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants in the UK

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

C 12 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003382/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Contracting rate and status of payments actually made to Romania

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

**E-003383/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cypriot banking sector

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 254
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 255

**E-003384/13** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Defibrillators in the EU institutions

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 256
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 257

**E-003385/13** by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission
_Subject:_ Disposal of animal carcases

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 258
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 259

**P-003387/13** by Jürgen Klute to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Clarifications regarding the EU's commitment to concluding an association agreement with
Mercosur, and democracy in Paraguay

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 260
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 261

**P-003388/13** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ Liquidation of Anglo Irish Bank and credit unions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 262

**P-003389/13** by Martina Anderson to the Commission
_Subject:_ FLAG (fisheries local action groups) funding

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 263

**P-003390/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Abolition of milk quotas: study on the consequences

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 264
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 265

**E-003391/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Property rights of the Catholic community in Sevastopol

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 266

**E-003392/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Property rights of the Catholic community in Sevastopol

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 266

**E-003393/13** by Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 268

**E-003395/13** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increase in violence against women in Sweden

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 269
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 270

**E-003396/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Allegations of increasing press censorship in Argentina

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 271
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 272

**E-003397/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Application of Sharia law in rebel-held Syrian territory

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 273
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 274

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 11

**E-003398/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Restoration of sovereignty in Mali

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 275
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 276

**E-003399/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — French Jewish writer allegedly barred from Libya

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 277
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 278

**E-003400/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ One year since Toulouse killings

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

**E-003401/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — President Obama calls for designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 281
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 282

**E-003402/13** by Jim Higgins to the Commission
_Subject:_ Text alert initiatives

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 283

**E-003403/13** by Jim Higgins to the Commission
_Subject:_ Processed foods in hospitals and nursing homes

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 284

**E-003404/13** by Bas Eickhout to the Commission
_Subject:_ EIB energy policy review and the Commission's position

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 285
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 286

**E-003405/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Football club owned by a nationalised bank

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 287
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 288

**E-003406/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells and Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ Respect for fundamental values in the EU

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 289
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 290

**E-003407/13** by Marietta Giannakou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Forced marriages and education of minors

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 291
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 292

**E-003408/13** by Georgios Toussas to the Commission
_Subject:_ Direct threat to public health and the environment from landfill site in Stavros-Kladema Didymon in the
Municipality of Ermionida

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 293
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 294

**E-003409/13** by Françoise Grossetête to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementing regulations of the Ecodesign Directive

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 295
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 296

**E-003410/13** by Matteo Salvini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Excessive cost of school books in Italy compared with other EU countries

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

C 12 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003411/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible infringements of EC law and interference in the authorisation procedures for a projected
regasification plant at Zaule, in the port of Trieste

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

**E-003413/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Gender stereotyping by the Princelandia franchise

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 301
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 302

**E-003414/13** by Kriton Arsenis to the Commission
_Subject:_ New plans for Venizelou station on Thessaloniki metro and European financing

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 303
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 304

**E-003415/13** by Jürgen Klute to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Follow-up to the Curuguaty case

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 305
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 306

**E-003416/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recoveries relating to the financial year 2010 by DG AGRI

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 307
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 308

**E-003417/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recoveries relating to the financial year 2011 by DG AGRI

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 307
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 308

**E-003418/13** by Nessa Childers to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transparency of Commission expert groups

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 309

**E-003419/13** by Marietje Schaake to the Commission
_Subject:_ Conflicting statements by Commissioner Füle and EU Special Representative León on ‘more for more’
and Egypt

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 310
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 312

**E-003420/13** by Sven Giegold and Helga Trüpel to the Commission
_Subject:_ Level of cohesion policy and Erasmus disbursements

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 314
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 316

**E-003421/13** by Michael Cramer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Co-financing of the new line between Wendlingen and Ulm

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 318
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 319

**E-003422/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request for the EU to take action on the security of payments made with credit or debit cards in countries
outside the EU

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 320
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 321

**E-003424/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Embargo on imports of seed potatoes from the EU

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 322
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 323

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 13

**E-003425/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restoring confidence in European food products

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 324
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 325

**E-003426/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Risk of death through using Azithromycin

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 326
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 327

**P-003427/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Adoption of the bill to set up a National Commission for Markets and Competition

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 328
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 329

**E-003428/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Digital Agenda for Europe

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 330
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 331

**E-003429/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Smart Cities

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 332
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 333

**E-003430/13** by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compatibility of media freedom with EU fundamental rights

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 334
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 335

**E-003431/13** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ The principle of gender equality called into question

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 336
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 337

**E-003432/13** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ External costs of motor vehicles in the EU

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 338
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 339

**E-003433/13** by Raimon Obiols to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Conflict in Western Sahara

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 340
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 341

**E-003434/13** by Ana Miranda to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU-Mercosur negotiations

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 342
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 343

**E-003435/13** by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission
_Subject:_ Triangular taxation

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 344
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 345

**E-003436/13** by Kriton Arsenis to the Commission
_Subject:_ New nuclear power plant in Akkuyu (Turkey)

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 346
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 347

**E-003437/13** by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Quality standards for materials used in 3D printing

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 348
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 350

C 12 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003438/13** by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Importation of US 3D printers into the European market

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 348
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 350

**E-003439/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request for the Commission to take action over the lack of blood in Greece

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 352
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 353

**E-003440/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request for the Commission to monitor the toxicity of furs

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 354
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 355

**E-003441/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request for the EU to take action to defend consumers

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 356
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 357

**E-003443/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Forestry law in Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 358
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 359

**E-003444/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 104 of the INI report in relation to the difficulties encountered by visually
impaired people in using products with digital displays

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 360
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 361

**E-003445/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 98 of the INI report in relation to navigation-based applications supporting
visually impaired people

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 362
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 363

**E-003446/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 73 of the INI report in relation to the participation of organisations
representing people with disabilities in the decision-making process

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 364
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 365

**E-003447/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 71 of the INI report in relation to compassionate leave for parents of children
with disabilities

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 366
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 367

**E-003449/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 65 of the INI report in relation to sustainable rehabilitation services

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 368
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 369

**E-003450/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 64 of the INI report in relation to the accessibility of lifelong learning
programmes to people with disabilities

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 370
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 371

**E-003451/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 59 of the INI report in relation to actively promoting inclusive education for
people with disabilities

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 372
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 373

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 15

**E-003452/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 56 of the INI report in relation to subtitling on television and the availability
of sign language

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 374
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 375

**E-003453/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of points 48 and 49 of the INI report in relation to providing flexible and individually
tailored forms of employment for people with disabilities

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 376
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 377

**E-003454/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 39 of the INI report in relation to the access of people with disabilities to
healthcare services

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 378
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 379

**E-003455/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 35 of the INI report in relation to the European Mobility Card for people with
disabilities

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 380
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 381

**E-003456/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 34 of the INI report in relation to the possibility of including involvement in
caring for people with disabilities in the pension calculation

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 382
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 383

**E-003457/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Commission
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 18 of the INI report in relation to the transition to community care as part of
deinstitutionalising people with disabilities resident in institutions

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 384
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 385

**E-003458/13** by Ádám Kósa to the Council
_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 105 of the INI report in relation to the possibility of using sign language in
dealing with administrative matters

Magyar változat ................................................................................................................................................................. 386
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 387

**E-003461/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Afghanistan — state of play

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 388
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 389

**E-003462/13** by Diogo Feio to the Council
_Subject:_ Afghanistan — state of play

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 390
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 391

**E-003463/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cross-border venture capital funds — state of play

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 392
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 393

**E-003464/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VAT — support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 394
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 396

C 12 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003465/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Energy taxation — state of play

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 397
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 398

**E-003466/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum (JTPF)

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 399
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 400

**E-003467/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Enhancing cooperation with Brazil in the field of energy

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 401
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 402

**E-003468/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) — state of play

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 403
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 404

**E-003469/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ New European enterprise culture

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 405
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 406

**E-003470/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Savings Taxation Directive and administrative cooperation in the field of taxation

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 407
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 408

**E-003471/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Drought in Europe

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 409
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 410

**E-003472/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Public Prosecutor's Office — proposal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 411
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 412

**E-003473/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 413
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 414

**E-003474/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Azores — game resources for tourism purposes

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 415
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 416

**E-003475/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Assistance for Mercosur SMEs

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 417
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 418

**E-003476/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Active European Remembrance — totalitarianism

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 419
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 420

**P-003477/13** by Matthias Groote to the Commission
_Subject:_ Real-life tests of 1234yf coolant in vehicles, MAC Directive 2006/40

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 421
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 422

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 17

**P-003478/13** by Bogusław Liberadzki to the Commission
_Subject:_ Creating jobs by investing in rail infrastructure

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 423
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 424

**P-003479/13** by Frédéric Daerden to the Commission
_Subject:_ Social dumping between Member States at the expense of workers

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 425
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 426

**P-003480/13** by Francesco De Angelis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Late payment and the Italian situation

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 427
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 429

**P-003651/13** by Patrizia Toia to the Commission
_Subject:_ Debts of public authorities

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 427
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 429

**P-003481/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission confirms that ‘tax on deposits’ could cover several Member States

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 431
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 432

**E-003482/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU legislation

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 433
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 434

**E-003483/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transposition of directives in the Kingdom of Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 435
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 436

**E-003484/13** by Ivailo Kalfin to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU investigation into an energy grid access charge in Bulgaria

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 437
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 438

**E-003485/13** by Hynek Fajmon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Using EU funds to revitalise railway buildings in Central Bohemia, Czech Republic

České znění ........................................................................................................................................................................ 439
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 440

**E-003486/13** by Michael Cramer and Bogusław Liberadzki to the Commission
_Subject:_ Closure of lines on the Polish rail network

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 441
Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 442
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 443

**E-003487/13** by Ismail Ertug to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact assessment: fourth Railway Package

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 444
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 445

**E-003488/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ Position paper by the European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan (ECCT) on EU-Taiwan trade

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 446
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 447

**E-003489/13** by Michel Dantin to the Commission
_Subject:_ European photovoltaic panel industry

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 448
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 449

C 12 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003491/13** by Astrid Lulling to the Commission
_Subject:_ Application of Directive 2010/41/EU

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 450
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 451

**E-003492/13** by Giuseppe Gargani to the Commission
_Subject:_ Request for a timetable for the presentation of a draft law on the labelling of leather products

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 452
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 453

**E-003493/13** by Claudio Morganti to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bank rescue in Cyprus

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 454
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 455

**E-003494/13** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fight against piracy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 456
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 457

**E-003495/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Need for the Commission to protect the portability of mobile telephone numbers

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 458
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 459

**E-003496/13** by Ivo Belet to the Commission
_Subject:_ Video games — status of the pan-European code of conduct and age verification

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 460
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 461

**E-003497/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Innovative financing

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 462
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 463

**E-003498/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Professional traineeships — role and quality

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 464
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 465

**E-003499/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Contactless payments — pilot projects

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 466
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 467

**E-003500/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for engine reconditioning

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 468
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 469

**E-003501/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU support for shipbuilding

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 470
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 471

**E-003502/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Execution of Axis 4 of the Portuguese Fisheries Operational Programme (PROMAR) and the
reprogramming of this programme

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 472
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 473

**E-003503/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Facility for Infrastructure Development (ORIO)

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 474
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 475

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 19

**E-003504/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public tenders in the field of shipbuilding published in the Official Journal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 476
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 477

**E-003505/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Water is a human right’ — European Federation of Public Service Unions initiative

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 478
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 479

**E-003506/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Coastal Action Groups and Local Action Groups

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 480
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 481

**E-003507/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Working conditions at ESIP (Portugal) and discrimination against female workers

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 482
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 484

**E-003508/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ ECB official's statements on the privatisation programme in Cyprus

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 486
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 487

**E-003509/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Eurostat study on electricity prices in the EU — Band IG

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 488
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 489

**E-003510/13** by João Ferreira and Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Aid and guarantees to the financial sector

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 490
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 491

**E-003511/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mar Vivo Sudoeste project — minimising bycatch

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 492
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 493

**E-003512/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Projects and actions in the field of balneology and health

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 494
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 495

**E-003513/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of the western railway line (Portugal) and required investment

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 496
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 497

**E-003514/13** by João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Renovation works on the thermal treatment hospital in Caldas da Rainha

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 498
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 499

**E-003515/13** by Antolín Sánchez Presedo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exploitation of the Corcoesto gold mine

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 500
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 501

**E-003516/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 502
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 503

C 12 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003517/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exploration for the exploitation of shale gas in Cádiz (Spain)

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 504
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 505

**E-003518/13** by Alain Cadec to the Commission
_Subject:_ Collecting data on the seal population

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 506
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 507

**E-003519/13** by Crescenzio Rivellini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Extending the ‘Erasmus’ project to maritime and hospitality colleges

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 508
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 509

**E-003520/13** by Zigmantas Balčytis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Linking of the ban on foreigners acquiring agricultural land and forests in Lithuania with direct payments

Tekstas lietuvių kalba ....................................................................................................................................................... 510
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 511

**E-003521/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tourists kidnapped in Sinai

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 512
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 513

**E-003522/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iran threatens Israel

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 514
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 515

**E-003523/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Comments by Dmitry Medvedev

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 516
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 517

**E-003524/13** by Nuno Melo to the Council
_Subject:_ Chemical weapons in Syria

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 518
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 519

**E-003525/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Chemical weapons in Syria

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 520
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 521

**E-003526/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cyber-attack on South Korea

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 522
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 523

**E-003527/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Plan to combat possible attacks from North Korea

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 524
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 525

**E-003529/13** by Jürgen Creutzmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Consumer protection in connection with the cross-border provision of online gambling services

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 526
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 527

**E-003530/13** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statements by Bağiş

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 528
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 529

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 21

**E-003531/13** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bank deposits in Europe

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 530
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 531

**E-003532/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ New European bail-in mechanism for banks

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 532
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 533

**E-003533/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Problem loans by German banks to the shipbuilding industry

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 534
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 535

**E-003534/13** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Significant increase in poverty in Greece and urgent need to support vulnerable social groups

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 536
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 537

**E-003535/13** by Barbara Lochbihler and Satu Hassi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Thailand: the case of Andy Hall

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 538
Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 539
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 540

**E-003536/13** by Robert Sturdy to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU-US trade statistics

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 541

**E-003537/13** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCPD)

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 542

**E-003538/13** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Re-opening of Khojaly Airport in Nagorno-Karabakh

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 543

**E-003539/13** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Employee engagement initiatives

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 544

**E-003541/13** by James Nicholson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Double funding within the context of CAP reform

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 545

**E-003542/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro to the Commission
_Subject:_ Climate package cost estimates for Poland

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 546
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 547

**E-003543/13** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ European exports to Angola

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 548
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 549

**E-003544/13** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Discovery of liquefied natural gas in Mozambique and the European market

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 550
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 551

**E-003545/13** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Indicators in cohesion policy post-2020

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 552
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 553

C 12 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003546/13** by Edite Estrela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Gender equality in the European Public Administration selection procedure

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 554
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 555

**E-003547/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Aflatoxins: what are the risks connected with, and controls on, maize derivatives — particularly those
originating outside the EU — contained in products used for medical or pharmacological purposes?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 556
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 558

**E-003549/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ New drugs: what are their effects on the human body, and how can we eradicate illegal trafficking?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 560
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 562

**E-003550/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Abandoned fishing nets: what urgent measures can be taken to reduce the problem?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 563
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 564

**E-003551/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides to protect bees — what are the future prospects in the EU?

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 565
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 566

**E-003552/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Active remembrance — defining moments in modern European history

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 567
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 568

**E-003553/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Heritage Label

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 569
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 570

**E-003554/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Joint Africa-EU Strategy

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 571
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 572

**E-003555/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Damage caused by bad weather in the Azores

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 573
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 574

**E-003556/13** by Sirpa Pietikäinen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Research funding to Israeli settlement companies

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 575
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 576

**E-003557/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ European fight against violent extremism

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 577
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 578

**E-003558/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ End of milk quotas — impact study

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 579
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 580

**E-003559/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Traditional descriptions — port wine

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 581
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 582

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 23

**E-003560/13** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Great books of European culture

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 583
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 584

**P-003561/13** by Spyros Danellis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Practices followed in applying for the Single Direct Farm Payment

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 585
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 586

**E-003562/13** by Gay Mitchell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Credit union deposits with the Irish Banking Resolution Corporation (IBRC)

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 587

**E-003563/13** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iraq's Camp Liberty

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 588
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 589

**E-003564/13** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights violations: the sentencing of journalist Avaz Zeynalli in Azerbaijan

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 590
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 591

**E-003565/13** by Véronique Mathieu Houillon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Durability of marine ecosystems and increase in seal populations

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 592
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 593

**E-003566/13** by Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Wildlife crime

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 594
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 596

**E-003567/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cypriot banking sector

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 598
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 599

**E-003568/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restrictions on capital movements in Cyprus

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 600
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 601

**E-003569/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Portugal's state-owned companies

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 602
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 603

**E-003570/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Portuguese Constitutional Court analysing 2013 budget items

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 604
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 605

**E-003571/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Energy and telecommunications costs in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 606
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 607

**E-003572/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unemployment and fall in GDP

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 608
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 609

C 12 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**E-003573/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Consequences of the steps being taken in Cyprus

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 610
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 611

**E-003574/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Foreign-owned companies operating in Cyprus

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 612
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 613

**E-003575/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fatal bicycle-related accidents

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 614
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 615

**E-003576/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ New rules for combating Alzheimer's disease

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 616
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 617

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 25

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-003263/13**

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

_(21. marca 2013)_

_Vec:_ Boj proti rasizmu a xenofóbii

Rasistické incidenty, zločiny nenávisti a prejavy neznášanlivosti sú v Európskej únii na vzostupe. Extrémistické strany
s diskriminačnými postojmi získali vo viacerých členských štátoch parlamentné zastúpenie. To veľmi nepriaznivo
ovplyvňuje proces tvorby politík Európskej únie. V Európskom parlamente sme už viackrát žiadali revíziu rámcového
rozhodnutia 2008/913/SVV o boji proti niektorým formám a prejavom rasizmu a xenofóbie.

Aké konkrétne opatrenia zamerané na boj proti rasizmu a xenofóbii prijala Komisia v poslednej dobe a aké opatrenia
plánuje prijať v blízkej budúcnosti?

**Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie**

_(15. mája 2013)_

Európska komisia opakovane odmietla a odsúdila všetky prejavy rasizmu a xenofóbie, pretože sú nezlučiteľné
s hodnotami a zásadami, na základe ktorých je Európska únia založená.

Komisia je odhodlaná bojovať proti týmto javom, pričom využíva všetky právomoci, ktoré má k dispozícii na základe
zmlúv, vrátane dôkladného monitorovania vykonávania právnych predpisov EÚ zakazujúcich nenávistné prejavy
a trestné činy motivované nenávisťou. Konkrétne možno uviesť monitorovanie vykonávania rámcového rozhodnutia
o boji proti rasizmu a xenofóbii, ktorým sa zakazujú rasistické alebo xenofóbne prejavy a trestné činy motivované
rasizmom a xenofóbiou, ako aj smernice o audiovizuálnych mediálnych službách, ktorou sa zakazujú rasistické
prejavy v audiovizuálnych mediálnych službách, napríklad v televíznych vysielaniach a v rámci služieb videa na
požiadanie.

Komisia v súčasnosti posudzuje transpozíciu a vykonávanie uvedeného rámcového rozhodnutia členskými štátmi.
Hodnotenie jeho dodržiavania členskými štátmi predloží v správe koncom roku 2013.

Komisia nie je do 1. decembra 2014 oprávnená začať konanie vo veci porušenia právnych predpisov na základe
rámcových rozhodnutí.

C 12 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003263/13**

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

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Combating racism and xenophobia

Racist incidents, hate crimes and expressions of intolerance are becoming more common in the EU. Extremist parties
with discriminatory positions have gained parliamentary seats in several Member States. This has a detrimental
influence on the process of creating EU policy. Parliament has, on many occasions, called for a review of Framework
Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia.

What specific steps has the Commission taken recently with a view to combating racism and xenophobia, and what
steps does it plan to take in this regard in the near future?

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

_(15 May 2013)_

The European Commission has repeatedly rejected and condemned all manifestations of racism and xenophobia as
these phenomena are incompatible with the values and principles the EU is founded on.

The Commission is committed to fighting against these phenomena by making use of all powers available under the
Treaties, including by monitoring closely the implementation of EU legislation on hate speech and hate crime, namely
the framework Decision on racism and xenophobia prohibiting racist or xenophobic speech and crime, and the
Audiovisual Media Services Directive banning racist speech in audiovisual media services, such as TV broadcasts and
video-on-demand services.

The Commission is currently examining the transposition and implementation of the framework Decision by
Member States, and will present its assessment of Member States' compliance in a report at the end of 2013.

The Commission is not authorised to launch infringement proceedings on the basis of framework decisions until
1 December 2014.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 27

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-003264/13**

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

_(21. marca 2013)_

_Vec:_ Vplyv úsporných opatrení na životné podmienky osôb so zdravotným postihnutím

Negatívny vplyv úsporných opatrení na životné podmienky obyvateľov Európskej únie so zdravotným postihnutím
sú obrovské. Znižovaním verejných výdavkov prichádzajú tieto osoby o podporné služby, ako je osobná pomoc
a priame platby, ktoré sú však nevyhnutné, ak nám záleží na tom, aby život osôb so zdravotným postihnutím nebol
závislý od pomoci spoločnosti. Úsporné opatrenia preukázateľne vedú k nárastu počtu osôb, ktoré dlhodobo žijú
v zariadeniach ústavnej starostlivosti, a k ďalšiemu sociálnemu vylúčeniu osôb so zdravotným postihnutím. Európska
únia sa zaviazala zabraňovať diskriminácii, pokiaľ ide o prístup k zamestnaniu, a podporovať sociálne začleňovanie.
Tieto záväzky sa však neplnia.

Akým spôsobom sa Komisia snaží eliminovať negatívne dôsledky úsporných opatrení na životné podmienky osôb so
zdravotným postihnutím?

**Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie**

_(14. mája 2013)_

Európska komisia venuje situácii ľudí so zdravotným postihnutím náležitú pozornosť a sleduje aj sociálny dosah
rozpočtovej konsolidácie v krajinách EÚ.

Sociálne služby a politiky patria primárne do právomoci členských štátov EÚ. Komisia však podporuje ich úsilie
o vykonávanie sociálnych programov, ktoré sú účinne zacielené na najzraniteľnejšie skupiny. Koná tak cez
presadzovanie sociálneho začleňovania, zamestnateľnosti a vzdelávania, ktoré tvoria súčasť európskej stratégie pre
oblasť zdravotného postihnutia na roky 2010 – 2020 ( [1] ), stratégie Európa 2020, európskeho semestra, ako aj
nedávno prijatého balíka o sociálnych investíciách.

V súlade s týmto prístupom sa v návrhu Komisie na nové nariadenie o Európskom sociálnom fonde ( [2] ) považuje
„prístup k cenovo prístupným, trvalo udržateľným a kvalitným službám vrátane zdravotnej starostlivosti a sociálnych
služieb všeobecného záujmu“ za jednu zo šiestich investičných priorít na dosiahnutie cieľa sociálneho začlenenia
a boja proti chudobe. Súčasťou tohto úsilia je prístup k integrovaným a prístupným sociálnym a zdravotníckym
službám, ako aj podpora prechodu z inštitucionálnych na komunitné služby.

Komisia by chcela odkázať váženú pani poslankyňu aj na svoje odpovede na písomné otázky E-008559/2012
a E-002656/2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2010) 636 v konečnom znení http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:en:NOT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 607.

C 12 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003264/13**

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

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Impact of austerity measures on the living conditions of disabled persons

The negative impact of austerity measures on the living conditions of disabled persons in the EU is significant. As
a result of reductions in public expenditure, disabled persons are losing access to support services, such as personal
assistance and direct payments. These services are vital if we consider it important to ensure that disabled persons can
live independently from social assistance. It is clear that austerity measures are leading to an increase in the number of
people living in long‐term institutionalised care facilities and to disabled persons suffering to an even greater extent
from social exclusion. The EU has committed itself to preventing discrimination in access to employment and
supporting social inclusion. However, these commitments are not being met.

How does the Commission intend to alleviate the negative impact of austerity measures on the living conditions of
disabled persons?

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

_(14 May 2013)_

The European Commission pays due attention to the situation of people with disabilities and more generally to the
social impact of budgetary consolidation measures in EU countries.

While social services and policies are primarily the competence of EU Member States, the Commission supports their
efforts to implement social programmes that effectively target the most vulnerable by promoting social inclusion,
employability and education through the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 ( [1] ), the Europe 2020 strategy, the
European Semester and the recently adopted Social Investment Package.

In line with this policy approach, the Commission proposal for the new European Social Fund Regulation ( [2] ) identifies
‘access to affordable, sustainable and high quality services including healthcare and social services of general interest’
as one of the six investment priorities for achieving the objective of social inclusion and combating poverty. This
includes the enhanced access to integrated and accessible social and healthcare services as well as support to the
transition from institutional to community based care services

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written questions E-008559/2012 and
E-002656/2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 636 final: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:en:NOT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 607.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 29

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003265/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(21 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Protección de aves en el Delta del Llobregat (Cataluña, España)

El Delta del Llobregat, situado al sur de la ciudad de Barcelona, ha sufrido la presión urbanística del desarrollo de esta
metrópoli a lo largo de todo el siglo XX. No obstante, una parte importante del mismo se ha conservado y está
catalogado como un humedal de importancia internacional. En la actualidad, las últimas zonas naturales y agrícolas,
refugio de fauna amenazada de extinción, siguen estando amenazadas por las actuaciones del aeropuerto del Prat, el
puerto de Barcelona y numerosos proyectos urbanísticos previstos sobre zonas de alto valor ecológico reconocidas
internacionalmente, en un contexto mediterráneo de escasez extrema de humedales de vital importancia para las
migraciones en el continente.

La localización estratégica del humedal lo convierte en una parada imprescindible para las aves migratorias europeas,
valor biológico que no se ha correspondido con el trato dado durante el proceso de desarrollo urbanístico del área
metropolitana de Barcelona. Sin embargo, la zona conserva importantes poblaciones nidificantes de avetorillo,
cigüeñuela, charrancito, gaviota de Audouin y 66 especies más de aves citadas en la zona, incluidas en el anexo I de la
Directiva de aves (2009/147/CE), que, en muchos casos están fuera de las zonas protegidas y son afectadas por estos
proyectos.

El Gobierno de España ha incumplido la Directiva de aves en diversos artículos, al no tomar medidas suficientes para
mantener y adaptar las poblaciones que viven en el Delta y que están contempladas en dicho anexo, así como al no
declarar suficientes zonas de reproducción y descanso para dichas especies. El Govern de la Generalitat de Catalunya,
sobre el que recaen estas competencias, ha incumplido también la citada Directiva 2009/147/CE al primar los
criterios urbanísticos sobre los científicos a la hora de delimitar las zonas que deben protegerse. Igualmente, las
autoridades españolas han incumplido la Directiva de hábitats (92/43/CEE), al no establecerse el Plan especial para la
ordenación de los recursos naturales de la zona, pese al compromiso adquirido ante la Comisión en la Declaración de
Impacto Ambiental para la ampliación del aeropuerto del Prat, de la que ya han transcurrido más de diez años.

¿Ha estudiado la Comisión si las autoridades estatales competentes han cumplido los compromisos adquiridos en la
DIA de la ampliación del aeropuerto?

¿Considera la Comisión que en este espacio natural se han cumplido los artículos 2, 3 y 4 de la Directiva
2009/147/CE, así como la Directiva 92/43/CEE?

¿Se plantea la Comisión abrir un procedimiento de infracción contra España por el caso presentado?

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

_(24 de abril de 2013)_

La Comisión está ya analizando los hechos planteados por Su Señoría en el contexto de una denuncia sobre la
protección de las aves en el Delta del Llobregat (n° de referencia: CHAP(2013)01037). Ese procedimiento de denuncia
se incoó para comprobar el cumplimiento de los compromisos adquiridos por las autoridades españolas en la
declaración de impacto ambiental de la ampliación del aeropuerto del Prat, así como el cumplimiento de lo dispuesto
en la Directiva sobre aves ( [1] ) en el Delta del Llobregat.

La Comisión decidirá si es preciso tomar más medidas cuando disponga de las conclusiones de dicho análisis.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2009/147/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 30 de noviembre de 2009, relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres
(DO L 20 de 26.1.2010, p. 7).

C 12 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003265/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protecting birds in the Llobregat Delta (Catalonia, Spain)

The Llobregat Delta, situated to the south of the city of Barcelona, has suffered the pressure of the development of this
metropolis throughout the 20th century. Nevertheless, a significant area of the Delta has been preserved and it is
listed as a wetland of national importance. Currently, the most remote natural and agricultural areas providing shelter
to fauna threatened with extinction continue to be threatened by the actions of the Barcelona El Prat airport, the port
of Barcelona and numerous urban projects planned in areas of great and internationally recognised ecological value.
This is within the context of the Mediterranean, where wetlands are extremely scarce and of vital importance for
migrating birds on the continent.

The strategic siting of the wetland has made it an essential stop for migrating birds in Europe, although the biological
value of the area has not been reflected in the way it has been treated during the urban development of the Barcelona
metropolitan area. However, the area is home to important populations of Little Bitterns, Storks, Little Terns,
Audouin’s Gulls and 66 other species of bird included in Annex I to the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), which in
many cases are outside protected areas and are affected by these projects.

The Spanish Government has failed to comply with various articles of the Birds Directive by not taking sufficient
measures to preserve the populations that live in the Delta and are listed in the aforementioned Annex, and enable
them to adapt, as well as not designating sufficient areas for reproduction and rest for these species. The Catalonian
Government, to whom these competencies fall, has also contravened Directive 2009/147/EC by giving precedence to
urban criteria over scientific criteria when it comes to demarcating the areas to be protected. The Spanish authorities
have also contravened the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) by not establishing a specific plan for the area’s natural
resources, despite the commitment made to the Commission in the Environmental Impact Statement for the
expansion of the Barcelona El Prat airport over 10 years ago.

Has the Commission investigated whether the competent state authorities have complied with the commitments
made in the Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion of the airport?

Does the Commission believe that Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2009/147/EC, as well as Directive 92/43/EEC, have
been complied with in this natural area?

Has the Commission considered initiating an infringement procedure against Spain in relation to this case?

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

_(24 April 2013)_

The Commission is currently assessing the facts raised by the Honorable Member within the framework of a
complaint concerning the protection of birds in the Llobregat Delta (reference n [o] CHAP(2013)01037). This
complaint procedure was opened in order to verify compliance with the commitments made by the Spanish
authorities in the Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion of the airport Barcelona El Prat, as well as
compliance with the provisions of the Birds Directive ( [1] ) for the Llobregat Delta.

In light of the conclusions of the current assessment, the Commission will decide if further action is needed.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 30 November 2009, on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20/7,
26.1.2010).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 31

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003266/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Martin Kastler (PPE)**

_(21. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Bekämpfung und Erfassung von religiösen Hassverbrechen in Europa

Im März 2013 hat das Europäische Parlament in Straßburg mit großer Mehrheit eine fraktionsübergreifende
„Entschließung zur verstärkten Bekämpfung von Rassismus, Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Hassverbrechen“
(P7_TA(2013)0090) angenommen.

In Ziffer 13 der Entschließung fordert das Europäische Parlament die Mitgliedstaaten auf, „dass umfassendere,
zuverlässige Daten über Hassverbrechen erhoben (…) von den Behörden erfasst werden“.

1. Teilt die Kommission die Position des Parlaments, dass die Mitgliedstaaten Nachholbedarf in der detaillierten
und verwertbaren Erfassung sogenannter „ _hate-crime_ “-Tatbestände haben?

2. Gibt es Pläne, die Erfassung von Hassverbrechen auf europäischer oder nationaler Ebene zu optimieren?

3. Hat die Kommission Zahlen über Hassverbrechen an Christen und christlichen Einrichtungen in Europa? Sind
diese flächendeckend verfügbar?

4. Hat die Kommission Zahlen über Hassverbrechen an Juden und Muslimen sowie deren Einrichtungen in
Europa? Sind diese flächendeckend verfügbar?

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

_(3. Mai 2013)_

Die Vizepräsidentin und Kommissarin für Justiz, Grundrechte und Bürgerschaft hat am 12. März 2013 in der
Plenarsitzung des Europäischen Parlaments darauf hingewiesen, dass auf der Ebene der Mitgliedstaaten die
systematische Datensammlung zu Hassverbrechen nicht so weit fortgeschritten ist wie sie sollte. Einem aktuellen
Bericht der Agentur für Grundrechte ist zu entnehmen, dass nur vier Mitgliedstaaten umfassende Daten zu diesem
Thema erheben ( [1] ).

Die Kommission will die Erhebung von nationalen Daten über Hassverbrechen verbessern helfen, indem sie durch
Finanzierungsprogramme die Tätigkeiten der Interessenträger in diesem Bereich unterstützt. Die Kommission fördert
auch die Agentur der Europäischen Union für Grundrechte bei der Erhebung von Daten über Erfahrungen mit
Hassverbrechen. Das Thema der Datenerhebung wurde auch in der Gruppe der Regierungssachverständigen
thematisiert, die eingerichtet wurde, um die Mitgliedstaaten bei der Umsetzung des Rahmenbeschlusses zur
Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit ( [2] ) zu unterstützen.

Der Kommission liegen keine Informationen zu der Anzahl der Hassverbrechen vor, auf die sich der Herr
Abgeordnete bezieht. Bisher hat die Agentur der Europäischen Union für Grundrechte Daten zu den Erfahrungen von
Immigranten und ethnischen Minderheiten mit krimineller Viktimisierung, einschließlich Hassverbrechen, erhoben
und veröffentlicht ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012_hate-crime.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Rahmenbeschluss 2008/913/JI des Rates vom 28. November 2008 zur strafrechtlichen Bekämpfung bestimmter Formen und Ausdrucksweisen

von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit, ABl. L 328 vom 6.12.2008, S. 55-58.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Die Ergebnisse der Erhebung EU-MIDIS und die Daten im Focus Report zu Hassverbrechen sind unter folgender Internetseite abrufbar:

http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/eu-midis-data-focus-report-6-minorities-victims-crime

( **|**

C 12 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003266/13**

**to the Commission**
**Martin Kastler (PPE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Combating and recording of religious hate crimes in Europe

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

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

1. Does the Commission share Parliament’s view that the Member States still have some catching up to do with
regard to the recording of detailed and useable data on hate crimes?

2. Are there any plans to optimise the recording of hate crimes at European or national level?

3. Does the Commission have any figures on hate crimes against Christians and Christian institutions in Europe?
Are these universally available?

4. Does the Commission have any figures on hate crimes against Jews and Muslims and their institutions in
Europe? Are these universally available?

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

_(3 May 2013)_

As the Vice-President and Member of the Commission responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship
stated at the plenary of the European Parliament on 12 March 2013, the systematic collection of data on hate crime at
the level of Member States is not as well developed as it should be. A recent report by the Fundamental Rights Agency
shows that only four Member States collect such data in a comprehensive manner ( [1] ).

The Commission aims to support the efforts to improve the collection of national hate crime data by providing
assistance through its financing programmes to stakeholders' activities in this area. The Commission is also
supporting the collection of data on experiences of hate crime by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. The issue of
data collection has also been addressed in the group of governmental experts set up to assist Member States in the
implementation of the framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia ( [2] ).

The Commission does not have information on the number of hate crimes referred to by the Honourable Member. To
date the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights has collected and published data on immigrants and ethnic minorities’
experiences of criminal victimisation, including hate crime ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012_hate-crime.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by

means of criminal law, OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, pp. 55‐58.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The results of the EU-MIDIS survey, in particular the Data in Focus Report concerning hate crimes, are available at

http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2012/eu-midis-data-focus-report-6-minorities-victims-crime

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 33

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003267/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Martin Kastler (PPE)**

_(21. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Kürzungen beim konfessionellen Religionsunterricht an den Europäischen Schulen

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

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

1. Stimmt es, dass der Oberste Rat für die Europäischen Schulen im Rahmen der Sekundär-Reform eine
Reduzierung des Religionsunterrichts um 50 % in den Klassen 1‐3 sowie eine komplette Streichung in den Klassen 6
und 7 vorschlägt?

2. Sind diese Planungen den zuständigen Stellen der Kommission bekannt? Wird ein solches Vorgehen
unterstützt?

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-003412/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Bernd Posselt (PPE)**

_(26. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Religionsunterricht an den Europäischen Schulen

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

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

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Herrn Šefčovič im Namen der Kommission**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

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

Ein erster Vorschlag zur Reform der Klassen 1-3 der Sekundarstufe wurde im pädagogischen und im
Haushaltsausschuss ( [1] ) der Europäischen Schulen erörtert und dem Obersten Rat der Europäischen Schulen im
April 2013 vorgelegt ( [2] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pädagogischer Ausschuss (7.-8.2.2013) und Haushaltsausschuss (19.-20.3.2013) der Europäischen Schulen.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dem Obersten Rat der Europäischen Schulen gehören Vertreter der 27 Mitgliedstaaten, der Kommission sowie Lehrer‐ und Elternvertreter an.

C 12 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003267/13**

**to the Commission**
**Martin Kastler (PPE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reductions in confessional religious education at European Schools

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

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

1. Is it true that, in the context of the secondary reform, the Board of Governors of the European Schools has
proposed a 50% reduction in religious education in years 1-3 and its complete removal in years 6 and 7?

2. Are the competent bodies of the Commission aware of these plans? Is there support for such an undertaking?

**Question for written answer P-003412/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bernd Posselt (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Religious education at the European Schools

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

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

**Joint answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 May 2013)_

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

A first proposal covering a revision of the secondary years 1 to 3 has been discussed in the pedagogical and budgetary
committees ( [1] ) of the ESS and was presented to the Board of Governors (BoG) in April 2013 ( [2] ).

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

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

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pedagogical Committee (7-8/2/2013) and the Budgetary Committee (19-20/3/2013) of the ES.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The Board of Governors consist of representatives of the 27 Member States, The Commission as well as representatives of teachers and

representatives of parents.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 35

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003268/13**

**to the Commission**
**David Martin (S&D)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Situation regarding constitutional change in Hungary

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

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

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

_(29 May 2013)_

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

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

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

The Commission also asked the Hungarian authorities to engage in a political dialogue with the European Parliament
in the preparation of a political resolution ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) On ‘the situation of Fundamental Rights in Hungary: standards and practices’.

C 12 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003269/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)**

_(21 mars 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Réponse donnée par M. Šemeta au nom de la Commission**

_(8 mai 2013)_

La Commission est fortement engagée dans la lutte contre le commerce illicite des produits du tabac et met
actuellement en œuvre son plan d'action ( [1] ) conçu à cet effet. La Commission est également en train d'élaborer une
stratégie globale de l'UE visant à combattre le trafic de cigarettes. En outre, le protocole de la Convention-cadre de
l'OMS pour la lutte antitabac destiné à éliminer le commerce illicite des produits du tabac a été adopté et les parties
sont invitées à le signer ( [2] ).

La Commission n’a pas l’intention de restreindre les droits fondamentaux des citoyens de l'UE en matière
de mouvement à des fins non commerciales de produits pouvant être soumis à des droits d’accise. La
directive 2008/118 ( [3] ) distingue les biens soumis à des droits d’accise détenus par des particuliers pour leur propre
usage et les biens soumis à des droits d’accise détenus à des fins commerciales. L’affaire C-216/11 ( [4] ) portait sur les
critères à appliquer au moment de déterminer à quelle fin les biens soumis à des droits d’accise sont détenus. La
directive 2008/118/CE ne fixe pas de limites pour les biens soumis à des droits d’accise destinés à un usage privé.
Ceux-ci peuvent, en principe, circuler librement à l’intérieur de l’UE ( [5] ). Les États membres s’appuient sur des
recommandations pour estimer si des produits du tabac sont destinés à un usage privé.

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/documents/preventing-fraud-documents/eastern_border_action_plan_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) L'UE se prépare à le signer.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/118/CE du Conseil du 16 décembre 2008 relative au régime général d'accise et abrogeant la directive 92/12/CEE.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Jugement du 14 mars 2013, Commission/France.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Article 38, paragraphes 2 et 3, de la directive 2008/118/CE.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 37

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003269/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restrictions on tobacco imports from other Member States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_(8 May 2013)_

The Commission is strongly committed to combat illicit trade in tobacco products and is currently implementing its
Action plan ( [1] ) to this effect _._ The Commission is also working on a comprehensive EU strategy with a view to fight
cigarette smuggling. Moreover, the Protocol to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products of the WHO FCTC has been
adopted and is open for signature by the Parties ( [2] ).

The Commission does not intend to narrow the basic rights of EU citizens in non-commercial movements of
excisable products. Directive 2008/118 ( [3] ) distinguishes between excise goods held by private individuals for their
own use and excise goods held for commercial purposes. Case C-216/11 ( [4] ) concerned the criteria to be applied when
establishing for which purpose excise goods are held. Directive 2008/118/EC does not lay down limits for excise
goods intended for own use which in principle can be moved freely within the EU ( [5] ). Member States refer to
guidelines when assessing whether tobacco products are for personal use.

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/documents/preventing-fraud-documents/eastern_border_action_plan_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Signature by the EU is under preparation.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Judgment of 14 March 2013, _Commission_ v _France_ .
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Article 38(2) and (3) of Directive 2008/118/EC.

C 12 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003271/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Daniël van der Stoep (NI)**

_(21 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Toegang voor vrouwen tot het schiereiland Athos

Het schiereiland Athos in Griekenland is een gebied waar vrouwen en zelfs vrouwelijke dieren al eeuwenlang niet
mogen komen, kennelijk om het celibataire leven van de daar wonende monniken makkelijker te maken ( [1] ).

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

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

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

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

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(14 mei 2013)_

De Berg Athos is een autonome monastieke regio van Griekenland met een eeuwenoude bijzondere juridische status.
Overeenkomstig de gemeenschappelijke verklaring inzake de Berg Athos, waarin wordt erkend dat het aan de Berg
Athos verleende bijzondere statuut uitsluitend wordt gerechtvaardigd door motieven van geestelijke en religieuze
aard, verzekert de EU dat er met deze status rekening wordt gehouden bij de toepassing en verdere uitwerking van EUwetgevingsbepalingen. De verklaring is een bijlage bij de slotakte van de conferentie die het Verdrag betreffende de
toetreding van de Helleense Republiek tot de Europese Gemeenschappen ( [2] ) heeft vastgesteld. Bij de ondertekening
van de Overeenkomst betreffende de toetreding van de Helleense Republiek tot de Overeenkomst ter uitvoering van
het Schengenakkoord hebben de partijen bij deze overeenkomst een soortgelijke verklaring aangenomen. Deze
overeenkomst maakt deel uit van het Schengenacquis, dat in de EU-wetgeving is opgenomen ( [3] ).

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) PB L 291 van 19.11.1979, blz. 186.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Besluit 1999/435/EG van de Raad van 20 mei 1999 (PB L 176 van 10.7.1999 en PB L 239 van 22.9.2000, in het bijzonder blz. 89).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 39

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003271/13**

**to the Commission**
**Daniël van der Stoep (NI)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Access for women to the Athos peninsula

The Athos peninsula in Greece has been out of bounds for women and even female animals for centuries, apparently
to make it easier for the resident monks to live in celibacy ( [1] ).

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

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

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

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

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

_(14 May 2013)_

Mount Athos is an autonomous monastic region of Greece which is based on a centuries-old special legal status. In
accordance with the Joint Declaration concerning Mount Athos, annexed to the Final Act of the Conference that
established the Treaty of accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Communities ( [2] ), which recognised that
the special status granted to Mount Athos is justified exclusively on spiritual and religious grounds, the EU ensures
that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of provisions of EC law. At the
time of the signing of the Accession Agreement of the Hellenic Republic to the Convention implementing the
Schengen Agreement, the Contracting Parties to that agreement made a similar Declaration; this Agreement is part of
the Schengen _acquis_ which has been integrated into European Union law ( [3] ).

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 291, 19.11.1979, p. 186.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999 (OJ L 176, 10.7.1999 and OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, in particular p. 89).

C 12 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003272/13**

**aan de Commissie**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(21 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Klachten over de kwaliteit van de maaltijden bij de Commissie

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

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

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

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

Hoe lang loopt het contract met de betrokken firma?

**Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič namens de Commissie**

_(13 mei 2013)_

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

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 41

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003272/13**

**to the Commission**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Complaints about the quality of meals at the Commission

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

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

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

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

What is the duration of the contract with the company?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M. Šefčovič au nom de la Commission**

_(13 mai 2013)_

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

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

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

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

C 12 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003273/13**

**aan de Commissie**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(21 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Aanwezigheid van commissaris De Gucht op missie in Rabat

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

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

**Antwoord van de heer De Gucht namens de Commissie**

_(13 mei 2013)_

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 43

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003273/13**

**to the Commission**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Commissioner De Gucht's participation in Rabat mission

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

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

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

_(13 May 2013)_

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

C 12 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003274/13**

**a Bizottság számára**
**Iosif Matula (PPE) és Winkler Gyula (PPE)**

_(2013. március 21.)_

_Tárgy:_ A geotermikus energia felhasználását nehezítő akadályok felszámolása

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

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

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

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

1. Hogyan tudna segíteni a Bizottság a geotermikus energia felhasználását nehezítő akadályok felszámolásában?

2. Mit javasol a Bizottság az illetékes román miniszternek, valamint a helyi és regionális hatóságoknak annak
érdekében, hogy hatékonyabbá váljon Románia nyugati régiójában a geotermikus energiában rejlő lehetőségek
kihasználása?

3. Milyen intézkedésekkel lehet optimalizálni a geotermikus energia előállítását és a fűtést szolgáló
technológiákat?

4. Tervezi-e a Bizottság a geotermikus energiában rejlő lehetőségekkel kapcsolatos kérdéseknek a jövőbeli
partnerségi szerződésekbe való bevonását?

**Günther Oettinger válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 8.)_

A megújuló energiaforrásokról szóló irányelv ( [1] ) rögzíti a megújuló energiaforrásokból előállított energia
támogatásának jogi kereteit. A szóban forgó irányelv azonban technológiasemleges, azaz a tagállamok saját
belátására bízza, melyik megújulóenergia-technológiának nyújtanak pénzügyi támogatást. A jelenleg hatályos román
megújuló energia támogatási rendszer kétféle zöld tanúsítványt állít ki a geotermikus forrásból előállított és a
hálózatba betáplált megújuló villamos energia minden egyes MW-ja után. A megújuló energiára vonatkozó román
nemzeti cselekvési terv becslése szerint ez a technológia 2020-ra a fűtési és hűtési szektorban 80 ktoe energiát fog
előállítani.

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

A geotermikus alkalmazások szélesebb körű használatának támogatása érdekében a Bizottság az Intelligens Energia
Európának program keretében számos, e technológia szempontjából releváns projektet finanszírozott ( [2] ), egyebek
között a nem technikai jellegű akadályok, a geotermikus energiába történő beruházásokra ösztönző megoldások és a
finanszírozási eszközök témájában.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2009/28/EK irányelv a megújuló energiaforrásból előállított energia támogatásáról, HL L 140., 2009.6.5., 16–64. o.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A projektek felsorolása az adatbázis honlapján található meg: http://www.eaci-projects.eu/iee/page/Page.jsp?op=home

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 45

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003274/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Iosif Matula (PPE) şi Iuliu Winkler (PPE)**

_(21 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Eliminarea blocajelor în exploatarea energiei geotermale

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

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

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

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

1. Cum poate Comisia să contribuie la deblocarea obstacolelor ce stau în calea dezvoltării capacităților de
exploatare a energiei geotermale?

2. Ce recomandă Comisia ministerului român de resort și autorităților regionale și locale în vederea eficientizării
exploatării potențialului de energie geotermală din Regiunea Vest?

3. Ce măsuri pot fi luate pentru eficientizarea tehnologiilor pentru producerea energiei și încălzirii geotermale?

4. Are Comisia în vedere aspecte ce țin de valorificarea potențialului de energie geotermală în viitoarele contracte
de parteneriat?

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

_(8 mai 2013)_

Directiva privind energia din surse regenerabile ( [1] ) stabilește cadrul juridic pentru promovarea utilizării energiei din
surse regenerabile. Directiva este însă neutră din punct de vedere tehnologic, și anume statele membre decid cu privire
la ce tehnologii legate de energia din surse regenerabile să primească sprijin financiar. În temeiul schemei de sprijin
aflate actualmente în vigoare în România pentru energia din surse regenerabile, se acordă două certificate verzi pentru
fiecare MW de energie electrică din surse regenerabile produs din energie geotermală și exportat în rețea. În plus,
Planul național al României de acțiune în domeniul energiei din surse regenerabile estimează că această tehnologie va
oferi 80 ktep în sectorul încălzirii și în cel al răcirii în 2020.

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

Pentru a promova o utilizare pe scară mai largă a aplicațiilor în materie de energie geotermală, Comisia, prin
intermediul programului său _Energie inteligentă — Europa_, a finanțat până în prezent o serie de proiecte importante
pentru această tehnologie ( [2] ), care s-au axat, printre altele, pe bariere fără caracter tehnic, pe soluții pentru creșterea
investițiilor în energia geotermală sau pe instrumente de finanțare.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2009/28/CE privind promovarea utilizării energiei din surse regenerabile, JO L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 16-64.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proiectele pot fi găsite pe pagina de internet ce cuprinde bazele de date : http://www.eaci-projects.eu/iee/page/Page.jsp?op=home

C 12 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003274/13**

**to the Commission**
**Iosif Matula (PPE) and Iuliu Winkler (PPE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Removal of obstacles hindering the exploitation of geothermal energy

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

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

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

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

1. How can the Commission help remove the obstacles hindering the development of geothermal energy
exploitation capacities?

2. What does the Commission recommend for the competent Romanian minister and the local and regional
authorities in order to make the exploitation of geothermal energy potential in the Western Region more efficient?

3. What measures can be taken to optimise the technologies for producing geothermal energy and heating?

4. Does the Commission have in mind issues relating to the exploitation of geothermal energy potential in future
partnership contracts?

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

_(8 May 2013)_

The Renewable Energy Directive ( [1] ) lays down the legal framework for the promotion of the use of energy from
renewable sources. However, the directive is technology neutral, meaning that Member States decide on the
renewable energy technologies to be granted financial support. The Romanian support scheme for renewable energy
currently in place gives two green certificates for each MW of renewable electricity produced from geothermal energy
and fed into the grid. Moreover, the Romanian National Renewable Energy Action Plan estimates that this technology
will provide 80 ktoe in the heating and cooling sector in 2020.

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

In order to promote a wider use of geothermal applications, the Commission, through its Intelligent Energy Europe
programme, has so far financed a number of projects relevant for this technology ( [2] ), which focused _inter alia_ on nontechnical barriers, solutions for increasing investments in geothermal energy or financing instruments.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p.16-64.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Projects can be found on the database homepage: http://www.eaci-projects.eu/iee/page/Page.jsp?op=home

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 47

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-003275/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Jens Rohde (ALDE)**

_(21. marts 2013)_

_Om:_ Løsgående søer

I Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF er det bestemt, at alle søer skal være løsgående fra 2013 ( [1] ).

Kommissionen har i et svar på spørgsmål H-0332/2010 ( [2] ) oplyst, at » _udsættelse af tidsfristen den 1. januar 2013 som_
_fastlagt i Rådets direktiv 2008/120/EF med hensyn til sammensætning af flokke af søer og gylte vil stille producenter, der har_
_investeret for at nå fristen, i en konkurrencemæssigt ufordelagtig position« (_ [3] ).

Det er kun i ti medlemsstater, at alle svineproducenter opfylder Rådets direktiv til fulde. I Holland lever 98 pct. af
producenterne op til kravene, i Danmarks lever 94 % op til kravene, mens kun 74 % af svineproducenterne i Frankrig
lever op til kravene ( [4] ).

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

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

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

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Tonio Borg**

_(15. maj 2013)_

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

Det er endvidere medlemsstaternes ansvar at iværksætte de nødvendige håndhævelsesforanstaltninger og/eller
sanktioner, jf. artikel 54 og 55 i forordning (EF) nr. 882/2004 ( [5] ) om offentlig kontrol, for at rette op på sitiuationen.
Sådanne nationale foranstaltninger kan omfatte delvis lukning af avlssteder samt begrænsning af adgangen til
markederne for dyr eller produkter fra enkelte erhvervsdrivende, som ikke overholder reglerne.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:047:0005:0013:DA:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Skriftlig forespørgsel af 6.7.2010, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=QT&reference=H-2010-0332&language=DA.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20100708&secondRef=ANN-01&language=DA&detail=H-2010
0332&query=QUESTION.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.pigprogress.net/Growing-Finishing/Environment/2013/2/Inexcusable-Non-compliance-with-sow-stall-ban-in-EU-1165881W/.
( ⋅5∙ ) EUT L 191 af 28.5.2004.

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

C 12 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003275/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jens Rohde (ALDE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Untethered sows

Council Directive 2008/120/EC establishes that all sows shall be untethered from 2013 ( [1] ).

In its answer to Question H-0332/2010 ( [2] ) the Commission stated that ‘postponing the deadline of 1 January 2013
laid down in Council Directive 2008/120/EC(3) for the grouping of sows and gilts would put producers who have
invested to meet this deadline at a competitive disadvantage’ ( [3] ).

The Council Directive is complied with in full by all pig farmers in only 10 Member States. In the Netherlands, 98% of
producers meet the requirements, in Denmark the figure is 94%, while in France only 74% of pig farmers meet the
requirements ( [4] ).

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

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

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

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

_(15 May 2013)_

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

It is furthermore the responsibility of the Member States to take all the necessary enforcement measures and/or
sanctions as laid down in Articles 54 and 55 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 ( [5] ) on official controls to correct the
situation. Such national measures may include partial closure of breeding sites as well as restriction of access to the
markets of animals or products coming from individual non-compliant operators.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:047:0005:0013:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Written answer of 6.7.2010, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=QT&reference=H-2010-0332&language=EN
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20100708&secondRef=ANN-01&language=EN&detail=H-2010
0332&query=QUESTION

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.pigprogress.net/Growing-Finishing/Environment/2013/2/Inexcusable-Non-compliance-with-sow-stall-ban-in-EU-1165881W/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 191, 28.5.2004.

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 49

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003276/13**

**a Bizottság számára**
**Bánki Erik (PPE), Mészáros Alajos (PPE), Sógor Csaba (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) és Petru**

**Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(2013. március 21.)_

_Tárgy:_ A Gyermekbarát internet program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Neelie Kroes válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 7.)_

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

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

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

C 12 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003276/13**

**do Komisji**
**Erik Bánki (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Csaba Sógor (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) oraz**

**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(21 marca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Program „Lepszy Internet dla dzieci”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wiceprzewodniczącą Neelie Kroes w imieniu Komisji**

_(7 maja 2013 r.)_

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 51

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003276/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Erik Bánki (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Csaba Sógor (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) şi Petru**

**Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(21 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Programul „Un internet mai bun pentru copii”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Răspuns dat de dna Kroeson în numele Comisiei**

_(7 mai 2013)_

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

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

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

C 12 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003276/13**

**to the Commission**
**Erik Bánki (PPE), Alajos Mészáros (PPE), Csaba Sógor (PPE), Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE) and Petru**

**Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ ‘A Better Internet for Kids’ Programme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_(7 May 2013)_

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 53

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003277/13**

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

_(21 martie 2013)_

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

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

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

1. transparența reglementărilor naționale în sectoarele de transport rutier în toate statele membre, prin publicarea
pe site-ul Comisiei a reglementărilor naționale de aplicare a acquis-ului privind transportul rutier în fiecare stat
membru, în special a legilor naționale de aplicare ale Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 561/2006, 1071/2009,
1072/2009 și 1073/2009;

2. traducerea în toate limbile oficiale a legislației specifice transportului rutier național din fiecare stat membru,
care se aplică transportatorilor non-rezidenți atunci când efectuează operațiuni de cabotaj;

3. publicarea listei de sancțiuni aplicate de autoritatea de aplicare a fiecărui stat membru pentru încălcarea
reglementărilor privind transportul rutier din UE.

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

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

_(26 aprilie 2013)_

1. și 2. Comisia încurajează cooperarea dintre statele membre în ceea ce privește asigurarea punerii în aplicare a
acquis-ului privind transportul rutier de marfă, precum și furnizarea de informații referitoare la transport către
transportatorii de marfă. Ar fi însă nevoie de resurse semnificative pentru colectarea, traducerea și publicarea online a
volumului mare de informații constituit din legi naționale derivate din acquis-ul privind transportul rutier. Prin
urmare, Comisia încurajează statele membre să furnizeze aceste informații transportatorilor de marfă într-o manieră
ușor de utilizat.

3. În temeiul articolului 22 alineatul (1) și al articolelor 16 și 27 din Regulamentele (CE) nr. 1071, (CE) nr. 1072 și,
respectiv, (CE) nr. 1073, statele membre trebuie să notifice Comisiei sistemele lor naționale de sancțiuni, precum și
modificările acestora. Comisia poate decide să publice aceste notificări. De asemenea, Comisia realizează în prezent
un studiu privind sistemele naționale de sancțiuni pentru a obține o privire de ansamblu asupra diferitelor sisteme
naționale de sancțiuni aplicabile pentru încălcarea legislației din domeniul transportului rutier. Acest studiu ar putea fi
publicat în următoarele luni.

C 12 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003277/13**

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

_(21 March 2013)_

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

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

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

1. Transparency of national regulations in road haulage sectors in all Member States, through the publishing on
the Commission’s website of national regulations applying the _acquis_ on road haulage in each Member State,
particularly the national laws applying Regulations (EC) Nos 561/2006, 1071/2009, 1072/2009 and
1073/2009;

2. Translation into all official languages of the legislation specific to national road haulage in each Member State
which applies to non-resident hauliers when they carry out cabotage operations;

3. Publication of the list of penalties applied by the authorities of each Member State for breaches of EU road
haulage regulations.

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

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

_(26 April 2013)_

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

manner.

3. Under Articles 22(1), 16 and 27 of Regulations (EC) No 1071, 1072 and 1073 respectively, Member States
must notify their national penalty systems and any amendments thereto to the Commission. The Commission may
choose to publish these notifications. The Commission is also carrying out a study on national penalty systems to
gain an overview of the different national systems of sanctions applicable to road transport legislation. This study
could be published in the coming months.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 55

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003278/13**

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

_(21 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Un nou tip de gripă porcină rezistentă la medicamente

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

Comisia este rugată să precizeze:

1. dacă există motive de îngrijorare pentru cetățenii europeni;

2. care sunt măsurile avute în vedere pentru întâmpinarea unei eventuale situații de urgență.

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

_(6 mai 2013)_

Comisia este la curent cu situația epidemiologică a gripei porcine și monitorizează îndeaproape situația din Europa, în
colaborare cu Centrul European de Prevenire şi Control al Bolilor (ECDC), care a publicat o evaluare a riscurilor ( [1] )
privind epidemia de gripă A(H3N2v) din America de Nord.

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/i111129_TER_swine_origin_triple_reassortant_influenza%20A_H3N2_viruses%20in
%20North%20America.pdf

C 12 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003278/13**

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

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New type of drug-resistant swine flu

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

Can the Commission state:

1. whether European citizens should be concerned, and

2. what measures the Commission is considering to meet a potential emergency situation?

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

_(6 May 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the epidemiological situation of influenza in swine. It closely monitors the situation in
Europe in collaboration with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), which has published a
risk assessment ( [1] ) regarding the influenza A(H3N2v) outbreak in North America.

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/i111129_TER_swine_origin_triple_reassortant_influenza%20A_H3N2_viruses%20in
%20North%20America.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 57

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003279/13**

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

_(21 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Compensarea pierderilor producătorilor români de lapte în urma crizei aflatoxinei

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

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

Comisia este rugată să răspundă la următoarele întrebări:

1. Dacă ar putea avea în vedere instituirea unui sistem de compensare a pierderilor după modelul plăților
compensatorii efectuate în cazul infestării castraveților cu E.colli.

2. Dacă ar putea accepta majorarea nivelului maxim permis al ajutorului _de minimis_ pentru a permite statului
român să intervină în această criză.

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

_(30 aprilie 2013)_

Sunt prevăzute măsuri excepționale în caz de restricții comerciale rezultate din aplicarea măsurilor de combatere a
răspândirii bolilor animalelor ( [1] ), atunci când prețurile de pe piața Uniunii cresc sau scad semnificativ ( [2] ) sau atunci
când prețurile de pe piața mondială ating un nivel care perturbă sau riscă să perturbe disponibilul necesar pentru
aprovizionarea pieței Uniunii, iar situația este probabil să continue sau să se înrăutățească ( [3] ). Cum nu s-au raportat
astfel de efecte, Comisia nu poate lua în considerare compensarea pierderilor menționate de distinsul membru,
deoarece cazul respectiv nu corespunde niciuneia dintre situațiile în care se pot lua măsuri excepționale în sectorul
laptelui.

În alte sectoare, se pot lua măsuri în caz de perturbări grave ale pieței, legate direct de o pierdere a încrederii
consumatorilor cauzată de existența unor riscuri pentru sănătatea publică sau pentru sănătatea animală ( [4] ). În cadrul
reformei PAC, Comisia a propus extinderea acestei posibilități la sectorul laptelui ( [5] ).

În conformitate cu regulamentul Consiliului referitor la ajutoarele de stat ( [6] ), regulamentele _de minimis_ ale Comisiei
pot fi modificate dacă se schimbă împrejurările referitoare la un element important care a determinat adoptarea lor
sau dacă evoluția progresivă sau funcționarea pieței comune impune acest lucru. Criza aflatoxinei din România nu
este suficientă pentru a justifica modificarea regulamentului Comisiei referitor la ajutoarele _de minimis_ în sectorul
agricol ( [7] ).

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

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A se vedea articolul 44 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1234/2007 (Regulamentul unic OCP).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A se vedea articolul 186 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1234/2007 (Regulamentul unic OCP).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) A se vedea articolul 187 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1234/2007 (Regulamentul unic OCP).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) A se vedea articolul 45 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1234/2007 (Regulamentul unic OCP).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) A se vedea propunerea de articol 155 din COM(2011) 626 final, 19.10.2011.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) A se vedea articolul 4 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 994/98 al Consiliului de aplicare a articolelor 92 și 93 din Tratatul de instituire a

Comunității Europene anumitor categorii de ajutoare de stat orizontale, JO L 142, 14. 5.1998.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1535/2007 al Comisiei privind aplicarea articolelor 87 și 88 din Tratatul CE ajutoarelor de minimis în sectorul producției

de produse agricole, JO L 337, 21.12.2007.

( **|**

C 12 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003279/13**

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

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Compensation for losses for Romanian milk producers following the aflatoxin crisis

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

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

Can the Commission answer the following questions?

1. Can the Commission consider the introduction of a compensation system for the losses, similar to the
compensation payments made in the case of the infestation of cucumbers with E. coli?

2. Can the Commission accept an increase in the maximum permitted level of _de minimis_ aid in order to allow the
Romanian state to intervene in this crisis?

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

_(30 April 2013)_

Exceptional measures are foreseen in case of trade restrictions which may result from the application of measures
against the spread of diseases in animals ( [1] ), where prices on the Union market rise of fall significantly ( [2] ), or where
prices on the world market reach a level that disrupts or threatens to disrupt the availability of supply on the Union
market and where that situation is likely to continue or to deteriorate ( [3] ). Such effects are not reported. Therefore, the
Commission cannot consider compensating the losses referred to by the Honourable Member because the case does
not match any of the situations in which exceptional measures may be taken in the milk sector.

In other sectors, measures may be taken in case of serious market disturbances directly attributed to a loss in
consumer confidence due to public health or animal health risks ( [4] ). Under the CAP reform, the Commission has
proposed to extend this possibility to the milk sector ( [5] ).

According to the Council Regulation on state aid ( [6] ), the Commission _de minimis_ Regulations may be amended where
circumstances have changed with respect to any important element that constituted grounds for its adoption or
where the progressive development or the functioning of the common market so requires. The aflatoxin crisis in
Romania is insufficient to justify amending the Commission agricultural _de minimis_ Regulation ( [7] ).

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

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See Article 44 of the single CMO Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See Article 186 of the single CMO Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See Article 187 of the single CMO Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See Article 45 of the single CMO Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) See proposed Article 155 in COM(2011) 626 final of 19.10.2011.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) See Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the European

Community to certain categories of horizontal state aid in OJ L 142, 14.5.1998.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to the _de minimis_ aid in the sector of

agricultural production in OJ L 337, 21.12.2007.

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 59

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003283/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Consumer Classroom programme

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

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

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

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

_(3 May 2013)_

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

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

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

C 12 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003284/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Day for the Remembrance of Victims of Terrorism

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

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

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

_(24 April 2013)_

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 61

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003285/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Farmers’ markets and diversification of high street shopping

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

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

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

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

_(15 May 2013)_

The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development provides different tools for farmers and micro-businesses to
develop, such as investment in processing and marketing, creation of new products and technologies, promotional
activities and other non-agricultural activities. Furthermore, transnational cooperation projects under the Leader
programme ( [1] ) could also contain support to rural SMEs (common marketing activities, participation at fairs, etc).

The support and encouragement will be maintained in the future Rural Development policy ( [2] ), as one of the
proposed priorities of the rural development policy involves ‘better integrating primary producers into the food chain
through quality schemes, promotion in local markets and short supply [chains]….’. The draft Regulation offers a very
wide scope with regard to the exact operations which could be supported in connection with short supply chains and
local markets. The most relevant measures could be the ‘cooperation’, the ‘quality schemes for agricultural products
and foodstuffs’ and the ‘farm and business development’ measures. Under these measures, support can be provided
for the setting-up / running of ‘farmers' markets’ selling local farmers' produce direct to consumers in nearby towns.

In accordance with Article 55 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and
foodstuffs ( [3] ), the Commission is preparing a report on local farming and direct sales labelling schemes to assists
producers in marketing their produce locally.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 65 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural

Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for

Rural Development (EAFRD) (COM(2011) 627 final/2): http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/com627/627_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 343 of 14.12.2012, p. 1.

( **|**

( **|**

C 12 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003286/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fuel laundering

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

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

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

_(3 May 2013)_

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 63

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003287/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Human rights abuses in China

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

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

_(13 May 2013)_

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

matters.

Following the leadership change in China, the EU is currently in the process of resuming its working relations with the
new Chinese administration. For the purpose of a first encounter, the HR/VP travelled to Beijing and Xi'an on 2528 April. The new Chinese interlocutor for the Human Rights Dialogue, Li Jinghua, has recently assumed office, and
the dates of the next session of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue are presently under discussion.

C 12 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003288/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Large denomination banknotes

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

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

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

_(6 May 2013)_

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 65

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003289/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Poverty in Romania

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

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

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

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

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

_(23 May 2013)_

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

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

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

Through the Social Investment Package, the Commission urged EU countries to put more emphasis on social
investment, investing in human capital and enhancing people's capacities whilst ensuring an adequate livelihood
through income support. Moreover, the recommendation _Investing in children — breaking the cycle of disadvantage (_ [1] _)_,
proposes a common framework through policy guidance and indicators to help the EU and Member States focus on
successful social investment towards children.

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) C(2013) 778 final of 20.2.2013.

C 12 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003290/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Progress of EU in reducing greenhouse gas emissions

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

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

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

_(14 May 2013)_

The EU is making continued progress in decreasing its reliance on fossil fuels ( [1] ).

This decreasing trend is projected to continue through the EU's policies to increase the share of renewables and to
improve energy efficiency, including the fuel efficiency of vehicles via the regulations on cars and vans ( [2] ) and the
recently proposed alternative fuels strategy ( [3] ). Also the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, which was one of the key
milestones set for 2020 in the Resource Efficiency Roadmap ( [4] ), contributes to this end.

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

According to the recent first Renewable Energy Progress Report ( [5] ), most Member States experienced significant
growth in renewable energy consumption. 2010 figures indicate that the EU as a whole is on its trajectory towards
the 2020 targets with a renewable energy share of 12.7%.

The 2050 Low-carbon and Energy Roadmaps ( [6] ), that explore routes up to 2050 which could enable the EU to deliver
greenhouse gas reductions in line with the 80 to 95% target, show that energy efficiency and renewable energy will
play a key role also beyond 2020. The recently published Green Paper on a 2030 framework for climate and energy
policies ( [7] ) takes stock of the progress achieved so far.

According to projections by the IEA ( [8] ), the EU's dependency on imported oil and gas will however increase in the
future unless the EU continues a strong policy on energy efficiency and renewable energy also beyond 2020.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) share of fossil fuels in gross EU-27 energy consumption reduced from 79% to 76% between 2005 and 2010 and its share in electricity generation

from 55.3% to 51.5%.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32009R0443:EN:NOT and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?

uri=CONSLEG:2011R0510:20120313:en:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0017:FIN:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011_571.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/reports/doc/com_2013_0175_res_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0112:EN:NOT and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?

uri=CELEX:52011DC0885:EN:NOT.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0169:FIN:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2012, p. 76.

( **|**

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 67

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003291/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(21. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Förderung von Betriebsaufspaltungen durch Strukturfonds in Rheinland-Pfalz

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

1. Können aus den Strukturfonds im Zeitraum 2007‐2013 nur Unternehmen gefördert werden, wenn die
Betriebsaufspaltung auch steuerlich anerkannt wird, oder können auch tatsächliche Betriebsaufspaltungen ohne
steuerliche Anerkennung gefördert werden?

2. Steht die rheinland-pfälzische Verwaltungsvorschrift im Widerspruch zum EU-Recht?

3. Vorausgesetzt, die Landesregelung ist mit dem EU-Recht konform: Aus welchem Grund werden steuerlich
anerkannte Betriebsaufspaltungen gefördert, wogegen Betriebsaufspaltungen, die steuerlich nicht anerkannt sind, die
Förderung versagt wird?

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

_(8. Mai 2013)_

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

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

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

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

Herr Rosar
Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Klimaschutz, Energie und Landesplanung Rheinland-Pfalz
Schliftstrasse 9

D-55116 Mainz

Tel.: +49 6131 162249
E-Mail: Dirk.Rosar@mwkel.rlp.de

C 12 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003291/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

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

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

1. Can the structural funds available in the period 2007 to 2013 only be used to promote enterprises if the
company split-up is also recognised under the tax regime, or can actual company split-ups not recognised under the
tax regime also receive support?

2. Does the Rhineland-Palatinate administrative provision run contrary to EC law?

3. Assuming the state provision conforms to EC law: what is the reason for promoting company split-ups
recognised under the tax regime while refusing support for company split-ups that do not have such recognition?

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

_(8 May 2013)_

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

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

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

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

Mr Dirk Rosar
Rhineland-Palatinate Ministry of Economic Affairs, Transport, Agriculture and Viticulture
Schliftstrasse 9

D-55116 Mainz

Tel.: +49 6131 162249
E-mail: Dirk.Rosar@mwkel.rlp.de

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 69

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003292/13**

**to the Commission**
**Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Homelessness and Europe 2020 strategy

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

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

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

_(23 May 2013)_

While the competence for tackling homelessness lies primarily with the Member States, the EU continues to provide
its active support. Homelessness features highly on the SPC ( [1] )’s agenda. In 2010 a landmark Consensus Conference
was organised followed by several key events ( [2] ). In March 2013 the Irish Presidency took the initiative for an
informal ministerial conference to discuss the potential for more EU cooperation on homelessness ( [3] ). The event
confirmed that there is much interest for this.

The Europe 2020 strategy addresses homelessness through its broader efforts to reduce poverty and social exclusion.
Prevention of evictions and provision of adequate and affordable housing are regarded as key areas for intervention.
The Social Investment Package ( [4] ) contains a separate Staff Working Document on homelessness, which analyses the
latest trends, identifies the most effective integrated policy responses and explains the EU’s role in providing support.

The EU Structural Funds, in particular ESF ( [5] ), ERDF ( [6] ) and EAFRD ( [7] ), the EU's Food Distribution Programme and
Progress, its successor Programme for Social Change and Innovation, are all designed to (co)finance policy actions
that tackle homelessness in the Member States. The Commission proposes that 20% of the ESF budget in the 20142020 programming period is devoted to social inclusion and that integrated housing remains a priority for the ERDF.
It has also proposed the establishment of a new Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived. The Commission will
also continue to promote social innovation in this field through targeted calls for proposals. The Commission
supports EU NGOs that defend the interest of the homeless ( [8] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Social Protection Committee.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 11th European Meeting of People Experiencing Poverty in 2012 and the Annual Conventions of the Platform against Poverty and Social Inclusion.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eu2013.ie/events/event-items/roundtablediscussionofeuministerswithresponsibilityforhomelessness-20130301/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See ‘Confronting Homelessness in the European Union’ (CSWD (2013) 42 of 20 February 2013),

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=fr&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) European Social Fund.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) European Regional Development Fund.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) European Agriculture Fund for Regional Development.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) See e.g. http://www.feantsa.org/

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

C 12 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003293/13**

**to the Commission**
**Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Homelessness statistics in the EU

Swedish Government sources have recently reported that approximately 3 500 people are sleeping on the streets in
the city of Gothenburg ( [1] ). Recent statistics reported by the Scottish Government in January 2013 have shown a
significant fall of around 13% in the number of people assessed as homeless in Scotland. Nevertheless, at the same
time, studies in England have shown a rise of 25% in homelessness over the past three years.

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

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

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

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

_(15 May 2013)_

Eurostat statistical activities on issues related to homelessness are unfortunately rather limited at European level. The
only source of information is the population and housing census of 2011. Commission Regulation (EU)
No 519/2010 ( [2] ) of 16 June 2010 adopting the programme of the statistical data and of the metadata for population
and housing censuses provided for by Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 ( [3] ) of the European Parliament and of the
Council foresees the provision of data on homelessness.

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

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

—
Data on the primary homeless broken down by ‘Sex’ and ‘Age’ at NUTS 2 and NUTS 3 geographical level. More
detailed breakdowns are possible (e.g. education, marital status, size of the locality, etc.);

—
Data on all homeless and persons living in non-conventional housing units (huts, cabins, caravans, etc.) broken
down by ‘Sex’, ‘Age’ and ‘Size of the locality’ for the NUTS 2 geographical level.

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

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016jv9z
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 151, 17.6.2010, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 763/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on population and housing censuses (OJ L 218,

13.8.2008, p. 14).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 71

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003294/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan**

**Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) y Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(21 de marzo de 2013)_

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

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

Los Estados Unidos han pedido más tiempo para examinar el informe ( [1] ) realizado por la organización italiana Lega
Anti Vivisezione ( [2] ) —en colaboración con Born Free USA ( [3] ) y Respect for Animals ( [4] )—, que demuestra que el uso de
cepos es una práctica común, regulada y autorizada en los Estados Unidos.

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

La firma del Acta aprobada relativa a normas de captura no cruel ( [5] ) no puede servir de excusa para utilizar libremente
métodos que, por su diseño y funcionamiento, quedan recogidos por completo en la definición establecida en el
artículo 1 del Reglamento (CEE) n° 3254/91 del Consejo.

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

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

1. ¿Está de acuerdo la Comisión con que ninguna solución que se alcance con los EstadosUnidos debería permitir
excepción alguna a la prohibición del uso de cepos de la UE?

2. De acuerdo con el mencionado Reglamento del Consejo que prohíbe el uso de cepos, ¿nodebería la Comisión
suspender la importación de pieles, tanto en bruto como curtidas oacabadas, de animales salvajes que hayan sido
capturados mediante este método?

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

_(30 de abril de 2013)_

En la cuarta reunión del Comité de gestión conjunta del Acuerdo internacional en materia de captura no cruel,
celebrada en diciembre de 2012, la Comisión Europea señaló a la atención de la delegación de los Estados Unidos, en
nombre de la UE, el informe ( [6] ) de la organización italiana Lega Anti Vivisezione (elaborado en colaboración con Born
Free USA y Respect for Animals), en el que se denunciaba que el uso de cepos era una práctica muy extendida y
autorizada en los Estados Unidos.

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

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf (en inglés).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.lav.it/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) DO L 219 de 7.8.1998, p. 26.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 73

_(České znění)_

**Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-003294/13**

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

_(21. března 2013)_

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

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

USA požádaly o pozastavení jednání po určitou dobu určenou k přezkoumání zprávy ( [1] ) vypracované italskou
organizací Lega Anti Vivisezione ( [2] ) ve spolupráci s organizacemi Born Free USA ( [3] ) a Respect for Animals ( [4] ), která
ukazuje, že nášlapné pasti jsou v USA široce uplatňovanou, regulovanou a povolenou praxí.

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

Podpis dohodnutého protokolu o normách humánního lovu do pastí ( [5] ) nelze považovat za záminku umožňující
volně využívat zařízení, která svou konstrukcí a fungováním plně spadají do působnosti definice stanovené článkem
1 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 3254/91.

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

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

1. Souhlasí Komise s tím, že žádné řešení, na němž se můžeme s USA shodnout, by nemělo umožňovat výjimky
z unijního zákazu využívání nášlapných pastí?

2. Neměla by Komise pozastavit dovoz kožešiny (nevydělané či vydělané a také konečných výrobků z kožešiny)
pocházející z volně žijících zvířat odchycených tímto způsobem, v souladu s výše uvedeným nařízením Rady
zakazujícím využívání nášlapných pastí?

**Odpověď komisaře Potočnika jménem Komise**

_(30. dubna 2013)_

Na čtvrtém zasedání společné výkonné rady IAHTS v prosinci 2012 upozornila Evropská komise (jménem EU)
delegaci USA na zprávu ( [6] ), kterou vypracovala italská organizace Lega Anti Vivisezione (ve spolupráci
s organizacemi Born Free USA a Respect for Animals) a v níž se tvrdí, že používání nášlapných pastí je v USA široce
uplatňovanou a povolenou praxí.

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

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS ES-USA – Důkazy porušování (2012), v angličtině na adrese:

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Úř. věst. L 219, 7.8.1998, s. 26.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA – Důkazy porušování (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 75

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-003294/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan**

**Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) og Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(21. marts 2013)_

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

Den 22. januar 2013 besvarede kommissær Janez Potočnik forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E010289/2012 indgivet af Andrea Zanoni og Nadja Hirsch, idet han oplyste, at Kommissionen havde indledt
drøftelser med USA for at nå frem til en gensidigt acceptabel løsning på dette spørgsmål.

USA har bedt om tid til at gennemgå rapporten ( [1] ) fremsendt af LAV ( [2] ) (i samarbejde med Born Free USA ( [3] ) og
Respect for Animals ( [4] )), der viser, at brugen af rævesakse er en udbredt, reguleret og tilladt praksis i USA.

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

Undertegnelsen af det godkendte protokollat (EUT L219/26 af 7. august 1998) ( [5] ) kan ikke give mulighed for frit at
bruge redskaber, der ved deres udformning og funktion fuldt ud er omfattet af definitionen indeholdt i artikel 1 i
Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3254/91.

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

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

1. Er Kommissionen enig i, at EU's forbud mod brugen af rævesakse ikke bør fraviges, uanset hvilken løsning man
når frem til med USA?

2. Bør Kommissionen ikke i overensstemmelse med Rådets ovennævnte forordning om forbud mod rævesakse
suspendere importen af skind (rå, farvede eller forarbejdede) af vilde dyr, der er fanget på denne måde?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Janez Potočnik**

_(30. april 2013)_

På det fjerde møde i Den Fælles Forvaltningskomité for IAHTS i december 2012 gjorde Europa-Kommissionen (på
EU's vegne) USA's delegation opmærksom på den rapport ( [6] ), som den italienske dyreværnsforening LAV (i
samarbejde med Born Free USA og Respect for Animals) har udarbejdet, og som indeholder påstande om, at det i USA
er en udbredt og tilladt praksis at bruge rævesakse.

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

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

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) LAV Lega Anti Vivisezione, Italian non profit organisation: www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:070:0002:0190:DA:PDF
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 77

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003294/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan**

**Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) und Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(21. März 2013)_

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

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

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

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

Die Unterzeichnung der Vereinbarten Niederschrift (ABl. L 219 vom 7. August 1998, S. 26) ( [5] ) darf nicht dazu
genutzt werden, Geräte, die hinsichtlich ihrer Konzeption und Funktionsweise uneingeschränkt der
Begriffsbestimmung in Artikel 1 der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3254/91 des Rates entsprechen, ungehindert zu
verwenden.

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

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

1. Teilt die Kommission die Auffassung, dass eine mit den USA erzielte Lösung auf keinen Fall Ausnahmen von
dem in der EU geltenden Verbot von Tellereisen vorsehen sollte?

2. Sollte die Kommission nicht gemäß der obengenannten Verordnung des Rates zum Verbot von Tellereisen die
Einfuhr von (rohen, gegerbten oder fertigen) Pelzfellen auf diese Weise gefangener Wildtiere aussetzen?

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

_(30. April 2013)_

Die Europäische Kommission hat (im Namen der EU) die US-Delegation in der vierten Sitzung des Gemeinsamen
Verwaltungsausschusses des IAHTS im Dezember 2012 über den von der italienischen „Lega Anti Vivisezione“ (in
Zusammenarbeit mit „Born Free USA“ und „Respect for Animals“) verfassten Bericht ( [6] ) in Kenntnis gesetzt, wonach
die Verwendung von Tellereisen in den USA eine weit verbreitete und zulässige Praxis ist.

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

erstatten.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:219:0026:0037:DE:PDF
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 79

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003294/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan**

**Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) e Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(21 marzo 2013)_

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

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

Gli Stati Uniti hanno chiesto del tempo per esaminare la relazione ( [1] ) presentata dalla Lega anti-vivisezione italiana ( [2] )
(in collaborazione con Born Free USA ( [3] ) e Respect for Animals ( [4] )) che dimostra che l'uso di tagliole rappresenta una
pratica diffusa, regolamentata e autorizzata negli Stati Uniti.

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

La firma del verbale concordato sulle norme relative a metodi di cattura non crudeli ( [5] ) non può essere considerata
una scusa per usare liberamente sistemi che, per la loro concezione e il loro funzionamento, rientrano appieno nella
definizione di cui all'articolo 1 del regolamento (CEE) n. 3254/91 del Consiglio.

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

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

1. Concorda la Commissione con il fatto che qualsiasi soluzione conseguita con gli Stati uniti non dovrebbe
consentire alcuna deroga al divieto vigente nell'Unione in relazione all'uso di tagliole?

2. In linea con il suddetto regolamento del Consiglio che vieta l'uso di tagliole, non dovrebbe la Commissione
sospendere le importazioni di pellicce (grezze, conciate o finite) di animali selvatici catturati in tal modo?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(30 aprile 2013)_

Alla quarta riunione del comitato di gestione comune dell'Accordo internazionale sulle norme relative a metodi di
cattura non crudeli (IAHTS) nel mese di dicembre 2012, la Commissione europea ha sottoposto all'attenzione della
delegazione statunitense, per conto dell'UE, la relazione ( [6] ) presentata dalla Lega antivivisezione italiana (in
collaborazione con Born Free USA e Respect for Animals), che dimostra che l'uso di tagliole rappresenta una pratica
diffusa, regolamentata e autorizzata negli Stati Uniti.

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

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) GU L 219 del 7.8.1998, pag. 26.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS CE-USA — Prove di violazioni (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 81

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003294/13**

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

_(21 maart 2013)_

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

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

De VS had om tijd gevraagd voor de bestudering van het verslag ( [1] ) van de Italiaanse Lega Anti Vivisezione ( [2] )
(opgesteld in samenwerking met Born Free USA ( [3] ) and Respect for Animals ( [4] )) dat aantoont dat het gebruik van
wildklemmen een wijd verbreide, gereguleerde en toegestane praktijk in de VS is.

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

De ondertekening van de goedgekeurde notulen inzake normen voor humane vallen ( [5] ) kan niet worden beschouwd
als excuus om vrijelijk gebruik te maken van apparaten die op grond van hun ontwerp en werkingswijze geheel vallen
onder de definitie zoals bedoeld in artikel 1 van Verordening van de Raad (EEC) nr. 3254/91.

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

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

1. Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat iedere oplossing die met de VS wordt bereikt geen enkele uitzondering op
het EU-verbod op het wildklemgebruik mag inhouden?

2. Dient de Commissie overeenkomstig de bovengenoemde verordening van de Raad waarbij het gebruik van
wildklemmen wordt verboden de invoer van pelzen (onbewerkt, gelooid of bewerkt) van op deze wijze gevangen
wilde dieren niet op te schorten?

**Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie**

_(30 april 2013)_

De Europese Commissie heeft (namens de EU) tijdens de vierde bijeenkomst van het Gezamenlijk beheerscomité van
de internationale overeenkomst over normen voor humane vallen (IAHTS) het verslag ( [6] ) van de Italiaanse Lega Anti
Vivisezione (in samenwerking met Born Free USA and Respect for Animals) bij de delegatie van de VS onder de
aandacht gebracht waarin de VS ervan beschuldigd wordt dat het gebruik van wildklemmen een wijdverbreide en
toegestane praktijk zou zijn.

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

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) PB L 219 van 7.8.1998, blz. 26.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 83

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003294/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan**

**Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) şi Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(21 martie 2013)_

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

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

SUA a solicitat timp pentru a examina raportul ( [1] ) elaborat de asociația Lega Anti Vivisezione ( [2] ) din Italia (în
colaborare cu Born Free USA ( [3] ) și Respect for Animals ( [4] )), conform căruia utilizarea capcanelor cu pedală este o
practică răspândită, reglementată și autorizată în SUA.

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

Semnarea procesului-verbal agreat privind standardele pentru vânătoarea cu capcane fără cruzime ( [5] ) nu poate fi
considerată drept pretext pentru a utiliza instrumente care, ca urmare a modului de creare și funcționare, intră pe
deplin în domeniul de aplicare al definiției prevăzute la articolul 1 din Regulamentul Consiliului (CEE) nr. 3254/91.

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

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

1. Este Comisia de acord cu faptul că soluția convenită cu SUA, oricare ar fi aceasta, nu ar trebui să permită excepții
de la interdicția UE privind utilizarea capcanelor cu pedală?

2. În conformitate cu regulamentul Consiliului menționat mai sus, prin care se interzice utilizarea capcanelor cu
pedală, nu ar trebui Comisia să suspende importul de blănuri (neprelucrate, tăbăcite sau finisate) provenite de la
animale sălbatice capturate în acest mod?

**Răspuns dat de domnul Potočnik în numele Comisiei**

_(30 aprilie 2013)_

În cadrul celei de-a patra reuniuni a Comitetului mixt de gestionare a IAHTS din decembrie 2012, Comisia Europeană
(în numele UE) a adus în atenția delegației SUA raportul ( [6] ) prezentat de asociația _Lega Anti Vivisezione_ din Italia (în
colaborare cu asociațiile _Born Free SUA_ și _Respect for Animals_ ) care conține afirmații privind faptul că utilizarea
capcanelor cu pedală este o practică răspândită și autorizată în SUA.

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

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS CE-SUA — Probe privind încălcări (Evidences of Violations) (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) JO L 219, 7.8.1998, p. 26.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (IAHTS CE-SUA — Dovezi de încălcare) (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 85

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003294/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE), Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), David Martin (S&D), Dan**

**Jørgensen (S&D), Pavel Poc (S&D), Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D) and Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(21 March 2013)_

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

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

The USA has asked for time to examine the report ( [1] ) produced by Italy’s Lega Anti Vivisezione ( [2] ) (in collaboration
with Born Free USA ( [3] ) and Respect for Animals ( [4] )), which shows that the use of leghold traps is a widespread,
regulated and authorised practice in the USA.

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

The signing of the Agreed Minute on humane trapping standards ( [5] ) cannot be regarded as an excuse to freely use
devices which, by their design and functioning, are fully covered by the definition set out in Article 1 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3254/91.

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

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

1. Does the Commission agree that any solution reached with the USA should not allow any exceptions to the EU
ban on the use of leghold traps?

2. In accordance with the abovementioned Council Regulation banning leghold traps, should the Commission not
suspend the import of furs (raw, tanned or finished) of wild animals caught in this way?

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

_(30 April 2013)_

The European Commission (on behalf of the EU) had brought to the attention of the US delegation the report ( [6] )
produced by Italy’s Lega Anti Vivisezione (in collaboration with Born Free USA and Respect for Animals) containing
allegations that the use of leghold traps was a widespread and authorised practice in the US, during the Fourth Joint
Management Committee Meeting of the IAHTS in December 2012.

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

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

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.bornfreeusa.org/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.respectforanimals.co.uk/home/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 219, 7.8.1998, p. 26.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) IAHTS EC-USA — Evidences of Violations (2012):

http://www.lav.it/uploads/90/45406_IAHTS_EC_USA_Evidences_of_violations_LAV_complaint.pdf

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

C 12 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 87

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-003295/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(22 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ενεργειακή φτώχεια

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

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

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Υπάρχουν συγκεκριμένα μέτρα που μελετά η Επιτροπή για να αντιμετωπίσει την ενεργειακή φτώχεια;

—
Εξετάζει το ενδεχόμενο να συμπεριληφθεί το κόστος της ενέργειας, για ειδικές ομάδες πληθυσμού, στη κοινωνική της
πολιτική; Θα μπορούσε κάτι τέτοιο να καλυφθεί από το Κοινωνικό Ταμείο με την προϋπόθεση ότι θα γίνουν κάποιες
αλλαγές στους προσανατολισμούς του;

—
Υπάρχει απόφαση και χρονοδιάγραμμα για να συμπεριληφθεί το επίδομα θέρμανσης σε ένα πακέτο κοινωνικών
παροχών;

**Απάντηση του κ. Oettinger εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(30 Απριλίου 2013)_

1. Η νομοθεσία ( [1] ) της ΕΕ ορίζει συγκεκριμένες και πολλών ειδών υποχρεώσεις στα κράτη μέλη όσον αφορά την
ενεργειακή πενία (όπως και την υποχρέωση να ορισθεί η έννοια «ευάλωτοι καταναλωτές», να αντιμετωπισθεί η ενεργειακή
πενία όπου παρατηρείται, να χορηγηθεί χρηματοδότηση για τη βελτίωση της ενεργειακής απόδοσης, κ.λπ.), το δε σχέδιο
δράσης που έχει επισυναφθεί στην ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής «Για την εύρυθμη λειτουργία της εσωτερικής αγοράς
ενέργειας» ( [2] ) περιλαμβάνει δράσεις με σκοπό να διευκολυνθούν τα κράτη μέλη στην εκπλήρωση των υποχρεώσεων που
υπέχουν με βάση τη νομοθεσία της ΕΕ. Οι εν λόγω δράσεις έχουν ως αντικείμενο την καθοδήγηση και την προώθηση της
διάδοσης βέλτιστων πρακτικών. Επίσης, στην ημερήσια διάταξη των συνεδριάσεων του Ενεργειακού Φόρουμ των Πολιτών η
Επιτροπή δίνει προτεραιότητα στα θέματα των ευάλωτων καταναλωτών.

2. Σύμφωνα με τους στόχους του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου στους οποίους συγκαταλέγονται παρεμβάσεις για την
κοινωνική ένταξη των ευάλωτων ομάδων, στη χρηματοδότηση από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο είναι δυνατόν να
περιληφθεί, επί παραδείγματι, στήριξη όσων κινδυνεύουν να μείνουν άστεγοι ώστε να αποφύγουν την έξωση ή κοινωνικών
συνεταιρισμών που προσφέρουν βιώσιμες λύσεις στέγασης. Κατά κανόνα, για τη στήριξη από το εν λόγω Ταμείο πρέπει να
τηρούνται οι αρχές της αειφορίας και της προσθετικότητας.

3. Η χορήγηση επιδόματος θέρμανσης στο πλαίσιο δέσμης κοινωνικών οφελών είναι θέμα απόφασης σε επίπεδο κράτους
μέλους. Περαιτέρω πληροφορίες για τα εθνικά συστήματα κοινωνικής προστασίας παρέχονται στην ηλεκτρονική διεύθυνση
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=el&catId=815

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Συγκεκριμένα, άρθρο 3 παράγραφοι 7 και 8 της οδηγίας 2009/72/EΚ; άρθρο 3 παράγραφοι 3 και 4 της οδηγίας 2009/73/EΚ, άρθρο 7 παράγραφος 7

στοιχείο α) της οδηγίας 2012/27/EΕ.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/internal_market_en.htm

( **|**

C 12 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003295/13**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Energy poverty

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

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

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

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

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

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

_(30 April 2013)_

1. While EU legislation ( [1] ) places concrete and multiple obligations on Member States with regards to energy
poverty (including the obligation to define the concept of vulnerable customers, to address energy poverty where
identified, to provide for support for energy efficiency improvements, etc.), the action plan annexed to Commission
Communication ‘Making the Internal Energy Market Work’ ( [2] ) includes actions to facilitate Member States' fulfilment
of their obligations under EC law. These aim at providing guidance and promote the identification and dissemination
of best practices. Furthermore, the Commission puts the issues of vulnerable consumers high on the agenda of the
Citizens' Energy Forum's meetings.

2. In line with its objectives which include interventions on social inclusion of vulnerable groups, financing from
the European Social Fund may include, for example, support to people threatened by homelessness with a view to
preventing eviction or to social cooperatives providing sustainable housing solutions. As a general rule, the support
by the Fund has to respect the principle of sustainability and additionality.

3. Including a heating allowance in a package of social benefits is a decision to be taken at Member State
level. Further information on national social protection systems can be obtained at:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=815

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Particularly Articles 3.7 and 3.8 of Directive 2009/72/EC; Articles 3.3 and 3.4 of Directive 2009/73/EC; Article 7.7(a) of Directive 2012/27/EU.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/internal_market_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 89

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-003296/13**

**adresată Comisiei**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(22 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Privatizarea șantierelor navale croate aflate în proprietatea statului

Comisia a solicitat privatizarea șantierelor navale croate aflate în proprietatea statului și a celor care înregistrează
pierderi, înaintea aderării Croației la Uniunea Europeană (anexa VIII la Actul de aderare). În august 2012, Comisia a
fost de acord cu contractul de privatizare propus pentru șantierul naval _Brodosplit_ . În plus, în aprilie 2012, Comisia a
declarat, în raportul său de monitorizare, că guvernul croat a hotărât să inițieze procedura de faliment pentru
șantierul _Kraljevica_ și să caute noi modalități de privatizare și restructurare pentru șantierele _3.Maj_ și _Brodotrogir_ în
termen de 90 de zile. În octombrie 2012, Comisia a reiterat această declarație, ceea ce indică faptul că nu s-a
înregistrat, de fapt, niciun progres în această privință.

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

1. Poate Comisia furniza detalii cu privire la procedura aleasă pentru privatizarea șantierului naval _Brodosplit?_

2. Care este situația actuală în ceea ce privește șantierele navale _Kraljevica_, _3.Maj_ și _Brodotrogir_ ?

3. Poate Comisia confirma faptul că toate dispozițiile Legii croate privind impozitul pe profit, și în special
articolele 6 și 31, respectă pe deplin cadrul juridic al Uniunii Europene și Standardul Internațional de Contabilitate
aplicabil?

**Răspuns dat de Füle în numele Comisiei**

_(6 mai 2013)_

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

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

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

C 12 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003296/13**

**to the Commission**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Privatisation of Croatian state-owned shipyards

The privatisation of Croatian state-owned and loss-making shipyards has been requested by the Commission prior to
the country’s accession to the European Union (Annex VIII to the Act of Accession). In August 2012, the Commission
agreed with the proposed privatisation contract for the _Brodosplit_ shipyard. Moreover, in April 2012, the Commission
stated in its monitoring report that the Croatian Government had decided to initiate bankruptcy proceedings for the
_Kraljevica_ yard and to seek new privatisation and restructuring arrangements for the _3.Maj_ and _Brodotrogir_ yards
within 90 days. In October 2012, the Commission reiterated the same comment, which indicates that no progress
was actually made.

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

1. Can the Commission supply details of the procedure chosen for the privatisation of the _Brodosplit_ shipyard?

2. What is the state of play concerning the _Kraljevica_, _3.Maj_ and _Brodotrogir_ shipyards?

3. Can the Commission establish that all provisions of the Croatian Tax on Profit Law, and especially paragraphs 6
and 31, are fully in line with the European Union’s legal framework and the applicable International Accounting
Standard?

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

_(6 May 2013)_

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 91

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-003297/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Carlo Casini (PPE)**

_(22 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Finanziamenti europei per la cooperazione allo sviluppo

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

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

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

**Risposta di Andris Piebalgs a nome della Commissione**

_(29 aprile 2013)_

La banca dati sul sito EuropeAid ( [1] ) contiene dati completi su tutti i beneficiari delle sovvenzioni e dispone di una
funzione di ricerca per ottenere per ogni anno informazioni su tutte le sovvenzioni erogate ai programmi riguardanti,
per esempio, le cure per la salute riproduttiva.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/funding/beneficiaries/index.cfm?lang=en.

C 12 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003297/13**

**to the Commission**

**Carlo Casini (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European development cooperation funding

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

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

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

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

_(29 April 2013)_

Comprehensive information on all beneficiaries of grants can be found in the database on the EuropeAid website ( [1] ).
This database has a search function enabling information to be obtained on a year by year basis for all grants awarded
to programmes related to, for instance, reproductive healthcare.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/funding/beneficiaries/index.cfm?lang=en.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 93

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003298/13**

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

**(PPE)**
_(22 de marzo de 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

_(21 de mayo de 2013)_

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

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

C 12 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003298/13**

**to the Commission**
**María Auxiliadora Correa Zamora (PPE), José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE)**

**and Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

_(21 May 2013)_

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 95

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003299/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)**

_(22. März 2013)_

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

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

Kann die Kommission vor diesem Hintergrund folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Aus welchen Mitgliedstaaten kamen ebenfalls Anträge auf Fristverlängerung?

2. Welche Mitgliedstaaten übermitteln der Kommission regelmäßig verlässliche Messdaten?

3. Wie kontrolliert die Kommission die korrekte Durchführung der Messungen in den Mitgliedstaaten?

4. Welche Schritte sieht die Kommission vor, wenn Regionen aufgrund spezifischer klimatischer,
gesellschaftlicher und wirtschaftlicher Einflussfaktoren, wie z. B. Verwehungen von Industrieemissionen, nicht
in der Lage sind, die festgelegten Grenzwerte einzuhalten?

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

_(3. Mai 2013)_

1. Die Kommission hat von 18 Mitgliedstaaten Mitteilungen bezüglich einer Verlängerung der Frist für die
Einhaltung der NO 2 -Grenzwerte erhalten. Sämtliche Informationen zu diesen Mitteilungen sind allgemein zugänglich
[unter: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm)

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

3. Die Richtlinie enthält eine Reihe von Kriterien in Bezug auf die Errichtung von Messstationen und die
Mindestanzahl der Probenahmestellen. Darüber hinaus organisiert die Kommission regelmäßig vergleichende
Untersuchungen und einen breiten Informationsaustausch, um die Luftqualitätsmessungen europaweit zu
vereinheitlichen ( [1] ), ( [2] ).

4. Zur Verlängerung der für die Einhaltung der NO 2 -Grenzwerte geltenden Frist können die Mitgliedstaaten neue
Mitteilungen vorlegen, wenn anhand zusätzlicher Informationen belegt werden kann, dass die Einhaltung der
Grenzwerte zum 1. Januar 2015 erreicht wird. Bei Nichteinhaltung der Grenzwerte in Gebieten, für die keine
Fristverlängerungen gelten, kann die Kommission ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen den betreffenden
Mitgliedstaat einleiten.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅1∙

( **|** **|** ) Evaluation of the Laboratory Comparison Exercise for SO 2, CO, O 3, NO and NO 2 — 11. — 14. Juni 2012 Ispra — EC Harmonization Program for

Air Quality Measurements, Amt für Veröffentlichungen der Europäischen Union, 2012, EUR 25536 EN:
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/26675/1/lbna25536enn.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/aquila-project/jrc-aquila-quality-programme-on-pm-measurements.html

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 12 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003299/13**

**to the Commission**
**Horst Schnellhardt (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

1. From which other Member States have applications for postponement of the deadline been received?

2. Which Member States regularly send the Commission reliable measurement data?

3. How does the Commission check that the measurements have been taken correctly in the Member States?

4. What steps will it take if, due to specific climatic, social or economic factors, such as drifting of industrial
emissions, regions are not able to comply with the limit values laid down?

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

_(3 May 2013)_

1. The Commission has received notifications for postponement of attainment the NO 2 deadline from 18 Member
States. All the information regarding the notifications is publicly available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/time_extensions.htm

2. All Member States fulfil the requirement of the ambient air quality Directive 2008/50/EC (‘Directive’) to ensure
that information on ambient air quality is made available to the Commission no later than nine months after the end
of each year. It is mainly the responsibility of the Member State to ensure that the information made available is
reliable. If the veracity and reliability of the information is put in question, the Commission always attempts to
continue the dialogue in order to base its decision on the best available information.

3. The directive provides a number of criteria for setting up monitoring stations as well as the minimum number
of sampling points. In addition, the Commission organises regular intercomparison exercises and broader exchange
of information with the aim of harmonising ambient air quality measurements at European level ( [1] ) ( [2] ).

4. Member States may resubmit notifications for postponement of attainment of the NO 2 deadline if there is
additional information showing that compliance will be reached by 1 January 2015. As regards zones not covered by
time extensions, the Commission may launch an infringement procedure if a Member State fails to comply with the
limit values.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅1∙

( **|** **|** ) Evaluation of the Laboratory Comparison Exercise for SO2, CO, O3, NO and NO 2 — 11th-14th June 2012 Ispra — EC Harmonisation Program

for Air Quality Measurements, Publications Office of the European Union, 2012, EUR 25536 EN,
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/26675/1/lbna25536enn.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/aquila-project/jrc-aquila-quality-programme-on-pm-measurements.html

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003300/13**

**to the Commission**
**Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fairness and transparency in programmes between Member States

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

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

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

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

1. Does the Commission consider this discriminatory?

2. Can the Italian Government be reprimanded for its lack of transparency in excluding regions for this crossborder project?

3. Does the Commission plan to bring forward guidelines to ensure transparency and equality in calls for tenders
involving more than one Member State?

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

_(13 May 2013)_

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

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

C 12 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003301/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia**
**Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) y Raül Romeva**

**i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**
_(22 de marzo de 2013)_

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

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

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

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

**Respuesta del Sr. De Gucht en nombre de la Comisión**

_(15 de mayo de 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comité de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, 2009, Observación general n° 21: «Derecho de toda persona a participar en la vida cultural

(artículo 15, párrafo 1 a), del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales)», E/C.12/GC/21/Rev.1,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/E.C.12.GC.21.Rev.1-SPA.doc

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 99

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003301/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia**
**Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) und Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(22. März 2013)_

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

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

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

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

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(15. Mai 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

erstatten.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ausschuss für wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte, 2009, Allgemeine Bemerkung Nr. 21 zum Recht jeder Person auf Teilnahme am

kulturellen Leben (Artikel 15 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a des Internationalen Pakts über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte), E/C.12/GC/21,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm

C 12 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003301/13**

**à la Commission**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE),**
**Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE)**

**et Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 mars 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

_(15 mai 2013)_

La Commission attache une grande importance aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels. De plus, elle considère la
transparence comme fondamentale pour la compréhension mutuelle et l'acceptation des politiques, quel que soit le
domaine, dans le droit fil de l'observation générale n [o] 21, paragraphe 49 e), du Conseil économique et social des
Nations unies (ONU) à laquelle l'auteur de la question fait référence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ECOSOC (2009), Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, observation générale n°21 (article 15, paragraphe 1, point a), du pacte
international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels), E/C.12/GC/21, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 101

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003301/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE),**
**Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) en**

**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 maart 2013)_

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

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

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

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

**Antwoord van de heer De Gucht namens de Commissie**

_(15 mei 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commité over economische, sociale en culturele rechten, 2009, algemene opmerking nr. 21: „Het recht van eenieder om deel te nemen aan het

culturele leven (artikel 15, lid 1, onder a), van het Internationaal Verdrag inzake economische, sociale en culturele rechten)” E/C.12/GC/21,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm

C 12 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-003301/13**

**till kommissionen**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia**
**Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) och Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 mars 2013)_

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

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

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

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

**Svar från Karel De Gucht på kommissionens vägnar**

_(15 maj 2013)_

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

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

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

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

Kommissionen har också informerat Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommittén.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Kommittén för ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter, 2009, allmän kommentar nr 21: Allas rätt att fritt delta i det kulturella livet

(artikel 15.1 a), i den internationella konventionen om ekonomiska, sociala och kulturella rättigheter), E/C.12/GC/21,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 103

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003301/13**

**to the Commission**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE), Christian Engström (Verts/ALE), Amelia**
**Andersdotter (Verts/ALE), Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE), Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE) and Raül**

**Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

The United States has signed but not ratified the ICESCR.

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

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

_(15 May 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 2009, General comment No 21: ‘Right of everyone to take part in cultural life (Article 15,

paragraph 1(a), of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)’, E/C.12/GC/21,
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm

C 12 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003302/13**

**to the Commission**
**Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Funding to tackle transgender discrimination

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

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

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

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

_(3 May 2013)_

Under the current financial framework the PROGRESS Programme ( [1] ) provides funding to support the effective
implementation of the principle of non-discrimination (Section 4: Antidiscrimination and diversity), and aims,
among others, to promote networking, mutual learning, identification and dissemination of good practice and
innovative approaches, as well as to support the capacity of key European level networks. Funding is available from
the PROGRESS Programme to organisations which are active to combat discrimination and meet the priorities and
provisions established in the annual work programmes and in the relevant calls for proposals.

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decision 1672/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community Programme for
Employment and Social Solidarity-Progress, OJ L 315, 1.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 105

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003303/13**

**to the Commission**
**Roger Helmer (EFD)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU aid to Palestine

The EU is, according to the European External Action Service’s website, the largest donor of financial assistance to the
Palestinian Authority ( [1] ), and therefore has considerable responsibility.

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

1. What measures have been taken by the Commission to address the recommendations made by the OLAF
report of 2004 ( [2] )?

2. Can the Commission provide evidence that EU aid funds can no longer be misappropriated by the Palestinian
Authority?

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

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

_(6 May 2013)_

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

Under the Temporary International Mechanism (TIM) from 2006-2008 and the PEGASE ( [3] ) which replaced it in 2008
and continues, the EU no longer provides direct budget support to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Funds for civil
service salaries and pensions, as well as for social security allocations, are paid into a Single Treasury Sub-Account,
established by the Ministry of Finance specifically for this purpose.

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

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

The Commission does not accept the allegations of a lack of transparency in funding for projects implemented by
NGOs in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Grants for projects which are awarded to NGOs under the
EIDHR ( [4] ) and Partnership for Peace initiative are attributed following public calls for proposals. These calls — as well
as the names of the projects selected and the beneficiary — are published on the website of the Directorate General for
Development and Cooperation and of the EU Delegations concerned ( [5] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/westbank/eu_westbank/political_relations/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/media-corner/press-releases/press-releases/2005/20050317_01_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) French acronym for ‘Mécanisme Palestino — Européen de Gestion et d'Aide Socio-Economique’.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its replies to Question P-003198/2013 on the same subject:

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

C 12 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003304/13**

**to the Commission**
**Liam Aylward (ALDE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Nutrition and healthy eating in hospitals and nursing homes

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

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

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

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

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

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

_(6 May 2013)_

The Commission is promoting EU action to promote healthier diets as set out in the strategy for Europe on Nutrition,
Overweight and Obesity-related Health issues ( [1] ). The strategy is implemented through the High Level Group for
Nutrition and Physical Activity ( [2] ) and the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health ( [3] ).

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues, COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 107

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003305/13**

**adresată Comisiei**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(22 martie 2013)_

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

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

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

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

_(16 mai 2013)_

Comisia s-a angajat, în Comunicarea din 2011 privind o nouă abordare a sprijinului bugetar, să publice informații
relevante privind operațiunile de sprijin bugetar ale UE ( [1] ).

În prezent, există mai multe instrumente, care nu sunt specifice pentru sprijinul bugetar, prin care se asigură
transparența ajutoarelor și a operațiunilor Comisiei [de exemplu, sistemul de transparență financiară ( [2] ) sau
instrumentul pentru transparența ajutoarelor (TR-AID) ( [3] )].

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 638 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003305/13**

**to the Commission**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

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

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

_(16 May 2013)_

The Commission has committed itself, in the 2011 Communication on a new approach to Budget Support, to
publishing relevant information on EU budget support operations ( [1] ).

Currently, several instruments, not specific to Budget Support, allow for transparency of aid and Commission's
operations (for instance the financial transparency system (FTS) ( [2] ) or the Transparent Aid (TR-AID) tool ( [3] )).

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)638 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 109

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003306/13**

**adresată Comisiei**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(22 martie 2013)_

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

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

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

1. Căror contractanți le-a atribuit OLAF contractele cu valoare ridicată din 2005 până în prezent? Pentru fiecare
contract atribuit, vă rugăm să oferiți informații detaliate privind data, perioada de executare și valoarea contractului,
contractanții și subcontractanții, precum și tipul exact de atribuire utilizat.

2. Ce măsuri va lua OLAF și în ce interval de timp pentru a asigura mai multă transparență pe site-ul său de internet
(a) publicând lista contractanților cărora li s-au atribuit contracte cu valoare ridicată și (b) oferind acces direct la toate
procedurile de achiziții publice deschise și închise/finalizate? În cazul procedurilor de achiziții, ar trebui să fie
accesibile nu doar notificările de atribuire a contractelor, ci și anunțurile și invitațiile de participare, caietele de sarcini
și celelalte documente conexe.

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

_(6 mai 2013)_

1. În calitatea sa de serviciu al Comisiei, Oficiul European de Luptă Antifraudă (OLAF) se supune obligațiilor
reglementate de normele privind achizițiile publice și transparența ( [1] ) care sunt gestionate la nivel instituțional. În ceea
ce privește Regulamentul financiar ( [2] ) (articolul 101 și următoarele), pentru fiecare procedură de ofertare
corespunzătoare unui așa-numit contract de „valoare mare” (peste 60 000 EUR), anunțul de participare este publicat,
împreună cu setul complet de specificații, în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene (JOUE), precum și pe site-ul
OLAF ( [3] ), pe pagina de internet aferentă. Aceste informații sunt menținute online până la executarea contractului.
După ce contractul a fost atribuit, decizia de atribuire este publicată pe site-ul TED al JOUE ( [4] ). Există obligația de a
publica, pe site-ul internet al instituției, contractele cu valoare mică, până la data de 30 iunie a următorului exercițiu
financiar. În conformitate cu articolul 35 din Regulamentul financiar și cu articolul 21 din normele de aplicare,
publicarea contractelor se realizează prin intermediul sistemului de transparență financiară (STF) ( [5] ), care este accesibil
publicului. STF este un motor de căutare web care oferă posibilitatea de a căuta beneficiarii fondurilor Uniunii
Europene gestionate de către Comisie pe baza gestiunii centralizate. Printre informațiile financiare obligatorii se
numără numele și adresa beneficiarului (localitatea în cazul persoanelor fizice), suma acordată, precum și natura și
scopul cheltuielilor.

2. OLAF își îndeplinește toate obligațiile cu privire la toate normele și reglementările actuale privind transparența
și achizițiile publice.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2004/18/CE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/calls-for-tender/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ted.europa.eu/TED/main/HomePage.do
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/

C 12 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003306/13**

**to the Commission**

**Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

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

1. To which contractors has OLAF awarded high-value contracts from 2005 to present? For each of the contracts
awarded, please provide detailed information on its date, period of execution, value, the contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) as well as the specific award type used.

2. Which measures will OLAF implement, and under which timeframe, in order to further increase the
transparency of its website by (a) making the list of contractors awarded high-value contracts publicly available and
(b) providing direct access to all open and closed/completed calls for tender? In the case of calls for tender, access
should not only be given to the contract award notice but also to the contract notice, the invitation to tender, the
tender specifications and any other related documents.

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

_(6 May 2013)_

1. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as a Commission service is subject to the obligations governed by the
procurement and transparency rules ( [1] ) which are handled on an institutional level. In respect to the Financial
Regulation ( [2] ) (Article 101 and following), for every call for tender for a so-called ‘high-value’ contract (above
EUR 60 000) the contract notice is published in the _Official Journal of the European Union_ (OJEU) as well as on the
OLAF website ( [3] ) on the designated webpage together with the full set of specifications. This information is kept
online until the contract is executed. Once the contract has been awarded the award decision is published in the OJEU
TED website ( [4] ). There is an obligation to publish low-value contracts on the institution's Internet website by June
30th of the next financial year. In respect of Articles 35 of the Financial Regulation and 21 of the Rules of
Application, the publication of the contracts is done via the Financial Transparency System (FTS) ( [5] ) which is
accessible for the public. The FTS is a web searching engine which offers the possibility to search for recipients of
European Union funds managed by the Commission under centralised management. Mandatory financial
information includes recipient's name and address (locality in the case of natural persons), the amount awarded and
the nature and purpose of the expenditure.

2. OLAF fulfils all its obligations with respect to all standing rules and regulations regarding transparency and
procurement.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2004/18/EC.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/budget/biblio/documents/regulations/regulations_en.cfm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/about-us/calls-for-tender/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ted.europa.eu/TED/main/HomePage.do
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 111

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003307/13**

**to the Commission**

**Fiona Hall (ALDE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

In 1998, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published guidelines for
limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields. In 1999, the Council published its
recommendation on the limitation of the exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300
GHz) ( [1] ), based on the limitations recommended in the ICNIRP guidelines. The Commission last reported on the
implementation of the Council’s recommendation in 2008, and in 2011 the Netherlands’ National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment published a report entitled ‘Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic
fields (power frequency and radiofrequency fields)’.

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

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

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

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

_(6 May 2013)_

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

The Commission is currently funding three projects on health impacts of EMFs ( [2] ), with a possible fourth one coming
from a currently open call, which may serve as a basis for health impact assessment research in the future. The
evaluation and measurement of effective EMF exposures are one of the main scientific questions addressed by these
projects.

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC ( [3] ) provides for clear limitations of exposure of the general public to
electromagnetic fields.

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

All assessments to date have concluded that there is no scientific rationale to revise the exposure limits. A new update
has been launched, with an expected public consultation by June 2013 ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999, p. 59.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Advanced research on interaction mechanisms of electromagnetic exposures with organisms for risk assessments (http://arimmora-fp7.eu); Risk

of brain cancer from exposure to radio frequency fields in childhood and adolescence (www.mbkds.com); Sound exposure and risk assessment of
wireless network devices (http://seawind-fp7.eu).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/electromagnetic_fields/policy/index_en.htm

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

C 12 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003308/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE) en Esther de Lange (PPE)**

_(22 maart 2013)_

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

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

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

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

1. Wat zijn de specifieke rol en opdracht van deze deskundigengroep?

2. Over welk soort kwesties geeft de groep advies?

3. Om welke adviezen heeft het CHMP gevraagd sinds de oprichting van de deskundigengroep?

4. Welke directe gevolgen heeft het bestaan van de deskundigengroep gehad voor de werkzaamheden van het
CHMP?

**Antwoord van de heer Borg namens de Commissie**

_(14 mei 2013)_

1. De Geriatric Expert Group van het Europees Geneesmiddelenbureau is opgericht om bijstand te verlenen bij de
uitvoering van de strategie van het Geneesmiddelenbureau ten aanzien van geriatrische patiënten. Op aanvraag
voorziet de deskundigengroep het Geneesmiddelenbureau van advies over aangelegenheden die verband houden met
geriatrische medicijnen en gerontologie ( [1] ).

2. Op aanvraag voorziet de deskundigengroep het Geneesmiddelenbureau van advies over aangelegenheden die
verband houden met geriatrische medicijnen en gerontologie, zoals:

—
wetenschappelijk advies over geriatrische aspecten van richtlijnen die vrijgegeven worden voor raadpleging

—
wetenschappelijk advies over specifieke geriatrische aspecten bij de ontwikkeling van geneesmiddelen, de
beoordeling van producten of over kwesties die verband houden met geneesmiddelenbewaking;

—
deskundig geriatrisch advies tijdens bijeenkomsten van het Geneesmiddelenbureau, indien nodig;

—
deelname aan andere activiteiten die verband houden met de uitvoering van de strategie van het
Geneesmiddelenbureau ten aanzien van geriatrische patiënten.

3. De deskundigengroep wordt stelselmatig verzocht om commentaar te geven op richtsnoeren. Zij heeft
veiligheids‐ en werkzaamheidstabellen ontwikkeld die sinds een jaar deel uitmaken van het model van het
beoordelingsverslag van het Geneesmiddelenbureau. Daarnaast is de deskundigengroep door het
Geneesmiddelenbureau gevraagd om bij te dragen aan zwakteanalyse tools die beschikbaar zijn voor klinisch gebruik.

4. De uitkomsten van het werk van de deskundigengroep hebben geholpen om de verwachtingen te verduidelijken
wat betreft de benodigde gegevens voor het vormen van een positieve baten/risico-verhouding van geneesmiddelen
voor ouderen. Dit wordt geïllustreerd door de aanwezigheid van een geriatrisch onderdeel in alle nieuw ontworpen
richtsnoeren.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2011/06/WC500107028.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 113

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003308/13**

**to the Commission**
**Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE) and Esther de Lange (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

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

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

1. What are the specific role and remit of this Expert Group?

2. On what kind of questions is it advising?

3. What advice has been asked for by the CHMP since the Expert Group’s inception?

4. What immediate influence has the Expert Group’s existence had on the work of the CHMP?

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

_(14 May 2013)_

1. The European Medicines Agency's Geriatric Expert Group has been established in order to assist in the
implementation of the Agency's Geriatric Medicines Strategy. The Group provides the Agency, upon request, with
scientific advice on matters relating to geriatric medicines and gerontology ( [1] ).

2. The Group provides the Agency, upon request, with scientific advice on matters relating to geriatric medicines
and gerontology, such as

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

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

—
geriatric expertise during to Agency meetings, when needed;

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

3. The group is routinely requested to comment on guidelines. It has drafted safety and efficacy tables that have
become, since a year, part of the Agency's assessment report template. In addition the group has been asked by the
Agency to input in an analysis of frailty evaluation tools available for clinical use.

4. The output of the Group's work has helped clarify the expectations in terms of data requirements necessary for
confirming a positive benefit/risk balance of medicinal products for the older population. This is exemplified by the
presence in all new guidelines drafted of a geriatric section.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2011/06/WC500107028.pdf

C 12 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003309/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(22 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Certificazione SOA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(13 maggio 2013)_

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 115

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003309/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ SOA certification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_(13 May 2013)_

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

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

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

C 12 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003310/13**

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

_(22 marzo 2013)_

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

Si fa seguito alle due precedenti interrogazioni P-009842/2011 e E-007368/2012, depositate rispettivamente in data
20 ottobre 2011 e 23 luglio 2012 in merito alla realizzanda Superstrada Pedemontana Veneta, per sottoporre
all'attenzione della Commissione i possibili profili di violazione della direttiva 2004/18/CE relativa al coordinamento
delle procedure di aggiudicazione degli appalti pubblici di lavori, di forniture e di servizi, che potrebbero
caratterizzare la convenzione di concessione di progettazione definitiva ed esecutiva, costruzione e gestione
dell'opera del 21 ottobre 2009. Convenzione della quale, come riferito nelle precedenti interrogazioni, viene
sistematicamente negata copia da parte delle autorità competenti agli espropriati e ai comitati e associazioni
costituitisi a contrasto dell'infrastruttura ( [1] ).

In base allo schema di tale convenzione, a suo tempo allegato al bando di gara, che disciplina la costruzione e gestione
della Superstrada in regime di concessione, sono previsti alcuni meccanismi volti a spostare il rischio imprenditoriale
legato all'opera dal concessionario (la Società Superstrada Pedemontana Veneta S.P.V. S.r.l.), come proprio della
forma della concessione, al concedente (la Regione Veneto ( [2] )), come avviene invece nell'appalto pubblico. In
particolare, viene previsto l'obbligo in capo al concedente di garantire l'equilibrio economico finanziario dell'accordo
nel caso in cui il concessionario consegua ricavi da pedaggio minori rispetto a quelli previsti.

Secondo la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee, proprio nell'elemento della sussistenza del
rischio in capo al concessionario risiede la distinzione tra il contratto di concessione di lavori o servizi pubblici e
quello di appalto pubblico, discrimine che, come ha chiarito la Corte stessa, va valutato esclusivamente alla stregua
del diritto comunitario ( [3] ), a garanzia della concorrenza nell'Unione europea ( [4] ). L'Italia, in particolare, è già stata
condannata in passato dalla Corte per violazione delle direttive 92/50/CEE e 93/37/CEE (ora rifuse nella direttiva
2004/18/CE) a causa del mancato rispetto delle procedure ivi previste ( [5] ).

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

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(14 maggio 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://wwwcovepa.blogspot.it/, sito del CO.VE.P.A. (Coordinamento Veneto Pedemontana Alternativa).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Come convenuto dal commissario delegato alla realizzazione del progetto Ing. Silvano Vernizzi, istituito con ordinanza n. 3802 del 15.8.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cfr. Corte di Giustizia CE, 2° sez., 18.7.2007, causa C-382/05.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Cfr. http://amministrazioneincammino.luiss.it/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/nota.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Cfr. sempre Corte di Giustizia CE, 2° sez., 18.7.2007, causa C-382/05 e Corte di Giustizia CE, 3° sez., 13.11.2008, causa C-437/07.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 117

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003310/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

Following the previous two questions — P-009842/2011 and E-007368/2012, lodged on 20 October 2011 and
23 July 2012, respectively — concerning the Pedemontana Veneta expressway, which is currently under
construction, I would draw the Commission’s attention to possible infringements of Directive 2004/18/EC on the
coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service
contracts, in the agreement of 21 October 2009 awarding the contract for the final execution plan, construction and
management of the project. As mentioned in the previous questions, the competent authorities have consistently
refused to provide copies of the agreement to the people whose properties have been subject to compulsory purchase
and the committees and associations formed to oppose the project ( [1] ).

The agreement outline, which was originally attached to the invitation to tender and governs the construction and
management of the expressway under a concession arrangement, provides for certain mechanisms designed to shift
the business risk associated with the project from the concessionaire (Società Superstrada Pedemontana Veneta S.P.V.
s.r.l.), who would normally bear it under a concession, to the contracting authority (the Veneto Regional
Government ( [2] )), as would happen instead under a public contract. In particular, the contracting authority is required
to guarantee the financial and economic stability of the agreement in the event that the concessionaire’s toll revenue is
less than expected.

According to European Court of Justice case law, the difference between works or service concessions and public
contracts lies in whether the risk is retained by the contracting authority. As the Court itself has made clear, this
distinction should be assessed purely on the basis of EC law ( [3] ) in order to safeguard competition within the EU ( [4] ).
The Court has already found Italy guilty of breaching Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/37/EEC (now recast in
Directive 2004/18/EC) by failing to comply with the procedures they laid down ( [5] ).

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

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

_(14 May 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://wwwcovepa.blogspot.it/, the CoVePA (Veneto Pedemontana Alternative Coordination) site.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) As agreed by Silvano Vernizzi, the commissioner in charge of project execution, who was appointed by Order 3802 of 15 August 2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See Court of Justice of the European Communities, Second Chamber, 18 July 2007, Case C-382/05.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See http://amministrazioneincammino.luiss.it/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/nota.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) See again Court of Justice of the European Communities, Second Chamber, 18 July 2007, Case C-382/05, and Court of Justice of the European

Communities, Third Chamber, 13 November 2008, Case C-437/07.

C 12 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003311/13**

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

_(22 marzo 2013)_

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

Il 7 marzo 2013, in Italia, a seguito di segnalazione delle organizzazioni HSI ( [1] ) e LAV ( [2] ), il Corpo Forestale dello
Stato ha effettuato un sequestro di calzature (90 pelli grezze e oltre 100 paia di scarpe) realizzate con pelli di foca,
prodotte e commercializzate da un'azienda italiana.

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

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

europea.

Nella lista di autorità riconosciute dalla Commissione e pubblicate sul sito della Direzione Generale Ambiente ( [3] ),
tuttavia, non compare alcuna autorità della Groenlandia.

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

1. Quali azioni intende intraprendere per assicurare la corretta implementazione del regolamento (CE) n.
1007/2009 e del regolamento (UE) n. 737/2010?

2. Quali azioni intende intraprendere per verificare se ci sono state altre importazioni illegali di prodotti di foca,
dal 2010 ad oggi?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(27 maggio 2013)_

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) HSI Humane Society International www.hsi.org.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) LAV Lega Anti vivisezione www.lav.it.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/animal_welfare/seals/seal_hunting.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 119

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003311/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

On 7 March 2013, in Italy, after being tipped off by the organisations HSI ( [1] ) and LAV ( [2] ), the State Forestry Corps
seized footwear (90 raw hides and over 100 pairs of shoes made out of seal hide) manufactured and marketed by an
Italian firm.

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

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

However, on the list of authorities recognised by the Commission and published on the website of the DirectorateGeneral for the Environment ( [3] ), there are none from Greenland.

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

1. What action will the Commission take to ensure the proper implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009
and Regulation (EU) No 737/2010?

2. What action will the Commission take to check whether there have been any other illegal imports of seal
products since 2010?

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

_(27 May 2013)_

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

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) HSI Humane Society International www.hsi.org
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) LAV Lega Anti Vivisezione www.lav.it
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/animal_welfare/seals/seal_hunting.htm

C 12 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003312/13**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(22 marca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Obywatelka Polski bezprawnie przetrzymywana na terenie Białorusi

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

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

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

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

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

**Komisji**
_(23 maja 2013 r.)_

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 121

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003312/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Polish woman unlawfully held in Belarus

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

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

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

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

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

_(23 May 2013)_

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

C 12 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003313/13**

**to the Commission**

**Julie Girling (ECR)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Delay in signing off shark finning ban

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

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

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

_(17 April 2013)_

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 123

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003314/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(22 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Turismo náutico — Aplicación del IEDMT en España

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

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

1. ¿Ha analizado la Comisión la aplicación del IEDMT en España tal como afirmaba en la respuesta a la pregunta
E-003584/2011?

2. ¿Considera necesario la Comisión modificar la legislación española de manera que sea compatible con el
Derecho de la UE?

3. ¿Qué opina la Comisión respecto de la aplicación del criterio de proporcionalidad en la aplicación del IEDMT?

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

_(24 de abril de 2013)_

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

C 12 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003314/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Maritime tourism — Application of IEDMT in Spain

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

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

1. Has the Commission assessed the application of the IEDMT in Spain as it stated it would in its answer to
Question E-003584/2011?

2. Does it believe that Spanish law must be amended to be compatible with EC law?

3. What is its opinion regarding the application of the proportionality criterion in the operation of this special tax?

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

_(24 April 2013)_

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 125

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003315/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(22. März 2013)_

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

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

1. Wie ist der aktuelle Stand der eingeleiteten Prüfung?

2. Wann können die betroffenen Stromverbraucher mit einer Entscheidung rechnen?

3. Teilt die Kommission die Auffassung, dass die Besonderheiten der großen Stromverbraucher bzw. der
stromintensiven Unternehmen berücksichtigt werden müssen, und, wenn ja, wie werden diese Besonderheiten
berücksichtigt?

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

_(11. Juni 2013)_

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

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

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

C 12 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003315/13**

**to the Commission**
**Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

1. What is the current status of the inquiry that has been opened?

2. When can the electricity consumers concerned expect a decision?

3. Does the Commission agree that the particular characteristics of large electricity consumers or electro-intensive
undertakings need to be taken into account and, if so, how will this be done?

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

_(11 June 2013)_

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 127

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003316/13**

**à la Commission**
**Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ U-Multirank

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

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

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

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Vassiliou au nom de la Commission**

_(7 mai 2013)_

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

C 12 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003316/13**

**to the Commission**
**Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ U-Multirank

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

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

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

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

_(7 May 2013)_

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 129

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003317/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)**

_(22 marzo 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

Alla luce di quanto sopra l'interrogante chiede:

1. se risponde al vero che il governo italiano ha scritto alla Commissione in data 11 febbraio 2013 e, in caso
affermativo, in che termini;

2. se, a fronte di detta missiva e del mancato adeguamento nei termini previsti, la Commissione ritiene necessario
proseguire con la procedura di infrazione per violazione del diritto dell'Unione secondo l'articolo 258 del
TFUE, ai fini di un corretto recepimento della direttiva 89/391/CEE;

3. se è vero che, sempre in relazione alla presunta violazione della direttiva 89/391/CEE, è stata depositata una
nuova denuncia nel febbraio 2012, e, in caso affermativo, a che punto è la procedura.

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(22 maggio 2013)_

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

1. La Commissione non ha ricevuto dalle autorità italiane nessuna comunicazione datata 11 febbraio 2013
relativa a detta procedura di infrazione.

2. La procedura di infrazione è in corso. Le autorità italiane hanno risposto al parere motivato della Commissione
con lettera del 24 gennaio 2013, che è stata tradotta ed è attualmente in corso di analisi ad opera dei servizi
competenti.

3. Il 24 febbraio 2012 la Commissione ha ricevuto un'altra denuncia in merito a una presunta violazione della
direttiva 89/391/CEE. Tale denuncia è stata passata al sistema EU Pilot e, tramite tale sistema, l'11 dicembre 2012 è
stata trasmessa una lettera alle autorità italiane.

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

C 12 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003317/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Whether it is true that the Italian Government wrote to the Commission on 11 February 2013 and, if so, in
what terms?

2. Given that letter and the failure to make the necessary changes in the allotted time, whether the Commission
considers it necessary to continue the infringement proceedings for the breach of EC law under Article 258
TFEU, with a view to the proper implementation of Directive 89/391/EEC?

3. Whether it is true that a further complaint in connection with the alleged breach of Directive 89/391/EEC was
made in February 2012 and, if so, what stage the procedure has now reached?

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

_(22 May 2013)_

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

1. The Commission has received no communication from the Italian authorities dated 11 February 2013 and
relating to that infringement procedure.

2. The infringement procedure is in progress. The Italian authorities replied to the Commission’s reasoned opinion
by letter of 24 January 2013, which has been translated and is currently being analysed by the competent
departments.

3. On 24 February 2012 the Commission received another complaint regarding an alleged breach of
Directive 89/391/EEC. That complaint was transferred to the EU Pilot system and a letter was sent to the Italian
authorities via that system on 11 December 2012.

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 131

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003318/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Eleni Theocharous (PPE) και Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(22 Μαρτίου 2013)_

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

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

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

**Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(7 Μαΐου 2013)_

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

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

C 12 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003318/13**

**to the Commission**
**Eleni Theocharous (PPE) and Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(22 March 2013)_

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

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

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

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

_(7 May 2013)_

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 133

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003319/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(22 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρόγραμμα επανένταξης εργαζομένων

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

1. Πόσο σύντομα μπορεί να καταρτίσει ένα ειδικό πρόγραμμα επανένταξης εργαζομένων (tailor-made) του τραπεζικού
τομέα στην Κύπρο, χρηματοδοτούμενο από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο;

2. Θα μπορούσε να καταρτιστεί ένα ίδιο πρόγραμμα και για τους εργαζόμενους στον τραπεζικό τομέα της Ελλάδας;

**Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(8 Μαΐου 2013)_

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

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

C 12 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003319/13**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(22 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Worker reintegration programme

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

1. How quickly could it prepare a special worker reintegration programme tailor-made to the banking sector and
financed by the European Social Fund?

2. Could it also prepare a tailor-made programme for workers in the banking sector in Greece?

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

_(8 May 2013)_

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 135

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-003321/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Richard Seeber (PPE)**

_(25. März 2013)_

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

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

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

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

_(29. April 2013)_

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

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

C 12 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003321/13**

**to the Commission**
**Richard Seeber (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

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

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

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

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

_(29 April 2013)_

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 137

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003322/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Gestión de los bosques

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

1. ¿Ha hablado la Comisión con el Reino de España sobre este asunto?

2. ¿En qué fase se encuentra el proceso, teniendo en cuenta que el Reino de España no está cumpliendo la Directiva
marco sobre el agua?

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

_(21 de mayo de 2013)_

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

El «Plan para salvaguardar los recursos hídricos de Europa» ( [1] ) propone una serie de acciones para favorecer la
adopción de medidas de retención natural de agua en la segunda ronda de planes hidrológicos de cuenca que deben
ser adoptados por los Estados miembros en 2015. Las medidas de retención natural de agua incluyen actuaciones que
abordan el papel de los bosques para proteger los recursos hídricos. Las acciones propuestas en el Plan incluyen la
elaboración de orientaciones en el marco de la estrategia común de aplicación de la Directiva Marco del Agua ( [2] ) de
aquí a 2014. Dichas orientaciones también abarcarán la integración de los servicios ecosistémicos en la aplicación de
la Directiva Marco del Agua teniendo en cuenta la cartografía de los ecosistemas y sus servicios.

Todos los Estados miembros discutieron las propuestas del Plan en el Consejo, que adoptó sus Conclusiones a este
respecto el 17 de diciembre de 2012 ( [3] ).

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0673:FIN:ES:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 2000/60/CE, DO L 327 de 22.12.2000.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Doc. 17872/12.

C 12 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003322/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Forest management

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

1. Has the Commission contacted Spain about this issue?

2. At what stage is the process, given that Spain does not comply with the Water Framework Directive?

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

_(21 May 2013)_

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

The ‘Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources’ ( [1] ) proposes actions to support the uptake of Natural Water
Retention Measures (NWRM) in the second River Basin Management Plans to be adopted by Member States in 2015.
NWRMs include measures that address the role of forests to protect water resources. The actions proposed by the
Blueprint include the development of guidance under the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) ( [2] ) by 2014. This guidance will also cover the integration of ecosystems services into
WFD implementation taking into account the mapping of the ecosystems and their services.

The Blueprint proposals have been discussed by all Member States in the Council which adopted Conclusions on it on
17 December 2012 ( [3] ).

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

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0673:FIN:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Doc. 17872/12.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 139

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003323/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Límites a los depósitos

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

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

1. ¿No cree la Comisión que esta norma supone una vulneración de la libre competencia en el sector bancario?

2. ¿No cree la Comisión que esta medida puede dar incentivos a los ahorradores no expertos para tomar riesgos
excesivos con otros productos financieros?

3. ¿Cree la Comisión que la decisión del Banco de España está relacionada con una voluntad política del Gobierno
español de empujar a los ahorradores españoles a comprar deuda pública del Estado?

4. ¿Cree la Comisión que el Banco de España no debería interferir en el tipo de interés que ofrezcan las entidades
bancarias no nacionalizadas?

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

_(30 de mayo de 2013)_

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elconfidencial.com/mercados/2013/01/14/el-limite-a-los-depositos-llevara-la-prima-a-200-puntos-basicos-8026

C 12 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003323/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Deposit limits

The Bank of Spain has decided to limit remuneration on one-year deposits to 1.75%, on two-year deposits to 2.25%
and on longer-term deposits to 2.75% ( [1] ). This decision will render other financial instruments more attractive and
will encourage Spanish savers to take risks. Annual inflation stands at around 2.75% and savers are therefore losing
money in real terms.

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

1. Does the Commission not believe that this rule is a breach of free competition in the banking sector?

2. Might this measure encourage non-expert savers to take excessive risks with other financial products?

3. Does it believe that the Bank of Spain’s decision is related to the Spanish Government’s political will to
encourage Spanish savers to buy government debt?

4. Should the Bank of Spain interfere in the interest rate offered by non-nationalised banks?

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

_(30 May 2013)_

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elconfidencial.com/mercados/2013/01/14/el-limite-a-los-depositos-llevara-la-prima-a-200-puntos-basicos-8026

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 141

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-003324/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Jens Rohde (ALDE)**

_(25. marts 2013)_

_Om:_ Godkendelse af dansk støtte til biogas

Den 22. marts 2012 indgik en række danske partier et energiforlig, som skal sikre Danmark en fremtidig
energiforsyning dækket af vedvarende energi. Aftalen fastlægger de energipolitiske initiativer fra 2012-2020. Aftalen
indebærer bl.a. en ambitiøs udbygning med biogas, som betyder, at den samlede støtte til biogas, der anvendes til
kraftvarme eller sendes ud i naturgasnettet, beløber sig til 115 DKK/GJ ( [1] ).

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

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

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

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

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Joaquin Almunia**

_(27. juni 2013)_

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.kemin.dk/Documents/Presse/2012/Energiaftale/Aftale%2022-03-2012 %20FINAL.docpdf.

C 12 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003324/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jens Rohde (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Approval of Danish aid for biogas

On 22 March 2012, a number of Danish parties entered into an energy agreement intended to safeguard Denmark’s
future energy supply covered by renewable energy. The agreement establishes the energy policy initiatives for 2012‐
2020. It includes, among other things, an ambitious expansion of biogas, which means that the total aid for biogas
used for combined heat and power or distributed in the natural gas network will amount to DKK 115/GJ ( [1] ).

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

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

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

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

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

_(27 June 2013)_

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.kemin.dk/Documents/Presse/2012/Energiaftale/Aftale%2022-03-2012%20FINAL.docpdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 143

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003325/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Norbert Neuser (S&D)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-Beihilfeverfahren Rennstrecke „Nürburgring“

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

Vor diesem Hintergrund frage ich die Kommission:

1. Ist es seitens der Kommission denkbar, dass die eigentliche Rennstrecke, insbesondere im Hinblick auf die oben
gemachten Angaben, vom geplanten Verkaufsprozess ausgenommen werden kann?

2. Wenn ja, ist es korrekt, dass die notwendige Ausschreibung der Rennstrecke entfallen würde und sich die
Ausschreibung lediglich auf die anderen wirtschaftlichen Gebäudeteile beziehen würde?

3. Wenn die Kommission die Rennstrecke vom Verkauf nicht ausnehmen sollte, wäre dann eine gesetzliche
Klausel in den Verkaufsverträgen, nämlich den öffentlichen Zugang zur Rennstrecke für den Breitensport zu
wahren, mit den EU-Rechtsvorschriften vereinbar?

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

_(13. Mai 2013)_

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

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

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

C 12 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003325/13**

**to the Commission**
**Norbert Neuser (S&D)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU State aid procedure — ‘Nürburgring’ race track

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

1. Is it conceivable from the Commission’s point of view, in particular in view of the information given above, for
the race track itself to be excluded from the planned sale?

2. If so, is it correct that the necessary invitation to bid for the race track would not be issued and that the
invitation to bid would only relate to the other commercial building units?

3. If the Commission were to exclude the race track from the sale, would a legal clause in the transaction contracts,
namely one securing public access to the race track for grassroots sports, be compatible with EU legislation?

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

_(13 May 2013)_

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 145

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003326/13**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Stihler (S&D)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Avoidance of EU tax duty

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

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

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

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

_(6 May 2013)_

The VP/HR's position with regard to the first two questions can be found in answer to Written Question
E-244/2013 ( [1] ).

As regards the third question, the Commission would like to point out that a technical arrangement between the EU
and Israel is in place since 1 January 2005 the aim of which is to avoid that products originating in territories beyond
Israel's pre-1967 borders benefit, upon importation in the EU, from preferential customs tariff treatment under the
EU-Israel Association Agreement. More information on that technical arrangement can be found at the following
Internet address ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/preferential/israel_ta_en.htm

C 12 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003328/13**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increase of registration fee by Antwerp City Council

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

Could the Commission confirm:

1. whether it is aware of this proposed increase;

2. if so, whether this fee increase is in breach of the EU’s policy of free movement for its citizens;

3. whether it will be seeking an explanation from Antwerp City Council as to why it has decided it needs a higher
fee?

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

_(21 May 2013)_

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 147

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003330/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 marzo 2013)_

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

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

Tenuto conto del fatto che:

—
tramite quotidiani e articoli online sono ampiamente disponibili informazioni sul finanziamento delle ONG,
ma i documenti continuano a essere tenuti segreti o non vengono aggiornati per considerazioni di pubblica
sicurezza,

—
al contrario, i documenti relativi a sovvenzioni erogate per paesi quali l'Angola, la Somalia o lo Sri Lanka sono
facilmente accessibili,

—
la ricerca eseguita attira l'attenzione sul coinvolgimento di alcune ONG che ricevono finanziamenti dalla
Commissione in boicottaggi contro Israele e campagne a favore del conflitto,

—
non vi è alcuna certezza che gli aiuti stanziati a queste ONG in futuro non avranno l'effetto di supportare o
incoraggiare violenze contrarie ai valori europei di democrazia, libertà e tolleranza,

può la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

1. Quali criteri sono applicati impiegati per giustificare le differenze a livello di apertura e trasparenza nell'accesso
ai documenti relativi ai programmi di finanziamento dell'UE nel caso dei paesi summenzionati?

2. Su quali basi si decide che alcuni documenti sono _sensibili_ ?

3. A suo parere, risulta necessario accertare che le informazioni legate alla fase di valutazione della procedura di
finanziamento siano già state rese pubbliche?

**Risposta congiunta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(11 giugno 2013)_

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

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

Riguardo alle informazioni fornite sui finanziamenti, alle procedure seguite e alle decisioni prese in tale ambito, la
Commissione rimanda gli onorevoli parlamentari al testo della sentenza in questione per ulteriori dettagli sulle
argomentazioni presentate e le conclusioni motivate della Corte ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=T-17/10&td=ALL

C 12 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

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

La Commissione invita inoltre gli onorevoli parlamentari a prendere visione della risposta all'interrogazione
E-003077/13 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 149

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-003386/13**

**komissiolle**
**Sari Essayah (PPE)**
_(25. maaliskuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Eräiden kansalaisjärjestöjen EU-rahoituksen avoimuuden parantaminen

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

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

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

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

**Štefan Fülen komission puolesta antama yhteinen vastaus**

_(11. kesäkuuta 2013)_

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

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

Rahoituksesta annettuun tietoon sekä siihen liittyviin menettelyihin ja tehtyihin päätöksiin liittyen komissio pyytää
arvoisia parlamentin jäseniä tutustumaan kyseisen päätöksen tekstiin, josta ilmenevät esitettyjen väitteiden
yksityiskohdat ja tuomioistuimen perustellut päätelmät ( [1] ).

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

Komissio myös pyytää arvoisia parlamentin jäseniä tutustumaan vastaukseen, jonka se antoi
kysymykseen E-003077/2013 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=T-17/10&td=ALL
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fi/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003330/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 March 2013)_

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

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

Taking into account that:

—
documents on NGO funding are widely available through newspapers and Internet articles, but continue to be
kept secret or are not fully updated because of public safety concerns;

—
by contrast, documents pertaining to grants for countries such as Angola, Somalia or Sri Lanka are easily
accessible;

—
the research undertaken draws attention to the involvement of some NGOs which are recipients of
Commission funding in anti-Israel boycotts and pro-war campaigns;

—
there is no certainty that aid granted to these NGOs in the future will not have the effect of supporting or
encouraging violence that runs counter to the European values of democracy, freedom and tolerance;

can the Commission state:

1. what criteria are used to justify the differences in access to openness and transparency as regards documents
relating to EU funding programs in the cases of the countries mentioned above;

2. on what grounds it decides that certain materials are ‘sensitive’;

3. whether it believes it needs to ensure that the information related to the evaluation phase of the funding
process have already been made public?

**Question for written answer E-003386/13**

**to the Commission**

**Sari Essayah (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Improvements to the transparency of EU funding for certain NGOs

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 151

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

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

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

**Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

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

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

Concerning the information provided on funding and procedures and decisions taken in this regard, the Commission
refers the Honourable Members to the text of the judgment in question for details of the arguments presented and the
reasoned conclusions of the Court ( [1] ).

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

The Commission also refers the Honourable Members to its reply to Question E 003077/13 ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&jur=C,T,F&num=T-17/10&td=ALL
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

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

**Komisijai**
**Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE)**

_(2013 m. kovo 25 d.)_

_Tema:_ ES ir Armėnijos bendradarbiavimas

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

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

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

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

1. Kokių taisomųjų veiksmų ketina imtis Komisija, siekdama užkirsti kelią šiai padėčiai ir tikrai dar kartą įtraukti
Armėnijos valdžios institucijas į ES patariamosios grupės sprendimų priėmimo procesą?

2. Kaip Komisija ketina stebėti, kaip ES delegacija vadovauja šiam pavyzdiniam projektui, kad išvengtų tokių
neatsakingų veiksmų, kurie visiškai prieštarauja mūsų draugiškų santykių dvasiai?

3. Kaip galima sustiprinti šią veiksmingą bendradarbiavimo priemonę?

**Š. Füle atsakymas Komisijos vardu**

_(2013 m. gegužės 30 d.)_

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

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

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

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

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 153

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003331/13**

**to the Commission**
**Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU-Armenia cooperation

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

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

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

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

1. What remedial action is the Commission going to take to stop this situation and genuinely involve Armenian
state institutions once again in the EU Advisory Group’s decision‐making process?

2. How is the Commission going to monitor the EU Delegation’s management of this flagship project in order to
avoid such irresponsible actions, which are absolutely contrary to the spirit of our friendly relations?

3. How can this effective cooperation tool be reinforced?

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

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission agrees that the EU Advisory Group (EUAG) has been an important cooperation instrument in the
EU's relations with Armenia. Like all measures supported by EU financial assistance, it should be the subject of
appropriate management and evaluation procedures.

The involvement of the Armenian authorities has been ensured in the framework of the EUAG Advisory Board which
meets on a quarterly basis and takes decisions in line with its mandate. Within its framework, the beneficiaries have
been consulted on reports and work plans, and have also participated in all recruitment committees. The EUAG has
also recently established regular working meetings to prepare the Advisory Board.

The mandate of the EU Delegation in the management and oversight of the project is clearly defined, as is that of the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as the implementing partner. The Commission receives regular
reports from the EU Delegation on the implementation of the project, and these demonstrate consistent and diligent
management. The EUAG has certainly not lost all key advisors: following two recent resignations, the EUAG has
quickly launched appropriate recruitment procedures.

In view of the forthcoming new contractual relationship between the EU and Armenia, governed by the Association
Agreement, the EU is taking steps to ensure that the advisory support to Armenia provides an effective response to
newly emerging needs. As an example, an additional post attached to the National Assembly has been published in
order to assist the Armenian parliament in increasing its institutional capacities, with a view to tackling the complex
task of approximation to the EU legislation.

C 12 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003332/13**

**to the Commission**
**Arlene McCarthy (S&D)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Non-bank finance

Effective competition in the EU’s banking sector is necessary to ensure a well-functioning and efficient sector which
funds the real economy by reducing the cost of banking services. In 2011, a British local entrepreneur set up a
company which acts as a link between savers and borrowers. The company is an innovative peer-to-peer lending
scheme that enables people who have struggled to obtain finance from high-street banks to obtain affordable loans,
and offers 5% AER on loan repayments. All borrowing and lending transactions are entered into in the company’s
office following a face-to-face interview. The company holds a consumer credit licence with the Office of Fair Trading,
but is not regulated by the Financial Services Authority as its activities do not fall within the regulatory framework.

Is the Commission aware of any examples of innovative financing companies being set up across the EU?

What action can the Commission take to promote such innovative models across Europe?

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

_(17 May 2013)_

Peer-to-peer lending schemes fall under the general concept of crowdfunding, where financing of various projects are
channelled through open calls to the wider public. Promoters of an initiative can collect funds ( [1] ) directly or use a
web-based intermediary which will assist in promotion and collecting funds.

While crowdfunding may constitute a financing source, especially for small firms or local projects, it may also carry
some risks in terms of fraud or investor protection. Due to the dynamic nature of this phenomenon, the Commission
considers it too early to judge whether a specific regulatory framework for these activities is needed. It might,
however, monitor market ( [2] ) and national legal developments and assess whether the subsidiarity and proportionality
conditions of any EU action would be fulfilled.

The recent ‘Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan’ ( [3] ) contains an invitation for Member States to assess the need to
amend current national financial legislation with the aim of facilitating new, alternative forms of financing for startups and SMEs in general, in particular as regards platforms for crowdfunding.

The recent Commission Staff Working Document ‘Strengthening the environment for Web entrepreneurs in the
EU’ ( [4] ) includes an action aimed at supporting a network of European crowdfunding platforms in view of providing
support, visibility, transparency and interconnectivity among existing EU platforms, including those specialised in
Web start-ups.

More generally, the recent Commission Green Paper on long-term financing of the European economy ( [5] ) recognises
the need to reflect further on how to diversify the financing system in Europe to ensure it better supports the real
economy, without jeopardising financial stability ( [6] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) In the form of loans, donations, sponsoring or investments.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The Commission has taken initial steps in this direction: a stock-taking of crowdfunding market developments has been the subject of a

workshop, jointly organised by DG Enterprise and DG CNECT, in November 2012. Discussions on the regulatory aspects have also taken place
with the US government in the framework of the Transatlantic Economic Council. DG Internal Market will organise a workshop in Brussels on
June 3rd 2013, with the aim of further exploring the development of crowdfunding.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 795 final, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/public-consultation/files/report-pub-cons-entr2020-ap_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SWD(2013) 142 final.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 150 final (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013DC0150:EN:NOT).
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Building on the 2011 Commission Action Plan to improve access to finance for SMEs (http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/finance/files/com
2011-870_en.pdf), the Green Paper includes and is consulting on a number of additional innovative ideas that could further ease access to finance
for these types of enterprises.

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 155

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003334/13**

**aan de Raad**
**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ NAVO-handboek inzake cyberoorlogvoering en de EU-strategie inzake cyberveiligheid

Op 21 maart 2013 werd er op de website „The Verge” melding gemaakt ( [1] ) van een nieuw document van de NAVO
over cyberdefensie, namelijk het „Handboek van Tallinn over het internationale recht toepasselijk op
cyberoorlogvoering” ( [2] ) (het handboek van Tallinn). Hierin wordt het internationale recht vermeld dat van toepassing
is op cyberoorlogvoering en worden aanbevelingen gedaan voor vergeldingsacties — onder meer met gebruik van
traditionele wapens — en aanvallen op hackers die pogingen hebben gedaan om in computernetwerken in te breken.
Op 7 februari 2013 stelde de Commissie de cyberveiligheidsstrategie van de Europese Unie (de cyberstrategie) ( [3] )
voor, opgesteld door de commissaris voor de digitale agenda, de commissaris voor binnenlandse zaken en de
vicevoorzitter van de Commissie/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de Unie voor buitenlandse zaken en veiligheidsbeleid.
In scherpe tegenstelling met het handboek van Tallinn omvat de cyberstrategie geen enkel concreet voorstel met
betrekking tot het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid van de EU noch betreffende de ontwikkeling van
offensieve cyberverdedigingscapaciteiten of regels inzake het in de aanval gaan in het kader van cyberoorlogvoering.
Kan de Raad antwoord geven op de volgende vragen?

1. Wat is de rechtspositie van het handboek van Tallinn?

2. Was de Raad betrokken bij de opstelling van het handboek van Tallinn of is hij in het kader van de opstelling
van dit handboek geraadpleegd?

3. Wat is de betekenis van het handboek van Tallinn voor de EU in het licht van het strategische partnerschap
tussen de EU en de NAVO?

4. Zal de Raad voorstellen om het het handboek van Tallinn integraal in de cyberstrategie op te nemen? Zo niet,
wat is dan het verband tussen de twee documenten?

5. De meeste lidstaten van de EU zijn eveneens lid van de NAVO. Is de Raad het eens met de stelling dat het
handboek van Tallinn een grote impact zal hebben op het beleid inzake cyberdefensie, ‐oorlogvoering en ‐veiligheid
van de landen die zowel lid zijn van de EU als van de NAVO, en bijgevolg op het desbetreffende beleid van de EU als
geheel?

6. Wat vindt de Raad van de stelling dat „het doden van hackers in de context van cyberoorlogvoering
gerechtvaardigd is”?

7. Is de Raad van mening dat de EU-lidstaten op het vlak van cyberveiligheid en ‐defensie een offensief beleid en
vergeldingsmaatregelen moeten uitwerken?

8. Is de Raad bereid conclusies goed te keuren over de toepasselijkheid van traditionele juridische concepten op het
internet, in de context van de op digitale wijze eengemaakte wereld, in het bijzonder voor wat betreft het definiëren en
toeschrijven van oorlogshandelingen en de toepasselijkheid van het internationale recht in de context van
cyberoorlogvoering? Zo niet, waarom niet?

9. Hoe wil de Raad een evenwicht vinden tussen de veiligstelling van digitale vrijheden enerzijds, zoals beschreven
in de resolutie van het Europees Parlement van 11 december 2012 over een strategie voor digitale vrijheid in het
buitenlands beleid van de EU, en cyberveiligheid en ‐defensie anderzijds?

**Antwoord**
_(9 juli 2013)_

Het handboek van Tallinn is door onafhankelijke internationale deskundigen opgesteld op verzoek van het
Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence van de NAVO. Het handboek, dat geen officiële status heeft en
evenmin de standpunten van de NAVO weerspiegelt, behelst een analyse door deskundigen van de toepasselijkheid
van het bestaande internationale recht inzake cyber‐oorlogvoering.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://issuu.com/nato_ccd_coe/docs/tallinnmanual?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&show

FlipBtn=true

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_comm_en.pdf

( **|**

C 12 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

Geen enkele EU-instelling is betrokken of geraadpleegd bij de opstelling van het handboek van Tallinn.

In het kader van het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid (GVDB) heeft het Europees Defensieagentschap
(EDA) een projectteam voor cyberverdediging ingesteld, dat bestaat uit EDA‐personeel en vertegenwoordigers uit de
deelnemende lidstaten, en dat als taak heeft om in verband met het GVDB vermogens op het gebied van
cyberverdediging te ontwikkelen. Daarnaast heeft het Militair Comité van de EU in 2012 zijn goedkeuring gehecht
aan een „EU-concept voor cyber‐verdediging voor door de EU geleide operaties”.

In de gezamenlijke mededeling van de HV en de Commissie van 7 februari 2013 over de EU‐strategie inzake
cyberbeveiliging: een open, veilige en beveiligde cyberspace, wordt nader ingegaan op de vraag hoe er kan worden
gezorgd voor een veilige digitale omgeving waarbij de grondrechten worden geëerbiedigd en bevorderd en de
vrijheden in de digitale wereld worden beschermd. De Raad beraadt zich momenteel op basis van die mededeling op
de problematiek van cyberbeveiliging, en kan de vragen van het geachte Parlementslid dan ook niet beantwoorden
zolang de besprekingen niet zijn afgerond.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 157

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003334/13**

**to the Council**
**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ NATO cyber warfare manual and the EU's cybersecurity strategy

On 21 March 2013 the website ‘The Verge’ reported ( [1] ) on a new NATO document on cyber defence, the Tallinn
Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare ( [2] ). The Tallinn Manual identifies the international law
applicable to cyber warfare and includes recommendations for retaliatory conduct, including the use of traditional
weapons, and attacks against hackers who have perpetrated attacks. On 7 February 2013 the Commission presented
the Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union ( [3] ), a joint effort by the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, the
Commissioner for Home Affairs and the Vice-President/High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
In sharp contrast to the Tallinn Manual, the Cybersecurity Strategy does not include any concrete proposals
concerning the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy or the development of offensive cyber defence capabilities
or of rules of engagement for cyber warfare. Can the Council answer the following questions?

1. What is the status of the Tallinn Manual?

2. Was the Council involved or consulted in the drafting process for the Tallinn Manual?

3. In view of the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO, what is the significance of the Tallinn Manual
for the EU?

4. Will the Council suggest including the Tallinn Manual as an integral part of the Cybersecurity Strategy? If not,
how do the two documents relate to one another?

5. Does the Council agree that, since most of the Member States are also members of NATO, the Tallinn Manual
will heavily influence the cyber defence, warfare and security policies of the dual-membership states and therefore of
the EU as a whole?

6. What is the Council’s assessment of the statement that ‘killing hackers in cyber warfare is justified’?

7. Does the Council agree that the Member States should develop offensive or retaliatory policies in the context of
cyber security and defence?

8. Is the Council willing to adopt conclusions on the applicability of traditional concepts of jurisdiction online, in
the context of the globally digital connected world, and especially in terms of attribution, the definition of acts of war
and the applicability of international law in cyber warfare? If not, why not?

9. How will the Council strike a balance between securing digital freedoms, as set out in Parliament’s resolution of
11 December 2012 on a digital freedom strategy in EU foreign policy, and cyber security and defence?

**Reply**
_(9 July 2013)_

The Tallinn Manual has been prepared by independent international experts at the invitation of the NATO
Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. This manual, which has no official status and does not represent
NATO's views, constitutes an expert analysis of the applicability of existing international law to cyber warfare.

No EU institution was involved or consulted in the process of drafting the Tallinn Manual.

Within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), the European Defence Agency (EDA) has set up a Cyber
Defence Project Team which includes EDA staff and representatives of participating Member States and aims to
develop cyber defence capabilities related to CSDP. In addition, in 2012 the EU Military Committee approved an ‘EU
Concept for Cyber Defence for EU-led military operations’.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://issuu.com/nato_ccd_coe/docs/tallinnmanual?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&show

FlipBtn=true

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_comm_en.pdf

( **|**

C 12 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

The joint HR/Commission Communication on the EU Strategy on Cybersecurity: An Open, Safe and Secure
Cyberspace, adopted on 7 February 2013, addresses the issue of how to ensure a secure digital environment while
respecting and promoting fundamental rights and the protection of freedoms online. The Council is currently
discussing the issue of Cybersecurity on the basis of this communication, and cannot therefore respond to the issues
raised in the Honourable Member's question until these discussions have been concluded.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 159

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003335/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ NAVO-handboek inzake cyberoorlogvoering en de EU-strategie inzake cyberveiligheid

Op 21 maart 2013 werd er op de website „The Verge” melding gemaakt ( [1] ) van een nieuw document van de NAVO
over cyberdefensie, namelijk het „Handboek van Tallinn over het internationale recht toepasselijk op
cyberoorlogvoering” ( [2] ) (het handboek van Tallinn). Hierin wordt het internationale recht vermeld dat van toepassing
is op cyberoorlogvoering en worden aanbevelingen gedaan voor vergeldingsacties — onder meer met gebruik van
traditionele wapens — en aanvallen tegen hackers die pogingen hebben gedaan om in computernetwerken in te
breken. Op 7 februari 2013 stelde de Commissie de cyberveiligheidsstrategie van de Europese Unie (de
cyberstrategie) ( [3] ) voor, opgesteld door de commissaris voor de digitale agenda, de commissaris voor binnenlandse
zaken en de vicevoorzitter van de Commissie/hoge vertegenwoordiger van de Unie voor buitenlandse zaken en
veiligheidsbeleid. In scherpe tegenstelling met het handboek van Tallinn omvat de cyberstrategie geen enkel concreet
voorstel met betrekking tot het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid van de EU noch betreffende de
ontwikkeling van offensieve cyberverdedigingscapaciteiten of regels inzake het in de aanval gaan in het kader van
cyberoorlogvoering. Kan de Commissie antwoord geven op de volgende vragen?

1. Wat is de rechtspositie van het handboek van Tallinn?

2. Was de Commissie en met name de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger betrokken bij de opstelling van het
handboek van Tallinn of is de Commissie en met name de vicevoorzitter/hoge vertegenwoordiger in het kader van de
opstelling van dit handboek geraadpleegd?

3. Wat is de betekenis van het handboek van Tallinn voor de EU in het licht van het strategische partnerschap
tussen de EU en de NAVO?

4. Is de Commissie van plan om het handboek van Tallinn integraal in de cyberstrategie op te nemen? Zo niet, wat
is dan het verband tussen de twee documenten?

5. De meeste lidstaten van de EU zijn eveneens lid van de NAVO. Is de Commissie het eens met de stelling dat het
handboek van Tallinn een grote impact zal hebben op het beleid inzake cyberdefensie, ‐oorlogvoering en ‐veiligheid
van de landen die zowel lid zijn van de EU als van de NAVO, en bijgevolg op het desbetreffende beleid van de EU als
geheel?

6. Wat vindt de Commissie van de stelling dat „het doden van hackers in de context van cyberoorlogvoering
gerechtvaardigd is”?

7. Is de Commissie van mening dat de EU-lidstaten op het vlak van cyberveiligheid en ‐defensie een offensief beleid
en vergeldingsmaatregelen moeten uitwerken? Indien ja, waarom heeft de Commissie dan geen concrete voorstellen
hiertoe gedaan in de cyberstrategie?

8. Is de Commissie bereid een mededeling op te stellen over de toepasselijkheid van traditionele juridische
concepten op het internet, in de context van de op digitale wijze eengemaakte wereld, in het bijzonder voor wat
betreft het definiëren en toeschrijven van oorlogshandelingen en de toepasselijkheid van het internationale recht in de
context van cyberoorlogvoering? Zo niet, waarom niet?

9. Hoe wil de Commissie een evenwicht vinden tussen de veiligstelling van digitale vrijheden enerzijds, zoals
beschreven in de resolutie van het Europees Parlement van 11 december 2012 over een strategie voor digitale vrijheid
in het buitenlands beleid van de EU, en cyberveiligheid en ‐defensie anderzijds?

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://issuu.com/nato_ccd_coe/docs/tallinnmanual?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&show

FlipBtn=true

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_comm_en.pdf

( **|**

C 12 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(11 juni 2013)_

Het Handboek van Tallinn is door onafhankelijke deskundigen opgesteld op verzoek van het Cooperative Cyber
Defence Centre of Excellence van de Noord-Atlantische Verdragsorganisatie (NAVO). Dit handboek heeft geen
officiële status en bevat een academische analyse van de toepasselijkheid van het bestaande internationale
humanitaire recht op cyberoorlogsvoering.

Bij de opstelling van het Handboek van Tallinn werd geen EU-instelling betrokken of geraadpleegd. De definities van
de begrippen „gebruik van geweld” en „jurisdictie in de cyberruimte” worden in de lidstaten door deskundigen op het
gebied van internationaal recht geanalyseerd. Indien de lidstaten daarom verzoeken en indien zij een mandaat krijgen
van de Raad, kunnen de Commissie en de Europese Dienst voor extern optreden (EDEO) in de toekomst aan
dergelijke discussies deelnemen.

Binnen het gemeenschappelijk veiligheids‐ en defensiebeleid (GVDB) heeft het Europees Defensieagentschap een
cyberdefensieteam samengesteld dat wordt voorgezeten door en bestaat uit de lidstaten en dat is gericht op de
ontwikkeling van capaciteit inzake cyberverdediging met betrekking tot het GVDB.

In het Handboek van Tallinn staat niet het probleem van hackers centraal, maar wordt onder meer de behandeling
van strijders tijdens gewapende conflicten overeenkomstig de beginselen van het internationale humanitaire recht
besproken.

De gezamenlijke mededeling van de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter en de Commissie over de „Strategie
inzake cyberbeveiliging van de Europese Unie: Een open, veilige en beveiligde cyberspace” ( [4] ) die op 7 februari 2013 is
aangenomen, is gericht op het waarborgen van een veilige digitale omgeving waarin de grondrechten en de
bescherming van de vrijheden online worden gerespecteerd en bevorderd. Het grondrechtenaspect wordt eveneens in
de GVDB-gerelateerde activiteiten op de voet gevolgd.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) JOIN(2013) 1 final.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 161

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003335/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ NATO cyber warfare manual and the EU's cybersecurity strategy

On 21 March 2013 the website ‘The Verge’ reported ( [1] ) on a new NATO document on cyber defence, the Tallinn
Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare ( [2] ). The Tallinn Manual identifies the international law
applicable to cyber warfare and includes recommendations for retaliatory conduct, including the use of traditional
weapons, and attacks against hackers who have perpetrated attacks. On 7 February 2013 the Commission presented
the Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union ( [3] ), a joint effort by the Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, the
Commissioner for Home Affairs and the Vice-President/High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
In sharp contrast to the Tallinn Manual, the Cybersecurity Strategy does not include any concrete proposals
concerning the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy or the development of offensive cyber defence capabilities
or of rules of engagement for cyber warfare. Can the Commission answer the following questions?

1. What is the status of the Tallinn Manual?

2. Was the Commission, and in particular the Vice-President/High Representative, involved or consulted in the
drafting process for the Tallinn Manual?

3. In view of the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO, what is the significance of the Tallinn Manual
for the EU?

4. Will the Commission include the Tallinn Manual as an integral part of the Cybersecurity Strategy? If not, how
do the two documents relate to one another?

5. Does the Commission agree that, since most of the Member States are also members of NATO, the Tallinn
Manual will heavily influence the cyber defence, warfare and security policies of the dual-membership states and
therefore of the EU as a whole?

6. What is the Commission’s assessment of the statement that ‘killing hackers in cyber warfare is justified’?

7. Does the Commission agree that the Member States should develop offensive or retaliatory policies in the
context of cyber security and defence? If so, why has it not proposed any concrete measures in the Cybersecurity
Strategy?

8. Is the Commission willing to draft a communication on the applicability of traditional concepts of jurisdiction
online, in the context of the globally digital connected world, and especially in terms of attribution, the definition of
acts of war and the applicability of international law in cyber warfare? If not, why not?

9. How will the Commission strike a balance between securing digital freedoms, as set out in Parliament’s
resolution of 11 December 2012 on a digital freedom strategy in EU foreign policy, and cyber security and defence?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

The Tallinn Manual has been prepared by independent international experts at the invitation of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation (NATO) Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. This manual, which has no official
status, represents an academic analysis on the applicability of existing international humanitarian law to cyber
warfare.

No EU institution was involved or consulted in the drafting process of the Tallinn Manual. The definitions of use of
force and jurisdiction in cyberspace are analysed by international law experts in Member States. If asked by the
Member States and given the mandate by the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service
(EEAS) could participate in such discussions in the future.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/21/4130740/tallin-manual-on-the-international-law-applicable-to-cyber-warfare
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://issuu.com/nato_ccd_coe/docs/tallinnmanual?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&show

FlipBtn=true

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eeas.europa.eu/policies/eu-cyber-security/cybsec_comm_en.pdf

( **|**

C 12 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

Within the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) the European Defence Agency has composed a Cyber
Defence Project Team that is chaired by and consists of the Member States and aims to develop cyber defence
capabilities related to CSDP.

Tallinn Manual does not concentrate on the issue of hackers, but discusses among other issues the treatment of
combatants during armed conflicts according to the principles established by International Humanitarian Law.

The joint HRVP/Commission Communication on the EU Strategy on Cybersecurity: An Open, Safe and Secure
Cyberspace ( [4] ), adopted on 7 February 2013, aims at ensuring a secure digital environment while respecting and
promoting fundamental rights and the protection of freedoms online. The fundamental rights aspect is also closely
followed in the CSDP-related activities.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) JOIN(2013) 1 final.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 163

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003336/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Projet d'accord bilatéral UE/États-Unis

La Commission européenne étudie actuellement un traité de libre-échange entre les États‐Unis et l'UE. Cet accord de
libre‐échange va transformer en profondeur la politique commerciale de l'UE, qui sera couverte en majorité par des
accords bilatéraux. Or, l'UE avait toujours investi dans des négociations multilatérales dans le cadre de l'OMC. À
l'heure où les négociations du cycle de Doha sont au point mort, ce changement de cap en faveur du bilatéralisme
pose question.

La Commission pourrait-elle expliquer pourquoi elle a modifié son approche en faveur du bilatéralisme pour les
négociations de sa politique commerciale?

**Réponse donnée par M. De Gucht au nom de la Commission**

_(3 mai 2013)_

L'Union européenne a déjà négocié et continue à négocier des accords de libre-échange avec plusieurs partenaires; elle
considère qu'ils sont complémentaires de son engagement ferme en faveur du multilatéralisme et non en
contradiction avec celui-ci. Les négociations avec les États-Unis n'affaibliraient en aucun cas l'engagement de l'UE visà-vis de l'OMC et du cycle de Doha. Une initiative bilatérale ambitieuse témoignerait incontestablement de la volonté
commune de l'UE et des États-Unis d'ouvrir les marchés des biens et services et de s'attaquer à des questions de
réglementation complexes, et pourrait également donner un nouveau souffle aux négociations à Genève. L'UE
continue à assurer, comme dans le passé, le même rôle moteur dans les enceintes internationales. Dans cette optique,
la Commission participe actuellement à la préparation de la 9 [e] conférence ministérielle de l'OMC, prévue en
décembre 2013. Elle estime qu'un résultat positif lors de cette conférence est nécessaire pour ouvrir la voie à un
accord multilatéral global. Au-delà de cet objectif, la Commission reste résolument déterminée à faire avancer les
négociations sur les derniers éléments du programme de Doha pour le développement, en vue de conclure le cycle
dans son ensemble. Le commissaire au commerce s'est récemment exprimé en détail sur le rapport entre les
négociations bilatérales avec les États-Unis et le programme multilatéral plus large ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_151041.pdf

C 12 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003336/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Draft EU-US bilateral agreement

The Commission is currently considering a free trade deal between the United States and the European Union. This
free trade agreement will result in a radical change in the EU’s trade policy, which will be covered mainly by bilateral
agreements. Historically, however, the EU has always participated in multilateral negotiations within the framework
of the WTO. As the Doha Round is now stalled, this change of direction towards bilateralism raises certain questions.

Could the Commission explain why it now favours a bilateral approach to trade policy negotiations?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 May 2013)_

The EU has been and continues to negotiate Free Trade Agreements with several partners, and considers these as
complementary and not contradictory to our firm multilateral commitment. Negotiations with the US would in no
way weaken the EU commitment to the WTO or the Doha Round. An ambitious bilateral initiative would be a clear
signal of EU/US joint willingness to open markets on goods and services as well as tackling complex regulatory issues,
and may also have the potential to re-energise negotiations in Geneva. The EU continues to show the same degree of
leadership in the multilateral fora as it has done in the past. To that end, the Commission is currently active in the
preparations for the 9th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC9), scheduled for December 2013. The Commission
believes that a successful outcome at MC9 is needed to pave the way to an overall multilateral agreement. Looking
forward and beyond the successful MC9, the Commission remains fully committed to furthering negotiations on the
remaining elements of the DDA with a view to concluding the entire round. The Commissioner for Trade recently
spoke in detail about the relationship between the bilateral negotiations with the US and the broader multilateral
agenda ( [1] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/april/tradoc_151041.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 165

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003337/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Exportabilité des allocations de sécurité sociale dans les pays européens

Le règlement (CE) n [o] 883/2004 vise à la coordination des systèmes de sécurité sociale des États membres. Une
allocation d'invalidité, de retraite (ou autre) devrait donc pouvoir continuer à s'appliquer en cas de déplacement de la
personne dans un autre État membre, ce dernier prenant le relai du versement de l'aide.

Il s'avère pourtant que ce n'est pas le cas, plusieurs pétitions parvenues à la commission des pétitions du Parlement
européen montrent que les États refusent de payer les allocations des ressortissants d'autres pays qui viennent
s'installer sur leur territoire. Cette situation empêche donc les bénéficiaires de se déplacer librement dans l'UE sous
peine de voir leur assistance financière prendre fin.

La Commission estime-t-elle que la non-exportabilité des allocations entre les États membres est une entrave à la libre
circulation des personnes?

Dans le nouveau rapport sur la citoyenneté de l'Union prévu pour fin 2013, la Commission compte-t-elle discuter de
ce sujet?

**Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission**

_(8 mai 2013)_

La règle générale en matière de coordination des systèmes de sécurité sociale édictée à l'article 7 du règlement (CE)
n [o] 883/2004 dispose que le paiement de prestations en espèces, telles que les allocations de retraite et d'invalidité
mentionnées par l'Honorable Parlementaire, ne saurait être supprimé ou réduit du fait que le bénéficiaire ou les
membres de sa famille résident dans un État membre autre que celui où se trouve l'institution débitrice. La
responsabilité de l'État membre débiteur ne cesse pas simplement parce que le bénéficiaire de prestations se rend dans
un autre État membre.

Un nombre limité de prestations spéciales en espèces à caractère non contributif ne sont pas dues en dehors de l'État
membre compétent pour le versement des prestations. Néanmoins, elles doivent être fournies sur une base égale aux
personnes résidant dans l'État membre en question. La non-exportabilité de ces prestations n'influe pas dans un sens
défavorable sur la libre circulation des personnes, étant donné que ces prestations spéciales — qui sont soit des
prestations de subsistance minimale complétant une prestation de sécurité sociale, soit des prestations destinées à
encourager l'indépendance ou l'intégration sociale des personnes handicapées — sont étroitement liées à la situation
socio-économique dans l'État membre compétent pour le versement des prestations. La Cour a confirmé la légalité de
ces dispositions à plusieurs reprises.

Comme les années précédentes, le rapport 2013 sur la citoyenneté de l'Union examinera les moyens d'améliorer les
droits en matière de sécurité sociale des citoyens de l'UE qui se rendent dans un autre État membre.

C 12 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003337/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Exportability of social security benefits across EU Member States

The purpose of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 is to coordinate the social security systems of Member States.
Entitlement to disability allowances, pensions and other benefits should therefore remain valid if a person moves to
another Member State, which would then become responsible for paying the benefit.

It has emerged, however, that this is not the case. Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has received a number of
petitions indicating that Member States are refusing to pay benefits to foreign nationals who have relocated to their
territory. Beneficiaries cannot therefore move freely within the EU without losing their financial support.

Does the Commission consider that the non-exportability of benefits across Member States represents an obstacle to
the free movement of persons?

Does the Commission intend to deal with this matter in the new EU Citizenship Report due at the end of 2013?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

The general rule on social security coordination in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 is that payment of cash
benefits, such as the old age and invalidity pensions mentioned by the Honourable Member, cannot be withdrawn or
reduced because the beneficiary or their family members reside in a Member State other than that of the institution
responsible for paying the benefits. The Member State responsible for payment does not stop being responsible
simply because the recipient moves to another Member State.

A limited number of special, non-contributory cash benefits are not payable outside the Member State responsible for
payment. They must, however, be provided on an equal basis to people residing within that Member State. The nonexportability of such benefits does not adversely affect the free movement of persons, because such special benefits,
which are either minimum subsistence benefits supplementing a social security benefit or benefits to promote the
social independence or social integration of disabled persons, are closely linked to the socioeconomic situation in the
Member State responsible for payment. The Court has confirmed the legality of these provisions on a number of
occasions.

As in previous years, the 2013 Citizenship Report will consider ways in which the social security rights of EU citizens
who move to another Member State can be improved.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 167

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003338/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Chargeur universel pour téléphones mobiles

Chaque marque de téléphone mobile est caractérisée par une forme et un embout de chargeur différent afin d'obliger
le consommateur qui veut changer de téléphone mobile à changer de la même façon le chargeur. Ces différents
modèles entraînent de ce fait des contraintes supplémentaires (difficulté de trouver un chargeur à emprunter de la
même marque lorsque le téléphone est déchargé), des frais supplémentaires à l'achat d'un nouveau téléphone et des
déchets supplémentaires puisqu'il n'utilisera plus l'ancien chargeur.

Un chargeur universel permettrait ainsi de répondre aux attentes des consommateurs, mais aussi des associations
pour l'environnement.

La Commission envisage-t-elle d'encourager le projet de chargeur universel sur toutes les marques de téléphone
mobile afin de faciliter la vie du consommateur et d'éviter les déchets inutiles?

**Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission**

_(15 mai 2013)_

À la demande de la Commission, les principaux producteurs de téléphones portables ont accepté de signer un
protocole d'accord en vue d'harmoniser les chargeurs des téléphones portables informatisés vendus dans l'UE. Ce
protocole d'accord a été approuvé par le commissaire chargé des entreprises et de l'industrie lors d'une conférence de
presse en juin 2009.

Un récent rapport d'avancement fourni par les signataires du protocole d'accord a montré qu'ils avaient rempli leurs
obligations au titre de ce dernier. Il est estimé actuellement que 90 % des nouveaux appareils mis sur le marché par les
signataires du protocole d'accord et les autres fabricants à la fin de 2012 sont compatibles avec le chargeur universel,
ce qui donne à penser que l'accord volontaire a été profitable aux citoyens.

La Commission est convaincue que les consommateurs et les fabricants peuvent profiter d'une extension de l'initiative
d'harmonisation des chargeurs à de nouvelles catégories de produits, telles que la nouvelle génération de téléphones
portables, tout en prenant en considération les innovations technologiques et d'autres petits appareils électroniques
portables tels que les appareils photo numériques, les tablettes et les baladeurs. La Commission prépare donc le
lancement d'une étude évaluant les résultats obtenus par le protocole d'accord et envisagera des options pour un suivi
approprié comportant un accord volontaire et des mesures législatives.

La Commission invite également l'Honorable Parlementaire à se reporter aux réponses qu'elle a données aux
questions écrites E-001685/2013 de M [me] Olga Sehnalová et E-002977/2013 de M. Tadeusz Zwiefka.

C 12 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003338/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Standard charger for mobile phones

The shape and charger connectors of each brand of mobile phone are different. This means that consumers who want
to replace their mobile phone also have to replace their charger. The variety of models leads to further inconvenience.
It can be difficult to borrow the right brand of charger when a phone has run out of battery; there is additional
expense when purchasing a new phone and extra waste if the old charger can no longer be used.

A standard charger would meet the requirements of both consumers and environmental groups.

Does the Commission intend to support the plans to introduce standard chargers for all mobile telephone brands, so
as to make life easier for consumers and avoid needless waste?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

Following a request from the Commission, major producers of mobile phones agreed to sign a memorandum of
understanding (MoU) to harmonise chargers for data-enabled mobile phones sold in the EU. The MoU was endorsed
by the Commissioner responsible for Enterprise and Industry at a press conference in June 2009.

A recent progress report provided by the MoU signatories has shown that they have met their obligations under the
MoU. It is now estimated that 90% of the new devices put on the market by the MoU signatories and other
manufacturers by the end of 2012 support the common charging capability. This indicates that the voluntary
agreement has been successful in delivering benefits for citizens.

The Commission is convinced that consumers and manufacturers can benefit from an extension of the initiative on
harmonisation of chargers to new categories of products such as the new generation of mobile phones while taking
into account technological innovations and other small portable electronic devices, such as digital cameras, tablets
and music players. Therefore the Commission is preparing the launch of a study evaluating the results achieved with
the MoU, and will consider options for appropriate follow-up including a voluntary agreement and legislation.

The Commission would also like to refer the Honourable Member to its answers to written questions E-001685/2013
by Ms Olga Sehnalová and E-002977/2013 by Mr Tadeusz Zwiefka.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 169

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003339/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Des sanctions pour la non-récupération des déchets électriques et électroniques par les magasins

La directive européenne 2002/96/CE a pour objectif prioritaire la prévention, la réutilisation, le recyclage et la
valorisation des déchets électriques et électroniques. Le principe est que le distributeur de ces produits doit être en
mesure d'en assurer la récupération, afin qu'ils puissent être correctement recyclés.

Au vu de récentes enquêtes sur la récupération des ampoules basses consommation dans les supermarchés en France
(source: association de consommateurs «UFC que choisir»), force est de constater que sur 3 155 magasins visités en
France, 44 % sont hors la loi et n'ont rien mis en place pour la récupération des ampoules basse consommation
usagées.

La Commission envisagerait-elle de durcir les sanctions vis-à-vis des États membres qui ne veillent pas suffisamment à
la bonne application de la directive européenne?

**Réponse donnée par M. Potočnik au nom de la Commission**

_(16 mai 2013)_

La directive 2002/96/CE relative aux déchets d’équipements électriques et électroniques (DEEE) ( [1] ) prévoit la collecte,
la valorisation et le recyclage des DEEE, y compris de matériel d'éclairage tel que les ampoules basse consommation.
Elle impose également aux distributeurs, lorsqu'ils fournissent un nouveau produit, de faire en sorte que ces déchets
puissent leur être remis par les ménages gratuitement et sur une base de un pour un, pour autant que l'équipement
soit de type équivalent. Le résumé de l'enquête mentionnée par l'honorable parlementaire ne fait pas apparaître
clairement si, en l'occurrence, cette exigence particulière est enfreinte.

La refonte récente de la directive DEEE (directive 2012/19/UE ( [2] )) renforce les obligations imposées aux distributeurs
de reprendre les DEEE: elle exige en effet que, dans les magasins de détail disposant d'une grande surface de vente,
les distributeurs assurent la collecte des DEEE de très petite dimension (dont toutes les dimensions extérieures
sont inférieures ou égales à 25 cm) gratuitement pour les utilisateurs finals et sans obligation d'acheter des EEE de
type équivalent.

Le délai de transposition de la directive 2012/19/CE expire le 14 février 2014. La Commission vérifiera que les
mesures nationales de transposition soient conformes aux exigences posées par la directive.

Selon le dernier rapport transmis par la France au sujet des taux de collecte des DEEE, les objectifs actuels de collecte
au niveau national ont été atteints.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 037 du 13.2.2003, p. 24.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 197 du 24.7.2012, p. 38.

C 12 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003339/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Penalties for outlets that fail to recover waste electrical and electronic equipment

The main aim of European Directive 2002/96/EC is the prevention, re-use, recycling and recovery of electrical and
electronic waste. The principle is that distributors of such products must be able to ensure that they are recovered so
that they can be properly recycled.

In light of recent research into the recovery of energy saving light bulbs in French supermarkets (source: ‘UFC que
choisir’ consumers’ association), it is clear that 44% the 3 155 outlets visited in France are breaking the law and do not
have procedures in place to recover used energy saving light bulbs.

Is the Commission planning to introduce tougher penalties against Member States that are not doing enough to
ensure that the European Directive is properly applied?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

Directive 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) ( [1] ) provides for the collection, recovery
and recycling of WEEE, including lighting equipment, such as energy saving light bulbs. It also requires that
distributors when supplying new equipment, shall be responsible for ensuring that such waste from private
households can be returned free of charge on a one-to-one basis as long as the equipment is of an equivalent type.
From the summary of the study mentioned by the Honorable Member, it is unclear whether in this case this specific
requirement is breached.

A recent recast of the WEEE Directive (Directive 2012/19/EU ( [2] )) strengthens the obligations on distributors to take
back WEEE as it requires distributors at retail shops with large sales area to provide for the collection of very small
WEEE (no external dimension more than 25cm) free of charge to end-users and with no obligation to buy EEE of an
equivalent type.

The deadline for transposing Directive 2012/19/EU expires on 14 February 2014. The Commission will check that
the national transposition measures are in line with the directive's requirements.

According to the last report on WEEE collection rates submitted by France, the national collection target in force has
been achieved.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 037, 13.2.2003 p. 24.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 197, 24.7.2012, p. 38.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 171

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003341/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Législation européenne sur une distance minimale entre les sièges d'avion

L'Agence Européenne de Sécurité Aérienne (AESA) certifie chaque avion lors de son immatriculation, appliquant les
normes européennes de fabrication et de sécurité. Mais il n'existe aucune norme réglementant la distance minimale
entre les sièges d'avion, ce qui conduit les compagnies aériennes à diminuer toujours plus l'espace entre les rangées de
sièges pour augmenter leur nombre et donc augmenter leurs profits. Et ce, au détriment de la santé des usagers
puisque le manque d'espace bloque la circulation sanguine.

La Commission envisagerait-elle d'étudier la mise en place d'une réglementation instaurant une distance minimale
entre les sièges d'avion afin de préserver le confort et la santé des usagers?

**Réponse donnée par M. Kallas au nom de la Commission**

_(14 mai 2013)_

Pour ce qui est de la législation de l'Union européenne, les spécifications de certification ne définissent aucune donnée
contraignante pour la distance minimale entre les sièges. La seule disposition existant à l'heure actuelle dans le droit de
l'Union est une norme de sécurité selon laquelle la configuration de chaque cabine doit être approuvée par l'Agence
européenne de la sécurité aérienne (AESA) sur la base du règlement (UE) n° 748/2012 ( [1] ) et être conforme aux normes
de sécurité applicables, qui exigent que l'appareil puisse être évacué en 90 secondes.

La Commission est consciente du nombre croissant de passagers se plaignant de ce que la distance entre les rangées de
sièges semble avoir diminué mais, du point de vue de la sécurité, des démonstrations d'évacuation d'urgence ont
prouvé que l'agencement approuvé permet une évacuation en 90 secondes. Chaque configuration en sièges fait l'objet
d'une approbation et les transporteurs aériens sont conscients de leurs responsabilités en matière de respect des
exigences applicables.

Il convient enfin de noter que, sur un marché concurrentiel, les transporteurs aériens sont libres de proposer différents
niveaux de services et de leur associer différents prix; la disponibilité d'espace supplémentaire est l'un des éléments qui
contribuent à établir une distinction entre les classes d'un vol.

La Commission est d'avis que les informations dont elle dispose actuellement ne suffisent pas à justifier l'adoption de
nouvelles mesures législatives sur l'espacement entre sièges à l'échelle de l'UE. La Commission et l'AESA continuent
toutefois de suivre cette question de près afin de veiller à ce que toute action relevant de leur compétence qui
s'avérerait nécessaire soit prise en temps voulu et de manière adéquate.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 224 du 21.8.2012.

C 12 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003341/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European legislation to establish a minimum distance between aeroplane seats

The European Aviation Safety Agency certifies all aircraft at registration in accordance with European manufacturing
and safety standards. Those standards do not, however, specify a minimum distance between seats. This has allowed
aviation companies to shorten the distance between seat rows time and time again, so as to add more rows and thus
increase profits. This has been to the detriment of passenger health, since a lack of space between seats can result in
blood circulation problems.

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce rules establishing a minimum distance between aeroplane seats in
order to safeguard the comfort and health of passengers?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

As far as European Union (EU) legislation is concerned, there is no prescriptive data in the certification specifications
for the minimum distance between seats. The only provision at present existing in Union law is a safety related rule
according to which each cabin configuration must be approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on
the basis of Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 ( [1] ), and must comply with the applicable safety requirements which
include standards for emergency evacuation within 90 seconds.

The Commission is aware that an increasing number of passengers complain that the distance between rows seems to
have decreased but from a safety perspective, emergency evacuation demonstrations have evidenced that the
approved cabin design allow for evacuation within 90 seconds. Each seating configuration is approved and operators
are aware of their responsibilities in complying with applicable requirements.

Finally it is worth noting that in a competitive market, air carriers are free to offer different levels of services and to
charge different fees for them; extra space is one of the features that contribute to differentiation between different
classes on a flight.

The Commission is of the opinion that the data presently at its disposal is not sufficient to justify any legislative
measure on seat pitch at EU level. However, the Commission and EASA continue to monitor carefully this issue in
order to ensure timely and appropriate actions under its remit which could be necessary.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 224, 21.8.2012.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 173

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003343/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Mention des marges sur les étiquettes des denrées alimentaires préemballées

Avec le scandale de la viande de cheval, le public a pris conscience du nombre élevé d'intermédiaires, de négociants
qui gagnent de l'argent sur des produits de consommation courante. Avec la crise du lait, les citoyens ont été informés
du faible revenu des producteurs de lait et de la marge des distributeurs.

Les règles en matière d'étiquetage sur les produits préemballés ont été harmonisées au niveau européen. Cependant, il
n'est pas fait mention sur l'étiquette des différentes marges opérées sur le produit. Le consommateur n'a à aucun
moment connaissance des marges dégagées par les différents intermédiaires entre le producteur et le vendeur final.
Correctement informé, le consommateur pourrait modifier son comportement, ce qui remettrait en cause la pratique
des marges excessives dans l'industrie agroalimentaire.

La Commission envisagerait-elle d'imposer sur les étiquettes des denrées alimentaires préemballées le prix d'achat au
premier fabricant et les marges des intermédiaires en plus du prix final?

**Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission**

_(6 juin 2013)_

La Commission considère qu'il ne serait pas utile de faire figurer les éléments constitutifs du prix d'achat au premier
fabricant ou les marges des intermédiaires, en plus du prix final, sur les étiquettes des denrées alimentaires
préemballées, notamment du fait que ni les coûts supportés à chaque niveau de la chaîne d'approvisionnement ni les
stratégies commerciales des divers acteurs de cette chaîne ne seraient pris en compte. En outre, la plupart des matières
premières agricoles, telles que le lait, sont transformées en plusieurs coproduits qui sont ensuite associés à d'autres
ingrédients pour entrer dans la composition des produits finals.

Par ailleurs, l'établissement d'un cadre européen à caractère contraignant alourdirait considérablement la charge
administrative pesant sur la chaîne d'approvisionnement, mènerait à une fragmentation encore plus importante du
marché intérieur et entraînerait potentiellement une hausse des prix pour les consommateurs, ainsi qu'une éventuelle
augmentation des marges des intermédiaires. Dès lors, la Commission n'envisage pas de telle initiative.

Dans le même temps, la Commission et les autorités nationales chargées de la concurrence sont disposées à examiner
avec soin tout comportement anticoncurrentiel présumé qui pourrait provoquer, à terme, des hausses de prix pour les
consommateurs européens. Comme le montre le rapport sur l'application du droit de la concurrence ( [1] ), les autorités
concernées ont déjà examiné plusieurs cas de ce genre au cours des dernières années.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rapport du REC sur l'application des règles de concurrence et les activités de surveillance du marché par les autorités européennes de la
concurrence dans le secteur alimentaire (disponible en anglais uniquement): http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/food_report_en.pdf

C 12 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003343/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reference to mark-ups on the labels of pre-packaged foodstuffs

Through the horsemeat scandal, the public has become aware of the convoluted network of intermediaries who earn
money from the trade in consumer goods. Through the milk crisis, the public learned just how little dairy producers
earn and just how high the profit margins are that distributors enjoy.

Although the rules governing the labelling of pre-packaged products have been harmonised at EU level, labels make
no reference to the mark-ups applied to a given product. At no point are consumers made aware of the profits
enjoyed by intermediaries in the supply chain between the producer and the end retailer. If correctly informed,
consumers might well change their purchasing habits, which might in turn prompt the agri-foodstuffs industry to
reconsider the practice of applying excessive mark-ups.

Would the Commission consider including details of the price paid to the initial producer and the mark-ups applied
by intermediaries, along with the final price, on the labels of pre-packaged foodstuffs?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission considers that the inclusion of details of the price paid to the initial producer and the mark-ups
applied by intermediaries, along with the final price, on the labels of pre-packaged foodstuffs would not be
meaningful, notably because it does not take into account the costs incurred by each level in the chain or the
marketing strategies of the various actors in the supply chain. In addition, most agricultural raw materials, such as
milk, are processed into several co-products which in turn are used together with other ingredients in final products.

Furthermore, a compulsory EU framework would lead to a considerable administrative burden for the supply chain,
to a further fragmentation of the internal market and potentially to higher prices for consumers and possibly to
higher margins for intermediaries. Therefore, the Commission does not envisage such an initiative.

At the same time, the Commision and the national competition authorities stand ready to carefully investigate any
alleged anti-competitive behaviour which would ulitmately lead to price increases for the European consumers. As
shown in the report on competition law enforcement ( [1] ), the competition authorities have done so in a number of
instances in the past few years.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ECN Activities in the Food Sector — Report on competition law enforcement and market monitoring activities by European competition
authorities in the food sector, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/food_report_en.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 175

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003344/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Uniformisation des prises électriques en Europe

L'un des objectifs de l'Union européenne est de faciliter au maximum la circulation des personnes entre les États
membres. Cependant, les différentes formes de prise électrique dans les États obligent les citoyens européens à investir
dans des adaptateurs universels pour pouvoir brancher les équipements provenant d'un État membre utilisant
une forme de prise électrique différente. Ces contraintes techniques compliquent de ce fait les déplacements entre
États membres.

La Commission estime-t-elle utile d'harmoniser les prises de courant dans l'Union européenne pour faciliter le
déplacement des citoyens?

**Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission**

_(8 mai 2013)_

L'harmonisation des fiches et prises de courant domestiques pourrait faciliter l'utilisation d'appareils électriques dans
l'UE, mais il ne serait pas proportionné d'imposer cette harmonisation, pour les motifs exposés dans les réponses de la
Commission aux questions écrites E-1731/05, E‐0182/09, E-4123/09, E-5846/09 et E-5088/11.

En outre, il n'est pas démontré que l'utilisation de différentes fiches et prises de courant peut présenter un danger pour
la santé et la sécurité des utilisateurs de petits appareils électriques portatifs (utilisés en voyage).

Dès lors, il serait préférable que toute solution à ce problème procède d'accords ou de normes adoptés sur une base
volontaire. Dans la pratique, la plupart des États membres utilisent une fiche commune (la fiche européenne).

C 12 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003344/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Standardising electrical plugs and sockets in Europe

One of the EU’s objectives is to facilitate the movement of people between Member States to the greatest possible
extent. The design of electrical plugs and sockets varies from one Member State to another, however, forcing people
to buy universal adapters if they want to use electrical equipment when travelling. These technical constraints are
making it more difficult for people to move freely between Member States.

Does the Commission think it would make sense to standardise electrical plugs and sockets in the EU in order to
facilitate the movement of people?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

Harmonisation of domestic plugs and sockets might facilitate the use of electrical products in the EU, however it
would not be proportionate to force harmonisation, for the reasons given in the Commission’s replies to written
questions E-1731/2005, E-0182/09, E-4123/09, E-5846/09 and E-5088/11.

In addition, there is no evidence showing that the use of different plugs and sockets can endanger the health and
safety of the users of small and mobile electrical equipment (used when travelling).

Thus, any solution for this issue can better be based on voluntary agreements or standards. In practice, most Member
States use a common plug (the Europlug).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 177

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003345/13**

**à la Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Avenir du Royaume-Uni dans l'Europe

Devant la question du référendum pour ou contre le maintien du Royaume-Uni dans l'Europe, quelle est la part de
citoyens britanniques travaillant au sein de la Commission?

Au cas où le Royaume-Uni sortirait de l'Union européenne, comment est envisagée la situation des fonctionnaires
britanniques, qui ne seraient plus ressortissants européens?

Quelles mesures transitoires seraient mises en place pour les remplacer?

**Réponse donnée par M. Šefčovič au nom de la Commission**

_(13 mai 2013)_

Les chiffres relatifs aux effectifs de la Commission européenne sont disponibles sur le site internet Europa, sous
l'onglet «Qui sommes-nous?», sur la page suivante: http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/about/figures/index_fr.htm

La Commission invite l'Honorable Parlementaire à prendre connaissance de sa réponse à la question
n° E-000232/2013.

C 12 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003345/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe Boulland (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Future of the United Kingdom in Europe

We know that the UK intends to hold a referendum on its future in the EU. With this in mind, can the Commission
say what proportion of its officials are UK nationals?

If the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, what would happen to officials who are UK nationals, given that they
would no longer be EU citizens?

What transitional measures would the Commission consider taking in order to replace them?

**Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

Staff figures of the European Commission are available on the Europa website under the item ‘About us’ at the
following link: http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/about/figures/index_en.htm

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Question E-000232/2013.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 179

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003347/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Problema dell'esposizione a campi elettromagnetici nei paesi europei: quali misure?

L'esposizione a campi elettromagnetici dovuti alla presenza di antenne telefoniche, telefoni cellulari, WLAN, wi-fi,
laptop e altre sorgenti tipiche dell'era in cui viviamo è un grave pericolo per la salute. I pazienti affetti da sensibilità
multipla (SCM) sono vulnerabili all'inquinamento ambientale e i pazienti affetti da ipersensibilità elettromagnetica
(EHS) alle radiazioni elettromagnetiche: l'esposizione ad aria e radiazioni comporta gravi rischi per la loro salute. I
primi sintomi sono infatti nausea, bruciori, difficoltà a prendere sonno e a concentrarsi, dolori alla testa, alterazioni
del ritmo cardiaco, del metabolismo e dei processi enzimatici e, nei casi più gravi, danneggiamenti delle proteine e
delle membrane cellulari. Ad oggi non ci sono cure che permettano di affrontare questa malattia, ma è importante
tutelare coloro che ne soffrono e riconoscerli come tali, nonché predisporre misure di sicurezza per i potenziali malati
futuri.

Il Piano europeo per l'ambiente e la salute 2004-2010 (2007/2252(INI)) prevedeva una maggiore tutela di ambienti
quali scuole, asili, case di riposo e istituti sanitari, ovvero luoghi con un alto tasso di frequentazione da parte di
soggetti particolarmente vulnerabili (bambini e anziani). Oggigiorno in Italia i valori limite per l'esposizione ai campi
elettromagnetici sono di 6 volt/metro per le alte frequenze e di 10 e 3 microtesla per frequenze più basse e recenti
studi dimostrano che valori pari a 0,4 per le basse e 0,2 per le alte sono già molto pericolosi.

Le disparità sanitarie tra i vari Stati membri dovrebbero essere eliminate. In Svezia, ad esempio, la malattia
dell'elettrosensibilità viene riconosciuta come una disabilità e coloro che ne sono affetti hanno diritto a un sostegno
previdenziale. È importante che tutti gli Stati membri includano la SCM e l'EHS come malattie riconosciute dai sistemi
sanitari nazionali.

Alla luce di quanto sopra può la Commissione far sapere se:

1. intende promuovere l'inserimento di dette malattie nella Classificazione statistica internazionale delle malattie e
dei problemi sanitari correlati;

2. ritenga opportuno sollecitare gli Stati membri ad attuare le norme esistenti in materia di radiazioni
elettromagnetiche ed esposizione a sostanze nocive, nonché ad applicare rigorosamente il principio di
precauzione con efficaci misure in materia di salute e ambiente, al fine di proteggere tutte le persone che sono
affette dalle malattie in parola?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(23 maggio 2013)_

1. Anche se queste due malattie non dispongono di codici propri nella Classificazione internazionale delle malattie
(ICD) — 10 [a] revisione, vi sono tuttavia alcuni codici per segnalare l'influenza dell'elettricità e delle sostanze chimiche
sulla salute. L'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità (OMS) è l'unica istituzione responsabile della gestione e della
revisione della Classificazione ICD. Attualmente è in preparazione l'11 [a] versione dell'ICD e gli Stati membri dell'UE,
che sono anche Stati membri dell'OMS, hanno l'opportunità di contribuire al processo di revisione. La Commissione
rinvia l'onorevole deputato al sito web dell'OMS dove potrà trovare ulteriori informazioni sullo stato attuale della
revisione: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/

2. Per quanto concerne la seconda domanda, la Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputato alla propria risposta
all'interrogazione scritta E-002445/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003347/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Exposure to electromagnetic fields in European countries — what measures should be taken?

Exposure to electromagnetic fields due to the presence of phone masts, mobile phones, WLAN, Wi-Fi, laptops and
other sources typical of the era in which we live, is a serious health hazard. Patients with multiple chemical sensitivity
(MCS) are vulnerable to environmental pollution and patients suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
to electromagnetic radiation: exposure to air and radiation poses serious risks to their health; in fact, the initial
symptoms are nausea, tingling sensations, difficulty sleeping or concentrating, headaches, changes in heart rate, in the
metabolism and in enzymatic processes and, in the most severe cases, damage to proteins and cell membranes. To
date, there are no treatments to deal with this disease, but it is important to protect those who are suffering from it
and to recognise their suffering, as well as to develop safety measures for potential future sufferers.

The mid-term review of the European Environment and Health Action Plan 2004-2010 (2007/2252 (INI)) provided
greater protection for environments such as schools, kindergartens, nursing homes and healthcare institutions,
i.e. places regularly attended by particularly vulnerable persons (such as children and the elderly). At present, in Italy,
the limit values for exposure to electromagnetic fields are of 6 volts/metre for high frequencies and
10-3 microtesla for lower frequencies, while recent studies have shown that values of 0.4 for low frequencies and 0.2
for high frequencies are already very dangerous.

Health inequalities between Member States should be eliminated. In Sweden, for example, the illness of electrical
hypersensitivity is recognised as a disability and those who suffer from it are entitled to social security support. It is
important for all Member States to include MCS and EHS as diseases that are recognised by national health systems.

Can the Commission therefore say whether:

1. it intends to include these diseases in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health
Problems;

2. it agrees that Member States should be asked to implement existing rules relating to electromagnetic radiation
and exposure to hazardous substances, and rigorously to apply the precautionary principle by taking effective
health and environmental measures, in order to protect all those people who are affected by these illnesses?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

1. Even if these two diseases do not have their own codes in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) —
10th revision, some codes exist to report influence of electricity and chemicals on health. The World Health
Organisation (WHO) is the only responsible institution to maintain and revise the ICD classification. The
11th version of the ICD is currently under preparation and Member States of the EU, which are also Member States of
WHO, have the opportunity to contribute to the revision process. The Commission would refer the Honourable
Member to WHO’s website for further information on the current state of this revision:
http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/

2. Concerning question 2, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question
E-002445/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 181

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003348/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Italia e India: scontro diplomatico — posizione dell'UE nella vicenda dei marò italiani e tutela
giuridica da parte dell'UE nel rispetto della Convenzione di Vienna

Il caso del mancato rientro a New Delhi dei due marò italiani e della conseguente ingiustificata perdita dell'immunità
diplomatica dell'ambasciatore italiano trattenuto in India ormai non è più solo una questione di politica estera
nazionale, ma riveste i caratteri di una controversia internazionale, cui l'UE non può sottrarsi dal momento che l'Italia
ne è Stato membro fondatore dal 1952 ed è stato uno dei primi paesi firmatari del trattato di Schengen del 1985. Il
problema originario della vicenda — costituito dall'individuazione di quale Stato, l'Italia o l'India, avesse giurisdizione
sull'incidente avvenuto a 20,5 miglia marine dalla costa indiana — va evidentemente risolto con il coinvolgimento
della rappresentanza diplomatica europea nelle trattative e nella risoluzione della controversia.

In virtù della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare, a cui sia l'India sia l'Italia aderiscono, i poteri
sovrani dello Stato costiero si estendono solo sulle acque territoriali, ossia, fino a 12 miglia marine come limite
massimo. Sulla zona economica esclusiva lo Stato costiero ha solo poteri funzionali alla conservazione e allo
sfruttamento delle risorse naturali e non gode del potere di esercitare la sua giurisdizione penale. Sotto questo profilo,
dopo le 12 miglia si entra in acque internazionali e la giurisdizione è esercitata in via esclusiva dallo Stato di bandiera
della nave. Inoltre, sempre secondo il diritto internazionale consuetudinario, uno Stato non può esercitare la sua
giurisdizione nei confronti degli organi di un altro Stato. Questo in virtù del principio che tra «pari», ossia tra enti
egualmente sovrani, non ci si giudica. Ugualmente chiara è la lettura della Convenzione di Vienna del 1961 sulle
relazioni diplomatiche, firmata sia dall'Italia che dall'India, per cui gli agenti diplomatici beneficiano d'immunità dalla
giurisdizione dei giudici interni — dunque anche quella della Corte suprema. Inoltre, hanno pieno diritto di circolare
liberamente nel paese e, se lo desiderano, di lasciarlo. Infatti, questi privilegi riguardano l'essenza stessa della funzione
del diplomatico che è quella di assicurare, nella maniera più libera e completa, la rappresentanza e gli interessi dello
Stato che lo invia nello Stato che lo riceve.

Chiedo pertanto all'Alto Rappresentante, la Baronessa Ashton, quale posizione assuma l'UE nel merito della vicenda e
nel rispetto del diritto internazionale, nonché di riferire chiaramente sulle azioni legali che verranno intraprese
dall'UE.

**Risposta dell'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(30 maggio 2013)_

L'Unione europea ha costantemente partecipato agli sforzi per risolvere lo spiacevole caso dei due marò detenuti in
India. Si è astenuta dal fare commenti sugli aspetti legali del caso perché il procedimento giudiziario è in corso. L'UE
ha espresso l'auspicio che la controversia possa essere risolta in conformità con il diritto internazionale.

Nella dichiarazione del 19 marzo 2013 (A 147/13), il portavoce dell'AR ha manifestato la preoccupazione dell'AR
relativamente ai provvedimenti del 14 e del 18 marzo 2013 emessi dalla Corte suprema dell'India nei confronti
dell'ambasciatore italiano. La Convenzione di Vienna del 1961 sulle relazioni diplomatiche è una base
imprescindibile dell'ordinamento giuridico internazionale che deve essere rispettato in ogni momento.

Con il ritorno dei due marò in India, avvenuto il 23 marzo 2013, i provvedimenti sono stati revocati. Occorre trovare
una soluzione accettabile per tutti attraverso il dialogo e nel rispetto del diritto internazionale.

C 12 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003348/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Diplomatic clash between Italy and India — EU position in the case of the Italian marines and legal
protection from the EU with regard to compliance with the Vienna Convention

The case of the failure of the two Italian marines to return to New Delhi and the consequent unjustified loss of
diplomatic immunity of the Italian Ambassador being held in India is now no longer simply a matter of national
foreign policy, but has become an international dispute, which the EU cannot ignore given that Italy has been a
founding Member State since 1952 and was one of the first signatories of the 1985 Schengen Treaty. The original
problem — that of identifying which state, Italy or India, had jurisdiction over the incident which took place at 20.5
nautical miles from the coast of India — should clearly be solved with the involvement of EU diplomats in the
negotiations to resolve the dispute.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), to which both India and Italy are party, the
national sovereignty of the coastal state extends only over territorial waters, i.e. up to 12 nautical miles at the most.
Regarding the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state only has powers that relate to the conservation and
exploitation of natural resources and does not have the power to exercise criminal jurisdiction. In this respect, after
12 miles, a ship enters international waters and jurisdiction is exercised exclusively by the ship's flag nation.
Furthermore, under customary international law, a state may not exercise its jurisdiction over the bodies of another
state, by virtue of the principle that ‘sovereign equals’, i.e. entities that are equally sovereign, do not judge each other.

The interpretation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, signed by both Italy and India, is equally
clear: diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of domestic courts — and therefore also from that of
the Supreme Court. In addition, they are fully entitled to move freely around the country and, if they wish, to leave it.
Indeed, these privileges concern the very essence of the role of diplomats, which is that of ensuring that they
represent, as freely and fully as possible, the interests of the state which is sending them to the receiving state.

Can the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, therefore say what the EU's position is on the merits of the case and
on compliance with international law, and can she clearly state what legal action will be taken by the EU?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The European Union has systematically been associated with efforts to resolve the unfortunate case of the two
marines detained in India. It has refrained from commenting on the legal merits of the case as these are the subject of
judicial proceedings. The EU has expressed the hope that the dispute will be resolved in accordance with international
law.

In the statement of 19 March 2013 (A 147/13) the spokesperson of the HR has expressed the concern of the HR with
regard to the orders of 14 and 18 March 2013 of the Supreme Court of India to the Ambassador of Italy. The 1961
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a cornerstone of the international legal order that needs to be
respected at all times.

With the return of the two marines to India on 23 March 2013, the orders are superseded. A mutually acceptable
solution should be found through dialogue and in respect of international law.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 183

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003349/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Nuove dipendenze e salute mentale in tempi di crisi: quali misure a livello europeo?

Quando si parla di salute mentale, si intende uno stato di benessere che permette a ciascun individuo di sfruttare al
meglio le proprie potenzialità, affrontare le difficoltà della vita quotidiana, rendere dal punto di vista lavorativo e dare
un contributo significativo alla comunità. La crisi economica e la crescente incertezza che ne deriva hanno avuto un
impatto notevole sulla qualità di vita e sulla salute mentale delle persone. La depressione sembra essere uno dei
principali elementi responsabili del carico globale di malattie, seguito da attacchi di panico, consumo di alcool,
droghe e gioco d'azzardo. Grazie ai sistemi di monitoraggio delle prescrizioni mediche si stima che, tra il 2000 e il
2011, l'utilizzo di psicofarmaci sia aumentato del 340 %. Nei casi più gravi, l'indebitamento e la costante
preoccupazione di non riuscire a far fronte al mantenimento economico della propria famiglia possono portare al
suicidio: nel 2012 in Italia sono stati registrati 3048 suicidi, di cui 1412 per malattia, 324 per cause affettive e 187
per motivi economici.

Considerato che:

—
il 7 aprile 2013 ricorre il World Health Day;

—
i dati statistici rilevano uno squilibrio tra le richieste dei cittadini e i riscontri ricevuti per la sanità mentale: in
Italia, solo il 3,4 % del budget sanitario viene stanziato per la salute mentale;

—
campagne d'informazione efficaci devono essere accompagnate da interventi volti a sensibilizzare un
cambiamento comportamentale, che possa essere concretizzato grazie al supporto di specialisti in materia
(psichiatri e psicoterapeuti);

—
la spesa pro capite media di un italiano per i videopoker o le macchinette da gioco è di 99 euro al mese e i
luoghi dove si può giocare ininterrottamente stanno proliferando sul territorio europeo;

può dire la Commissione se non ritenga necessario:

1. effettuare una revisione delle linee guida sul trattamento delle patologie correlate alla salute mentale, in modo
da migliorare l`efficacia dei sistemi sanitari europei e permettere ai cittadini di conoscere i servizi offerti dalle
strutture presenti sul territorio che possano fornire supporto in momenti di crisi;

2. definire linee guida precise a tutela delle persone affette da gioco d'azzardo patologico, nonché di quelle vittime
impotenti che sono i familiari, per porre un regolamento e un limite a ogni forma di gioco d'azzardo in Europa
e predisporre programmi di recupero terapeutico mirato per questa nuova dipendenza, spesso volano di
situazioni psichiche critiche?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(23 maggio 2013)_

L'elaborazione e il riesame delle linee guida per il trattamento dei disturbi mentali e del gioco d'azzardo patologico
non rientrano tra le responsabilità della Commissione, ma sono di competenza degli Stati membri e delle
organizzazioni dei professionisti sanitari.

Il sostegno agli Stati membri affinché i sistemi sanitari nazionali offrano un supporto alle persone che soffrono di
problemi di salute mentale, siano in grado di prevenire questo tipo di disturbi e promuovano la buona salute mentale
è l'obiettivo dell'azione congiunta sulla salute e sul benessere mentale, lanciata nel febbraio 2013, nell'ambito del
programma dell'UE per la salute. Tale azione, che avrà una durata di tre anni, coinvolge 24 Stati membri e tre paesi
associati e intende, fra l'altro, definire un quadro comune d'azione in materia di salute mentale.

C 12 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

La Commissione finanzia inoltre attività di progetto per sostenere gli interventi delle regioni contro la depressione e i
suicidi. Tra queste figurano il progetto Euregenas — _European regions enforcing actions against suicide (_ [1] _)_ (Interventi delle
regioni europee contro i suicidi) nell'ambito del programma dell'UE per la salute e il progetto del Settimo programma
quadro di ricerca OSPI-Europe — _Optimising Suicide Prevention Programs and their Implementation in Europe (_ [2] _)_
(Ottimizzazione dei programmi di prevenzione dei suicidi e loro attuazione in Europa).

Gli Stati membri, secondo la giurisprudenza pertinente della Corte di giustizia dell'UE, stabiliscono il quadro
normativo per l'offerta di servizi di gioco d'azzardo e definiscono gli obiettivi della propria politica in materia di gioco
d'azzardo come pure il livello di tutela perseguito nell'interesse generale. Pertanto, spetta innanzitutto alle autorità
nazionali valutare il potenziale di dipendenza dei vari giochi d'azzardo. Sono tuttavia necessarie ulteriori ricerche in
questo settore per una migliore comprensione dei termini utilizzati, dei comportamenti, dei fattori e delle cause
collegate. Il progetto «ALICE-RAP» studia il fenomeno delle dipendenze in Europa, tra cui la dipendenza dal gioco
d'azzardo ( [3] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.euregenas.eu
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ospi-europe.com
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ALICE-RAP (Ridefinire le dipendenze e gli stili di vita nell'Europa di oggi) è un progetto quinquennale transitorio e interdisciplinare, finanziato

nell'ambito del Settimo programma quadro, che intende dare un contributo al dibattito sulle norme attuali e sulle implicazioni future delle
dipendenze e degli stili di vita in Europa nei prossimi 20 anni.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003349/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New addictions and mental health at times of crisis — what measures are being taken at EU level?

Mental health means a state of well-being that allows each individual to make the most of their potential, to cope with
the difficulties of daily life, to perform well at work and to make a significant contribution to the community. The
economic crisis and the growing uncertainty arising from it have had a significant impact on people's quality of life
and mental health. Depression seems to be one of the main overall diseases, followed by panic attacks, consumption
of alcohol, drugs and gambling. Thanks to the system of prescription monitoring it is estimated that between 2000
and 2011, the use of psychotropic drugs increased by 340%. In the most severe cases, debt problems and the constant
worry of not being able to support one's family can lead to suicide. In 2012, 3 048 suicides were recorded in Italy,
1 412 of which due to illness, 324 for emotional reasons and 187 for economic reasons.

Given that:

—
7 April 2013 is World Health Day;

—
the statistics reveal an imbalance between the demands of citizens and the response they receive in terms of
mental health: in Italy, only 3.4% of the health budget is allocated to mental health;

—
effective information campaigns need to be backed up by measures to raise awareness and change behaviour,
through the support of specialists (psychiatrists and psychotherapists);

—
an Italian's average per capita expenditure on video poker or slot machines is EUR 99 per month, and places
where people can play continuously are proliferating in the EU;

can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. Should it not review the guidelines on the treatment of mental health illnesses, in order to improve the
effectiveness of European health systems and enable citizens to learn about the services offered by local
facilities that can provide support at times of crisis?

2. Should it not establish clear guidelines to protect people suffering from pathological gambling, as well as those
helpless victims that are their family members, with a view to regulating and limiting all forms of gambling in
Europe and developing targeted therapeutic rehabilitation programmes for this new addiction, which often
leads to critical psychological situations?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The development or review of guidelines for the treatment of mental disorders and of pathological gambling does not
fall under the responsibility of the Commission, but under that of Member States and health professionals'
organisations.

Supporting Member States in enabling their health systems to provide support to people with mental health
problems, to prevent them and to promote good mental health, is the aim of a Joint Action on Mental Health and
Well-being under the EU-Health Programme which was launched in February 2013. It involves 24 Member States and
three associated countries and will run over three years. One of its objectives is to develop a common framework of
action on mental health.

In addition, the Commission is funding project activities which support regions in acting against depression and
suicides. These include the projects ‘European regions enforcing actions against suicide (Euregenas)’ ( [1] ) under the EUHealth Programme as well as the Research Framework Programme 7-project ‘Optimising Suicide Prevention
Programs and their Implementation in Europe (OSPI-Europe)’ ( [2] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.euregenas.eu/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ospi-europe.com/

C 12 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

Member States, in accordance with the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, establish the regulatory
framework for the offering of gambling services, and set the objectives of their gambling policy and the level of
protection sought in the public interest. The assessment of the potential for addiction of different games of chance is
thus primarily the responsibility of national authorities. However, further research in this area is required for a better
understanding of the terms used, the behavioural attitudes and the factors and causes linked to this. ‘ALICE-RAP’ is
studying the phenomenon of addiction in Europe, including gambling ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ALICE-RAP (Addiction and lifestyles in contemporary Europe ‐reframing addictions project) is a 5-year transitional and interdisciplinary project

funded through the 7th Framework Programme aimed at contributing to the debate on current norms and future implications of addiction and
lifestyles in Europe over the next 20 years.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 187

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003350/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Quale futuro per la realizzazione e applicazione di retine artificiali?

Recentemente in Italia la collaborazione tra due all'avanguardia nello studio di nuove tecnologie ha portato alla
realizzazione della prima retina artificiale fatta con materiali organici e dunque biocompatibili. Il suo funzionamento
assomiglia a quello di una minuscola cella solare. Contrariamente a quanto accadeva in passato questa innovativa
retina è realizzata senza semiconduttori inorganici quali il silicio. Le persone con retine diventate poco sensibili alla
luce — a causa di malattie quali la retinite pigmentosa che possono comportare anche la cecità totale — trarrebbero
un enorme vantaggio da questa scoperta. Di fatto, il materiale organico utilizzato, un polimero semiconduttore, si è
rivelato di estrema importanza in quanto possiede una proteina simile a quella sensibile alla luce nella nostra retina. I
ricercatori hanno posto una retina di ratto con organelli danneggiati su un substrato di vetro rivestito da un metallo
trasparente, vale a dire l'ossido d'indio-stagno, e dal polimero organico. Quest'ultimo, stimolato dalla luce, ha
stimolato a sua volta i neuroni della retina.

Considerato che:

—
questa nuova retina artificiale e autonoma non necessita di alcuna fonte di alimentazione ma stimola i neuroni;

—
la rapidità con cui sono state iniziate le sperimentazioni sugli animali e i risultati riscontrati finora fanno
pensare che nel giro di alcuni anni potrebbero avere inizio anche gli studi sull'uomo;

—
la cecità è un grave problema della società moderna e va contrastato con le misure più efficaci;

può dire la Commissione:

1. se ritiene importante incentivare tale sperimentazione in modo da ottenere risultati sempre migliori;

2. se reputa necessario finanziare studi che comportino un miglioramento della qualità della vita per coloro che
sono affetti da cecità;

3. se intende promuovere ulteriori campagne di sensibilizzazione dei cittadini ai controlli periodici della vista per
prevenire eventuali problemi futuri?

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(17 maggio 2013)_

1. La Commissione conviene sulla grande importanza della ricerca scientifica nel campo delle menomazioni della
vista, quale ad esempio la retinite pigmentosa. La messa a punto di una retina artificiale costituirebbe un grande
traguardo.

L’esecuzione di studi «in vivo» sarebbe effettivamente decisiva per trasformare in potenziale cura la scoperta fatta dagli
scienziati in Italia.

2. Nell’ambito del Settimo programma quadro di ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico (7° PQ, 2007‐2013), la
Commissione sta finanziando diversi progetti di ricerca relativi alle menomazioni della vista, compresa la «retinite
pigmentosa». Il progetto DRUGSFORD ( [1] ) si propone di sviluppare composti che cercano di prevenire la
degenerazione dei fotorecettori. Il progetto VISION ( [2] ) mira a sviluppare un approccio terapeutico inteso ad arrestare
la morte delle cellule neuronali grazie all’uso di un impianto intraoculare biodegradabile di nuova generazione.
L’azione di coordinamento EUROVISIONNET ( [3] ), già conclusa, aveva come obiettivo una migliore integrazione della

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.drugsford.eu
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://fp7-vision.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=728

C 12 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

ricerca europea in materia di menomazioni della vista. Per quanto riguarda le tecnologie future ed emergenti,
OPTONEURO ( [4] ) studia nuove modalità di percezione visiva e tecniche di protesi retiniche per i non vedenti: grazie a
tecniche di ingegneria genetica, le cellule nervose contenute nella retina vengono rese sensibili alla luce.
SEEBETTER ( [5] ) e i due recenti progetti RENVISION ( [6] ) e VISUALIZE ( [7] ) lavorano su sistemi artificiali che imitano il
modo in cui la retina elabora le informazioni da integrare nelle nuove protesi retiniche utilizzate per ripristinare le
funzioni visive perdute a causa di malattie degenerative quali la retinite pigmentosa.

3. L’azione di coordinamento di cui sopra ha promosso la sensibilizzazione nei confronti della cecità e la
collaborazione tra gli enti pubblici e privati attivi in questo campo. Generalmente, tutti i progetti mirano a
sensibilizzare il pubblico sul lavoro da essi svolto e sui problemi da essi affrontati.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) www.optoneuro.eu
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.seebetter.eu/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.renvision-fp7.eu/
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/106346_it.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 189

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003350/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ What does the future hold for producing and using artificial retinas?

Recently in Italy, cooperation between two scientists in the forefront of research into new technologies has resulted in
producing the first artificial retina made from organic and, therefore, biocompatible materials. It operates in a similar
manner to a tiny solar cell. Unlike the retinas produced in the past, this innovative retina has been made without using
inorganic semiconductors such as silicon. This discovery would be hugely beneficial to people whose retinas have
developed a low sensitivity to light due to conditions such as _retinitis pigmentosa_, which can also lead to total
blindness. In actual fact, the organic material used, a semiconductor polymer, has turned out to be extremely
important as it has a protein similar to the protein in our retina that is sensitive to light. The researchers placed a
retina from a rat with damaged organelles on a glass substrate coated with a transparent metal, indium tin oxide, and
the organic polymer. The latter, stimulated by light, stimulated in turn the retina’s neurons.

Given that:

—
this new independent, artificial retina does not require a power source, but actually stimulates the neurons;

—
animal testing has got under way promptly and the results encountered so far imply that studies involving
humans could be initiated in a few years;

—
blindness is a serious issue in modern society and is being tackled using the most effective measures;

can the Commission state:

1. whether it considers it important to encourage such testing in order to obtain increasingly better results;

2. whether it considers it necessary to finance studies which help improve the quality of life of those affected by
blindness;

3. whether it will promote further campaigns aimed at raising public awareness about having regular sight checks
to prevent potential problems in the future?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

1. The Commission agrees that scientific research to address visual impairment such as _retinitis pigmentosa_ is very
important. The development of an artificial retina would be a milestone in this effort.

The performance of _in vivo_ studies will indeed be critical for the translation of the finding by the scientists in Italy to a
potential treatment.

2. The Commission is financing, under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development (FP7, 2007-2013), several research projects which tackle visual impairment, including _retinitis_
_pigmentosa._ DRUGSFORD ( [1] ) is to find compounds that target the prevention of photoreceptor damage. VISION ( [2] )
intends to develop a therapeutic approach to stop death of neural cells by using a novel intraocular biodegradable
implant. The already finalised coordination action EUROVISIONNET ( [3] ), has aimed at a better integration of the
European research on vision. In the area of Future and Emerging Technologies, OPTONEURO ( [4] ) explores new ways
of visual perception and retina prosthetics for the blind through the genetic re-engineering of nerve cells in the retina
in order to be sensitive to light. SEEBETTER ( [5] ), and recently started RENVISION ( [6] ) and VISUALISE ( [7] ) work on
artificial systems that mimic the way in which the retina processes information to be integrated in new classes of
retinal prostheses to restore vision lost from degenerative diseases such as _retinitis pigmentosa_ .

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.drugsford.eu
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://fp7-vision.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) www.vision-research.eu/index.php?id=728
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) www.optoneuro.eu
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.seebetter.eu/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.renvision-fp7.eu/
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/106346_en.html

C 12 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

3. The abovementioned coordination action has increased awareness about blindness and promoted the
collaboration of public and private institutions active in the field. Generally all projects are encouraged to raise public
awareness of their work and the problems addressed.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 191

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003351/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bastiaan Belder (EFD)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Aanpak oneerlijke handelspraktijken in de voedingsmiddelenketen

Stakeholders vertegenwoordigd in het deskundigenplatform van het „Forum op hoog niveau over een beter
functionerende voedselvoorzieningsketen" bereikten consensus over beginselen inzake goede praktijken, maar
werden het niet eens over het raamwerk voor handhaving van die beginselen.

1. In haar brief van 20 juli 2012 aan het deskundigenplatform benadrukte de Commissie nog het cruciale belang
van het vinden van consensus over het raamwerk voor handhaving. Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie in dat licht het feit
dat 8 van de 11 deelnemende partijen hebben aangekondigd een raamwerk voor handhaving te gaan implementeren,
terwijl er geen overeenstemming is over de manier van handhaven? Een van de partijen die het raamwerk niet heeft
kunnen ondertekenen omdat ze voor haar belangrijke punten niet verwezenlijkt zag, is immers vertegenwoordiger
van de primaire producenten.

Denkt de Commissie dat oneerlijke handelspraktijken aangepakt kunnen worden tot tevredenheid van alle partijen,
terwijl over het raamwerk voor handhaving geen consensus mogelijk bleek?

2. De Commissie schrijft in haar Groenboek inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken (31 januari 2013) dat de „angstfactor" een „van de voornaamste punten is die moeten worden onderzocht bij de beoordeling of een
handhavingsmechanisme geschikt is".

In het raamwerk voor handhaving (versie 25 januari) is een anonieme klacht slechts mogelijk voor geaggregeerde
gebundelde klachten over een oneerlijke handelspraktijk of voor indviduele klachten over procesmatige zaken. Hoe
beoordeelt de Commissie het feit dat in het raamwerk geen mogelijkheid is opgenomen om anoniem een individuele
klacht in te dienen over een oneerlijke handelspraktijk?

3. Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie het feit dat in het raamwerk slechts is voorzien in een sanctie voor niet-nakoming
van procesmatige vereisten, maar niet is voorzien in een sanctie bij inhoudelijke schending van de beginselen inzake
goede praktijken?

4. Wat doet de Commissie eraan om een representatieve respons te verkrijgen op de openbare raadpleging naar
aanleiding van het Groenboek?

**Antwoord van de heer Tajani namens de Commissie**

_(3 juni 2013)_

1.-3. De Commissie onderzoekt momenteel verschillende opties om oneerlijke handelspraktijken tussen
ondernemingen aan te pakken en verricht daartoe een effectbeoordeling. In dit verband zal de Commissie onder
andere de kwestie van sancties en anonieme individuele klachten onderzoeken en nagaan of die opties geïntroduceerd
zouden moeten worden in een raamwerk voor handhaving dat oneerlijke handelspraktijken tussen de betrokkenen in
alle schakels van de voedselketen aanpakt. In dit stadium onthoudt de Commissie zich van een definitief oordeel over
de effectiviteit van de vrijwillige gedragscode waarnaar het geachte Parlementslid verwijst.

De Commissie wenst een ruimere overeenkomst tussen belanghebbenden uit de voedingsmiddelenketen en heeft de
partners in de voedingsmiddelenketen gevraagd om in deze richting verder te werken. Zij verwelkomt echter elk
initiatief dat in een deelakkoord voorziet dat gericht is op het verbeteren van de relaties tussen ondernemingen. De
Commissie zal de resultaten van dit vrijwillige initiatief nauwlettend in de gaten houden terwijl zij de
effectbeoordeling verricht.

De effectieve realisatie van dit initiatief zou een aanwijzing moeten vormen voor de resultaten die de sector ervan
verwacht. Het aantal ondernemingen dat zich in de komende maanden zal aansluiten, zal daarvoor een eerste
beoordelingscriterium zijn.

4. De Commissie heeft op haar website ( [1] ) een raadpleging gepubliceerd over het groenboek inzake oneerlijke
handelspraktijken tussen ondernemingen in de food‐ en non _-_ foodtoeleveringsketen en moedigt alle geïnteresseerde
belanghebbenden aan om feedback te geven. Informatie over de start van de raadpleging werd op grote schaal
verspreid door middel van een persbericht.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/unfair-trading-practices/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003351/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bastiaan Belder (EFD)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tackling unfair trade practices in the food chain

The stakeholders represented in the expert platform of the High Level Forum on a Better Functioning Food Supply
Chain have reached consensus on the principles of good practice, but have not been able to agree on the framework
for the enforcement of those principles.

1. In its letter to the expert platform of 20 July 2012, the Commission emphasised the crucial importance of
finding consensus on a framework for enforcement. How does the Commission, in light of this, view the fact that 8
out of the 11 stakeholders have announced that they would start implementing an enforcement framework when
there is no agreement about the way in which this should be done? Indeed, one of the parties that was unable to sign
the framework because it did not see in the framework the points it considers necessary is a representative of the
primary producers.

Does the Commission believe that unfair commercial practices can be addressed to the satisfaction of all parties when
no consensus on the framework for enforcement seems possible?

2. The Commission writes in its Green Paper on Unfair Commercial Practices (31 January 2013) that ‘the fear
factor’ is ‘one of the most important issues to be examined when assessing the appropriateness of an enforcement
mechanism’.

The enforcement framework (the version of 25 January) allows an anonymous complaint to be made only in the case
of aggregated bundled complaints about an unfair trade practice or in the case of individual complaints about
process-related matters. How does the Commission view the fact that no provision for filing an anonymous
individual complaint about an unfair trade practice has been included in the framework?

3. How does the Commission view the fact that the framework only provides for a sanction for non-compliance
with process-related requirements while failing to provide for a sanction for substantive violation of the principles of
good practice?

4. What is the Commission doing about obtaining a representative response to the public consultation on the
Green Paper?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

1-3. The Commission is currently assessing various options to address unfair business-to-business trading practices
and is carrying out an impact assessment to that effect. In this context, the Commission will, among others, analyse
the issues of sanctions and individual anonymous complaints, and whether such possibilities should be introduced
into an enforcement framework which would address unfair practices between actors at each supply chain level. At
this stage, the Commission reserves its final judgment on the effectiveness of the voluntary code of good practice the
Honourable Member is referring to.

The Commission would wish for a broader agreement between food supply chain stakeholders and has asked food
chain partners to work in this direction. Yet, it welcomes any initiative including a partial agreement which aims at
improving business-to-business relationships. The Commission will follow closely the results of this voluntary
initiative, while working on the impact assessment in parallel.

The actual uptake of this initiative should provide an indication on the results the sector is expecting from it. The
coverage of the companies that will sign up in the coming months will provide a first element of assessment in this
respect.

4. The Commission published the consultation on the Green Paper on unfair trading practices in the business-tobusiness food and non-food supply chain on its website ( [1] ) and has encouraged the feedback of all interested
stakeholders. Information on the launch of the consultation was broadly disseminated through a press release.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/unfair-trading-practices/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 193

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003352/13**
**aan de Commissie (Vicevoorzitter / Hoge Vertegenwoordiger)**

**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ VP/HR — Wapenexport vanuit de EU naar Israël

Het Gemeenschappelijk Standpunt 2008/944/GBVL van de Raad bevat 8 criteria waaraan moet voldaan zijn bij de
export van wapens uit de EU. Dit standpunt is bindend voor alle EU-lidstaten. Voor een zeventiental landen,
waaronder China, Wit-Rusland en Libanon, geldt een wapenembargo omdat ze aan deze criteria niet voldoen.

Tegen Israël is er momenteel geen wapenembargo,. De wapenexport vanuit de EU bedroeg over de periode 20032011 ruim 1,4 miljard euro. Toch zijn er talrijke duidelijke redenen om aan te nemen dat Israël helemaal niet voldoet
aan de 8 criteria in het Gemeenschappelijk Standpunt, zelfs niet wanneer een minimale interpretatie van deze vaag
verwoorde criteria gevolgd wordt. Voorbeelden hiervan zijn operatie Gegoten Lood, de bouw van nederzettingen en
de muur, de aanval op Freedom Flotilla en de levering van nucleaire onderzeeboten door Duitsland. Deze lijst
voorbeelden van grove schendingen van de 8 criteria roept volgende dringende vragen op:

1. Gemeenschappelijke Standpunt 2008/944/GBVL wordt niet nageleefd. Wat zijn, gezien het bindend karakter
van dit document, de mogelijke juridische of andere gevolgen voor de lidstaten die blijven wapens exporteren
naar Israël?

2. Welke argumenten rechtvaardigen de wapenexport naar Israël en het uitblijven van een wapenembargo tegen
dit land?

3. Waarom is er geen consequent wapenexportbeleid? Op welke eenduidige grond wordt er voor sommige landen
die beschuldigd worden van mensenrechtenschendingen, zoals China, beslist om een wapenembargo in te
stellen, terwijl de export naar Israel, dat ook van schendingen beschuldigd wordt, gewoon kan door gaan?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(16 mei 2013)_

Overeenkomstig Gemeenschappelijk Standpunt 2008/944/GBVB betreffende de controle op de uitvoer van militaire
goederen blijft de beslissing over het al dan niet toestaan van de uitvoer van wapens een bevoegdheid van de lidstaten.
Wapenuitvoervergunningen die door EU-lidstaten worden beoordeeld, worden getoetst aan de 8 criteria die in het
Gemeenschappelijk Standpunt zijn vastgesteld en d lidstaten moeten rekening houden met mogelijke weigeringen
van andere lidstaten voor soortgelijke transacties.

Vraagstukkend die rijzen bij de uitvoering van het Gemeenschappelijk Standpunt, worden besproken in de
regelmatige vergaderingen van de werkgroep van de Raad voor de export van conventionele wapens (COARM). In
COARM wisselen lidstaten standpunten en informatie uit over specifieke bestemmingen met het oog op een betere
samenhang van hun beleid inzake wapenuitvoer ten aanzien van de bestemmingen in kwestie. Zij bespreken
eveneens de toepassing van de criteria van het Gemeenschappelijk Standpunt op de bestemming die wordt
behandeld.

Ook transparantie speelt een belangrijke rol in het Gemeenschappelijk Standpunt van de EU, zoals wordt aangetoond
met het jaarverslag van de EU over wapenuitvoer dat in het _Publicatieblad van de EU_ wordt bekendgemaakt ( [1] ). Deze
verslagen bevatten eveneens informatie over het aantal wapenuitvoerweigeringen (en de criteria waarop deze zijn
gebaseerd) voor iedere bestemming. Aan de hand van het aantal weigeringen kan de mate van beperking van het
beleid inzake wapenuitvoer worden beoordeeld. Voor het land dat in de vraag is vermeld, wordt in recente verslagen
melding gemaakt van een belangrijk aantal wapenuitvoerweigeringen.

Voor elk besluit van de Raad tot instelling van een wapenembargo wordt rekening gehouden met de reikwijdte van de
mensenrechtenschendingen en met name de vraag op welke schaal en hoe systematisch de mensenrechten worden
geschonden. Om een wapenembargo in te stellen, is unanimiteit van de lidstaten vereist.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Alle verslagen zijn te vinden op:
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_nl.htm

C 12 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003352/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arms exports from the EU to Israel

The Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP contains 8 criteria that must be met when exporting arms from
the EU. This position is binding on all EU Member States. An arms embargo applies to around seventeen countries,
including China, Belarus and Lebanon, because they do not meet these criteria.

There is currently no arms embargo on Israel. Arms exports from the EU amounted to more than EUR 1.4 billion
during the 2003‐2011 period. However, there are numerous obvious reasons to assume that Israel is absolutely not
complying with the 8 criteria in the Common Position, even if we allow a minimal interpretation of these vaguely
worded criteria. Examples include Operation Cast Lead, the building of settlements and the Israeli West Bank barrier,
the attack on the Freedom Flotilla and the supply of nuclear submarines by Germany. This list of examples of major
violations of the 8 criteria raises the following urgent questions:

1. The Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP is not being observed. Given the binding nature of this
document, what are the possible legal or other consequences for those Member States that continue to export
weapons to Israel?

2. What are the arguments that justify arms exports to Israel and the EU’s failure to impose an arms embargo on
the country?

3. Why is there no consistent arms export policy? On what unambiguous grounds has it been decided to impose
an arms embargo on some countries accused of human rights violations, such as China, while exports to Israel,
which has also been accused of violations, are simply allowed to go on?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

Under Common Position 2008/944/CFSP on the control of export of military equipment, decisions on whether to
authorise or deny arms exports remain a national responsibility of Member States. Arms export licences reviewed by
EU Member States are assessed against the eight criteria laid down in the Common Position and Member States have
to take into account denials possibly issued by other Member States for similar transactions.

Issues raised by implementation of the Common Position are discussed in regular meetings of the Council Working
Group on conventional arms exports (COARM). Member States exchange in COARM views and information on
specific destinations with a view to achieving greater consistency of their arms export policy towards the destinations
in question. They also discuss the application of the criteria of the Common Position to the destination under
discussion.

Transparency is also key to the EU Common Position as exemplified by the EU annual report on arms exports
published in the EU official journal ( [1] ). Those reports also inform on the number of arms export denials (and the
criteria on which they are based) vis-à-vis any destination. This number of denials enables to assess the degree of
restriction of arms export policies. For instance vis-à-vis the country referred to in the question, recent reports inform
of a significant number of arms export denials.

The extent of human rights violations and notably how widespread and systematic these violations are considered in
any Council decision to impose an arms embargo. The decision to impose an arms embargo requires unanimity
among the Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) All reports are accessible at: http://www.eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/arms-export-control/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 195

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003353/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Samenwerking met Israël binnen FP7

Israël is het enige niet-Europees land dat geassocieerd is met het Zevende Kaderprogramma voor Onderzoek en
Technologische Ontwikkeling (FP7).

1. Aan welke criteria moet een entiteit voldoen om te kunnen aansluiten bij het Kaderprogramma en zo financiële
steun te ontvangen? Welk controleorgaan houdt toezicht op de naleving van deze criteria?

2. Kan de Commissie een overzicht geven van de bedragen die Israël sinds 2000 jaarlijks heeft ontvangen uit dit en
voorgaande Kaderprogramma's? In hoeveel van de FP7-projecten zijn Israëlische defensie‐ en beveiligingsbedrijven
betrokken en welke bedragen zijn hier telkens mee gemoeid per bedrijf? Welke argumenten rechtvaardigen de
transfer van Europees onderzoeksgeld naar deze bedrijven?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Geoghegan-Quinn namens de Commissie**

_(17 mei 2013)_

Deelname aan het zevende kaderprogramma voor onderzoek, technologische ontwikkeling en
demonstratieactiviteiten (KP7, 2007-2013) staat open voor rechtspersonen uit de hele wereld. Bij de meeste KPprojecten gaat het om een samenwerkingsverband waarbij de deelname van minimaal drie juridische entiteiten uit
verschillende EU-lidstaten of geassocieerde landen wordt verlangd. Projecten worden geselecteerd op basis van
wetenschappelijke kwaliteit en de beoordeling wordt uitgevoerd door onafhankelijke experts. De governanceregelingen voorzien in programmacomités met vertegenwoordigers uit de lidstaten.

Het overzicht van toezeggingen aan de Israëlische juridische entiteiten die in de periode 2000-2013 aan KP-projecten
deelnemen vindt u in de bijgevoegde tabel. Defensie-onderzoek wordt niet door het KP ondersteund. Hoewel er geen
specifieke NACE-code ( [1] ) voor de beveiligingsindustrie bestaat, nemen 23 Israelische entiteiten voor een totaalbedrag
van 26 miljoen EUR deel aan 49 KP7-projecten met het thema beveiliging.

Onder de voorwaarden van de internationale overeenkomst waarbij Israël bij het KP7 betrokken wordt, betaalt het
een financiële bijdrage aan het programma en ontvangen Israëlische juridische entiteiten in dit kader financiering op
dezelfde basis als EU lidstaten.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Statistical_classification_of_economic_activities_in_the_European_Co
mmunity_(NACE).

C 12 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003353/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cooperation with Israel within FP7

Israel is the only non-European country that is associated with the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and
Technological Development (FP7).

1. What criteria does an entity have to meet in order to join the framework Programme and, thus, receive financial
support? What supervisory body oversees compliance with these criteria?

2. Can the Commission provide an overview of the amounts that Israel has received annually from this and
previous Framework Programmes since 2000? In how many of the FP7 projects are Israeli defence and security
companies involved and what are the amounts paid per company in each case? What are the arguments that justify
the transfer of European research money to these companies?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

The Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7,
2007-2013) is open to the participation of legal entities from all over the world. Most FP projects are of a
collaborative nature requiring the participation of a minimum of three legal entities from different EU Member States
or Associated Countries. Projects are selected on the basis of scientific excellence and the evaluation is carried out by
independent experts. The governance arrangements include programme committees with representatives from the
Member States.

The overview of commitments to Israeli legal entities participating in FP projects in the years 2000-2013 is provided
in an enclosed table. FP7 does not support defence research. While there is no specific NACE code ( [1] ) for the security
industry, 23 Israeli entities participate in 49 FP7 projects of the Security theme, with a total contribution of
EUR 26 million.

Under the terms of the international agreement associating Israel to FP7, Israel provides a financial contribution to the
programme and Israeli legal entities receive funding from it on the same basis as legal entities from EU Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Statistical_classification_of_economic_activities_in_the_European_Co
mmunity_(NACE).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 197

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003355/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(25 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Acordul cu Republica Moldova referitor la protecția indicațiilor geografice ale produselor agricole și
alimentare

În 15 ianuarie 2013 a fost publicat în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene Acordul dintre Uniunea Europeană și
Republica Moldova cu privire la protecția indicațiilor geografice ale produselor agricole și alimentare.

În Anexa III a acordului privind produsele agricole și alimentare din Uniunea Europeană, altele decât vinurile,
băuturile spirtoase și vinurile aromatizate, care urmează să fie protejate în Republica Moldova, indicația geografică
protejată „Magiun de Topoloveni” a fost omisă.

Cum poate Comisia justifica această omitere?

**Răspuns dat de dl Cioloş în numele Comisiei**

_(6 mai 2013)_

Lista indicațiilor geografice (GI) ale UE, protejate în baza acordului privind protecția indicațiilor geografice ale
produselor agricole și alimentare ( [1] ) încheiat între Uniunea Europeană și Republica Moldova, include denumirile
înregistrate până la data de 11 mai 2010.

Denumirea „Magiun de prune Topoloveni” nu a fost inclusă în listă, fiind înregistrată în UE de abia la data de 8 aprilie
2011.

În același timp, acordul menționat prevede, la articolul 3, o procedură simplificată de actualizare, de ambele părți, a
listei denumirilor protejate; actualizarea se va face prin decizia comitetului mixt care urmează a fi creat în baza
acordului. Prima reuniune a comitetului va avea loc până la sfârșitul anului 2013/începutul anului 2014. În acest
context, „Magiun de prune Topoloveni” va fi printre primele denumiri analizate în vederea protejării în Moldova.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 10, 15.1.2013.

C 12 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003355/13**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Agreement with the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical markings on agricultural
products and foodstuffs

On 15 January 2013 the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the protection of
geographical markings on agricultural products and foodstuffs was published in the EU Official Journal.

In Annex III of the agreement on agricultural products and foodstuffs of the European Union with the exception of
wines, spirits and aromatised wines to be protected in the Republic of Moldova, the protected geographical marking
‘Magiun de Topoloveni’ was omitted.

How can the Commission justify this omission?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The list of the EU Geographical Indications (GIs) protected under the Agreement between the European Union and
the Republic of Moldova on the protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs ( [1] )
includes designations registered before 11 May 2010.

Magiun de prune Topoloveni was not included in this list as it was registered in the EU only on 8 April 2011.

At the same time the Agreement (Article 3 thereof) foresees a simplified procedure to update the list of protected
designations from both sides; the update will be done by a decision of the Joint Committee to be set up under the
Agreement. The first meeting of the Joint Committee should take place by the end of 2013/early 2014. In this
context, Magiun de prune Topoloveni will be one of the first denominations to be examined for the protection in
Moldova.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L10, 15.1.2013.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 199

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003356/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Negocierile TTIP și impactul lor asupra agriculturii

În vara acestui an, Uniunea Europeană și Statele Unite ale Americii vor începe discuții oficiale cu privire la
Parteneriatul Transatlantic de Schimb și Investiții (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — TTIP), cu
obiectivul de a încheia un acord până la sfârșitul anului 2014.

Este prevăzut ca discuțiile să aibă ca obiect, printre altele, sistemele de cote agricole, subvențiile la export etc.

Comisia este rugată să răspundă la următoarele întrebări:

1. Care sunt obiectivele pe care și le propune în domeniul schimburilor cu produse agricole?

2. Care vor fi efectele prevăzute ale acordului asupra agriculturii europene?

3. Care va fi poziția de negociere a Comisiei în ceea ce privește organismele modificate genetic?

4. Care va fi poziția de negociere a Comisiei în ceea ce privește respectarea standardelor de mediu și de bunăstare a
animalelor?

**Răspuns dat de dl Cioloș în numele Comisiei**

_(22 mai 2013)_

Uniunea Europeană beneficiază de o balanță comercială pozitivă semnificativă cu Statele Unite ale Americii în
sectorul agricol, în special datorită exportului de produse cu valoare ridicată. Comisia consideră că Parteneriatul
Transatlantic de Schimb și Investiții (TTIP) va fi benefic pentru UE la nivel global și va crește cota de piață pentru
produsele UE pe piața Statelor Unite ale Americii, garantându-se în același timp un rezultat echilibrat per ansamblu.
Parteneriatul Transatlantic de Schimb și Investiții va oferi, de asemenea, un tratament specific pentru produsele cele
mai sensibile. Comisia va lua în considerare sensibilitățile existente pe piețele agricole ale Uniunii Europene pentru a
reduce la minimum orice impacturi negative.

Comisia va urmări, de asemenea, asigurarea unei protecții consolidate pentru indicațiile geografice ale Uniunii
Europene în Statele Unite ale Americii; acesta este și un mijloc de a garanta un acces mai bun pe piață.

Aceste negocieri nu vor compromite sănătatea consumatorilor din Uniunea Europeană sau mediul pentru câștiguri
comerciale. Legislația de bază, inclusiv în ceea ce privește organismele modificate genetic, nu va fi afectată de
negocieri.

În cadrul viitoarelor negocieri, Comisia intenționează să abordeze și aspecte legate de bunăstarea animalelor.

Negocierile cu SUA vor urmări consolidarea coerenței normative și a compatibilității. Standardele de mediu vor fi
abordate în acest context.

C 12 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003356/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ TTIP negotiations and their impact on agriculture

This summer the European Union and the United States will initiate official discussions on the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP), with the aim of concluding an agreement by the end of 2014.

The discussions are expected to focus on agricultural quota schemes and export subsidies, amongst other things.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What additional objectives is it proposing with regard to the trade in agricultural products?

2. What will be the expected impact of the agreement on European agriculture?

3. What negotiating stance will the Commission adopt on genetically modified organisms?

4. What negotiating stance will the Commission adopt on compliance with environmental and animal welfare
standards?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

The EU is benefiting from a significant positive trade balance with the US in the agricultural sector, notably due to its
export of high value products. The Commission considers that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP) will be globally beneficial for the EU and will increase the market share for the EU products in the US market,
while guaranteeing a balanced outcome overall. The TTIP will also provide specific treatment for the most sensitive
products. The Commission will carefully take into account the sensitivities in the EU agricultural markets in order to
minimise any negative impacts.

The Commission will also aim at securing enhanced protection for EU geographical indications in the US; this is also
a means of guaranteeing improved market access.

These negotiations will not compromise the health of EU consumers or the environment for commercial gains. Basic
legislation, including on the issue of GMOs, will not be affected by the negotiations.

In the framework of the forthcoming negotiations the Commission also intends to address animal welfare issues.

The negotiations with the US will aim at enhancing regulatory coherence and compatibility. Environmental standards
will be addressed in that context.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 201

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003358/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) y Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(25 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Nueva autoridad de la competencia

La Comisión Europea ha advertido a España que si no modifica el proyecto de ley para la creación de la nueva
Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia (CNMC) y lo adapta a las normas europeas abrirá un procedimiento
de infracción contra el país, según se ha hecho eco la prensa.

Según parece, el Gobierno español ha hecho modificaciones al respecto, aunque la Comisión Europea aún no se ha
posicionado al respecto. También se ha hecho eco la prensa de que los partidos políticos se encuentran en pleno
mercadeo de las posiciones del Consejo de la nueva CNMC con el objetivo de colocar a personas cercanas o
directamente parte de sus partidos políticos. Parece evidente que estas no son las mejores condiciones para asegurar la
independencia del nuevo organismo.

¿Qué opinión tiene la Comisión sobre las modificaciones que ha hecho el Gobierno español para cumplir con las
condiciones de la Comisión?

¿Cree la Comisión que es perjudicial para la independencia del CNMC el modo en que los partidos políticos quieren
elegir a los consejeros que gobiernen el organismo?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Kroes en nombre de la Comisión**

_(17 de mayo de 2013)_

Como se indicaba en nuestra respuesta a la PQ E-002282/2013, la Comisión ha mantenido un estrecho contacto con
las autoridades españolas en relación con la ley por la que se instituye la Comisión Nacional de Mercados y
Competencia (CNMC) y ha expresado su preocupación sobre una serie de aspectos, incluido el nombramiento de los
directivos, el régimen de financiación y la asignación efectiva de competencias en los sectores de las comunicaciones
electrónicas y la energía a autoridades reguladoras nacionales.

El Gobierno de España ha asegurado a la Comisión que, en la versión final de la ley por la que se instituye la CNMC, se
tendrán en cuenta los aspectos señalados; la Comisión tiene conocimiento de que, a raíz de las conversaciones
mantenidas con las autoridades españolas, se han propuesto una serie de modificaciones en todo el proceso
legislativo. El proyecto de ley se está debatiendo actualmente en el Senado ( [1] ).

En lo relativo a los miembros del Consejo de la futura CNMC, la Comisión otorga gran importancia a los requisitos
que impone el nuevo marco regulador de la UE en relación con la independencia de las autoridades reguladoras
nacionales. Parece ser que el proyecto de ley refuerza la participación y el control del Parlamento en el nombramiento
de los miembros del Consejo. En particular, dicho proyecto establece que tales miembros serán designados previa
consulta del Parlamento, que tendrá un derecho de veto respecto a los candidatos propuestos.

Con el fin de asegurar que la legislación española se ajuste al Derecho de la UE, la Comisión se compromete a seguir
de cerca la realización efectiva de esta reforma, dadas las repercusiones que puede tener sobre el funcionamiento de la
economía, así como la finalización del proceso legislativo. Si procediera, abordará cualquier otro problema que
pudiera presentarse.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proyecto de Ley de creación de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia:
http://www.senado.es/web/actividadparlamentaria/iniciativas/detalleiniciativa/index.html?legis=10&id1=621&id2=000031

C 12 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003358/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) and Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New competition authority

According to media reports, the Commission has warned Spain that if it does not amend its draft law creating the new
National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC) to comply with EU standards it will open infringement
proceedings against the country.

The Spanish Government has apparently made changes in this regard, although the Commission has yet to adopt a
position thereon. The press has also reported that political parties are advertising seats on the new CNMC board to try
and secure them for those affiliated with or directly involved in these parties. These are clearly not optimal conditions
for ensuring the new authority’s independence.

What is the Commission’s opinion regarding the changes made by Spanish Government to comply with EU
standards?

Does it believe it that the CNMC’s independence is jeopardised by the political parties’ attempts to select its directors?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

As indicated in our reply to PQ E-002282/2013, the Commission has been in regular contact with the Spanish
authorities regarding the draft law creating the National Commission for Markets and Competition (CNMC) and has
expressed its concerns on a number of issues, including the appointment of management positions, financing regime,
and the effective attribution of competences in the electronic communications and energy sectors to national
regulatory authorities in Spain.

The Commission has received the assurance from the Spanish Government that these concerns will be addressed in
the final law creating the CNMC and is aware that following discussions with the Spanish authorities a number of
amendments have been proposed throughout the legislative process. The draft law is currently under discussion in
the Spanish Senate ( [1] ).

Regarding the members of the Board of the future CNMC, the Commission attaches great importance to the
requirements under the EU regulatory framework regarding the independence of national regulatory authorities. The
draft law seems to reinforce the involvement and control of the Parliament in the appointment process of the
members of the Board. In particular, the draft law foresees that the members of the Board will be appointed following
consultation of the Parliament which will have the right to veto the proposed candidates.

The Commission is committed to follow-up closely the implementation of this reform, given its potential impact on
the functioning of the economy, as well as the finalisation of the legislative process to ensure compliance of the
Spanish legislation with EC law, and will address any remaining issues, as appropriate.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.senado.es/web/actividadparlamentaria/iniciativas/detalleiniciativa/index.html?legis=10&id1=621&id2=000031

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 203

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003359/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE)**

_(25 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Facilitación del comercio

La Unión Europea está realizando grandes esfuerzos para favorecer el libre comercio mediante la negociación y
entrada en vigor de una amplia red de acuerdos. Con ellos se busca reducir los costes y la burocracia comercial para
favorecer el comercio y fomentar el crecimiento económico y la creación de empleo.

Sin embargo, la Unión Europea sigue sin contar con un programa propio de facilitación comercial, por lo que muchas
de las oportunidades que podrían surgir a raíz de este gran esfuerzo se pierden. De hecho, algunas empresas están
encontrando dificultades para impulsar su desarrollo comercial, entre otras causas por la pérdida de nivel de
calificación de los Estados miembros a los que pertenecen, lo que les lleva a perder oportunidades, por ejemplo en
concursos de licitación pública, al no poder ser avaladas por los bancos localizados en dichos países.

Sabemos que el BEI ya está estudiando las posibilidades de establecer un programa de facilitación del comercio; sin
embargo, esto implica un proceso largo. Por ello, ¿cómo vería la Comisión que, al igual que otros bancos de
desarrollo, el BEI pudiera empezar estableciendo medidas intermedias factibles, como la posibilidad de garantizar los
avales necesarios para que las empresas puedan aprovechar mejor los esfuerzos en materia de libre comercio que la
UE está llevando a cabo?

Dada la importancia de una puesta en funcionamiento rápida, ¿cuándo cree la Comisión que podría ponerse en
marcha un esquema operativo que permitiese salvar las dificultades en lo que respecta a los avales?

¿Considera la Comisión que el BEI podrá desarrollar un programa de facilitación del comercio sobre la base de este
esquema aunque sea a más largo plazo?

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-003808/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)**

_(8 de abril de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Desarrollo de un Programa para Facilitar el Comercio (Trade Facilitation Programme — TFP)

Las rebajas en la calificación crediticia de los Estados miembros han afectado a sus instituciones financieras y también
a familias y empresas, con independencia de su solvencia. Esta situación, que pretende corregirse con la Unión
Bancaria, tiene un gran impacto en el acceso a garantías y avales a las empresas con vocación exportadora de los
países cuya calificación crediticia ha sido rebajada.

La demanda de garantías y avales no ha sido cubierta por nuevos entrantes dada la falta de relación con los potenciales
clientes y de familiaridad con sus mercados habituales. Estas empresas europeas ven bloqueada así su participación en
concursos internacionales y su presencia en el exterior. Se impide de esta forma la corrección de los desequilibrios
macroeconómicos, la consecución de los objetivos de la Estrategia Europa 2020 y, en el caso de operaciones en el
ámbito europeo, provoca una seria anomalía en el funcionamiento del mercado interior.

En un informe de 2008 elaborado para el Banco Europeo de Inversiones sobre distintos mecanismos de financiación,
se contemplan Programas de Facilitación de Comercio (Trade Facilitation Programmes — TFP) para ofrecer este tipo
de garantías y avales. El Banco Europeo de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo (BERD) los viene desarrollando en su limitado
ámbito desde 1997, siendo el 70 % de sus operaciones en apoyo de Pequeñas y Medianas Empresas.

La cumbre de líderes de la eurozona de 29 de junio de 2012 concluyó que «que es imperativo romper el círculo
vicioso entre bancos y emisores soberanos». El establecimiento de un Programa para Facilitar el Comercio (Trade
Facilitation Programme) es necesario para conseguirlo, y hacer efectivas las prioridades del Semestre Europeo.

¿Va a adoptarse alguna iniciativa para poner en marcha un Programa para Facilitar el Comercio (Trade Facilitation
Programme), por parte del Banco Europeo de Inversiones o por otra vía, de conformidad con las conclusiones del
Consejo Europeo, las recomendaciones del Consejo y las posiciones defendidas por la Comisión? Teniendo en cuenta
lo beneficioso de esta medida para la economía real, ¿va a adoptarse con urgencia?

C 12 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**Respuesta conjunta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(3 de junio de 2013)_

La Comisión colabora estrechamente con el Grupo BEI, formado por el BEI y el Fondo Europeo de Inversiones, en uno
de los ámbitos de acción prioritarios de la UE: la elaboración de instrumentos conjuntos en favor de las PYME. Por
consiguiente, la Comisión acoge favorablemente aquellas iniciativas de financiación comercial del BEI destinadas a
ayudar a las PYME de los Estados miembros vulnerables.

En diciembre de 2012, el Consejo de Administración del BEI aprobó un programa de fomento de la financiación
comercial (TFEP, en sus siglas en inglés) que proporciona contraavales a los rendimientos de las entidades bancarias
cuando estas no pueden encontrar socios internacionales para operaciones de financiación comercial iniciadas
por PYME.

Aunque en principio dicho programa se está aplicando con carácter experimental en Grecia, no se descarta la
posibilidad de ampliarlo a otros países que se enfrentan a los mismos problemas.

El programa TFEP debe ser considerado como una medida contra la crisis que viene a complementar la ayuda que a
más largo plazo ya está proporcionando el BEI a las PYME, sobre todo a través de la concesión de préstamos. Dada la
situación actual del mercado, el programa de fomento de la financiación comercial puede ayudar decisivamente a
mitigar los riesgos sistémicos y los riesgos asociados a las operaciones de financiación a que se enfrentan los bancos
extranjeros interesados en realizar intercambios comerciales con Grecia, así como a favorecer una recuperación
económica basada en las exportaciones e impulsada en concreto por las PYME.

Asimismo, se están manteniendo conversaciones con otras instituciones públicas de los Estados miembros para
estudiar si dichas entidades pueden aunar esfuerzos con el BEI a fin de desarrollar un plan específico de apoyo a la
internacionalización de las PYME.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 205

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003359/13**

**to the Commission**
**Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Trade facilitation

The EU is making significant efforts to promote free trade through the negotiation and entry into force of a
comprehensive network of agreements. Through these agreements it aims to cut costs and trade bureaucracy thereby
promoting trade and fostering economic growth and job creation.

However, the EU does not yet have its own trade facilitation programme, which means that many potential
opportunities arising from these efforts are lost. In fact, some companies are finding it difficult to boost trade
development, partly due to their Member States’ credit ratings being downgraded. This results in missed
opportunities, for instance in public tenders, as the banks located in these countries cannot provide guarantees.

We know that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is already examining the possibility of establishing a trade
facilitation programme; however, this involves a long process. How, therefore, can the EIB, as well as other
development banks, begin to establish feasible intermediate measures, such as the ability to ensure the guarantees
needed for businesses to make better use of EU efforts on free trade?

Given that a solution must be implemented quickly, when does the Commission believe that an operating procedure
could be put in place to overcome the difficulties regarding guarantees?

Does it believe that the EIB could develop a trade facilitation programme, albeit longer-term, based on this procedure?

**Question for written answer P-003808/13**

**to the Commission**
**Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)**

_(8 April 2013)_

_Subject:_ Development of a trade facilitation programme (TFP)

Downgrades in Member States’ credit ratings have affected financial institutions as well as families and companies,
regardless of the level of solvency involved. This situation, for which the banking union has been suggested as a
solution, is having a major impact as regards access to guarantees and commitments for export companies in
countries whose credit ratings have been revised downwards.

Demand for guarantees and commitments has not been met by new entrants owing to a lack of links with potential
clients and insufficient familiarity with the usual markets. European companies are thus being prevented from taking
part in international procurement procedures and their external presence is being eroded. It is therefore proving
difficult to correct macroeconomic imbalances and attain the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. In addition, where
transactions within Europe are concerned, this situation is causing a serious anomaly in the operation of the internal
market.

A 2008 report by the European Investment Bank (EIB) on various funding mechanisms proposed trade facilitation
programmes (TFPs) as a way of offering guarantees and commitments of this kind. The European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development has been developing these within its limited remit since 1997: they account for
70% of its SME support operations.

The Eurozone leaders’ summit of 29 June 2012 concluded that ‘it is imperative to break the vicious circle between
banks and sovereigns’. A trade facilitation programme needs to be set up in order to do this, and to put the European
Semester priorities into effect.

Are there any plans to take action with a view to implementing a trade facilitation programme, via the EIB or by other
means, in line with the European Council conclusions, the Council recommendations and positions taken by the
Commission? Given the benefits this measure can bring to the real economy, will such action be taken as a matter of
urgency?

C 12 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

**Joint answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission works closely with the EIB Group, including the EIB and the European Investment Fund, in joint
instruments in support of SMEs, which is a key policy priority for the EU. Therefore, the Commission welcomes EIB
trade finance initiatives supporting SMEs in vulnerable Member States.

In December 2012, the EIB Board of Directors approved a Trade Finance Enhancement programme (‘TFEP’) which
provides counter-guarantees of banks’ performance where they cannot find international counterparts for trade
finance transactions initiated by SMEs.

Whereas this programme is initially being deployed on a pilot basis in Greece, consideration will be given to the
possibility of extending the TFEP to other countries confronted with the same problems.

This programme has to be seen as an anti-crisis measure which complements the longer-term support for SMEs
already being provided by the EIB through in particular the SME loans. Under current market conditions, the Trade
Finance Enhancement Programme can play an important role in mitigating transaction and systemic risks of foreign
banks interested in developing trade flows with Greece, and favouring an export-led economic recovery promoted in
particular by SMEs.

In parallel, ongoing discussions are being held with some other Member States’ public institutions to determine if
those institutions can join forces with the EIB for a dedicated scheme to support the internationalization of SMEs.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 207

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003360/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Freihandelszone China-Japan-Südkorea

Um ihre wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit auszubauen planen China, Japan und Südkorea die Errichtung einer
Freihandelszone. Dazu gab es bereits Ende 2012 erste Verhandlungen, die nun weitergeführt werden sollen.

Welche Auswirkungen werden in diesem Zusammenhang von der Kommission hinsichtlich der
Freihandelszonen-Strategie der EU erwartet?

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

Die Kommission verfolgt Handelsinitiativen, an denen einige ihrer wichtigsten Partner in Asien beteiligt sind,
aufmerksam; dazu gehören auch die Bemühungen Chinas, Japans und Südkoreas, ein trilaterales
Freihandelsabkommen ihrer Länder abzuschließen.

Obwohl diese Initiative keine unmittelbaren Folgen für die Freihandelsstrategie der EU in der Region hat, begrüßt die
Kommission diese Bemühungen um die Liberalisierung des Handels mit dem Ziel, Wachstum und Beschäftigung in
der Region zu fördern. Es sei ferner darauf hingewiesen, dass die Europäische Union bereits ein
Freihandelsabkommen mit Südkorea geschlossen hat, das seit 1. Juli 2011 in Kraft ist, und dass im März 2013
Verhandlungen mit Japan über ein bilaterales Freihandelsabkommen aufgenommen wurden.

C 12 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003360/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Free trade area China-Japan-South Korea

In order to enhance their economic cooperation, China, Japan and South Korea are planning to establish a free trade
area. The first negotiations in this regard took place at the end of the 2012 and are now to be continued.

What effects does the Commission expect this to have with regard to the EU free trade area strategy?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 May 2013)_

The Commission is closely monitoring trade initiatives in which some of its major partners in Asia are active,
including the efforts by China, Japan and South Korea to establish a triangular Free Trade Agreement among
themselves.

Although this initiative does not have a direct impact on the EU’s free trade area strategy in the region, the
Commission nevertheless welcomes these efforts towards trade liberalisation with the objective of fostering growth
and jobs in the region. It should also be noted that the European Union already has a Free Trade Agreement with
South Korea in force since 1 July 2011, and that negotiations with Japan for a bilateral free trade agreement were
launched in March 2013.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 209

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003361/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Banken-Pleite in Zypern trotz einwandfreiem Abschneiden bei Bankenstresstests

Laut dem im Juli 2011 veröffentlichten Ergebnis des von der Europäischen Bankenaufsichtsbehörde (EBA) und der
Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB) durchgeführten Banken-Stresstests haben die Banken in Zypern diesen Stresstest
einwandfrei bestanden. Nun, gut 18 Monate später, stehen eben diese Banken kurz vor der Pleite und sollten von den
Bürgern mittels einer Teilenteignung gerettet werden.

1. Wie erklärt die Kommission den Umstand, dass der EU-Bankenstresstest den Instituten in Zypern ein gutes
Zeugnis ausgestellt hat und diese nun vor der Pleite stehen?

2. Sind weitere Banken-Stresstests geplant?

3. Falls ja, welche Anpassungen der Stresstests sind vorgesehen?

4. Falls nein, warum nicht?

**Antwort von Herrn Rehn im Namen der Kommission**

_(13. Mai 2013)_

Aus den von der Europäischen Bankenaufsichtsbehörde (EBA) und der Europäischen Zentralbank (EZB)
durchgeführten Banken-Stresstests, deren Ergebnis im Juli 2011 veröffentlicht wurde, ging hervor, dass die beiden
größten zyprischen Banken eine weitere Stärkung ihres Kapitalpolsters benötigten. Aktualisierten Schätzungen der
EBA vom Dezember 2011 zufolge benötigten die beiden Banken zusätzliches Kapital in Höhe von insgesamt
3,5 Mrd. EUR (Bank of Cyprus 1,56 Mrd. EUR und Marfin, jetzt Cyprus Popular Bank, 1,97 Mrd. EUR), um ihre
Kernkapitalquote („Tier 1“) von 9 % zu erreichen.

Nach einer Pause im Jahr 2012 dürfte die EBA in diesem Jahr einen weiteren Stresstest durchführen. Weitere
Informationen über die Methodik der Tests sind noch nicht bekannt.

C 12 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003361/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bankruptcy of the banks in Cyprus despite passing the bank stress tests with flying colours

According to the results, published in July 2011, of the bank stress tests carried out by the European Banking
Authority (EBA) and the European Central Bank (ECB), the banks in Cyprus passed the stress test with flying colours.
Now, just over 18 months later, these banks are on the brink of bankruptcy and are to be rescued by the public by
means of a partial expropriation.

1. How does the Commission explain the fact that the EU bank stress test gave the institutions in Cyprus a good
report and now they are on the brink of bankruptcy?

2. Are further bank stress tests planned?

3. If so, what adjustments to the stress tests are envisaged?

4. If not, why not?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The bank stress tests carried out by the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Central Bank (ECB) and
published in July 2011 indicated that the largest two Cypriot banks needed further strenghtening of their capital
buffers. Following updated estimates of EBA in December 2011, the two banks required additional capital amounting
to a total of EUR 3.5 billion (Bank of Cyprus EUR 1.56 billion and Marfin, now Cyprus Popular Bank, EUR 1.97
billion) to reach a core Tier 1 capital ratio of 9%.

EBA is supposed to run another stress test this year, following a pause in 2012. More information on methodology of
the tests is not known yet.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 211

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003362/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Banken-Steuer — Verstoß gegen demokratische Prinzipien

Die für Zypern geplante Banken-Steuer, die im Zuge eines langen Wochenendes abgezogen werden sollte (und zwar
vorrangig gegenüber allen anderen Zahlungen, die ein Bürger leisten möchte ist, also bevor die nächste Miete, die
Stromkosten, das Schulgeld für die Kinder abgebucht werden), hat bei den Bürgern erwartungsgemäß eine massive
Protestwelle ausgelöst. Diese Steuer sollte ohne Vorankündigung, ohne jeden Spielraum, sich zu wehren, und ohne
Ermessensspielraum für die Bankangestellten, und ohne soziale Ausnahmen quasi im Handstreich erhoben wurden.

Die EU, welche Zypern zu dieser Aktion gedrängt hat — wenngleich die genauere Ausgestaltung durch die
zypriotische Regierung gewählt wurde —, hat damit im Zuge der Eurokrise einmal mehr gegen demokratische
Prinzipien verstoßen. Im Juni 2011 wurde auf EU-Ebene die gesetzliche Deckungssumme für Sparer mit
100 000 EUR abgesichert. Nicht einmal zwei Jahre später haben die EU-Finanzminister der 17 Euroländer
einstimmig (!) eine Teilenteignung der Sparer beschlossen, um damit in Zypern die Banken und den Staat vor der
Pleite zu bewahren, und so offen mit der Einlagen-Sicherung gebrochen. Eine Sondersteuer auf Sparguthaben ist im
Bankengesetz nicht vorgesehen und kommt einer Teilenteignung gleich.

1. Wie steht die Kommission zu dem Bruch mit dem demokratischen Prinzip der Bekanntgabe, wonach jede
Steuer vorher bekanntzugeben ist (auf dem Gesetzeswege, in amtlichen Verlautbarungen und mit Zustimmung der
Parlamente), welches im Falle Zyperns auf EU-Druck ausgesetzt wurde und das auch im Rahmen der verschiedenen
griechischen Bail-outs umgangen wurde?

2. Wie steht die Kommission dazu, dass damit indirekt die EU-Zusage der Einlagen-Sicherung verraten wurde?

3. Wie steht die Kommission dazu, dass im Zuge der Eurokrise die Regeln des Gemeinsamen Marktes gekippt
werden?

4. Wird auf EU-Ebene über ein europäisches Insolvenzrecht für Banken beraten?

5. Sind auf EU-Ebene Regeln für einen geordneten Staatsbankrott geplant?

**Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission**

_(19. Juni 2013)_

1. Die Kommission darf keine Lösungen unterstützen, die gegen das EU-Recht verstoßen würden. In der
ursprünglichen Entscheidung der Eurogruppe über ein zyprisches Programm vom 15. März 2013 wurde die Zusage
Zyperns begrüßt, eine einmalige Stabilitäts-Abgabe einzuführen.

2. Die zyprischen Behörden haben keine Abgabe auf Sparguthaben von weniger als 100 000 EUR erhoben.
Folglich ist auch kein Konflikt mit der Richtlinie 2009/14/EG über Einlagensicherungssysteme entstanden.

3. Die Kommission geht davon aus, dass sich der Herr Abgeordnete auf die von Zypern eingeführten
Beschränkungen des Kapitalverkehrs bezieht. Nach dem EU-Recht sind Beschränkungen des Kapitalverkehrs aus
Gründen der öffentlichen Ordnung oder der öffentlichen Sicherheit und aus zwingenden Gründen des allgemeinen
öffentlichen Interesses unter strengen Voraussetzungen vorübergehend zulässig.

4. Die Kommission hat im Juni 2012 einen Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über die Abwicklung und Sanierung von
Banken vorgelegt. Mit der Richtlinie würde ein EU-weiter Rahmen eingeführt, der es Behörden gestattet, im Falle einer
Bankenkrise wirksam und zeitnah einzugreifen. So wäre es anhand des „Bail-in“-Instruments möglich, eine Bank
durch Löschung oder Verwässerung von Anteilen zu rekapitalisieren und die Forderungen der Gläubiger zu
reduzieren oder in Anteile umzuwandeln. Einlagen von weniger als 100 000 EUR sind von der Anwendung dieses
Instruments ausgeschlossen und würden folglich erhalten bleiben.

C 12 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

5. Die Tragfähigkeit der Staatsverschuldung ist eine wichtige Voraussetzung für eine Finanzhilfe des ESM. Bei
Erhalt eines Ersuchens um eine Finanzhilfe überträgt der Vorsitzende des Gouverneursrats der Europäischen
Kommission im Benehmen mit der EZB die Aufgabe zu bewerten, ob die Staatsverschuldung tragfähig ist. Es wird
erwartet, dass diese Bewertung, soweit angebracht, zusammen mit dem IWF durchgeführt wird. Für Zypern wurde
eine solche Bewertung vorgelegt ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.esm.europa.eu/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 213

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003362/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bank tax — violation of democratic principles

The bank tax planned for Cyprus, to be deducted over the course of a long weekend (and in fact taking precedence
over all other payments that people may wish to pay, in other words before the next rent, electricity costs or school
money for children is debited) has unsurprisingly triggered a huge wave of protests among the people. This tax was to
be collected without prior notice, without any possibility of resisting it, without any scope for discretion on the part
of the banking staff and without exceptions for any social groups in a kind of lightning strike.

The EU, which has forced Cyprus into taking this action — although the precise nature of the action was chosen by
the Cypriot Government — has once again during the euro crisis violated democratic principles. In June 2011, the
statutory level of cover for savers was guaranteed at EUR 100 000. Not even two years later, the EU finance ministers
of the 17 members of the euro area decided unanimously on a partial expropriation of savers in order to protect the
banks and the State in Cyprus from bankruptcy, thus openly breaking the deposit guarantee. There is no provision for
a special tax on savings in the Banking Law and it amounts to a partial expropriation.

1. What is the Commission’s view with regard to the breach of the democratic principle of notification, according
to which any tax is to be notified in advance (by means of legislation, in official announcements and with the consent
of the parliaments), something that did not happen in the case of Cyprus, under pressure from the EU, and which was
also bypassed in connection with the various bail-outs of Greece?

2. What is the Commission’s position with regard to the fact that this has indirectly broken the EU’s commitment
with regard to the deposit guarantee?

3. What is its view with regard to the fact that, over the course of the euro crisis, the rules of the common market
are being overturned?

4. Are any discussions being held at EU level concerning a European bankruptcy law for banks?

5. Are any EU level rules for an orderly state bankruptcy planned?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(19 June 2013)_

1. The Commission cannot support solutions that would be contrary to EC law. The initial Eurogroup decision on
a Cypriot programme of 15 March 2013, welcomed the Cypriot authorities' commitment to introduce a one-off
stability levy.

2. The Cypriot authorities have not imposed any levy on deposits under EUR 100 000. Thus there is no
compatibility issue with Directive 2009/14/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes.

3. The Commission assumes that the Honourable Member refers to the restrictions on capital movements adopted
by Cyprus. In accordance with EC law restrictions on capital movement can be introduced temporarily and under
strict conditions on grounds of public policy or public security and for overriding reasons of general public interest.

4. The Commission presented a proposal of directive on bank resolution and recovery in June 2012. The directive
would introduce in the whole of the EU a framework with all tools allowing authorities to intervene decisively and
timely in a banking crisis. In particular, the bail-in tool would allow a bank to be recapitalised with shareholders
wiped out or diluted, and creditors would have their claims reduced or converted to shares. Deposits below
EUR 100 000 are excluded from this tool and would therefore be entirely preserved.

5. A sustainable position with regard to public debt is an important precondition for the granting of financial
assistance from the ESM. On receipt of a request for financial assistance, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors
shall entrust the European Commission, in liaison with the ECB, with the task to assess whether public debt is
sustainable. Wherever appropriate, such an assessment is expected to be conducted together with the IMF. For
Cyprus, such an assessment has been provided ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.esm.europa.eu/

C 12 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003363/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Einlagensicherung — Schutzsystem für Sparer

Die österreichische Einlagensicherung hat sich nur bei der Pleite von sehr kleinen Banken bewährt. Experten sind der
Ansicht, dass die jetzigen Schutzmechanismen nicht ausreichen, wenn große Finanzkonzerne in Schwierigkeiten
geraten. Alle Bemühungen die fünf Einlagensicherungskreise zu reformieren, von denen alle wissen, dass sie in der
vorliegenden Form gar nicht wirken können, sind am Widerstand einzelner Banken gescheitert, die sich weigern, für
Kunden von anderen Sektoren aufkommen zu müssen.

Der Einlagensicherung gehören alle heimischen Institute sowie einige ausländische Zweigniederlassungen an. Somit
haftet Österreich für Kunden ausländischer Banken, beispielsweise für die russische Staatsbank VTB, die in Österreich
über eine Banklizenz verfügt und damit dem hiesigen Einlagensicherungssystem unterliegt und in andere EU-Länder
expandieren darf.

1. Wurden im Zuge der Banken-Stresstests auch die Einlagensicherungssysteme überprüft?

2. Falls ja, zu welchem Ergebnis kam man?

3. Falls nein, warum nicht?

4. Gibt es auf EU-Ebene Bestrebungen gegebenenfalls anfällige Einlagensicherungs-Systeme einer Reform zu
unterziehen?

**Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission**

_(29. Mai 2013)_

Durch Artikel 21 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1093/2010 erhält die Europäische Bankenaufsichtsbehörde die Befugnis,
die Durchführung EU-weiter Stresstests zu veranlassen und zu koordinieren, um die Widerstandsfähigkeit von
Finanzinstituten gegenüber ungünstigen Marktentwicklungen zu bewerten und gegebenenfalls Empfehlungen an die
zuständigen nationalen Aufsichtsbehörden auszusprechen, Problempunkte zu beheben, die bei dem Stresstest
festgestellt wurden. Als Finanzinstitute gelten nach dieser Verordnung Kreditinstitute, Wertpapierfirmen und
Finanzkonglomerate. Einlagensicherungssysteme waren demzufolge in dem EU-weiten Stresstest von 2011 nicht
einbezogen.

Wie in der Richtlinie 94/19/EG über Einlagensicherungssysteme vorgesehen, sind solche Systeme derzeit in allen
Mitgliedstaaten in Kraft.

In den letzten Jahren hat die Kommission entschiedene Maßnahmen getroffen, um die Widerstandsfähigkeit des
Einlagensicherungssystems in Europa zu stärken.

In einem ersten Schritt hat die Kommission im Oktober 2008 vorgeschlagen, die Fristen für die Rückzahlung der
Einlagen von drei Monaten auf 20 Arbeitstage zu verkürzen und die Deckungssummen für Einleger auf 100 000 EUR
zu harmonisieren ( [1] ). Der Vorschlag wurde vom Gesetzgeber im März 2009 angenommen und ist jetzt in vollem
Umfang in Kraft ( [2] ).

Im Juli 2010 hat die Kommission dann eine umfassende Novellierung der Einlagensicherungsrichtlinie
vorgeschlagen ( [3] ). Die Reform zielt insbesondere darauf ab, strenge harmonisierte Regeln für die Finanzierung der
Einlagensicherungssysteme festzulegen, etwa durch eine Ex-ante-Finanzierung oder die Verbesserung des Zugangs
der Einleger dank einer Rückzahlungsfrist von nur sieben Tagen. Außerdem sollen nach diesem Vorschlag alle
Einlagensicherungssysteme laufend überwacht und mindestens alle drei Jahre einem Stresstest unterzogen werden.

Dieser Vorschlag wird zurzeit vom Parlament und vom Rat geprüft.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2008)661 endg.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ABl. L 68 vom 13.3.2009, S. 3.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) KOM(2010)368 endg.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 215

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003363/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Deposit guarantee scheme — protection for savers

The Austrian deposit guarantee scheme has only proved successful in connection with the bankruptcy of very small
banks. Experts believe that the current protection mechanisms will be inadequate if large financial groups get into
difficulties. All efforts to reform the five deposit guarantee systems, which everyone knows cannot possibly work in
their present form, have failed due to the opposition of individual banks, which refuse to have to be responsible for
customers from other sectors.

All Austrian institutions and some foreign branches participate in the deposit guarantee scheme. Consequently,
Austria is liable for customers of foreign banks, for example of the Russian State-owned bank VTB, which has a
banking licence in Austria and is therefore subject to the deposit guarantee system there and can expand into other
EU Member States.

1. Were the deposit guarantee systems also reviewed when the bank stress tests were carried out?

2. If so, what conclusion was reached?

3. If not, why not?

4. Are any efforts being made at EU level to reform vulnerable deposit guarantee systems, where necessary?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 empowers the European Banking Authority to initiate and coordinate
EU-wide stress tests to assess the resilience of financial institutions to adverse market developments and, where
appropriate, to issue recommendations to national supervisory authorities to correct issues identified in the stress
test. Financial institutions, as defined in this regulation, cover credit institutions, investment firms and financial
conglomerates. Accordingly, the EU-wide stress test exercise of 2011 did not cover Deposit Guarantee Schemes.

Deposit Guarantee Schemes are currently established in all Member States, as provided by Directive 94/19/EC (the
‘DGS Directive’).

In recent years, the Commission has taken strong measures to reinforce the resilience of the deposit guarantee system
in Europe.

First, the Commission proposed in October 2008 to shorten the repayment deadlines from three months to 20
working days and to harmonise the level of coverage of depositors to EUR 100 000 ( [1] ). This proposal was adopted by
the legislator in March 2009 and is now fully applicable ( [2] ).

Secondly, the Commission proposed a comprehensive recast of the DGS Directive in July 2010 ( [3] ). The reform
notably aims for stringent harmonised rules on the funding of Deposit Guarantee Schemes including _ex ante_
contributions and improving depositors access thanks to a repayment deadline of only seven days. It would also
require all DGSs to be supervised on an ongoing basis and to be subject to stress tests at least every three years.

This proposal is currently pending before the Parliament and the Council.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2008) 661 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 68, 13.3.2009, p. 3‐7.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 368 final.

C 12 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003364/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Feinstaubbelastung durch Drucker und Kopierer

Feinstaubemissionen können gesundheitliche Auswirkungen wie die Verstärkung von Allergiesymptomen, die
Zunahme von asthmatischen Anfällen, Atemwegsbeschwerden und Lungenkrebs, aber auch
Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen haben. Quellen der Feinstaubbelastung in geschlossenen Räumen sind der Rauch von
Tabakwaren, Laserdrucker und Kopierer. Über die Frage, ob die Stäube, die Laserdrucker ausstoßen, tatsächlich
Menschen krank machen, streitet die Fachwelt.

Laut einer Studie nehmen der Wartungsstand der Geräte, die Häufigkeit ihrer Nutzung, das Alter, die Tonerfarbe, das
Druckerpapier und sogar die Luftströmung im Raum Einfluss auf ein mögliches Risiko durch Feinstaubbelastung.
Forscher empfehlen, Drucker und Kopierer nach Möglichkeit nicht direkt am Arbeitsplatz, sondern in einem
separaten, gut belüfteten Raum aufzustellen, was sich natürlich in der Praxis nicht immer umsetzen lässt. Angeblich
verursachen Laserdrucker beim Drucken eine Feinstaubbelastung, die ungefähr mit der einer mittelstark befahrenen
Straße zu vergleichen ist.

1. Gibt es auf EU-Ebene Studien hinsichtlich der Feinstaubbelastung durch Drucker?

2. Sind EU-weite Vorgaben hinsichtlich Feinstaubfilter bei Druckern bzw. höchstzulässige Belastungswerte
geplant?

**Antwort von Herrn Andor im Namen der Kommission**

_(28. Mai 2013)_

1. Die Kommission hat keine EU-weite Studie über die berufsbedingte Exposition gegenüber Feinstaub durch
Drucker und Kopierer eingeleitet, es gibt jedoch mehrere Studien zu diesem Thema in der veröffentlichten
internationalen Fachliteratur ( [1] ).

2. Die Kommission plant nicht, spezifische EU-weite Anforderungen für Feinstaubfilter bei Druckern oder
Höchstwerte der zulässigen Belastung festzulegen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Die Behandlung einer Reihe von Studien ist in U. Ewers and D. Nowak „Health hazards caused by emissions of laser printers and copiers?“ unter

folgendem Link nachzulesen:
http://www.springer-vdi-verlag.de/libary/content/gest/2006/11/Ewers%20Nowak%20engl_30024.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 217

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003364/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andreas Mölzer (NI)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Particulate matter pollution from printers and photocopiers

Particulate matter emissions can affect health, for example by exacerbating allergy symptoms and causing an increase
in asthma attacks, respiratory disorders and lung cancer, but also cardiovascular diseases. Sources of particulate
matter pollution in enclosed spaces include tobacco smoke, laser printers and photocopiers. The opinions of experts
differ as to whether the particles emitted by laser printers actually make people sick.

According to one study, the maintenance status of the equipment, the frequency with which it is used, its age, the
toner colour, the printing paper and even the airflow in the room are factors influencing the possible risk as a result of
particulate matter pollution. Researchers recommend that, where possible, printers and photocopiers not be placed
right next to where people work, but in a separate, well-ventilated room, which, in practice, is not always possible of
course. It is claimed that, during printing, laser printers generate particulate matter pollution comparable to that
found on a moderately busy road.

1. Are there any studies at EU level into particulate matter pollution caused by printers?

2. Are there any plans for EU-wide requirements with regard to particulate matter filters on printers or maximum
permissible pollution levels?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

1. The Commission has not initiated any study at EU level of occupational exposure to particulate matter pollution
from printers and photocopies, although there are several studies on the subject in the published international
scientific literature ( [1] ).

2. The Commission has no plans to lay down specific EU-wide requirements for particulate matter filters on
printers or maximum permissible pollution levels.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For a review of a number of studies, see U. Ewers and D. Nowak ‘Health hazards caused by emissions of laser printers and copiers?’ at:
http://www.springer-vdi-verlag.de/libary/content/gest/2006/11/Ewers%20Nowak%20engl_30024.pdf

C 12 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003365/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Geplande olieboringen in de wateren tussen Marokko en de Canarische eilanden

Op de Canarische eilanden en meer bepaald op het eiland Lanzarote zwelt het protest aan van de plaatselijke
bevolking tegen de geplande olieboringen nabij Lanzarote en Fuerteventura door het bedrijf REPSOL. Ook andere
bedrijven, zoals het Schotse Cairns Energy, Total, Chevron en Genel Energy zijn uit op olieboringen in de wateren
tussen Marokko en Lanzarote. Er worden heel wat bezwaren opgeworpen tegen deze initiatieven:

1. Ze gebeuren in een gebied dat zeer aardbevingsgevoelig is en zijn dus zeer risicovol;

2. Bij een eventueel ongeluk worden de ecologische waardevolle zones aan de kusten van voornoemde eilanden
sterk bedreigd. De Unesco bestempelt het gebied als een „Biosphere reserve” en de Canarische eilanden werden
ook gecatalogeerd als Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA);

3. Een olielek betekent ook een sterke bedreiging voor alle toeristische activiteiten, de belangrijkste economische
sector van het gebied die zorgt voor heel wat werkgelegenheid;

4. Beide eilanden zijn 100 % afhankelijk van ZUIVER zeewater dat ontzilt wordt. Een klein ongeval met olie zet de
twee eilanden zonder drinkwater;

5. Olieboringen zullen de spanningen tussen Spanje en Marokko doen toenemen vanwege mogelijke
grensgeschillen. Marokko wil immers de EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) extreem uitbreiden;

6. De olieboringen zijn gepland in gebieden die mede onderdeel vormen van het al jarenlang slepende conflict
tussen de Westelijke Sahara en de Marokkaanse overheid.

Tijdens de mei-zitting van het EP zal de nieuwe Verordening van het Europees Parlement en de Raad worden
aangenomen betreffende de veiligheid van offshore-olie‐ en ‐gasprospectie-, ‐exploratie‐ en-productieactiviteiten.
Over deze wet bestaat een politiek akkoord tussen de onderhandelaars van het EP en de Raad van Ministers.

Mag ik van de Commissie vernemen:

1. Welke stappen zij bereid is te ondernemen teneinde aan de zes voormelde bezwaren tegemoet te komen?

2. Of ze bereid is stappen te ondernemen ten aanzien van de Spaanse en Marokkaanse autoriteiten om de
spanningen in verband met grensconflicten en het conflict in de Westelijke Sahara, die door deze boringen
dreigen toe te nemen, te verminderen?

3. Over welke middelen zij, overeenkomstig de nieuwe verordening, beschikt om de veiligheid van de
olieprospectie-, ‐exploratie‐ en ‐productieactiviteiten voor de volle 100 procent te garanderen?

4. Of zij desgewenst bereid is alle mogelijke wettelijke middelen in te zetten om deze activiteiten te verbieden?

**Antwoord van de heer Oettinger namens de Commissie**

_(3 juni 2013)_

In 2011 heeft de Commissie nieuwe EU-wetgeving voorgesteld met betrekking tot de veiligheid van offshore olie‐ en
gasactiviteiten teneinde ongelukken te voorkomen en de reactie op noodsituaties en milieuaansprakelijkheid te
verbeteren. In het voorstel, dat de gewone wetgevingsprocedure doorloopt en dat binnenkort zal worden
aangenomen, wordt een regelgevingskader voor de hele EU beschreven om ervoor te zorgen dat offshore-operaties
worden toegestaan, uitgevoerd en geregeld op basis van specifieke risicobeoordelingen per site. De doelgerichte
aanpak van de wetgeving moet ertoe leiden dat zowel bij de goedkeuring als bij de uitvoering van elk project rekening
wordt gehouden met een volledige reeks risico's en gevarenscenario's, met inbegrip van die welke door het geachte
Parlementslid worden aangehaald. Er mag slechts worden gestart met boren wanneer de onafhankelijke bevoegde
instantie van de betrokken lidstaat de plannen heeft beoordeeld en aanvaard, om zo eventuele restrisico's voor het
milieu, voor de bevolking of voor de economie tot een aanvaardbaar niveau terug te brengen. De bevoegde instantie
heeft eveneens het recht om de booractiviteiten te verbieden. Zodra het voorstel is aangenomen, zal de Commissie
haar bevoegdheden uit hoofde van het Verdrag uitoefenen om een correcte en tijdige toepassing van de wetgeving in
de Unie te verzekeren.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 219

Geschillen over de grensafbakening van wateren vallen niet onder de bevoegdheid van de EU. De Commissie kan de
betrokken partijen enkel aanmoedigen om op vreedzame wijze tot een overeenkomst te komen door de beginselen
van het VN-verdrag, alsook de relevante resoluties van de VN-Veiligheidsraad en de bepalingen van het
Zeerechtverdrag van de VN te volgen.

Wat een mogelijk verbod op de desbetreffende activiteiten betreft, verwijst de Commissie het geachte Parlementslid
naar het antwoord op schriftelijke vraag E-003699/2012.

C 12 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003365/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Planned oil drilling in the waters between Morocco and the Canary Islands

In the Canary Islands, and more specifically on the island of Lanzarote, the protest by the local population against
planned oil drilling near Lanzarote and Fuerteventura by the company REPSOL is burgeoning. Other companies, too,
such as the Scottish company Cairns Energy, Total, Chevron and Genel Energy, are intent on prospecting for oil in the
waters between Morocco and Lanzarote. Many objections have been raised against these initiatives:

1. Oil drilling would take place in an area that is highly prone to earthquakes and is, therefore, very risky;

2. In the event of an accident, the environmentally significant areas on the coasts of the aforementioned islands
will be seriously threatened. Unesco has designated the area as a biosphere reserve and the Canary Islands have
also been categorised as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA);

3. An oil spill would also mean a major threat to all tourist activities, the most important economic sector in the
region and source of many jobs;

4. Both islands are 100% dependent on PURE desalinated seawater. A small oil accident would deprive the two
islands of drinking water;

5. Oil drilling would increase tensions between Spain and Morocco because of possible border disputes. After all,
Morocco wants to expand its EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) significantly;

6. The oil drilling is planned in areas that have been part of many years’ ongoing conflict between Western Sahara
and the Moroccan Government.

During the May session of the European Parliament, the new Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the safety of offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities will be adopted. There
is a political agreement between Parliament’s negotiators and the Council of Ministers in respect of this piece of
legislation.

Could the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What steps is it prepared to take in order to meet the six aforementioned objections?

2. Is it prepared to take steps towards the Spanish and Moroccan authorities in order to reduce tensions in
connection with border disputes and the conflict in Western Sahara, which threaten to increase as a result of
such drilling?

3. What resources does the Commission have at its disposal under the new Regulation to guarantee 100% the
safety of oil prospecting, exploration and production activities?

4. Otherwise, is the Commission prepared, if so desired, to mobilise all possible legal means in order to prohibit
these activities?

**Answer given by Mr Oetttinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission proposed in 2011 new EU legislation addressing the safety of offshore oil and gas operations in
order to prevent accidents, and to strengthen emergency response and environmental liability. The proposal,
currently in the ordinary legislative procedure and due to be adopted soon, will lay down an EU-wide regulatory
framework for ensuring that offshore operations are authorised, conducted and regulated on the basis of site-specific
risk assessments. The goal-setting approach taken in the legislation should ensure that a full set of risks and hazard
scenarios, including those invoked by the Honourable Member, are considered in both the approval and execution
stages of each project. Drilling can only start once the independent competent authority of the Member State
concerned has assessed and accepted the plans to reduce any residual risk to the environment, people or economy to
an acceptable level. The competent authority also has the right to prohibit drilling activities. Once the proposal will be
adopted, the Commission will exercise its powers under the Treaty to ensure correct and timely application of the
legislation across the Union.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 221

Border maritime delimitation disputes fall outside the competence of the EU. The Commission can only encourage
the interested parties to reach an agreement by peaceful means following the UN Charter principles, the relevant UN
Security Council’s Resolutions and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions.

As regards the possibility of a prohibition of the activities at stake, we would like to refer the Honourable Member to
the reply to Written Question E-003699/2012.

C 12 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003366/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Inkrimping EU personeel

In de meerjarenbegroting 2014-2020 stelt de Europese Commissie voor het personeelbestand van de EU met 5 % te
laten krimpen. Onlangs verschenen in de kringen van de vakbonden voor EU-personeel, onder meer in de nieuwsbrief
van TAO-AFI van 15 maart 2013, berichten dat deze krimp kan worden opgevangen door de Uitvoerende
Agentschappen te laten groeien. Overtollig personeel van de Europese instellingen zou bij deze Agentschappen van
de EU een nieuwe werkplek kunnen krijgen.

1. Heeft de Commissie kennis genomen van de berichten dat overtollig EU-personeel kan worden opgevangen bij
de EU Uitvoerende Agentschappen? Zo ja, hoe beoordeelt zij deze berichten?

2. Is de Commissie van mening dat dergelijk beleid in strijd is met de voorstellen van de Commissie voor de
Meerjarenbegroting 2014-2020 en de geloofwaardigheid van de Commissie aantast? Zo nee, waarom niet?

3. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat de voorgestelde krimp van 5 % op het aantal EU ambtenaren, daadwerkelijk
leidt tot 5 % minder personeel ten opzichte van de huidige situatie? Zo nee, waarom niet?

**Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič namens de Commissie**

_(28 mei 2013)_

De Commissie blijft onverminderd vasthouden aan de voorstellen voor het meerjarig financieel kader voor 20142020 om het personeelsbestand de komende vijf jaar met 5 % af te bouwen en komt haar verbintenis reeds na in de
ontwerpbegroting voor 2013 (1 % personeelsinkrimping tussen 2012 en 2013).

Zoals reeds in de voorstellen is aangekondigd, overweegt de Commissie eveneens meer gebruik te maken van de
mogelijkheid om de bestaande uitvoerende agentschappen aan te spreken. De Rekenkamer heeft bevestigd dat dit een
goed instrument is voor een betere dienstverlening en een grotere zichtbaarheid van de EU.

De Commissie zal ervoor trachten te zorgen dat een nieuwe delegatie van taken aan de bestaande uitvoerende
agentschappen geen gevolgen voor de begroting heeft.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 223

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003366/13**

**to the Commission**
**Peter van Dalen (ECR)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU staff cuts

In the multiannual budget for 2014‐2020, the European Commission has proposed to cut the EU workforce by 5%.
Recently, reports have appeared in EU staff union circles, including the TAO-AFI newsletter of 15 March 2013, that
such cuts can be offset by expanding the Executive Agencies. Any excess European institution staff would then be
offered a new position within these EU agencies.

1. Is the Commission aware of the reports that excess EU staff can be absorbed by the EU’s Executive Agencies? If
so, how does it view these reports?

2. Is the Commission of the opinion that such a policy is contrary to its proposals for the Multiannual Budget for
2014-2020 and that it affects the Commission’s credibility? If not, why not?

3. Can the Commission confirm that the proposed 5% cut in the number of EU officials will actually lead to a 5%
reduction in staff compared to the current situation? If not, why not?

**Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The Commission remains firmly committed to the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework proposals to reduce
5% staff over five years and already started delivering on this commitment in the 2013 Draft Budget (-1% staff
reduction between 2012 and 2013).

As announced in these proposals, the Commission is also considering the option of more extensive recourse to
existing executive agencies; an instrument that the Court of Auditors has confirmed provides better service delivery
and EU visibility.

The Commission will seek to ensure that any new delegation of tasks to the existing executive agencies would remain
budgetary neutral.

C 12 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003367/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) en Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(25 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Discriminatie tijdens „netwerkdag” Nederlandse omroepen

Op 15 mei a.s. organiseren de samenwerkende publieke omroepen (NPO) in Nederland een „netwerkdag”. Naar nu
blijkt is die dag uitsluitend toegankelijk voor „kandidaten met een multiculturele achtergrond” ( [1] ). Mediastudent en
geïnteresseerde Anoul Hendriks bleek absoluut niet welkom en werd pro-actief door deNPO studiedag afgebeld ( [2] ). In
het Handvest van de Europese Grondrechten staat te lezen dat „elke discriminatie, met name op grond van … ras,
kleur, etnische of sociale afkomst (…) het behoren tot een nationale minderheid, geboorte … is verboden. (…) Elke
discriminatie op grond van nationaliteit is verboden.” (art. 21.1 en 21.2). Verder stelt art. 14.1 dat „… eenieder recht
op onderwijs heeft alsmede toegang tot beroepsopleiding en bijscholing” ( [3] ). Deze vorm van discriminatie is ook
verboden door de Richtlijn houdende toepassing van het beginsel van gelijke behandeling van personen ongeacht ras
of etnische afstamming.

In dat kader de volgende vragen:

1. Kan de Commissie aangeven of het organiseren van een dergelijke „netwerkdag”, waar specifiek wordt
gediscrimineerd op juist die punten die het Handvest van de Europese Grondrechten noemt, acceptabel is?

2. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat onderwijs te allen tijde voor iedereen in gelijke mate toegankelijk
dient te zijn? Zo nee, waarom niet en wat zijn dan de volgens haar te hanteren criteria bij het verlenen van
toegang tot onderwijs?

3. Is het volgens de Commissie acceptabel dat een publieke omroep die met belastinggeld wordt betaald (uit de
algemene middelen dus) een dergelijk discriminatoir toegangsbeleid hanteert?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Vassiliou namens de Commissie**

_(3 juni 2013)_

1. De Commissie herinnert eraan dat de bepalingen van het Handvest tot de lidstaten zijn gericht, maar uitsluitend
wanneer zij het recht van de Unie ten uitvoer leggen ( [4] ). Voor zover de gegeven situatie niet uit een dergelijke
tenuitvoerlegging voortvloeit, zijn de genoemde bepalingen niet van toepassing.

In het EU-recht verbiedt Richtlijn 2000/43/EG betreffende rassengelijkheid ( [5] ) discriminatie op grond van ras of
etnische afstamming op een aantal gebieden, waaronder arbeid en beroepsopleiding, sociale bescherming, onderwijs
en toegang tot en aanbod van goederen en diensten. Nederland heeft de richtlijn omgezet in zijn nationaal recht.
Zodra hiervoor is gezorgd, is het aan de nationale rechterlijke instanties en autoriteiten om het nationaal recht in
specifieke situaties toe te passen. Op grond van de richtlijn moeten alle lidstaten een orgaan oprichten voor de
bevordering van gelijke behandeling. Dit orgaan heeft onder meer de taak om bijstand te verlenen aan slachtoffers van
[discriminatie. In Nederland is dit het College voor de Rechten van de Mens (website: http://www.mensenrechten.nl/).](http://www.mensenrechten.nl/)

2. De Commissie herinnert eraan dat volgens het EU-recht het beginsel van gelijke behandeling lidstaten niet belet
specifieke maatregelen te nemen om nadelen in de beroepsloopbaan die verband houden met ras of etnische
afstamming, godsdienst of overtuiging, handicap, leeftijd, seksuele geaardheid of geslacht, te voorkomen of te

compenseren.

3. De Commissie kan niet aangeven of het acceptabel is of niet dat begrotingsmiddelen aldus worden bestemd,
aangezien dergelijke keuzes onder de exclusieve bevoegdheid van de nationale autoriteiten vallen.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elsevier.nl/Cultuur--Televisie/nieuws/2013/3/Publieke-Omroepen-organiseren-multiculturele-stagedag-1201021W/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://twitter.com/anoul/status/314404207585267712
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_nl.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Artikel 51 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Richtlijn 2000/43/EG van de Raad van 29 juni 2000 houdende toepassing van het beginsel van gelijke behandeling van personen ongeacht ras of

etnische afstamming, PB L 180 van 19.7.2000, blz. 22.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 225

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003367/13**

**to the Commission**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) and Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Discrimination during the Dutch broadcasters' ‘networking day’

On 15 May this year, the umbrella body of the Dutch public broadcasting organisations (NPO) will be holding a
‘networking day’. As it turns out, it has reserved this day for ‘candidates from a multicultural background’ ( [1] ) only.
However, Anoûl Hendriks, a media student who wanted to participate in the event, was definitely not welcome and
was encouraged over the phone not to come by the NPO organisers ( [2] ). However, the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union states that ‘Any discrimination based on any ground such as … race, colour, ethnic or social
origin … membership of a national minority … birth … shall be prohibited. … Any discrimination on grounds of
nationality shall be prohibited.’ (Article 21(1) and 21(2)). Furthermore, Article 14(1) states that ‘… everyone has the
right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training’ ( [3] ). This form of discrimination is also
prohibited by the directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or
ethnic origin.

1. Can the Commission indicate whether it is acceptable to organise such a ‘networking day’, where discrimination
on precisely the grounds referred to in the Charter of Fundamental Rights will take place?

2. Does the Commission share the opinion of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) that education must be accessible at
all times and equally to everyone? If not, why not and what criteria should be used, in its opinion, when providing
access to education?

3. Does the Commission find it acceptable that a public broadcaster funded by taxpayers’ money (in other words,
from the public purse) should be applying such a discriminatory access policy?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

1. The Commission recalls that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they
are implementing EC law ( [4] ). Insofar as the situation at hand is not the result of such an implementation, the said
provisions are not applicable.

In EC law, Directive 2000/43/EC on Racial Equality ( [5] ) prohibits discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic
origin in a number of areas, including employment and vocational training, social protection, education and access to
and supply of goods and services. The Netherlands has transposed the directive into its national law. Once this has
been ensured, it is for the national courts and authorities to apply national law in individual situations. Under the
directive, all Member States have been required to set up a body for the promotion of equal treatment, which among
its tasks provides assistance to victims of discrimination. In the Netherlands, this body is Netherlands Institute for
Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens, website **:** [http://www.mensenrechten.nl/).](http://www.mensenrechten.nl/)

2. The Commission recalls that under EC law, the principle of equal treatment does not prevent Member States
from taking specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional carriers linked to racial or
ethnic origin, to religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation or to gender.

3. The Commission is unable to comment on whether allocating budgetary funds for a certain action is acceptable
or not, as such choices are within the exclusive competence of national authorities.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elsevier.nl/Cultuur--Televisie/nieuws/2013/3/Publieke-Omroepen-organiseren-multiculturele-stagedag-1201021W/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://twitter.com/anoul/status/314404207585267712
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic

origin, OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.

C 12 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003368/13**

**do Komisji**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**

_(25 marca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Rozwój rynku e-papierosów w Unii Europejskiej

Na polski i europejski rynek trafia coraz więcej tzw. e-papierosów, czyli urządzeń mających przeważnie kształt
papierosa oraz ustnik wypełniony specjalnym płynem zawierającym glicerynę, glikol propylenowy, nikotynę oraz
dodatki aromatyczne.

Wiedza w społeczeństwie na temat e-papierosów nadal jest niewielka. Nie ma także przepisów prawnych
regulujących ich sprzedaż i zastosowanie.

Dyrektorzy polskich szkół wyrażają opinię, że mają do czynienia z plagą „palenia e-papierosów” wśród dzieci.
Elektroniczne papierosy są dziś towarem łatwo dostępnym. Dyrektorzy zauważają, że wraz z rozprzestrzenianiem
się punktów sprzedaży zwiększa się problem palenia e-papierosów w szkołach.

W większości punktów sprzedaży znajduje się informacja, że elektroniczne papierosy są niedostępne dla nieletnich,
ale nie ma przepisów, które zabraniałyby ich sprzedaży. Dyrektorzy wprowadzają własne zaostrzenia w szkołach, ale
nie są w stanie skutecznie ich egzekwować.

Wojewódzka Stacja Sanitarno-Epidemiologiczna w Poznaniu zwraca uwagę na brak odpowiednich programów
profilaktycznych, które mogłaby wdrażać w swoje działania.

Zwracam się z zapytaniem:

1. Czy Komisja podziela obawę przed szkodliwym wpływem e-papierosów na zdrowie dzieci?

2. Czy są przewidywane działania mające na celu zmniejszenie tego ryzyka?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Tonia Borga w imieniu Komisji**

_(6 maja 2013 r.)_

Komisja jest świadoma toczących się dyskusji na temat szkodliwych skutków zdrowotnych związanych
z papierosami elektronicznymi oraz atrakcyjności papierosów elektronicznych w szczególności dla młodzieży.

Zgodnie z wnioskiem Komisji dotyczącym zmiany dyrektywy w sprawie wyrobów tytoniowych ( [1] ) papierosy
elektroniczne zostaną objęte ramami prawnymi obowiązującymi w stosunku do produktów leczniczych, jeśli
poziom zawartej w nich nikotyny przekroczy określone progi. Tak więc w przypadku przekroczenia danego progu
wprowadzenie papierosów elektronicznych do obrotu wymagać będzie uzyskania uprzedniego pozwolenia na mocy
przepisów ustawodawstwa farmaceutycznego. Próg zawartości nikotyny określono w odniesieniu do zawartości
nikotyny w produktach stosowanych w nikotynowych terapiach zastępczych, który uzyskały już pozwolenie na
dopuszczenie do obrotu w państwach członkowskich.

W przypadku papierosów elektronicznych o zawartości nikotyny poniżej określonych progów we wniosku Komisji
przewidziano konieczność opatrzenia ich ostrzeżeniem zdrowotnym. Musiałby one również spełniać wymogi
dyrektywy w sprawie ogólnego bezpieczeństwa produktów, tak jak ma to miejsce obecnie.

We wniosku Komisji założono, że większość papierosów elektronicznych najprawdopodobniej objętych zostanie
przepisami ustawodawstwa farmaceutycznego. Przy wprowadzaniu ich do obrotu, musiano by zatem przestrzegać
przepisów mających zastosowanie do wprowadzania do obrotu produktów leczniczych w poszczególnych
państwach członkowskich, w tym skutecznych ograniczeń wiekowych, aby chronić młodzież.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM (2012) 788 final.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 227

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003368/13**

**to the Commission**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Expansion of the market for e-cigarettes in the European Union

An ever-increasing number of ‘e-cigarettes’, or devices which look similar to a cigarette and which have a mouthpiece
filled with a special liquid containing glycerine, propylene glycol, nicotine and aromatic additives, are reaching the
Polish and European markets.

The general public is still largely uninformed about e-cigarettes, and there are no statutory regulations governing their
sale and use.

Polish headteachers have reported that they are dealing with a plague of ‘e-cigarette smoking’ among their pupils.
Electronic cigarettes are readily available to buy at present. According to the headteachers, the problem of e-cigarette
smoking in schools is becoming more widespread as the number of sales outlets increases.

The majority of sales outlets have signs saying that electronic cigarettes may not be sold to children, but there are no
regulations prohibiting their sale. Headteachers are imposing more stringent punishments in schools, but they are
unable to enforce them effectively.

The Voivodeship Sanitary and Epidemiological Station in Poznan has highlighted the need for corresponding
preventive programmes which it could implement within its field of action.

I would therefore like to ask the following questions:

1. Is the Commission also concerned about the harmful influence of e-cigarettes on children’s health?

2. Are there any plans for measures aimed at reducing this risk?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The Commission is aware of discussions about adverse health effects associated with electronic cigarettes and their
attractiveness in particular for young people.

According to the Commission proposal for a revised Tobacco Product Directive, ( [1] ) electronic cigarettes would fall
under the legal framework for medicinal products if they contain levels of nicotine above certain thresholds. Thus,
their bringing on the market would require prior authorisation under pharmaceutical legislation above the threshold
in question. The nicotine threshold has been identified by considering the nicotine content of nicotine replacement
therapies that have already received a marketing authorisation by Member States.

For electronic cigarettes below the thresholds, the Commission proposal foresees that they carry health warnings.
They would also have to comply with the General Product Safety Directive as it is the case at the moment.

The Commission proposal foresees that the majority of electronic cigarettes would most likely fall under the
pharmaceutical legislation. Their placing on the market would thus have to comply with the rules applying to the
placing on the market of medicinal products in the respective Member States, including an effective age limit to
protect young people.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 788 final.

C 12 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003369/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Minodora Cliveti (S&D)**

_(25 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Stagiile remunerate incluse în calculul pensiilor

Rata șomajului în rândul tinerilor a cunoscut o creștere alarmantă, în prezent în Uniunea Europeană fiind peste cinci
milioane de tineri sub 25 de ani care nu pot găsi un loc de muncă.

În contextul actualei crize economice, stagiile ar putea juca un rol cheie în creșterea accesului tinerilor pe piața
muncii. Acestea realizează tranziția de la cunoștințele teoretice dobândite pe parcursul educației la competentele
necesare la locul de muncă, contribuind, astfel, la îmbunătățirea șanselor tinerilor de a găsi un loc de muncă.

Au fost constatate foarte multe situații când tinerii, fiind în imposibilitatea găsirii unui loc de munca, au fost nevoiți să
lucreze ca stagiari, ajungând chiar și la un an și jumătate de stagii remunerate efectuate.

Este de remarcat faptul că tinerii intră târziu pe piața muncii și astfel contribuția finală pentru pensia completă este
afectată.

Poate Comisia să incurajeze Statele Membre sa integreze in calculul pensiei finale durata stagiilor de formare
remunerate?

**Răspuns dat de dl Andor în numele Comisiei**

_(21 mai 2013)_

Chestiunile legate de remunerare și protecție socială sunt o responsabilitate a statelor membre și a partenerilor sociali.

În a doua etapă a consultării partenerilor sociali din UE cu privire la un cadru de calitate pentru stagii ( [1] ), Comisia a
consultat _inter alia_ cu privire la întrebarea dacă ar trebui să se clarifice între stagiar și organizația gazdă problema
protecției sociale ( [2] ). Din păcate, partenerii sociali au decis să nu înceapă negocierile în conformitate cu articolul 155
din TFUE în vederea unui acord între partenerii sociali privind un cadru de calitate pentru stagii. Comisia
intenționează să prezinte o propunere în acest sens până la sfârșitul anului 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)728 din 5.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) A se vedea secțiunea 5.1 „Un cadru de calitate pentru stagii”.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 229

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003369/13**

**to the Commission**
**Minodora Cliveti (S&D)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Inclusion of paid internships in the calculation of pensions

Youth unemployment has been rising at an alarming rate, with more than 5 million young people in the European
Union under the age of 25 currently unable to find a job.

In light of the current economic crisis, internships could play a key role in making the labour market more accessible
to young people. They help make the transition from the theoretical knowledge acquired throughout education to the
skills required in the workplace, thereby helping improve the chances of young people in finding a job.

There has been a huge number of situations in which young people, unable to find a job, have had to work as interns,
obtaining paid internships even for as long as 18 months.

It should be noted that young people are entering the labour market late, thus affecting the final contribution to the
overall pension.

Does the Commission encourage Member States to include the duration of paid internships in the final pension
calculation?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2013)_

Questions of remuneration and social protection are a responsibility of the Member States and the social partners.

In its second-stage consultation of the EU social partners on a quality framework on traineeships ( [1] ), the Commission
consulted _inter alia_ on the question whether social protection coverage should be clarified between the trainee and the
host organisation ( [2] ). Unfortunately, social partners decided not to start negotiations under Art. 155 TFEU towards a
social partner agreement on a quality framework for traineeships. The Commission intends to present a proposal on
this subject by the end of 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 728 of 5.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See Section 5.1 ‘Quality Framework for Traineeships’.

C 12 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-003370/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Nachfrage zu E-000750/2013 vom 21.3.2013

Die Kommission sagt in ihrer Antwort vom 21.3.2013, ihr sei der Zustand des Friedhofes in Margo „nicht bekannt“.

1. Wie kann dies zutreffen, wenn die Kommission immer von intensiven Bemühungen im nördlichen Teil der Insel
spricht? (Die Fotos werden der Kommission auf postalischem Weg übermittelt.)

Dass der jüdische Friedhof „nicht auf der Liste“ steht, gibt Anlass zu größtem Bedenken, da auch die jüdische Kultur
unbestreitbar ein Teil der europäischen Kultur ist.

Es werden immerhin EU-Mittel bereitgestellt, um bedeutende Kulturstätten zu renovieren und zu restaurieren.

2. Nach welchen Kriterien wird die Bedeutung der Kulturstätten bemessen und wonach werden sie ausgewählt?

2a. Warum wurde dieser Friedhof nicht in diese Liste aufgenommen, wo es sich hierbei doch ebenso um ein Stück
europäische Geschichte handelt?

Die Kommission spricht von einer „umfassenden Lösung“, die „rasch“ gefunden werden muss.

3. Ist sich die Kommission in ihrer Erweiterungsstrategie bewusst, dass der nördliche Teil Zyperns ebenso Teil der
Europäischen Union — und militärisch besetzt — ist und es daher für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger schwer
verständlich ist, wenn hier von „Erweiterung“ gesprochen wird?

4. Plant die Kommission im Zuge der „Gespräche“, die Verpflichtungen der Türkei hinsichtlich der UNResolutionen endlich einzufordern?

4a. Wie gedenkt die Kommission in diesem Punkt nun vorzugehen?

(Mit der höflichen Bitte um detaillierte Ausführung.)

**Antwort von Herrn Füle im Namen der Kommission**

_(2. Mai 2013)_

Die Kommission dankt der Frau Abgeordneten für die Informationen und die Fotos vom jüdischen Friedhof in Margo,
die sie am 28. März nach der Beantwortung der Anfrage E-000750/2013 vom 21. März 2013 ( [1] ) übermittelt hat.

Die EU-Mittel für kulturelles Erbe werden dem unter Schirmherrschaft der Vereinten Nationen (VN) tätigen
bikommunalen Technischen Ausschuss für das kulturelle Erbe zur Verfügung gestellt. Die Kommission verfolgt die
Entscheidungen dieses Ausschusses über die zu restaurierenden und zu schützenden Denkmäler. Der Ausschuss
stützt sich dabei auf eine im Jahr 2010 durchgeführte Studie, die die Ausarbeitung einer Liste mit mehr als
2 300 Kulturstätten, die Erstellung von rund 700 Bestandserfassungen und die Durchführung von 121 technischen
Untersuchungen des derzeitigen Zustands der Denkmäler sowie eine Schätzung der Restaurierungskosten umfasste.
In der Studie wurde der Bedeutung und Dringlichkeit der notwendigen Restaurierungen Rechnung getragen. Auf der
Grundlage der Studie erstellte der bikommunale Ausschuss eine Liste mit 11 Kulturstätten auf der ganzen Insel, die
dringend der Restaurierung bedürfen.

Der Verweis auf das Strategiepapier für die Erweiterung bezog sich auf die Verpflichtungen der Türkei, sich
konstruktiv mit der Zypernfrage zu befassen und einen positiven Beitrag zu den Gesprächen unter Federführung der
VN zu leisten, die darauf abzielen, zu einer umfassenden und dauerhaften Lösung der Zypern-Frage im Einklang mit
den einschlägigen Resolutionen des VN-Sicherheitsrates und mit den Prinzipien, auf die die Europäische Union sich
stützt, zu gelangen. Dies wird von der Kommission gegenüber der Türkei regelmäßig zur Sprache gebracht.

Die Kommission hat die Türkei wiederholt darauf hingewiesen, dass dringend eine Lösung der Zypernfrage gefunden
werden muss, und wird dies erforderlichenfalls auch in Zukunft tun.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/de/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 231

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003370/13**

**to the Commission**
**Angelika Werthmann (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up to Question E-000750/2013 of 21 March 2013

The Commission stated in its answer of 21 March 2013 that it was ‘not aware’ of the current condition of the Margo
Jewish Cemetery.

1. How can this be so when the Commission repeatedly refers to intensive efforts being made in northern Cyprus?
(I have forwarded photographs to the Commission by post.)

The fact that the Jewish Cemetery ‘is not part of [the] list [of priority monuments]’ is a matter of much concern,
because Jewish culture is unquestionably part of the European cultural heritage.

EU funding is, after all, being provided to renovate and restore important cultural sites.

2. What criteria are used to assess the importance of the cultural sites and how are they selected?

2a. Why was this cemetery — as a part of Europe’s history — not included in the list?

The Commission refers to the aim of ‘reaching a swift conclusion’.

3. Is it aware, as it pursues its enlargement strategy, that the northern part of Cyprus, too, is a part of the European
Union — which is under military occupation — and that people find talk of ‘enlargement’ puzzling in that context?

4. Does the Commission intend, in the course of the negotiations to which it refers, finally to insist that Turkey
fulfils its commitments under the relevant UN resolutions?

4a. How does the Commission now intend to proceed on this matter?

Please answer in detail.

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(2 May 2013)_

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for the information and the photos provided on the Margo Jewish
Cemetery on 28 March following its answer to E-000750/2013 of 21 March 2013 ( [1] ).

The EU funds for cultural heritage are allocated for the activities of the bi-Communal Technical Committee on
Cultural Heritage operating under UN auspices. The Commission follows the decisions of the Technical Committee
on Cultural Heritage on the monuments to be restored and protected. The bi-communal Committee's assessment is
based on a study conducted in 2010, which compiled a list of more than 2300 cultural heritage sites, the preparation
of around 700 inventory charts and the carrying out of 121 technical assessments, analysing the current conditions
of the monuments, and restoration costing needs. The study took into account the importance and the urgency of the
needed restoration. Following this study, the bi-communal Committee identified a list of 11 cultural heritage sites
throughout the island in need of emergency measures.

The reference to the Enlargement Strategy Paper referred to the obligations of Turkey to treat constructively the
Cyprus issue and contribute positively to the talks, aimed at finding a fair, comprehensive and viable settlement of the
Cyprus issue within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council's resolutions and in line
with the principles on which is EU is founded. .The Commission continues to raise this with Turkey on a regular basis.

The Commission has constantly stated to Turkey that a solution to the Cyprus problem is urgent and will continue to
raise the issue as appropriate.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003371/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Trato desigual en relación con participaciones preferentes

El Fondo de Garantía de Depósitos comprará las participaciones preferentes de las entidades que las emitieron y
reembolsará parte de su dinero a los inversores. Los dueños de participaciones preferentes perderán un 38 % de su
inversión. De igual modo, perderán parte de su inversión quienes suscribieron subordinadas perpetuas, que tendrán
que renunciar a un 36 % de su inversión.

Pero estos descuentos no se aplicarán del mismo modo para todas las entidades, mientras que el descuento medio
para los clientes de Nova Caixa Galicia es del 43 %, para los clientes de Catalunya Caixa llega hasta el 61 %. Esta
diferencia puede suponer un perjuicio para los clientes de la entidad menos favorecida.

¿Cuál es la justificación en el marco del MoU para este trato diferenciado para los clientes de una u otra entidad?

¿Sabe la Comisión si existe un criterio uniforme para la aplicación de descuentos a las participaciones preferentes?
¿No cree que esta diferencia puede ir en contra del principio de igualdad de trato a los ciudadanos europeos
establecido en el TUE?

¿Puede la Comisión decir si está de acuerdo con el trato desigual y posiblemente discriminatorio a los clientes de una u
otra entidad en los descuentos de las participaciones preferentes?

**Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión**

_(16 de mayo de 2013)_

Es importante señalar que todos los titulares de instrumentos financieros en forma de participaciones preferentes o de
deuda subordinada perpetua de todos los bancos que se beneficien de ayuda estatal en España en el marco del
Memorándum de Acuerdo han recibido un trato equitativo y no discriminatorio. Los recortes en dichos instrumentos
se calculan siguiendo la misma metodología, que en los casos de Caixa Catalunya y Novacaixagalicia se especifica en
detalle en las fichas descriptivas adjuntas a las Decisiones de la Comisión Europea [véase, «(A) Methodology for
conversion into capital» (Metodología para la conversión en capital), puntos 6.4 a 6.8, y «(B) Specific provision for
dated subordinated debt» (Disposiciones específicas para la deuda subordinada fechada), puntos 6.9 a 6 .10, de ambas
Decisiones]. El recorte calculado depende del instrumento de que se trate, del tipo de interés/cupón que ofrezca y de
su plazo de vencimiento. Los instrumentos financieros de los que son titulares los clientes de Caixa Catalunya y
Novacaixagalicia varían a estos respectos, lo que explica la diferencia en los descuentos medios a que se hace
referencia en la pregunta de Su Señoría.

Los enlaces a las Decisiones sobre la reestructuración de los dos bancos pueden consultarse en:

Decisión de Caixa Catalunya:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/244292/244292_1400504_213_2.pdf

Decisión de Novacaixagalicia:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/244293/244293_1400377_199_2.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 233

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003371/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Unequal treatment regarding preferred shares

The Deposit Guarantee Fund will buy preferred shares from the institutions that issued them and refund some of
investors’ money. The preferred shareholders will lose 38% of their investment. Similarly, owners of perpetual
subordinated bonds will lose 36% of their investment.

However, these discounts will not apply equally across the board: the average discount for Novacaixagalicia
customers will be 43%, while for Caixa Catalunya customers it will be 61%. This difference may be prejudicial to the
latter’s customers.

How does the memorandum of understanding justify the differential treatment of these institutions’ customers?

Is the Commission aware of a uniform criterion for the application of discounts to preferred shares? Does it not
believe that this difference may contravene the principle of equal treatment for EU citizens laid down in the Treaty on
European Union?

Does it agree with the unequal and potentially discriminatory treatment of these institutions’ customers regarding
discounts to preferred shares?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

It is important to note that all customers holding financial instruments in the form of preferred shares or perpetual
subordinated debt, in all banks benefitting from state aid in Spain within the framework of the memorandum of
understanding, have been treated in an equal and non-discriminatory way. The ‘haircuts’ on those instruments are
calculated by the same methodology, which in the cases of Caixa Catalunya and Novacaixagalicia is specified in detail
in the term sheets attached to the related European Commission Decisions (see ‘(A) Methodology for conversion into
capital’ — points 6.4 to 6.8 — and ‘(B) Specific provision for dated subordinated debt’ — points 6.9 to 6.10 — of
both Decisions). The calculated haircut depends on the instrument which is involved, the interest/coupon it bears as
well as its time to maturity. Financial instruments held by customers of Caixa Catalunya and Novacaixagalicia vary in
those aspects, which explains the difference in the average discounts referred to in the Honourable Member's
question.

The links to the decisions on the restructuring of the two banks can be found at:

Caixa Catalunya decision:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/244292/244292_1400504_213_2.pdf

Novacaixagalicia decision:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/244293/244293_1400377_199_2.pdf

C 12 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003373/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(25 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ La questione dei marò

È passato ormai più di un anno dall'incidente, accaduto in acque internazionali al largo delle coste indiane, a seguito
del quale due pescatori indiani sono stati uccisi, la petroliera Lexie, battente bandiera italiana, è ferma nelle acque
indiane «a disposizione» della magistratura del paese e due marò, facenti parte della scorta militare presente
sull'imbarcazione come da programma anti-pirateria, sono detenuti in un carcere indiano in attesa di conoscere la
loro sorte. La vicenda ha subito presentato incongruenze che a tutt'oggi devono ancora essere superate.

Poiché la nave, al momento dell'incidente, si trovava in acque internazionali, la giurisdizione avrebbe dovuto essere
italiana, ovvero quella di appartenenza dell'imbarcazione; i marò, benché militari del battaglione San Marco in
servizio sulla nave, non vedono riconosciuti i diritti derivanti dal loro stato e vengono arrestati, incarcerati e deferiti
alla magistratura indiana come se fossero semplici civili. In aggiunta a ciò e in relazione all'evolversi dei fatti, il
governo indiano ha imposto limitazioni di movimento all'ambasciatore italiano in India mettendo in dubbio la
legittimità dell'immunità diplomatica.

Secondo quanto dichiarato negli ultimi giorni dal portavoce dell'Alto Rappresentante dell'UE per la politica estera e di
sicurezza comune Catherine Ashton, ogni limitazione ai movimenti dell'ambasciatore italiano in India sarebbe
contraria agli obblighi internazionali previsti dalla convenzione di Vienna sulle relazioni diplomatiche.

Va inoltre considerato che il portavoce di Catherine Ashton ha sottolineato come l'Alto Rappresentante abbia preso
atto «con preoccupazione» delle decisioni della Corte suprema indiana, in base alle quali l'ambasciatore Daniele
Mancini è tenuto a chiedere l'autorizzazione alla stessa Corte per lasciare il paese fino a nuovo ordine, e che la
convenzione di Vienna del 1961 sulle relazioni diplomatiche è una pietra miliare dell'ordinamento giuridico
internazionale che dovrebbe essere rispettata in tutte le occasioni.

Tutto ciò premesso, l'interrogante chiede alla Commissione se reputa che vi sia una violazione delle norme
internazionali da parte dell'India nei confronti dell'Italia e che sia necessario un arbitrato internazionale per dirimere
la questione.

**Risposta dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(13 maggio 2013)_

L'Alta Rappresentante segue la questione da vicino fin dall'inizio, in stretto contatto con le autorità italiane e indiane,
invitando ripetutamente le due parti a trovare quanto prima una soluzione soddisfacente per entrambe sulla base
della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare e del diritto internazionale.

Subito dopo la sentenza pronunciata dalla Corte suprema nel mese di marzo 2013, il portavoce dell'Alta
Rappresentante ha espresso preoccupazione circa il fatto che le restrizioni alla libertà di movimento dell'ambasciatore
italiano in India potrebbero violare gli obblighi internazionali ai sensi della convenzione di Vienna del 1961 sulle
relazioni diplomatiche.

L'Alta Rappresentante continuerà a seguire la vicenda con grande attenzione e auspica quanto prima una soluzione
amichevole basata sul diritto internazionale.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 235

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003373/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The case of the Italian marines

A year has passed since the incident which occurred in international waters off the Indian coast, resulting in two
Indian fishermen being killed, the oil tanker _Enrica Lexie_, sailing under the Italian flag, being detained in Indian waters
‘at the disposal’ of India’s judiciary, and two marines, members of the military escort on board the vessel as part of an
anti-piracy programme, being held in an Indian jail waiting to hear their fate. From the outset, there were
inconsistencies in this affair, which still need to be explained.

Since the ship was in international waters at the time of the incident, it should have been subject to Italian jurisdiction,
namely, the jurisdiction to which the vessel belonged. The rights of the marines were not respected, despite the fact
that they were soldiers from the San Marco Regiment on duty on board the ship: they were arrested, imprisoned and
referred to the Indian courts as though they were simple civilians. Furthermore, in view of how the matter has
developed, the Indian Government has imposed restrictions on the movements of Italy's Ambassador to India, calling
into question the legitimacy of diplomatic immunity.

According to a statement made in recent days by the spokesperson of the High Representative of the Union for
Foreign Policy and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, any limitations on the movement of the Italian Ambassador to
India would contravene the international obligations established under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations.

Furthermore, Baroness Ashton's spokesperson stressed that the High Representative notes ‘with concern’ the
decisions of the Supreme Court of India, based on which the Ambassador, Daniele Mancini, is required to seek the
Court’s permission to leave the country until further orders, and that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
of 1961 is a cornerstone of the international legal order which should be respected at all times.

In light of the above, does the Commission believe that India has violated international law, with regard to Italy, and
that international arbitration is necessary to resolve the question?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The HR/VP has been following this issue very carefully, since its beginning, in close contact with both the Italian and
Indian authorities. The HR/VP has consistently encouraged Italy and India to find a mutually satisfactory outcome to
this bilateral case as soon as possible, based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and international law.

Immediately after the Supreme Court Orders of March 2013, the HR/VP, through her spokesperson, expressed
concern that any limitations to the freedom of movement of the Ambassador of Italy to India would be contrary to
the international obligations established under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The HR/VP, who will continue to pay great attention to this issue, hopes that an amicable solution based on
international law can be found as rapidly as possible.

C 12 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003375/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Discurso de Shimon Peres — Irão e Síria

O Presidente de Israel, Shimon Peres, defendeu abertamente, na intervenção que fez na última sessão plenária do
Parlamento Europeu, a violação do direito internacional e da soberania da Síria, a ingerência nos seus assuntos
internos, incluindo a intervenção da Liga Árabe e a formação de um governo provisório. Israel aumenta a escalada de
provocações e ameaças, atirando ainda mais lenha para a fogueira do conflito interno na Síria e desrespeitando o
direito do povo sírio a decidir o seu presente e o seu futuro.

Relativamente ao Irão, defendeu igualmente a ingerência nos assuntos internos deste país, pedindo aos deputados do
Parlamento Europeu que intervenham nas próximas eleições do país.

Estas declarações enquadram-se na escalada de violência no Médio Oriente, nomeadamente dos EUA e de países da
União Europeia, como a França que, em aliança com a Arábia Saudita, o Qatar e outras monarquias ditatoriais do
mundo árabe e usando o sionismo de Israel como ponta de lança, visam assegurar por via da guerra e da submissão de
países soberanos o domínio imperialista sobre os abundantes recursos naturais e energéticos da região.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

Condena esta proposta de violação da soberania da Síria e do Irão, as sucessivas provocações e a perigosa escalada das
agressões já levadas a cabo por Israel contra a Síria?

Não considera necessário desenvolver esforços no plano internacional para travar o passo às reiteradas violações do
direito internacional e da Carta da ONU por Israel na Palestina e na Síria e ao possível desencadear de um conflito
militar na região de grandes proporções e de dramáticas consequências no plano regional e internacional?

**Resposta**
_(17 de junho de 2013)_

O Conselho não abordou os pontos específicos suscitados pela Senhora Deputada, tendo no entanto manifestado em
diversas ocasiões, a última das quais nas suas conclusões de 18 de fevereiro de 2013, a sua profunda preocupação com a
deterioração da situação na Síria.

Nessas conclusões, o Conselho manifestou a profunda preocupação da UE em relação aos efeitos de contágio da crise
síria nos países vizinhos e reiterou o seu apego à soberania, independência e integridade territorial da Síria.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 237

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003375/13**

**to the Council**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Speech by Shimon Peres — Iran and Syria

In a speech made at the most recent European Parliament plenary session, the Israeli President Shimon Peres openly
called for the violation of international law and of Syria’s sovereignty, as well as interference in its internal affairs, by
urging the Arab League to intervene and to form a provisional government. Israel’s increasing provocations and
threats add more fuel to the fire of the internal conflict in Syria and disrespect the Syrian people’s right to decide their
own present and future.

He also called for interference in Iran’s internal affairs and urged MEPs to intervene in the country’s upcoming
elections.

These statements are in line with the escalating violence in the Middle East, in particular that involving the United
States and EU countries such as France which, in alliance with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other dictatorial Arab
monarchies, using Israel’s Zionism as a spearhead, are aiming to ensure imperialist domination over the region’s
abundant natural and energy resources through war and the submission of sovereign countries.

Does the Council condemn Israel’s proposed violation of both Syria’s and Iran’s sovereignty, as well as its successive
provocations and dangerous escalation of aggression against Syria?

Does it not believe that the international community must work to prevent Israel from repeatedly violating
international law and the UN Charter in both Palestine and Syria and the possible onset of a large-scale military
conflict in the region which would have dramatic consequences both regionally and internationally?

**Reply**
_(17 June 2013)_

The Council has not addressed the specific points raised by the Honourable Member. Nonetheless, it has on several
occasions expressed its grave concerns about the deteriorating situation in Syria, most recently in its conclusions of
18 February 2013.

In those conclusions, the Council expressed the EU's deep concerns at the spill-over effects of the Syrian crisis in
neighbouring countries and reiterated its attachment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of
Syria.

C 12 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003376/13**

**à Comissão**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Discurso de Shimon Peres, Presidente de Israel

O Presidente de Israel, Shimon Peres, defendeu no Parlamento Europeu, no discurso que fez na última sessão plenária
em Estrasburgo, uma maior cooperação entre o seu país e a União Europeia através do estabelecimento de consórcios
entre governos e empresas multinacionais no domínio da investigação e do desenvolvimento de tecnologias. É
conhecido o desenvolvimento e a importância que Israel atribui ao desenvolvimento da indústria das chamadas
tecnologias de duplo uso, ou seja, de tecnologias de uso militar e civil. São também conhecidos os efeitos práticos do
seu uso, nomeadamente na manutenção e extensão da ocupação da Palestina, na agressão e repressão dos
palestinianos, nos ataques e na violação da soberania de vários países da região.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Estão a ser desenvolvidos alguns contactos e projetos para o desenvolvimento de projetos conjuntos, financiados por
fundos e/ou programas da UE, tendo em vista o desenvolvimento destas tecnologias? Quais são esses programas, que
montantes estão envolvidos e com que objetivos?

**Resposta dada por Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

A cooperação entre a UE e Israel no domínio da investigação e da inovação é regida pelo «Acordo de Cooperação
Científica e Tecnológica entre a Comunidade Europeia e o Estado de Israel» ( [1] ). Com base no artigo 2.°, n.° 1, e no
anexo I desse acordo, os organismos de investigação de Israel participam e recebem financiamento do Sétimo
Programa-Quadro de investigação, desenvolvimento tecnológico e demonstração (7.° PQ, 2007-2013) nas mesmas
condições que os organismos dos Estados-Membros da UE. O programa Horizonte 2020, que é o próximo programaquadro de investigação e inovação da UE (2014-2020), estará aberto à associação de Israel, sob reserva das condições
estabelecidas no artigo 7.° do regulamento que o institui.

No que respeita às tecnologias de dupla utilização, embora algumas empresas israelitas que participam nas atividades
de investigação do programa-quadro se dediquem aos domínios da defesa e da segurança, a investigação financiada
pelo PQ limita-se à segurança civil e à proteção dos cidadãos. De um modo mais geral, a investigação de dupla
utilização (definida como investigação que tem potencialmente aplicação militar ou terrorista) faz parte da «lista de
controlo ético» que se aplica a todas as propostas apresentadas no âmbito do programa-quadro e, se for caso disso, é
submetida a uma avaliação ética por peritos independentes.

A Comissão está ciente das preocupações manifestadas pelo Parlamento Europeu e pelas organizações da sociedade
civil quanto à participação de certas entidades israelitas em projetos do PQ.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 220 de 25.8.2007.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 239

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003376/13**

**to the Commission**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Speech by Israeli President Shimon Peres

In a speech made at the most recent European Parliament plenary session in Strasbourg, Israeli President Shimon
Peres called for greater cooperation between his country and the EU through the establishment of partnerships
between governments and multinational companies in the field of research and technology development. It is well
known that Israel is involved in and attaches great importance to the development of so-called dual-use technologies,
which are technologies for both military and civilian use. The practical impact of these technologies is also well
known: the continuous and increasing occupation of Palestine, aggression against and repression of the Palestinian
people, and attacks on and violation of the sovereignty of several countries in the region.

Are any contacts being made and plans being drafted to implement joint projects, financed by EU funds/programmes,
aimed at developing these technologies? What are these programmes, what sums are involved and what are the aims
thereof?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

Cooperation between the EU and Israel in the field of research and innovation is governed by the ‘Agreement on
Scientific and Technical Cooperation between the European Community and the State of Israel’ ( [1] ). On the basis of
Article 2(1) and Annex I of this Agreement, research entities from Israel participate in and receive funding from the
Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 20072013) under the same conditions as those applicable to entities from EU Member States. Horizon 2020, the next EU
Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), will be open to the association of Israel, subject to
the conditions set out in Article 7 of the Horizon 2020 regulation.

With regard to dual-use technologies, while some Israeli companies participating in FP security research activities are
active in the fields of defence and security, the FP-funded research is limited to Civil Security and the protection of
citizens. More broadly, dual use (defined as research having potential military or terrorist applications) is included in
the Ethics Checklist applying to all proposals submitted to the framework Programme and, when relevant, is subject
to an Ethical Review by independent experts.

The Commission is aware of the concerns raised by the European Parliament and civil society organisations in
relation to the participation of certain Israeli entities in FP projects.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 220, 25.8.2007.

C 12 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003377/13**

**à Comissão**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) e Elisa Ferreira (S&D)**

_(25 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Situação na empresa Açomonta

Nos últimos dias o sindicato luxemburguês OGB-L acusou a empresa portuguesa Açomonta (com filial em
Differdange, Luxemburgo) de praticar «escravatura moderna», ao recorrer, nos últimos dois anos, a vários
subempreiteiros que têm enviado trabalhadores portugueses ou com residência em Portugal para trabalhar no
Luxemburgo, por conta da Açomonta. Segundo o Sindicato, estes trabalhadores em vez de receberem o salário legal
no Luxemburgo (cerca de 2 400 euros brutos) estão a receber 300 a 700 euros por mês e a trabalhar com horários
que não respeitam o tempo de repouso legal obrigatório. O sindicato refere também que estes trabalhadores não estão
a ser pagos pelas horas extraordinárias e que são alojados em «condições desumanas», em armazéns em França, na
fronteira com o Luxemburgo. Por outro lado, a mesma fonte relata que os trabalhadores que se encontram nesta
situação não têm qualquer possibilidade de fazer valer os seus direitos, uma vez que a empresa os ameaça com a
expulsão do Luxemburgo.

Face a esta situação, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que informações tem acerca desta situação? Como a avalia?

2. A referida empresa recebeu quaisquer apoios comunitários? Com que fins foram concedidos e que
compromissos assumiu aquando da concessão dos apoios? Considera que, a existirem compromissos, estes
estão a ser postos em causa pela administração da empresa?

3. Considera que, neste caso, a diretiva de destacamento de trabalhadores está a ser violada?

4. Tem conhecimento de possíveis diligências que estejam a ser feitas para pôr cobro a esta inadmissível situação
de exploração de trabalhadores?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003423/13**

**à Comissão**
**Edite Estrela (S&D)**
_(26 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Exploração de trabalhadores portugueses no Luxemburgo

Tendo em conta um comunicado do sindicato luxemburguês OGB-L que denuncia alegadas práticas de «dumping
social» levadas a cabo pela empresa portuguesa «Açomonta» e acusa os responsáveis desta empresa de praticar
«escravatura moderna»;

Tendo em conta que a central sindical descreveu várias práticas da empresa portuguesa, cuja filial no Luxemburgo
tem sede em Differdange, que violam as regras do destacamento europeu, incluindo pagamento de salários inferiores
ao que prevê a lei e horas de trabalho que não respeitam «o repouso obrigatório»;

Tendo em conta que o sindicato garante que os trabalhadores, em vez de receberem o salário de acordo com a
legislação do Luxemburgo, que ronda os 2 400 euros brutos, «não recebem mais que 300 a 700 euros por mês»,
porque lhes são descontados «a viagem, o transporte e a alimentação»,

Pergunta à Comissão:

1. A Comissão tem conhecimento desta situação?

2. Que medidas pensa tomar a Comissão para melhor garantir a aplicação da Diretiva 96/71/CE relativa ao
destacamento de trabalhadores no âmbito de uma prestação de serviços?

3. De que forma as disposições constantes da proposta de Diretiva respeitante à execução da Diretiva 96/71/CE
(COM(2012)0131 final) poderão contribuir para melhor garantir os direitos dos trabalhadores em situações
semelhantes, em particular as constantes do artigo 12.° relativo à responsabilidade solidária?

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 241

**Resposta conjunta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão não tem conhecimento das situações descritas pelas Senhoras Deputadas. Os trabalhadores, dependendo
da situação em que se encontrem, podem ser abrangidos pela Diretiva 96/71/CE ( [1] ) e beneficiarem de um conjunto
básico («núcleo») de condições mínimas de trabalho e emprego, incluindo o pagamento do salário mínimo do país
onde trabalham. O acompanhamento e o cumprimento das condições de trabalho e da remuneração efetiva integram
os principais domínios de competência dos Estados-Membros.

Os projetos executados com o apoio do financiamento da UE devem estar em conformidade com a legislação
nacional e com a legislação da UE. No entanto, a Comissão não está em posição de avaliar os factos ou indicar se uma
empresa privada atuou em conformidade com a legislação aplicável. Cabe às autoridades nacionais assegurar que a
legislação nacional é aplicada correta e eficazmente pelo empregador.

De acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, a empresa Açomonta recebeu um financiamento do Fundo Social
Europeu no montante de 67 822,86 euros no período de programação 2000-2006. As operações selecionadas
destinavam-se a reforçar o potencial dos trabalhadores e, de acordo com as autoridades portuguesas, cumpriram as
regras da UE e as regras nacionais ao longo de todo o período de execução.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 96/71/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 16 de dezembro de 1996, relativa ao destacamento de trabalhadores no âmbito de
uma prestação de serviços, JO L 18 de 21.1.1997.

C 12 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003377/13**

**to the Commission**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) and Elisa Ferreira (S&D)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Situation at Açomonta

In the last few days the Luxembourgish trade union OGB-L has accused the Portuguese company Açomonta (which
has a branch in Differdange, Luxembourg) of practising ‘modern slavery’. Over the past two years, the company has
used several contractors which have sent Portuguese workers or workers resident in Portugal to work in Luxembourg,
on its behalf. The trade union claims that these workers receive EUR 300‐700 per month instead of the legal
Luxembourgish salary (around EUR 2 400 gross) and work hours that do not comply with the mandatory statutory
rest period. The trade union also claims that these workers are not being paid for overtime and that they are housed in
‘inhumane conditions’ in warehouses in France, on the border with Luxembourg. Furthermore, the same source
reports that workers who find themselves in this situation are unable to assert their rights, since the company
threatens them with deportation from Luxembourg.

1. What information does the Commission have on this situation? What is its assessment of it?

2. Has Açomonta received any kind of EU aid? For what purpose was aid granted and what undertakings were
given when it was received? If undertakings have been given, does the Commission believe these are being broken by
the company management?

3. Does it believe that the Posting of Workers Directive is being violated in this case?

4. Is it aware of possible steps that are being taken to put a stop to this unacceptable worker exploitation?

**Question for written answer E-003423/13**

**to the Commission**
**Edite Estrela (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Exploitation of Portuguese workers in Luxembourg

A report by the Luxembourg trade union OGB-L has drawn attention to the alleged practice of ‘social dumping’ by the
Portuguese company ‘Açomonta’, and has accused its management of ‘modern-day slavery’.

The trade union has denounced several practices by the Portuguese firm — which has branch offices at Differdange in
Luxembourg — which contravene European regulations on the posting of workers, and which include salaries below
the legal minimum and demand working hours that do not respect ‘mandatory statutory rest periods’.

According to the trade union, instead of being paid the legal minimum wage in Luxembourg, which is approximately
EUR 2 400 gross per month, these workers ‘receive no more than EUR 300‐700 per month’ as their ‘travel, transport
and food’ is deducted.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What steps will the Commission take to better ensure the implementation of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the
posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services?

3. How can the provisions in the proposal for a directive on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC
(COM(2012)0131 final) better guarantee the rights of workers in similar situations, in particular those set out in
Article 12 relating to joint liability?

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 243

**Joint answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

The Commission is not aware of the concrete situation as described by the Honourable Member. Depending on the
workers situation, they may be subject to Directive 96/71/EC ( [1] ) and entitled to a core set (‘nucleus’) of clearly defined
minimum terms and conditions of employment, including the minimum rate of pay in the country where they work.
The monitoring and enforcement of working conditions and actual remuneration is within the main remits of the
Member States' competence.

Projects carried out with the support of EU funding must comply with EU and national law. However, the
Commission is not in a position to assess the facts or state whether a private company has complied with the law
applicable. It is for the national authorities to ensure that the national legislation is correctly and effectively applied by
the employer.

According to the Portuguese authorities, Açomonta Company received European Social Fund financial support
amounting to EUR 67 822.86 in the 2000-06 programming period. The selected operations aimed to enhance the
employees' potential and, according to the Portuguese authorities, complied with EU and national rules throughout
the implementation period.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of
the provision of services, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

C 12 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003378/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Deputados impedidos de entrar em Marrocos

Quatro deputados do Parlamento Europeu, membros do seu Intergrupo do Sahara Ocidental, foram impedidos de
entrar em Marrocos, onde faziam escala para chegar ao Sahara Ocidental onde pretendiam observar a situação dos
direitos humanos.

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

Que comentário faz a esta repetida ação das autoridades marroquinas?

Como pretende abordar esta ação atentatória do direito internacional e de acordos existentes entre a UE e Marrocos?

Irá exigir um pedido de desculpas formal das autoridades marroquinas?

Não considera que se trata de mais uma tentativa das autoridades marroquinas de esconder do mundo as continuadas
violações dos direitos humanos que impõe à população dos territórios ocupados do Sahara Ocidental?

**Resposta**
_(17 de junho de 2013)_

O Conselho está a par dos acontecimentos a que se refere a Senhora Deputada, os quais deram origem a contactos
entre a UE e as autoridades marroquinas.

Mais genericamente, em abril de 2012, por ocasião do 10.° Conselho de Associação UE‐Marrocos, a UE reafirmou o
seu empenho na resolução do conflito do Sara Ocidental. A UE apoiou plenamente os esforços do Secretário-Geral
das Nações Unidas (SGNU) e do seu Enviado Pessoal para ajudar as partes a chegarem a uma solução política justa,
duradoura e mutuamente aceitável para todas as partes em causa, que permita a autodeterminação do povo do Sara
Ocidental, no quadro de mecanismos consentâneos com os objetivos e os princípios enunciados na Carta das Nações
Unidas, em conformidade com as resoluções do Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, nomeadamente a
Resolução 1979 (2011). A UE incentivou ainda todas as partes a continuarem a trabalhar com o Enviado Pessoal do
SGNU a fim de se registarem progressos na busca dessa solução, fazendo prova de realismo e de espírito de
compromisso. A UE exprimiu, além disso, o seu apego ao respeito pelos direitos humanos e recordou as obrigações
que incumbem a cada uma das partes. Neste contexto, a UE congratulou-se com o maior papel assumido pelo CNDH
em matéria de fiscalização e de defesa dos direitos humanos, nomeadamente no Sara Ocidental, e com a
constitucionalização desse papel.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 245

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003378/13**

**to the Council**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ MEPs denied entry to Morocco

Four MEPs, members of the Western Sahara Intergroup, have been denied entry to Morocco while making a stopover
en route to Western Sahara, where they intended to observe the human rights situation.

What is the Council’s assessment of this repeated action by the Moroccan authorities?

How will it address this action which contravenes international law and existing agreements between the EU and
Morocco?

Will it demand a formal apology from the Moroccan authorities?

Does it not believe that this is yet another attempt by the Moroccan authorities to hide from the world the continued
human rights violations being committed against the population of the occupied territories of Western Sahara?

**Reply**
_(17 June 2013)_

The Council is aware of the events referred to by the Honourable Member, at the time of which appropriate contacts
took place between the EU and the Moroccan authorities.

More generally, in April 2012, on the occasion of the 10th EU-Morocco Association Council, the EU restated its
commitment to a resolution of the conflict in Western Sahara. It fully supported the efforts being made by the United
Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) and his Personal Envoy to help the parties to find a just and lasting political
solution that is mutually acceptable to all parties concerned and allows self-determination for the people of Western
Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United
Nations as provided for in the UNSC resolutions, including Resolution 1979 (2011). It also encouraged all the parties
to continue working with the UNSG's Personal Envoy to secure progress in the search for such a solution,
demonstrating realism and a spirit of compromise. The EU also wished to express its commitment to safeguarding
human rights and recalled the obligations incumbent on each of the parties. In that connection, it welcomed the
increased role for the CNDH (National Council for Human Rights) and its enshrinement in the constitution with
regard to the monitoring and protection of human rights, including in Western Sahara.

C 12 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003379/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Reglementările legale cu privire la medicamentul Avastin

Pacienții români bolnavi de cancer au reclamat faptul că tratamentul cu medicamentul Avastin, considerat ca fiind
eficient în întârzierea evoluției anumitor tumori, nu are în Uniunea Europeană indicație terapeutică în tumori
cerebrale, ci numai în alte forme de cancer. Prin urmare, costul acestui medicament nu poate fi decontat în cadrul
sistemelor de asigurări de sănătate.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze care este stadiul studiilor clinice cu privire la utilizarea medicamentului menționat în
cazuri de tumori cerebrale și când va deveni disponibil pentru pacienții europeni.

**Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei**

_(14 mai 2013)_

Avastin este un medicament care este în curs de autorizare la nivelul UE pentru tratarea cancerului colorectal,
pulmonar, ovarian, renal și de sân ( [1] ).

Avastin este testat pe pacienți care suferă de cancer cerebral sau de metastaze ale creierului în nouă trialuri clinice
înregistrate în Registrul UE al trialurilor clinice ( [2] ) și în aproximativ 90 de trialuri înregistrate în registrele institutelor
naționale de sănătate din Statele Unite ( [3] ). Marea majoritate a acestor trialuri au fost inițiate recent, iar rezultatele sunt
așteptate în următorul an sau în următorii trei ani.

Comisia nu este în măsură să evalueze momentul în care Avastin va fi autorizat la nivelul UE pentru tratarea
cancerului cerebral.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp? curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000582/human_med_000663.jsp&mid=

WC0b01ac058001d124

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://clinicaltrials.gov/

( **|**
( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 247

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003379/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Legal regulations for the drug Avastin

Cancer patients in Romania have claimed that there is no therapeutic indication in the European Union for using the
drug Avastin, considered to be effective in slowing the growth of certain tumours, to treat not only brain tumours but
also other types of cancer. Consequently, the cost of this drug cannot be discounted under health insurance schemes.

Can the Commission specify the status of the clinical trials on the use of this drug in cases involving brain tumours,
and when it will become available to European patients?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

Avastin is a medicinal product which is currently authorised at EU level for the treatment of colorectal, lung, ovarian,
kidney and breast cancer ( [1] ).

Avastin is being tested in patients suffering from brain cancer or brain metastases in nine clinical trials registered in
the EU Clinical Trials Register ( [2] ) and in about 90 trials registered in the United States’ National Institutes of Health
ClinicalTrials.gov registry ( [3] ). The large majority of these trials have recently been initiated and results are expected
within the next one to three years.

The Commission is not in a position to assess when Avastin will be authorised at EU level for the treatment of brain

cancer.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000582/human_med_000663.jsp&mid=

WC0b01ac058001d124

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://clinicaltrials.gov/

( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003380/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Nivelul de contaminare cu bacterii a legumelor ambalate neprelucrate

Un profesor emerit de bacteriologie al Universității Aberdeen (Scoția), expert în microbiologie și siguranță alimentară,
a ridicat recent problema nivelului de contaminare cu bacterii a legumelor ambalate neprelucrate disponibile în
comerțul alimentar (salate).

Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă dispune de un studiu cu privire la nivelul de contaminare cu bacterii a acestui tip
de produse, dacă intenționează să monitorizeze această problemă și dacă are în vedere să înainteze propuneri
legislative cu privire la reglementările în domeniu.

**Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei**

_(13 mai 2013)_

Directiva 2003/99/CE ( [1] ) prevede obligația statelor membre de a monitoriza zoonozele și agenții zoonotici la animale
și produsele alimentare, rezistența antimicrobiană, de a investiga focarele de toxiinfecție alimentară și de a-și
transmite reciproc toate informațiile legate de zoonoze și de agenții zoonotici la animale și în produsele alimentare.
Datele furnizate de statele membre sunt colectate la nivelul Uniunii.

Cel mai actual raport de sinteză al UE privind tendințele și sursele de zoonoze, de agenți zoonotici și de focare de
toxiinfecție alimentară ( [2] ) a fost publicat la 9 aprilie 2013 de către Autoritatea Europeană pentru Siguranța
Alimentară (EFSA) și de Centrul European de Prevenire și Control al Bolilor.

În plus, în urma epidemiei din 2011 de Escherichia coli care produce toxina Shiga, înregistrată în Uniunea Europeană,
Comisia a solicitat EFSA să examineze gradul de risc pe care îl prezintă agenții patogeni din alimentele de origine
neanimală. Un prim aviz științific ( [3] ) publicat la data de 8 ianuarie 2013 a avut ca obiect analiza datelor
epidemiologice și realizarea unui clasament al riscului prezentat de combinațiile de alimente/agenți patogeni. În plus,
Comisia i-a solicitat EFSA să emită un al doilea aviz privind riscul pentru sănătatea publică generat de agenți patogeni
care pot contamina alimentele de origine neanimală. Activitatea EFSA este în curs de desfășurare, iar avizul acesteia
este așteptat în 2014.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 325, 12.12.2003, p. 31.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3129.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3025.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 249

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003380/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Level of bacterial contamination in packaged unprocessed vegetables

An emeritus professor of bacteriology from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland), who is an expert in microbiology
and food safety, recently raised the issue of the level of bacterial contamination in packaged unprocessed vegetables
(salad) available in the food retail sector.

Can the Commission specify whether it has a study on the level of bacterial contamination in products of this kind,
whether it intends to monitor this issue and whether it is considering submitting legislative proposals for regulations
in this area?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

Directive 2003/99/EC ( [1] ) requires Member States to monitor zoonoses and zoonotic agents in animals and food,
antimicrobial resistance, to investigate food-borne outbreaks and to exchange all the information related to zoonoses
and zoonotic agents in animals and food. The data provided by the Member States are collected at Union level.

The most up-to-date EU Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne
Outbreaks ( [2] ) was published on 9 April 2013 by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre
for Disease Prevention and Control.

Moreover, following the 2011 outbreaks of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in the European Union, the
Commission requested EFSA to look at the risk posed by pathogens in food of non-animal origin. A first scientific
opinion ( [3] ) published on 8 January 2013 was related to outbreak data analysis and risk ranking of food/pathogen
combinations. Furthermore, the Commission asked EFSA to issue a second opinion on the public health risk posed by
pathogens that may contaminate food of non-animal origin. EFSA’s work is underway and its opinion is expected in
2014.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 325, 12.12.2003, p.31.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3129.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3025.htm

C 12 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003381/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ „Permise de rezidență biometrice” pentru imigranții români și bulgari, în Marea Britanie

Guvernul Regatului Unit a anunțat că studiază introducerea de „permise de rezidență biometrice” pentru imigranții
români și bulgari care vor intra pe teritoriul acestui stat începând din 2014.

Comisia este rugată să comenteze această inițiativă și să precizeze dacă aceasta nu are caracter discriminatoriu față de
cetățenii europeni care provin din România și Bulgaria.

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(15 mai 2013)_

Conform informațiilor furnizate Comisiei de către autoritățile Regatului Unit, această țară nu preconizează să
elibereze permise de ședere biometrice pentru resortisanții români și bulgari.

În temeiul dreptului UE, în legislația lor națională, statele membre pot impune tuturor cetățenilor UE care nu sunt
resortisanți ai țării respective obligația să se înregistreze la autoritățile naționale, astfel cum se prevede la articolul 8
alineatul (1) din Directiva privind libera circulație ( [1] ).

După înregistrare, cetățenilor UE li se eliberează imediat un certificat de înregistrare. Directiva privind libera circulație
nu autorizează statele membre să elibereze certificate de înregistrare diferite pentru cetățenii UE din state membre
diferite.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 2004/38/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 29 aprilie 2004 privind dreptul la liberă circulație și ședere pe teritoriul
statelor membre pentru cetățenii Uniunii și membrii familiilor acestora, JO L 158, 30 aprilie 2004, p. 77.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 251

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003381/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ ‘Biometric residence permits’ for Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants in the UK

The United Kingdom Government has announced that it is looking at the introduction of ‘biometric residence
permits’ for Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants entering this state’s territory from 2014.

Can the Commission comment on this initiative and specify whether it does not discriminate against EU citizens from
Romania and Bulgaria?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

According to the information provided to the Commission by the United Kingdom authorities, the United Kingdom
has no plans to issue biometric residence permits to Romanian and Bulgarian nationals.

Under EC law, Member States may in their national laws oblige all non-national EU citizens to register their residence
with national authorities, as laid down in Article 8(1) of the Free Movement Directive ( [1] ).

Once registered, EU citizens shall be immediately issued with a registration certificate. The Free Movement Directive
does not authorise Member States to issue different registration certificates to EU citizens from different Member
States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family
members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77.

C 12 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003382/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Gradul de contractare, respectiv stadiul plăților efectiv realizate pentru România

Comisia este rugată să prezinte datele oficiale, la zi, cu privire la gradul de contractare a fondurilor europene, respectiv
stadiul plăților efectiv realizate, din fondurile europene, pentru România.

De asemenea, Comisia este rugată să comenteze diferența extrem de mare între cifrele referitoare la cei doi indicatori.

**Răspuns dat de dl. Hahn în numele Comisiei**

_(17 mai 2013)_

În conformitate cu datele publicate de Ministerul Fondurilor Europene ( [1] ), la data de 31 martie 2013, autoritățile de
management care gestionează cele șapte programe din cadrul politicii de coeziune au încheiat acorduri cu beneficiarii
pentru 88 % din totalul fondurilor alocate pentru 2007-2013.

Comisia a rambursat 2,5 milioane EUR (13 % din totalul fondurilor alocate), la care se adaugă 2,1 milioane EUR de
plăți în avans. Astfel, suma totală plătită de Comisie reprezintă 24 % din totalul fondurilor alocate (4,6 miliarde EUR
dintr-un total de 19,2 miliarde EUR).

Diferența dintre procentul rambursat (13 %) și valoarea acordurilor de finanțare cu beneficiarii (88 %) este cauzată de
implementarea lentă a proiectelor, ca urmare a finalizării cu întârziere a procedurilor de selecție a proiectelor și a
experienței limitate a beneficiarilor, de sistemul împovărător de gestionare și de control al programelor, de
problemele sistemice care au generat constatări importante în cursul auditurilor, ceea ce a dus la întreruperea și
presuspendarea plăților și a corecțiilor financiare, de lipsa resurselor bugetare la nivelul autorităților de management
și de lipsa resurselor de cofinanțare la nivelul beneficiarilor.

Conform datelor din partea autorității de management a Fondului european agricol pentru dezvoltare rurală (FEADR),
la data de 7 februarie 2013, 71 % din fondurile alocate pentru perioada 2007-2013 pentru măsuri de investiții au fost
contractate la nivelul beneficiarilor. La 31 martie 2013, Comisia plătise 43 % din totalul fondurilor alocate FEADR
pentru perioada 2007-2013 (3,5 miliarde EUR dintr-un total de 8,1 miliarde EUR) sau 50 % (4 miliarde EUR) dacă se
include, de asemenea, procentul de 7 % reprezentat de plățile în avans din cadrul FEADR (561,5 milioane EUR).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 253

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003382/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Contracting rate and status of payments actually made to Romania

Can the Commission provide official, up-to-date data on the rate of contracting from European funds and on the
status of payments actually made from European funds to Romania?

In addition, can the Commission comment on the huge disparity between the figures for both indicators?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

According to data published by the Ministry of European Funds ( [1] ), as of 31 March 2013, the managing authorities of
the 7 cohesion policy programmes had concluded agreements with beneficiaries for 88% of the total 2007-2013
allocation.

The Commission reimbursed EUR 2.5 million (13% of the total allocation) and together with EUR 2.1 million of
advance payments, the total amount paid by the Commission represents 24% of the total allocation (EUR 4.6 billion
out of EUR 19.2 billion).

The gap between the amount reimbursed (13%) and the value of the financing agreements with the beneficiaries
(88%) is due to the slow implementation of projects, caused by delayed finalisation of project selection procedures
and the limited experience of beneficiaries; the heavy management and control system of the programmes; systemic
issues causing significant audit findings which led to interruption and pre-suspension of payments and financial
corrections; shortage of budgetary resources at the level of managing authorities and a lack of co-financing resources
at the beneficiaries' level.

According to data from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) managing authority, 71% of
the 2007-2013 funds allocated for investment-type measures were committed at beneficiary level as of
7 February 2013. As of 31 March 2013, the Commission has paid 43% of the total 2007-13 EAFRD allocation
(EUR 3.5 billion out of EUR 8.1 billion), or 50% (EUR 4.0 billion) if the 7% EAFRD advance payment (EUR 561.5
million) is also included.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/

C 12 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003383/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Sector bancario de Chipre

Con la aprobación del _Six Pack_, la Comisión Europea tiene poder para proponer recomendaciones de carácter
macroeconómico a los Estados miembros de la zona euro. Estas recomendaciones se basan en el análisis de un
conjunto de indicadores que se entienden clave para poder analizar la situación de cada Estado miembro más allá del
volumen de su deuda pública.

Chipre ha tenido que pedir un rescate con fondos europeos después de que sus bancos se encontraran en una
situación de insolvencia. Más allá de las razones concretas que han llevado a este hecho, uno de los factores
fundamentales ha sido el gran tamaño de su sector bancario en relación con el PIB de la isla mediterránea ( [1] ). Esto ha
tenido como consecuencia que los costes de su recapitalización fueran demasiado elevados para ser financiados
simplemente con fondos públicos y se ha tenido que recurrir al _bail-in_ de parte de los depósitos. Las _country specific_
_recommendations_ para Chipre de noviembre de 2012 no tenían en cuenta el tamaño de su sector financiero como un
factor de riesgo para su economía.

Este _bail-in_ ha creado desconfianza entre los ahorradores de toda la zona euro, que temen que en otras circunstancias
se les pueda aplicar la misma medida. Una posible medida para generar confianza entre los ciudadanos y los
inversores sería la creación de un fondo de resolución y garantía de depósitos parecido al que existe en Estados
Unidos.

A la luz de lo anterior,

1. ¿Piensa la Comisión introducir en el _scoreboard_ del mecanismo de desequilibrios macroeconómicos un indicador
para controlar el tamaño absoluto del sector financiero de un Estado miembro respecto a su PIB?

2. En el marco de su _blueprint_ para el futuro de la Unión Monetaria, ¿piensa la Comisión hacer una propuesta
legislativa para la creación de un Fondo de Resolución y de Garantía de Depósitos Europeo para restablecer la
confianza de los ciudadanos e inversores?

**Respuesta del Sr. Rehn en nombre de la Comisión**

_(7 de junio de 2013)_

Por el momento no se tiene la intención de incluir tal indicador en el cuadro de indicadores del procedimiento de
desequilibrio macroeconómico (PDM). Sin embargo, el cuadro de indicadores ya incluye la tasa de incremento de los
pasivos totales del sector financiero. Este indicador es una medida muy global del aumento de los riesgos potenciales
del sector financiero. La experiencia ha mostrado que una rápida expansión de este sector, más que el gran tamaño del
mismo, ha tenido a menudo gran influencia en las crisis financieras. Para más detalles sobre este indicador, se remite a
Su Señoría al documento de trabajo de los servicios de la Comisión « _Completing the Scoreboard for the MIP: Financial_
_Sector Indicator» (_ [2] _)._ El cuadro de indicadores también incluye otros indicadores financieros tales como los relativos a la
deuda del sector privado y al flujo de crédito al sector privado.

El cuadro de indicadores solo es un filtro inicial del procedimiento, y las decisiones sobre la existencia de
desequilibrios, o desequilibrios excesivos, no se derivan automáticamente de los indicadores del cuadro. El análisis
realizado por la Comisión en el contexto del PDM tiene en cuenta todos los indicadores y toda la información de que
se dispone, con inclusión, en su caso, del tamaño del sector bancario. Para más detalles sobre la aplicación del PDM,
sírvase remitirse a la Comunicación de 10 de abril de 2003 ( [3] ) y a los exámenes exhaustivos de 2013 relativos a 13
países ( [4] ).

La Comisión se propone adoptar este verano una propuesta relativa a un mecanismo único de resolución. Por ahora
no se considera la posibilidad de introducir un sistema paneuropeo de garantía de depósitos.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/21/us-eurozone-cyprus-banking-size-idUSBRE92K0YK20130321
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD (2012) 389 final de 14.11.2012, disponible en:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/documents/alert_mechanism_report_2013_financial_sector_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) «Resultados de los exámenes exhaustivos con arreglo al Reglamento (UE) n° 1176/2011, relativo a la prevención y corrección de los desequilibrios

macroeconómicos», COM(2013) 199 final.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) European Economy-Occasional Papers, nos132 a 144.

( **|**

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 255

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003383/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cypriot banking sector

The Commission has the power to propose macroeconomic recommendations to Member States in the euro area,
following the adoption of the ‘Six-Pack’. These recommendations are based on the analysis of a set of indicators
considered essential for assessing the situation in each Member State over and above the size of its public debt.

Cyprus has had to request an EU bailout after its banks became insolvent. As well as the specific reasons that led to
this situation, a major factor was the Mediterranean island’s oversized banking sector in relation to its GDP ( [1] ). As a
result, public funds alone cannot cover recapitalisation costs and the country has had to resort to bailing-in deposits.
The country-specific recommendations for Cyprus, dated November 2012, did not consider the size of its financial
sector to be a risk factor for its economy.

This bail-in has caused distrust among savers throughout the euro area, who fear that the same measure may be
applied to them in other circumstances. One possible way to build confidence among citizens and investors would be
to create a deposit insurance and resolution fund similar to that in the United States.

1. Will the Commission include in the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure Scoreboard an indicator to monitor

the absolute size of a Member State’s financial sector in relation to its GDP?

2. As part of its blueprint for the future of the Monetary Union, will it make a legislative proposal for the creation
of a European Deposit Insurance and Resolution Fund to restore the confidence of citizens and investors?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

There is no plan at the moment to include such an indicator in the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP)
scoreboard. However, the scoreboard already includes the growth rate of total financial sector liabilities. The indicator
is a very broad measure of the expansion of the exposure to potential risks in the financial sector. Experience has
shown that a fast expansion of the financial sector, more than the large size of the sector itself, has often been relevant
in financial crises. For more details on this indicator, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission Staff
Working Paper: ‘ _Completing the Scoreboard for the MIP: Financial Sector Indicator.’ (_ [2] _)_ The scoreboard also includes other
financial indicators like the private sector debt and the private sector credit flows.

The scoreboard is only an initial filter of the procedure and the decisions on the existence of imbalances, or excessive
imbalances, do not depend mechanically on the scoreboard indicators. The analysis undertaken by the Commission
in the context of the MIP takes into account all available indicators and information, including where appropriate the
size of the banking sector. For more details on the implementation of the MIP, please refer to the communication of
10 April 2013 ( [3] ) and the 2013 in-depth reviews for thirteen countries ( [4] ).

The Commission is to adopt a proposal on the Single Resolution Mechanism this summer. The issue of a panEuropean Deposit Guarantee System is not being considered at this stage.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/21/us-eurozone-cyprus-banking-size-idUSBRE92K0YK20130321
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD (2012) 389 final of 14.11.2012, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/economic_governance/documents/alert_mechanism_report_2013_financial_sector_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ‘Results of in-depth reviews under Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances,’ COM(2013)

199 final .

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) European Economy-Occasional Papers, 132 to 144.

( **|**

( **|**

C 12 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003384/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(25 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Desfibriladores en las instituciones europeas

Según le consta al diputado al Parlamento Europeo que formula la presente pregunta, la Comisión Europea está
prestando apoyo a los Estados miembros en el ámbito de los paros cardíacos a través de proyectos financiados por el
Programa de Salud de la UE como, por ejemplo, EuroHeart I y II, Eurhobop y SITS EAST.

Según las estadísticas de Eurostat ( [1] ), la muerte súbita cardíaca es una de las principales causas de muerte en Europa. La
desfibrilación precoz —en los primeros minutos del colapso— aumenta considerablemente la tasa de supervivencia
del afectado.

En este contexto, ¿hará un esfuerzo la Comisión para asegurar que todas las instituciones europeas disponen de
desfibriladores externos automáticos?

**Respuesta del Sr. Šefčovič en nombre de la Comisión**

_(22 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión no tiene competencias en cuanto a la instalación de desfibriladores en otras Instituciones.

Sin embargo, ha empezado a instalar desfibriladores en sus edificios o grupos de edificios y trabaja para que la
totalidad de los mismos esté equipada a finales del año 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Causes_of_death_statistics/es#Enfermedades_respiratorias

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 257

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003384/13**

**to the Commission**
**Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Defibrillators in the EU institutions

I understand that the Commission is providing funding under the EU health programme for projects such as
EuroHeart I and II, EURHOBOP and SITS-EAST to help Member States respond when a person suffers a cardiac arrest.

According to Eurostat figures ( [1] ), cardiac arrests are one of the leading causes of death in Europe. Early defibrillation
— within minutes of collapse — considerably increases the patient’s chance of survival.

Will the Commission therefore make sure that all EU institutions are equipped with automated external defibrillators?

_(Version française)_

**Réponse donnée par M Šefčovič au nom de la Commission**

_(22 mai 2013)_

La Commission n'est pas compétente en matière d'installation de défibrillateurs dans d'autres Institutions.

La Commission a pour sa part commencé à installer des défibrillateurs dans ses bâtiments ou groupes de bâtiments et
prévoit que l'ensemble de ceux-ci sera équipé pour la fin de l'année 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See ‘Respiratory diseases’ section of http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Causes_of_death_statistics.

C 12 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003385/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(25. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Tierkörperbeseitigung

Der Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, dem Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und Landkreis
Limburg-Weilburg wurde in Rheinland-Pfalz durch ein Landesgesetz errichtet und nimmt in den genannten Gebieten
die Tierkörperbeseitigung als durch Bundes‐ und Landesgesetz übertragen Aufgabe wahr. Zur Beseitigung von
jährlich rund 85 000 Tonnen Tierkörpern und tierischen Abfällen betreibt er in Rivenich und Sandersmühle (beides
in Rheinland-Pfalz) Beseitigungsanlagen.

Durch EU-Richtlinien kommt dem Zweckverband außerdem die Aufgabe zu, Reservekapazitäten für den Fall einer
Seuche vorzuhalten. Dafür bezahlen die Kommunen im Einzugsgebiet eine jährliche Umlage von insgesamt
1,7 Mio. EUR. Alle weiteren Kosten werden durch die Gebühren der Schlachtbetriebe, durch Kostenerstattungen für
verendete Tiere und Erlöse aus dem Verkauf der hergestellten Mehle und Fette vollständig abgedeckt.

Die Umlagefinanzierung für die Reservekapazitäten waren Bestandteil eines von der Kommission eröffneten
Wettbewerbsverfahrens und der Zweckverband wurde aufgefordert, die seit 1998 geleisteten Zahlungen in Höhe von
ca. 42 Mio. EUR zurückzuzahlen.

Da der Zweckverband dieses nicht leisten kann, droht die Eröffnung eines Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens, in dessen
Folge das Land dem Zweckverband den Auftrag entzieht und ihn damit vom Markt nimmt. Die Aufgabe selbst wird
dann ausgeschrieben.

Nach bisherigem Kenntnisstand könnten nur die Firma Rethmann Group und einige Töchterfirmen ein Angebot
einreichen, da es sonst keine weiteren Marktakteure gibt. Wenn die Rethman Group den Auftrag bekommt, wird sie
in Deutschland faktisch ein Monopol besitzen.

1. Mit welcher Begründung stellt die Kommission einen Verstoß gegen das Beihilferecht fest, wenn Kommunen
und Länder ihrer Verpflichtung nachkommen und Reservekapazitäten zur Tierkörperbeseitigung aufrechterhalten?

2. Ist sich die Kommission der weiteren Monopolisierung eines Marktes bewusst, wenn der genannte
Zweckverband nicht weiter für die öffentlichen Körperschaften Aufgaben wahrnehmen kann?

**Antwort von Herrn Almunia im Namen der Kommission**

_(6. Juni 2013)_

Zu dem von der Frau Abgeordneten dargelegten Sachverhalt:

Die Verpflichtung zur Vorhaltung von Reservekapazitäten gründet nicht auf EU-Rechtsvorschriften, sondern auf
einem Beschluss der lokalen Behörden. Die Kommission ist nach den Vorschriften für staatliche Beihilfen nicht
befugt, ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen den Verband einzuleiten. Vielmehr ist Deutschland gemäß
Kommissionsbeschluss ( [1] ) verpflichtet, die Beihilfen vom Verband zurückzufordern. Da Deutschland dieser
Verpflichtung bis jetzt nicht nachgekommen ist, kann die Kommission gemäß Artikel 108 Absatz 2 AEUV
Deutschland vor dem Gerichtshof verklagen. Die Kommission kann nicht bestätigen, ob die Rückforderung dazu
geführt hat, dass der Verband vom Markt genommen wurde. Die Kommission merkt an, dass der Verband aufgrund
seines Rechtsstatus als Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts möglicherweise vor Insolvenz geschützt ist. Dies kann an
sich eine mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt unvereinbare staatliche Beihilfe darstellen. Schließlich werden die zuständigen
nationalen Behörden durch den Kommissionsbeschluss nicht verpflichtet, die Aufgabe auszuschreiben. In
Übereinstimmung mit der Rechtsprechung zu den Rechtssachen Telaustria und Parking Brixen obliegt es ihnen, über
die künftige Organisation zu entscheiden.

Frage 1: Die Kommission verweist die Frau Abgeordnete auf die Erwägungsgründe ihres Beschlusses.

Frage 2: Die Kommission verfügt nicht über detaillierte Informationen über die aktuelle Marktlage in Deutschland.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Beschluss 2012/485/EU der Kommission vom 25. April 2012 über die staatliche Beihilfe SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10), die Deutschland

zugunsten des Zweckverbands Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz, im Saarland, im Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis und im Landkreis LimburgWeilburg gewährt hat (ABl. L 236 vom 1.9.2012, S. 1).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 259

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003385/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(25 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Disposal of animal carcases

The Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung (special-purpose association for animal carcase disposal) in RhinelandPalatinate, Saarland, the Rheingau-Taunus district and the district of Limburg-Weilburg was established in RhinelandPalatinate by means of a federal state law and takes care of the disposal of animal carcases in the aforementioned areas
as a task conferred on it by federal and federal state law. For the disposal of around 85 000 tonnes of animal carcases
and animal waste each year it operates disposal installations in Rivenich and Sandersmühle (both in RhinelandPalatinate).

Under EU directives, the association is also responsible for maintaining reserve capacity in case there is an epidemic.
The municipalities in the catchment area pay an annual contribution of EUR 1.7 million in total for this. All further
costs are covered in full by fees from slaughterhouses, reimbursements for mortalities and revenue from the sale of
the meals and fats produced.

The funding of the reserve capacity through contributions was the subject of competition proceedings initiated by the
Commission and the association was required to pay back payments made since 1998, amounting to approximately
EUR 42 million.

Since the association cannot afford this, it is threatened with the initiation of an infringement procedure, the
consequence of which being that the federal state will divest it of its task, thereby removing it from the market. The
task itself will then be put out to tender.

On the basis of information currently available, only the Rethmann Group and a few subsidiaries would be able to
submit a bid, as there are no other market operators. If the Rethmann Group is awarded the task it will de facto have a
monopoly in Germany.

1. How does the Commission justify its conclusion that there has been a violation of state aid rules when the
municipalities and federal states are fulfilling their obligation and maintaining reserve capacity for the disposal of
animal carcases?

2. Is the Commission aware that there will be further monopolisation of a market if the aforementioned
association can no longer carry out its duties for the public bodies?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

On the facts as set out by the Honourable Member:

The obligation to maintain a reserve capacity is not based on EU legislation, but based on a decision taken by the local
authorities. The Commission has no power, under state aid rules, to launch an infringement procedure against the
association. Rather, Germany is obliged, under the decision ( [1] ), to recover the aid from the association. Thus far,
Germany has not done so. Therefore, the Commission may refer Germany to the Court pursuant to Article 108(2)
TFEU. The Commission cannot confirm whether recovery lead to the removal of the association from the market. The
Commission notes that the association, by virtue of its legal status as a Koerperschaft des Oeffentlichen Rechts, may
be shielded against insolvency. This may constitute by and in itself incompatible state aid. Finally, the decision does
not oblige the competent national authorities to tender out the operations. It is up to them, in compliance with the
Telaustria and Parking Brixen case law, to decide on the future organisation.

Question 1: The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the motivation of its Decision.

Question 2: The Commission does not have at its disposal detailed information on the current market situation in
Germany.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 236/1 of 1.9.2012, Commission decision of 25 April 2012 on state aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the

Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg
(2012/485/EU).

C 12 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-003387/13**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**

**Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL)**

_(26. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Klarstellungen zum Engagement der EU für den Mercosur und die Demokratie in Paraguay

Am 24. August 2012 nahm die Vizepräsidentin/Hohen Vertreterin wie folgt Stellung zum Ausschluss Paraguays aus
dem Mercosur:

„Die EU ist fest entschlossen, ein Assoziierungsabkommen mit dem Mercosur abzuschließen, und arbeitet weiter
darauf hin. Es liegt am Mercosur zu entscheiden, wie er sich aufstellt“.

Nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon kann sich kein einzelner Mitgliedstaat mit einem von der EU abgeschlossenen
internationalen Abkommen befassen, sondern dafür sind ausschließlich die Kommission und der Rat zuständig.

Kann die Kommission dazu folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Welche Maßnahmen wird die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin angesichts der jüngsten öffentlichen
Erklärungen des deutschen Botschafters in Paraguay ergreifen, der verlauten ließ, dass — erstens — die EU nicht
mit dem Mercosur verhandele, wenn Paraguay ausgeschlossen bleibe, und — zweitens — Paraguay weiterhin
vollwertiges Mitglied des Mercosur sei?

2. Welche Maßnahmen wird die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin ergreifen, nachdem der deutsche
Außenminister eine offizielle Einladung an einen Vertreter der Regierung Federico Francos ausgesprochen hat,
obwohl das ordnungsgemäße Verfahren bei der Amtsenthebung des früheren Präsidenten Fernando Lugo vom
Genfer Menschenrechtsausschuss, dem Mercosur, der OAS, der UNASUR und der CELAC infrage gestellt
worden ist und obwohl diese Einladung im Widerspruch zum allgemeinen Konsens in der Region steht?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(24. April 2013)_

1. Der Herr Abgeordnete nimmt auf einen Artikel der lokalen Presse Bezug, in dem auf eine Äußerung des
deutschen Botschafters in Asunción zur Beteiligung Paraguays an den Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und dem
Mercosur eingegangen wurde. In der betreffenden Pressekonferenz wurden jedoch die Beziehungen zwischen
Deutschland und Federico Franco erörtert, nicht aber die Verhandlungen der EU mit Mercosur oder andere Themen,
die mit der EU im Zusammenhang stehen. Der Botschafter Deutschlands sprach in seiner Eigenschaft als Vertreter
seines Landes.

Die EU verhandelt mit dem Mercosur als einer regionalen Organisation, und es obliegt dem Mercosur, über seine
interne Organisation zu entscheiden.

2. Guido Westerwelle handelte in seiner Eigenschaft als Außenminister Deutschlands.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003387/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Clarifications regarding the EU's commitment to concluding an association agreement with
Mercosur, and democracy in Paraguay

In her answer to an inquiry about the suspension of Paraguay from Mercosur, the Vice‐President/High Representative
said on 24 August 2012 that ‘the EU is committed to concluding an Association Agreement with Mercosur and will
continue to work towards it. It is up to Mercosur to decide how they organise themselves.’

According to the Lisbon Treaty, international agreements concluded by the EU can only be handled by the
Commission and the Council, not by individual Member States.

1. What measures will the Vice-President/High Representative take in response to the recent public declarations by
the German Ambassador to Paraguay to the effect that, firstly, the EU will not negotiate with Mercosur unless
Paraguay is included and, secondly, ‘Paraguay remains a full member of Mercosur’?

2. What measures will the Vice-President/High Representative take in light of the German Minister of Foreign
Affairs having sent an official invitation addressed to a representative of Federico Franco’s government, despite the
fact that the respect of due process in the destitution of former President Fernando Lugo has been questioned by the
Geneva Human Rights Committee, Mercosur, the Organisation of American States, the Union of South American
Nations and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and that this invitation breaks with the general
consensus in the region?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 April 2013)_

1. The reference is made to a local press article that presented an interpretation made of a comment on the
presence of Paraguay in the EU-Mercosur negotiations made by the German ambassador in Asuncion. The press
conference dealt with the subject of the Franco-German relationship and not with the Mercosur negotiations or any
other EU related subject. The ambassador for Germany spoke in his capacity as representative of his country.

The EU negotiates with Mercosur as a regional organisation and it is up to Mercosur to decide on its internal
organisation.

2. Guido Westerwelle acted in his capacity of German Minister of Foreign Affairs.

C 12 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003388/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Liquidation of Anglo Irish Bank and credit unions

Many Irish credit unions are presently carrying a loss of around EUR 15 million in funds belonging to their members,
as a direct result of the Irish Government’s decision to liquidate the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) and the
timing of that decision. Clearly, this is a matter of great concern to the Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU), their
member credit unions and, in turn, credit union members, who are the ordinary people of Ireland.

In 2005, several ILCU-affiliated credit unions invested in the Anglo Irish Bank’s deposit‐based tracker bonds.

Like many others, credit unions have long been encouraged and advised to invest excess funds in secure deposits with
highly rated financial institutions. Anglo Irish Bank was an A-rated institution at the time these deposit-based tracker
bonds were purchased and the purchase was fully permitted under the Irish legislation (Trustee Authorised
Investments Order, 1998) with which credit unions were compelled to comply at that time.

The credit unions claim that when Anglo Irish Bank deposits were transferred to Allied Irish Bank in 2011,
Anglo/IBRC refused to transfer the deposit-based tracker bonds, despite repeated requests from credit unions to do

so.

Each of the 16 credit unions has now received EUR 100 000 from the state’s Deposit Guarantee Scheme (this being
the maximum available under the terms of that scheme). While the average investment in these deposits by credit
unions was EUR 1 million, some credit unions invested EUR 2 million and are now carrying a loss of EUR 1.9 million.
Again, this is money which belongs to the ordinary credit union members of Ireland.

The Irish Department of Finance recently confirmed that since these deposits are not covered by the state’s eligible
liabilities guarantee scheme, any further claim by credit unions for the outstanding balances will only be addressed if
funds remain available at the end of the liquidation process for the purposes of distribution to unsecured creditors.
The special liquidator has indicated that he considers it unlikely that any funds will remain for this purpose.

The Irish Government has by its actions, it is claimed, caused a loss of EUR 15 million to the credit union movement
in Ireland.

Does the Commission have an opinion as to whether this action is in breach of Ireland’s bailout conditions? What
options are available to the member credit unions in order to recover these deposits?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The resolution of IBRC was an important step in the restructuring of the Irish financial sector which significantly
reinforced the sustainability of the well-performing Irish programme. The Commission believes that Member States
in the EU are obliged to ensure full and effective protection of depositors, even in times of severe crisis. That is why all
depositors in the EU have since 2010 been guaranteed up to EUR 100 000. As part of the resolution of IBRC the Irish
authorities fully met their commitments under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme and the ‘ELG’ ( [1] ) introduced in
December 2009. As the Anglo Irish Bank Credit Union Bond 2005 was issued in 2005 it is not covered by the ELG as
it pre dates the scheme. While it is very regrettable that any losses may incur to Irish Credit Unions as a result of the
resolution of IBRC, the process fully respected the relevant guarantee applicable to the Anglo Irish Bank Credit Union
Bond 2005 in a liquidation procedure. The resolution of IBRC is not in breach of Ireland's bailout condition.

The Commission is very conscious of the important role played by Credit Unions in the Irish financial sector
particularly for the financially excluded or the less well-off members of the community. In light of this the
restructuring of Credit Unions is a key priority of the financial sector reforms under the EU/IMF programme. The
Credit Union Restructuring Board, ReBo, has been established and a Resolution Fund has been created with
EUR 250 million committed to the sector and a further EUR 250 million has been allocated to the ReBo to assist with
restructuring vulnerable credit unions during the next three years. The relevant credit unions should engage directly
with the special liquidator appointed to IBRC and where necessary the ReBo

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Eligible Liabilities Guarantee Scheme.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 263

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003389/13**

**to the Commission**
**Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ FLAG (fisheries local action groups) funding

Can the Commission:

1. Clarify how much funding has been allocated to Ireland under Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund?

2. Clarify how much funding has been allocated to Ireland under Axes 1, 2 and 3 of the European Fisheries Fund?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 May 2013)_

As stipulated in Article 20 of the regulation on the European Fisheries Fund ( [1] ) (EFF), the operational programme is
drawn up by the Member State after consultations with the local and regional economic and social partners in the
fisheries and aquaculture sector and following an _ex-ante_ evaluation and an analysis of policy areas eligible for support
in term of strengths and weaknesses. The choice of priority axes was therefore a strategic decision made by the
Member State.

As a result, the Irish authorities chose initially to allocate the EFF as follows: EUR 34 766 000 for measures to adapt
the fleet (Axis 1), null for aquaculture, inland fishing and processing and marketing (Axis 2), EUR 6 000 000 for
measures of common interest (Axis 3) and EUR 1 500 603 for sustainable development of fisheries areas (Axis 4).
They have informed the Commission that they now amend it as follows: EUR 29 936 500 for Axis 1, EUR 6 245 603
for Axis 2, EUR 5 046 500 for Axis 3 and EUR 788 000 for Axis 4. The remaining amount of EUR 250 000 is
allocated to technical assistance.

The text of the EFF Seafood Development Operational Programme 2007-2013 is available on the Irish government
[web page (http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/). For further details, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member](http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/)
to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine — Marine Agencies & Programmes Division.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006, OJ L 223, 15.8.2006, p. 1.

C 12 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-003390/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Estudo sobre as consequências do fim das quotas leiteiras

Recentemente, foi trazido ao conhecimento público que a Comissão Europeia teria em seu poder um estudo sobre as
consequências do fim das quotas leiteiras, com indicações ao nível de cada Estado-Membro. Alegadamente, uma das
conclusões deste estudo aponta para que o fim das quotas tenha consequências desastrosas para a produção leiteira
em vários países, como é o caso de Portugal.

Ora, o conhecimento público deste estudo e das suas conclusões é de evidente importância no atual contexto de
reforma da Política Agrícola Comum e quando a Comissão Europeia insiste em desmantelar este importantíssimo
instrumento de regulação da produção. A não divulgação pública deste estudo é assim, a todos os títulos,
incompreensível e reprovável.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Confirma a realização deste estudo e as conclusões supramencionadas?

2. Em caso afirmativo, porque não foi o mesmo divulgado até à data? Quando pensa divulgá-lo?

3. Perante crescentes evidências relativas às consequências assimétricas do fim das quotas leiteiras, e tendo em
conta que os «contratos» não resolverão o problema da limitação da produção, considera a Comissão a
possibilidade de propor a reversão da decisão de acabar com as quotas e proceder ao seu ajuste às necessidades
de cada país?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de abril de 2013)_

1. São muitos os estudos publicados sobre os potenciais efeitos da abolição do regime de quotas leiteiras na UE. O
Senhor Deputado refere-se certamente a dois estudos independentes realizados a pedido da Comissão em 2008
(«Análise económica dos efeitos do fim do regime de quotas leiteiras da UE») e em 2009 («Impacto económico da
abolição do regime de quotas leiteiras — análise regional da produção leiteira na União Europeia»). As conclusões e
pareceres apresentadas nos relatórios são os dos consultores e não refletem necessariamente a opinião da Comissão
Europeia. Ambos os estudos fazem projeções baseadas em pressupostos e cenários diferentes e nenhum deles prevê
um impacto desastroso em qualquer Estado-Membro específico.

A Comissão está neste momento a realizar um novo estudo com vista a obter uma análise prospetiva sobre a
evolução mais provável do setor do leite no futuro contexto sem quotas com base nos pontos de vista de um conjunto
de peritos independentes. Os resultados deste estudo serão discutidos numa conferência que terá lugar em setembro
de 2013 e em que serão convidados a participar as partes interessadas, os Estados-Membros e os representantes das
instituições europeias.

2. Os estudos promovidos e financiados pela Comissão, tais como os mencionados no ponto anterior, estão
publicados e à disposição do público no sítio Web da DG Agricultura ( [1] ).

3. À luz da reforma da Política Agrícola Comum (PAC), a proposta da Comissão não altera a decisão tomada em
2003 pelo legislador de abolir as quotas leiteiras em 2015. Além disso, o Conselho e o Parlamento Europeu, nas suas
posições até agora expressas no âmbito das negociações da PAC, apoiaram a proposta da Comissão de não prolongar
o regime de quotas leiteiras após 2015.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 265

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003390/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Abolition of milk quotas: study on the consequences

It has recently been reported that the Commission has a study in its possession describing how the abolition of milk
quotas is making itself felt in the individual Member States. The study has allegedly concluded that the ending of the
quota system is having a disastrous impact on milk production in several countries, including Portugal.

It is clearly important for this study and its findings to be brought to public notice, now that the common agricultural
policy is in the process of reform and the Commission is bent on dismantling this vital production regulation tool.
The failure to publish the study, therefore, is totally incomprehensible and wrong.

1. Can the Commission confirm that a study has been compiled and that its findings are as stated above?

2. If that is the case, why has the study not yet been made public? When does the Commission intend to publish it?

3. Given that the inequalities brought about are becoming increasingly more apparent and ‘contracts’ will not
remove the constraints on production, could the Commission reverse the decision abolishing the quota system, so as
to enable quotas to be adjusted according to each country’s needs?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 April 2013)_

1. Many studies have been issued on the potential effects of the abolition of the milk quota system in the EU. The
Honourable Member might be referring to two independent studies commanded by the Commission in 2008
(‘Economic analysis of the effects of the expiry of the EU milk quota system’) and 2009 (‘Economic Impact of the
Abolition of the Milk Quota Regime — Regional Analysis of the Milk Production in the EU’). The conclusions and
opinions presented in the reports are those of the consultants and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the
European Commission. Both studies make projections based on different assumptions and scenarios, and neither
estimates a disastrous impact in any specific Member State.

The Commission is currently running a new study to obtain a prospective analysis on the most likely evolution of the
milk sector based on the viewpoints of a number of independent experts in the future context without quotas. The
results of this study will be discussed in a conference that will take place in September 2013, where the stakeholders,
Member States and representatives from the European institutions will be invited to participate.

2. The studies promoted and financed by the Commission, such as those mentioned in the preceding point, are
published and available to the general public in the DG Agriculture website ( [1] ).

3. In the light of the CAP reform, the Commission proposal on the table does not change the decision taken by the
legislator in 2003 to abolish milk quotas in 2015. Moreover, the Council and the European Parliament, in their
positions expressed so far under the CAP reform negotiations, supported the Commission proposal not to prolong
the milk quota system after 2015.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003391/13**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Property rights of the Catholic community in Sevastopol

I have recently been alarmed to learn of the plight of the Roman Catholic community in Sevastopol, Ukraine. Its old
church, a landmark of architectural and historical significance, survived the Second World War intact, but was
converted by the Soviet authorities into a cinema. The local church has been campaigning for over 15 years to reclaim
the building, but its calls have gone unheeded — even since the building became vacant two years ago. Orthodox and
Muslim congregations have been granted their own premises, but the Catholic community alone is denied its rightful
place of worship.

Senior clergy have complained not only that their appeals have been ignored, but that state officials have taken to
ridiculing and insulting them in public. A member of the local council considering the case even claimed that all the
city’s Catholics were fascists who were attempting to usurp the Orthodox Church.

Given President Yanukovych’s statements about human rights and religious freedom — in particular his call in
April 2011 to return religious buildings to their rightful organisations — and also Ukraine’s desire for closer EU
integration, the treatment of Sevastopol’s Catholics could be seen as a totemic issue for both religious and property
rights in the country.

1. What steps is the Commission taking to raise the issue of religious freedom and property rights in Ukraine as
part of that country’s deepening dialogue and integration with the EU?

2. Does the Commission have a broader policy on the return of religious buildings to their erstwhile institutions in
former Soviet and Soviet-bloc countries?

**Question for written answer E-003392/13**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Property rights of the Catholic community in Sevastopol

I have recently been alarmed to learn of the plight of the Roman Catholic community in Sevastopol, Ukraine. Its old
church, a landmark of architectural and historical significance, survived the Second World War intact, but was
converted by the Soviet authorities into a cinema. The local church has been campaigning for over 15 years to reclaim
the building, but its calls have gone unheeded — even since the building became vacant two years ago. Orthodox and
Muslim congregations have been granted their own premises, but the Catholic community alone is denied its rightful
place of worship.

Senior clergy have complained not only that their appeals have been ignored, but that state officials have taken to
ridiculing and insulting them in public. A member of the local council considering the case even claimed that all the
city’s Catholics were fascists who were attempting to usurp the Orthodox Church.

Given President Yanukovych’s statements about human rights and religious freedom — in particular his call in
April 2011 to return religious buildings to their rightful organisations — and also Ukraine’s desire for closer EU
integration, the treatment of Sevastopol’s Catholics could be seen as a totemic issue for both religious and property
rights in the country.

1. Is the Commission aware of the property dispute in Sevastopol, and does it take a view on it?

2. What steps is the Commission taking to raise the issue of religious freedom and property rights in Ukraine as
part of that country’s deepening dialogue and integration with the EU?

3. Does the Commission have a broader policy on the return of religious buildings to their erstwhile institutions in
former Soviet and Soviet-bloc countries?

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 267

**Joint answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

Restitution legislation is a national competence and therefore all decisions taken in this respect are in the hands of the
national governments. Within the ongoing dialogue between the EU institutions and religious organisations, EU
policies and issues that are of concern to the churches with a view to legislative and policy-making processes are
discussed.

The EU monitors the matter of freedom of religion in Ukraine as reflected in the yearly ENP country progress report
on Ukraine ( [1] ), including with respect to the restitution of religious buildings and other property issues. In its political
dialogues with Ukraine, the EU repeatedly encouraged the national authorities to engage into the resolution of
outstanding issues raised by religious organisations.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/docs/2013_enp_pack/2013_progress_report_ukraine_en.pdf

C 12 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003393/13**

**to the Commission**
**Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Persecution of Christians in Pakistan

The law in Pakistan states that anyone convicted of committing blasphemy can receive a sentence ranging from a fine
to the death penalty. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has reported that whilst Muslims constitute
the majority of those booked under these laws, hundreds of Christians are among the accused, with at least 12 having
received the death sentence for blaspheming against Islam since 1988. Many of the lower court trials in which such
penalties are handed out are also deeply flawed. This is evident from the fact that many cases are rejected on appeal in
the higher courts due to lack of evidence, faults in due process or obvious wrongful motives on the part of the
complainants.

Increasingly, however, this discrimination is going beyond mere accusations and court proceedings and taking the
form of targeted violence. The Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute recommended in
September 2012 that Pakistan be placed on a ‘genocide watch’. To take a recent example, on 8 March 2013 an
allegation of blasphemy against a Christian in Pakistan prompted hundreds of Christian families to flee Badami Bagh,
a working-class sector of Lahore, before their houses were burned down. Many Christians are now fleeing Pakistan to
escape such potential violence.

On 25 March 2013, a demonstration was held in front of the European Parliament, organised by Pakistan Minority
Aid, the Pakistan Christian Party and the Centre for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), to raise further
awareness of structural discrimination in Pakistan’s legislation and constitution, religious persecution and violence
against religious minorities, and the kidnapping and forced conversion of young women and girls.

1. How much of the EU’s aid budget is earmarked for Christian minorities in Pakistan?

2. Would the Commission consider increasing this amount in the next aid review?

**Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The Commission does not earmark funds for specific religious groups. It supports the protection and promotion of
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief independently of its content; also recognising the
[right to change religion or not to follow any religion.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion)

Freedom of religion or belief is one of the four priorities identified in the EU Human Rights Country Strategy for
Pakistan (2011, updated February 2013). To implement the strategy, the EU Delegation is supporting actions on
preventing and responding to religious intolerance and discrimination. Two programmes for a total of
EUR 5.81 million are about to start during 2013.

Support for human rights defenders is an established element of the EU’s human rights external relations policy. A
special fund from the European initiative for democracy and human rights allows for rapid assistance in the form of
small grants in support to human rights defenders at risk. Thanks to one of these small grants given to a local
organisation, persons accused of blasphemy in Pakistan are receiving legal representation.

Freedom of religion or belief and the specific situation of members and communities belonging to religious
minorities are regularly addressed in the political dialogue with the Government of Pakistan. The EU has made its
views on the blasphemy laws clear. The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers to previous
written questions E-010472/2012 and E-004204/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 269

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003395/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Aumento della violenza contro le donne in Svezia

Il 6 marzo 2013 a Stoccolma è stato denunciato uno stupro di gruppo ai danni di una ragazza di 15 anni aggredita da
almeno sei uomini. Si è trattato già del terzo stupro di gruppo denunciato quest'anno alla polizia e verificatosi nella
zona di Stoccolma. In Svezia tra il 2003 e il 2010 le aggressioni sessuali e gli stupri sono aumentati del 254 % e le
donne prese di mira sono una su quattro. A Stoccolma nel 2012 si sono verificati mediamente cinque stupri al giorno.
A livello mondiale la Svezia registra il secondo dato più alto per episodi di stupro, con 63,5 stupri ogni 100 000
abitanti nel 2010. Stando alle statistiche ufficiali della polizia svedese, l'80 % dei casi viene commesso da immigrati o
richiedenti asilo.

Secondo un'indagine delle Nazioni Unite volta ad analizzare le statistiche sui reati a livello mondiale, i paesi con la più
alta incidenza pro capite di stupri, definiti dalle Nazioni Unite «rapporto sessuale senza un valido consenso», sono
Botswana, Svezia, Nicaragua, Grenada e Regno Unito. Nell'Europa occidentale le statistiche sugli stupri aumentano
ogni anno, in particolare in Svezia, Regno Unito, Belgio, Francia e Paesi Bassi.

1. È la Commissione a conoscenza dell'aumento dei casi di stupro nell'UE?

2. Ha istituito eventuali meccanismi per monitorare tali reati?

3. Quali misure intende adottare per garantire la sicurezza dei suoi cittadini e proteggerli datali crimini?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(27 maggio 2013)_

Spetta all’autorità nazionale indagare su questo tipo di reato e perseguirlo. Numerosi dati confermano che in tutta
l’Unione europea alla maggior parte dei casi di stupro non consegue una condanna.

Allo stadio attuale, non sono disponibili a livello dell’UE dati ufficiali e comparabili sulla violenza di genere. L’Istituto
europeo per l’uguaglianza di genere (EIGE) sviluppa strumenti per raccogliere risorse e dati comparabili e affidabili
sulla violenza contro le donne ( [1] ), attualmente oggetto di un’indagine condotta dall’Agenzia per i diritti fondamentali
(FRA) ( [2] ), i cui risultati saranno disponibili nel 2014 e forniranno dati a livello dell’UE su tutte le forme di violenza
contro le donne.

Lo stupro è una grave violazione delle libertà fondamentali della vittima. La Commissione è impegnata a dare una
forte risposta politica per combattere tutte le forme di violenza contro le donne, soprattutto attraverso il
conferimento di potere alle donne, le campagne di sensibilizzazione, l’azione legislativa, lo scambio di buone prassi, il
miglioramento delle conoscenze e la raccolta di dati.

Al fine di proteggere e assistere le vittime, nell’ottobre 2012 ( [3] ) è stata adottata la nuova direttiva 2012/29/UE che
istituisce norme minime in materia di diritti, assistenza e protezione delle vittime di reato e garantirà l’adozione di
tutta una serie di misure speciali intese a proteggere e sostenere le vittime vulnerabili e quindi anche le donne che
subiscono reati sessuali. La direttiva sottolinea inoltre la necessità di formare gli operatori della giustizia, vale a dire gli
agenti di polizia, i pubblici ministeri e i giudici, sui bisogni delle vittime. Tale formazione è indispensabile per
cambiare l’atteggiamento nei loro confronti e far sì che vengano trattate con rispetto e comprensione.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Gli studi dell’EIGE sono disponibili alla pagina: http://www.eige.europa.eu/content/activities/Gender-based-violence
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Le informazioni sull’indagine in corso dell’Agenzia per i diritti fondamentali sono disponibili al seguente indirizzo:

http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2012/fra-survey-womens-well-being-and-safety-europe

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:315:0057:0073:IT:PDF

( **|**

C 12 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003395/13**

**to the Commission**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increase in violence against women in Sweden

On 6 March 2013, a gang rape was reported in Stockholm in which a 15 year old girl was attacked by at least six men.
This was already the third gang rape reported to police in the Stockholm area this year. Sex attacks and rapes
increased by 254% in Sweden between 2003 and 2010, with one in four women having been targeted. In 2012 there
were on average five rapes a day in Stockholm. With 63.5 rapes per 100 000 inhabitants in 2010, Sweden has the
second highest figures for rape in the world. According to official statistics from the Swedish police, 80% of cases
were committed by immigrants or asylum-seekers.

Based on the UN survey of crime statistics around the world, the countries with the highest per capita incidence of
rape, defined by the UN as ‘sexual intercourse without valid consent’, are Botswana, Sweden, Nicaragua, Grenada and
the United Kingdom. Rape statistics have been increasing each year in western Europe, especially in Sweden, the UK,
Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

1. Is the Commission aware of the increase in rape within the EU?

2. Has the Commission established any mechanism to monitor these crimes?

3. What steps does the Commission intend to take to guarantee the safety of its citizens and protect them from
such crimes?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

It is for the national authority to investigate and prosecute this type of crime. There is substantial evidence that across
the European Union the majority of rape cases does not result in a conviction.

At this stage, there are no official and comparable data at EU level on gender based violence. The European Institute
for Gender Equality (EIGE) develops tools to collect comparable and reliable data and resources on VAW ( [1] ). The
Fundamental Rights' Agency's (FRA) survey on VAW ( [2] ) will provide EU-data on all forms of VAW and will be
available in 2014.

Rape is a serious violation of the victim's fundamental freedoms. The Commission is committed to a strong policy
response to combat all forms of VAW. This primarily through empowerment of women, awareness raising, legislative
action, exchanges of good practice, improving knowledge and data collection.

To protect and support victims, the new Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights,
support and protection of victims of crime, was adopted in October 2012 ( [3] ). The directive will ensure that a whole
range of special measures will be put in place to protect and support vulnerable victims, among them women victims
of sexual crime. The directive also emphasises the need to train practitioners (police, prosecutors and judges) on the
needs of victims, which is crucial for changing attitudes towards victims and treating them with respect and
recognition.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The EIGE studies are available at: http://www.eige.europa.eu/content/activities/Gender-based-violence
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Information on the ongoing FRA survey can be found at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2012/fra-survey-womens-well-being-and-safety-europe
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:315:0057:0073:EN:PDF

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 271

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003396/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Accuse relative alla crescente censura sulla stampa in Argentina

Il 25 marzo 2013 il quotidiano britannico _The Times_ ha riferito che Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, presidente
dell'Argentina, è stata accusata di aver tentato di impedire la pubblicazione su alcuni giornali di articoli critici nei
confronti del suo governo esercitando pressioni sugli inserzionisti affinché questi sospendessero l'acquisto di spazi
pubblicitari su tali giornali. Pubblicazioni quali _La Nación_ [e Perfil](http://www.perfil.com/) e il gruppo editoriale Clarín hanno fatto sapere che i
loro proventi pubblicitari sono drasticamente diminuiti a seguito delle pressioni esercitate dal governo su importanti
sponsor. Secondo il redattore capo della rivista Clarín, l'obiettivo è di asfissiare finanziariamente la stampa,
determinando una forma di censura silenziosa che avrà per conseguenza la scomparsa della stampa indipendente in
Argentina. Pare che la presidente Kirchner abbia un rapporto difficile con i media e che abbia definito «nazisti» e
«mafiosi» giornalisti e dirigenti dei mezzi di comunicazione.

I giornali ritengono di essere presi di mira perché riportano la verità sulla società argentina e, in particolare, sul
problema dell'inflazione galoppante. Il governo Kirchner è accusato di manipolare i dati relativi all'inflazione, cosa
che potrebbe portare all'espulsione del paese dal Fondo monetario internazionale. Complessivamente, si prevede che
le aziende private di comunicazione subiranno una perdita pari a 70 milioni di dollari nell'arco dell'anno.

Secondo quanto pubblicato Guillermo Moreno, segretario argentino per il commercio interno, avrebbe detto a una
serie di sponsor importanti, come Walmart e Carrefour, che avrebbero avuto difficoltà a ottenere l'autorizzazione
governativa al rimpatrio degli utili se avessero continuato a pubblicare pubblicità su Clarín, _La Nación_ e _Perfil_ .

Può la Commissione rispondere alle seguenti domande:

1. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in merito alle voci secondo le quali la presidente
argentina starebbe adottando provvedimenti volti a privare dei proventi pubblicitari le pubblicazioni e gruppi
editoriali che pubblicano articoli critici, di fatto compromettendo la libertà dei media?

2. Come valutano i funzionari della delegazione dell'Unione europea a Buenos Aires le affermazioni di Clarín e
altri periodici sul fatto che il governo starebbe cercando di censurare i media critici nei suoi confronti?

3. Ha il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante sollevato di recente con il governo argentino laquestione della libertà
di stampa nel paese? Quali misure è disposta ad adottare al fine diaffrontare la recente preoccupante situazione
provocata dalla presidente Kirchner?

**Risposta dell'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(3 luglio 2013)_

In Argentina la libertà d'informazione è garantita dalla costituzione. In una sentenza del marzo 2011 la Corte
suprema argentina ha statuito che tutti i media dovrebbero ricevere le pubblicità ufficiali.

L'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente e i servizi che a lei fanno capo ribadiscono regolarmente l'importanza e il
valore della libera stampa.

C 12 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003396/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Allegations of increasing press censorship in Argentina

On 25 March 2013 the UK’s _Times_ reported that Argentina’s President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner had been
accused of trying to prevent critical reports about her government from being published in newspapers by putting
pressure on advertisers to cease to place business with the offending newspapers. Publications such as _La Nación_ and
_Perfil_, as well as the media group Clarin, report that their advertising revenue has fallen dramatically because of
government pressure on important sponsors. The editor-in-chief of Clarin says: ‘The objective is to asphyxiate the
press financially. It’s a form of silent censorship’. And ‘the consequences will be that the independent press in
Argentina ceases to exist’. President Kirchner is alleged to have a strained relationship with the media, and has called
reporters and media executives ‘Nazis’ and ‘Mafiosi’.

The newspapers believe that they are being targeted for reporting the truth about Argentine society, which includes
the problem of rampant inflation. The Kirchner government is accused of manipulating inflation figures which could
mean expulsion from the International Monetary Fund. Overall, it is predicted that the private media firms will incur
losses of USD 70 million over the year.

The publications claim that Argentina’s Secretary of Interior Trade, Guillermo Moreno, told a number of major
sponsors such as Walmart and Carrefour that they would face difficulty obtaining government authorisation to
repatriate their profits if they continued to advertise with Clarin, _La Nación_ and _Perfil_ .

1. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding reports that Argentina’s President is
taking steps to deprive publications and media groups of advertising revenue because of their critical reporting,
effectively undermining media freedom?

2. What is the assessment of EU officials at the Delegation in Buenos Aires regarding the claims of Clarin et al. that
the government is working to censor critical media?

3. Has the Vice-President/High Representative raised the issue of press freedom inside Argentina with its
government recently, and what steps is she prepared to take to address this recent alarming development brought
about by President Kirchner?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 July 2013)_

In Argentina Freedom of information is guaranteed by the Constitution. In a ruling in March 2011 Argentina's
Supreme Court stated that all media should receive official advertising.

The HR/VP and her services routinely stress the importance and the value of a free press.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 273

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003397/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Applicazione della Sharia nei territori siriani controllati dai ribelli

Il 20 marzo 2013 il _Washington Post_ ha riferito che nella città siriana di Aleppo la giustizia è ora amministrata secondo
la legge islamica (Sharia) nell'ambito di uno sforzo sistematico teso a islamizzare la città e che ciò ha ripercussioni su
una serie di attività sociali e quotidiane. Il Consiglio della Sharia ha assunto il controllo di un ospedale cittadino, nel
quale emana sentenze su reati di adulterio, furto e uso di droga. Il Consiglio si pronuncia inoltre su casi di rapimento,
omicidio, matrimonio e divorzio e la popolazione laica che si è opposta alla sua autorità è stata presa di mira.

Per le strade di Aleppo, gruppi militanti salafiti come il Fronte al-Nusra impongono misure volte a disciplinare il
comportamento sociale e hanno preso il controllo dei panifici e delle scorte di farina e carburante. Per quanto
riguarda la vita in Siria dopo la possibile caduta del regime baatista, al-Nusra respinge l'ipotesi di indire le elezioni, che
considera antislamiche. Altri giuristi islamici hanno dichiarato che finché Bashar al-Assad rimarrà al potere e gli Stati
occidentali negheranno l'accesso alle armi ai gruppi di ribelli moderati, è probabile che i gruppi estremisti della Jihad,
come al-Nusra, diventino più forti e impongano un maggiore controllo sociale.

Può la Commissione rispondere alle seguenti domande:

1. Quali iniziative è disposto ad adottare il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per contrastare la crescente
imposizione dei tribunali e della giustizia islamici in città siriane di tradizione laica?

2. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante rispetto alla fornitura di armi a gruppi di ribelli
moderati, come il Libero esercito siriano, che potrebbero contrastare l'ascesa dei gruppi islamici radicali come
al-Nusra?

3. Quali passi ha intrapreso il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante per trattare il problemacon il segretario di Stato
americano John Kerry?

**Risposta dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(6 giugno 2013)_

L’Unione europea ha costantemente manifestato il proprio sostegno a una transizione politica democratica in Siria
pienamente conforme ai principi universali dei diritti umani. La transizione è un processo interno al paese in cui si
esprimono e si confrontano diverse visioni di società e al quale partecipano diverse forze politiche, compreso l’Islam
politico. L'Unione è pronta a cooperare con i gruppi impegnati a garantire la partecipazione pacifica alla vita
democratica, mettendo però in chiaro i valori che sostiene e l’importanza che ascrive a una società pluralista e
tollerante.

Un tale approccio è tanto più importante in considerazione degli scontri violenti in atto in Siria tra vari gruppi
dell’opposizione e il regime di Assad. L’UE ha assunto una posizione di principio di sostegno alla coalizione nazionale
delle forze siriane della rivoluzione e dell’opposizione (coalizione dell’opposizione siriana) che ha sollecitato a
rispettare i principi dei diritti umani, l’inclusività e la democrazia.

Anche al fine di rafforzarne l’efficacia e la legittimità sul terreno in Siria, l’Unione intende sostenere attivamente la
coalizione dell’opposizione siriana nello stabilire contatti con le comunità locali nelle aree insorte assistendo queste
ultime con la fornitura di servizi di base.

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha preso in considerazione tutte le osservazioni in merito a un’eventuale revoca
dell’embargo sulle armi e ha invitato gli Stati membri a raggiungere un accordo sulla questione. Gli esperti militari e
politici esprimono valutazioni divergenti sull'efficacia di armare i ribelli moderati per rovesciare l’equilibrio militare in
loro favore stante la necessità di controlli adeguati sui destinatari finali delle consegne di armi. Allo stesso tempo,
l’AR/VP ha invitato a proseguire il lavoro perché il regime di sanzioni dell’Unione europea diventi più flessibile
consentendo di assistere meglio la popolazione civile.

C 12 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003397/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Application of Sharia law in rebel-held Syrian territory

On 20 March 2013 _The Washington Post_ reported that justice is now being dispensed under Sharia law in the Syrian
town of Aleppo as part of a systematic effort to Islamicise the town, with an impact on a number of social and daily
activities. The Sharia Council has taken over a hospital in the town, inside which the authorities hand out various
sentences for crimes of adultery, theft and drug abuse. The Hayaa al-Sharia is also responsible for adjudicating cases
involving kidnapping, murder, marriage and divorce. Secular residents who have voiced their opposition to the Hayaa
have been targeted.

On the streets of Aleppo militant Salafist groups such as the al-Nusra Front are taking steps to regulate social
behaviour, and have taken control of the town’s bakeries and stocks of flour and fuel. As regards life in Syria after the
eventual fall of the Baathist regime, al-Nusra rejects the idea of having elections, as they view them as un-Islamic.
Other Islamic jurists have said that as long as Bashar al-Assad remains in charge and more moderate rebel groups are
denied access to arms from Western states, n the likelihood is that extremist jihadi groups such as al-Nusra will grow
stronger and impose greater social control.

1. What steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to adopt in order to stem the growth of imposed
Sharia courts and justice inside traditionally secular Syrian towns?

2. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the arming of moderate rebel groups
such as the Free Syrian Army, which could counterbalance the rise of Islamist radical groups such as al-Nusra?

3. What steps has the Vice-President/High Representative taken towards addressing this issue with US Secretary of
State John Kerry?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The EU has constantly expressed its support for the model of democratic political transition in Syria that is in full
conformity with the universal principles of human rights. Transition is a home-grown process in which different
visions of society are expressed and confronted. Diverse political forces are part of this process, including that of
political Islam. The EU is ready to work with groups committed to the peaceful participation in democratic life, but it
is clear on the values it supports and the need for a pluralistic and tolerant society.

This approach is all the more important as Syria is in a state of a violent confrontation between diverse opposition
groups and the Assad regime. The EU has taken a principled stance to support the National Coalition of Syrian
Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (Syrian Opposition Coalition — SOC) and has called on it to be respectful of
the principles of human rights, inclusivity and democracy.

The EU is planning to actively support the SOC in reaching out to local communities in rebel-contested areas and
assist them in the provision of basic services also in an effort to bolster the effectiveness and legitimacy of the SOC on
the ground in Syria.

The HRVP has taken all views into account regarding the possible lifting of the arms embargo and has called the MS to
reach a consensus in this matter. Assessments by military and political experts differ as to the efficacy of arming the
moderate rebels with regard to ensuring proper control over arms delivery final recipients and tipping the military
balance in the moderates' favour. At the same time, HRVP has called on further work to make our sanctions regime
more flexible to better assist the civilian population.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 275

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003398/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Ripristino della sovranità in Mali

Secondo quanto riportato il 20 marzo 2013 dal quotidiano britannico _The Telegraph_, il Presidente francese François
Hollande avrebbe recentemente affermato in occasione di una cena che tutto il territorio di Mali verrà liberato nei
prossimi giorni, dichiarando che «il nostro intervento ci ha permesso in due mesi di ottenere risultati importanti:
l'offensiva dei gruppi terroristici è stata fermata e le città sono state riconquistate».

Il primo ministro francese Jean-Marc Ayrault ha affermato che i soldati francesi lasceranno il Mali alla fine del mese di
aprile e che verrà effettuato un esame per valutare in che modo è possibile impiegare i soldati francesi per allontanare i
ribelli islamisti dal Mali, anche dopo l'inizio del rientro in Francia delle truppe. Hollande ha affermato che verrà
istituita una forza di stabilizzazione, costituita da soldati africani e maliani.

Il gruppo Al-Qaeda nel Maghreb islamico (AQIM) continua a essere attivo nella regione e sono almeno 15 i cittadini
francesi ancora tenuti in ostaggio, uno dei quali è stato decapitato il 10 marzo. La Francia ha dichiarato che adotterà
tutte le misure necessarie per salvare gli altri ostaggi.

La missione di addestramento dell'UE, guidata dal generale di brigata François Lecointre, ha il compito di addestrare
l'esercito maliano. Lecointre ha tuttavia dichiarato che l'esercito deve essere completamente ristrutturato, sostenendo
che «oggi opera più come un insieme eterogeneo di elementi, messi insieme su richiesta e per motivi di emergenza per
far fronte a una pesante situazione di combattimento […] non è un vero e proprio esercito» e che occorre impegnarsi
molto per migliorare la situazione.

1. Il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante condivide le osservazioni pessimistiche sullo stato delle forze militari
maliane?

2. Come valutano i funzionari dell'UE in Mali la capacità dell'esercito maliano e africano di respingere e
neutralizzare gli eventuali ripetuti attacchi del gruppo AQIM?

**Risposta dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

La situazione dell'esercito maliano è preoccupante: sia il Mali che l'Unione europea concordano da tempo su questa
constatazione. Alla luce di tali fatti l'Unione europea si è impegnata a sostenere la richiesta delle autorità legittime del
Mali, nell'ambito delle pertinenti risoluzioni dell'Unione europea, attraverso l'intervento della missione EUTM.

Questa iniziativa si associa a un maggiore impegno dell'Unione europea a favore della stabilizzazione e della
ricostruzione del Mali. La modernizzazione sotto controllo civile delle forze di difesa e di sicurezza maliane
rappresenta pertanto, unitamente alle elezioni e alla riconciliazione, uno dei tre indicatori principali presi in
considerazione dai partner del paese, tra cui l'Unione europea e gli Stati membri, per valutare i progressi della
transizione.

Assicurare il ritorno dello Stato nel nord del paese, parallelamente a un processo politico di negoziazione e di
riconciliazione, implica il dispiegamento massiccio di mezzi militari che, in questa fase, il Mali da solo non può
permettersi. Questa situazione giustifica il coinvolgimento della forza internazionale sotto l'egida delle Nazioni Unite.

Al momento attuale l'Unione europea non può esprimere un giudizio anticipato sul successo operativo di questo
sforzo collettivo profuso dal Mali e dai suoi partner. Piuttosto l'Unione, insieme ai suoi partner, assume
un'obbligazione di mezzi, a vantaggio sia delle capacità militari che delle capacità di contrasto del terrorismo. Poiché
queste ultime implicano la volontà di predisporre provvedimenti che interessano l'intero ambito della sicurezza e
della giustizia penale, l'Unione europea ha intensificato gli sforzi specifici con un distaccamento di agenti di
collegamento dell'EUCAP SAHEL.

C 12 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003398/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Restoration of sovereignty in Mali

On 20 March 2013, the UK’s _Telegraph_ newspaper reported that French President François Hollande had said during a
recent dinner that all of Mali’s territory would be liberated in the coming days, stating that ‘our intervention allowed
us to obtain major results within two months: the offensive by terrorist groups was stopped [and] the towns were
recaptured’.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has said that French troops will leave Mali at the end of April. He has also
said that an assessment will be carried out in order to gauge how French troops can work to remove Islamist rebels
from Mali, even after troops begin their return to France. Mr Hollande has said that a stabilisation force will be put in
place, composed of African and Malian troops.

Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) continues to be active in the region, and at least 15 French citizens are still
being held hostage. One was beheaded on 10 March. France has said it will take all necessary steps to rescue the
remaining hostages.

The EU training mission, under the command of Brigadier-General François Lecointre, has been put in charge of
training the Malian army. However, Lecointre has stated that the army needs to be completely restructured, arguing
that ‘today, it acts more as a somewhat disparate set of elements, put together on request and on an emergency basis
in order to cope with a tough combat situation […] it’s not an army as such’, and going on to say that improving the
situation will take a lot of work.

1. Does the Vice-President/High Representative share this pessimistic view of the state of Mali’s military forces?

2. What is the assessment of EU officials in Mali regarding the preparedness of both Malian and African troops to
repulse and defeat any continued attacks from AQIM?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The state of Mali's military forces is a concern which has been shared by Mali and by the EU for some time. This
concern underpins the EU's support for the requests of the legitimate Malian authorities and the framework of the
relevant EU resolutions via the deployment of the EUTM mission.

This effort is linked to wider EU involvement in the stabilisation and reconstruction of Mali. The modernisation,
under civilian control, of the Malian defence and security forces is one of the three key indicators — along with
elections and reconciliation — used by Mali's partners, including the EU and its Member States, to assess the progress
of the transition process.

Securing the return of state control to the north of the country, as a necessary part of the political negotiation and
reconciliation process, requires considerable military means which are currently beyond the scope of Mali alone. This
is the reason for the involvement of the international force, working under UN auspices.

At this stage, the EU is unable to predict the operational success of this joint effort on the part of Mali and its partners;
working together with its partners, however, it has undertaken to provide resources to support both military and antiterrorist capacity. These involve studying measures within the security and criminal justice chain as a whole, and
the EU has strengthened its specific efforts via the deployment of the EUCAP SAHEL mission.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 277

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003399/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Presunto divieto di ingresso in Libia per uno scrittore ebreo francese

Il 22 marzo 2013 il quotidiano inglese _The Independent_ ha riferito che al noto scrittore e filosofo francese BernardHenri Lévy sarebbe stato vietato l'ingresso in Libia in quanto ebreo.

Ciò sarebbe avvenuto nonostante Lévy fosse stato un acceso sostenitore dell'intervento militare per deporre la
dittatura del colonnello Gheddafi e, secondo il quotidiano, «abbia aiutato a persuadere Sarkozy a inviare aerei militari
francesi per proteggere i ribelli dalle forze di Gheddafi».

Lo scrittore avrebbe dovuto accompagnare l'ex presidente Nicholas Sarkozy a Tripoli ma, stando a quanto riferito da
un portavoce anonimo della capitale libica, le origini ebree di Lévy avrebbero rischiato di esporre la città ad attacchi
da parte delle milizie islamiche. Sarkozy intendeva annullare la visita, ma Lévy lo avrebbe persuaso a proseguire.

1. Alla luce di quanto suesposto, quali misure è il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante pronto ad adottare per
incoraggiare le autorità libiche a intraprendere le azioni necessarie per promuovere la tolleranza religiosa e
contrastare l'antisemitismo tra la popolazione libica?

2. Qual è la valutazione dei funzionari dell'UE in Libia rispetto all'attuale livello effettivo di minaccia di attacchi
contro gli interessi europei e occidentali all'interno del paese?

3. Inoltre, qual è la posizione dei funzionari della delegazione dell'UE e dei capi missione degli Stati membri a
Tripoli rispetto al divieto mosso contro Bernard-Henri Lévy di entrare nel territorio libico?

**Risposta dell'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(23 maggio 2013)_

Secondo quanto dichiarato dall'UE a Tripoli il 13 marzo 2013, la detenzione di esponenti di minoranze religiose
(cristiani e musulmani ahmadi) con accuse di presunto proselitismo costituisce motivo di preoccupazione. L'UE ha
rilevato gli sviluppi positivi registrati di recente con il rilascio di molte delle persone arrestate.

Le condizioni di sicurezza in Libia restano sostanzialmente instabili, sebbene le varie regioni del paese presentino
livelli di insicurezza diversi.

L'UE, pur rispettando la piena sovranità delle autorità libanesi in merito al diritto di consentire l'accesso al loro
territorio, condanna qualsiasi discriminazione fondata su razza, sesso, lingua, religione e convinzioni personali.

C 12 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003399/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — French Jewish writer allegedly barred from Libya

On 22 March 2013 the UK’s _Independent_ newspaper reported that well-known French writer and philosopher
Bernard-Henri Lévy had been barred from entering Libya because he is Jewish.

This is despite the fact that Lévy was a vocal proponent of military intervention to oust the dictator Colonel alQaddafi from power and, according to the newspaper, ‘is credited with helping to persuade Mr Sarkozy to send
French warplanes to protect the rebels from Gaddafi’s forces’.

The writer was expected to travel with former President Nicholas Sarkozy to Tripoli, but an unnamed spokesperson
for the city of Tripoli was quoted as saying that the fact that Levy is Jewish could have exposed the municipality to
attacks by Islamist militias. Sarkozy planned to cancel his visit, but Levy persuaded him to continue.

1. In light of the above case, what steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to take to encourage
the Libyan authorities to take the necessary action to encourage religious tolerance and tackle anti-Semitism within
the wider Libyan population?

2. What is the assessment of EU officials in Libya regarding the current real level of threat of attacks against
European and Western interests inside the country?

3. In addition, what is the position of EU delegation officials and Member State heads of mission in Tripoli
regarding the barring of Bernard-Henri Lévy from entry to Libya?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The detention of members of religious minorities (Christians and Ahmadi Muslims) on alleged charges of proselytism
constitutes a cause of concern as expressed by the EU through a statement issued in Tripoli on 13 March 2013. The
EU has noted the recent positive development of the release of several of the individuals who had been arrested.

The security situation in the country remains broadly fluid although the degree of insecurity varies in the different
regions of the country.

The EU respects the full sovereignty of the Libyan authorities regarding their right to grant access to individuals to
their territory. Obviously, the EU stands against any discrimination, based on race, sex, language, or religion and
belief.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 279

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003400/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Un anno dopo la strage di Tolosa

Il 17 marzo 2013 il presidente francese François Hollande ha commemorato il primo anniversario della strage di
Tolosa, durante la quale quattro persone ebree (un rabbino e tre bambini) e tre soldati francesi sono stati uccisi a
sangue freddo. Hollande ha reso omaggio alle vittime del terrorista islamico Mohammed Merah e ha affermato il
fermo impegno del suo governo per combattere il terrorismo e l'antisemitismo, sottolineando che «La democrazia è
sempre più forte del fanatismo. Quello che ci ha colpito maggiormente a Tolosa, però, è una cosa terribile che deve
essere detta a voce alta: l'antisemitismo.»

Dopo la strage di Tolosa, il numero di atti di antisemitismo in Francia è aumentato e, fatto ancora più allarmante,
Mohammed Merah sarebbe diventato un eroe in certi quartieri periferici di alcune città francesi. Alla cerimonia,
tenutasi nella piazza Charles de Gaulle di Tolosa, il presidente Hollande ha commemorato gli ebrei deportati nei lager
durante l'Olocausto e ha affermato: «L'antisemitismo non si è fermato dopo la tragedia di Tolosa, in cui hanno perso la
vita tre bambini per lo stesso motivo per cui morirono i bambini del Vél d'Hiv e di Drancy, perché erano ebrei.»

La diffusione di un aperto antisemitismo, fatto di insulti, attacchi e odio contro gli ebrei e l'eredità ebrea in Europa, ha
registrato un aumento negli ultimi anni ed è triste constatare che nel 2012 il numero di episodi di questo tipo è
cresciuto rispetto al 2011. Negli ultimi tempi diverse organizzazioni che monitorano l'antisemitismo hanno riferito
una serie di episodi contro gli ebrei in diversi paesi nell'intero territorio europeo, tra cui Francia, Belgio, Gran
Bretagna, Germania, Polonia, Ungheria e Ucraina. In Ucraina, svastiche e simboli neonazisti sono stati tracciati con
vernice spray su alcune sinagoghe e altri luoghi legati alla cultura ebrea, quali la casa dove visse Golda Meir e un
monumento all'autore Sholom Aleichem. In Polonia i muri di un nuovo cimitero ebraico a Myslenice sono stati
imbrattati con orribili slogan quali «Morte agli ebrei». Il 16 marzo 2013, in occasione di una dimostrazione
anticomunista a Cracovia, circolavano slogan agghiaccianti e provocatori, tra cui «Abbasso il giudaismo» e «Colpiscili
una volta con la falce e due volte col martello».

1. Quali misure ha adottato la Commissione dalla strage di Tolosa per arrestare la recrudescenza
dell'antisemitismo in Europa?

2. Quali azioni intende intraprendere per porre fine alla dilagante intolleranza religiosa in Europa?

3. Ha istituito la Commissione un sistema formale per monitorare l'antisemitismo in Europa e nei paesi vicini?

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(14 maggio 2013)_

La Commissione condanna tutte le forme e manifestazioni di antisemitismo in quanto non sono compatibili con i
valori su cui si fonda l'Unione europea.

La Commissione lotta contro qualsiasi forma di intolleranza utilizzando tutti gli strumenti a sua disposizione nel
rispetto dei poteri conferiti all'Unione dai trattati, fra cui l'attento monitoraggio dell'attuazione della legislazione
dell'UE in materia di incitamento all'odio attraverso discorsi e reati generati dall'odio, in particolare la decisione
quadro su razzismo e xenofobia che vieta discorsi e reati razzisti o xenofobi, e la direttiva che vieta i discorsi razzisti
nei servizi di media audiovisivi, per esempio in trasmissioni televisive e servizi di video on demand. Spetta tuttavia alle
autorità nazionali, compresi i tribunali, analizzare i singoli casi e valutare se costituiscono un incitamento alla
violenza o all'odio.

La Commissione fornisce inoltre sostegno finanziario alle attività dei portatori di interesse rivolte, ad esempio, a
promuovere una migliore comprensione fra religioni e culture diverse e a migliorare la tolleranza nell'UE ( [1] ), a
combattere il razzismo e la xenofobia sul terreno, commemorando le vittime dell'olocausto, e a promuovere la
tolleranza e la comprensione interculturale e interconfessionale. L'Agenzia per i diritti fondamentali raccoglie dati su
tematiche riguardanti il razzismo e la xenofobia ( [2] ). I risultati del suo sondaggio sulle esperienze degli ebrei e la
percezione dell'antisemitismo dovrebbero essere pubblicati nell'autunno del 2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Per ulteriori informazioni sulle attività della Commissione in questo settore:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Per ulteriori informazioni sulle attività della Commissione in questo settore, consultare il sito della direzione generale Giustizia:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/index_en.htm

( **|**

C 12 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003400/13**

**to the Commission**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ One year since Toulouse killings

On 17 March 2013 French President François Hollande commemorated the first anniversary of the killings in
Toulouse in which four Jewish people — a rabbi and three children — and three French soldiers were murdered in
cold blood. President Hollande paid tribute to the victims of the Islamist terrorist Mohammed Merah and expressed
his government’s strong commitment to fighting terrorism and anti-Semitism. He stressed that ‘democracy is always
stronger than fanaticism. But what really hit us in Toulouse was something terrible that we must say out loud — antiSemitism.’

After the Toulouse killings, the number of anti-Semitic acts in France grew and, most alarmingly, Mohammed Merah
reportedly became a hero in parts of the suburbs of some French cities. At the ceremony in Toulouse’s Charles de
Gaulle Square, President Hollande commemorated Jews deported to the camps during the Holocaust and said: ‘AntiSemitism has not stopped after the tragedy in Toulouse, where children died for the same reason as those of the Vel
d’Hiv and Drancy, because they were Jews.’

The growth of open anti-Semitism, such as insults, attacks and hatred towards Jews and Jewish heritage in Europe, has
been on the rise in recent years and, sadly, 2012 saw a much higher number of such incidents than 2011. Several
organisations monitoring anti-Semitism recently reported a string of anti-Jewish incidents in several widely separate
European countries, including France, Belgium, Britain, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Ukraine. In Ukraine swastikas
and neo-Nazi symbols were sprayed on synagogues and other Jewish heritage sites, such as the former house of Golda
Meir and a monument to the author Sholom Aleichem. In Poland the walls of a newly dedicated Jewish cemetery in
Myslenice were sprayed with terrifying slogans such as ‘Murder the Jews’. On 16 March 2013, at an anti-communist
demonstration in Krakow, horrifying and provocative slogans included ‘down with Judaism’ and ‘hit them once with
the sickle and twice with the hammer’.

1. What steps has the Commission taken since the Toulouse killings to stop the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe?

2. What action does the Commission plan to take in order to stop the growth of religious intolerance in Europe?

3. Has the Commission established a formal system to monitor anti-Semitism in Europe and in neighbouring
countries?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

The Commission condemns all forms and manifestations of anti-Semitism, as they are incompatible with the values
on which the EU is founded.

The Commission uses all the instruments at its disposal, in line with the powers conferred to the Union by the
Treaties, to fight against all forms of intolerance. The Commission is committed to fighting against these phenomena
by making use of all powers available under the Treaties, including by monitoring closely the implementation of EU
legislation on hate speech and hate crime, namely the framework Decision on racism and xenophobia prohibiting
racist or xenophobic speech and crime, and the Audiovisual Media Services Directive banning racist speech in
audiovisual media services, such as TV broadcasts and video-on-demand services. It is however for national
authorities, including the courts, to look into individual cases and to determine whether they represent incitement to
violence or hatred.

The Commission is also providing financial support to stakeholders' activities aimed for instance at promoting better
interfaith and intercultural understanding and improved tolerance in the EU ( [1] ). Furthermore, financial support is
given to stakeholders' activities aimed at combating racism and xenophobia on the ground, commemorating the
victims of the Holocaust, and activities aimed at promoting tolerance and intercultural and interreligious
understanding. The Fundamental Rights Agency also collects data on issues of racism and xenophobia ( [2] ). The results
of its survey of Jewish people's experiences and perceptions of anti-Semitism are expected to be published in autumn
2013.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For further information on the Commission's work in this field, see:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) For further information about the Commission's activities in this field, please see the website of the Directorate-General Justice at:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/racism-xenophobia/index_en.htm

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 281

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003401/13**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Il Presidente Obama invita a designare Hezbollah come un'organizzazione terroristica

Il 21 marzo 2013, in un discorso reso in occasione della visita a Gerusalemme, il Presidente degli Stati Uniti Barack
Obama ha affermato che i governi stranieri dovrebbero classificare il movimento sciita libanese Hezbollah come
«organizzazione terroristica» e che «ogni paese che riconosce il valore della giustizia dovrebbe definire Hezbollah per
quello che è: un'organizzazione terroristica».

Obama ha aggiunto che «il mondo non può tollerare un'organizzazione che uccide civili innocenti, accumula missili
per colpire le città e appoggia il massacro di uomini, donne e bambini in Siria».

Si ritiene che i commenti siano rivolti all'Unione europea, la quale si rifiuta tuttora di classificare il gruppo come
organizzazione terroristica per non creare instabilità nella regione. Recentemente, tuttavia, un tribunale di Cipro ha
condannato un militante di Hezbollah, con cittadinanza svedese, con l'accusa di aver progettato attacchi contro
interessi israeliani nell'isola. Il gruppo Hezbollah è attivo in diversi Stati membri dell'UE, dove raccoglie fondi e
mantiene attiva la rete.

1. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante riguardo ai recenti commenti del Presidente Obama
circa l'inserimento di Hezbollah in una lista nera?

2. Alla luce della condanna penale di un militante di Hezbollah pronunciata a Cipro, è disposto il
Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a prendere provvedimenti per rivedere la sua attuale posizione in merito alla
designazione del gruppo Hezbollah?

3. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante circa il coinvolgimento di Hezbollah nel sostegno al
regime siriano del Presidente Bashar al-Assad?

**Risposta dell'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

I commenti del presidente degli Stati Uniti sono in linea con la politica invalsa degli Stati Uniti che, nel 1995, hanno
iscritto l'Hezbollah sull'elenco statunitense delle organizzazioni terroristiche straniere.

Per quanto concerne l'Unione europea, qualsiasi modifica dell'elenco unionale delle organizzazioni terroristiche
richiede una decisione unanime degli Stati membri. L'Hezbollah è stato oggetto, in tale contesto, di discussioni in
diverse occasioni in passato, ma tra gli Stati membri non si è mai registrato un consenso. Particolari sulla procedura
per l'iscrizione di un'organizzazione nell'elenco unionale sono stati forniti nella risposta della Commissione alla
precedente interrogazione scritta E-001611/2013 ( [1] ). Il processo a Cipro è stato condotto nel quadro della procedura
penale. Il tribunale ha menzionato l'Hezbollah quale organizzazione criminale senza formulare conclusioni o
riferimenti in tema di terrorismo.

L'UE sostiene la politica che il Libano conduce per dissociarsi dal conflitto siriano, quale instaurata dai leader del paese
nel 2011 e concordata dai partiti politici libanesi. È essenziale che in Libano questa politica sia rispettata nella pratica
da tutti gli attori.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm.

C 12 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003401/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — President Obama calls for designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation

On 21 March 2013 US President Barack Obama said in a speech, while visiting Jerusalem, that foreign governments
should blacklist the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah as a ‘terrorist organisation’. He said, ‘every country that values justice
should call Hezbollah what it truly is — a terrorist organisation’.

Obama added that the ‘world cannot tolerate an organisation that murders innocent civilians, stockpiles rockets to
shoot at cities, and supports the massacre of men, women and children in Syria’.

The comments are believed to be addressed to the European Union, which still refuses to designate the group as a
terrorist organisation, on the basis that this could cause instability in the region. However, a court in Cyprus recently
convicted a Hezbollah operative with Swedish citizenship of planning to launch attacks against Israeli interests on the
island. Hezbollah is active in a number of EU Member States, where it works to raise funds and maintain an active
network.

1. What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s position regarding the latest comments by President Obama
on blacklisting Hezbollah?

2. In light of the criminal conviction of a Hezbollah operative in Cyprus, is the Vice-President/High Representative
prepared to take steps to reconsider its current position regarding the designation of Hezbollah?

3. What is the Vice-President/High Representative's position regarding Hezbollah’s involvement in supporting the
Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 July 2013)_

The comments of the President of the United States are consistent with the long-standing policy of the United States,
which placed Hizbullah on the US list of foreign terrorist organisations in 1995.

With regard to the European Union, all amendments to the EU list of terrorist organisations require a unanimous
decision of Member States. Hizbullah was, in this context, discussed on several occasions in the past, but there has
never been consensus among Member States. Details on the procedure for the designation of an organisation in
the EU list has been provided in the Commission’s answer to previous Written Question E-001611/2013 ( [1] ). The
respective trial in Cyprus was conducted in the criminal justice framework. The court referred to Hizbullah as a
criminal organisation, without making any terrorism-related conclusions or references.

The EU supports Lebanon' policy of dissociation from the Syrian conflict, as established by the country's leaders in
2011 and agreed by Lebanese political parties. It is essential that this policy be respected in practice by all actors in
Lebanon.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 283

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003402/13**

**to the Commission**

**Jim Higgins (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Text alert initiatives

Text alert initiatives are being established among local communities in Ireland. Such initiatives aim to connect local
community members with one another and with the police force in the local area. They allow text messages to be sent
to all residents in an area to alert them to a crime, and enable residents to report an incident. The aim of these
programmes is to reduce crime, increase communication among local residents, create better relations with the police
force and provide increased safety and peace of mind for older residents who may be living in isolated areas.

1. Does the Commission recognise the value of such initiatives?

2. Does the Commission believe that text alert initiatives are an effective deterrent with a view to decreasing crime
levels in rural areas?

3. If the Commission believes that such initiatives are beneficial to rural areas, what does it intend to do to
promote the establishment of similar programmes in rural areas throughout all the Member States?

**Answer given by Mrs Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission recognises the value of text alert initiatives to support law enforcement and community
engagement in rural areas. Such initiatives should fully respect European and national data protection legislation (as
regards those receiving the texts as well as information on the possible suspects).

The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development has been supporting similar initiatives under its Basic
services measure. Member States or regions in charge of Rural Development Programmes will be able to provide for
such support under art. 21 of the EAFRD regulation also in the next programming period 2014-2020.

[A comparable form of community policing is used in a project to respond to child abductions, with a service set up to](http://ec.europa.eu/justice/funding/rights/call_10014/ramc_ag_annex_5_2008_en.pdf)
alert the public in cases of child abduction and where the life of a child is at risk. Best practice from this project could
prove useful for future initiatives.

C 12 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003403/13**

**to the Commission**

**Jim Higgins (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Processed foods in hospitals and nursing homes

A recent report has shown that some hospitals and nursing homes in Ireland are serving processed foods to patients,
such as pies containing as little as 10% meat and goujons containing as little as 50% meat.

1. Does the Commission believe that processed foods are suitable to be served to people having ongoing medical
treatment?

2. Would the Commission agree that, while patients may need high-protein and high-calorie diets, it is of the
utmost importance to ensure that these diets are also as healthy as possible?

3. With the ongoing battle against obesity, especially in younger age groups, would the Commission agree that the
use of processed foods in hospitals and nursing homes is counteractive in this regard?

4. Does the Commission have any guidelines in place as to which foods should or should not be served to patients?
If not, does the Commission intend to create such guidelines?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

It is the exclusive responsibility of each Member State to provide appropriate food to the patients at hospitals and
nursing homes, which is suitable to the patient's needs. Consequently, the European Commission has not introduced
guidelines on foods served in such facilities.

The Commission's Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity-related health issues ( [1] ) addresses
actions to promote healthier diets and food reformulation. Through partnerships with Member States and
stakeholders, there is an EU wide focus on reducing for example salt, saturated fat and sugars in food.

Finally, it is essential that actions to promote healthy eating and to fight obesity — also in settings such as hospitals
and nursing homes — are developed and carried out by Member States at regional and local levels.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues, COM(2007) 279.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 285

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003404/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Herziening energiebeleid EIB en standpunt van de Commissie

In 2011 investeerde de Europese Investeringsbank (EIB) 13 miljard euro oftewel 20 % van haar budget in
energieprojecten. Het Parlement heeft er herhaaldelijk bij de EIB op aangedrongen haar beleid van energieleningen te
wijzigen en haar activiteiten op één lijn te brengen met de EU-doelstellingen voor een snelle overstap naar een
koolstofarme economie ( [1] ).

De herziening van het energiebeleid van de EIB biedt dan ook een unieke gelegenheid om te waarborgen dat
toekomstige investeringsbeslissingen aansluiten bij de EU-doelstellingen op het gebied van klimaat en energie.

1. Hoe luidt het standpunt van de Commissie ten aanzien van de herziening van het energiebeleid van de EIB?
Welke rol dient de EIB volgens de Commissie te spelen bij de overstap van de EU naar een grondstoffenefficiënte en
op hernieuwbare energie gebaseerde economie op de lange termijn (2050) en hoe kan deze analyse van de rol van de
EIB worden omgezet in concrete aanbevelingen voor de herziening van haar energiebeleid?

2. Is de Commissie het eens met de visie van de EIB dat investeringen in elektriciteitscentrales die fossiele
brandstoffen gebruiken een positieve impact kunnen hebben op het bereiken van de klimaatdoelstellingen van de EU?
Zo niet, zal de Commissie actief aandringen op geleidelijke stopzetting van leningen aan energie-investeringen die
niet in overeenstemming zijn met de klimaatdoelstellingen van de EU, en met name met de Routekaart naar een
concurrerende koolstofarme economie in 2050 (COM(2011)0112 definitief)?

3. Deelt de Commissie de opvatting dat EIB-investeringen in energie-efficiëntie aan de vraagzijde en nieuwe
hernieuwbare energiebronnen kunnen bijdragen tot de zekerheid van de energievoorziening door de afhankelijkheid
van de EU van ingevoerde koolwaterstoffen te verminderen en meer aandacht te schenken aan concurrentievermogen
en duurzaamheid?

4. Hoe denkt de Commissie, gezien de komende publicatie van het Groenboek van de Commissie over de
doelstellingen voor 2030, de EIB ertoe aan te zetten langetermijndoelstellingen voor haar leningen op het gebied van
energie en klimaat te aanvaarden?

**Antwoord van de heer Oettinger namens de Commissie**

_(23 mei 2013)_

De Commissie verwijst het geachte Parlementslid naar haar antwoord op schriftelijke vraag E-000366/2013 van de
heer Belet.

Het kredietbeleid van de EIB in de energiesector, dat momenteel wordt herzien, is gericht op het leveren van
concurrerende, duurzame en continu geleverde energie aan de consument.

De activiteiten van de EIB zijn afgestemd op de prioriteiten van het energie‐ en klimaatbeleid van de EU: de EIB neemt
met name ook een schaduwprijs voor koolstof op in zijn economische beoordeling van projecten. Deze prijs bedraagt
op dit moment 30 euro per uitgestoten ton CO 2 en zal volgens het basisscenario in 2030 50 euro per ton CO 2
bedragen.

Na een openbare raadpleging zal de EIB naar verwachting in de zomer van 2013 een herzien beleid inzake
kredietverstrekking voor energie voorstellen. De Commissie werkt momenteel samen met de EIB, onder meer via haar
vertegenwoordiger in de Raad van bewind van de EIB, om te garanderen dat het toekomstige kredietbeleid de
prioriteiten van het EU-energiebeleid weerspiegelt. Deze zijn onder meer aangewezen in de Europa 2020-strategie, in
het energie-infrastructuurpakket, in het Energiestappenplan 2050 — met name de „no regrets”-oplossingen
(infrastructuur, efficiëntie, hernieuwbare energiebronnen en de afbouw van subsidies voor milieuonvriendelijke
fossiele brandstoffen) — en in het onlangs aangenomen groenboek over een kader voor het klimaat‐ en energiebeleid
voor 2030.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Resolutie van 29 maart 2012 over het jaarverslag 2010 van de EIB, par. 102, en resolutie van 7 april 2011 over het jaarverslag 2009 van de EIB,
par. 21.

C 12 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003404/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EIB energy policy review and the Commission's position

In 2011 the European Investment Bank (EIB) invested EUR 13 billion, or 20% of the bank’s budget, in energy projects.
Parliament has repeatedly called on the EIB to change its energy lending policy and to bring its operations fully into
line with EU objectives for a swift transition to a low-carbon economy ( [1] ).

The review of EIB energy policy therefore provides a unique opportunity to ensure that future investment decisions
are in line with EU climate and energy targets.

1. What is the Commission’s position on the EIB energy lending policy review? What role does the Commission
think the EIB should play in the EU’s transition towards a resource-efficient and renewables-based economy in the
long-term perspective (2050) and how does this analysis of the EIB’s role translate into concrete recommendations
for its energy policy review?

2. Does the Commission share the EIB’s view that investments in fossil fuel power plants can have a potentially
positive impact in achieving the EU’s climate objectives? If not, will the Commission actively push for a phase-out of
lending to energy investments that are incompatible with the EU’s climate objectives and, in particular, with the
Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050 (COM(2011)0112 final)?

3. Does the Commission share the view that EIB investment in demand-side energy efficiency and new renewable
energy sources can contribute to the security of energy supply by reducing EU dependency on imported
hydrocarbons and focusing on competitiveness and sustainability?

4. With the upcoming publication of the Commission’s green paper on 2030 targets, how does the Commission
intend to encourage the EIB to take on board long-term targets for its energy and climate lending?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-000366/2013 by
Mr Belet.

The EIB's lending policy in the energy industry, which is currently under revision, focuses on supplying customers
with competitive, sustainable and secure energy.

The EIB's activity is aligned to the EU's energy and climate policy priorities, notably the EIB includes carbon pricing in
economic appraisal of projects with a shadow price of EUR 30 per tCO2 emitted today to EUR 50 per tCO2 by 2030
under a central scenario.

In summer 2013, following a public consultation, the EIB is expected to issue a reviewed energy lending policy. The
Commission is currently cooperating with the EIB, including through its representative on the EIB Board of Directors,
to ensure that the future lending policy reflects the EU energy policy priorities. These have been identified _inter alia_ in
the Europe 2020 strategy, the Energy Infrastructure Package, the Energy 2050 Roadmap — in particular the ‘no
regrets’ solutions (infrastructure, efficiency as well as renewables, phasing out of harmful fossil fuels subsidies) — and
the recently adopted Green Paper on a framework 2030 for climate and energy policies.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Resolution of 29 March 2012 on the EIB Annual Report 2010, paragraph 102, and resolution of 7 April 2011 on the EIB Annual Report 2009,
paragraph 21.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 287

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003405/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Club de fútbol propiedad de un banco nacionalizado

Bankia deberá hacerse con las acciones de la Fundación del Valencia, dueña del club. Así parece que lo va a decidir el
Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo n° 3 de Valencia, que podría anular el aval que el Instituto Valenciano de
Finanzas (un órgano dependiente de la Generalitat) concedió en 2009 a la Fundación del Valencia CF para que
adquiriera el grueso de los títulos del club. La sentencia dejaría sin efecto la garantía que se esgrimió para acceder a un
crédito de Bancaja por valor de 81 millones, lo que en la práctica convertiría a la entidad bancaria (ahora Bankia,
intervenida por el Estado) en el máximo accionista del Valencia CF ( [1] ). El MoU del rescate bancario español dice en su
punto 15 del capítulo sobre «Recapitalización, reestructuración y/o resolución» que «The restructuring plans should
be based on significant downsizing of unprofitable business with a focus on divestitures wherever feasible».

Este punto fue confirmado en el plan de reestructuración de Bankia ( [2] ). El día 6 de marzo, en un comunicado de
prensa de la Comisión sobre ayudas de Estado en el fútbol holandés se decía: «strongly believe that professional
football clubs should be well managed and not ask for help from the tax-payer when facing financial difficulties» ( [3] ).
La deuda del Valencia CF es de 350 millones, la mayor parte de ella con garantía hipotecaria ( [4] ).

Teniendo en cuenta que BFA-Bankia es ahora de propiedad estatal, y la relación que tendría con el Valencia CF, ¿será
vigilante la Comisión para asegurar que el Valencia CF no recibe ayudas de Estado?

De acuerdo con el MoU, ¿consideraría la Comisión que Bankia debería vender su participación en el Valencia CF con
el objetivo de reducir pérdidas en su balance?

**Respuesta del Sr. Almunia en nombre de la Comisión**

_(7 de junio de 2013)_

Tras tener conocimiento de los artículos periodísticos sobre las garantías concedidas por el Instituto Valenciano de
Finanzas, la Comisión ha pedido a las autoridades españolas información adicional sobre esa medida. En caso de que
detectara que se han concedido ayudas estatales al Valencia CF, consideraría la adopción de las medidas pertinentes
con arreglo a las normas sobre ayudas estatales del Tratado.

En cuanto a la reestructuración de BFA/Bankia, el 28 de noviembre de 2012 la Comisión aprobó el plan de
reestructuración presentado por las autoridades españolas tras llegar a la conclusión de que las ayudas estatales
otorgadas a esa entidad en virtud de dicho plan son compatibles con el artículo 107, apartado 3, letra b), del Tratado,
que autoriza las ayudas estatales para poner remedio a una perturbación grave en la economía de un Estado miembro.

Los servicios de la Comisión están supervisando la aplicación de la Decisión y los compromisos asumidos al efecto.
En el marco de la profunda reestructuración prevista en el plan para BFA/Bankia y con el fin de evitar cualquier
falseamiento indebido de la competencia, una de las medidas será la venta de las participaciones no estratégicas de
dicha entidad definidas en el plan o que resulten de la ejecución de garantías concedidas por ella durante los últimos
años. No obstante, la identidad exacta de dichas participaciones y el calendario de las ventas se considera secreto
comercial y no puede revelarse, pues su difusión podría influir materialmente en el proceso de venta.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/local/valencia/20130312/54368291736/un-juez-convierte-a-bankia-duena-del-valenciacf.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.expansion.com/2013/02/14/empresas/banca/1360865943.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-192_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.gurusblog.com/archives/valencia-cf-nacionalizado/21/01/2013/

C 12 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003405/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Football club owned by a nationalised bank

Bankia will be forced to acquire the shares of the Valencia Football Club Foundation, which owns the club. That is
likely to be the judgment of the Valencian Administrative Court No 3, which could withdraw the backing that the
Valencian Finance Institute (a body run by the Valencian regional government) applied to the Valencia Football Club
Foundation in 2009 in order to for it to acquire the bulk of the club’s shares. The judgment would render null and
void the guarantee that was provided to access a Bancaja loan of EUR 81 million, which, in practice, would make the
banking house (now Bankia, having been rescued by the State) the majority shareholder in Valencia FC ( [1] ). The
Memorandum of Understanding on the bailout of the Spanish banking system states in point 15 of the chapter on
‘Recapitalisation, restructuring and/or resolution’ that ‘The restructuring plans should be based on significant
downsizing of unprofitable business with a focus on divestitures wherever feasible’.

This point was confirmed in Bankia’s restructuring plan ( [2] ). A Commission press release on 6 March 2013 concerning
state aid for Dutch football, contained the following statement ‘strongly believe that professional football clubs
should be well managed and not ask for help from the tax-payer when facing financial difficulties’ ( [3] ). Valencia FC’s
debt amounts to EUR 350 million, most of which is mortgage secured ( [4] ).

Bearing in mind that BFA-Bankia is now state-owned, and the relationship that it would have with Valencia FC, will
the Commission be vigilant to ensure that Valencia FC does not receive state aid?

Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, does the Commission believe that Bankia should sell its shares in
Valencia FC in order to reduce losses on its balance sheet?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

Following press reports about guarantees provided by the Valencia Finance Institute, the Commission has asked the
Spanish authorities for more information on this measure. Were the Commission to identify state aid as having been
granted to FC Valencia, it would consider the appropriate steps to take under the state aid rules of the Treaty.

Concerning the restructuring of BFA/Bankia, the Commission approved on 28 November 2012 the restructuring
plan submitted by the Spanish authorities and found that the state support granted to BFA/Bankia pursuant to this
restructuring plan is compatible with Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty which allows state aid to remedy a serious
disturbance in a Member State's economy.

The Commission is currently monitoring the implementation of the decision and the commitments made therein. As
a consequence of the deep restructuring foreseen in BFA/Bankia's plan and in order to avoid undue distortions of
competition, one of the measures will be the sale of BFA/Bankia's participations in non-strategic participations
identified in the plan or resulting from the execution of guarantees granted by the BFA/Bankia over the past years. The
exact identity of these participations and the timetable for the sales is, however, considered a business secret and
cannot be disclosed as it could materially influence the sale process.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/local/valencia/20130312/54368291736/un-juez-convierte-a-bankia-duena-del-valenciacf.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.expansion.com/2013/02/14/empresas/banca/1360865943.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-192_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.gurusblog.com/archives/valencia-cf-nacionalizado/21/01/2013/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 289

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003406/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) y Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Respeto a los valores fundamentales en la EU

El 8 de marzo de 2011, el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos condenó al Reino de España a indemnizar con
23 000 euros a la víctima por no haber investigado los malos tratos denunciados por la demandante tras su detención
el año 2002 ( [1] ).

El 24 de julio de 2012 el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos condenó al Reino de España a indemnizar con
30 000 euros a la víctima por no investigar la posible **discriminación** sufrida por una ciudadana nigeriana que, en
julio de 2005, fue **insultada y agredida** por agentes de la Policía Nacional en plena calle en Palma de Mallorca ( [2] ).

El pasado 16 de octubre de 2012 el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos condenó al Reino de España a
indemnizar con 24 000 euros a la víctima por no investigar los posibles malos tratos que dijo recibir durante su
detención en el 2003 ( [3] ).

Los valores fundamentales consagrados en los Tratados europeos, tales como la democracia, los derechos
fundamentales y el Estado de Derecho deben ser protegidos vigorosamente.

¿Tiene previsto la Comisión crear un nuevo instrumento «rápido» y «eficaz» para obligar a los Estados miembros de la
UE a respetar los valores fundamentales de la democracia y el Estado de Derecho, tal y como piden Alemania,
Holanda, Dinamarca y Finlandia? ( [4] )

En caso afirmativo, ¿incluiría ese instrumento sanciones como la suspensión de ayudas de fondos europeos a los
Estados que no respeten estos principios, tal y como piden Alemania, Holanda, Dinamarca y Finlandia?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de junio de 2013)_

La carta de los cuatro ministros de Asuntos Exteriores a que se refiere su Señoría refleja las preocupaciones ya
abordadas por el Presidente Barroso en su discurso sobre el estado de la Unión de septiembre de 2012, en el que hizo
hincapié en la necesidad de reforzar los fundamentos de la UE, tales como el respeto de nuestros valores
fundamentales, el Estado de derecho y la democracia. El Presidente Barroso aludió en su carta a la necesidad de «un
conjunto de instrumentos mejor desarrollado, no solo la alternativa entre la mano suave de la persuasión política y la
mano dura del artículo 7 del Tratado» ( [5] ).

Un nuevo mecanismo tendrá éxito si todos los Estados miembros lo consideraran legítimo y útil, así como una
contribución positiva a los esfuerzos de reforma. Para ello, hará falta ganarse la confianza a lo largo del tiempo,
aprovechando la experiencia práctica con los instrumentos a disposición de la Comisión, incluida el cuadro de
indicadores de la justicia. La Comisión presentará a su debido tiempo sus reflexiones sobre los nuevos instrumentos
para garantizar el respeto de los valores fundamentales de la Unión Europea.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.publico.es/espana/365092/espana-condenada-por-no-investigar-torturas-a-un-detenido
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/07/24/espana/1343154621.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europapress.es/euskadi/noticia-otamendi-satisfecho-fallo-dice-hubo-otros-torturados-anuncia-acto-agradecer-solidaridad
20121016111452.html

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/noticias/internacional/alemanya-tres-paisos-mes-demanen-mecanismes-per-protegir-democracia-2335375
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Se puede consultar en: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-596_es.htm

( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003406/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE) and Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Respect for fundamental values in the EU

On 8 March 2011, the European Court of Human Rights sentenced the Kingdom of Spain to pay compensation of
EUR 23 000 to a victim for failing to investigate the ill-treatment he claimed to have suffered after his arrest in
2002 ( [1] ).

On 24 July 2012, the European Court of Human Rights sentenced the Kingdom of Spain to pay compensation of
EUR 30 000 to the victim for failing to investigate the possible discrimination suffered by a Nigerian woman who, in
July 2005, was insulted and attacked by members of the National Police in the middle of the street in Palma de
Mallorca ( [2] ).

On 16 October 2012, the European Court of Human Rights sentenced the Kingdom of Spain to pay compensation of
EUR 24 000 to a victim for failing to investigate the possible ill-treatment he claimed to have received during his
arrest in 2003 ( [3] ).

The fundamental values enshrined in the European Treaties, such as democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of
law, must be vigorously protected.

Does the Commission intend to create a new ‘fast’ and ‘effective’ instrument to oblige EU Member States to respect the
fundamental values of democracy and the rule of law, as requested by Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and
Finland? ( [4] )

If so, would this instrument include sanctions such as the suspension of EU funding for Member States that do not
respect these principles, as requested by Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The letter of the four Ministers of Foreign Affairs to which the Honourable Member refers reflects the concerns that
President Barroso already raised in his State of the Union address in September 2012, in which he underlined the need
to strengthen the foundations of the EU, such as the respect for our fundamental values, for the rule of law and
democracy. President Barroso referred in this letter to the need for ‘a better developed set of instruments — not just
the alternative between the “soft power” of political persuasion and the “nuclear option” of Article 7 of the Treaty’ ( [5] ).

A successful new mechanism will have to be considered as legitimate and worthwhile by all Member States and a
positive contribution to reform efforts. This will need the building of confidence over time, drawing on the practical
experience with tools that the Commission has at its disposal, including the Justice Scoreboard. The Commission will
in due time presents its reflections on further instruments to ensure compliance with EU fundamental values.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.publico.es/espana/365092/espana-condenada-por-no-investigar-torturas-a-un-detenido.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2012/07/24/espana/1343154621.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europapress.es/euskadi/noticia-otamendi-satisfecho-fallo-dice-hubo-otros-torturados-anuncia-acto-agradecer-solidaridad
20121016111452.html

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/noticias/internacional/alemanya-tres-paisos-mes-demanen-mecanismes-per-protegir-democracia-2335375
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-596_en.htm

( **|**
( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 291

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003407/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Marietta Giannakou (PPE)**

_(26 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Αναγκαστικοί γάμοι ανηλίκων και εκπαίδευση

Ένα από τα σοβαρότερα ζητήματα παραβίασης ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στην Τουρκία είναι το θέμα των αναγκαστικών
γάμων ανηλίκων. Μεγάλη σημασία για την ανατροπή αυτής της κατάστασης έχει η εκπαίδευση, η ενημέρωση και η μόρφωση
των νεαρών γυναικών, καθώς οι σχετικές έρευνες δείχνουν ότι φτωχά και αμόρφωτα κορίτσια υποχρεούνται με μεγαλύτερη
συχνότητα στη σύναψη αναγκαστικού γάμου.

Στην Τουρκία, μεγάλο ποσοστό του γυναικείου πληθυσμού είναι ανεκπαίδευτο και το 40% των ανήλικων γυναικών
υφίστανται βία μέσα στην οικογένεια και εξαναγκασμό σε γάμο για πολιτισμικούς ή οικονομικούς λόγους. Παρόλη την
σύγχρονη πληροφόρηση, εγκλήματα τιμής συνεχίζουν να απειλούν τις ανήλικες στην Τουρκία. Το 80% των ανηλίκων των
αγροτικών και απομονωμένων, κυρίως, επαρχιών της χώρας εξαναγκάζονται σε γάμο πριν τα 18, γεγονός παράνομο και
αντίθετο με την τουρκική νομοθεσία. Οι αναγκαστικοί γάμοι ανηλίκων εκθέτουν συχνά τις νεαρές στους κινδύνους της
ανήλικης εγκυμοσύνης λόγω έλλειψης πρόνοιας και πληροφόρησης. Πολλές νεαρές χάνουν τη ζωή τους κατά τη διάρκεια
της εγκυμοσύνης, αφήνοντας τα νεογέννητά τους ορφανά.

Το ίδιο πρόβλημα εντοπίζεται ακόμη και σε τουρκικούς πληθυσμούς που έχουν μεταναστεύσει στην Ευρώπη. Στη Γερμανία,
όπου αριθμούνται πάνω από τρία εκατομμύρια κάτοικοι τουρκικής καταγωγής, η μεγάλη πλειοψηφία των περιστατικών
αναγκαστικών γάμων περιλαμβάνει μέλη της τουρκικής κοινότητας.

Στο πλαίσιο αυτό και σύμφωνα με το θετικό διάλογο με την Τουρκία, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
έχει λάβει νεότερα στοιχεία σχετικά με το ζήτημα και, αν ναι, πώς σκοπεύει να ενισχύσει την προσπάθεια εξάλειψης των
γάμων αυτών και των εγκλημάτων τιμής, να ενημερώσει και να μορφώσει τους πληθυσμούς στις προβληματικές περιοχές
σχετικά με τα δικαιώματά τους και να προωθήσει τον σεβασμό των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών;

**Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(22 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή είναι ενήμερη για το ζήτημα που έθεσε το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου και θα ήθελε να αναφερθεί στην
οικεία Έκθεση Προόδου του 2012 για την Τουρκία ( [1] ), όπου αναφέρεται ότι «το ζήτημα των πρόωρων και αναγκαστικών
γάμων παραμένει σοβαρό πρόβλημα».

Τα πλέον πρόσφατα διαθέσιμα στατιστικά στοιχεία μπορούν να ανακτηθούν από τη Δημογραφική Έρευνα Υγείας (DHS) του
2008 και από την τελευταία έκθεση για την κατάσταση του παγκόσμιου πληθυσμού από το 2011 που συνέταξε το Ταμείο
των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τη Δημογραφία (UNFPA). Σύμφωνα με τα στατιστικά αυτά στοιχεία, περίπου το 14% των γυναικών
ηλικίας 20-24 ετών παντρεύτηκαν πριν από την ηλικία των 18 ετών και το 5.1% του συνόλου των γεννήσεων αφορούν
κορίτσια ηλικίας 15-19 ετών.

Οι τουρκικές αρχές έχουν επίγνωση του προβλήματος και πραγματοποιήθηκαν βήματα βελτίωσης της κατάστασης των
γυναικών στην Τουρκία. Σημαντικό βήμα ήταν η θέσπιση νέου νόμου για την προστασία των γυναικών και των μελών της
οικογένειας από τη βία. Άλλο βήμα αποτέλεσε η επικαιροποίηση του εθνικού σχεδίου δράσης για την καταπολέμηση της βίας
κατά των γυναικών (2012-2016). Η Τουρκία είναι, επιπλέον, μέρος στις σχετικές διεθνείς συμβάσεις, όπως είναι η Σύμβαση
των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τα δικαιώματα του παιδιού (CRC). Η Επιτροπή στηρίζει τις προσπάθειες της Τουρκίας με έργα που
χρηματοδοτούνται μέσω του μηχανισμού προενταξιακής βοήθειας (IPA).

Η Τουρκία, ως χώρα που διαπραγματεύεται την προσχώρησή της στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, πρέπει να εξασφαλίσει τη
συμμόρφωσή της με τα πολιτικά κριτήρια, μεταξύ των οποίων συγκαταλέγονται ο σεβασμός των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων,
των οποίων κρίσιμο μέρος είναι τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών και η ισότητα των φύλων.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/turkey/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003407/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marietta Giannakou (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Forced marriages and education of minors

Forced marriages involving minors are one of the most serious human rights violations in Turkey. Educating,
informing and teaching young women play a major role in preventing this situation and related studies illustrate that
forced marriages are more frequent among poor, uneducated girls.

A large proportion of the female population in Turkey is uneducated and 40% of underage women suffer violence
within the family and are forced into marriage for cultural or financial reasons. Despite modern means of
communication, underage girls in Turkey still risk becoming victims of crimes of honour. 80% of underage girls in
rural and isolated regions of the country are forced into marriage before the age of 18, which is illegal and prohibited
under Turkish law. Forced marriages expose underage girls to the risks inherent in underage pregnancy, due to a lack
of welfare and information services. Numerous young girls die during pregnancy, leaving their new-born babies
orphaned.

The same problem even occurs within immigrant Turkish communities in Europe. In Germany, where there are more
than three million inhabitants of Turkish origin, the large majority of forced marriages involve members of the
Turkish community.

In light of the above and the positive dialogue with Turkey, will the Commission say:

—
Has it obtained more recent data on this problem and, if so, how does it intend to step up efforts to eliminate
such marriages and crimes of honour, inform and educate inhabitants of problem areas about their rights and
promote respect for women’s rights?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the issue raised by the Honourable Member and would like to refer to its 2012 Progress
Report on Turkey ( [1] ), where it is stated that ‘the issue of early and forced marriages remains a serious concern’.

The most recent statistics available can be retrieved from the 2008 Demographic Health Survey (DHS) and the United
Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) latest State of World Population Report from 2011. These statistics estimate that
around 14% of women aged 20-24 were married before age 18, and 5.1% of all births are to girls aged 15-19.

The Turkish authorities are aware of the issue and steps towards an improvement for the situation of women in
Turkey were taken. One major step was the introduction of a new Law to Protect Women and Family Members from
Violence. Another step was the updating of the National Action Plan on Combatting Violence Against Women
(2012-2016). Turkey is furthermore party to the relevant international conventions, such as the UN Convention on
the Right of the Child (CRC). The Commission supports Turkey's efforts through projects funded through the
Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).

Turkey, as a country negotiating to become a member of the European Union, needs to ensure compliance with the
political criteria, of which respect for human rights, including women's rights and gender equality, is a crucial part.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/detailed-country-information/turkey/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 293

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003408/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Σε άμεσο κίνδυνο η δημόσια υγεία και το περιβάλλον από τη λειτουργία σταθμού μεταφόρτωσης απορριμμάτων στο
Σταυρό — Κλάδεμα Διδύμων του Δήμου Ερμιονίδας

Η αντιλαϊκή πολιτική της κυβέρνησης ΝΔ-ΠΑΣΟΚ-ΔΗΜΑΡ και των προηγούμενων κυβερνήσεων ΝΔ και ΠΑΣΟΚ, από
κοινού με την ΕΕ, επιδεινώνει δραματικά τη ζωή της εργατικής-λαϊκής οικογένειας και στο Δήμο Ερμιονίδας Αργολίδας της
Περιφέρειας Πελοποννήσου. Η πολιτική αυτή, την οποία υπηρετούν οι τοπικές αρχές, έχει σωρεύσει τεράστια προβλήματα
για τους εργαζόμενους και τους κατοίκους, καταστρέφει το περιβάλλον και θέτει σε κίνδυνο τη δημόσια υγεία. Μεθοδευμένα
οξύνουν το πρόβλημα της διαχείρισης απορριμμάτων, για να το αξιοποιήσουν με την παράδοση της διαχείρισης σε
μονοπωλιακούς ομίλους, μέσω Συμβάσεων ΣΔΙΤ.

Η πλειοψηφία του Περιφερειακού Συμβουλίου Πελοποννήσου, σε συμπαιγνία με την κυβέρνηση, στις 1.7.2012, έλαβε
απόφαση για την παύση της λειτουργίας των ΧΑΔΑ, δημιουργώντας αδιέξοδο, αφού στην περιοχή δεν υπάρχει νόμιμος
χώρος εναπόθεσης απορριμμάτων. Στη συνέχεια, αποφάσισε τη μεταφορά μέρους του τεράστιου όγκου απορριμμάτων από
όλη την Περιφέρεια στο ΧΥΤΑ Φυλής, στην Αττική, έναντι υψηλότατου αντιτίμου και μεταφορικών. Έτσι, θησαυρίζουν οι
επιχειρηματικοί όμιλοι από χρήματα που καλούνται να πληρώσουν οι εργαζόμενοι. Η μονάδα «προσωρινής αποθήκευσης»
δεμάτων απορριμμάτων, στον Σταυρό-Κλάδεμα Διδύμων Ερμιονίδας, λειτουργώντας ως ανοικτή χωματερή, συσσώρευσε σε
δύο χρόνια πάνω από 42 000 τόνους σε δέματα και 35 000 τόνους χύδην απορρίμματα. Λόγω της ανεξέλεγκτης
εναπόθεσης απορριμμάτων και της ανύπαρκτης εποπτείας του χώρου, έχουν εκδηλωθεί πυρκαγιές από την ανάφλεξη
απορριμμάτων, που μπορεί να έχουν οδυνηρές συνέπειες για το περιβάλλον και την ασφάλεια των κατοίκων.

Παρά τις διαμαρτυρίες και κινητοποιήσεις των κατοίκων, κυβέρνηση, Περιφέρεια και Δήμος αρνούνται να πάρουν μέτρα για
την παύση της λειτουργίας της ανοιχτής χωματερής και να προστατεύσουν το περιβάλλον και την δημόσια υγεία. Οι
εργαζόμενοι κάτοικοι με απόφαση του Τοπικού Συμβουλίου Διδύμων περιφρουρούν το χώρο και απαγορεύουν την
εναπόθεση νέων δεμάτων απορριμμάτων, για να προφυλάξουν στοιχειωδώς το περιβάλλον και την υγεία τους.

Πώς τοποθετείται η Επιτροπή στην απόφαση του Περιφερειακού Συμβουλίου να λειτουργεί μονάδα «προσωρινής
αποθήκευσης» δεμάτων απορριμμάτων που συγκεντρώνει χιλιάδες τόνους απορριμμάτων σε ανοιχτή χωματερή, στην θέση
Σταυρός-Κλάδεμα, καθώς και στα αιτήματα των κατοίκων να ληφθούν άμεσα μέτρα για την απομάκρυνση των δεμάτων, την
άμεση παύση λειτουργίας της μονάδας και την δημιουργία αποκλειστικά δημόσιου ενιαίου φορέα διαχείρισης
απορριμμάτων, χωρίς οικονομική επιβάρυνση των κατοίκων και καμία ανάμειξη ιδιωτών;

**Απάντηση του κ. Potočnik εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(30 Ιουλίου 2013)_

Όσον αφορά την ανεξέλεγκτη απόρριψη στον χώρο εναπόθεσης απορριμμάτων στο Σταυρό — Κλάδεμα Διδύμων του Δήμου
Ερμιονίδας, το Δικαστήριο, με την απόφαση της 6ης Οκτωβρίου 2005 (υπόθεση C-502/03), καταδίκασε την Ελλάδα για τη
διάθεση οικιακών αποβλήτων κατά ανεξέλεγκτο και παράνομο τρόπο, και δήλωσε ότι η Ελλάδα παρέλειψε να συμμορφωθεί
με τις υποχρεώσεις που υπέχει βάσει της οδηγίας 75/442/ΕΟΚ περί των στερεών αποβλήτων, όπως τροποποιήθηκε και
κωδικοποιήθηκε με την οδηγία 2008/98/ΕΚ (οδηγία πλαίσιο για τα απόβλητα ( [1] )). Στην εν λόγω απόφαση διαπιστώθηκε ότι
στην Ελλάδα λειτουργούσαν τουλάχιστον 1 125 παράνομοι ή μη ελεγχόμενοι χώροι εναπόθεσης απορριμμάτων εκτός από
αυτόν που αναφέρει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος. Δεδομένου ότι στις 21.2.2013 δεν είχαν ακόμη κλείσει όλοι οι παράνομοι χώροι
εναπόθεσης απορριμμάτων (λειτουργούν ακόμη 78), η Επιτροπή αποφάσισε να παραπέμψει εκ νέου την υπόθεση στο
Δικαστήριο και να ζητήσει την επιβολή χρηματικών ποινών (C-378/13).

Όσον αφορά τη σύσταση δημόσιου ενιαίου φορέα διαχείρισης απορριμμάτων, χωρίς οικονομική επιβάρυνση των κατοίκων
και καμία ανάμειξη ιδιωτών, η Επιτροπή θα ήθελε να τονίσει ότι το οργανωτικό πλαίσιο της διαχείρισης των αποβλήτων
αποτελεί αποκλειστική ευθύνη των κρατών μελών.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 312 της 22.11.2008.

C 12 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003408/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Direct threat to public health and the environment from landfill site in Stavros-Kladema Didymon in the
Municipality of Ermionida

The anti-grassroots policy applied by the New Democracy/PASOK/Democratic Left government and by previous New
Democracy and PASOK governments, together with the EU, is having a drastic effect on the lives of working and
grassroots classes in the Municipality of Ermionida Argolidas in the region of the Peloponnese. This policy, which is
being applied by the local authorities, has caused enormous problems for workers and residents and is destroying the
environment and putting public health at risk. It is methodically exacerbating the problem of waste management, in
order to make money by contracting waste management out to monopoly groups under PPPs.

On 1 July 2012, the Peloponnese Regional Council, in collusion with the government, decided by a majority to stop
operating the local landfill; however, as there is no regulated waste disposal site, this created a deadlock. It then
decided to move some of the huge amount of waste from the entire region to the Fyli landfill in Attica, for
extortionate fees and transport costs. Thus, business groups are raking in money which the workers are being forced
to pay. The unit at which packaged waste is ‘stored temporarily’ in Stavros-Kladema Didymon in Ermionida, which
operates as an open landfill, has collected over 42 000 tonnes of packaged waste and 35 000 of loose waste in two
years. Due to uncontrolled dumping and inadequate supervision of the site, fires have broken out from the
spontaneous combustion of the waste, which may have serious consequences for the environment and the safety of
local residents.

Despite protests and demonstrations by local residents, the government, region and municipality have refused to take
measures to close the dump and protect the environment and public health. Following a decision by the Didyma local
council, workers and residents have surrounded the site in order to prevent more packaged waste from being dumped
and provide some sort of rudimentary protection for their environment and health.

What is the Commission’s view of the decision by the Regional Council to operate a ‘temporary storage’ unit for
packaged waste which has collected thousands of tonnes of waste in an open landfill in Stavros-Kladema and of
residents’ demands that immediate action should be taken to remove the packaged waste, close the unit and set up a
single government-owned waste management agency at no cost to local residents and with no private-sector
involvement?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 July 2013)_

Concerning uncontrolled dumping at the landfill Stavros-Kladema Didymon in Ermionida in its judgment of
6 October 2005 (Case C-502/03), the Court condemned Greece for the disposal of household waste in an
uncontrolled and illegal manner, and declared that it had failed to comply with its obligations under
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended, now codified by Directive 2008/98/EC (Waste Framework Directive ( [1] )).
The judgment established that at least 1.125 illegal or uncontrolled landfills were operational in Greece, including the
one referred to by the Honourable Member. As all illegal landfills have still not been closed on 21.2.2013 (still 78
illegal landfills operating), the Commission decided to refer the case back to the Court and to ask for financial
penalties to be imposed (C-378/13).

Concerning the setting up of a single government-owned waste management agency at no cost to local residents and
with no private-sector involvement the Commission would like to stress that the organisational framework of waste
management is the sole responsibility of Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 312, 22.11.2008.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 295

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003409/13**

**à la Commission**
**Françoise Grossetête (PPE)**

_(26 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Règlements d'application de la directive éco-conception

La directive éco-conception est en application depuis 2009. La démarche poursuivie sur le plan européen est positive,
grâce à l'établissement d'un cadre pour la fixation d'exigences en matière d'éco-conception applicables aux produits
consommateurs d'énergie.

Toutefois, le fonctionnement du marché intérieur de l'énergie montre aujourd'hui que la valeur de l'énergie a un coût
variable au cours du temps. Or, la directive éco-conception ne tient pas compte des externalités ni de leur coût. Ainsi,
baisser la consommation d'énergie aux heures creuses pour l'augmenter aux heures de pointe va à l'encontre de la
volonté affichée de réduire les émissions de CO 2, puisque le mix énergétique à la pointe de consommation est tout à
fait défavorable en comparaison au mix en heures creuses. De même, cela suppose un renforcement des réseaux
électriques pour intégrer l'impact sur la puissance de pointe des nouveaux équipements admissibles. Au final, cela
représente un coût supplémentaire pour les consommateurs.

Comment la Commission s'assure-t-elle que les externalités et leur coût sont pris en compte dans les règlements
d'application de la directive éco-conception?

Comment s'assure-t-elle que les économies réalisées sur la facture d'énergie ne sont pas annulées par une
augmentation des coûts des externalités (investissements nécessaires sur le réseau électrique et accroissement des
émissions de CO 2 )?

**Réponse donnée par M. Oettinger au nom de la Commission**

_(17 mai 2013)_

Selon l'analyse de la Commission, les dispositions d'exécution en matière d'écoconception ( [1] ) n'ont pas d'incidence sur
la période de consommation d'énergie. En revanche, elles permettent une réduction globale de la consommation
d'énergie qui entraîne généralement une diminution des capacités requises de production, de transport et de
distribution, et contribuent à alléger la pression exercée sur le réseau. Ainsi, l'écoconception contribue à réduire les
coûts et les émissions de CO 2 .

Les propositions législatives en matière d'écoconception sont précédées d'études techniques préparatoires, qui
incluent des estimations des coûts directs et indirects et des économies que la règlementation permettra de réaliser. Le
cas échéant, les incidences sur l'ensemble du système énergétique peuvent être prises en compte. Les hypothèses
formulées dans les modèles de coûts, notamment sur la façon dont les produits sont généralement utilisés aux heures
de pointe et en heures creuses, sont vérifiées avec les parties prenantes pour s'assurer qu'elles sont réalistes.

En ce qui concerne les externalités de la consommation d'énergie, la Commission a pris un certain nombre
d'initiatives (directive sur l'efficacité énergétique ( [2] ) et task force sur les réseaux intelligents ( [3] ), par exemple) afin de
mettre en place les structures et instruments nécessaires pour permettre une «réponse adaptée à la demande», c'est-àdire un outil servant à déplacer le pic de consommation vers les heures creuses et à mieux exploiter les sources
d'énergie renouvelables disponibles. En outre, le plan de travail «Écoconception» pour la période 2012‐2014 ( [4] )
prévoit que le domaine des appareils intelligents/compteurs intelligents fera l'objet d'études approfondies.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/125/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 21 octobre 2009 établissant un cadre pour la fixation d'exigences en matière

d'écoconception applicables aux produits liés à l'énergie (JO L 285 du 31.10.2009, p. 10).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/27/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 25 octobre 2012 relative à l'efficacité énergétique (JO L 315 du 14.11.2012, p. 1).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/taskforce_fr.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Établissement du plan de travail 2012‐2014 au titre de la directive relative à l'écoconception, SWD(2012) 434 final,

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/documents/eco-design/working-plan/files/comm-swd-2012-434-ecodesign_en.pdf

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003409/13**

**to the Commission**
**Françoise Grossetête (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Implementing regulations of the Ecodesign Directive

The Ecodesign Directive has been in force since 2009. The approach adopted at EU level is positive, thanks to the
establishment of a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products.

However, the functioning of the internal energy market today shows that the value of energy has a varying cost over
time, but the Ecodesign Directive does not take into account externalities or their cost. Therefore, lowering energy
consumption at off-peak times in order to increase it at peak times goes against the stated intention to reduce CO 2
emissions since the energy mix during peak consumption is very unfavourable compared with the mix at off-peak
times. Likewise, that entails strengthening electricity networks in order to incorporate the impact of the new
admissible equipment on the peak power. In the end, that represents an additional cost for consumers.

How is the Commission ensuring that externalities and their cost are taken into account in the implementing
regulations of the Ecodesign Directive?

How is it ensuring that the savings made on energy bills are not cancelled out by an increase in the cost of externalities
(necessary investments in the electricity network and higher CO 2 emissions)?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

According to the analysis of the Commission, Ecodesign ( [1] ) implementing regulations do not have an impact on the
time of the energy consumption. Instead they yield an overall reduction of energy consumption which generally leads
to a decrease in the need for generation, transmission and distribution capacities and help to relieve pressure on the
network. Thus, Ecodesign contributes to bringing down costs and CO 2 -emissions.

Ecodesign legislative proposals are preceded by technical preparatory studies, which include estimates of the direct
and indirect costs and savings that the regulation will introduce. Where relevant, impacts on the wider energy system
can be taken into account. Assumptions made in cost models, including patterns on how products are typically used
at peak and off-peak times, are checked with stakeholders to ensure they are realistic.

Regarding the externalities of energy consumption, the Commission has established a number of policy initiatives
(e.g. Energy Efficiency Directive ( [2] ) and Smart Grids Task Force ( [3] )) to put in place the structures and instruments that
are necessary to enable ‘demand response’ which is a tool to shift consumption peak to off peak times and to better
use the availability of renewable energy sources. Also, the Ecodesign Working Plan 2012-2014 ( [4] ) has identified smart
appliances/smart meters as an area for further study.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign

requirements for energy-related products, OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, pp. 10-35.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, pp. 1-56.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/taskforce_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Establishment of the Working Plan 2012-2014 under the Ecodesign Directive, SWD(2012) 434 final,

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/documents/eco-design/working-plan/files/comm-swd-2012-434-ecodesign_en.pdf

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 297

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003410/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Costo eccessivo dei libri scolastici in Italia rispetto agli altri paesi UE

L'Europa riconosce e promuove da sempre il diritto allo studio e all'accesso alla cultura, indipendentemente dal
reddito.

Coerentemente con tale impostazione, molti paesi europei hanno stabilito che è compito dello Stato farsi carico
integralmente o quasi dei costi legati all'istruzione dei cittadini, incluse le spese derivanti dall'acquisto obbligatorio dei
libri scolastici approvati dal ministero competente e adottati dalle scuole, testi che vengono pertanto forniti dallo
Stato oppure venduti a prezzi calmierati.

In Italia, invece, i costi dei libri scolastici si riversano interamente sul bilancio delle famiglie, già provate dalla crisi, e il
tetto di spesa fissato dal ministero, peraltro già elevato — si pensi che per uno studente del terzo anno di liceo classico
è ammessa, per l'anno scolastico 2012/2103, una spesa fino a 382 euro — viene spesso ampiamente superato: nelle
scuole italiane è prassi diffusa, infatti, fornire a inizio anno, in allegato all'elenco dei testi obbligatori — il cui costo
complessivo è pari o di poco inferiore alla soglia ministeriale — un secondo elenco contenente dei testi che,
formalmente, risulterebbero facoltativi, ma il cui acquisto viene di fatto richiesto a tutti gli alunni.

In un'ottica di integrazione europea e di riconoscimento e tutela del diritto allo studio, chiediamo alla Commissione
quali iniziative intenda intraprendere per favorire un'effettiva ed equa tutela di tale diritto per tutti i cittadini
dell'Unione.

**Risposta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione**

_(6 maggio 2013)_

Nel campo dell'istruzione, della formazione professionale e della cultura il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione
europea (TFUE) conferisce all'Unione esclusivamente la competenza per svolgere azioni intese a sostenere, coordinare
o completare l'azione degli Stati membri (articolo 6 del TFUE). Gli Stati membri sono principalmente responsabili per
quanto riguarda il contenuto dell'insegnamento e l'organizzazione del sistema di istruzione (articolo 165 del TFUE) e
l'Unione deve rispettare le diversità nazionali e regionali in ambito culturale (articolo 167 del TFUE). Ne deriva che il
diritto generale allo studio e all'accesso alla cultura, indipendentemente dal reddito, non ha una base giuridica nella
normativa UE. La Commissione non ha quindi autorità per intervenire nelle questioni sollevate dall'onorevole
deputato, le quali rimangono di responsabilità degli Stati membri e, sulla base del principio di sussidiarietà, sono
meglio trattate a livello nazionale.

C 12 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003410/13**

**to the Commission**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Excessive cost of school books in Italy compared with other EU countries

Europe has always recognised and encouraged the right to study and to have access to culture, regardless of income.

In line with this approach, many EU countries have decreed that it is the responsibility of the State to meet all (or
almost all) of the costs of the education of its citizens, including expenditure arising from the mandatory purchase of
school books approved by the relevant ministry and adopted by the schools, texts which are therefore provided by the
State or sold at controlled prices.

In Italy, however, the costs of school books must be covered in full by the budgets of families who are already afflicted
by the crisis, and the expenditure ceiling set by the ministry, which is already high — consider that for a student in the
third year of secondary school, for the 2012/2013 school year, expenditure of up to EUR 382 is allowed — is often
considerably exceeded: in fact in Italian schools it is common practice to issue, at the start of the year, in addition to
the list of mandatory texts — whose overall cost is equal to or only slightly under the ministerial threshold — a
second list containing texts which are officially optional, but which all students are actually required to purchase.

With a view to European integration and recognition of the right to study, we would ask the Commission which
initiatives it intends to implement to foster the effective and fair protection of this right for all EU citizens.

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

In the fields of education, vocational training and culture, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
(TFEU) only confers on the Union the competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the
actions of the Member States (Article 6 TFEU). Member States are in fact primarily responsible for the content of the
teaching and the organisation of their education systems (Article 165 TFEU) and the Union must respect national and
regional diversity in cultural matters (Article 167 TFEU). It follows that a general right to study and to have access to
culture, regardless of income, has no basis in EC law. The Commission has consequently no authority to intervene
with regard to the issues raised by the Honourable Member, which remain the responsibility of the Member States and
according to the principle of subsidiarity are better tackled at national level.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 299

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003411/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili violazioni del diritto comunitario e interferenze in merito alle procedure di approvazione del
progetto di un rigassificatore a Zaule, nel porto della città di Trieste

Nel porto di Trieste, a Zaule, la multinazionale Gas Natural Fenosa ha proposto, attraverso la società Gas Natural
Rigassificazione Italia S.p.A., la costruzione di un terminale di rigassificazione di gas naturale liquefatto. A questo
progetto si oppongono per motivi di danno ambientale, portuale e rischio di incidenti catastrofici i cittadini, le ONG
ambientaliste e le autorità locali e della confinante Repubblica di Slovenia, nonché la TAL, l'oleodotto transalpino che
da Zaule rifornisce Germania, Austria e Repubblica Ceca.

Il problema è all'attenzione del Parlamento europeo con le petizioni 483/2007 e 1147/2008 di Greenaction
Transnational e 1472/2009 di Alpe Adria Green. Attualmente, il ministero dell'Ambiente italiano ha in corso una
nuova procedura di VIA ai sensi della direttiva 2011/92/UE.

Nonostante tale procedura di valutazione non sia ancora conclusa, il ministro italiano dello Sviluppo economico,
delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti Corrado Passera ha dichiarato alla stampa di Trieste il 22 luglio 2012 ( [1] ) che il
terminale di rigassificazione «si deve fare a tutti i costi». Recentemente, alcuni quotidiani di Trieste del 19, 22 e
23 marzo 2013 ( [2] ) hanno affermato e documentato che funzionari di quel ministero starebbero sostenendo presso la
Commissione europea (DG Energia — Unità mercato interno I: Reti e iniziative regionali) il tentativo di Gas Natural
Fenosa di aggirare le opposizioni italiane e slovene inserendo il rigassificatore di Zaule fra le 13 infrastrutture
energetiche prioritarie che verranno previste e finanziate attraverso il piano per una rete energetica europea integrata
per il 2020 e oltre.

Lo scrivente chiede alla Commissione:

1. se e con quali procedure il rigassificatore in questione possa venire inserito e finanziato dall'UE tra le
infrastrutture energetiche prioritarie, nonostante le opposizioni succitate;

2. se le informazioni in possesso della Commissione possono escludere che il progetto comporti violazioni alle
direttive 2012/18/UE sugli incidenti rilevanti, 2011/92/UE sulla procedura VIA, con particolare riferimento
all'articolo 7, e 2001/42/CE sulla procedura VAS.

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

Per quanto riguarda i progetti nel campo del gas proposti nel Golfo di Trieste, incluso quello di Zaule, la Commissione
ha sottoposto a una valutazione continua tutte le informazioni inoltrate. Ad oggi non è stata riscontrata nessuna
prova relativa alla violazione del diritto dell'UE, tra l'altro perché non è stata ancora concessa alcuna autorizzazione
per lo sviluppo del progetto e perché non è ancora stato dato il via alla costruzione di nessuno dei progetti. Di fatto,
dalla valutazione di impatto ambientale aggiuntiva avviata nel gennaio 2013 è emerso che il progetto di Zaule non è
compatibile con il traffico marittimo attuale e futuro nel porto di Trieste. Il 15 aprile 2012 il Ministro dell'Ambiente
italiano ha firmato un decreto con cui si dispone che il promotore del progetto (Gas Natural) debba individuare un
nuovo sito dove realizzare l'impianto o che le autorità portuali triestine debbano rivedere il piano regolatore portuale
al fine di garantirne la compatibilità con il progetto di Zaule.

La Commissione continuerà a seguire attentamente gli sviluppi del caso e a valutare tutte le informazioni a lei
trasmesse da tutte le parti per assicurare il pieno rispetto delle disposizioni del diritto UE.

Al momento è in corso l'elaborazione un elenco unionale di progetti di interesse comune nel quadro del regolamento
sugli orientamenti per le TEN-E. Si prevede che tale elenco entri in vigore alla fine del 2013 o all'inizio del 2014. Il
progetto di Zaule potrebbe esservi incluso. Tuttavia l'effettiva inclusione sarà subordinata, ad esempio, all'esito della
ricerca di un nuovo sito per il progetto o di un'altra soluzione al problema ambientale summenzionato, nonché alla
relativa comunicazione alla Commissione nei tempi prestabiliti. I progetti di interesse comune beneficeranno di
procedure di concessione più rapide e di un migliore trattamento normativo, nonché della possibilità di accedere ai
finanziamenti del nuovo meccanismo per collegare l'Europa. i progetti nominati dovranno tuttavia rispettare il diritto
dell'UE, ivi compresa la legislazione ambientale.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/cronaca/2012/07/22/news/passera-il-rigassificatore-di-zaule-si-deve-fare-a-tutti-i-costi-1.5437103
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.lavoceditrieste.net/2013/03/19/passera-e-gas-natural-forzano-da-bruxelles-il-rigassificatore-che-trieste-rifiuta/ (La Voce di Trieste del

22.3.2013, edizione a stampa), e
http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/03/23/news/rigassificatore-pressing-di-passera-sull-ue-a-bruxelles-1.6747668

C 12 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003411/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible infringements of EC law and interference in the authorisation procedures for a projected
regasification plant at Zaule, in the port of Trieste

Gas Natural Fenosa, a multinational, represented by Gas Natural Rigassificazione Italia S.p.A., an Italian company, has
put forward a proposal to build an LNG (liquefied natural gas) regasification plant at Zaule, in the port of Trieste. In
view of the potential hazards, ranging from damage to environment and the port to cases of full-blown disaster, the
project is being opposed by citizens, environmentalist NGOs, the local authorities, the authorities in neighbouring
Slovenia, and the operators of the Transalpine Pipeline (TAL), which, starting in Zaule, supplies oil to Germany,
Austria, and the Czech Republic.

This matter was brought to the attention of the European Parliament by petitions 483/2007 and 1147/2008, by
Greenaction Transnational, and petition 1472/2009, by Alpe Adria Green. The Italian Ministry of the Environment is
currently carrying out a fresh EIA procedure under Directive 2011/92/EU.

Although that assessment procedure is still in progress, the Italian Minister for Economic Development,
Infrastructure, and Transport, Corrado Passera, is on record as saying — in an interview with the Trieste press
published on 22 July 2012 ( [1] ) — that the regasification plant has to be built at all costs. Recent editions of several
Trieste newspapers (19, 22, and 23 March 2013 ( [2] )) have carried reports, backed by corroborative evidence, that
ministry officials are seeking to secure support within the Commission (Energy DG — unit B.1, Internal Market I:
Networks and Regional Initiatives) for the attempt by Gas Natural Fenosa to circumvent the Italian and Slovenian
opposition by having the Zaule regasification plant included among the 13 energy infrastructure priorities to be laid
down in, and financed under, the blueprint for an integrated European energy network for 2020 and beyond.

1. Can the Commission say whether, and by what procedures, the regasification plant inquestion could be classed
as an energy infrastructure priority, and as such receive EUfunding, in spite of the opposition in the quarters listed
above?

2. In the light of the information in its possession, can it rule out the possibility that theproject would entail
infringements of Directive 2012/18/EU on major accidents,Directive 2011/92/EU on the EIA procedure, with
particular reference to Article 7, and Directive 2001/42/EC on the SEA procedure?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

As regards the gas projects proposed in the Gulf of Trieste, including Zaule, the Commission has continued assessing
all information brought to its attention. So far, no evidence of a breach of EC law has emerged _inter alia_ because no
development consent has yet been granted and construction has not started for any of the projects. In fact, additional
environmental impact assessment launched in January 2013 has found that the Zaule project is not compatible with
the current and future maritime traffic in the Trieste port. On 15 April 2013 the Italian Environment Minister signed
a decree according to which the project promoter (Gas Natural) should identify a new site or the Trieste Port
Authority should amend the Regulatory Port Plan to make it compatible with the Zaule project.

The Commission will continue to follow developments closely and to assess all information provided by any party, to
make sure the relevant provisions of EC law are duly observed.

Union-wide list of projects of common interest (PCIs) under the new TEN-E Guidelines Regulation is currently being
established and should enter into force by late 2013/early 2014. The Zaule project could potentially be included in
this list. However, this will depend on whether e.g. a new location for the project or another solution to the abovereferenced environmental problem can be found and communicated to the Commission in time. Projects labelled as
PCIs will benefit from faster permit procedures as well as improved regulatory treatment and will be eligible for
funding under the new Connecting Europe Facitiliy (CEF). However, PCIs must respect EC law, including EU
environmental law.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/cronaca/2012/07/22/news/passera-il-rigassificatore-di-zaule-si-deve-fare-a-tutti-i-costi-1.5437103
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.lavoceditrieste.net/2013/03/19/passera-e-gas-natural-forzano-da-bruxelles-il-rigassificatore-che-trieste-rifiuta/ ( _La Voce di Trieste_,

22.3.2013, printable version), and
http://ilpiccolo.gelocal.it/cronaca/2013/03/23/news/rigassificatore-pressing-di-passera-sull-ue-a-bruxelles-1.6747668

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 301

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003413/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Estereotipos de género de la franquicia Princelandia

En España opera una franquicia autorizada llamada Princelandia con más de 48 centros repartidos a lo largo de toda
la geografía del país, Italia y otros países del mundo. Dichos centros son calificados por la compañía como «el primer
SPA infantil de Europa», en dichos centros se maquilla y somete a diferentes tratamientos de belleza tan solo a niñas
de entre 4 y 12 años.

El Pleno del Parlamento Europeo aprobó el pasado 13 de marzo de 2013 una Resolución «sobre la eliminación de los
estereotipos de género en la EU» (P7_TA(2013)0074) por la que se insta a la acción de las Instituciones europeas, así
como a los Estados miembros a actuar y ejercer sus competencias correspondientes en esta materia. Dentro de dicha
Resolución se llama a la acción de Comisión y Estados miembros para eliminar el origen de dichos estereotipos de
género, así como a la concienciación de los niños europeos en los temas relativos a los estereotipos de género.

La citada franquicia Princelandia incumple la práctica totalidad de los puntos establecidos en dicha resolución, al
inculcar a las niñas pequeñas estereotipos de género basados en instituciones anacrónicas donde la mujer no es más
que un objeto de intercambio y nunca debe trabajar, donde su único fin es «ser guapa». Divide sexualmente a las niñas
y las especializa en tareas como el maquillaje, la manicura, los cortes de pelo, etc. lo que sin duda alguna afectará a su
socialización como individuo pleno y no como «princesitas». El riesgo del efecto educativo sobre los estereotipos de
género que tiene este tipo de actividades es patente y por eso consideramos que este tipo de negocios no deberían
existir.

Sin embargo, resultan aún más graves los premios que las instituciones están dando a dicho tipo de negocio. La Xunta
de Galicia (España) ha premiado esta actividad el pasado 2 de marzo como «concepto nacional más novedoso», así
como el pasado 3 de diciembre de 2012 recibió el segundo premio como «mejor franquicia en el mundo» en
Florencia, Italia.

¿Considera la Comisión que dicha franquicia se atiene a lo expuesto en la citada Resolución?, ¿como plantea la
Comisión poner en práctica lo estipulado en dicha Resolución?

¿Considera que la Comisión debe instar a los Estados miembros para regular o hacer efectiva la regulación en materia
de género para intervenir sobre la franquicia Princelandia?

¿Considera que la Xunta de Galicia debe retirar el premio otorgado a dicha franquicia por reproducir los estereotipos
de género y contradecir la citada Resolución?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(27 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión está comprometida con la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres y en la lucha contra los estereotipos de
género, dentro de los límites de sus competencias. Por ejemplo, en el pasado, la Comisión tomó la iniciativa de
proponer varias Directivas que prohibían la discriminación por razón de género.

Con arreglo a los Tratados de la Unión Europea, las Resoluciones del Parlamento Europeo como las citadas por Su
Señoría no son instrumentos jurídicos vinculantes. Por consiguiente, la Comisión no tiene potestad para garantizar
automáticamente su aplicación.

No obstante, como guardiana de los Tratados, la Comisión ha tomado y tomará todas las medidas necesarias para
garantizar la transposición correcta y completa en todos los Estados miembros de las Directivas de la Unión Europea
sobre la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres.

Por otro lado, corresponde a las autoridades nacionales, en el ejercicio de sus competencias, la adopción de medidas
contra los estereotipos de género.

C 12 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003413/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Gender stereotyping by the Princelandia franchise

An authorised franchise called Princelandia is operating in Spain. It has over 48 centres located across the country,
and more in Italy and in other countries around the world. The company describes these centres as ‘Europe’s first spa
for girls’. They provide makeovers and various beauty treatments solely for girls aged between 4 and 12.

On 13 March 2013, Parliament passed a resolution in plenary on ‘eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU’
(P7_TA(2013)0074), urging European institutions and Member States to act and exercise their competences as
appropriate to this matter. This Resolution calls on the Commission and Member States to act in order to eliminate
the causes of these gender stereotypes, and to raise awareness about gender stereotypes amongst European children.

The Princelandia franchise fails to comply with almost all of the content of this Resolution. It instils into young girls
gender stereotypes based on anachronistic institutions in which women are merely objects to be exchanged and
should never work, and in which their only purpose is to ‘be beautiful’. It sets girls aside on the basis of their gender
and teaches them skills in make-up, manicures and hairstyling, for example, which will undoubtedly affect their
development as rounded individuals rather than ‘little princesses’. Activities of this sort pose an obvious educational
risk in terms of gender stereotyping and we therefore believe that undertakings of this type should not exist.

Even more serious a matter, however, are the awards institutions are giving this kind of undertaking. On
2 March 2012, the Galician regional government (Spain) awarded this operation a prize for the ‘most innovative
national concept’. On 3 December 2012 it received its second prize as ‘best franchise in the world’ in Florence, Italy.

Does the Commission believe that this franchise is in line with the aforementioned Resolution? How does the
Commission intend to implement the provisions of this Resolution?

Does the Commission believe that Member States should be urged to regulate or implement regulation on gender
issues in order to deal with the Princelandia franchise?

Does it believe that the Galician regional government should withdraw the award given to this franchise for
reproducing gender stereotypes and contradicting the aforementioned Regulation?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

The Commission is committed to equality between men and women and to fight against gender stereotypes within
the limits of its competences. For example, in the past the Commission took the initiative of proposing several
Directives prohibiting gender based discrimination.

According to the European Union Treaties, resolutions of the European Parliament, such as the one the Honourable
Member refers to, are not binding legal instruments. Thus, the Commission per se does not have the power to
automatically ensure their implementation.

Nevertheless, as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission has taken and will take all necessary measures to ensure the
correct and complete transposition in all Member States of the European Union Directives on equality between men
and women.

In addition, it is for national authorities in the exercise of their competences to take measures against gender
stereotypes.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 303

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003414/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(26 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Επανασχεδιασμός σταθμού Βενιζέλου στο μετρό Θεσσαλονίκης και ευρωπαϊκή χρηματοδότηση

Μετά από αρχαιολογικές ανασκαφές, στο πλαίσιο εργασιών κατασκευής του σταθμού Βενιζέλου του μετρό Θεσσαλονίκης,
αποκαλύφθηκε ένα μοναδικό αρχαιολογικό σύνολο, το κέντρο της βυζαντινής Θεσσαλονίκης. Συγκεκριμένα, ήρθε στο φως ο
κεντρικός οδικός άξονας της βυζαντινής πόλης σε ολόκληρο το πλάτος του και σε μήκος 75 μέτρων στρωμένος με
μαρμάρινες πλάκες, 16 αιώνες από τότε που σχεδιάστηκε, τον 4ο αιώνα μ.X. Έχουν βρεθεί επίσης δημόσια κτίρια που
βρίσκονταν στα νότια του δρόμου και στέγαζαν εμπορικές χρήσεις.

Λόγω της σημασίας της βυζαντινής Θεσσαλονίκης, ως δεύτερης σε σημασία πόλης της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας μετά την
Κωνσταντινούπολη, οι βυζαντινές αρχαιότητες της Θεσσαλονίκης προστατεύονται από την Unesco. Επίσης, σύμφωνα με τον
Χάρτη της Βενετίας και όλες τις διεθνείς συμβάσεις προστασίας της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς, το αρχιτεκτονικό σύνολο που
βρέθηκε είναι αναγκαίο να διασωθεί in situ, καθώς έχει ιδιαίτερη σημασία για την ιστορική τοπογραφία της πόλης.

Είναι αναγκαίο να εξαντληθούν όλες οι δυνατότητες για τη συνύπαρξη των αρχαίων και του σταθμού. Να βρεθεί δηλαδή μία
τεχνική και αρχιτεκτονική λύση για την ταυτόχρονη λειτουργία σταθμού και έκθεσης των αρχαιοτήτων στον φυσικό τους
χώρο ώστε να διαφυλαχθεί η πολιτιστική κληρονομιά της Θεσσαλονίκης.

Δεδομένου ότι για την κατασκευή του μετρό έχει εξασφαλιστεί χρηματοδότηση από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Περιφερειακής
Ανάπτυξης (Γ' και Δ' ΚΠΣ), ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Θα επιτρέψει τη συνέχιση της χρηματοδότησης του έργου του μετρό Θεσσαλονίκης από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο
Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης σε περίπτωση επανασχεδιασμού της κατασκευής του συγκεκριμένου σταθμού ώστε να
παραμείνουν οι αρχαιότητες στο φυσικό τους χώρο;

**Απάντηση της κ. Βασιλείου εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(23 Μαΐου 2013)_

H Επιτροπή θα ήθελε να παραπέμψει τον κύριο βουλευτή στην απάντησή της στη γραπτή ερώτηση E-001616/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/el/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003414/13**

**to the Commission**

**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New plans for Venizelou station on Thessaloniki metro and European financing

Archaeological excavations during works to construct Venizelou station on the Thessaloniki metro have uncovered a
unique archaeological site: the centre of Byzantine Thessaloniki. The main road through the Byzantine city, which is
paved with marble, has been uncovered across its entire width and over a length of 75 metres, 16 centuries after it
was built in the 4th century A.D. Public buildings used for commercial purposes have also been found on the south
side of the road.

Due to the importance of Byzantine Thessaloniki, as the second most important city in the Byzantine Empire after
Constantinople, Byzantine antiquities in Thessaloniki are protected by Unesco. Also, according to the Venice Charter
and every other international convention to protect cultural heritage, the architectural site discovered needs to be
conserved _in situ_, as it is very important to the historical layout of the city.

Every possible way of enabling the site and the station to function side by side needs to be exhausted. In other words,
a technical and architectural solution needs to be found so that the station and an exhibition of the archaeological site
can function simultaneously, in order to preserve the cultural heritage of Thessaloniki.

As construction of the metro is being financed by the European Regional Development Fund (CSF III and IV), will the
Commission say:

Will it leave financing of the Thessaloniki metro project by the European Regional Development Fund in place if the
station in question is re-planned, so that the archaeological site can be preserved _in situ_ ?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-001616/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 305

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003415/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL)**

_(26. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Weiterbehandlung des Curuguaty-Falls

In früheren Antworten auf Anfragen zu den der Vorfällen in Curuguaty (Paraguay) und deren Behandlung durch die
zuständigen Behörden erklärte die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin, dass die EU-Delegation in Asunción das
Rechtsverfahren gegen die 14 Kleinbauern verfolgt und darüber berichtet. Dieser Angelegenheit gebührt höchste
Aufmerksamkeit, denn die Vorfälle, die sich am 15. Juni 2012 in Curuguaty ereigneten, führten unmittelbar zum
politischen Verfahren gegen den damaligen Präsidenten Fernando Lugo und zu seiner anschließenden
Amtsenthebung.

Zahlreiche Aspekte des Rechtsverfahrens werfen jedoch Zweifel auf, ob Mindeststandards im Hinblick auf ein
ordentliches Verfahren eingehalten wurden. Besonders besorgniserregend erscheint, dass

—
der für diesen Fall zuständige Staatsanwalt (Jalil Rachid) ein enger Freund der Familie Riquelme ist: Sein Vater
war eng mit Blas Riquelme befreundet, der die umstrittenen Marina-Cue-Ländereien für sich beansprucht;

—
Jalil Rachid selbst auf einer Pressekonferenz erklärte, er hätte nicht herausfinden können, wer die Polizisten
getötet hätte, aber er hätte die 12 Bauern angeklagt, weil es außer Frage stehe, dass die Polizisten aus dem
Hinterhalt überfallen wurden ( [1] );

—
die Angeklagten in der Sache Marina Cue in Präventivhaft gehalten wurden, obwohl keine Beweise vorgelegt
wurden, die den Verdacht, dass die Angeklagten die Straftat begangen hätten, tatsächlich belegen, was eindeutig
ein Verstoß gegen die Prozessordnung ist.

Bisher hat das Verfahren das Leben von Vidal Vega gekostet, der ein Hauptzeuge der Verteidigung war und ermordet
wurde, und das Leben mehrerer anderer der Angeklagten, die in den Hungerstreik getreten sind, gefährdet.

Hält es die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin angesichts der schweren Bedenken hinsichtlich der Unparteilichkeit, der
Unabhängigkeit und des Rechts auf ein faires Verfahren, die aufgrund der genannten Punkte aufgeworfen werden,
und angesichts der offensichtlichen Unfähigkeit der paraguayischen Behörden, einen anderen Weg einzuschlagen,
nicht für unbedingt notwendig, dass sich die EU für die Entsendung einer internationalen Mission einsetzt, die das
Massaker von Curuguaty aufklären soll, das der Demokratie in Paraguay so schwer geschadet hat?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(24. Mai 2013)_

Die EU verfolgt die Vorfälle im Zusammenhang mit dem Massaker in Curuguaty und die Tötung von Vidal Vega sehr
aufmerksam.

Da die polizeilichen Ermittlungen in beiden Fällen derzeit noch nicht abgeschlossen sind, erscheint es gegenwärtig
allerdings nicht angebracht, öffentlich Stellung zu nehmen oder die Situation zu bewerten.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2013/03/13/1429847/paraguay-piden-atencion-para-presas.html

C 12 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003415/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Follow-up to the Curuguaty case

In previous replies to inquiries regarding Paraguay’s Curuguaty events and the handling of these by the relevant
authorities, the Vice-President/High Representative has declared that the legal process against the 14 peasants is being
followed and reported by the EU delegation in Asuncion. Attention to this matter is of the utmost importance, since
the events that took place in Curuguaty on 15 June 2012 were the direct cause of the political trial against former
president Fernando Lugo and of his subsequent impeachment.

However, many aspects of the legal procedure raise doubts as to whether minimum compliance with due process has
been observed. We are particularly concerned that:

—
the public prosecutor responsible for this case (Jalil Rachid) is a close friend of the Riquelme family: his father
was an intimate friend of Blas Riquelme, who claims ownership of the disputed Marina Cue lands;

—
Mr Rachid himself stated during a press conference that he had not been able to find out who killed the
policemen, but had decided to indict the 12 croppers because ‘it was very clear that the police were
ambushed’ ( [1] );

—
in clear contravention of the code of judicial procedure, the Marina Cue defendants have been held in
preventive imprisonment despite the fact that no evidence has been produced which could reasonably support
the assumption that they were the perpetrators of the offence.

So far this trial has cost the life of Vidal Vega, a key witness for the defence who was murdered, and has put in
jeopardy the lives of several of the accused who went on hunger strike.

In view of the serious doubts as to impartiality, independence and the right to a fair trial raised by the above, and the
apparent inability on the part of the Paraguayan authorities to adopt a different course of action, does the VicePresident/High Representative not think it essential that the EU encourage the sending of an international mission to
attempt to shed light on the Curuguaty massacre, which has done such serious damage to democracy in Paraguay?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 May 2013)_

The EU is critically observing events around the Curuguaty massacre and the killing of Mr Vidal Vega.

Police investigations on both cases are ongoing and it seems thus inappropriate to take any public position and
express any judgment on the situation for the moment.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2013/03/13/1429847/paraguay-piden-atencion-para-presas.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 307

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003416/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(26 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ανακτήσεις σε σχέση με το οικονομικό έτος 2010 για τη ΓΔ AGRI

Σύμφωνα με την ετήσια έκθεση δραστηριοτήτων 2011 της ΓΔ AGRI, το 2011 (σε σχέση με το οικονομικό έτος 2010), ο
κανόνας 50/50 εφαρμόστηκε με τις αποφάσεις της Επιτροπής 2011/272/ΕΕ της 29ης Απριλίου 2011, που ενέκριναν όλες
τις εκκρεμείς περιπτώσεις μη ανάκτησης που χρονολογούνται από το 2006 ή το 2002 (περιπτώσεις 4 ή 8 ετών αντίστοιχα).
Ποσό ύψους 27,8 εκατ. ευρώ βάρυνε με τον τρόπο αυτό τα κράτη μέλη και 29,3 εκατ. ευρώ καλύφθηκε από τον
προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για λόγους μη ανάκτησης (από τα 50,7 εκατ. ευρώ που δηλώθηκαν μη ανακτηθέντα από τα κράτη
μέλη, τα 21,5 εκατ. ευρώ είχαν ήδη εκκαθαρισθεί δυνάμει του κανόνα 50/50 και, ως εκ τούτου, η απώλεια μοιράζεται μεταξύ
της ΕΕ και των κρατών μελών). Ένα επιπλέον ποσόν ύψους 0,6 εκατ. ευρώ έχει βαρύνει τα κράτη μέλη στις αρχές του 2012
από τις μεταγενέστερες αποφάσεις της Επιτροπής για την εκκαθάριση των λογαριασμών για το οικονομικό έτος 2010 των
οργανισμών εκείνων πληρωμών που διαχωρίστηκαν τον Απρίλιο του 2011.

Θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει μια λεπτομερή ανάλυση των κρατών μελών που είχαν χρεωθεί το ποσό των 27,8 εκατ.
ευρώ και, επίσης, σε σχέση με το περαιτέρω ποσόν των 0,6 εκατ. ευρώ που χρεώθηκε στη συνέχεια;

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003417/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(26 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ανακτήσεις σε σχέση με το οικονομικό έτος 2010 για τη ΓΔ AGRI

Σύμφωνα με την ετήσια έκθεση δραστηριοτήτων 2011 της ΓΔ AGRI, το 2011 και βάσει των διαθεσίμων το Μάρτιο του
2012 πληροφοριών, τα κράτη μέλη ανέκτησαν 172,7 εκατ. ευρώ από τους δικαιούχους κατά το οικονομικό έτος 2011 και
το συνολικό ποσόν η ανάκτηση του οποίου έως τα τέλη του ιδίου έτους εκκρεμεί, ανέρχεται σε 1 206,9 εκατ. ευρώ. Οι
οικονομικές συνέπειες της μη ανάκτησης για τις περιπτώσεις που χρονολογούνται από το 2007 ή το 2003, θα πρέπει να
καθορίζονται σύμφωνα με τον κανόνα 50/50, καταλογίζοντας στα ενδιαφερόμενα κράτη μέλη 12,6 εκατ. ευρώ περίπου.
Επιπλέον, 25,7 εκατ. ευρώ περίπου θα βαρύνουν τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για τις περιπτώσεις που αναφέρθηκαν ως μη
ανακτήσιμες κατά τη διάρκεια του οικονομικού έτους 2011. Συνεπεία της εφαρμογής του κανόνα 50/50 για έκτη φορά από
την καθιέρωσή του, υψηλά μη ανακτηθέντα ποσά έχουν ήδη χρεωθεί στα κράτη μέλη για τις δαπάνες του ΕΓΤΕ (458
εκατομμύρια ευρώ). Ως εκ τούτου, από το ποσόν των 1 206,9 εκατ. ευρώ που πρέπει να ανακτηθεί από τους τελικούς
δικαιούχους στα τέλη του οικονομικού έτους 2011, το εκκρεμούν ποσό που οφείλεται στον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ
περιορίστηκε στα 943,5 εκατομμύρια.

Θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει:

1. Μια λεπτομερή κατανομή ανά κράτος μέλος του ποσού των 12,6 εκατ. ευρώ, με το οποίο θα επιβαρυνθούν τα κράτη
μέλη;

2. Μια λεπτομερή κατανομή ανά κράτος μέλος του ποσού των 458 εκατ. ευρώ σε μη ανακτηθέντα ποσά που έχουν
χρεωθεί στις δαπάνες του ΕΓΤΠΕ;

3. Μια λεπτομερή κατανομή ανά κράτος μέλος του εκκρεμούντος ποσού που πρέπει να ανακτηθεί από τους τελικούς
δικαιούχους μετά την εφαρμογή του κανόνα 50/50 (π.χ. το ποσόν των 943,5 εκατ. ευρώ);

**Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Cioloş εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(15 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή διαβιβάζει απευθείας στο αξιότιμο μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου, καθώς και στη γραμματεία του Κοινοβουλίου δύο
πίνακες που περιέχουν τις ζητηθείσες πληροφορίες.

C 12 E / 308 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003416/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Recoveries relating to the financial year 2010 by DG AGRI

According to the 2011 Annual Activity Report of DG AGRI, in 2011 (in connection with the financial year 2010) the
50/50 rule was applied by Commission Decision 2011/272/EU of 29 April 2011, which cleared all pending nonrecovered cases dating from 2006 or 2002 (cases that were 4 or 8 years old respectively). EUR 27.8 million was
charged to the Member States in this way, and EUR 29.3 million was borne by the EU budget for reasons of
irrecoverability (out of EUR 50.7 million declared irrecoverable by the Member States, EUR 21.5 million had already
been cleared under the 50/50 rule, so that the loss was shared between the EU and the Member States). A further
EUR 0.6 million was charged to Member States in early 2012 by subsequent Commission Decisions on clearance of
the accounts for the 2010 financial year of those paying agencies whose accounts were disjoined in April 2011.

Could the Commission provide us with a detailed breakdown of the Member States that were charged the
EUR 27.8 million and the subsequent EUR 0.6 million?

**Question for written answer E-003417/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Recoveries relating to the financial year 2011 by DG AGRI

According to the 2011 Annual Activity Report of DG AGRI, based on the information available in March 2012,
Member States recovered EUR 172.7 million from beneficiaries during financial year 2011, and the overall
outstanding amount still to be recovered from the beneficiaries at the end of that financial year was EUR 1
206.9 million. The financial consequences of non-recovery for cases dating from 2007 or 2003 will be determined in
accordance with the 50/50 rule by charging the Member States concerned approximately EUR 12.6 million.
Moreover, some EUR 25.7 million will be borne by the EU budget for cases reported irrecoverable during financial
year 2011. As a result of the application of the 50/50 rule for the sixth time since its introduction, major nonrecovered sums have already been charged to the Member States for EAGF expenditure (EUR 458 million).
Consequently, of the EUR 1 206.9 million to be recovered from the final beneficiaries at the end of financial year
2011, the amount outstanding owed to the EU budget was limited to EUR 943.5 million.

Could the Commission provide:

1. A detailed breakdown by Member State of the EUR 12.6 million that the Member States will be charged?

2. A detailed breakdown by Member State of the EUR 458 million in non-recovered sums charged for EAGF
expenditure?

3. A detailed breakdown by Member State of the outstanding amount that needs to be recovered from the final
beneficiaries after the application of the 50/50 rule (i.e. the EUR 943.5 million)?

**Joint answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat two tables containing
the information requested.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 309

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003418/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nessa Childers (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Transparency of Commission expert groups

Expert groups provide expertise on a multitude of important issues, guiding the Commission’s thinking and shaping
legislation on important public issues such as regulation of banks, food safety standards and the privatisation of
public services.

The Commission recently outlined the progress it had made and the steps it had taken towards meeting the
conditions outlined by Parliament with a view to preventing industry dominance by these influential advisory groups.

Would the Commission agree that very little progress has been made in meeting Parliament’s conditions?

How will the Commission ensure that in future the composition of expert groups is balanced, there is a ban on
lobbyists sitting in a personal capacity, public calls for applications are issued, and full transparency measures are
implemented?

**Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission**

_(25 April 2013)_

Commission expert groups do not take binding decisions, although they may formulate opinions and
recommendations or submit reports. They are first and foremost _fora_ for discussion and brainstorming, the primary
function of which is to provide the Commission with high-level expertise.

The Commission considers that significant progress was made in improving the implementation of Commission's
rules on expert groups and remains committeed to ensure full implementation of those rules in the future. The
Commission has provided clear evidence that it has met its engagements, by making important efforts to respond to
Parliament's concerns. This has led the EP to lift the reserve previously placed in the 2012 budget with regard to
expert groups.

The composition of many groups was rebalanced since 2012. Unfortunately, for certain groups despite calls for
application and direct invitations from Commission departments, it was not possible to appoint enough new
members; this is often due to the limited number of applications received and to the fact that some applications were
not deemed suitable in relation to the work to be performed. However, Commission services remain prepared to
examine possible additional applications from interested NGOs or civil society groups.

Over the past few years, the Commission has put a lot of efforts to enhance transparency. The Register of expert
groups has been greatly improved; it now includes, _inter alia_, relevant documents produced by groups and a ‘News
Section’ including calls for applications.

Following a screening of the groups which include members appointed in a personal capacity, Commission services
recognised that experts of many groups were incorrectly displayed on the Register; this was corrected.

C 12 E / 310 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003419/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(26 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Tegenstrijdige verklaringen van commissaris Füle en speciale EU-vertegenwoordiger Léon over het „meer voor
meer”-beginsel en Egypte

Op 20 maart 2013 stelde de Commissie het pakket „Europees nabuurschapsbeleid” ( [1] ) voor. Ter gelegenheid daarvan
gaf Štefan Füle, commissaris voor Uitbreiding en Europees nabuurschapsbeleid, een toespraak voor de Commissie
buitenlandse zaken van het Parlement ( [2] ), en had hij een onderhoud met de pers ( [3] ). Die pers citeerde de commissaris
achteraf als volgt: „Egypte moet dit jaar en volgend jaar presteren in ruil voor die 5 miljard euro”, „Dit is hoe we ons
punt kunnen maken” en „Egypte behoort tot dusver niet tot de landen die onder het „meer voor meer”-beginsel vallen
of in aanmerking komen voor bijkomende middelen” ( [4] ). Deze verklaringen werden echter niet opgenomen in de
schriftelijke neerslag van de toespraak van de commissaris of van zijn ontmoeting met de pers. Op 21 maart 2013
kwam een Egyptische krant met een reactie van Bernardino Léon, de speciale vertegenwoordiger van de EU voor het
zuidelijke Middellandse Zeegebied, op de uitspraken van commissaris Füle. Het artikel gaf aan dat „de ambassade
verklaarde dat Füle het specifiek over extra middelen voor democratische hervormingen had, niet over steun in het
algemeen. Speciale EU-vertegenwoordiger Bernardino Léon had aan Al-Masry Al-Youm verteld dat Europa het in
november eens was geraakt over een toewijzing van 5,6 miljard EUR aan Egypte” ( [5] ).

1. Kan de Commissie de aan commissaris Füle toegeschreven uitspraken bevestigen en onderschrijven? Zo ja, in
welk licht moeten de reacties van de heer Léon dan worden gezien? Waarom zijn de uitspraken niet opgenomen in de
schriftelijke neerslag van de ontmoeting met de pers?

2. Kan de Commissie toelichting geven bij de „extra middelen” waar de heer Léon het over had? Kan zij aangeven
om wat voor geld en hoeveel geld het gaat, waarvoor het zal worden gebruikt en onder welke voorwaarden Egypte er
aanspraak op kan maken?

3. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat er tot dusver geen geld is toegewezen aan Egypte of andere landen van het
Europees nabuurschapsbeleid uit hoofde van het „meer voor meer”-beginsel? Zo niet, waarom niet?

4. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat, zolang de nieuwe verordening betreffende het Europees
nabuurschapsinstrument niet is vastgesteld door de Commissie, de Raad en het Parlement, de „meer voor meer”benadering eigenlijk niet wordt ingevuld met concrete financiële mechanismen?

5. Kan de Commissie duidelijk maken wie de hoofdverantwoordelijkheid voor het „meer voor meer”-beginsel
draagt? Is dat de commissaris voor Uitbreiding en Europees nabuurschapsbeleid of de hoge vertegenwoordiger?

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(14 juni 2013)_

Overeenkomstig de nieuwe benadering van het ENB ( [6] ) met grotere nadruk op het „meer voor meer”-beginsel, heeft de
Commissie in 2011 twee programma's opgezet (het Spring-programma ( [7] ) voor zuidelijke buurlanden en EaPIC ( [8] )
voor oostelijke buurlanden) die in extra financiële middelen voorzien voor partners die op het gebied van
democratische en politieke hervormingen vooruitgang hebben geboekt. Voor de periode 2012-2013 bedragen deze
extra financiële middelen 742 miljoen euro. Slechts een deel ervan is uitbetaald. De Spring‐ en EaPIC-programma's
zijn voorlopers van een permanenter mechanisme dat in de nieuwe ENI ( [9] )-verordening zal worden opgenomen.
Commissaris Füle beslist in nauwe samenwerking met de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter over de toewijzing
van extra financiële middelen.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/news/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-246_en.htm?locale=en
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-245_en.htm?locale=en
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://news.yahoo.com/eu-tells-egypt-better-reforms-face-aid-cuts-084407960.html
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/eu-embassy-denies-rumors-cutting-egypt-aid
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Europees nabuurschapsbeleid.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) SPRING: Support for Partnership Reform and Inclusive Growth (steun voor partnerschap, hervorming en inclusieve groei).
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Eastern Partnership Integration and Cooperation (Integratie‐ en Samenwerkingsprogramma in het kader van het Oostelijk Partnerschap).
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Europees nabuurschapsinstrument (ENI).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 311

De bijstand van 5 miljard euro die op 14 november 2012 in het kader van de taskforce EU-Egypte is toegezegd,
bestaat uit gezamenlijke verbintenissen voor 2012-2013 uit ENPI ( [10] )–middelen van de EU voor bilaterale
samenwerking, tot 500 miljoen euro macrofinanciële bijstand van de EU ‐waarvoor een overeenkomst tussen Egypte
en het IMF ( [11] ) een eerste voorwaarde is — en tot jaarlijks 1 miljard euro aan mogelijke toewijzingen van
respectievelijk de EIB ( [12] ) en de EBWO ( [13] ). Tot dusver is slechts een klein deel van de toewijzing van de EU (met
betrekking tot de EU-programma's voor 2012 voor een bedrag van 183 miljoen euro) toegewezen. Projecten die door
de EIB en de EBWO worden gefinancierd, moeten aan de procedures van deze instellingen voldoen.

Zoals commissaris Füle in zijn toespraak van 20 maart 2013 heeft aangegeven, is in het kader van het Springprogramma 90 miljoen euro toegewezen aan Egypte. Aangezien Egypte nog niet heeft ingestemd met de
voorwaarden die aan de uitbetaling ervan zijn verbonden, zijn deze financiële middelen nog niet uitgekeerd. Zoals de
hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter in het debat in het Parlement op 13 maart 2013 heeft aangegeven, „is [de
totale EU-financiering] afhankelijk van overeenkomsten met het IMF en, wat net zo belangrijk is, van de vooruitgang
in de politieke dialoog”.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) Europees nabuurschaps‐ en partnerschapsinstrument.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) Internationaal Monetair Fonds.
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) Europese Investeringsbank.
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) Europese Bank voor wederopbouw en ontwikkeling.

C 12 E / 312 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003419/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marietje Schaake (ALDE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Conflicting statements by Commissioner Füle and EU Special Representative León on ‘more for more’ and
Egypt

On 20 March 2013 the Commission presented the ‘European Neighbourhood Policy package’ (the ‘Package’) ( [1] ). On
that occasion Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy, gave a speech to Parliament’s
Foreign Affairs Committee ( [2] ) and participated in a press point ( [3] ). Subsequent press reports quoted the Commissioner
as having made the following statements: ‘Egypt has to deliver for those up to 5 billion euros this year and next’, ‘This
is the way how we could strengthen our point’ and ‘Egypt has not been one of those countries benefiting from the
“more-for-more” principle and extra resource’ ( [4] ). However, these statements are not included in the transcript of the
Commissioner’s speech to Parliament or in the press point. On 21 March 2013 an Egyptian newspaper, referring to
remarks made by Bernardino León, EU Special Representative for the Southern Mediterranean Region, in response to
the statements by Commissioner Füle, stated that ‘the embassy said Füle was talking specifically about extra money
earmarked for democratic reforms, not about aid in general. EU representative Benardino León had told Al-Masry AlYoum that Europe agreed in November to support Egypt with 5.6 billion euros’ ( [5] ).

1. Can the Commission confirm and endorse the statements which Commissioner Füle is quoted as having made?
If so, how should the responses by Mr León be interpreted? Why are the quotations not included in the transcript of
the press point?

2. Can the Commission comment on the ‘extra money’ Mr León talked about, and specify what money this is, how
much is involved, what it will be used for and under what conditions it could be granted to Egypt?

3. Can the Commission confirm that, to date, no money has been granted to Egypt or any other European
Neighbourhood Policy country under the ‘more for more’ principle? If not, why not?

4. Can the Commission confirm that, until the new European Neighbourhood Instrument Regulation is adopted
by the Commission, the Council and Parliament, ‘more for more’ does not formally exist in terms of concrete financial
mechanisms?

5. Can the Commission explain whether the Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy or the
High Representative is the Commissioner with prime responsibility for the ‘more for more’ principle?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 June 2013)_

In line with the new approach to the ENP ( [6] ) stressing the ‘more for more’ principle, the Commission has launched in
2011 two programmes (SPRING ( [7] ) for Southern neighbours and EaPIC ( [8] ) for Eastern neighbours) channelling
additional resources to partners that have demonstrated progress in democratic and political reforms. These funds
amount to EUR 742 million over the 2011-2013 period. Only part of this funding has been disbursed. SPRING and
EaPIC programmes are precursors of a more permanent mechanism to be reflected in the new ENI ( [9] ) regulation.
Decisions on allocations of additional funding are taken by Commissioner Füle in full cooperation with the HR/VP.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/news/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-246_en.htm?locale=en
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-245_en.htm?locale=en
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://news.yahoo.com/eu-tells-egypt-better-reforms-face-aid-cuts-084407960.html
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/eu-embassy-denies-rumors-cutting-egypt-aid
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) European Neighbourhood Policy.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Support to Partnership, Reform and Inclusive Growth.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Eastern Partnership Integration and Cooperation.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) European Neighbourhood Instrument.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 313

Regarding the EUR 5 billion package announced in the framework of the EU-Egypt Task Force on
14 November 2012, it consists of the combined commitments for 2012-2013 from the EU bilateral ENPI ( [10] )
funding, EU Macro-Financial Assistance of up to EUR 500 million — for which an Egypt-IMF ( [11] ) arrangement is a
precondition — and the possible allocations of up to EUR 1 billion annually by the EIB ( [12] ) and the EBRD ( [13] )
respectively. Until now, only a fraction of the EU allocation (relating to EU programmes for 2012 amounting to
EUR 183 million) has been committed. Projects financed by the EIB and EBRD will have to follow the procedures of
these institutions.

As Commissioner Füle indicated in his intervention on 20 March 2013, EUR 90 million have been allocated to Egypt
under SPRING, but these funds have not yet been disbursed as the conditionalities linked to the disbursement have
not yet been agreed by Egypt. As the HR/VP indicated in the debate at Parliament on 13 March 2013, the overall EU
funding ‘does depend on agreements with the IMF and, just as importantly, the movement on the political dialogue’.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) European Neighbourhood & Partnership Instrument.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) International Monetary Fund.
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) European Investment Bank.
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

C 12 E / 314 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003420/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE) und Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(26. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Auszahlungsstand Kohäsionspolitik und Erasmus

Die Kommission hat Erstattungsanträge im Rahmen der Kohäsionspolitik (Rubrik 1B) aufgrund fehlender
Haushaltsmittel nicht zeitgemäß bedient. In Deutschland konnten so zum Stand 31.12.2012 Erstattungsanträge vom
ESF in Höhe von 652 Mio. EUR und vom EFRE in Höhe von 714 Mio. EUR nicht erstattet werden, obwohl die
Erstattung im Jahr 2012 hätte stattfinden müssen (Quelle: Kommissionsdokument Ref. Ares(2013)78000 —
22.1.2013). Insgesamt muss die Kommission laut eigenen Angaben noch EU-weit Erstattungsanträge im Rahmen der
Kohäsionspolitik aus dem Vorjahr in Höhe von 16,2 Mrd. EUR mit Mitteln des Haushalts 2013 bedienen. Die
Kommission hatte auch auf das Risiko von Zahlungsschwierigkeiten im Rahmen von Erasmus hingewiesen
(MEMO/12/906).

Die Kommission hat im Haushaltsjahr 2012 bei verschiedenen Programmen der Kohäsionspolitik überhaupt keine
Zahlungen getätigt, z. B. ESF-Programme (z. B. 2007DE052PO001) und EFRE (z. B. 2007DE161PO002) (Quelle:
Kommissionsdokument SFAS_Report_Current_Year_2007-2013 — Tabelle 3a ERDF und Tabelle 3a ESF). Dies ist
auch bei anderen Mitgliedstaaten der Fall.

1. In welcher Höhe und zu welchem Zeitpunkt sind seit Oktober 2012 bis heute Erstattungsanträge durch die
Bundesländer in Deutschland und das deutsche Bundesprogramm in Bezug auf die Kohäsionspolitik (EFRE, ESF und
Interreg), ELER und Erasmus eingegangen? Wann sind die Beträge durch die Kommission erstattet worden?

2. Ist die Kommission momentan in der Lage, die Erstattungsanträge zeitgemäß zu bedienen (Frist von 2 Monaten)
oder kommt es zu Verzögerungen? Wie beabsichtigt die Kommission zu gewährleisten, dass über die gesamte Dauer
des Haushaltsjahres 2013 das Zahlungsziel von 2 Monaten erfüllt wird?

3. Nach welchen Kriterien und Prioritäten wurden regionale Programme der Kohäsionspolitik bzw.
Förderschwerpunkte für Zahlungen ausgewählt? Warum haben zahlreiche Programme im Haushaltsjahr 2012 keine
Auszahlungen erhalten? Hat die Kommission Zahlungen aufgrund der angespannten Haushaltslage auch schon vor
Oktober 2012 nicht getätigt bzw. verschoben? Wenn ja: in welcher Höhe und für wie lange?

**Antwort von Herrn Hahn im Namen der Kommission**

_(17. Mai 2013)_

1. Die Kommission übersendet der Frau Abgeordneten und dem Herrn Abgeordneten persönlich sowie dem
Sekretariat des Parlaments eine Tabelle mit den gewünschten Informationen. Für Erasmus leistete die Kommission am
18. Januar 2013 eine zweite Vorauszahlung in Höhe von 12 128 600 EUR (Antrag eingegangen am 29. Oktober
2012).

2. Die Zahlungen erfolgen in der Regel binnen zwei Monaten, allerdings vorbehaltlich der Verfügbarkeit von
Haushaltsmitteln ( [1] ). Wenn, wie dies derzeit der Fall ist, Liquiditätsengpässe bestehen und keine Haushaltsmittel zur
Verfügung stehen, kann die Kommission die Zahlungen nicht fristgerecht leisten.

Die Kommission hat den Höchstbetrag an Einnahmen zur Deckung der EGFL-Ausgaben abgerufen und am 27. März
2013 im Entwurf des Berichtigungshaushaltsplans 2 für die Kohäsionspolitik 9 Mrd. EUR beantragt. Je eher die
Haushaltsbehörde den Vorschlag annimmt, desto eher können die Zahlungen rechtzeitig geleistet werden. Der
Haushaltsausschuss wurde am 20. Februar darüber in Kenntnis gesetzt, dass aufgrund des größeren
Zahlungsrückstands zum Ende des Jahres 2012 die Anfang des Jahres 2013 aufgetretenen Liquiditätsengpässe länger
als 2012 fortbestehen könnten.

3. Die Kommission bearbeitet die zuerst eingegangenen Zahlungsanträge für die Kohäsionspolitik zuerst. In Zeiten
einer angespannten Haushaltslage wird den Anträgen von Mitgliedstaaten Vorrang eingeräumt, denen Unterstützung
im Rahmen von Finanzhilfeprogrammen gewährt wird.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artikel 87 Absatz 2 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1083/2006 des Rates.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 315

Bei Programmen, für die 2012 keine Zahlungen geleistet wurden, sind entweder im Laufe des Jahres keine
Zahlungsanträge eingereicht oder die Zahlungsanträge unterbrochen oder ausgesetzt worden, oder es wurde nur ein
Zahlungsantrag eingereicht und zwar so spät zum Jahresende, dass die zur Verfügung stehenden Mittel ausgeschöpft
waren, bevor die Anträge bedient werden konnten.

Zwei ESF-Zahlungen ( [2] ) erfolgten aufgrund mangelnder Haushaltsmittel Ende Juli 2012 mit Verzögerung. Den
entsprechenden Anträgen wurde Folge geleistet, sowie Ende 2012 zusätzliche Mittel für den ESF zur Verfügung
standen. Vor Oktober 2012 waren für den EFRE keine ungewöhnlichen Zahlungsfristen aufgrund fehlender
Haushaltsmittel zu verzeichnen.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Programm 2007DE052PO002, Rechnungsdatum 26.7.2012, Betrag: 39 498 400,24 EUR gezahlt am 18.12.2012, sowie Programm
2007DE052PO003, Rechnungsdatum 24.9.2012, Betrag: 36 749 888,47 EUR, gezahlt am 19.12.2012.

C 12 E / 316 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003420/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE) and Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Level of cohesion policy and Erasmus disbursements

The Commission is behind with the payment of requests for reimbursement under cohesion policy (heading 1B) on
account of a lack of budgetary resources. Thus, as at 31 December 2012, it had not been possible for requests for
reimbursement from the European Social Fund (ESF) amounting to EUR 652 million and from the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) amounting to EUR 714 million in Germany to be paid, although payments should have
been made for reimbursements for 2012 (source: Commission document Ares(2013)78000 — 22 January 2013).
According to information provided by the Commission itself, it still has to pay requests for reimbursement under
cohesion policy from last year amounting to EUR 16.2 billion EU-wide with funds from the 2013 budget. The
Commission has also mentioned the risk of problems with payments in connection with Erasmus (MEMO/12/906).

During the 2012 financial year, the Commission made no payments at all for various cohesion policy programmes
e.g. ESF programmes (e.g. 2007DE052PO001) and ERDF programmes (e.g. 2007DE161PO002) (source:
Commission document SFAS_Report_Current_Year_2007-2013 — Table 3a ERDF and Table 3a ESF). This is also the
case for other Member States.

1. At what times have requests for reimbursement been received since October 2012 to date from the federal
states in Germany and the German federal programme relating to cohesion policy (EFRE, ESF and Interreg), the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and Erasmus, and for what amounts? When were the amounts
reimbursed by the Commission?

2. Is the Commission currently in a position to pay the reimbursement requests on time (within a deadline of two
months) or will there be delays? How does the Commission intend to ensure that the payment target of two months
will be met throughout the entire 2013 financial year?

3. What are the criteria and priorities for selecting regional cohesion policy programmes or support priorities for
payment? Why did numerous programmes receive no payments during the 2012 financial year? Were payments
postponed or not made by the Commission on account of budgetary constraints before October 2012 too? If so,
what were the amounts and for how long were they postponed?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

1. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat a table containing
the information requested. For Erasmus, the Commission paid a second pre-financing amount on 18 January 2013 of
EUR 12 128 600 (received 29 October 2012).

2. The payment deadline of 2 months is subject to available funding ( [1] ). When there as present are cash flow
constraints and a lack of budgetary appropriations the Commission cannot make payments on time.

The Commission has called the maximum amount of revenues for covering EAGF expenditure and requested
EUR 9 billion for cohesion policy in the draft amending budget 2 on 27 March 2013. The sooner the budgetary
authority adopts the proposal, the sooner it will be possible to make timely payments. The Budget Committee was
informed on 20 February that the higher end-2012 backlog means that ‘early year’ cash flow constraints in 2013 may
last longer than in 2012.

3. The Commission is processing cohesion policy payment claims earliest first. During periods of budgetary
constraint, priority is given to claims from Member States receiving support under programmes of financial
assistance.

Programmes which received no payments in 2012 either did not submit payment claims during the year, had
payment claims interrupted or suspended, or submitted only one payment claim and this so close to the end of the
year that payment credits had been exhausted before they could be paid.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 87 No 2 of Council Regulation 1083/2006.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 317

Two ESF payments ( [2] ) were delayed due to the lack of budgetary credits at the end of July 2012. These invoices were
paid as soon as additional credits were made available for the ESF at the end of 2012. Before October 2012, there
were no abnormal payment times for the ERDF due to lack of budget credits.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Programme 2007DE052PO002, invoice date 26.7.2012, amount: 39 498 400.24 paid on 18.12.2012 and programme 2007DE052PO003,
invoice date 24.9.2012, amount: 36 749 888.47 paid on 19.12.2012.

C 12 E / 318 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003421/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(26. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Kofinanzierung der Neubaustrecke zwischen Wendlingen und Ulm

In seiner Antwort auf meine Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-000566/13 vom 22. Januar 2013 bestätigte
Vizepräsident Kallas, „dass die Neubaustrecke Wendlingen-Ulm […] eine stärkere Steigung aufweist als die
Bestandsstrecke über die Geislinger Steige (22,5 mm/m bzw. 22,5 ‰)“.

Des Weiteren führt er aus: „Generell sind stärkere Steigungen, insbesondere für Güterzüge, nachteilig, da die
Kostenwirksamkeit und somit die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit sehr von einer hohen Transportkapazität pro Zug bezogen
auf eine bestimmte Zugkraft und Leistung abhängen. Der Trend geht daher zu einem größeren Gewicht der Züge und
zu längeren Zügen. […] Nach Kenntnis der Kommission werden für die Neubaustrecke Gewichtsbegrenzungen bzw.
eine stärkere Leistung/Zugkraft erwogen“.

1. Hat die Untauglichkeit der Neubaustrecke für den normalen Güterverkehr Auswirkungen auf die finanzielle
Unterstützung der EU im Rahmen der Transeuropäischen Verkehrsnetze (TEN-T)? Wenn ja: warum? Wenn nein:
warum nicht?

2. Besteht im Rahmen der laufenden Überarbeitung der Leitlinien für die TEN-T die Möglichkeit, die Planung und
Förderung der besagten Neubaustrecke auf den Prüfstand zu stellen? Wenn ja: in welcher Form? Wenn nein: warum
nicht?

3. Ist der Kommission bekannt, dass die ursprünglich angesetzten Kosten von 2 Mrd. EUR (Stand: 2004) auf
mittlerweile rund 3 Mrd. EUR gestiegen sind und dass der deutsche Bundesverkehrsminister Peter Ramsauer am
24. März 2013 gegenüber der Presse deutlich machte ( [1] ), dass er von weiteren Kostensteigerungen ausgeht?

4. Bezieht sich der Kofinanzierungssatz der EU von 14,35 % auf die ursprünglich erwarteten oder die tatsächlich
eintretenden Kosten?

**Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission**

_(14. Mai 2013)_

1. Wie dem Herrn Abgeordneten bekannt ist, zielt das Vorhaben auf Verbesserungen im Personenfernverkehr
sowie im leichten Güterverkehr im Rahmen des vorrangigen Projekts 17 ab (siehe die Antwort auf die schriftliche
Anfrage E-000566/2013 ( [2] )). Der Vorschlag wurde 2007 von externen Fachleuten geprüft und gemäß den
allgemeinen TEN-V-Bedingungen für die Projektfinanzierung als förderfähig eingestuft.

2. Der Beschluss 2007-DE-17200-P ist sowohl für die Kommission als auch für das Bundesverkehrsministerium
als Empfänger verbindlich. Bei jeder Änderung des Projekts wäre eine Änderung bzw. in bestimmten Fällen eine
Aufhebung des ursprünglichen Beschlusses erforderlich (siehe die Antwort auf die schriftliche
Anfrage E-009241/2011 ( [2] )).

3. Die Kommission hat bislang aus der Presse Informationen über erwartete Kostensteigerungen erhalten. Diese
haben jedoch keinen Einfluss auf die geltenden Finanzierungsbeschlüsse. Der in dem einschlägigen Beschluss
angegebene EU-Beitrag ist ein Höchstsatz, so dass etwaige Kostenerhöhungen die EU-Mittelzuweisung nicht
beeinflussen.

4. Die Kofinanzierungsrate bezieht sich auf die Kosten der im Beschluss 2007-DE-17200-P genannten
Maßnahmen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/f-a-z-gespraech-ramsauer-erwartet-weitere-kostensteigerungen-12126703.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Abrufbar unter: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 319

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003421/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Co-financing of the new line between Wendlingen and Ulm

In his answer to my question for written answer E-000566/13 of 22 January 2013, Vice-President Kallas confirmed
‘that the new line NBS Wendlingen-Ulm involves a steeper gradient … than the existing line via the Geislinger Steige
(22.5 mm/m or %)’.

He also stated: ‘Generally, steep gradients are disadvantageous in particular for freight trains, since the cost-efficiency
and, consequently, the competitiveness is highly dependent on a high transport capacity per train in relation to a
given tractive force and power. Therefore, there is a trend towards increased train weights and lengths. … As far as the
Commission understands, a weight limit or additional power/tractive force [is being] considered along the NBS’.

1. Will the unsuitability of the new line for normal freight traffic affect the financial support provided by the EU
within the framework of the trans-European transport networks (TEN-T)? If so, why? If not, why not?

2. Would it be possible, in the context of the ongoing revision of the TEN-T guidelines, to review the planning and
support for this new line? If so, in what form? If not, why not?

3. Is the Commission aware that the costs of EUR 2 billion originally quoted (as at: 2004) have now risen to
around EUR 3 billion and that the German Minister for Transport, Peter Ramsauer, made it clear to the press on
24 March 2013 ( [1] ) that he anticipates further cost increases?

4. Does the EU’s co-financing rate of 14.35% relate to the costs originally expected or to the actual costs?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

1. The project aims at improvements for long distance passenger services and freight services with light freight
trains along Priority Project 17 as the Honourable member is aware (see reply to Written Question
E-000566/2013 ( [2] )). The proposal was evaluated in 2007 by external experts and was found eligible according to the
general TEN-T conditions for financing projects.

2. The decision 2007-DE-17200-P is a binding decision for both the Commission and the Federal Ministry of
transport as beneficiary. Any change of the project as such would need an amendment or, in specific cases, a
cancellation of the initial decision (see reply to Written Question E‐009241/2011 ( [2] )).

3. The Commission received information on expected cost increases via the press so far. This does not affect the
running funding decisions. The EU contribution stated in the corresponding Decision is a maximum, therefore any
cost overruns are not affecting the EU budgetary commitment for the project.

4. The co-financing rate relates to the costs of the actions as identified by Decision 2007-DE-17200-P.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/f-a-z-gespraech-ramsauer-erwartet-weitere-kostensteigerungen-12126703.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 320 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003422/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ L'UE intervenga sulla sicurezza dei pagamenti effettuati con carte di credito o bancomat nei paesi extra-UE

In un recente documento intitolato «Payment Card Fraud in the European Union» Europol denuncia un significativo
assalto alla carte di pagamento europee a causa di diversi o insufficienti standard di sicurezza.

Si legge infatti che l'UE è sempre più esposta alla minaccia di transazioni illegali attuate in paesi quali USA, Repubblica
dominicana, Colombia, Russia, Brasile e Messico e che, nel complesso, le organizzazioni criminali, sempre al passo
con la tecnologia e in grado di eludere le misure di sicurezza, ne possono trarre profitti illeciti per almeno 1,5 miliardi
di euro l'anno.

Europol denuncia inoltre una risposta non armonizzata e non sostenuta da tutti gli attori del settore (società emittenti
di carte di credito, centri di elaborazione dati, inquirenti e autorità giudiziarie) nonché la mancanza di normative
adeguate per la segnalazione di violazioni di dati alle polizie.

1. Come intende la Commissione provvedere al fine di impedire le transazioni illegali in paesi extra-UE a danno
degli utilizzatori europei di carte di credito?

2. Come intende la Commissione intervenire contro l'aumento di violazioni di dati finanziari — anche on line —
contro società, persone fisiche e centri di elaborazione dati, relative a carte di credito basate nell'UE?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(6 giugno 2013)_

Per quanto riguarda la sicurezza dei pagamenti effettuati con carte di pagamento, i rischi per i consumatori in caso di
frode sono contemplati nella direttiva sui servizi di pagamento (2007/64/CE) ( [1] ), nonché nei contratti conclusi tra
utilizzatori e fornitori di servizi di pagamento e nelle norme sui regimi delle carte di pagamento. Questi tre strumenti
giuridici definiscono i diritti e gli obblighi degli utilizzatori di dette carte in caso di frode. In linea di massima, le
conseguenze finanziarie delle frodi sono a carico dei consumatori soltanto se loro stessi hanno agito in modo
fraudolento o hanno commesso una negligenza grave. La Commissione non può impedire il verificarsi di transazioni
illegali nei paesi al di fuori dell'UE, ma il sistema succitato tutela gli utilizzatori europei di carte di pagamento dalle
conseguenze della frode.

Il ruolo della Commissione nella prevenzione della frode si concentra sulle misure giuridiche, quali, ad esempio, la
tutela degli utilizzatori dei servizi di pagamento, nonché la tutela dei loro dati personali. Sotto il profilo tecnico e
operativo, la sicurezza dei pagamenti a livello dell'UE è di competenza della Banca centrale europea (ad esempio,
tramite il Forum europeo per la sicurezza dei pagamenti al dettaglio, Secure Pay) e il Centro europeo per la criminalità
informatica, recentemente istituito presso Europol, che, nell'ambito della propria missione, si impegna a contrastare
le frodi nell'ambito delle carte di pagamento.

La Commissione sta attualmente esaminando i requisiti giuridici che potranno rafforzare la sicurezza delle operazioni
di pagamento on line. Le nuove disposizioni potrebbero essere integrate nella proposta di modifica della direttiva sui
servizi di pagamento (2007/64/CE) nella seconda metà di quest'anno.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 319/1 del 5 dicembre 2007.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 321

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003422/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Request for the EU to take action on the security of payments made with credit or debit cards in countries
outside the EU

In a recent document entitled ‘Payment Card Fraud in the European Union’, Europol reported major payment card
fraud caused by divergent or insufficient security standards.

In fact, the report states that the EU faces ever greater exposure to the threat of illegal transactions carried out in
countries such as the USA, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Russia, Brazil and Mexico and that organised crime
groups, always in step with technology and able to circumvent security measures, can make an overall illegal profit of
at least EUR 1.5 billion per year.

Furthermore, Europol highlights the lack of both a harmonised response supported by other stakeholders in the
sector (credit card issuers, data processing centres, investigators and legal authorities) and of suitable legislation for
reporting data violations to the police.

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take to prevent illegal transactions in countries outside the EU
to the detriment of European credit card users?

2. What steps does the Commission intend to take to combat the increase in the number of financial data
violations — including online — against companies, individuals and data processing centres, related to credit cards
based in the EU?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The security risks for consumers in the context of card fraud are addressed by the Payment Services Directive
(2007/64/EC) ( [1] ), as well as in contracts between payment users and payment service providers and by card scheme
rules. These three tools define the rights and obligations of card users in case of fraud. In principle, consumers bear
the financial consequences of the fraud only if they have themselves acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. The
Commission cannot prevent illegal transactions in countries outside the EU from happening, but the
abovementioned system protects European card users from the consequences of fraud.

The Commission’s role as regards fraud prevention is focused on legal measures, as e.g. the protection of payment
service users and the protection of their personal data. From a technical and operational point of view, payment
security at the EU level is addressed by the European Central Bank (e.g. through the European Forum on the Security
of Retail Payment (Secure Pay) and the newly established European Cybercrime Centre at Europol, which as part of its
mission is dedicated to fighting payment card fraud.

The Commission is currently considering legal requirements that will increase the security of the online payment
transactions. These are likely to be included in the proposal for the revised Payment Services Directive (2007/64/EC)
later this year.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 319/1, 5.12.2007.

C 12 E / 322 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003424/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(26 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Embargo asupra importurilor de sămânță de cartof din UE

Federația Rusă are în vedere instituirea unui embargo asupra importurilor de sămânță de cartof provenind din statele
membre UE, precum și asupra altor importuri vegetale. Autoritățile ruse au anunțat inițial data de 1 aprilie 2013 ca
termen pentru instituirea acestui embargo, amânându-l ulterior pentru data de 1 iunie 2013. Comisia este rugată să
precizeze pe ce se fundamentează dialogul cu Federația Rusă, în vederea împiedicării acestui demers.

**Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei**

_(23 mai 2013)_

Rusia și-a anunțat intenția de a interzice, începând cu 1 iunie 2013, importul din UE de cartofi de sămânță, cartofi
pentru depozitare, plante fructifere și ornamentale destinate plantării.

Comisia a subliniat necesitatea de a justifica o interdicție pe baza unor riscuri fitosanitare care nu au fost demonstrate
în mod clar pentru produsele vizate. Rusia ar trebui să adopte o abordare proporțională pentru gestionarea acestor
riscuri, în conformitate cu standardele internaționale stabilite de Convenția internațională pentru protecția plantelor.

Respectarea acestor standarde face parte din obligațiile asumate de Rusia ca membru al OMC.

Comisia a fost de acord să abordeze preocupările exprimate de Rusia cu privire la:

—
trasabilitatea și fiabilitatea certificării transporturilor de plante destinate plantării provenite dintr-un stat
membru, dar exportate de un alt stat membru și

—
statutul indemn de dăunători al transporturilor, în conformitate cu dispozițiile legislației ruse.

În plus, la cererea Rusiei, Comisia explorează, împreună cu statele membre, eventuale condiții de import pentru
coniferele și cartofii provenind din Rusia. Aproape niciuna dintre țările terțe, inclusiv Rusia, nu poate exporta aceste
produse către UE, cu excepția cazului în care se acordă o derogare. S-a solicitat Rusiei să furnizeze dosare tehnice în
sprijinul cererilor de export formulate. Numai după punerea la dispoziție a dosarelor menționate și cu condiția ca
acestea să fie considerate satisfăcătoare, Comisia va formula un proiect de act legislativ pentru o derogare.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 323

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003424/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Embargo on imports of seed potatoes from the EU

The Russian Federation is considering imposing an embargo on imports of seed potatoes from EU Member States, as
well as on other vegetable imports. The Russian authorities initially announced a date of 1 April 2013 as a deadline
for imposing the embargo, and later postponed it until 1 June 2013. Can the Commission specify what the basis of
the dialogue with the Russian Federation to prevent such action is?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

Russia announced its intention to ban, as from 1 June 2013, import from the EU of seed potatoes, ware potatoes,
plants for planting of fruit and ornamental plants.

The Commission has underlined the need to justify a ban based on phytosanitary risks, which have not been clearly
demonstrated for the targeted commodities. Russia should adopt a proportionate approach for managing those risks,
in accordance with international standards set by the International Plant Protection Convention. Respecting those
standards is part of Russia's obligation as a WTO member.

The Commission has agreed to address the Russian concerns about:

—
traceability and reliability of certification for consignments of plants for planting originating in one Member
State but exported by another Member State and

—
on the consignments' pest free origin, as regulated by Russian legislation.

Furthermore, at Russia's request, the Commission is exploring, with Member States, possible import conditions for
coniferous plants and potatoes from Russia. These commodities cannot be exported to the EU by almost all third
countries including Russia, unless a derogation is granted. Russia has been asked to provide technical dossiers in
support of their export requests. Once these dossiers are available and should they be considered satisfactory, only
then would the Commission formulate a draft act for a derogation.

C 12 E / 324 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003425/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(26 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Restabilirea încrederii în produsele alimentare europene

Producătorii agricoli și procesatorii români, precum și cei din alte state membre, se află în situația de a înregistra
pierderi importante pentru anul 2013 din cauza suspiciunilor larg mediatizate legate de calitatea și siguranța
produselor alimentare.

În sectorul vânzării de carne de vită și cal, pierderile ar putea ajunge, numai în România, la 30 de milioane de euro
până la sfârșitul anului în curs. De asemenea, sunt afectate piața laptelui și a cărnii de pasăre.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze:

1. care sunt măsurile avute în vedere pentru a preveni pierderile pentru agricultori, procesatori și comercianți,
determinate de suspiciunile privind siguranța alimentară și mediatizarea acestora;

2. care sunt măsurile avute în vedere pentru a restabili încrederea consumatorilor în produsele alimentare

europene;

3. care sunt măsurile avute în vedere pentru a evita scăderea exporturilor de alimente în afara Uniunii Europene,
pe fondul acestei crize.

**Răspuns dat de dl Cioloș în numele Comisiei**

_(29 mai 2013)_

1. Comisia urmărește îndeaproape evoluțiile pieței, dar consideră că în prezent nu există perturbări ale pieței care
să justifice intervențiile pe piață.

2. A fost identificat un set de acțiuni pentru a consolida sistemul UE și a restabili încrederea consumatorilor.
Domeniile prioritare identificate includ măsuri mai eficiente de combatere a fraudei în domeniul alimentar, întărirea
regulilor privind pașapoartele pentru cai și controale oficiale mai eficace.

3. Nu există dovezi privind un eventual impact direct al fraudei legate de prezența (neindicată pe etichetă) a cărnii
de cal în produsele din carne de vită asupra exporturilor europene de alimente în general. Dinamica exporturilor
diverselor produse alimentare depinde de mai mulți factori.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 325

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003425/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restoring confidence in European food products

Romanian agricultural producers and processors, as well as those from other Member States, are set to record
significant losses for 2013 due to the widely publicised suspicions regarding the quality and safety of food products.

In the beef and horsemeat sectors, the losses could reach EUR 30 million in Romania alone by the end of this year.
The milk and poultry markets are also affected.

Can the Commission answer the following questions?

1. What measures does it have in mind to prevent the losses for farmers, processors and traders that have been
caused by the suspicions regarding food safety and the media coverage of these?

2. What measures does it have in mind to restore consumer confidence in European food products?

3. What measures does it have in mind to prevent a drop in food exports outside the European Union as a result of
this crisis?

**Answer given by Mr Ciolos on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

1. The Commission follows market developments closely, but sees currently no market disturbances that would
justify market interventions.

2. A set of actions was identified to strengthen EU system and restore consumer confidence. Priority areas
identified include action to better tackle food fraud, strengthened rules on horse passports and more effective official
controls.

3. There is no evidence that there is a direct impact of the fraud of unlabelled horsemeat in beef products on
European food exports in general. The dynamic of exports of the different food products depends on various factors.

C 12 E / 326 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003426/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(26 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Riscul de deces în utilizarea Azitromicinei

Potrivit unui avertisment emis de Federația Americană a Alimentelor și Medicamentelor (FDA), azitromicina vândută
sub denumirea de Zithromax poate cauza aritmii cardiace care ar putea determina decesul pacienților. Riscul crescut
de deces prin boli cardiovasculare pe care îl prezintă acest antibiotic folosit de două decenii în tratarea infecțiilor
respiratorii a fost semnalat și de cercetătorii Universității Vanderbilt și New England Journal of Medicine.

Comisia este rugată să precizeze dacă are în considerare aceste studii și dacă intenționează să monitorizeze această
problemă.

**Răspuns dat de dl Borg în numele Comisiei**

_(6 mai 2013)_

Antibioticele care conțin azitromicină sunt medicamentele pentru care autorizațiile de introducere pe piață au fost
acordate de către statele membre.

Ca urmare a informațiilor publicate privind azitromicina și riscul de deces ca urmare a afecțiunilor cardiovasculare ( [1] ),
autoritățile medicale naționale din UE evaluează riscul aritmiilor potențial letale în cadrul unei revizuiri a rapoartelor
periodice actualizate privind siguranța. Evaluarea este coordonată de (către) un organism de reglementare
reprezentând autoritățile naționale de reglementare a medicamentelor din statele membre ale UE. În plus, Agenția
Europeană pentru Medicamente a început să evalueze rezultatele studiului [1] în cadrul reuniunii sale din 8-11 aprilie
2013 ( [2] ).

Evaluarea în desfășurare de la nivelul UE va lua în considerare necesitatea unei actualizări a informațiilor privind
prescripțiile medicamentelor care conțin azitromicină în UE, inclusiv necesitatea intensificării avertizărilor privind
factorii de risc pentru aritmie. Între timp, pacienții au fost sfătuiți să nu înceteze niciun tratament care li s‐a prescris,
înainte de a se adresa medicului sau farmacistului lor.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ray WA, Murray KT, Hall K, Arbogast PG, Stein CM. Azithromycin and the Risk of Cardiovascular Death. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1881-90.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Agenda/2013/04/WC500142006.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 327

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003426/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Risk of death through using Azithromycin

According to a warning issued by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA), azithromycin sold under the
Zithromax brand can cause cardiac arrhythmia that could lead to the death of patients. The increased risk of death
through cardiovascular diseases posed by this antibiotic, which has been used in treating respiratory infections for the
past two decades, was also raised by researchers from Vanderbilt University and New England Journal of Medicine.

Can the Commission specify whether it has considered these studies and intends to monitor this issue?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

Azithromycin-containing antibiotics are medicinal products for which the marketing authorisations have been
granted by the Member States.

Following the publication on azithromycin and the risk of cardiovascular death ( [1] ), national medicines authorities in
the EU are assessing the risk of potentially fatal arrhythmias as part of a review of periodic safety update reports. The
assessment is coordinated by a regulatory body representing national medicines regulatory authorities of the EU
Member States. In addition, the European Medicines Agency has started to assess the results of the study [1] at its
meeting of 8 to 11 April 2013 ( [2] ).

The ongoing EU assessment will consider the need for an update of the prescribing information for azithromycincontaining medicines in the EU, including the need for strengthened warnings on the risk factors for arrhythmias. In
the meantime, patients have been advised not to stop taking any treatments they have been prescribed without
speaking to their doctor or pharmacist.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ray WA, Murray KT, Hall K, Arbogast PG, Stein CM. Azithromycin and the Risk of Cardiovascular Death. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1881-90.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Agenda/2013/04/WC500142006.pdf

C 12 E / 328 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-003427/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Aprobación del proyecto de la Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia

El pasado 20 de marzo se llevó a cabo en el Congreso español la aprobación del proyecto de la Comisión Nacional de
Mercados y Competencia. Dicho proyecto fue seguido estrechamente por la Comisión Europea, que planteó serias
dudas sobre el mismo. Así, después de una carta que envió personalmente la Comisaria Neelie Kroes al Ministro José
Manuel Soria con fecha de 11 de febrero de 2013 y una reunión entre ambos que tuvo lugar durante el Mobile World
Congress el pasado 26 de febrero, la Comisión dejó clara su preocupación por el proyecto.

Las modificaciones que se han realizado durante el trámite parlamentario no alcanzarían totalmente el compromiso
que adquirieron ambas partes. No se conservan todas las competencias actuales en materia de regulación en el sector
de las telecomunicaciones, ya que por ejemplo se traspasa al ministerio la competencia sobre tasas. Tampoco se
asegura la independencia del regulador, al dejar en manos de un Estatuto Orgánico, redactado por el Gobierno, la
definición de las funciones y organización. Además, siguen sin resolverse algunas anomalías, como el hecho de que
sea el regulador con menos competencias y el único que no tiene ninguna función respecto a los usuarios de los
servicios de telecomunicaciones.

Dado que no se garantizan todos los compromisos que adquirieron Comisión y Gobierno, ¿qué acciones piensa llevar
a cabo la Comisión ante este proyecto?

¿Qué opinión tiene la Comisión respecto a que el nuevo regulador único sea el regulador con menores competencias
de la UE y que no tenga competencias en usuarios?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Kroes en nombre de la Comisión**

_(15 de abril de 2013)_

Tal como señalamos en nuestra respuesta a la pregunta escrita E-2282/13, la Comisión ha mantenido contactos con
el Ministro español de industria para expresarle sus dudas sobre varios aspectos relacionados con la asignación de
competencias en el sector de las comunicaciones electrónicas a las autoridades reguladoras nacionales españolas y ha
recibido garantías del Gobierno español de que se tendrán en cuenta esas dudas en la ley final por la que se cree la
Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia (CNMC). La Comisión sabe que, recientemente, se han propuesto
diversas enmiendas al proyecto de ley.

En lo que respecta a las atribuciones del regulador, tal como señalamos en nuestra respuesta a la pregunta escrita
E-10181/2012, la Comisión concede gran importancia a los requisitos relativos al ajuste de las tareas realizadas por
las autoridades reguladoras a los objetivos políticos y a los principios reglamentarios que figuran en el marco de la UE.

La Comisión seguirá atentamente la finalización del proceso legislativo en España para cerciorarse de que la
legislación española cumple plenamente la normativa de la UE y, si queda pendiente algún tema, actuará según
corresponda.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 329

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003427/13**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Adoption of the bill to set up a National Commission for Markets and Competition

On 20 March 2013 the lower house of the Spanish Parliament adopted the bill to set up a National Commission for
Markets and Competition. This bill had been followed closely by the Commission, which had raised serious doubts
about it. Accordingly, after a letter, dated 11 February 2013, sent personally by Commissioner Neelie Kroes to
Minister Jose Manuel Soria, and a meeting between the two that took place during the Mobile World Congress on
26 February, the Commission made clear its concerns about the bill.

The amendments made during the parliamentary process do not, apparently, fully meet the agreement reached by
both parties. Not all the current powers relating to regulation in the telecommunications sector have been retained,
given that, for example, responsibility for taxes is being transferred to the ministry. Nor is the independence of the
regulator guaranteed, since the definition of its functions and organisation will be left up to an ‘organic statute’,
drafted by the government. In addition, a number of anomalies remain unresolved, such as the fact that the regulator
in question is the one with the fewest powers and the only one that has no role in relation to the users of
telecommunications services.

Given that all the commitments undertaken by the Commission and the government have not been guaranteed, what
measures will the Commission take in relation to this bill?

What is the Commission's view of the fact that the new single regulator will be the regulator with the fewest powers in
the EU and will have no powers in relation to users?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 April 2013)_

As indicated in our reply to Written Question E-2282/13, the Commission has been in close contact with the Spanish
Minister of Industry to reiterate concerns on a number of issues relating to the attribution of competences in the
electronic communications sector to national regulatory authorities in Spain and has received the assurance from the
Spanish Government that these concerns will be addressed in the final law creating the National Commission for
Markets and Competition (CNMC). The Commission is aware that a number of amendments have been recently
proposed to the draft law.

Regarding the powers of the regulator, as indicated in our reply to Written Question E-10181/2012, the Commission
attaches great importance to the requirements regarding the alignment of the tasks carried out by the regulators with
the policy objectives and regulatory principles contained in the EU framework.

The Commission is committed to follow-up closely the finalisation of the legislative process in Spain to ensure full
compliance of the Spanish legislation with EC law and will address any remaining issues, as appropriate.

C 12 E / 330 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003428/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Agenda Digital para Europa

El 70 % por ciento de la población europea vive en áreas urbanas y con tendencia a ir creciendo. Así, la CE ha
establecido Internet como uno de los puntos prioritarios en la estrategia 2020 la Agenda Digital para Europa (DAE).
El objetivo es maximizar el potencial social y económico, elemento, huelga decir, fundamental para la actividad social
y económica. Precisamente es fundamental la gestión de servicios conectados y el traslado de dicha información
relevante para las partes interesadas y los gestores políticos que han de tomar decisiones.

A la luz de lo anterior y teniendo en cuenta los fondos de cohesión para el nuevo marco 2020, y «Ciudades y
comunidades inteligentes — Cooperación de Innovación Europea», ¿tiene la CE pensado crear un paquete de medidas
para entidades locales que contengan estándares de sensores, conexiones de los sensores con centro de recopilación
de datos y programario de tratamiento de datos?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Kroes en nombre de la Comisión**

_(17 de mayo de 2013)_

Las actividades de normalización de sensores reciben un apoyo continuo gracias al esfuerzo investigador europeo
actual, por ejemplo, los esfuerzos de normalización de sensores de la comunicación de máquina a máquina (M2M) del
Instituto Europeo de Normas de Telecomunicación (ETSI) y de la Organización Internacional de Normalización (ISO).

Cabe esperar que, al amparo de la iniciativa «Ciudades y Comunidades Inteligentes — Cooperación de Innovación
Europea (SCC-EIP)», esfuerzos similares al anterior se integren en el contexto de un conjunto más amplio de
infraestructuras y, con el propósito de incrementar la interoperabilidad entre los diversos sistemas de información
(por ejemplo, transporte y energía), se consigan unos servicios mejores, más innovadores y ventajosos
económicamente para los ciudadanos, ciudades más sostenibles así como más y mejores conocimientos técnicos para
nuestras industrias. Un requisito previo para cosechar los beneficios mencionados, no obstante, es garantizar el
acceso a los datos de forma gratuita o a un bajo coste, en particular a los datos públicos ( [1] ), un área de gran
importancia en el marco de la Agenda Digital. Otro esfuerzo principal del SCC-EIP es reunir a todas las distintas partes
interesadas en el contexto urbano (en particular, las autoridades locales) con el fin de garantizar una amplia cobertura
de las necesidades, una rápida adopción de soluciones y un beneficio para todos.

La interconexión central y la plataforma de comunicación en las actividades anteriores es el Internet de los objetos, un
área de máxima prioridad de la Agenda Digital y un área de especial énfasis en el marco de los actuales programas de
investigación (un énfasis que se espera continúe y se vea reforzado en el marco de Horizonte 2020).

Habida cuenta de que los planes de ejecución de la anterior Cooperación de Innovación Europea, así como del primer
programa de trabajo de Horizonte 2020, se encuentran actualmente en fase de desarrollo, la Comisión estará en
condiciones de proporcionar respuestas más concretas a su pregunta en los próximos meses.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Véase en particular https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-i-digital-single-market/action-3-open-public-data-resources-re-use
y http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 331

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003428/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Digital Agenda for Europe

Seventy per cent of Europeans live in urban areas and this trend is increasing. The Commission has therefore
identified the Internet as one of the priority areas in the 2020 strategy’s Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE). The
objective is to maximise social and economic potential, which is clearly fundamental for social and economic activity.
The management of connected services and the transfer of this relevant information to the interested parties and
political decision-makers is particularly important.

In the light of the above, and taking into account the cohesion funds for the new 2020 framework and ‘Smart Cities
and Communities — European Innovation Partnership’, does the Commission intend to create a package of measures
for local authorities containing standards for sensors and connections between sensors and the data collection centre
and data processing programme?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

Standardisation activities on sensors are an area of ongoing support under the European research efforts today, for
instance the ETSI Machine-To-Machine (M2M) and ISO sensor standardisation efforts.

Under the ‘Smart Cities and Communities — European Innovation Partnership (SCC-EIP)’ it is expected that efforts
like the above will be integrated in the context of a broader set of infrastructures and with the aim to increase
interoperability across various information systems (e.g. transport, energy) and this is expected to lead to better, more
innovative, and cost efficient services for the citizens; more sustainable cities; and more and better know-how for our
relevant industries. A pre-requisite to reap the above benefits, however, is to ensure the free or low cost access to data
— particularly to public data ( [1] ) — an area of high importance under the Digital Agenda. At the core also of the effort
of the SCC-EIP is to bring together all different stakeholders in a city context (notably local authorities) in order to
ensure broad coverage of needs, fast uptake of solutions, and benefit for all.

The central interconnection and communication platform in the above developments is the Internet of Things, a top
priority area again of the Digital Agenda and an area of high emphasis under the current research programmes (an
emphasis that is expected to be continued and be further reinforced under Horizon 2020).

As the implementation plans of the above European Innovation Partnership as well as the first Horizon 2020 workprogramme are currently under development, the Commission will be able to provide more concrete answers to your
question in the coming months.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See in particular https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/pillar-i-digital-single-market/action-3-open-public-data-resources-re-use and
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 332 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003429/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Smart Cities

Uno de los objetivos básicos de la estrategia de la UE para el horizonte 2020 es la Agenda Digital para Europa (DAE).
De hecho, se busca la maximización de los recursos disponibles para incrementar el potencial económico y social de
Internet. Un uso más amplio y efectivo de las tecnologías digitales proporcionará los mecanismos necesarios para dar
respuestas a los desafíos actuales como, por citar sólo algunos, una mejor calidad de vida, un mejor eficiente uso del
transporte o un aire de calidad.

A la luz de lo anterior y teniendo en cuenta los Fondos de Cohesión para el horizonte 2020, Smart Cities y
Communities European innovation:

1. ¿Ha planteado la CE dar la posibilidad de analizar las diferentes nodos de cableado de fibra óptica existentes y
unirlas?

2. ¿Cree la CE que unir las redes de fibra óptica incrementaría el potencial económico y social de Internet y así
ayudaría a dar respuesta a los desafíos definidos en la estrategia 2020?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Kroes en nombre de la Comisión**

_(27 de mayo de 2013)_

La conectividad de banda ancha resulta esencial para fomentar el crecimiento y la innovación, así como para la
cohesión social y territorial en Europa. La Comisión Europea trabaja en la creación de un marco político y
reglamentario óptimo para su desarrollo ( [1] ). Las inversiones necesarias para poner al día las redes existentes o
desplegar infraestructuras nuevas y conectarlas procederán principalmente de inversores comerciales, pero también
se precisará de fondos públicos para alcanzar los ambiciosos objetivos establecidos por la Agenda Digital para
Europa. Los Fondos Estructurales y de Inversión Europeos apoyarán la inversión en infraestructuras en el ámbito de
las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación.

Como señala el informe sobre la competitividad digital de 2010 ( [2] ), la industria de las TIC contribuye enormemente al
crecimiento de la economía europea y representa el 5 % del PIB. Un simple aumento del 10 % en la implantación de la
banda ancha podría generar un incremento del 1-1,5 % del PIB anual o mejorar la productividad laboral en un 1,5 % a
lo largo de los próximos cinco años. Además, crearía 1,2 millones de puestos de trabajo en la construcción de
infraestructuras a corto plazo, y hasta 3,8 millones en el conjunto de la economía a largo plazo. Se espera, por otra
parte, que la introducción de procesos relacionados con internet permita considerables mejoras de la productividad
en las industrias tradicionales ( [3] ).

Además, unas infraestructuras mejoradas que hagan posible una conectividad a alta velocidad son la base para el
desarrollo de servicios y tecnologías nuevos o esenciales, como las redes inteligentes, la informática en nube, las
tecnologías P2P, las redes sociales, la sanidad electrónica o los servicios audiovisuales de alta definición, interactivos y
a la carta, y constituyen un factor de capacitación particularmente importante en el proceso de aportar inteligencia a
nuestras ciudades.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Véase por ejemplo la reciente propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo relativo a medidas para reducir el coste del

despliegue de las redes de comunicaciones electrónicas de alta velocidad.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=5789
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Comunicación de la Comisión al Parlamento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comité Económico y Social Europeo y al Comité de las Regiones «La Agenda

Digital para Europa — Motor del crecimiento europeo», COM(2012) 784 final.

( **|**
( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 333

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003429/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Smart Cities

One of the basic objectives of the EU strategy for Horizon 2020 is the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE). This seeks to
maximise available resources in order to increase the economic and social potential of the Internet. Wider and more
effective use of digital technologies will provide the mechanisms needed to respond to current challenges, such as
better quality of life, more efficient use of transport and improved air quality, to name but a few.

In the light of the above, and taking into account the cohesion funds for Horizon 2020 and ‘Smart Cities and
Communities — European Innovation Partnership’:

1. Has the Commission considered the possibility of analysing the different existing fibre optic cable nodes and
connecting them?

2. Does the Commission believe that connecting fibre optic networks would increase the economic and social
potential of the Internet and therefore help to respond to the challenges identified in the 2020 strategy?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

Broadband connectivity is essential to foster growth and innovation and for social and territorial cohesion in Europe.
The European Commission is working to create the best policy and regulatory framework for its development ( [1] ). The
investments required to upgrade existing networks or roll out new infrastructure and connect them shall primarily
come from commercial investors but public funding will be required to achieve the ambitious targets set by Digital
Agenda for Europe. The EU Structural and Investment Funds will support investments in infrastructure in the area of
Information and communication technologies.

As shown by the 2010 Digital Competitiveness Report ( [2] ) the ICT industry is an important contributor to the growth
of the European economy and represents 5% of GDP. Just a 10% increase in broadband take up could yield a 1-1.5%
increase in annual GDP or could raise labour productivity by 1.5% over the next five years. Furthermore, this should
create 1.2 million jobs in infrastructure construction in the short term, rising to 3.8 million jobs throughout the
economy in the long term. In addition, the introduction of Internet-related processes is expected to lead to massive
gains in productivity in traditional industries ( [3] ).

In addition improved infrastructures providing high-speed connectivity are the basis for the development of new or
essential services and technologies such as smart grids, cloud computing, peer-to-peer technologies, social networks,
eHealth, high-definition, interactive, on demand audiovisual services and a particularly important enabler in the
context of smartening up our cities.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See for instance the recent proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures to reduce the cost of deploying

high-speed electronic communications networks.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=5789.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions ‘The Digital Agenda for Europe — Driving European growth digitally’, COM(2012) 784 final.

( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 334 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-003430/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(26 martie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Compatibilitatea libertății media cu drepturile fundamentale ale UE

În urma unei recomandări a Grupului la nivel înalt al Comisiei, comisarul Neelie Kroes a lansat recent două consultări
cu privire la libertatea media și la pluralism,.

Pentru a asigura compatibilitatea legislațiilor naționale privind mijloacele de informare în masă cu drepturile
fundamentale ale UE este, într-adevăr, necesară o monitorizare strictă a acestora.

Vă voi da un exemplu recent care a afectat sectorul zootehnic românesc, din cauză că o parte a mijloacelor de
informare în masă internaționale nu a respectat prezumția de nevinovăție în timp ce cercetările privind scandalul
cărnii de cal erau încă în curs de desfășurare. În pofida răspunsului prompt al României privind scandalul cărnii de cal,
o parte a acestora a prezentat România ca fiind „vinovată”. Din câte cunosc, niciunul dintre mijloacele de informare în
masă care au formulat acuzații nu s-a scuzat public pentru alegațiile neîntemeiate. Daunele aduse imaginii României
nu au fost însă reparate.

Acesta este un bun exemplu de utilizat și analizat în cadrul consultărilor cu privire la libertatea media și pluralism,
pentru a mări gradul de responsabilitate al acestora pentru efectele negative pe care le-ar putea provoca în cazuri cum
este cel menționat mai sus. Pe acest fond, întrebarea mea este:

cum intenționează Comisia să asigure compatibilitatea libertății media cu drepturile fundamentale ale UE?

**Răspuns dat de dna Kroes în numele Comisiei**

_(8 mai 2013)_

Libertatea și pluralismul mass-media, elemente esențiale aflate la baza societăților noastre democratice, sunt
consacrate în tratat, prevăzute la articolul 11 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene, precum și la
articolul 10 din Convenția europeană a drepturilor omului. Comisia este puternic angajată în direcția asigurării
libertății de exprimare, în limita competențelor sale.

În ceea ce privește chestiunea adusă în discuție de distinsul membru, am dori să facem trimitere în mod special la
Directiva 2010/13/UE (Directiva serviciilor mass-media audiovizuale sau DSMAV), care include dispoziții privind
dreptul la replică, chiar dacă acestea sunt limitate la transmisiunile de televiziune. În plus, Recomandarea din 2006 a
Parlamentului European și a Consiliului privind protecția minorilor și a demnității umane, precum și dreptul la replică
îndeamnă statele membre să ia în considerare introducerea, în dreptul lor intern, a unor măsuri, a unor practici
referitoare la dreptul la replică sau a altor măsuri reparatorii echivalente în legătură cu mass-media online, cu
respectarea corespunzătoare a prevederilor legislației lor naționale și constituționale ( [1] ).

Comisia a instituit un grup independent la nivel înalt pentru libertatea și pluralismul mass-media; la 21 ianuarie 2013,
acest grup şi-a prezentat raportul, care include o gamă largă de recomandări. Comisia a lansat recent două consultări
publice, prima pe tema întregului raport și a doua pe tema independenței autorităților naționale de reglementare în
domeniul audiovizualului. Răspunsurile la aceste consultări vor contribui la evaluarea necesității de a se adopta
măsuri suplimentare de către Uniunea Europeană, în limitele competențelor sale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Recomandarea Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 20 decembrie 2006 privind protecția minorilor și a demnității umane, precum și

dreptul la replică în legătură cu competitivitatea industriei europene de servicii de informare audiovizuale și online (JO L 378, 27.12.2006, p.
72-77).

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 335

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003430/13**

**to the Commission**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Compatibility of media freedom with EU fundamental rights

Commissioner Neelie Kroes recently launched two consultations on media freedom and pluralism following a
recommendation from the Commission’s high level group.

There is a genuine need to closely monitor national media laws to ensure their compatibility with fundamental EU
rights.

The Romanian zootechnic sector was recently affected when international media questioned the sector’s involvement
in the horsemeat scandal, while investigations were still ongoing. Despite Romania’s prompt response to the
horsemeat scandal, certain sections of the media presented Romania as a guilty party. As far as I know, the media
responsible for these accusations have not yet made a public apology for the unfounded allegations, and so the
damage done to Romania’s image has gone unrepaired.

This is a good example which should be used and analysed in the consultations on media freedom and pluralism in
order to make the media accept more responsiblity for the negative effects it can have in cases such as the one above.

In this light, how does the Commission intend to ensure the compatibility of media freedom with EU fundamental
rights?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

Freedom and pluralism of media constitute essential foundations of our democratic societies, enshrined in the Treaty,
in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The Commission is strongly committed towards ensuring freedom of expression
within its competences.

As regards the matter addressed by the Honourable Member, we would point specifically to Directive 2010/13/EU
(Audiovisual Media Services Directive or AVMSD) which includes provisions on the right of reply, however limited to
television broadcasting. Furthermore, the 2006 Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the protection of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply recommends that the Member States consider
the introduction of measures into their domestic law or practice regarding the right of reply or equivalent remedies in
relation to online media, with due regard for their domestic and constitutional legislative provisions ( [1] ).

The Commission set up an independent High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism which presented its
report on 21 January 2013 which includes a large array of recommendations. The Commission has recently launched
two public consultations, the first one on the entire report and the second one on the independence of National
Audio-Visual Regulatory Authorities. Responses to those consultations will contribute to assessing whether
additional actions should be undertaken by the European Union within the limits of its competences.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the protection of minors and human dignity and on

the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and online information services industry — OJ L 378,
27.12.2006, pp. 72‐77.

C 12 E / 336 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003431/13**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(26 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Une remise en cause du principe d'égalité entre hommes et femmes

Le 8 mars 2013, à l'occasion de la journée internationale de la femme, un opérateur ferroviaire a organisé une action
promotionnelle en appliquant des prix inférieurs au coût normal d'utilisation. Ces billets à bas prix étaient seulement
à destination des femmes.

Cette promotion est l'exemple type d'une discrimination fondée sur le sexe. En effet, les hommes et les femmes ne
sont pas traités de manière égale puisque les femmes sont ici traitées d'une manière plus favorable. Cette offre
commerciale remet ainsi en cause le principe d'égalité entre hommes et femmes.

Ce principe est néanmoins l'un des principes fondamentaux du droit communautaire. Tout d'abord, la
directive 2004/113/CE du Conseil mettant en œuvre le principe de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes dans
l'accès aux biens et services et la fourniture de biens et services interdit les discriminations fondées sur le sexe dans
l'accès et la fourniture de biens et services. Les hommes et les femmes doivent pouvoir accéder de la même manière
aux biens et aux services proposés.

Par ailleurs, l'article 21 de la Charte européenne des droits fondamentaux interdit lui aussi la discrimination fondée
sur le sexe.

1. Alors que la Commission n'a cessé d'adopter des résolutions en faveur de l'égalité entre les femmes et les
hommes (Feuille de route (2006-2010), Stratégie pour l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes (2012-2015), une
Charte des femmes, etc.), ne pense‐t‐elle pas que cette action commerciale représente une infraction, à la fois, à la
directive 2004/113/CE et à l'article 14 de la Convention européenne des Droits de l'homme?

2. Face au manque d'efficacité de l'application des mesures actuelles concernant l'interdiction de discrimination
fondée sur le sexe, la Commission prévoit‐elle de proposer au Conseil les mesures nécessaires à une application plus
effective de ce principe?

3. Enfin, la législation européenne prévoit-elle des sanctions pour un non‐respect du principe d'égalité entre les
hommes et les femmes?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(14 mai 2013)_

1. La directive 2004/113/CE ( [1] ) interdit toute discrimination entre hommes et femmes en ce qui concerne l'accès et
la fourniture de biens et services. La Commission s'assure de la transposition correcte et complète de la directive dans
chaque État membre. Il revient aux États membres d'assurer l'application concrète du principe d'égalité de traitement
par les prestataires de services. Dans le cas mentionné par l'Honorable Parlementaire, la Commission reconnait la
différence de traitement entre hommes et femmes mais ne dispose pas des informations nécessaires pour l'évaluation
complète de l'existence d'une éventuelle discrimination résultant de l'action promotionnelle évoquée. Il faut
cependant noter que cette action a été limitée dans le temps (soit au 8 mars 2013) et dans le nombre de billets
proposés. Des différences de prix entre hommes et femmes n'apparaissent pas exister en dehors de cette journée
promotionnelle unique. Vu la nature isolée de cette action et en l'absence d'un problème lié à la législation d'un État
membre, la Commission n'a pas de raison d'intervenir.

2. La Commission adoptera un rapport en 2014 sur la mise en œuvre de la directive dans les États membres. Ce
rapport évaluera la nécessité de proposer d'éventuels amendements afin d'assurer la pleine application du principe
d'égalité de traitement entre hommes et femmes dans l'accès aux biens et services.

3. Conformément à l'article 14 de la directive, il relève de la compétence des États membres de déterminer les
sanctions applicables en cas de violation des dispositions nationales adoptées en application de la directive. La
Commission s'assure que chaque État a mis en place des sanctions effectives, proportionnées et dissuasives,
applicables en cas de discrimination.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/113/CE du Conseil mettant en œuvre le principe de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes dans l'accès aux biens et services et la
fourniture de biens et services.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 337

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003431/13**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The principle of gender equality called into question

On the occasion of International Women’s Day, 8 March 2013, a rail operator organised a promotion offering
discounted prices with respect to the normal cost of services. These low-cost tickets were only intended for women.

This promotion is a typical example of discrimination based on gender. Men and women are not treated equally since
in this case, women are treated more favourably. This commercial offer thereby calls into question the principle of
gender equality.

However, this principle is one of the fundamental principles of EC law. Firstly, Council Directive 2004/113/EC
implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and
services prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex in the access to and supply of goods and services. Men and
women must be able to access goods and services offered in the same way.

Furthermore, Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also prohibits discrimination
based on gender.

1. While the Commission constantly adopts resolutions in favour of equality between men and women (Roadmap
(2006-2010), Strategy for equality between men and women (2012‐2015), a Women's Charter, etc.), does it not
believe that this commercial action violates both Directive 2004/113/EC and Article 14 of the European Convention
on Human Rights?

2. Given the ineffective application of current measures prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sex, does the
Commission intend to propose to the Council the measures necessary to ensure a more effective application of this
principle?

3. Lastly, does EC law provide for sanctions where the principle of equality between men and women is not
respected?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

1. Directive 2004/113/EC ( [1] ) prohibits all discrimination between men and women in the access to and supply of
goods and services. The Commission is responsible for ensuring that the Directive is transposed correctly and in full
in each Member State. It is up to the Member States to make sure that service providers apply the principle of equal
treatment in practice. In the case cited by the Honourable Member, the Commission recognises that there was a
difference in treatment between men and women, but does not have the necessary information to fully assess whether
the promotional measure resulted in discrimination. It must be noted, however, that this promotion was offered for a
limited time period (8 March 2013) and a limited number of tickets. Differences in prices for men and women do not
appear to have applied apart from on this single promotional day. Given the isolated nature of the promotion, and in
the absence of a problem with the legislation of a Member State, there is no reason for the Commission to intervene.

2. The Commission will adopt a report in 2014 on the implementation of the Directive in the Member States. The
report will assess whether it is necessary to propose any amendments in order to ensure the full application of the
principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to goods and services.

3. In accordance with Article 14 of the Directive, the Member States are responsible for determining the penalties
applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to the Directive. The Commission must
ensure that each Member State has introduced effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties applicable to cases of
discrimination.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2004/113/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and
services.

C 12 E / 338 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003432/13**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(26 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Les coûts externes de l'automobile dans l'Union européenne

Selon une étude menée par le Département des sciences des transports de l'Université allemande de Dresde, les
voitures utilisées dans l'Union européenne à 27 externaliseraient environ 373 milliards d'euros par an vers d'autres
personnes, d'autres régions et d'autres générations. En effet, les voitures ne couvrent pas la totalité de leurs coûts
externes (externalités négatives liées à la pollution, à l'émission de gaz à effet de serre, aux nuisances sonores, aux
accidents automobiles, etc.) et d'autres acteurs que les utilisateurs doivent ou devront un jour payer la facture.

Il est tout à fait compréhensible que, face à ce constat, l'Union européenne mette en place des mesures afin de tenter
de lutter contre ces coûts externes. C'est notamment le cas lorsque l'Union européenne tente de favoriser la création
de nouvelles technologies visant à obtenir des réductions des émissions de gaz à effet de serre ou lorsqu'elle incite les
constructeurs automobiles à produire des voitures plus respectueuses de l'environnement. Il en va de même pour les
mesures relatives au niveau sonore des véhicules lorsque l'Union européenne s'engage à réduire les externalités
sonores des véhicules à moteur afin de protéger la santé publique et l'environnement.

Néanmoins, au fur et à mesure que s'ajoutent des mesures de lutte contre les coûts externes de l'utilisation des voitures
au sein de l'Union européenne, les constructeurs automobiles se voient constamment imposer de nouvelles normes et
de nouvelles mesures. Ces entreprises ne peuvent pas indéfiniment augmenter les prix de leurs produits afin
d'internaliser ces coûts externes liés à l'utilisation de voitures. Cela constitue pour ces entreprises une charge de plus
en plus lourde, notamment en situation de crise économique.

1. Afin de réduire cette charge administrative et financière pour les constructeurs automobiles, ne serait-il pas
judicieux que la Commission mette en place une mesure commune d'internalisation de l'ensemble des coûts externes
liés à l'utilisation des voitures, plutôt que de multiplier les mesures isolées?

2. Par ailleurs, alors que le nombre d'immatriculation des voitures neuves a baissé de 10,5 % depuis 2012,
comment la Commission envisage-t-elle de prendre en compte les externalités de l'utilisation des voitures sans
pénaliser le secteur automobile?

**Réponse donnée par M. Tajani au nom de la Commission**

_(30 mai 2013)_

L'étude mentionnée par l'Honorable Parlementaire recommande que des efforts supplémentaires soient accomplis
pour faire en sorte que les effets externes induits soient davantage pris en compte dans le coût d'utilisation des
véhicules. Dans ce contexte, il convient de noter que les coûts mentionnés dans l'étude ne traduisent qu'indirectement
les effets réels, auxquels il n'est possible de faire face qu'en calculant le coût d'utilisation des voitures et en établissant
une réglementation à la source. La Commission est en train d'élaborer une nouvelle proposition de tarification
routière juste et efficace, qui pourrait prévoir un nouveau cadre pour l'internalisation des coûts externes du transport
routier au moyen de péages et de droits d'utilisation. Cependant, ces politiques de lutte contre les effets négatifs de
l'utilisation des véhicules à moteur seraient moins efficaces sans obligations bien ciblées en matière d'homologation.

Par ailleurs, la Commission est pleinement consciente du fait que l'industrie automobile évolue dans un
environnement commercial difficile en Europe et elle aide activement ce secteur à relever les défis auxquels il est
confronté. Dans le plan d'action CARS 2020 ( [1] ), la Commission a rappelé qu'elle s'était engagée en faveur d'une
application globale et cohérente des principes de réglementation intelligente, ce qui suppose, dans le cadre de l'analyse
d'impact, une analyse rigoureuse de la compétitivité des principales initiatives futures qui auront des répercussions
sensibles sur l'industrie automobile.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 636 du 8 novembre 2012.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 339

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003432/13**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ External costs of motor vehicles in the EU

According to a study carried out by the Department of Transport Science of the University of Dresden, Germany, cars
used in the EU-27 cost other people, regions and generations roughly EUR 373 billion per year. Indeed, cars do not
cover all of their external costs (negative externalities related to pollution, the emission of greenhouse gas, noise
pollution, car accidents, etc.), and people other than users have to pay, or will one day have to pay, the bill.

It is completely understandable that, in view of these findings, the EU is putting in place measures to try to combat
these external costs. This is the case, in particular, when the EU tries to promote the creation of new technologies that
aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or when it encourages car manufacturers to produce cars that are more
environmentally friendly. The same applies to measures regarding the noise level of vehicles when the EU undertakes
to reduce the noise externalities of motor vehicles in order to protect public health and the environment.

Nevertheless, as additional measures to combat the external costs of the use of cars within the EU are brought in, new
standards and measures are constantly imposed on car manufacturers. These companies cannot indefinitely raise the
price of their products in order to internalise these external costs related to car use. This is an increasingly heavy
burden for these companies to bear, especially at a time of economic crisis.

1. In order to reduce this administrative and financial burden on car manufacturers, would it not be wise for the
Commission to put in place a common measure to internalise all external costs related to the use of cars, rather than
to increase the number of separate measures?

2. Moreover, whereas the number of new car registrations is down 10.5% since 2012, how does the Commission
intend to take into account externalities related to car use without penalising the automobile industry?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The study mentioned by the Honourable Member recommends that additional efforts should be made to better factor
externalities into the cost of driving. In this context, it is important to keep in mind that the cost figures presented in
the study are proxies for real effects, which can be effectively addressed only through a combination of pricing the use
of vehicles and regulation at source. The Commission is currently preparing a new proposal on fair and efficient road
pricing, which might contain a new framework for the internalisation of external costs of road transport through tolls
and user charges. However, such policies for combating the negative effects arising from motor vehicle use would be
less effective without well-targeted type-approval requirements.

The Commission is also fully aware that the automotive industry is confronted with a difficult market environment in
Europe and actively supports the sector in meeting the challenges it is facing. In the CARS 2020 Action Plan ( [1] ) the
Commission reiterated its commitment to applying the principles of smart regulation in a comprehensive and
consistent manner. This includes, as part of the impact assessment, a rigorous competitiveness proofing of all major
future initiatives with a significant impact on the automotive industry.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 636 of 8 November 2012.

C 12 E / 340 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003433/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Raimon Obiols (S&D)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Conflicto del Sahara Occidental

Christopher Ross, enviado especial del Secretario General de la ONU para el Sahara Occidental, se encuentra
actualmente de misión por el Magreb con el objetivo de avanzar en la resolución del conflicto sahariano que dura
desde hace 38 años.

A fecha de hoy, el conflicto existente en el Sahara Occidental adquiere una mayor gravedad debido a la inestabilidad
en la región del Sahel y al riesgo real de propagación del terrorismo.

— ¿Tiene previsto la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante reunirse próximamente con el enviado especial de la ONU?

— ¿Está previsto realizar alguna iniciativa o declaración de apoyo al Sr. Ross, como han hecho los Estados Unidos o el
Grupo de Amigos del Sahara Occidental en la ONU?

— ¿Está previsto tratar el conflicto sahariano con las autoridades marroquíes en el marco de las negociaciones con
la UE con vistas a la eventual aprobación de un nuevo acuerdo comercial completo que el Presidente, Sr. Barroso,
anunció durante su reciente visita a Rabat?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante/Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de mayo de 2013)_

La UE sigue preocupada por las repercusiones del conflicto del Sahara Occidental para la seguridad y la cooperación
en la región. La UE ha instado reiteradamente a todas las partes a que se abstengan de actos violentos y que respeten
los derechos humanos.

La AR/VP reitera su pleno apoyo a los esfuerzos del Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas, elogia el trabajo de su
Enviado Personal, el Embajador Christopher Ross, y alienta a las partes a trabajar en favor de una solución política
justa, duradera y aceptable para las partes que contemple la autodeterminación de la población del Sáhara Occidental,
de acuerdo con las Resoluciones del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas. No está previsto por el momento
ningún encuentro con el Sr. Ross.

Las cuestiones relacionadas con el Sáhara Occidental se abordan regularmente en el marco del diálogo político
UE-Marruecos en las reuniones de los organismos conjuntos establecidos en virtud del Acuerdo de Asociación.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 341

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003433/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Raimon Obiols (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Conflict in Western Sahara

Christopher Ross, the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy for Western Sahara, is currently on mission in the
Maghreb aiming to make progress towards resolving the Saharan conflict, which has been ongoing for 38 years.

The conflict in Western Sahara has now become a more serious matter due to the instability of the Sahel region and
the real risk of the spread of terrorism.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to meet with the UN Special Envoy soon?

— Are there plans to present any initiatives or declarations of support for Mr Ross at the UN as the United States and
the Group of Friends of Western Sahara have done?

— Are there plans to raise the issue of the Saharan conflict with the Moroccan authorities within the framework of
the EU negotiations aimed at the possible approval of a new comprehensive trade agreement, announced by
President Barroso during his recent visit to Rabat?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The EU remains concerned about the implications of the Western Sahara conflict for the security and cooperation in
the region. The EU has repeatedly called on all parties to refrain from violence and to respect human rights.

The HR/VP reaffirms her full support for the UN Secretary-General’s efforts, commends the work of his Personal
Envoy Ambassador Christopher Ross and encourages the parties to work towards achieving a just, lasting and
mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara,
in agreement with relevant UN Security Council resolutions. No meeting with Mr Ross is scheduled for the moment.

Western Sahara related issues are regularly discussed in the framework of EU-Morocco political dialogue, at meetings
of the joint bodies established under the Association Agreement.

C 12 E / 342 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003434/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Negociaciones UE-Mercosur

Varios medios de comunicación han recogido las declaraciones del embajador de Alemania en Paraguay, Claude
Robert Ellner, en las que se refería a la postura de la Unión Europea ante la exclusión de Paraguay de Mercosur tras el
golpe de Estado parlamentario que provocó la deposición del Presidente Fernando Lugo. El señor embajador afirmó
que «no vamos a trabajar con la exclusión de Paraguay» ( [1] ).

Los Estados firmantes de Mercosur, conjuntamente con la República de Bolivia y la República de Chile, suscribieron
en 1998 el denominado Protocolo de Ushuaia. Dicho protocolo establecía un compromiso democrático en la región,
y recogía en su artículo 5 la posibilidad de hacer efectiva «la suspensión del derecho a participar en los distintos
órganos de los respectivos procesos de integración, hasta la suspensión de los derechos y obligaciones emergentes de
estos procesos». El artículo 6, además, recoge que dicha decisión debe ser tomada por consenso entre los Estados no
afectados por un supuesto caso de ruptura democrática ( [2] ).

— ¿Considera la Alta Representante que la UE debe inmiscuirse en los protocolos de relación interna que regulan
Mercosur?

— Dada la importancia de conseguir un acuerdo justo y favorable para las dos partes, ¿entiende la Alta Representante
que deben continuar las negociaciones con los Estados que forman parte actualmente del Mercosur?

— ¿Entiende la Alta Representante que debe ser el embajador de un Estado miembro quien comunique la postura de
la Unión Europea ante una cuestión tan relevante?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(28 de mayo de 2013)_

— La AR/VP emitió una declaración inmediatamente después de los acontecimientos ocurridos el 22 de junio en
Paraguay, en la que señalaba que la UE no interferiría en las actividades de la organización regional de la que Paraguay
forma parte, sino que se dedicaría más bien a observar y analizar sus reacciones.

La AR/VP se abstuvo de opinar o hacer cualquier declaración pública sobre la idoneidad de las decisiones tomadas por
el Mercosur y la Unasur.

— En lo referente a las negociaciones con el Mercosur, cabe señalar que la UE negocia con esta organización regional
en bloque y no de forma individual con cada uno de sus miembros, y que la estructura y el funcionamiento de la
misma constituyen asuntos internos del Mercosur.

— Las declaraciones atribuidas al Embajador de Alemania han sido sacadas de contexto por la prensa local, y el
Embajador, como representante local de la Presidencia de la UE, defiende la línea seguida por la UE que ha sido aquí
expuesta.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.abc.com.py/edicion-impresa/politica/la-ue-no-negociara-con-mercosur-si-paraguay-no-integra-la-mesa-542123.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Protocolo de Ushuaia: http://www.amersur.org.ar/Integ/ProtocoloUshuaia.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 343

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003434/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU-Mercosur negotiations

Various media sources have published the statements by the German ambassador to Paraguay, Claude Robert Ellner,
in which he referred to the European Union’s position with regard to Paraguay’s exclusion from Mercosur as a result
of the parliamentary _coup d’état_ which led to deposition of President Fernando Lugo. The ambassador stated that ‘we
are not going to work with the exclusion of Paraguay’ ( [1] ).

The signatory countries of Mercosur, together with the Republic of Bolivia and the Republic of Chile, signed the socalled Ushuaia Protocol in 1998. This Protocol established a democratic commitment in the region and in its Article 5
it provided for the possibility of implementing ‘the suspension of the right to participate in various bodies of the
respective integration processes, including the suspension of the rights and obligations deriving from those
processes’. Furthermore, Article 6 states that such a decision should be taken by consensus amongst the countries not
affected by any alleged breach of democracy ( [2] ).

— Does the High Representative believe that the EU should interfere in the internal protocols governing Mercosur?

— Given the importance of reaching a fair agreement which is favourable to both parties, does the High
Representative feel that negotiations must continue with the States that currently form part of Mercosur?

— Does the High Representative feel it is appropriate for the ambassador of a Member State to communicate the
European Union’s position on such an important issue?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

— The HR/VP issued a statement in the immediate aftermath of the 22 June events in Paraguay indicating that the EU
will not interfere with the activities of the regional organisation of which Paraguay is a member, but will rather
observe and analyse their reactions.

The HR/VP refrained from issuing any public statement or judgment on the appropriateness of the decisions taken
from Mercosur and UNASUR.

— As for the negotiations with Mercosur; the EU negotiates with the regional organisation as a bloc and not with its
individual members. Its structure and operation is an internal matter to Mercosur.

— The quote attributed to the German Ambassador was taken out of context by the local press. Representing the EU
local Presidency, the Ambassador defends the EU line as given above.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.abc.com.py/edicion-impresa/politica/la-ue-no-negociara-con-mercosur-si-paraguay-no-integra-la-mesa-542123.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ushuaia Protocol: http://www.amersur.org.ar/Integ/ProtocoloUshuaia.htm

C 12 E / 344 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003435/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(26. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Dreiecksbesteuerung

Mir wurde berichtet, dass im Online-Handel beim sogenannten Dropshipping zwischen mehreren Mitgliedstaaten
erheblicher Aufwand betrieben werden muss, um das Geschäft regelkonform zu versteuern. Im konkreten Fall geht es
um die Lieferung eines Online-Händlers mit Firmensitz in Deutschland. Er beauftragt nach Bestellung einen
Großhändler, die Ware nach Österreich auszuliefern. Nun muss er folgendes Prozedere bei der Rechnungsstellung
einhalten: Er berechnet das Geschäft mit seiner österreichischen Umsatzsteuer-ID und versteuert es in Österreich. Der
Kunde bekommt eine Rechnung mit österreichischer Mehrwertsteuer. Gleichzeitig muss nun der in Deutschland
sitzende Großhändler eine Rechnung ohne Mehrwertsteuer ausstellen, da das Geschäft in Österreich stattgefunden
hat.

1. Stimmt es, dass Unternehmen bei Geschäften wie dem oben genannten tatsächlich so ein Verfahren der
Abwicklung einhalten müssen?

2. Steht das nicht dem Grundsatz des Binnenmarktes entgegen, wonach Geschäfte auch über die Grenzen der
Mitgliedstaaten hinweg ohne Hürden ablaufen sollten?

3. Sieht die Kommission hier die Notwendigkeit einer Vereinfachung und wann ist diese geplant?

**Antwort von Herrn Šemeta im Namen der Kommission**

_(8. Mai 2013)_

Die Kommission kann bestätigen, dass die Vereinfachung der für Dreiecksgeschäfte eingeführten Maßnahmen ( [1] )
nicht gilt, wenn ein in Deutschland und in Österreich für Mehrwertsteuerzwecke erfasster Online‐Händler im
Rahmen des Dropshipping über einen in Deutschland ansässigen Großhändler Waren an einen Kunden in Österreich
liefert; in diesem Fall erfolgt die steuerliche Behandlung gemäß den derzeitigen Übergangsvorschriften für die
Besteuerung von EU-internen Umsätzen in der von der Frau Abgeordneten dargestellten Weise.

Diese Vorschriften, mit denen eine Besteuerung am Bestimmungsort sichergestellt werden soll, werden angesichts
ihrer Komplexität von vielen als eines der wichtigsten Hindernisse für einen effizienten EU-internen Handel
angesehen. Das bedeutet allerdings nicht, dass sie den Grundsätzen des Binnenmarktes entgegenstehen.

Die Notwendigkeit einer Vereinfachung wird allgemein anerkannt. Als Antwort auf diese Notwendigkeit hat die
Kommission einen Aktionsplan für ein einfacheres, robusteres und effizienteres MwSt.-System, das auf den
Binnenmarkt zugeschnitten ist, angenommen. Einzelheiten zu den geplanten Maßnahmen sowie der voraussichtliche
Zeitplan sind der Mitteilung der Kommission zur Zukunft der Mehrwertsteuer ( [2] ) zu entnehmen.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artikel 42 in Verbindung mit Artikel 141 der MwSt.-Richtlinie (Richtlinie 2006/112/EG des Rates vom 28. November 2006 über das

gemeinsame Mehrwertsteuersystem.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat und den Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss zur Zukunft der

Mehrwertsteuer (KOM(2011)851).

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 345

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003435/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Triangular taxation

I have been informed that, in online trading in connection with drop shipping between several Member States, a
considerable amount of effort has to be made to tax the business in accordance with the rules. This particular case
relates to supply from an online trader with a registered office in Germany. After engaging the services of a
wholesaler, he asks for the goods to be delivered to Austria. He must now adhere to the following procedure for
invoicing: he draws up an invoice for the transaction using his Austrian VAT number and subjects it to tax in Austria.
The customer receives an invoice that includes Austrian VAT. At the same time, the wholesaler based in Germany has
to draw up an invoice without VAT, as the transaction took place in Austria.

1. Is it true that, in the case of transactions like the one described above, companies really have to follow this sort
of procedure for settlement?

2. Does that not run counter to the principle of the internal market, according to which there should be no barriers
to transactions taking place across the borders of the Member States?

3. Does the Commission see the need for simplification here and when is this planned?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

The Commission can confirm that, as the simplification measures put in place for triangular transactions ( [1] ) are not
applicable in the case where an online trader registered for VAT purposes in Germany as well as in Austria drop ships
goods supplied to a customer in Austria via a wholesaler based in Germany, the tax treatment will, under the current
transitional arrangements for taxing intra-EU transactions, be as described by the Honourable member.

Those arrangements designed to ensure taxation at destination are, due to their complexity, seen by many as one of
the main obstacles to efficient intra-EU trade. That does not, however, signify that they run counter to the principles
of the internal market.

The need for simplification is widely recognised. Responding to that need, the Commission has adopted an action
plan for a simpler, more robust and efficient VAT system tailored to the single market. Details on the actions planned
and the timing envisaged are set out in its communication on the future of VAT ( [2] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 42 read in conjunction with Article 141 of the VAT Directive (Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common

system of value added tax.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the future

of VAT (COM(2011) 851).

( **|**

C 12 E / 346 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003436/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(26 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Κατασκευή πυρηνικού σταθμού στο Ακουγιού της Τουρκίας

Σε απάντηση προηγούμενης ερώτησής μου (P-002935/2011) σχετικά με τον κίνδυνο που συνεπάγεται για τους ευρωπαίους
πολίτες η απόφαση των τουρκικών αρχών για την κατασκευή πυρηνικού σταθμού σε περιοχή γνωστής σεισμογένειας, στο
Ακουγιού, η Επιτροπή είχε υπογραμμίσει την ανησυχία της για το γεγονός.

Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή είχε δηλώσει ότι θα καλέσει την Τουρκία να υιοθετήσει νομοθεσία που να εξασφαλίζει υψηλό επίπεδο
πυρηνικής ασφάλειας με βάση τα πρότυπα της ΕΕ, να προσχωρήσει στην κοινή σύμβαση για την ασφάλεια διαχείρισης
αναλωμένου καυσίμου και την ασφάλεια διαχείρισης ραδιενεργών αποβλήτων και να ευθυγραμμίσει τη νομοθεσία της με το
σύνολο του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου για την πυρηνική ασφάλεια, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της οδηγίας για την πυρηνική
ασφάλεια. Επιπλέον, είχε επισημάνει ότι θα περίμενε η Τουρκία να προχωρήσει σε εκτίμηση περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων
(ΕΠΕ) του προγραμματισμένου πυρηνικού σταθμού και ότι «θα παρακολουθήσει το θέμα εκ του σύνεγγυς».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
η Τουρκία ακολούθησε τις παραπάνω παροτρύνσεις της και κατά πόσο έχει προχωρήσει σε εκτίμηση περιβαλλοντικών
επιπτώσεων (ΕΠΕ);

Εάν ναι, είναι ενήμερη για τα συμπεράσματα της ΕΠΕ;

Τέλος, στο πλαίσιο της νέας οδηγίας για την υπεύθυνη και ασφαλή διαχείριση αναλωμένων καυσίμων και ραδιενεργών
αποβλήτων, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο υπογράμμισε τη ρητή ανησυχία του ειδικά για την κατασκευή πυρηνικού σταθμού
στο Ακουγιού και κάλεσε την Επιτροπή να λάβει όλα τα απαραίτητα μέτρα για την αποτροπή απόθεσης ραδιενεργών
αποβλήτων σε τέτοιες περιοχές υψηλής σεισμικότητας (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//
NONSGML+TA+P7-TA-2011-0295+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN).

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
ποια μέτρα έχει λάβει σε συνέχεια της απόφασης αυτής;

**Απάντηση του κ. Oettinger εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(23 Μαΐου 2013)_

1. Σύμφωνα με την Aντιπροσωπεία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην Άγκυρα, η εκτίμηση των περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων
του προγραμματισμένου πυρηνικού σταθμού στο Ακουγιού υποβλήθηκε στο Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος και Χωροταξίας της
Τουρκίας το 2011. Ωστόσο, η διαδικασία δεν έχει ακόμα ολοκληρωθεί.

2. Η Επιτροπή ανέκαθεν ενθάρρυνε την Τουρκία να προσχωρήσει στην κοινή σύμβαση για την ασφάλεια διαχείρισης
αναλωμένου καυσίμου και την ασφάλεια διαχείρισης ραδιενεργών αποβλήτων ( [1] ). Επιπλέον, η Επιτροπή έχει επισημάνει ότι η
Τουρκία, ως υποψήφια προς ένταξη χώρα, αναμένεται να ευθυγραμμίσει σταδιακά τη νομοθεσία της με το σύνολο του
κοινοτικού κεκτημένου, το οποίο περιλαμβάνει την οδηγία για την υπεύθυνη και ασφαλή διαχείριση αναλωμένων καυσίμων
και ραδιενεργών αποβλήτων ( [2] ). Σύμφωνα με την οδηγία, το κράτος έχει την τελική ευθύνη για την εν λόγω διαχείριση και
καλείται να θεσπίσει σε εθνικό επίπεδο πολιτική, πλαίσιο και πρόγραμμα για τη διαχείριση των αναλωμένων καυσίμων και των
ραδιενεργών αποβλήτων, από την παραγωγή έως τη διάθεσή τους. Η οδηγία απαιτεί επίσης η ασφάλεια κάθε εγκατάστασης ή
δραστηριότητας να αξιολογείται, να επαληθεύεται και να βελτιώνεται σε τακτά χρονικά διαστήματα με συστηματικό και
ελεγχόμενο τρόπο, υπό την εποπτεία της αρμόδιας για την ασφάλεια αρχής ( [3] ).

Η Επιτροπή θα ήθελε επίσης να παραπέμψει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου στις απαντήσεις της στις γραπτές
ερωτήσεις P-002852/2011, P-008971/2012, E-005692/2012 και E-006346/2012.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Η σύμβαση παρέχει πλαίσιο για την αντιμετώπιση ανάλογης διαχείρισης και ένα φόρουμ για την ανταλλαγή σχετικών εμπειριών με άλλα συμβαλλόμενα

μέρη.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Οδηγία 2011/70/Ευρατόμ του Συμβουλίου, της 19ης Ιουλίου 2011, η οποία θεσπίζει κοινοτικό πλαίσιο για την υπεύθυνη και ασφαλή διαχείριση των

αναλωμένων καυσίμων και των ραδιενεργών αποβλήτων, ΕΕ L 199 της 2.8.2011, σ. 48.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Επιπλέον, η διαδικασία χορήγησης της άδειας θα συμβάλει στην ασφάλεια της εγκατάστασης ή της δραστηριότητας υπό κανονικές συνθήκες λειτουργίας,

κατά τη διάρκεια των αναμενόμενων επιχειρησιακών περιστατικών και σε περίπτωση ατυχημάτων λόγω σχεδιασμού. Τέλος, οι διεθνείς αξιολογήσεις από
ομότιμους πρέπει να κληθούν να διασφαλίσουν την εφαρμογή των υψηλότερων δυνατών προτύπων ασφαλείας.

( **|**

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 347

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003436/13**

**to the Commission**

**Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New nuclear power plant in Akkuyu (Turkey)

In its reply to my previous question (P-002935/2011), the Commission underlined its concerns about the risk to
European citizens posed by the decision of the Turkish authorities to construct a nuclear power plant in the seismic
area of Akkuyu.

Furthermore, the Commission stated that it would call on Turkey to pass legislation that guaranteed a high level of
nuclear safety based on EU standards, accede to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on
the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management and bring its legislation into line with all EU _acquis_ on nuclear safety,
including the Nuclear Safety Directive. It also pointed out that it expected Turkey to carry out an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) of the planned nuclear power plant and that ‘it would monitor the matter closely’.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Has Turkey taken the action called for and has it carried out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

If so, has it been advised of the outcome of the EIA?

Finally, the European Parliament underlined its specific concerns, especially regarding the construction of a nuclear
power plant in Akkuyu, within the framework of the new Directive on responsible and safe spent fuel and nuclear
waste management and called on the Commission to take all measures needed to prevent radioactive waste from
being stored in areas at high seismic risk (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//
NONSGML+TA+P7-TA-2011-0295+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN).

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

— What measures has it taken in the wake of that decision?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

1. According to the Delegation of the European Union in Ankara, the Environmental Impact Assessment for the
planned nuclear power plant in Akkuyu was submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization of Turkey in
2011. The process has however not been finalised yet.

2. The Commission has long been encouraging Turkey to accede to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent
Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management ( [1] ). Moreover, the Commission has pointed out
that Turkey, as a candidate country, is expected to progressively align its national legislation with the EU _acquis_, which
includes the directive on the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste ( [2] ). According to
the directive, the State has ultimate responsibility for this management and shall establish a relevant national policy,
framework and programme for managing spent fuel and radioactive waste, from generation to disposal. The directive
also requires that the safety of any facility or activity is regularly assessed, verified and improved in a systematic and
verifiable manner, under the supervision of the competent safety authority ( [3] ).

The Commission would also like to cross refer the Honorable Member to its replies to written questions
P-002852/2011, P-008971/2012, E-005692/2012 and E-006346/2012.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The Convention provides a framework addressing such management and a forum to share relevant experience with other Contracting Parties.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel

and radioactive waste, OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) In addition, the licensing process shall contribute to safety in the facility or activity during normal operating conditions, anticipated operational

occurrences and design basis accidents. Finally, international peer reviews have to be invited to ensure the application of the highest safety
standards.

( **|**

C 12 E / 348 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003437/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)**

_(26 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Kwaliteitsnormen van materialen gebruikt voor 3D-printen

3D-printen in de economie heeft op korte tijd sterk aan belang gewonnen. Het aantal toepassingen neemt snel toe en
stilaan bereikt deze technologie ook de Europese huiskamers. Bedrijven kunnen al allerlei gebruiksvoorwerpen
printen in verschillende materialen waaronder plastic, metaal en cement. Bij de gewone consument beperkt printen
zich vandaag tot voorwerpen in kunststof. In principe kan elk denkbaar voorwerp dat printbaar is afgedrukt worden
in eender welk materiaal. De vraag rijst echter of elk materiaal wel geschikt is voor eender welk voorwerp. De
speelgoedindustrie bijvoorbeeld maakt steeds vaker gebruik van deze nieuwe techniek. De vraag kan gesteld worden
of er geen nieuwe risico's betreffende de kwaliteit van geprinte voorwerpen ontstaan.

1. Bestaan er Europese of nationale kwaliteitsnormen betreffende de materialen gebruikt voor 3D-printen? En
zo niet, heeft de Commissie plannen zulke Europese kwaliteitsnormen in te voeren?

2. Zijn er specifieke controlemechanismen om de kwaliteit van 3D-geprinte voorwerpen te kunnen garanderen?

3. In hoeverre gaan de bestaande Europese kwaliteitsnormen op voor materialen die gebruikt worden voor
3D-printen?

4. Is er een dialoog met de belangrijkste stakeholders over dergelijke kwaliteitsnormen? Zo nee, bereidt de
Commissie zich voor om deze te initiëren?

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003438/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)**

_(26 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Invoer van Amerikaanse 3D-printers op de Europese markt

De afgelopen jaren is het aanbod van commerciële 3D-printers voor thuisgebruik erg gestegen. Er is echter een grote
variatie in toestellen. De meeste van deze toestellen of bouwpakketten voor 3D-printers worden vandaag ingevoerd
vanuit de Verenigde Staten.

1. Bestaan er kwaliteitslabels of certificaten die minimumstandaarden garanderen aan de Europese consument bij
de aanschaf van een commerciële 3D-printer voor thuisgebruik? En indien niet, welke plannen maakt de Commissie
om zulke kwaliteitslabels of certificaten in te voeren?

2. Bestaan er Europese minimumstandaarden inzake commerciële 3D-printers voor thuisgebruik?

3. Welke plannen heeft de Commissie voor dergelijke Europese minimumstandaarden inzake commerciële 3Dprinters voor thuisgebruik?

4. Is er een dialoog met de belangrijkste stakeholders betreffende minimumstandaarden met betrekking tot 3Dprinters voor thuisgebruik?

5. In welke mate is er certificering van en controle op de invoer van 3D-printers vanuit bijvoorbeeld de Verenigde
Staten naar de EU? Kan er gegarandeerd worden dat 3D-printers die een particulier bijvoorbeeld via een
internetwinkel in de VS aankoopt, gecertificeerd zijn voor gebruik in de EU?

**Antwoord van de heer Tajani namens de Commissie**

_(30 mei 2013)_

De Commissie volgt de ontwikkeling van de voor 3D-printen gebruikte technologie op de voet en voert nauw overleg
met de belanghebbenden over deze kwestie. Het onderwerp is ook behandeld in de openbare raadpleging over de
herziening van de internemarktwetgeving voor industrieproducten, die op 17 april 2013 is afgesloten.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 349

Met betrekking tot de voor 3D-printen gebruikte materialen en de door middel van 3D-printen vervaardigde
producten dient elk product dat onder de harmonisatiewetgeving van de EU valt, te voldoen aan de Europese
veiligheidsregelgeving. Daarnaast moet elk consumentenproduct dat onder de richtlijn inzake algemene
productveiligheid ( [1] ) valt, veilig zijn wanneer het op de markt wordt gebracht. De risico's die ontstaan bij chemische
stoffen en mengsels worden behandeld in de REACH-verordening ( [2] ).

De veiligheid van 3D-printers is geregeld in de machinerichtlijn ( [3] ), waarin essentiële eisen zijn opgenomen en de
conformiteit met die eisen kan worden verkregen door de toepassing van de Europese geharmoniseerde normen of
andere technische normen, mits deze dezelfde mate van veiligheid bieden. De eisen zijn zowel op in de EU
geproduceerde als op ingevoerde producten van toepassing. De richtlijn verplicht fabrikanten producten die voldoen
aan de eisen, d.w.z. veilige producten, in de handel te brengen en de noodzakelijke aanwijzingen te verstrekken om
een veilig gebruik van deze producten te waarborgen. Bovendien is de fabrikant, of deze nu in de EU of in een derde
land is gevestigd, verplicht:

—
de technische documentatie te leveren;

—
de CE-markering aan te brengen;

—
de verklaring van overeenstemming af te geven en te ondertekenen.

De markttoezichtautoriteiten van de lidstaten houden toezicht op de naleving van de EU‐voorschriften voor een
product, ongeacht de oorsprong van de producten.

De machinerichtlijn omvat veiligheidskwesties, maar bevat geen bepalingen omtrent kwaliteit; dit is een aspect dat
beter kan worden gereguleerd door middel van vraag en aanbod van deze producten.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2001/95/EG.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EG/1907/2006.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 2006/42/EG.

C 12 E / 350 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003437/13**

**to the Commission**
**Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Quality standards for materials used in 3D printing

3D printing for business purposes has gained greatly in importance over a short space of time. The number of
applications is increasing rapidly and this technology will also gradually reach European homes. Companies are
already able to print all kinds of objects in various materials, including plastic, metal and cement. For the ordinary
consumer, printing is currently limited to objects in plastic. In principle, every conceivable object that is printable can
be printed in any material. However, the question arises as to whether any material is suitable for any object. The toy
industry, for example, is increasingly using this new technology. The question may, therefore, be asked whether any
new risks might be associated with the quality of printed objects.

1. Are there any European or national quality standards for the materials used in 3D printing? If not, does the
Commission plan to introduce such European quality standards?

2. Are there any specific control mechanisms by which the quality of 3D-printed objects can be guaranteed?

3. To what extent are the existing European quality standards sufficient for materials that are used in 3D printing?

4. Is there a dialogue with key stakeholders on such quality standards? If not, is the Commission preparing to
introduce one?

**Question for written answer E-003438/13**

**to the Commission**
**Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Importation of US 3D printers into the European market

In recent years, the availability of commercial 3D printers for home use has greatly increased. However, there is a
great deal of variation between these devices. Most of these devices or assembly kits for 3D printers are currently
imported from the United States.

1. Are there quality labels or certificates that guarantee minimum standards to European consumers purchasing a
commercial 3D printer for home use? If not, what plans does the Commission have in terms of introducing such
quality labels or certificates?

2. Are there minimum European standards on commercial 3D printers for home use?

3. What plans does the Commission have for such European minimum standards on commercial 3D printers for
home use?

4. Is there a dialogue with key stakeholders on minimum standards relating to 3D printers for home use?

5. To what extent is there certification and monitoring of the importation of 3D printers from the United States,
for example, into the EU? Can it be guaranteed that 3D printers which a private individual purchases, for example
through an online shop in the US, will be certified for use in the EU?

**Joint answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission is closely following the development of 3D printing technology and is in close dialogue with
stakeholders on the issue. The topic has also been addressed in the public consultation on the ‘Review of the internal
market legislation for industrial products’ that closed on 17 April 2013.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 351

Concerning the materials used for 3D printing and products manufactured by 3D printing, any product falling under
EU harmonisation legislation, must comply with European safety rules. In addition, any consumer product falling
under the General Product Safety Directive ( [1] ) must be safe when placed on the market. The risks arising from
chemical substances and mixtures are tackled by the REACH Regulation ( [2] ).

The safety of 3D printers is governed by the Machinery Directive ( [3] ) which sets essential requirements and conformity
that can be established either by applying the European harmonised standards or another engineering standardisation
practice provided that the latter guarantees the same level of safety. The requirements apply to products produced in
the EU as well as to imports. This directive requires producers to place compliant, hence safe products on the market
and provide necessary information to ensure the safe use of these products. Moreover, the manufacturer, whether
established in the EU or a third country, is obliged to:

—
provide the technical documentation;

—
affix the CE marking (conformity label);

—
issue and sign the declaration of conformity.

Product compliance with EU rules is monitored by Member States’ market surveillance authorities, irrespective of the
origin of the products.

The Machinery Directive covers safety issues but not quality, an aspect that is better managed by the offer and the
demand of these products.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2001/95/EC.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EC/1907/2006.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 2006/42/EC.

C 12 E / 352 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003439/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ La Commissione intervenga sulla mancanza di sangue in Grecia

La Grecia è in debito con la Svizzera per 4 milioni di euro relativi a spese dovute all'organizzazione, al
confezionamento e al trasporto di plasma (il plasma è gratuito poiché viene fornito da donatori). Il servizio svizzero
per le trasfusioni dimezzerà la fornitura di plasma fra il 2015 e il 2020 per un nuovo contratto stipulato con Atene al
fine di incentivare la raccolta direttamente in Grecia dove, si ricorda, circa 3000 persone soffrono di talassemia,
ovvero di anemia mediterranea, e hanno bisogno di regolari trasfusioni.

Quali azioni di coordinamento per la sicurezza della raccolta di sangue intende intraprendere la Commissione?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(16 maggio 2013)_

Norme di qualità e sicurezza del sangue umano e dei suoi componenti sono stabilite nella direttiva 2002/98/CE ( [1] ) del
Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio e nella legislazione di attuazione di tale direttiva. Tali documenti specificano i
requisiti minimi europei per la raccolta, il controllo, la lavorazione, la conservazione e la distribuzione del sangue
umano e dei suoi componenti. Gli Stati membri inoltre possono applicare misure di protezione più rigorose in
proposito.

Spetta alle autorità nazionali competenti, ivi compreso il Greek National Blood Centre, garantire che negli Stati
membri si rispettino le norme di qualità e sicurezza di cui alla direttiva 2002/98/CE.

La Commissione intende garantire la qualità e la sicurezza del sangue e dei suoi componenti mediante la normativa
UE sopra menzionata e i progetti finanziati nell’ambito del programma in materia di salute dell’Unione ( [2] ). Grazie a
tali progetti sono migliorate le pratiche per la gestione dei donatori (DOMAINE ( [3] )) e le modalità di impiego dei
componenti del sangue (EUOBUP ( [4] )) e le autorità hanno ricevuto assistenza per garantire la sicurezza e la qualità dei
componenti del sangue (EuBIS e CATIE ( [5] )).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2002/98/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 27 gennaio 2003, che stabilisce norme di qualità e di sicurezza per la raccolta, il

controllo, la lavorazione, la conservazione e la distribuzione del sangue umano e dei suoi componenti e che modifica la direttiva 2001/83/CE.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/index.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.domaine-europe.eu/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.optimalblooduse.eu/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.eubis-europe.eu/ e http://www.catie-europe.eu/

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 353

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003439/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Request for the Commission to take action over the lack of blood in Greece

Greece owes Switzerland EUR 4 million for the costs of organising, packaging and transporting plasma (the plasma
itself is free because it is supplied by donors). The Swiss transfusion service will halve its supply of plasma between
2015 and 2020 in accordance with a new contract concluded with Athens which encourages the direct collection of
plasma in Greece where, it should be noted, some 3 000 people suffer from thalassaemia, or Mediterranean anaemia,
and need regular transfusions.

What coordination measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that blood is collected safely?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

Standards of safety and quality of blood and blood components are laid down in Directive 2002/98/EC ( [1] ) of the
European Parliament and of the Council, and in its implementing legislation. Together these set out the European
minimum requirements for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of blood and blood
components. In addition, Member States can apply more stringent protective measures.

National competent authorities for blood and blood components, such as the Greek National Blood Center, are
responsible for ensuring that the quality and safety standards stipulated in Directive 2002/98/EC are upheld in the
Member States.

In addition, the Commission seeks to ensure the quality and safety of blood and blood components through the
implementation of the EU legislation in the field, and through projects funded under the Health Programme ( [2] ). These
projects have worked to improve donor management practices (DOMAINE ( [3] )), improve how blood components are
used (EUOBUP ( [4] )), and assist authorities in ensuring the safety and quality of blood components (EuBIS, CATIE ( [5] )).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection,

testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/index.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.domaine-europe.eu/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.optimalblooduse.eu/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.eubis-europe.eu/, http://www.catie-europe.eu/

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 354 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003440/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ La Commissione vigili sulla tossicità delle pellicce

In Italia, su segnalazione della Lega Anti Vivisezione, è stata aperta un'indagine su capi in pelliccia destinati al mercato
infantile che sono risultati contenere sostanze tossiche. Sono infatti stati rinvenuti residui della lavorazione delle
pellicce quali formaldeide, dal potere cancerogeno, e nonilfenolo etossilato, un disturbatore endocrino che rende la
commercializzazione dei capi vietata per legge. I capi d'abbigliamento sono stati posti sotto sequestro e il Ministero
della salute ha intrapreso una campagna di campionamenti per verificare la salubrità dei capi.

La Commissione sta vigilando sulla situazione in Italia?

Le risulta che in altri paesi UE si siano verificati episodi analoghi?

Effettua controlli sanitari sulle pellicce in ingresso da paesi extra UE per verificare la presenza di sostanze tossiche?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(15 maggio 2013)_

L'indagine svolta dal Ministero italiano della salute sui capi di pelliccia confezionati con sostanze chimiche tossiche
cui l'onorevole Parlamentare fa riferimento non è ancora stata segnalata alla Commissione. Qualora le autorità
italiane dovessero adottare provvedimenti in merito ai suddetti capi di pelliccia tali provvedimenti, inclusi i dettagli
relativi ai prodotti in questione, andranno notificati al RAPEX, sistema rapido di allerta dell'UE per i prodotti di
consumo non alimentari pericolosi ( [1] ). Il RAPEX procederà quindi a informare tutti gli Stati membri nonché Islanda,
Liechtenstein e Norvegia (paesi SEE-EFTA) in merito a tali provvedimenti, così che possano verificare l'eventuale
presenza sul loro territorio dei prodotti in esame e prendere i provvedimenti del caso.

La Commissione non è a conoscenza di episodi analoghi all'interno di altri Stati membri.

I controlli di frontiera e la vigilanza del mercato sono di competenza degli Stati membri. Le autorità nazionali hanno
facoltà di prendere tutti i provvedimenti preventivi o restrittivi ritenuti opportuni. La Commissione, in particolare
tramite il RAPEX, promuove la cooperazione tra autorità nazionali competenti per le questioni doganali e di vigilanza
del mercato, cosicché i provvedimenti adottati contro prodotti pericolosi possano essere presi in modo sempre più
diretto alle frontiere esterne dell'UE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/rapex/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 355

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003440/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Request for the Commission to monitor the toxicity of furs

In Italy, following a report by the Anti-Vivisection League, an investigation was launched into fur garments designed
for children which were revealed to contain toxic substances. In fact, residues from the processing of fur have been
found, including formaldehyde, a carcinogen, and nonoxynol, an endocrine disruptor which makes the sale of these
garments prohibited by law. The items of clothing were seized and the Ministry of Health has launched a sampling
campaign to check whether the garments are harmful to health.

Is the Commission monitoring the situation in Italy?

Have similar incidents been recorded in other EU countries?

Does it carry out health checks on furs coming from countries outside the EU to check for the presence of toxic
substances?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

The investigation of the Italian Health Ministry on fur garments with toxic chemicals referred to by the Honourable
Member has not yet been reported to the Commission. Should the Italian authorities take measures on those fur
garments, these measures, including details on the products concerned, will have to be notified to the EU's RAPEX
rapid alert system for dangerous non-food consumer products ( [1] ). RAPEX will then inform all Member States and the
EEA-EFTA countries Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, about those measures, so that they can check for the
presence of those products on their territories and take the appropriate measures.

The Commission has no information on similar incidents in other Member States.

The competence for border controls and market surveillance is with the Member States. National authorities have the
competence to take appropriate preventive or restrictive measures. The Commission is promoting, in particular
through RAPEX, the cooperation between national customs and market surveillance authorities, so that measures
against dangerous products can increasingly be taken already at the EU's external borders.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/rapex/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 356 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003441/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ L'UE intervenga in difesa dei consumatori

Uno studio realizzato in Germania e pubblicato dalla «Sueddeutsche Zeitung» rivela che molti apparecchi elettrici di
uso domestico sarebbero programmati dai costruttori per rompersi una volta scaduto il periodo di garanzia.

L'usura pianificata è un fenomeno di massa che interessa principalmente varie stampanti a getto di inchiostro, nelle
quali dopo la stampa di alcune migliaia di pagine appare l'indicazione della necessità di una riparazione, anche se
l'apparecchio potrebbe continuare a stampare tranquillamente; la risuolatura delle scarpe, per le quali vengono invece
usate spesso suole incollate che si consumano rapidamente, impossibile poi staccarle per sostituirle. E ancora, in
molte chiusure lampo di giacconi, i denti sono costruiti a spirale; lavatrici nelle quali le barre di riscaldamento si
arrugginiscono con troppa facilità, con il risultato che la loro sostituzione risulta carissima per l'utente
dell'elettrodomestico.

Il fenomeno di usura precoce degli apparecchi viene definito nello studio «opalescenza pianificata», poiché i
produttori inserirebbero appositamente punti deboli o utilizzerebbero materiali scadenti destinati ad usurarsi
rapidamente.

La Commissione non ritiene necessarie una maggiore regolamentazione e chiare norme sulla riparabilità e la
sostituzione dei pezzi di ricambio a tutela dei consumatori?

**Risposta di Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione**

_(22 maggio 2013)_

Invito l'onorevole deputato a consultare la risposta della Commissione all'interrogazione E‐004887/2012
dell'onorevole Rareş-Lucian Niculescu ( [1] ).

La Commissione ritiene che l'obsolescenza pianificata possa avere un impatto negativo sugli interessi dei
consumatori, sull'ambiente e sulla concorrenza leale. La legislazione europea prevede degli strumenti per lottare
contro tali pratiche. La direttiva sulla progettazione ecocompatibile ( [2] ) contiene un quadro giuridico adeguato al fine
di definire i requisiti potenziali in tema di riparabilità e di prolungamento della durata di vita di prodotti e apparecchi.
È possibile imporre requisiti obbligatori in tema di progettazione ecocompatibile allorché l'impatto ambientale
previsto risulta essere significativo ( [3] ). Requisiti in merito alla progettazione dei prodotti sono contenuti anche nella
direttiva sui rifiuti di apparecchiature elettriche ed elettroniche (direttiva RAEE) ( [4] ), in particolare per facilitare il
riutilizzo, lo smantellamento e il recupero dei RAEE, dei loro componenti e materiali. Il principio di responsabilità
estesa del produttore contenuto nella direttiva RAEE o i periodi prolungati di garanzia sono altri strumenti con cui si
dovrebbero incoraggiare i progettisti e i produttori ad agevolare la riparazione, l'eventuale aggiornamento e il
riutilizzo delle apparecchiature. Inoltre, gli standard europei a carattere volontario possono contribuire
maggiormente alla presa in conto delle esigenze ambientali nell'intero ciclo di vita dei prodotti, dei processi e dei
servizi.

Per pervenire a una crescita sostenibile, accompagnata da consumi sostenibili, la Commissione esaminerà
l'opportunità di adottare misure per rendere più durevoli i beni di consumo, compreso il sostegno ai servizi di
riparazione e manutenzione ( [5] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2009/125/CE, GU L 285 del 31.10.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) La vita utile o durevolezza sono disciplinate, ad esempio, nel regolamento sulla progettazione ecocompatibile, regolamento (CE) n. 244/2009

della Commissione (durata delle lampadine pari a 6 000 h), e nel regolamento per la progettazione ecocompatibile degli aspirapolvere, in corso di
adozione.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2012/19/UE sui rifiuti di apparecchiature elettriche ed elettroniche (RAEE) (rifusione), GU L 197 del 24.7.2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Come indicato nella comunicazione della Commissione «Un'agenda europea dei consumatori», COM(2012)225 def.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 357

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003441/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(26 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Request for the EU to take action to defend consumers

According to a study carried out in Germany and published in the _Sueddeutsche Zeitung_, many electrical household
appliances have been designed by their creators to break once their warranty period expires.

Planned wear and tear is a mass phenomenon which mainly affects a range of inkjet printers, which, after printing a
few thousand pages, indicate that repairs are necessary, even if the machine could continue to print without any
problem; the resoling of shoes, where glued soles are often used which wear away rapidly, are impossible to remove
and so must be replaced. And also in many jacket zips, the teeth of the zip are coiled; or in washing machines, the
heating rods rust too easily, meaning that the users of the appliances must replace them at great cost.

The study defines the phenomenon of early wear and tear in appliances as ‘planned obsolescence’, since the
manufacturers appear to deliberately insert weak points or use poor-quality materials intended to wear rapidly.

Does the Commission not believe that greater regulation and clearer standards regarding the reparability and
replacement of spare parts are necessary in order to protect consumers?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the Commission’s reply to E‐004887/2012 by Rareş-Lucian
Niculescu ( [1] ).

The Commission considers that planned obsolescence can have negative impacts on consumers' interests, on the
environment, and on fair competition. European legislation provides means to combat such practices. The Ecodesign
Directive ( [2] ) contains an adequate legal framework to establish potential requirements for reparability and the lifetime extension of products and equipment. Mandatory ecodesign requirements can be set whenever the associated
environmental impacts are found to be significant ( [3] ). Product design requirements are also included in the WEEE
Directive ( [4] ), notably in view of facilitating re-use, dismantling and recovery of WEEE, its components and materials.
The extended producer responsibility principle in the WEEE Directive, or extended warranty periods, are other means
by which design and production should be encouraged to facilitate the repair, possible upgrading, and reuse of
equipment. In addition, voluntary European standards have the potential to play a more important role to take
environmental requirements into account for the whole life cycle of products, processes and services.

In order to achieve sustainable growth underpinned by sustainable consumption, the Commission will consider
taking measures to make consumer goods more durable, including support for repair and maintenance services ( [5] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/125/EC, OJ L 285, 31.10.2009.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Lifetime or durability is regulated for example in Ecodesign Regulation 244/2009 (Lamp lifetime of 6 000 h), and in Ecodesign Regulation on

vacuum cleaners being adopted.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (recast), OJ L 197, 24.7.2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Indicated in the communication of the Commission on a Consumer Agenda, COM(2012) 225 final.

( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 358 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003443/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(27 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Ley de montes en el Estado español

Según se desprende del borrador de la futura ley de montes ( [1] ) presentado hace escasos días por el Ministro de
Agricultura español, parece que se abre la posibilidad de recalificar montes arrasados por el fuego.

De hecho, en el año 2003, se aprobó una ley que prohibía taxativamente el cambio de uso de los espacios quemados
en un plazo de 30 años e impedía realizar en dicho espacio cualquier actividad incompatible con la regeneración de la
cubierta vegetal. En el Estado español se han producido casos de incendios muy graves en zonas de alto interés natural
que luego se han recalificado. Véase el caso en donde se construyó Terra Mítica, en el País Valencià. Se pasó de tener
un pulmón verde en la comarca de la Marina Baixa a tener más de 400 hectáreas quemadas, no se hizo ningún plan de
reforestación posterior y luego se recalificó.

A la luz de lo anterior y teniendo en cuenta las prioridades de la Comisión para Horizonte 2020:

1. ¿Cree la Comisión que la Ley 43/2003, de 21 de noviembre, aprobada en el Congreso y actualmente en vigor va
en consonancia con los objetivos de crecimiento inteligente y sostenible para Horizonte 2020?

2. ¿Cree la Comisión que ahora es necesario cambiar la legislación vigente en el Estado español en un tema tan
sensible como es la conservación y protección de los espacios naturales?

**Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión**

_(17 de mayo de 2013)_

La política forestal, la gestión de los montes y la reforestación tras los incendios forestales son competencia de los
Estados miembros. Las preguntas de Su Señoría conciernen, por lo tanto, a las autoridades nacionales.

En lo que atañe a las zonas dañadas por incendios forestales, el Reglamento de desarrollo rural puede aportar
cofinanciación para medidas de prevención y reforestación previa petición del Estado miembro. En varios Estados
miembros, la legislación que restringe las posibilidades de cambio de uso del suelo en los bosques dañados por
incendios ha demostrado ser un instrumento eficaz para prevenir incendios intencionados.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elconfidencial.com/archivos/ec/2013032229leymontes4-1.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 359

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003443/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Forestry law in Spain

The Forestry Bill ( [1] ) presented a few days ago by the Spanish Minister for Agriculture seems to provide for the
reclassification of areas ravaged by fire.

In fact, in 2003 a law was passed strictly prohibiting change of use of ravaged areas for a period of 30 years and
banning any activity incompatible with regeneration of the ground cover in those areas. There have been cases of very
serious fires in areas of natural interest in Spain which have since been reclassified. One example is the construction of
Terra Mítica in the Valencia region. The Marina Baixa area went from having a green lung to having over 400 hectares
of scorched land. No reforestation plan was drawn up following the disaster and the land was later reclassified.

In view of the above, and bearing in mind the Commission’s priorities for Horizon 2020:

1. Does the Commission believe that Law 43/2003 of 21 November, passed by Congress (the Lower House of the
Spanish Parliament) and currently in force, is in line with the objectives of smart, sustainable growth for
Horizon 2020?

2. Does the Commission believe that it is now necessary to change the legislation currently in force in Spain on
such a sensitive issue as the conservation and protection of natural areas?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

Forest policy, forest management and forest fire restoration are within the competence of the Member States. The
Honourable Member's questions are therefore a matter for the national authorities concerned.

As far as areas damages by forest fires are concerned, the rural Development Regulation can provide co-funding for
prevention and restoration measures at the request of the Member State. For several member states, legislation
restricting the possibilities for land use changes in forests damaged by fires has proven to be an effective instrument to
prevent intentional fires.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.elconfidencial.com/archivos/ec/2013032229leymontes4-1.pdf

C 12 E / 360 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003444/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 104. pontjának kérdésköre a látássérült személyek digitális kijelzővel ellátott termékek
használatával kapcsolatos nehézségeiről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy a látássérült személyek számára kihívás a digitális kijelzővel ellátott elektromos és
elektronikai eszközök használata (104. pont).

Mit kíván tenni az Európai Bizottság annak érdekében, hogy a látássérült személyek választhassanak olyan
termékeket, amelyek számukra értelmezhető módon is használhatók?

Mikorra várható ezzel kapcsolatosan elemzés és jogalkotási javaslat?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 30.)_

A Bizottság jogi és más eszközöket – például szabványosítást – alkalmaz az épített környezethez, a közlekedéshez és
az ikt-hez való hozzáférés optimalizálása érdekében.

Például az európai akadálymentesítési intézkedéscsomagot előkészítő lépések során a Bizottság a fogyatékossággal
élő személyek számára fontos áruk és szolgáltatások széles skáláját vizsgálta meg. Az intézkedéscsomag célja, hogy
elősegítse az akadálymentes áruk és szolgáltatások belső piacának helyes működését. A Bizottság 2013 második
felében tervezi előterjeszteni javaslatát.

Emellett a közszektorbeli szervezetek webhelyeinek akadálymentesítéséről szóló irányelvre irányuló javaslat
harmonizált követelményeket határoz meg közigazgatási szervek bizonyos csoportja által működtetett, a polgárok
számára alapvető információkat és szolgáltatásokat nyújtó webhelyekre vonatkozóan. A javaslat eredményeként az
érintett webhelyek elérhetőek lennének valamennyi felhasználó számára, beleértve a látássérült személyeket is,
összhangban a Web Akadálymentesítési Útmutató 2.0 verziójában meghatározott, az AA megfelelőségi szinthez
tartozó teljesítési feltételekkel és követelményekkel.

Továbbá a szabványosítás terén a Bizottság kezdeményezte és támogatja a „Mandate 376” projektet ( [1] ), amely az ikt-re
és ezen belül a webre vonatkozó akadálymentesítési kritériumok közbeszerzési eljárásokban alkalmazandó európai
szabványának kidolgozására irányul. A 2011–2015-ös időszakra szóló európai elektronikus kormányzati cselekvési
terv is kiterjed a felhasználói szükségletek szerint kialakított, inkluzivitást és akadálymentességet biztosító
szolgáltatások kifejlesztésére.

Az akadálymentességgel kapcsolatos intézkedésekről – más kezdeményezésekkel együtt – áttekintést nyújt majd a
2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégia végrehajtásának első éveiről szóló
átfogó jelentés, amelynek előkészítése folyamatban van, és közzététele idén várható.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.mandate376.eu

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 361

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003444/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 104 of the INI report in relation to the difficulties encountered by visually
impaired people in using products with digital displays

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that visually impaired](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
people find it a challenge using electrical and electronic devices with digital displays (point 104).

What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure that visually impaired people can choose products which
they can use in a comprehensible manner?

By when will this matter be examined and a legislative proposal drafted on it?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

To optimise the accessibility of the built environment, transport and ICT, the Commission combines legislative and
other instruments, such as standardisation.

For instance, in the course of preparatory actions for the European Accessibility Act, the Commission has examined a
wide variety of goods and services relevant to persons with disabilities. The Act will aim at improving the proper
functioning of the internal market for accessible goods and services. The Commission plans to present its proposal in
the second half of 2013.

Moreover, the proposal for a directive on the accessibility of public sector bodies' websites sets harmonised
accessibility requirements for a set of public sector bodies' websites offering essential information and services to
citizens. As a result of such proposal the websites concerned would be accessible to all users, including visually
impaired persons, in accordance with the Success Criteria and Compliance Requirements of the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level AA.

Furthermore, in the area of standardisation, the Commission has initiated and is supporting the work on Mandate
376 ( [1] ) developing a European standard for accessibility requirements for ICT, including the web, to be used in public
procurements. The eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015 also covers the development of services designed around
user needs and ensuring inclusiveness and accessibility.

Actions relevant to accessibility will be reviewed among other initiatives in the report on the first years of the
implementation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 that is under preparation for publication later this

year.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) www.mandate376.eu.

C 12 E / 362 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003445/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 98. pontjának kérdésköre a látássérülteket támogató navigációs alapú alkalmazásokról

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy szükség van a navigációs alapú közlekedési alkalmazásokra az egyénileg is
közlekedő látássérültek részére, összhangban a 98. pontban leírtakkal.

Milyen lépéseket tett és kíván tenni az Európai Bizottság annak érdekében, hogy a látássérültek részére a gyalogos
közlekedést biztonságosan (testi épségüket nem veszélyeztető módon) is támogató alkalmazások is elérhetőek
legyenek?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. június 6.)_

A Bizottság tisztában van a látássérülteknek készült navigációs eszközök és alkalmazások jelentőségével.

A látássérültek gyalogos közlekedését biztonságosan támogató alkalmazások kifejlesztése érdekében nemrégiben tett
lépések tekintetében a Bizottság szeretné a tisztelt Képviselő Úr figyelmébe ajánlani az E-7856/2010. számú írásbeli
kérdésre adott válaszát.

Ami az ilyen alkalmazások kifejlesztését célzó további intézkedéseket illeti, a Bizottság kutatási projekteket
finanszíroz, amelyek a hozzáférhető és hatékony navigációs eszközök látássérült felhasználók számára való
biztosítása érdekében olyan megoldások kifejlesztésére irányulnak, amelyek kihasználják az EGNOS ( [1] )-rendszertől és
a Galileo-programtól várható nagyobb pontosság előnyeit.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/The_present_-_EGNOS/What_is_EGNOS

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 363

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003445/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 98 of the INI report in relation to navigation-based applications supporting
visually impaired people

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that navigation-based](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
transport applications are required for visually impaired people also travelling alone, as described in point 98.

What steps has the Commission taken and does it intend to take to ensure that visually impaired people can also
access applications which also help them get around safely on foot (without endangering their physical person)?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the importance of the availability of navigation devices and applications that for visually
impaired persons.

Regarding recent actions aimed at developing applications that can help visually impaired people to get around safely
on foot, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-7856/2010.

Regarding further actions aimed at developing such applications, the Commission funds research projects aiming at
developing solutions to provide visually impaired users with accessible and efficient navigators that will take
advantage of the higher levels of accuracy expected from the EGNOS ( [1] ) system and the Galileo programme.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/The_present_-_EGNOS/What_is_EGNOS.

C 12 E / 364 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003446/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 73. pontjának kérdésköre a fogyatékkal élőket képviselő szervezetek döntéshozatali
részvételéről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy a fogyatékos emberek érdekeit védő uniós ernyőszervezeteknek megfelelő
pénzügyi támogatásban kell részesülniük, hogy aktívan képviselhessék a fogyatékos embereket az uniós
döntéshozatal során (73. pont).

Kifejtené-e az Európai Bizottság, hogy milyen módon támogatja az ilyen szervezetek működését, és hogyan kíván
gondoskodni arról, hogy minél szélesebb körűen – és ne csak egy-egy ernyőszervezet által – legyen biztosítva a
fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól szóló ENSZ-egyezmény nyomon követése?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 14.)_

A 2007–2013 közötti időszakra szóló Progress program keretében a Bizottság tíz uniós szintű, a fogyatékos emberek
érdekeit védő ernyőszervezet működési költségeit támogatja hároméves partnerségi megállapodásokon alapuló
működési támogatás révén és a szervezetek éves munkaprogramjának értékelése függvényében.

Ez a támogatás az ilyen szervezetek érdekvédelmi képességének, valamint az EU politikai döntéshozatalában történő
aktív részvételének támogatására, valamint irányítási szerkezetének és uniós hálózatának erősítésére is szolgál. Egyik
konkrét cél a fogyatékos emberek érdekeit védő szervezetek kapacitásának bővítése annak érdekében, hogy aktívan
részt vegyenek a fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól szóló egyezmény (a továbbiakban: UNCRPD)
végrehajtásában uniós és tagországi szinten, ezen belül az UNCRPD 33. cikkében szereplő, ellenőrzéssel kapcsolatos
ügyekben.

Ehhez hasonló támogatási szintet helyez kilátásba a Bizottság által a 2014–2020-as időszakra javasolt Jogok és
polgárság program elnevezésű új program is ( [1] ).

Az egyezmény végrehajtását segítő, védő és ellenőrző uniós keretrendszer (lásd az UNCRPD 33. cikkének
(2) bekezdését) fogyatékos emberek érdekeit védő, legnagyobb és legjelentősebb uniós szintű ernyőszervezetében, az
Európai Fogyatékosügyi Fórumban elfoglalt tagság tovább egyszerűsíti a civil társadalom – különösen a
fogyatékossággal élő személyek és az őket képviselő szervezetek – szerepvállalását és teljes részvételét az egyezmény
ellenőrzési folyamataiban, amelyet az UNCRPD 33. cikkének (3) bekezdése ír elő.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 758 final: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0758:FIN:HU:PDF

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 365

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003446/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 73 of the INI report in relation to the participation of organisations representing
people with disabilities in the decision-making process

As you know, the Parliament resolution adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that EU umbrella](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
organisations protecting the interests of people with disabilities need to be given adequate financial support to enable
them to represent people with disabilities actively during the EU decision-making process (point 73).

Would the Commission explain how it supports the operation of these organisations and how it intends to ensure
that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is monitored, not only by a single umbrella
organisation but by the widest range of organisations possible?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

Under the Progress Programme 2007-2013 the Commission supports the running costs of ten EU-level disability
umbrella organisations by means of an operating grant based on triennial partnership agreements and subject to an
assessment of the organisations' annual work programmes.

This funding also serves to support the advocacy capacity of these organisations and their active participation in EU
policy-making, and to strengthen their governance structures and EU-wide network. One specific objective is to
strengthen the capacity of DPOs to actively participate in the implementation of the UNCRPD at EU and national level
including in matters related to the article 33 UNCRPD on monitoring.

A comparable level of funding is foreseen in the Commission's proposal for a new Rights and Citizenship Programme
for 2014-2020 ( [1] ).

The involvement and full participation of civil society, in particular persons with disabilities and their representative
organisations, in the monitoring process of the UNCRPD, required by art. 33.3 UNCRPD, is further facilitated by the
membership of the European Disability Forum, the largest and most representative EU-level disability umbrella
organisation, of the EU Framework to promote, protect and monitor the Convention (art. 33.2 UNCRPD).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 758 final http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0758:FIN:EN:PDF.

C 12 E / 366 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003447/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 71. pontjának kérdésköre a fogyatékos gyermekeket nevelő szülők pótszabadságáról

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy a fogyatékos gyermeket nevelő szülők pótszabadságra érdemesek, amivel elismeri
nehézségeiket (71. pont).

Milyen bevált gyakorlatok lelhetők fel a tagállamokban ezen a téren, és hol ismerik el ezt az erőfeszítést az öregségi
nyugdíjjogosultság kapcsán?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 30.)_

Bár a szabadságról és a nyugdíjjogosultságról szóló konkrét társadalombiztosítási rendelkezések elsősorban uniós
tagállami hatáskörbe tartoznak, a Bizottság a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi
stratégia ( [1] ) 2010–2015-re tervezett fellépéseinek felsorolásán belül ( [2] ) kötelezettséget vállalt arra, hogy a
fogyatékossággal kapcsolatos szempontok figyelembevétele érdekében a nyugdíjakról szóló zöld könyvre épülő
javaslatokat tesz.

Egyes tagállamok, így például a Cseh Köztársaság, Franciaország, Málta, Szlovákia, Spanyolország és az Egyesült
Királyság, valamint Norvégia a nyugdíj kiszámításakor számításba veszik a fogyatékossággal élő gyermekek
gondozásából eredő kötelezettségekkel kapcsolatos, járulékfizetés nélküli időszakot. E rendelkezésekről bővebb
információ található a szociális védelemről/társadalombiztosításról szóló kölcsönös tájékoztatási rendszer
összehasonlító táblázataiban ( [3] ): VI. táblázat – Öregségi nyugellátás, 4. pont – Elismert vagy számításba vett,
járulékfizetés nélküli időszakok.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:HU:HTML
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1324:EN:NOT
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.missoc.org/MISSOC/INFORMATIONBASE/COMPARATIVETABLES/MISSOCDATABASE/comparativeTableSearch.jsp

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 367

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003447/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 71 of the INI report in relation to compassionate leave for parents of children with
disabilities

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that parents of children](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
with disabilities deserve to be granted compassionate leave in recognition of their difficult situation (point 71).

What best practice can be identified in this area in Member States, and where are these efforts recognised as part of the
old-age pension entitlement?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

While specific social security provisions on leave and pension entitlements are primarily the competence of the EU
Member States, the Commission has included in the list of actions for 2010-2015 ( [1] ) of the European Disability
Strategy 2010-2020 ( [2] ) an undertaking to follow up on the Green Paper on pensions to take into account disability
relevant aspects.

Some Member States, such as Czech Republic, France, Malta, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom, as well as
Norway, take into account the non-contributory periods, related to the caring obligations for disabled children, for
the purposes of pension calculation. More detailed information on these regulations can be found in the Comparative
Tables in the ‘Mutual Information System on Social Protection / Social Security’ ( [3] ): Table VI. Old-age Benefits, point 4.
Non-contributory periods credited or taken into consideration.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1324:EN:NOT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:en:NOT.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.missoc.org/MISSOC/INFORMATIONBASE/COMPARATIVETABLES/MISSOCDATABASE/comparativeTableSearch.jsp

C 12 E / 368 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003449/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 65. pontjának kérdésköre a fenntartható rehabilitációs rendszerekről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy hatékonyabb és egymásra épülő rehabilitációs rendszerekre van szükség
Európában (65. pont).

Mit tett és mit kíván tenni a Bizottság, hogy támogassa a tagállamokat a hatékonyabb, jobb minőségű rehabilitációs
rendszerek kiépítésében, amelyek egészségügyi, oktatási, képzési és foglalkoztatási dimenzióval is rendelkeznek,
valamint költségvetésileg is fenntarthatóbbak?

Mely országok hajtották végre a legmegfelelőbb átalakításokat, amelyek a valóban rászorultakat támogatják, és
amelyek hatékonyan, a legújabb nemzetközi sztenderdeket (pl. a WHO által kiadott _A funkcióképesség, fogyatékosság és_
_egészség nemzetközi osztályozása_ (FNO)) is alkalmazó megoldásokkal működnek?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 30.)_

A szociális és egészségügyi szolgáltatásokért, és ezen belül a fogyatékossággal élő személyek rehabilitációjáért a
közvetlen felelősség a tagállamokat terheli. A Bizottság elsősorban az Európai Szociális Alapon keresztül nyújt
támogatást a tagállamok számára a hatékonyabb, jobb minőségű rehabilitációs szolgáltatások kialakításához. Például
a magyar rehabilitációs rendszer reformjához az Európai Szociális Alap Társadalmi Megújulás Operatív Programja
nyújtott támogatást a rehabilitációs és munkaerő-piaci reintegrációs szolgáltatásokat támogató számos intézkedésen
keresztül.

A Bizottság kutatásokat is támogat, pl. „A fogyatékossággal élők számára elérhető támogatott foglalkoztatás az
EU-ban és az EFTA–EGT-ben” című felmérést ( [1] ) vagy az európai fogyatékosságügyi szakértők tudományos
hálózatának ( [2] ) munkáját. Emellett a Bizottság a területen működő egyes európai szervezetek ( [3] ) működési
költségeihez is támogatást nyújt, és ösztönzi a gyakorlatok és információk megosztását a fogyatékossággal foglalkozó
magas szintű csoport keretében, amely a rehabilitációs szolgáltatásokat nyújtók szervezeteit ( [4] ) is magába foglalja.

A Bizottság nem végzett szisztematikus összehasonlítást a tagállamok rehabilitációs szolgáltatásaival kapcsolatos
fejleményekről, azonban a 2007–2013-as egészségügyi program keretében finanszírozást nyújtottunk olyan
működési támogatáshoz ( [5] ), projektekhez ( [6] ), együttes fellépésekhez ( [7] ) és konferenciákhoz ( [8] ), amelyek célja az uniós
tagállamokban és azokon kívül az egészségügyi ellátás és a rehabilitációs szolgáltatások fejlesztését szolgáló
intézkedések kialakítása és ösztönzése volt ( [9] ).

Végül a Bizottság nemrégiben statisztikai felméréseket alakított ki a fogyatékossággal élő személyek helyzetére
vonatkozóan, nevezetesen a munkaerő-felmérés speciális _ad hoc_ modulját, valamint az európai egészségügyről és
társadalmi befogadásról szóló felmérést, és az ezekben szereplő kérdések meghatározásakor többek között a
funkcióképesség, fogyatékosság és egészség nemzetközi osztályozásából (International Classification of Functioning,
Disability and Health – ICF) indult ki.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/cowi.final_study_report_may_2011_final_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.disability-europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%20Task%206%20final%20report%20-%20final%20version%2017-04-09.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Pl. a Fogyatékos Emberek Számára Szolgáltatást Nyújtó Szervezetek Európai Szövetsége (EASPD) részére
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Pl. az Európai Rehabilitációs Platform
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Európai Sclerosis Multiplex Platform (EMSP_FY2012): http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20113304
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Innovatív ellátás a több krónikus betegségben szenvedő betegek számára Európában (ICARE4EU):

http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20121205

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) EUCERD együttes fellépés: a ritka betegségekkel kapcsolatos munka (EJA): http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20112201
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) A 2008–2013 közötti időszakra szóló uniós egészségügyi program keretében rendezett 20124303. sz. konferencia: „Munkahelyi egészségügyi

intézkedések a krónikus betegségben szenvedő alkalmazottak számára” (PH konferencia):
http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20124303

( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

⋅9∙ **|** )

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 369

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003449/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 65 of the INI report in relation to sustainable rehabilitation services

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that more effective,](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
overlapping rehabilitation services are required in Europe (point 65).

What action has the Commission taken and does it intend to take to support Member States in developing more
effective, better-quality rehabilitation services which also include a healthcare, education, training and employment
dimension, as well as being more sustainable in budgetary terms?

Which countries have made the most appropriate adjustments that support those who are really disadvantaged and
interact effectively with solutions also applying the latest international standards (e.g. WHO’s International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF))?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The direct responsibility for managing social and health services, including rehabilitation services for persons with
disabilities, lies with the Member States. The Commission supports Member States in developing more effective,
better-quality rehabilitation services primarily through the European Social Fund. For example, the reform of the
Hungarian rehabilitation system was supported by ESF's Social Renewal Operational Programme through several
measures supporting rehabilitation and labour market reintegration services.

We also fund research, e.g. a study on ‘Supported Employment for people with disabilities in the EU and EFTAEEA’ ( [1] ) or the work of the Academic Network of European Disability Experts ( [2] ). Furthermore, the Commission also
supports the operating costs of some European organisations active in the field ( [3] ) and promotes exchange of
practices and information in the Disability High Level Group (DHLG) that includes organisations of rehabilitation
service providers ( [4] ).

The Commission has not systematically compared the developments in rehabilitation services of the Member States
but under the health programme 2007-2013 we have funded operating grants ( [5] ), projects ( [6] ), joint actions ( [7] ) and
conferences ( [8] ) aiming to develop and promote measures to improve medical treatment and rehabilitation services in
the EU member states and beyond ( [9] ).

Finally, the Commission developed recent statistical surveys on the situation of persons with disabilities, notably the
special ad hoc module of Labour Force Survey and the European Health and Social Inclusion Survey, using the ICF
classification as one of the bases for the development of the questions.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )

⋅9∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/cowi.final_study_report_may_2011_final_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.disability-europe.net/content/pdf/ANED%20Task%206%20final%20report%20-%20final%20version%2017-04-09.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Such as European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Such as European Platform for Rehabilitation (EPR).
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The European Multiple Sclerosis Platform (EMSP_FY2012) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20113304
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Innovating care for people with multiple chronic conditions in Europe (ICARE4EU):

http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20121205

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) EUCERD Joint Action: working for rare diseases (EJA), http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20112201
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Conference No 20124303 under EU Health Programme 2008-2013 ‘Workplace health practices for employees with chronic illness’. (PH Work

Conference), http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html?prjno=20124303

( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/projects/database.html

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

C 12 E / 370 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003450/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 64. pontjának kérdésköre az egész életen át tartó tanulási programok fogyatékkal élők számára
való hozzáférhetőségéről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy az egész életen át tartó tanulás a fogyatékossággal élő emberek számára is fontos
(64. pont).

Mit tett és mit kíván tenni az Európai Bizottság, hogy az egész életen át tartó tanulási programok a fogyatékossággal
élő emberek számára is hozzáférhetőbbé váljanak, különösen azok számára, akik aktív korukban szerezték
fogyatékosságukat?

**Androulla Vassiliou válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 7.)_

Az egész életen át tartó tanulás program jelenleg is sok lehetőséget nyújt a hátrányos helyzetű csoportoknak és
megoldásokat kínál a fogyatékos személyek speciális tanulási szükségleteire. Az ilyen lehetőségek között szerepelnek
többek között a fogyatékkal élő résztvevőkre háruló magasabb költségeket tükröző, magasabb összegű juttatások,
illetve a jelbeszéd és Braille-írás elsajátítására és használatára nyújtott támogatás.

Az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződés ( [1] ) és az Alapjogi Charta ( [2] ) rendelkezésein alapuló, az Unió oktatási,
képzési, ifjúsági és sportprogramjára, az „Erasmus mindenkinek” programra vonatkozó javaslat a fenti megközelítést
veszi át. A bizottsági javaslat 17. cikke értelmében a Bizottság és a tagállamok feladata, hogy a program végrehajtása
során megkönnyítse a nehézségekkel küzdő – többek között fogyatékos személyek – részvételét. A javaslatban
előirányzott megnövelt költségvetési keret a fogyatékos résztvevők számára kíván többletforrásokat biztosítani,
illetve a teljes körű részvételükhöz szükséges segítséghez többlettámogatást nyújtani.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződés 8. és 10. cikke.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Lásd az Alapjogi Charta 21. és 23. cikkét.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 371

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003450/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 64 of the INI report in relation to the accessibility of lifelong learning programmes
to people with disabilities

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that lifelong learning is](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
also important for people with disabilities (point 64).

What action has the Commission taken and does it intend to take to make lifelong learning programmes also more
accessible to people with disabilities, especially to those who have acquired their disability during their working life?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 2013)_

The current Lifelong Learning programme (LLP) ensures wide access for beneficiaries from disadvantaged groups and
addresses actively the special learning needs of those with disabilities. Particularly, this includes the use of higher
grants to cover the additional costs of disabled participants, as well as the provision of support for the learning and
use of sign languages and Braille.

Based on the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( [1] ), as well as of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights ( [2] ), the proposal for the future programme in Education, Training, Youth and Sport ‘Erasmus for
All’ will continue this approach. Article 17 of the Commission's proposal foresees that the Commission and Member
States, when implementing the programme, have to facilitate the participation of people with difficulties, including
those with disability. The budget increase foreseen in the proposal should ensure higher grants for disabled
participants and extra support for the assistance they need to participate fully.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Articles 8 and 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

C 12 E / 372 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003451/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 59. pontjának kérdésköre a fogyatékkal élők befogadó jellegű oktatását előmozdító cselekvésről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy a befogadó jellegű oktatást kell a középpontba állítani, különösen az európai
oktatási és képzési keretstratégiában (59. pont).

Mit tett és kíván tenni a Bizottság, hogy ennek a célnak megfeleljen, és hogyan kívánja erősíteni a fogyatékos diákok
esetében a személyre szabottabb segítségnyújtás fejlesztését, különösen az IT-eszközök alkalmazásával?

**Androulla Vassiliou válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 23.)_

A Bizottság teljes mértékben azonosul azzal a nézettel, hogy a fogyatékos személyeknek alapvetően fontos az egyéni
igényekre szabott, befogadó jellegű oktatás és képzés, és egyetért azzal is, hogy az információs és kommunikációs
technológiáknak fontos szerep jut e tekintetben.

A Bizottság „Gondoljuk újra az oktatást” című, tavaly novemberben megjelent közleménye határozott fellépést sürget
a tanítás és a tanulás olyan új megközelítéseinek támogatása érdekében, amelyek az új technológiák felhasználására és
valamennyi tanuló, különösen a fogyatékos tanulók igényeinek jobb kiszolgálására is kiterjednek.

A Bizottság a közeljövőben indítja útjára „Az oktatás nyitottabbá tétele” elnevezésű kezdeményezését. Ennek célja az,
hogy előmozdítsa a nyitott oktatási segédanyagok készítését és a fogyatékos személyek igényeinek megfelelő
gyakorlatok kialakítását. Mindez kiegészül az online távoktatás akkreditációjának eszközeivel.

Az Európai Unió a jövőbeni európai strukturális és beruházási alapokon keresztül pénzügyi támogatást is nyújthat a
fogyatékos személyek oktatásához és támogatásához.

Az egész életen át tartó tanulás programja, illetve a „Fiatalok lendületben” program más-más tanulmányi
helyzetekben támogatja a tanulási mobilitást. Célzott támogatási formák állnak a fogyatékos személyek
rendelkezésére ahhoz, hogy kihasználhassák a tanulási mobilitás nyújtotta lehetőségeket. A Bizottság javaslata szerint
2013 után ez a munka az „Erasmus mindenkinek” nevű, oktatással és képzéssel, valamint ifjúsági és sportügyekkel
foglalkozó jövőbeli program keretében fog folytatódni.

A Bizottság pénzügyi támogatást nyújt az EADSNE ( [1] ) számára, amely segíti a fogyatékos tanulók oktatásáról európai
és nemzeti szinten rendelkezésre álló információk gyűjtését, feldolgozását és megosztását. Az EADSNE 2011-ben az
Unesco-nak az információs technológiák oktatásban való alkalmazásával foglalkozó intézetével együttműködve
közzétette „IKT a fogyatékos személyek oktatásában – áttekintés az innovatív gyakorlatokról” című értékelését.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (Európai Ügynökség a Sajátos Nevelési Igényű Tanulók Oktatásának Fejlesztéséért)

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 373

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003451/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 59 of the INI report in relation to actively promoting inclusive education for
people with disabilities

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that inclusive education](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
should be the main focus, especially within the European framework strategy for education and training (point 59).

What action has the Commission taken and does it intend to take to achieve this aim, and how does it intend to
develop further the provision of individually tailored assistance to pupils with disabilities, particularly through the use
of IT resources?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Commission fully shares the view that inclusive education and training coupled with provision tailored to the
individual's needs is key for people with disabilities. It also agrees that ICT has an important role to play in this
respect.

The Commission Communication ‘Rethinking Education’, published last November, calls for strong action to support
new approaches to teaching and learning, including in the use of new technologies and in order to better serve the
needs of all learners, notably those with disabilities.

The forthcoming Commission initiative ‘Opening up Education’ will promote the creation of open educational
resources and practices tailored to the needs of people with disabilities, combined with accreditation tools for online
learning.

Through the future European Structural and Investment Funds, the European Union can offer financial support for
the education and training of people with disabilities.

The Lifelong Learning and the Youth in Action programmes support learning mobility in different educational
contexts. Specific supports are made available to people with disabilities to access such learning mobility
opportunities. The Commission proposal Erasmus for All for a future programme in the field of education, training,
youth and sport will continue this work after 2013.

The Commission financially supports EADSNE ( [1] ). EADSNE facilitates the collection, processing and transfer of
European and national information on the education of pupils with disabilities. In 2011, in cooperation with
Unesco's Institute for Information Technologies in Education, it published the review ‘ICTs in Education for People
with Disabilities ‐Review of innovative practice’.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

C 12 E / 374 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003452/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 56. pontjának kérdésköre a televíziós feliratozásról és jelnyelvi hozzáférésről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy az EU-ban csekély mértékben hozzáférhető a feliratozás és a jelnyelvi hozzáférés a
televízióban (56. pont).

Milyen egyedi finanszírozási lehetőséget lát az Európai Bizottság ebben a kérdéskörben?

Milyen jó példákat látni Európában a feliratozás és a jelnyelvi tolmácsolás tekintetében a médiában?

**Neelie Kroes válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 6.)_

A Bizottság elismeri, hogy a feliratozás és a jelnyelv használatában nagy különbségek vannak a tagállamok között;
egyes tagállamokban még mindig nagyon ritkák az ilyen szolgáltatások. A Bizottság továbbá elismeri, hogy az
említett hozzáférhetőségi szolgáltatások gyenge elérhetőségének fő oka az, hogy a műsorszolgáltatóknak és az
államoknak nem áll rendelkezésére elegendő forrás a szükséges infrastruktúra-beruházások és a személyzet
képzésének fedezésére. A Bizottságnak van lehetősége a fogyatékkal élőket segítő szolgáltatásokra irányuló kutatási
projektek támogatására, a feliratozási és jelnyelvi szolgáltatások tagállami nyújtásának támogatására rendelkezésre
álló forrásai azonban korlátozottak.

A bizottsági szolgálatok értesülései szerint egyes tagállamok (Belgium, Szlovénia és Litvánia) államilag támogatják a
hozzáférhetőségi szolgáltatások nyújtását.

A Bizottság ugyanakkor hangsúlyozni szeretné az e területen hatályban lévő uniós jogi eszközök, például az
audiovizuális médiaszolgáltatásokról szóló irányelv (a 2010/13/EU irányelv) jelentőségét. Az irányelv 7. cikke
komoly mértékben hozzájárult a tagállamokban kínált hozzáférhetőségi szolgáltatások számának növekedéséhez.
Egyes tagállamokban, például az Egyesült Királyságban, Franciaországban és Hollandiában a főbb csatornák csaknem
100%-ban feliratozva sugározzák műsoraikat, ami kiemelkedő teljesítmény. A többi tagállam nem büszkélkedhet
ilyen eredményekkel, azonban amint azt az audiovizuális médiaszolgáltatásokról szóló irányelv alkalmazására
vonatkozó 2011. évi jelentés és az azt előkészítő nyomonkövetési vizsgálat ( [1] ), illetve a Nagyothallók Európai
Szövetsége által készített felmérés ( [2] ) is megerősítette, az irányelv említett 7. cikke a szóban forgó tagállamokat is arra
ösztökélte, hogy több intézkedést hozzanak a területen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/tvwf/contact_comm/35_table_2.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Az EFHOH jelentése: A feliratozási szolgáltatásokhoz való hozzáférés helyzete az EU-ban 2011-ben.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 375

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003452/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 56 of the INI report in relation to subtitling on television and the availability of
sign language

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that the level of](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
availability of subtitling and sign language on television in the EU is low (point 56).

What specific possibility of financing does the Commission see in this area?

What good examples are evident in Europe in terms of subtitling and sign-language interpreting in the media?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The Commission recognises that the state of subtitling and sign language varies a lot between Member States and in
some of them is still very low. The Commission also acknowledges that the main factor contributing to the low
quotas of these accessibility services is the lack of resources by the broadcasters and the state to support the
investment in the necessary infrastructure and training of staff. However, while the Commission can fund research
projects in the area of disability services, the possibilities it disposes of to fund the functioning of the subtitling and
sign language services in the EU Member States are limited.

The Commission services are though aware that some Member States provide for state aid measures for the provision
of accessibility services (Belgium, Slovenia, Lithuania).

At the same time, the Commission would like to emphasise the role played by EU instruments, such as the
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (Directive 2010/13/EU). Article 7 of the AVMS has contributed substantially to
the increase in the number of accessibility services offered by the Member States. Some of them, in particlar the UK,
France and the Netherlands are exemplary in the EU nearing 100% subtitling provision on their main channels. In
other Member States the numbers are not so high but as confirmed by the monitoring exercise run by the
Commission for the 2011 Application Report on AVMS Directive ( [1] ), as well as the survey done by the European
Federation of Hard of Hearing People ( [2] ), Article 7 AVMSD seemed an incentive for these Member States to do more
in this area.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/tvwf/contact_comm/35_table_2.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) State of Subtitling access in the EU, 2011 Report by EFHOH.

C 12 E / 376 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003453/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 48. és 49. pontjainak kérdésköre a fogyatékkal élő emberek foglalkoztatásának rugalmasságáról
és személyre szabottságáról

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy szükség van a rugalmas foglalkoztatási formákra is a fogyatékossággal élő emberek
foglalkoztatása terén (48-49. pontok).

Mit tett és mit kíván tenni az Európai Bizottság ezen a téren?

Továbbá hogyan kívánja az Európai Bizottság elérni, hogy a rugalmas foglalkoztatás ne járjon egyúttal a
munkaerőpiacról és a közösségből való kiszorulással is?

Hogyan kívánja a Bizottság támogatni a személyre szabott foglalkoztatási formák változatosságát, azok elterjesztését?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. június 4.)_

A Bizottság megítélése szerint a rugalmas foglalkoztatási formák hozzájárulnak a fogyatékos személyek
foglalkoztatásának növeléséhez. A Bizottság megbízásában készült egy tanulmány „Supported Employment for
people with disabilities in the EU and EFTA-EEA _”_ (A fogyatékos személyeknek szóló támogatott foglalkoztatás az EU
és az EFTA–EGT országaiban) címmel ( [1] ), és a Bizottság közreadta a tanulmány elkészítése során készült
„Compendium of good practice _”_ (Bevált gyakorlatok kézikönyve) című dokumentumot ( [2] ) is. A 2010–2020 közötti
időszakra szóló európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiával összhangban a Bizottság azon dolgozik, hogy a megfelelő
fellépésekben és politikákban érvényesítse a fogyatékossággal kapcsolatos kérdéseket. A Bizottság az Európa 2020
stratégia, valamint az európai szemeszter eljárásán keresztül – konkrétan az éves növekedési jelentés és a közös
foglalkoztatási jelentés keretein belül – tesz lépéseket a fogyatékos személyek foglalkoztatásával kapcsolatban.

A nemrégiben elfogadott szociális beruházási csomagban ( [3] ) a Bizottság a munkaerő-piaci részvételt akadályozó
tényezőket felszámoló olyan szakpolitikák létrehozására és elfogadására szólít fel, amelyek kezelik az alulreprezentált
munkavállalók speciális igényeit. Az aktív befogadásról szóló bizottsági ajánlás végrehajtására vonatkozó szolgálati
munkadokumentum iránymutatással szolgál az olyan aktív munkaerő-piaci intézkedésekre vonatkozó holisztikus
megközelítéssel kapcsolatban, amelyek segítenek csökkenteni a rugalmas foglalkoztatási formával élő munkavállalók
munkaerő-piaci kirekesztésének kockázatát.

Az Európai Szociális Alap (ESZA) 2007–2013 közötti programozási időszakában ( [4] ) összesen 2,4 milliárd EUR
fordítható a foglalkoztatáshoz való egyenlő hozzáférés javítására. A 2014–2020 közötti időszakra szóló strukturális
alapokra irányuló szabályozási csomag bizottsági tervezete a megkülönböztetés elleni küzdelmet és az egészségügyi
és szociális szolgáltatások jobb elérhetőségét az ESZA társadalmi befogadásra vonatkozó tematikus célkitűzésének
két beruházási prioritásaként azonosítja. A Bizottság az ESZA források 20%-át e tematikus – a fogyatékos személyek
foglalkoztatása szempontjából releváns – célkitűzés finanszírozására javasolta előirányozni.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/cowi.final_study_report_may_2011_final_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/supported_employment_study.compendium_good_practice_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=hu&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Példa a tanulási nehézségekkel küzdő emberek munkavállalását megkönnyítő, egyénre szabott szolgáltatáshoz (Egyesült Királyság):

http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=46&langId=en&projectId=464
Példa egyénre szabott, külföldi szakmai gyakorlathoz (Németország): http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=46&langId=en&projectId=471

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 377

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003453/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of points 48 and 49 of the INI report in relation to providing flexible and individually
tailored forms of employment for people with disabilities

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that flexible forms of](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
employment are also needed when it comes to employing people with disabilities (points 48 and 49).

What action has the Commission taken and does it intend to take in this regard?

In addition, how does the Commission intend to prevent flexible employment from also going hand in hand with
exclusion from the labour market and community?

How does the Commission intend to support the diversity and spread of individually tailored forms of employment?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(4 June 2013)_

The Commission considers flexible forms of employment helpful in increasing employment of persons with
disabilities. It has financed a study on ‘Supported Employment for people with disabilities in the EU and EFTA-EEA’ ( [1] )
and disseminated the Compendium of good practice ( [2] ) created during the study. In line with the EU Disability
Strategy 2010-2020, the Commission is working to ‘mainstream’ disability into relevant actions and policies. In the
framework of the EU 2020 strategy and European Semester process, notably in the Annual Growth Survey, and the
Joint Employment Report we address employment of persons with disabilities.

In the recent Social Investment Package ( [3] ) the Commission calls for activation and enablement policies to overcome
the barriers to labour market participation by addressing specific needs of underrepresented workers. The attached
Staff Working Document on the implementation of our recommendation on active inclusion gives guidance on
holistic approach to active labour market policies that will help to lessen the risk of exclusion from the labour market
of those taking up flexible employment.

A total of 2.4 billion has been allocated to improve equal access to employment for the 2007-2013 programming
period ( [4] ) of the European Social Fund (ESF). The Commission's proposal for the regulatory package on Structural
Funds for 2014-2020 identifies combating discrimination and enhancing access to healthcare and social services as
two investment priorities of ESF's social inclusion thematic objective. The Commission proposed allocating 20% of
ESF funding to this thematic objective relevant to employment of persons with disabilities.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/cowi.final_study_report_may_2011_final_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/supported_employment_study.compendium_good_practice_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Example of tailor-made service to get people with learning disabilities into work (United Kingdom):

http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=46&langId=en&projectId=464
Example of tailor-made abroad trainingship (Germany): http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=46&langId=en&projectId=471

C 12 E / 378 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003454/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 39. pontjának kérdésköre a fogyatékkal élő emberek egészségügyi szolgáltatásokhoz való
hozzáféréséről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy az egészségügyi szolgáltatásokhoz való egyenlő hozzáférés hiányosságai
alapvetőek (39. pont).

Mit tett és mit kíván tenni az Európai Bizottság, hogy felgyorsuljon azon ajánlások kidolgozása, amelyek támogatják
az egészségügyi szolgáltatásokhoz, valamint az egészséget és az egészségügyi ellátást érintő információkhoz való
egyenlő hozzáférést?

**Tonio Borg válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 13.)_

Az Európai Unió Alapjogi Chartájának ( [1] ) 35. cikke előírja, hogy „a nemzeti jogszabályokban és gyakorlatban
megállapított feltételek mellett mindenkinek joga van megelőző egészségügyi ellátás igénybevételéhez, továbbá
orvosi kezeléshez”. Az egészségügyi ellátás ezen alapelvnek megfelelő megszervezése és nyújtása a tagállamok
kizárólagos hatáskörébe tartozik, ezért ezen a területen az Európai Uniónak korlátozottan van jogalapja a
beavatkozásra.

A határokon átnyúló egészségügyi ellátás tekintetében uniós irányelv született a határon átnyúló egészségügyi
ellátásra vonatkozó betegjogok érvényesítéséről ( [2] ), amelyet a tagállamoknak 2013. október 25-ig kell átültetniük, és
amely előírja, hogy minden tagállamnak létre kell hoznia legalább egy nemzeti kapcsolattartó pontot. A nemzeti
kapcsolattartó pontok feladata, hogy kérésre tájékoztassák a betegeket az egészségügyi ellátással kapcsolatos
minőségi és biztonsági előírásokról és iránymutatásokról, a panasztételi eljárásokról és a jogorvoslati
mechanizmusokról, valamint a vitarendezésre szolgáló lehetőségekről, beleértve a határon átnyúló egészségügyi
ellátásból eredő károk esetét is.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2000/C 364/01
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 2011/24/EU

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 379

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003454/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 39 of the INI report in relation to the access of people with disabilities to
healthcare services

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that there is a basic lack of](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
equal access to healthcare services (point 39).

What action has the Commission taken and does it intend to take to speed up its work on recommendations that will
support equal access to healthcare services and to information on health and healthcare?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ( [1] ) Article 35 stipulates that ‘everyone has the right of
access to preventive healthcare and the right to benefit from medical treatment’, according to the conditions
established by national laws and practices. The organisation and delivery of healthcare to apply such principle falls
under the exclusive responsibility of the Member States and the European Union has limited legal base for
intervention in this field.

As regards cross border healthcare, the EU Directive on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border
healthcare ( [2] ) due to be transposed by 25 October 2013, stipulates that each Member State shall designate at least one
National Contact Point. The National Contact Point shall provide patients, on request, with information concerning
standards and guidelines on quality and safety of healthcare, complaints procedures and mechanisms for seeking
remedies, including options available to settle disputes in the event of harm arising from cross-border healthcare.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2000/C 364/01.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 2011/24/EU.

C 12 E / 380 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003455/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 35. pontjának kérdésköre a fogyatékkal élők európai mobilitási kártyájáról

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy egy új, úgynevezett európai mobilitási kártyára lenne szükség, hogy a fogyatékos
emberek könnyebben tanulhassanak, dolgozhassanak vagy vehessék igénybe a különböző ellátásokat,
szolgáltatásokat (35. pont).

Mit tett és kíván tenni az Európai Bizottság ezen a téren?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 27.)_

A 2010–2020 közötti időszakra szóló európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégia ( [1] ) 2010–2015 közötti intézkedéseinek ( [2] )
részeként a Bizottság vizsgálja a fogyatékossági igazolvány és az ahhoz kapcsolódó jogosultságok kölcsönös
elismerésének lehetséges hatásait.

Az európai fogyatékosságügyi szakértők tudományos hálózata (ANED) által készített „ _Disability Benefits and_
_Entitlements in European Countries_ ” (Rokkantsági ellátások és jogosultságok az európai országokban) című
tanulmány ( [3] ), valamint egy, az Európai Fogyatékosügyi Fórum (EDF) által készített tanulmány megállapításai
nyomán a Bizottság információcserét szorgalmazott a tagállamok között valamint a fogyatékossággal foglalkozó
magas szintű csoporton belül, legutóbb pl. 2013. április 24–25-én.

Az uniós tagállamok kellő érdeklődést tanúsítottak ahhoz, hogy a Bizottság projekt-munkacsoportot hozzon létre,
amelyben az érdeklődő tagállamok és a civil társadalom képviselői egy többnemzetiségű igazolvány kibocsátásának
és kezelésének gyakorlati kérdéseivel foglalkoznak majd.

A kölcsönösen elismert európai uniós fogyatékossági igazolvány létrehozása az uniós polgárságról szóló 2013. évi
jelentésben ( [4] ) a Bizottság által előterjesztett kezdeményezések egyike.

A tervezett uniós fogyatékossági igazolványhoz kapcsolódó program a következő elveken alapulhatna: közös minta
valamennyi részt vevő ország számára; viszonosság; kölcsönös elismerés; a nemzeti kibocsátó szervezetek aktív
részvétele és önfenntartás. Az igazolvány várhatóan a kultúra, szabadidős tevékenységek, sport, közlekedés és
turizmus területén lesz érvényes, ahol felmutatásával kedvezmények lesznek igénybe vehetők.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:hu:NOT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1324:HU:NOT
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.disability-europe.net/content/aned/media/ANED%202010%20Task%207%20-%20Disability%20Benefits%20and%20Entitlements

%20-%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20%282%29.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/2013eucitizenshipreport_en.pdf

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 381

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003455/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 35 of the INI report in relation to the European Mobility Card for people with
disabilities

As you know, the Parliament resolution adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that a new ‘European](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
Mobility Card’ would need to be adopted to make it easier for people with disabilities to study, work, or access the
various benefits and services (point 35).

What action has the Commission taken and does it intend to take in this regard?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

As part of the actions for 2010-2015 ( [1] ) of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 ( [2] ) the Commission is
examining the implications of a mutual recognition of disability cards and related entitlements.

Based on the findings of a study on ‘Disability Benefits and Entitlements in European Countries’ ( [3] ) of the European
Network of European Experts in Disability (ANED) and a study conducted by the European Disability Forum (EDF),
the Commission has been promoting an exchange of information between Member States and within the High-Level
Group on Disability, most recently on 24 and 25 April 2013.

The level of interest of the EU Member States has been sufficient for the Commission to initiate a project working
group (PWG) where representatives of interested Member States and civil society will deal with practical details of
issuing and managing a multinational card.

The development of a mutually recognised EU disability card is one of the actions put forward by the Commission in
its EU Citizenship report 2013 ( [4] ).

The EU-model disability card scheme could be based on the following principles: a common model for all
participating countries; reciprocity; mutual recognition; active engagement of the national issuing organisations and
self-sustainability. The scope of the card is likely to be in the areas of culture, leisure, sport, transport and tourism,
where benefits can be granted upon the presentation of the card.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1324:EN:NOT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:en:NOT
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.disability-europe.net/content/aned/media/ANED%202010%20Task%207%20-%20Disability%20Benefits%20and%20Entitlements

%20-%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20%282%29.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/citizen/files/2013eucitizenshipreport_en.pdf

( **|**

C 12 E / 382 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003456/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 34. pontjának kérdésköre a fogyatékkal élők gondozásában vállalt részvétel nyugdíjba való
beszámíthatóságával kapcsolatban

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) kiemeli, hogy ösztönözni kell a tagállamokat, hogy társadalombiztosítási rendszerükben és
nyugdíjazáskor ismerjék el a fogyatékossággal élő emberek gondozásában vállalt részvételt és ingyen végzett munkát
(34. pont).

Mit tett és kíván tenni az Európai Bizottság ezen a téren?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. június 21.)_

A Bizottság a 2010–2020 közötti európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégia ( [1] ) 2010–2015-re vonatkozó intézkedési
tervében ( [2] ) vállalta, hogy a fogyatékossággal kapcsolatos szempontok figyelembevétele érdekében a nyugdíjakról
szóló zöld könyvre épülő javaslatokat tesz. Az intézkedési terv emellett arra ösztönzi a tagállamokat, hogy a szociális
védelem és társadalmi befogadás területén alkalmazott nyitott koordinációs módszer keretében foglalkozzanak a
fogyatékossággal élő személyek helyzetével, és hozzanak intézkedéseket a fogyatékosság pénzügyi hatásainak
ellentételezésére.

A Bizottság „A megfelelő, biztonságos és fenntartható európai nyugdíjak menetrendje” címmel 2012. februárjában
közzétett fehér könyvben (COM(2012) 55 final) elismerte, hogy a férfiak és a nők nyugdíja közötti eltérés egyik oka
az lehet, hogy a nők nagyobb mértékben vesznek részt gondozási tevékenységekben, és a nyugdíjkülönbség
csökkentésének egyik módjaként ezért a gondozási jóváírást javasolta. Mindazonáltal a kérdés vizsgálata még tart, és
nem korlátozódik a fogyatékossággal élő személyek gondozóira.

A fogyatékossággal élő idős személyek nem hivatalos gondozóinak támogatásával a szociális védelemmel foglalkozó
bizottság is foglalkozhat, amelynek 2014 elejéig jelentést kell készítenie a tartós ápolás–gondozásról. E jelentésnek a
Bizottság által februárban előterjesztett (COM(2013) 83 final) szociális beruházási megközelítéssel és a közleményt
kísérő bizottsági szolgálati munkadokumentummal (ápolás–gondozás az idősödő társadalomban) ( [3] ) összhangban
kiemelten kell foglalkoznia a tartós ápolás–gondozás iránti igény csökkentésének lehetőségeivel is. Az említett
munkadokumentum kiemeli az ápolás–gondozás terén a koordináció javításában, a megelőzésben, a rehabilitációban
és az új technológiák hasznosításában rejlő lehetőségeket. Az e lehetőségeket kiaknázó intézkedések jelentősen
enyhíthetnék a hozzátartozók ápolás–gondozással kapcsolatos terheit, lehetővé tehetnék munkában maradásukat és
csökkenthetnék a gondozók elégtelen szociális védelmének kockázatát.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:hu:NOT
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1324:HU:NOT
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013SC0041:HU:NOT

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 383

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003456/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 34 of the INI report in relation to the possibility of including involvement in
caring for people with disabilities in the pension calculation

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) points out that Member States](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
need to be encouraged to recognise, in their social security systems and when people retire, the involvement and
unpaid work of carers of people with disabilities (point 34).

What action has the Commission taken and does it intend to take in this regard?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 June 2013)_

The Commission has included in the list of actions for 2010-2015 ( [1] ) of the European Disability Strategy 20102020 ( [2] ) an undertaking to follow up on the Green Paper on pensions to take into account disability relevant aspects.
The list of actions also includes encouraging Member States to address the situation of persons with disabilities in the
Open Method of Coordination on Social Protection and Social Inclusion (SPSI) and to take measures to compensate
the financial impact of disabilities.

The Commission’s White Paper ‘An Agenda for Adequate, Safe and Sustainable Pensions’ of February 2012
(COM(2012) 55 final) acknowledged that one explanation of the gender gap in pensions is the greater involvement of
women in caring activities and suggested looking at care credits as one way of reducing the gender pension gap.
However, work on these issues is still in progress, and it is not limited to carers of people with disabilities.

Support for informal carers of elderly people with disabilities may also be addressed by the Social Protection
Committee which is due to adopt a report on long-term care in early 2014. This report should also focus on
possibilities for reducing the need for long-term care, in line with the social investment approach presented by the
Commission in February (COM(2013) 83 final) and the Commission staff working paper on long-term care in ageing
societies that accompanied the communication ( [3] ). This paper highlights the potential of better care coordination,
prevention, rehabilitation and the use of new technologies in delivering care. Implementing such measures could
significantly alleviate the care burden of relatives, allowing them to remain in employment and reduce the risk of
inadequate social protection for care givers.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010SC1324:EN:NOT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:en:NOT.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013SC0041:EN:NOT.

C 12 E / 384 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003457/13**

**a Bizottság számára**

**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 18. pontjának kérdésköre a bentlakásos intézményben élő fogyatékos emberek kitagolásával
kapcsolatos közösségi gondozásra való áttérés kapcsán

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP-jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy a bentlakásos intézményben élő fogyatékos emberek kitagolásával kapcsolatosan a
közösségi gondozásra kell egyre inkább áttérni (18. pont).

Az Európai Bizottság ezt hogyan és milyen formában tervezi elősegíteni, figyelemmel a tagállamok szűkös
erőforrásaira és a bevált gyakorlatok alacsony szintjére?

Várható-e, hogy lesznek komplex és követhető fejlesztési példák (pl. turizmus, vidékfejlesztés, infrastruktúra,
foglalkoztatás, képzési programok) a tagállamok számára a régi, nagy intézmények kiváltására?

**Viviane Reding válasza a Bizottság nevében**

_(2013. május 27.)_

A Bizottság először is szeretné a tisztelt Képviselő Úr figyelmébe ajánlani az E-002656/2013., az E-003264/2013. és
az E-008559/2012. számú írásbeli kérdésre adott válaszait.

Nem léteznek olyan „fejlesztési példák”, melyeket kérdésében említ.

Ugyanakkor a fogyatékos személyek aktív befogadását és a szolgáltatások e személyek általi jobb elérhetőségét
támogató politikák fontos szociális beruházások, amelyeket a szociális beruházási csomagról szóló bizottsági
közlemény ( [1] ) is szorgalmaz. A Bizottság iránymutatással fog szolgálni a tagállamok számára az európai strukturális
és beruházási alapok által támogatott szociális beruházások megvalósításával kapcsolatban. Emellett az intézményi
ellátásról a közösségi ellátásra való áttéréssel foglalkozó európai szakértői csoport bevált módszereket is tartalmazó
útmutatót és eszköztárat adott közre az európai alapoknak az intézményesítettség csökkentésére irányuló
felhasználását illetően ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=hu&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://deinstitutionalisationguide.eu/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 385

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003457/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 18 of the INI report in relation to the transition to community care as part of
deinstitutionalising people with disabilities resident in institutions

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that the trend needs to](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
continue towards the transition to community care as part of deinstitutionalising people with disabilities resident in
institutions (point 18).

How and in what form does the Commission envisage promoting this trend, bearing in mind Member States’ scarce
resources and the low level of best practice?

Will there be ready-made development models (e.g. from tourism, rural development, infrastructure, employment,
training programmes) which Member States can follow to challenge old, large institutions?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-002656/2013,
E-003264/2013 and E-008559/2012.

There are not ‘development models’ as referred to in the questions.

Nevertheless policies for active inclusion of and better access to services by disabled people are important social
investments, also advocated by the Commission Communication’s on the Social Investment Package ( [1] ). The
Commission is going to provide Member States with guidance on how to carry out social investment by the European
Structural and Investment Funds. Furthermore, the European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to
[Community-based Care has published its guidelines and a toolkit on the use of European funds for de-](http://deinstitutionalisationguide.eu/)
institutionalisation, including best practices ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://deinstitutionalisationguide.eu/

C 12 E / 386 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Magyar változat)_

**Írásbeli választ igénylő kérdés E-003458/13**

**a Tanács számára**
**Kósa Ádám (PPE)**
_(2013. március 27.)_

_Tárgy:_ Az INI-jelentés 105. pontjának kérdésköre a jelnyelven való ügyintézés lehetőségéről

Mint ismeretes, a 2011 októberében elfogadott, a fogyatékossággal élő személyek mobilitásáról és befogadásáról,
valamint a 2010–2020 közötti időszakra vonatkozó európai fogyatékosságügyi stratégiáról szóló EP jelentés
(P7_TA(2011)0453) rögzíti, hogy a jelnyelv hivatalos elismertetése fontos lépés a siket és jelnyelvet használó
személyek számára (105. pont). Számos tagállamban már hivatalosan is lehet ügyet intézni az államigazgatás és az
igazságszolgáltatás területén jelnyelvvel, míg több tagállamban nem.

Mikorra tervezik ennek felülvizsgálatát azon tagállamokban, amelyekben erre nincs lehetőség?

Készül-e egységes ajánlás a Tanácson belül ebben a kérdésben?

**Válasz**
_(2013. május 28.)_

A Tanács 2000/78/EK irányelve tiltja a valláson vagy meggyőződésen, _fogyatékosságon_, életkoron vagy szexuális
irányultságon alapuló hátrányos megkülönböztetést a foglalkoztatás és a munkavégzés során ( [1] ). A Bizottság 2008
júliusában elfogadott javaslata pedig olyan területekre terjeszti ki ezt a védelmet, amelyek még nem szerepelnek a
2000/78/EK irányelvben, azaz például az árukhoz és szolgáltatásokhoz való hozzáférés és azok nyújtása területére ( [2] ).
Ez a javaslat nem tartalmaz a jelnyelvre történő kifejezett utalást. A javaslat tanácsi vizsgálata jelenleg folyamatban
van ( [3] ).

A tisztelt képviselő minden bizonnyal emlékszik arra, hogy a Tanács 2009. november 26-án elfogadta a
fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól szóló ENSZ-egyezménynek az Európai Közösség által történő megkötéséről
szóló határozatot ( [4] ). Mára az EU és majdnem valamennyi tagállam részese a fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól
szóló ENSZ-egyezménynek, amely úgy rendelkezik, hogy a részes államok _„_ minden szükséges intézkedést
megtesznek annak biztosítására, hogy a fogyatékossággal élő személyek másokkal azonos alapon, az általuk
megválasztott kommunikációs formán keresztül gyakorolhassák a szólásszabadság és a véleménynyilvánítás
szabadságának jogát, beleértve az információk és elgondolások keresésének, befogadásának és közlésének
szabadságát, […] beleértve a következőket: […] legyen elfogadott és támogatott a jelnyelv […]” _(_ [5] _)_ .

A Tanács nem tett kifejezett lépéseket a jelnyelv elismerésének előmozdítása érdekében a tisztelt képviselő által
hivatkozott európai parlamenti állásfoglalás szerint, mivel a jelnyelv hivatalos elismerése kizárólagosan tagállami
hatáskörbe tartozó kérdés.

Egyelőre tehát a Tanács nem készít ezzel a területtel kapcsolatos ajánlást.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A Tanács 2000/78/EK irányelve a foglalkoztatás és a munkavégzés során alkalmazott egyenlő bánásmód általános kereteinek létrehozásáról

(HL L 303., 2000.12.2., 16. o., magyar nyelvű különkiadás, 5. fejezet, 4. kötet, 79. o.).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 11531/08 – Javaslat – A Tanács irányelve a személyek közötti, vallásra vagy meggyőződésre, fogyatékosságra, életkorra vagy szexuális

irányultságra való tekintet nélküli egyenlő bánásmód elvének alkalmazásáról.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Többek között a 16063/12 dokumentum.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) A Tanács határozata a fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól szóló ENSZ-egyezménynek az Európai Közösség által történő megkötéséről

(HL L 23., 2010.1.27., 35. o.).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 21. cikk, http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/natl/hungary.doc

( **|**

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 387

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003458/13**

**to the Council**
**Ádám Kósa (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The subject matter of point 105 of the INI report in relation to the possibility of using sign language in dealing
with administrative matters

As you know, the Parliament report adopted in October 2011 on the mobility and inclusion of people with
[disabilities and on the European Disability Strategy 2010‐2020 (P7_TA(2011)0453) states that obtaining official](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2011-0453&language=EN)
recognition for sign language is an important step for deaf people and those who use sign language (point 105). It is
already officially possible in many Member States to deal with administrative and judicial matters using sign language,
while this is not the case in some Member States.

By when is this situation planned to be reviewed in those Member States which do not provide this option?

Is the Council preparing a common recommendation on this issue?

**Reply**
_(28 May 2013)_

Council Directive 2000/78/EC prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation as regards employment and occupation ( [1] ). In July 2008, the Commission adopted a proposal that would
extend the protection to cover areas not yet included in Directive 2000/78/EC, such as access to and supply of goods
and services ( [2] ). This proposal does not contain any specific reference to sign language. The examination of this
proposal is ongoing in the Council ( [3] ).

As the Honourable Member is certainly aware, on 26 November 2009 the Council adopted a decision concerning the
conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (UNCRPD) [ (4)] . The EU and almost all the Member States are now parties to the UNCRPD, which provides
that States Parties ‘shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to
freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an
equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, […] including by accepting and
facilitating the use of sign languages […]’ ( [5] ).

The Council has not taken specific action to promote the recognition of sign language as provided for in the European
Parliament Resolution the Honourable Member refers to given that the official recognition of sign language is a
matter that falls under the exclusive competence of the Member States.

For the time being, the Council is not preparing a recommendation in this area.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) 11531/08 — Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief,

disability, age or sexual orientation.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) 16063/12, _inter alia_ .
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Council Decision concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities, OJ L 23, 27.1.2010, p. 35.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Article 21, http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

( **|**
( **|**

( **|**

C 12 E / 388 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003461/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Afeganistão — ponto da situação

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-6232/2009, o Conselho afirmou que «As Conclusões do Conselho e o Plano de Ação
para o Afeganistão e o Paquistão, adotados em 27 de outubro de 2009, constituem o contexto para as atividades da
UE na região e incluem uma avaliação geral da situação.» e que «A UE está pronta a colaborar de forma estreita com o
Afeganistão, os Estados Unidos, os parceiros regionais e outros Parceiros da comunidade internacional na resolução
dos desafios que o Afeganistão enfrenta.»

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Em que áreas principais tem a União Europeia colaborado mais estreitamente com o Afeganistão, os Estados
Unidos, os parceiros regionais e outros Parceiros da comunidade internacional na resolução dos desafios que o
Afeganistão enfrenta?

—
Que avaliação faz desta colaboração?

—
Como vê a presente situação no Afeganistão?

—
Tem contacto com as autoridades afegãs?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(31 de maio de 2013)_

O Afeganistão está a enfrentar um complexo e difícil período de transição. Embora tenham sido realizados progressos
em muitos domínios, a situação continua a ser frágil e reversível, subsistindo grandes desafios. O êxito do apoio à
transição e estabilização global irá provavelmente depender tanto dos elementos políticos, do processo de
reconciliação e de paz e da consolidação do Estado a longo prazo, como das capacidades militares e paramilitares.

A cooperação com as autoridades afegãs e no seio da comunidade internacional é essencial para vencer estes desafios.
A AR/VP subscreveu as prioridades estabelecidas no quadro de responsabilidade mútua de Tóquio (TMAF). Os
principais domínios incluem eleições presidenciais abrangentes e transparentes com resultados legítimos; melhoria da
gestão das finanças públicas; garantir que os progressos em matéria de direitos humanos, especialmente dos direitos
das mulheres, são consolidados e prosseguidos; e prossecução da reforma do setor da justiça e o reforço do Estado de
direito. A UE participa no grupo «5 +3», a equipa principal que assegura a coordenação dos esforços da comunidade
internacional para executar o TMAF.

A UE continuará a apoiar os esforços afegãos para reforçar o policiamento civil, e apoia um processo de reconciliação
inclusivo e conduzido pelos afegãos conducente a uma resolução política coerente com as «linhas vermelhas»
acordadas na Conferência de Bona. A UE continuará igualmente a apoiar a cooperação regional entre o Afeganistão e
os seus vizinhos, tal como o processo de Istambul «Coração da Ásia», que prevê, nomeadamente, o reforço das
capacidades regionais na gestão das fronteiras, na luta contra o tráfico de estupefacientes e na facilitação do comércio.

A AR/VP debate regularmente estas questões com o seu homólogo afegão e em reuniões bilaterais e multilaterais.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 389

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003461/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Afghanistan — state of play

In answer to my Question E-6232/2009, the Council stated that ‘The Council conclusions and the action plan for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, adopted on 27 October 2009, provide the context for EU activities in the region and
include an overall assessment of the situation.’ It added that ‘The EU stands ready to work closely with Afghanistan,
the United States and regional and other partners in the international community in addressing the challenges in
Afghanistan.’

—
In which key areas has the EU been working more closely with Afghanistan, the United States and regional and
other partners in the international community in addressing the challenges in Afghanistan?

—
What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of this collaboration?

—
How does she view the current situation in Afghanistan?

—
Has she contacted the Afghan authorities?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

Afghanistan faces a complex and difficult transition period. Although progress has been made in many areas, this
remains fragile and reversible and major challenges persist. Success in supporting the overall transition and
stabilisation will likely depend as much on the political elements, the reconciliation and peace process and longer
term state-building, as on military and para-military capabilities.

Cooperation with the Afghan authorities and within the international community is essential for addressing these
challenges. The HR/VP has endorsed the priorities set out in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF).
Key areas include inclusive and transparent presidential elections with a legitimate outcome; improved public
financial management; ensuring that human rights gains, especially women’s rights, are consolidated and continued;
and pursuing the reform of the justice sector and strengthening the rule of law. The EU participates in the ‘5+3’
Group, the core team which coordinates the international community's efforts to implement the TMAF.

The EU will continue to support Afghan efforts to strengthen civilian policing, and supports an inclusive and Afghanled reconciliation process leading to a political settlement consistent with the ‘red lines’ agreed at the Bonn
Conference. The EU will also continue supporting the regional cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbours,
such as the Istanbul ‘Heart of Asia’ process which foresees inter alia the strengthening of regional capacities in border
management, counter narcotics and trade facilitation.

The HR/VP raises these issues regularly with her Afghan counterpart and at bilateral and multilateral meetings.

C 12 E / 390 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003462/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Afeganistão — ponto da situação

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-6232/2009, o Conselho afirmou que «As Conclusões do Conselho e o Plano de Ação
para o Afeganistão e o Paquistão, adotados em 27 de outubro de 2009, constituem o contexto para as atividades da
UE na região e incluem uma avaliação geral da situação.» e que «A UE está pronta a colaborar de forma estreita com o
Afeganistão, os Estados Unidos, os parceiros regionais e outros Parceiros da comunidade internacional na resolução
dos desafios que o Afeganistão enfrenta.»

Assim, pergunto ao Conselho:

—
Em que áreas principais tem colaborado mais estreitamente com o Afeganistão, os Estados Unidos, os parceiros
regionais e outros Parceiros da comunidade internacional na resolução dos desafios que o Afeganistão
enfrenta?

—
Que avaliação faz desta colaboração?

—
Como vê a presente situação no Afeganistão?

**Resposta**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

O Afeganistão atravessa atualmente um período de transição complexo e difícil. Embora tenham sido realizados
progressos em numerosas áreas, estes permanecem frágeis e reversíveis, e persistem desafios de vulto. O êxito do
apoio a uma transição e estabilização globais depende provavelmente tanto de aspetos políticos — o processo de paz
e reconciliação e a construção do Estado a mais longo prazo — como de capacidades militares e paramilitares.

A cooperação com as autoridades afegãs e no âmbito da comunidade internacional é essencial para tentar responder a
esses desafios. A Alta Representante e a Comissão subscreveram as prioridades definidas no Quadro de
Responsabilidade Mútua de Tóquio. Entre as áreas essenciais contam‐‐se: a realização de eleições presidenciais
inclusivas e transparentes com resultados legítimos; uma melhor gestão financeira pública; a garantia de que os
progressos em matéria de direitos humanos, nomeadamente em matéria de direitos das mulheres, serão consolidados
e prosseguidos; e a prossecução da reforma do setor da justiça e o reforço do Estado de direito. A EU participa no
Grupo «5+3», a equipa nuclear que coordena os esforços de implementação do Quadro de Responsabilidade Mútua de
Tóquio pela comunidade internacional.

O Conselho continuará a apoiar os esforços do Afeganistão no sentido de reforçar o policiamento civil e apoia um
processo de reconciliação inclusivo e liderado pelos afegãos conducente a uma resolução política consentânea com as
«linhas vermelhas» acordadas na Conferência de Bona. O Conselho continuará igualmente a apoiar a cooperação
regional entre o Afeganistão e os seus vizinhos, tal como o Processo de Istambul «Coração da Ásia», que prevê
designadamente o reforço das capacidades regionais em matéria de gestão de fronteiras, de luta contra a droga e de
facilitação do comércio.

A UE evoca periodicamente essas questões tanto com os seus homólogos afegãos como no âmbito de reuniões
bilaterais e multilaterais.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 391

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003462/13**

**to the Council**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Afghanistan — state of play

In answer to my Question E-6232/2009, the Council stated that ‘The Council conclusions and the action plan for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, adopted on 27 October 2009, provide the context for EU activities in the region and
include an overall assessment of the situation.’ It added that ‘The EU stands ready to work closely with Afghanistan,
the United States and regional and other partners in the international community in addressing the challenges in
Afghanistan.’

—
In which key areas has the EU been working more closely with Afghanistan, the United States and regional and
other partners in the international community in addressing the challenges in Afghanistan?

— What is the Council’s assessment of this collaboration?

—
How does it view the current situation in Afghanistan?

**Reply**
_(9 July 2013)_

Afghanistan is facing a complex and difficult transition period. Although progress has been made in many areas, it
remains fragile and reversible and major challenges persist. Success in supporting the overall transition and
stabilisation are likely to depend as much on the political elements — the reconciliation and peace process and longer
term state-building‐ as on military and para-military capabilities.

Cooperation with the Afghan authorities and within the international community is essential for addressing these
challenges. The High Representative and the Commission have endorsed the priorities set out in the Tokyo Mutual
Accountability Framework (TMAF). Key areas include: inclusive and transparent presidential elections with a
legitimate outcome; improved public financial management; ensuring that human rights gains, especially women’s
rights, are consolidated and continued; and pursuing the reform of the justice sector and strengthening the rule of
law. The EU participates in the ‘5+3’ Group, the core team which coordinates the international community's efforts to
implement the TMAF.

The Council will continue to support Afghan efforts to strengthen civilian policing and it supports an inclusive and
Afghan-led reconciliation process leading to a political settlement consistent with the ‘red lines’ agreed at the Bonn
Conference. The Council will also continue to support the regional cooperation between Afghanistan and its
neighbours, such as the Istanbul ‘Heart of Asia’ process which foresees inter alia the strengthening of regional
capacities in border management, counter narcotics and trade facilitation.

The EU raises these issues regularly both with its Afghan counterparts and at bilateral and multilateral meetings.

C 12 E / 392 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003463/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Fundos de capital de risco transfronteiras — Ponto da situação

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0175/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «A UE necessita de um setor de capital de risco dinâmico, que seja capaz de fornecer capitais próprios para
financiar a fase inicial da atividade das PME inovadoras e de crescimento rápido. Contudo, as potencialidades do
mercado do capital de risco da UE continuam a ser subaproveitadas, devido, essencialmente, aos vários entraves aos
investimentos de capital de risco transfronteiras. A Comissão criou um grupo de peritos, em maio de 2007, para
identificar os obstáculos fiscais transfronteiras nesta área e as soluções possíveis. O relatório do grupo e as reações
recebidas serão integrados no trabalho da Comissão tendo em vista realizar um verdadeiro mercado único de capitais
de risco.»

1. Que medidas concretas adotou a Comissão destinadas a promover o maior aproveitamento das potencialidades
do mercado do capital de risco da UE?

2. Nomeadamente, como pretende a Comissão reduzir os vários entraves aos investimentos de capital de risco
transfronteiras?

3. Que entraves foram identificados e que soluções foram apresentadas pelo grupo de peritos? Quais destas
últimas foram efetivamente postas em prática e com que resultados?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de maio de 2013)_

Resposta conjunta aos pontos 1 e 2. A Comissão contribuiu para um melhor quadro jurídico para os investimentos
de capital de risco transfronteiras na UE, prestando simultaneamente apoio financeiro ao mercado. O Conselho e o
Parlamento Europeu adotaram recentemente um Regulamento relativo aos fundos europeus de capital de risco ( [1] ),
com base numa proposta da Comissão. O regulamento prevê para todos os gestores de fundos de capitais de risco um
passaporte europeu de comercialização, que permite o acesso a investidores aptos em toda a UE. Além disso, o FEI ( [2] ),
através do Programa-Quadro para a Competitividade e a Inovação, investe em fundos de capital de risco, que
investem em PME em fase de arranque e de crescimento. Vários desses fundos investem além-fronteiras. Os próximos
programas «COSME» ( [3] ) e «Horizonte 2020», atualmente em fase de negociação com os colegisladores, continuarão a
disponibilizar apoio financeiro.

3. O relatório do grupo de peritos relativo à tributação dos fundos de capital de risco ( [4] ) identificou dois problemas
fiscais principais e apresentou as soluções correspondentes, destinadas a evitar a dupla tributação. Propôs que um
gestor de fundos de capital de risco não deva ser considerado como criando uma «presença tributável» no país em que
é efetuado o investimento e que os Estados‐Membros da UE cheguem a acordo quanto a um sistema de
reconhecimento mútuo da classificação fiscal dos fundos de capital de risco. A Comissão apresentou o relatório às
autoridades fiscais dos Estados-Membros que, de um modo geral, não consideram que exista uma necessidade urgente
de se adotar uma iniciativa da UE. Por conseguinte, a Comissão lançou uma consulta pública ( [5] ) para obter elementos
que comprovem que estes problemas fiscais surgem efetivamente na prática. Dado que a Comissão recebeu poucas
respostas, está atualmente a estudar a melhor forma de abordar os eventuais obstáculos fiscais à atividade de capital
de risco, sem facilitar a fraude e a evasão fiscais.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento (UE) n.° 345/2013 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 17 de abril de 2013, relativo aos fundos europeus de capital de risco.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Fundo Europeu de Investimento.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Programa para a Competitividade das Empresas e PME para o período de 2014-2020.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/initiatives_small_business/venture_capital/tax_obstacles_ven

ture_capital_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/initiatives_small_business/venture_capital/index_en.htm

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 393

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003463/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cross-border venture capital funds — state of play

In answer to my Question E-0175/2010, Commissioner Šemeta stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘the EU
needs a dynamic venture capital industry that is capable of providing early-stage equity financing innovative highgrowth SMEs. However, the EU Venture Capital market still works below its potential, mainly because of the various
obstacles that exist to cross-border Venture Capital investments. The Commission set up the Expert group in
May 2007 to identify the cross-border tax obstacles in this area and possible solutions. The report and the reactions it
receives will feed into the Commission’s work that is designed to achieve a true Single Market for Venture Capital’.

1. What concrete action has the Commission taken to help the EU venture capital market better fulfil its potential?

2. In particular, how does the Commission intend to reduce the various obstacles to cross-border venture capital
investments?

3. What obstacles has the expert group identified and what solutions has it proposed? Which solutions have
actually been implemented and with what results?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

1 and 2. The Commission has contributed to a better legal framework for cross border venture capital investment
in the EU whilst also providing financial support to the market. The Council and European Parliament recently
adopted a regulation on European Venture Capital Funds ( [1] ), on the basis of a Commission proposal. This regulation
provides all managers of qualifying venture capital funds with a European marketing passport allowing access to
eligible investors across the EU. In addition, the EIF ( [2] ), through the Commission's Competitiveness and Innovation
Framework Programme, invests in risk capital funds which invest in SMEs at the start-up and growth stage. Several of
these funds invest across borders. The forthcoming COSME ( [3] ) and Horizon 2020 programmes, currently under
negotiation with the co-legislators, will continue the financial support.

3. The Venture Capital Tax Expert Group's Report ( [4] ) identified two main tax problems and corresponding
solutions aimed at preventing double taxation. It proposed that a venture capital fund manager should not be
considered as creating a taxable presence in the country into which the investment is made and that EU Member
States should agree on a mutual recognition of the tax classification of venture capital funds. The Commission
presented the report to Member States’ tax authorities which generally did not see an urgent need for EU action. The
Commission therefore launched a public consultation ( [5] ) to obtain evidence that these tax problems actually arise in
practice. As it received few replies it is currently exploring how best to address any tax obstacles to cross-border
venture capital activity while not facilitating tax avoidance and evasion.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on European Venture Capital Funds.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Investment Fund.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission's Programme for the Competitiveness of enterprises and SMEs, 2014-2020.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/company_tax/initiatives_small_business/venture_capital/tax_obstacles_ven

ture_capital_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/initiatives_small_business/venture_capital/index_en.htm

( **|**

C 12 E / 394 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003464/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ IVA — apoio às PME

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0175/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que, «em matéria de IVA, a Comissão apresentou várias propostas de apoio às PME. Entre as medidas adotadas,
destacam-se as seguintes:

—
conceder aos Estados-Membros o direito de fixarem um limiar até 100 000 euros, abaixo do qual as empresas
possam estar isentas de IVA;

—
autorizar os Estados-Membros a aplicarem um regime facultativo de contabilidade de caixa, no caso das
empresas com um volume de negócios inferior a 2 milhões de euros, de modo a não serem obrigadas a liquidar
o IVA às administrações fiscais enquanto o não receberem dos seus clientes;

—
estabelecer um procedimento de reembolso eletrónico para o IVA devido num Estado-Membro diferente
daquele onde a empresa está estabelecida (Diretiva 2008/9/CE do Conselho);

—
permitir que os Estados-Membros apliquem, de forma permanente, taxas reduzidas a certos serviços locais de
mão-de-obra intensiva, particularmente importantes para as PME, nomeadamente os serviços de hotelaria.
Quanto a este último ponto, no seguimento do acordo político alcançado em 10 de março de 2009, o
Conselho adotou a Diretiva 2009/47/CE.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que avaliação faz da adoção das medidas por parte dos Estados-Membros?

—
Que impacto concreto tiveram nas respetivas economias?

—
Que problemas encontrou na sua aplicação? Que soluções apresenta para os mesmos?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

A proposta da Comissão de conceder aos Estados-Membros o direito a fixarem um limiar até 100 000 euros, abaixo
do qual as empresas podem estar isentas de IVA, data de 2004 ( [1] ). Os Estados-Membros ainda não alcançaram
qualquer acordo a este respeito.

O Comité do IVA recebeu comunicações de quatro Estados-Membros no que diz respeito à aplicação de um regime
facultativo de contabilidade de caixa ( [2] ), sendo que dois deles aplicam o limiar até 2 milhões de euros ( [3] ) de volume
anual de negócios e os outros dois o limiar até 500 000 euros.

Devido a alguns problemas levantados pelas empresas quanto à aplicação do procedimento eletrónico de reembolso
do IVA ( [4] )pelos Estados-Membros, a Comissão propôs uma alteração para introduzir medidas de implementação por
forma a lidar com esses problemas ( [5] ). Contudo, os Estados-Membros não alcançaram um acordo nesta matéria. A
Comissão criou um Grupo de Projeto Fiscalis que identificou e propôs soluções para todos os problemas pendentes.
O trabalho do projeto foi aprovado pelo Comité Permanente de Cooperação Administrativa em outubro de 2012 e a
Comissão entende que estes problemas estão resolvidos.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2004) 728.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Nos termos do artigo 167.°-A da Diretiva IVA.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/key_documents/vat_committee/2012_notifications.pdfhttp://ec.europa

.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/key_documents/vat_committee/2012_notifications.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Nos termos da Diretiva 2008/9/CE do Conselho.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 381.

( **|**
( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 395

A Diretiva do IVA ( [6] ) fornece aos Estados-Membros a opção de aplicar taxas de IVA reduzidas aos produtos
enumerados no Anexo III da dita Diretiva. Assim, cabe a cada Estado-Membro decidir, tendo em conta os seus
objetivos orçamentais, sociais e outros objetivos estratégicos, se deve ou não aplicar taxas de IVA reduzidas a serviços
locais ( [7] ) e avaliar depois se as estratégias foram alcançadas.

Os Estados-Membros em causa são quem melhor pode avaliar o impacto económico das medidas acima referidas.

( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2006/112/CE do Conselho, de 28 de novembro de 2006, relativa ao sistema comum do imposto sobre o valor acrescentado — JO L 347

de 11.12.2006, p. 1 — Pode igualmente obter informações gerais sobre o IVA no seguinte endereço:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2009/47/CE do Conselho, de 5 de maio de 2009, que altera a Diretiva 2006/112/CE no que diz respeito às taxas reduzidas do imposto

sobre o valor acrescentado, JO L 116 de 9.5.2009, p.18.

( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )

C 12 E / 396 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003464/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VAT — support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

In answer to my Question E-0175/2010, Commissioner Šemeta stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘in the area
of VAT the Commission has made various proposals to help SMEs. Amongst the measures taken, the most notable
involve:

—
allowing Member States the right to set a threshold of up to EUR 100 000 below which businesses can be
exempt from VAT;

—
allowing Member States to apply an optional cash accounting scheme for businesses with a turnover below
EUR 2 000 000, so that those businesses do not have to pay VAT to the tax authorities before they have
received VAT from their customers;

—
setting up an electronic refund procedure for VAT incurred in Member States where the business is not
established (Council Directive 2008/9/EC);

—
allowing Member States to permanently apply reduced rates to certain labour intensive local services
particularly important for SMEs, including restaurant and catering services. In this last respect, following its
political agreement of 10 March 2009, the Council adopted Directive 2009/47/EC.’

How well does the Commission think the Member States have implemented these measures?

What concrete impact have the measures had on their respective economies?

What problems has the Commission encountered in the implementation of the measures? How does it propose to
solve these problems?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The Commission's proposal on giving Member States the right to set a threshold of up to EUR 100 000 below which
businesses can be exempt from VAT dates from 2004 ( [1] ). No agreement has yet been reached by Member States.

The VAT Committee has received notice from four Member States regarding the application of an optional cash
accounting scheme ( [2] ), of which two apply the threshold of annual turnover up to EUR 2 000 000 ( [3] ) and two up to
EUR 500 000.

Because some issues had been raised by businesses on the Member States' implementation of the electronic VAT
refund procedure ( [4] ) the Commission proposed an amendment to introduce implementing measures to deal with
these problems ( [5] ). However Member States could not agree to this proposal. The Commission set up a Fiscalis Project
Group which listed and proposed solutions to all outstanding problems. The work of the project group was approved
by the Standing Committee on Administrative Cooperation in October 2012, and the Commission understands that
those problems have now been resolved.

The VAT Directive ( [6] ) provides Member States with the option to apply reduced VAT rates to the supplies listed in
Annex III of that directive. It is therefore up to each Member State to decide, in view of its budgetary, social and other
policy objectives, whether or not to apply reduced VAT rates on local services ( [7] ) and to assess afterwards whether the
policy objectives have been achieved.

The respective Members States are best suited to evaluate the economic impact of the abovementioned measures.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2004) 728.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) In accordance with Article 167a of the VAT Directive.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/key_documents/vat_committee/2012_notifications.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) In accordance with Council Directive 2008/9/EC.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 381.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of VAT — OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1 — General information

about VAT can also be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/index_en.htm

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of VAT — OJ L 116, 09.05.2009, p.18.

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 397

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003465/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Tributação dos produtos energéticos — ponto da situação

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0175/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «Para evitar o risco de estratégias fiscais divergentes e sub‐optimizadas a nível nacional em matéria de CO 2,
suscetíveis de criar distorções da concorrência entre empresas localizadas em diferentes Estados-Membros, a
Comissão estudará a possibilidade de apresentar uma proposta de revisão da diretiva relativa à tributação dos
produtos energéticos nos próximos meses.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Quais as conclusões do estudo que pretendia desenvolver acerca da possibilidade de apresentar uma proposta
de revisão da diretiva relativa à tributação dos produtos energéticos?

—
Quando pretende apresentar a referida proposta?

—
Pode adiantar alguns dos seus pontos principais?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão apresentou a sua proposta de revisão da Diretiva da Tributação da Energia (Diretiva 2003/96/CE) em
13 de abril de 2011 [COM(2011) 169 final].

A revisão tem por objetivo reestruturar o modo de tributação da energia e garantir o bom funcionamento do mercado
interno no contexto dos objetivos e compromissos assumidos em prol de uma economia com baixas emissões de
carbono e eficiente em termos energéticos.

Os principais elementos da proposta incluem: a introdução de uma distinção explícita entre a tributação da energia
especificamente relacionada com as emissões de CO 2 (tributação relacionada com o CO 2 ) e a tributação da energia
com base no teor energético dos produtos (tributação geral do consumo de energia); assegurar um tratamento
equitativo sustentável das fontes de energia renováveis e sustentáveis e eliminar a duplicação das normas e a carga
fiscal suplementar incidentes sobre as empresas abrangidas pelo Regime de Comércio de Licenças de Emissão da UE.

A proposta está sujeita ao processo legislativo especial e está atualmente a ser debatida no Conselho.

O Comité Económico e Social Europeu emitiu o seu parecer formal em novembro de 2011. O Parlamento Europeu
foi consultado e adotou um parecer em abril de 2012.

C 12 E / 398 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003465/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Energy taxation — state of play

In answer to my Question E-0175/2010, Commissioner Šemeta stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘to avoid the
risk of diverging and sub-optimal national CO2 tax strategies that might create distortions in competition between
firms located in different Member States, the Commission will consider a proposal to revise the Energy Taxation
Directive in the coming months.’

—
What were the conclusions of the study the Commission intended to conduct regarding a possible proposal to
revise the Energy Taxation Directive?

—
When will the Commission present the aforementioned proposal?

—
Can it set out some of the main points of the proposal?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

The Commission presented its proposal for a revision of the Energy Taxation Directive (Directive 2003/96/EC) on
13 April 2011 (COM(2011) 169 final).

The revision aims to restructure the way in which energy is taxed and ensure the proper functioning of the internal
market within the context of objectives and commitments to progress to a low-carbon and energy-efficient economy.

The main elements of the proposal include introducing an explicit distinction between energy taxation specifically
linked to CO 2 -emissions (CO 2 -related taxation) and energy taxation based on the energy content of the products
(general energy consumption taxation); ensuring fair treatment of sustainable renewable energy sources and
removing double regulation and additional tax burden on companies falling under the EU Emission Trading System.

The proposal is subject to the special legislative procedure and is currently under discussion in the Council.

The European Economic and Social Committee gave its formal opinion in November 2011. The European Parliament
has been consulted and adopted an opinion in April 2012.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 399

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003466/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Fórum Conjunto da UE em matéria de Preços de Transferência (JTPF)

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0175/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «o Fórum Conjunto da UE em matéria de Preços de Transferência (JTPF) investiga atualmente os problemas
específicos que se colocam às PME em matéria de cumprimento de formalidades ligadas aos preços de transferência.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Quais as principais conclusões resultantes da investigação?

—
Quais os problemas específicos identificados pelo JTPF?

—
Que soluções propõe para os mesmos?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de maio de 2013)_

Em 2011, o Fórum Conjunto da UE em matéria de Preços de Transferência (FCPT) adotou um Relatório sobre as
pequenas e médias empresas e os preços de transferência que examina os desafios que as pequenas e médias empresas
(PME) enfrentam na União Europeia em matéria de preços de transferência e apresenta recomendações concretas. Em
2012, o relatório foi publicado como parte de uma Comunicação da Comissão ( [1] ) e mereceu um acolhimento
favorável da parte do Conselho ( [2] ). Todos os documentos estão disponíveis no sítio Web do FCPT ( [3] ).

O relatório reconhece as necessidades específicas das PME em matéria de conformidade das regras relativas aos preços
de transferência. As PME carecem muitas vezes de conhecimentos e experiência sobre o assunto e possuem recursos
limitados. Isso pode dissuadir as PME de se lançarem em operações comerciais transfronteiriças intragrupo.

O relatório apresenta várias recomendações sobre como melhorar o ambiente no qual as PME operam relativamente a
pré-auditorías, auditorias e resolução de litígios. Para a fase de pré-auditoría, o relatório recomenda facilitar o acesso
das PME à informação relevante e a pareceres de peritos, assim como aos procedimentos que lhes permitam obter
antecipadamente alguma segurança jurídica (acordos prévios sobre os preços de transferência). Para a fase de
auditoria, o relatório recomenda o desenvolvimento de medidas de simplificação que permitam reduzir a carga que a
conformidade representa para as PME. Caso as PME sejam auditadas, devem ser objeto de tratamento adequado. No
domínio da resolução de litígios, o relatório recomenda, por um lado, incentivar a resolução célere de litígios de valor
reduzido e não complexos das PME e, por outro, explorar e aplicar o contacto direto entre auditores no âmbito dos
procedimentos de acordo mútuo e da Convenção de Arbitragem ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 516 final de 19.9.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Conclusões do Conselho relativas ao Fórum Conjunto da UE em matéria de Preços de Transferência, 3 205. [a] reunião do Conselho «Assuntos

Económicos e Financeiros» de 4.12.2012.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/transfer_pricing/forum/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Convenção relativa à eliminação da dupla tributação em caso de correção de lucros entre empresas associadas, JO L 225 de 20.8.1990, p. 10.

( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 400 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003466/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum (JTPF)

In answer to my Question E-0175/2010, Commissioner Šemeta, on behalf of the Commission, said that ‘the EU Joint
Transfer Pricing Forum (JTPF) is currently investigating whether SMEs are faced with particular problems in
complying with transfer pricing formalities’.

—
What were the main outcomes of this investigation?

—
What particular problems did the JTPF identify?

—
What solutions does it propose for these problems?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

In 2011 the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum (JTPF) adopted a Report on Small and Medium Enterprises and Transfer
Pricing which examines the challenges Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the European Union are facing in
transfer pricing and offers concrete recommendations. In 2012 the report was published as part of a Commission
Communication ( [1] ) and was welcomed by the Council ( [2] ). All documents are available on the webpage of the JTPF ( [3] ).

The report recognises the particular needs of SMEs as regards compliance with transfer pricing rules. SMEs often lack
knowledge and experience on the subject and have limited resources. This may impede SMEs from engaging in intragroup cross-border trading.

The report gives various recommendations on how to improve the environment in which SMEs operate with respect
to pre-audit, audit and dispute resolution. For the pre-audit stage the report recommends facilitating the access of
SMEs to relevant information and expert advice, also as regards procedures for advance certainty (Advance Pricing
Agreements). For the audit stage the report recommends developing simplification measures to reduce the
compliance burden for SMEs. When SMEs are audited, they should receive proportionate treatment. In the area of
dispute resolution the report recommends encouraging fast track dispute resolution for non-complex low value SME
claims and exploring and implementing auditor-to-auditor contacts in the framework of Mutual Agreement
Procedures and the Arbitration Convention ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 516 final, 19.9.2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council conclusions on the EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum, 3205th Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting, 4.12.2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/company_tax/transfer_pricing/forum/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises, OJ L 225, 20.8.1990,

p. 10.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 401

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003467/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Fortalecimento da cooperação com o Brasil em termos energéticos

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000799/2013, o senhor Comissário Günther Oettinger declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «A cooperação com o Brasil no domínio da energia, discutida por ocasião do IV Diálogo UE-Brasil
sobre Política Energética (22 de janeiro de 2013) abrange prioritariamente os seguintes temas: cooperação em matéria
de sustentabilidade dos biocombustíveis e biomassa no âmbito de um grupo técnico para a elaboração de normas,
atividades conjuntas de investigação e desenvolvimento no domínio das energias renováveis e da eficiência energética
(particularmente no setor da construção, rotulagem e normas aplicáveis aos produtos consumidores de energia),
intercâmbio de informações em reuniões de peritos sobre as questões relacionadas com os mercados da eletricidade,
segurança da exploração de gás e petróleo offshore e gás não convencional.»

Não obstante, a minha pergunta versava não sobre o elenco dos temas abrangidos pela cooperação, mas antes sobre
as formas e meios concretos de a fortalecer.

Assim, pergunto novamente à Comissão:

De que formas e através de que meios concretos tenciona fortalecer a cooperação com o Brasil em termos
energéticos?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(16 de maio de 2013)_

No Diálogo sobre Energia que teve lugar em 22 de janeiro de 2013, o Brasil e os representantes da UE acordaram:

—
Prosseguir as consultas bilaterais relativas à legislação da UE e do Brasil no domínio da sustentabilidade dos
biocombustíveis, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à abordagem das questões relacionadas com as alterações
indiretas do uso dos solos (ILUC) e os prados com elevado nível de biodiversidade;

—
Apoiar o trabalho da Parceria Global para a Bioenergia (GBEP) [(1)] sobre o desenvolvimento da energia produzida
a partir da madeira de uma forma moderna e sustentável conforme proposto na última Reunião do Comité
Diretor GBEP em novembro de 2012;

—
Nomear dois pontos focais para proceder ao acompanhamento da cooperação trilateral com vista a futuras
atividades de doação em prol de países terceiros como o Quénia;

—
Convidar a indústria e representantes de organismos públicos do Brasil a participarem nas respetivas
plataformas tecnológicas no âmbito do Programa-Quadro de Investigação da UE;

—
Reforçar as atividade conjuntas em matéria de investigação e tecnologia entre o Brasil e a UE, em especial nos
seguintes domínios: eficiência energética nos edifícios, energia solar fotovoltaica, energia solar concentrada,
energia eólica e rotulagem energética dos produtos;

—
Estabelecer relações de cooperação e organizar reuniões técnicas entre os respetivos reguladores de energia;

—
Organizar uma videoconferência entre serviços da Comissão e do Ministério das Relações Externas do Brasil
responsáveis pela exploração _offshore_, a fim de debater questões relativas à segurança das atividades _offshore_ e

—
Designar pontos focais para o intercâmbio de informações sobre a evolução e os quadros regulamentares no
domínio do gás não convencional.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.globalbioenergy.org/

C 12 E / 402 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003467/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Enhancing cooperation with Brazil in the field of energy

In answer to my Question E-000799/2013, Commissioner Oettinger stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘The
cooperation with Brazil in the field of energy as discussed at the Fourth EU-Brazil Energy Policy Dialogue
(22 January 2013) covers the following topics as priorities: cooperation on the sustainability of biofuels and biomass
through a joint technical group on standards, joint R&D activities in the field of renewable energy and energy
efficiency (particularly in the building sector and labelling and standards for energy using products), exchange of
information through expert meetings on the issues related to electricity markets, gas and oil offshore safety and nonconventional gas.’

However, my question did not concern the list of topics covered by cooperation, but rather the practical ways and
means of enhancing it.

How in practical terms does the Commission plan to enhance cooperation with Brazil in the field of energy?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

At the Energy Dialogue on 22 January 2013 Brazil and the EU representatives agreed to:

—
continue bilateral consultations on the EU and Brazilian legislation on biofuel sustainability, including on
addressing the issues related to Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) and High Biodiversity Grasslands (HBG);

—
support the work of the Global Bioenergy Partnership ( [1] ) (GBEP) on sustainable modern wood energy
development proposed during the last GBEP Steering Committee Meeting in November 2012;

—
appoint two focal points to follow up trilateral cooperation with a view to future donation activities for third
countries such as Kenya;

—
invite Brazilian industry and representatives of public bodies to get involved in the respective technology
platforms within the EU Framework Programme for Research;

—
reinforce joint activity in research and technology issues between Brazil and the EU, particularly in the
following fields: energy efficiency in buildings, solar photo-voltaic power, concentrated solar power, wind
energy and energy-labelling of products;

—
establish cooperation links and organise technical meetings between the respective energy regulators;

—
organise a videoconference between services in charge of offshore at the Commission and the Ministry of
External Relations of Brazil to discuss off-shore safety issues; and

—
appoint focal points to exchange information on developments and regulatory frameworks on nonconventional gas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.globalbioenergy.org/.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 403

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003468/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Matéria coletável comum consolidada do imposto sobre as sociedades (CCCTB) — ponto da situação

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0175/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «A redução dos obstáculos fiscais que atualmente se colocam às empresas e o bom funcionamento do mercado
interno estão no centro das prioridades da Comissão.» e que, «Neste contexto, a Comissão tenciona lançar um novo
olhar sobre a questão da matéria coletável consolidada comum do imposto sobre as sociedades (CCCTB), pois
acredita que o regime poderá ser eficaz no combate aos muitos obstáculos fiscais com que as empresas se deparam no
mercado interno.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Em que medida se tem concretizado o «novo olhar» que a Comissão pretendia lançar sobre a questão?

—
Qual o ponto da situação quanto à CCCTB?

—
Quais as principais prioridades da mesma?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de maio de 2013)_

No que diz respeito à primeira pergunta, a Comissão adotou uma proposta de Diretiva do Conselho relativa à matéria
coletável comum consolidada do imposto sobre as sociedades (Mcccis) em 16 de março de 2011.

No que diz respeito à segunda pergunta, desde 2011, os debates no grupo de trabalho do Conselho levaram a cabo
uma análise, artigo por artigo, dos elementos técnicos desta proposta. No relatório Ecofin apresentado ao Conselho
Europeu de 6 de dezembro de 2012, alguns Estados-Membros expressaram objeções substanciais à proposta relativa
à Mcccis, enquanto outros Estados-Membros manifestaram reservas sobre aspetos específicos. Alguns EstadosMembros solicitaram um debate de orientação relativo a futuras medidas a tomar. A Presidência Irlandesa está a tratar
deste assunto e reportará os progressos ao Conselho Ecofin em junho de 2013.

No que diz respeito à terceira pergunta, existe um consenso generalizado entre os Estados-Membros sobre a
condução do trabalho técnico passo a passo, incidindo numa primeira fase, nas questões relativas ao cálculo da
matéria coletável. Da reunião do Ecofin em junho deverá resultar um relatório geral a apresentar ao Conselho
Europeu.

C 12 E / 404 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003468/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) — state of play

In answer to my Question E-0175/2010, Commissioner Šemeta stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘[t]he
reduction of tax obstacles which companies currently suffer from and the proper functioning of the internal market
lie at the very heart of the priorities which the Commission has set for itself’ and that ‘[i]n the light of this, the
Commission is planning to have a fresh look at the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), as it believes
that the scheme can effectively tackle many of the tax obstacles that companies suffer in the internal market.’

—
How far has the Commission got with the ‘fresh look’ it was going to have at this issue?

—
What is the state of play with the CCCTB?

—
What are the major priorities for the CCCTB?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

As regards the first question, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated
Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) on 16 March 2011.

As regards the second question, since 2011 discussions in the Council working group have involved an article-byarticle examination of the technical elements of this proposal. In the Ecofin report to the European Council of
6 December 2012, some Member States expressed substantial objections to the CCCTB proposal, while some
Member States had specific reservations. A number of Member States asked for an orientation debate on the future
steps to take. The Irish Presidency is addressing this issue and is expected to report back on progress to Ecofin in
June 2013.

As regards the third question, there is a general consensus amongst Member States to conduct the technical work on a
step-by-step basis, concentrating in the first instance on issues related to the calculation of the tax base. The June
Ecofin meeting is expected to submit an overall report to the European Council.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 405

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003469/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Novo espírito empresarial europeu

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0175/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «a Comissão trabalhará no sentido de desenvolver um novo espírito empresarial a nível europeu, apoiando o
crescimento das PME e o seu potencial de internacionalização.»

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

—
Quais os principais elementos do novo espírito empresarial a nível europeu que pretende desenvolver?

—
Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar a este respeito?

—
Que resultados está em condições de apresentar a este respeito?

**Resposta dada por Antonio Tajani em nome da Comissão**

_(16 de maio de 2013)_

Em janeiro de 2013, a Comissão adotou o Plano de Ação «Empreendedorismo 2020», que constitui um apelo à ação
conjunta a todos os níveis — europeu, nacional, regional e até mesmo local, conforme apropriado — por forma a
reativar a cultura empreendedora por toda a Europa. Os três pilares do plano de ação visam:

—
incluir o ensino e a prática do empreendedorismo nos programas escolares,

—
criar um ambiente no qual os empresários possam desenvolver-se e prosperar, incluindo a redução do tempo
necessário para o arranque de uma empresa, obter as devidas licenças e autorizações e concluir os processos de
falência, e

—
introduzir programas de orientação, aconselhamento e apoio a mulheres, seniores, trabalhadores migrantes,
desempregados e potenciais empresários, bem como criar modelos positivos de empresários.

O texto completo do plano de ação, incluindo uma lista detalhada das ações a serem tomadas pela Comissão e
daquelas que os Estados-Membros são convidados a realizar, encontra-se no seguinte endereço eletrónico:
[http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/](http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/)

C 12 E / 406 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003469/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New European enterprise culture

In answer to my Question E-0175/2010, Commissioner Šemeta stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘the
Commission will work to develop a new enterprise culture in Europe, supporting SMEs’ growth and their
internationalisation potential.’

—
What are the main features of the new enterprise culture that the Commission intends to develop in Europe?

—
What action has it taken or does it intend to take in this regard?

—
What results can it mention in this regard?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

In January 2013, the Commission adopted the Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan, which is a call for joint action at
all levels — European, national, regional and even local, as appropriate — to reignite entrepreneurship culture across
Europe. The three action pillars of the action plan focus on:

—
including entrepreneurship education and experience in school curricula,

—
creating an environment where entrepreneurs can flourish and grow, including reducing the time it takes to
start up a business, obtain the necessary licenses and permits and complete bankruptcy procedures, and

—
outreach, mentoring, advice and support schemes for women, seniors, migrants, the unemployed and other
potential entrepreneurs, as well as creating positive role models of entrepreneurs.

The complete text of the action plan, including a detailed listing of actions to be taken by the Commission and those
which the Member States are invited to address, may be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/promoting-entrepreneurship/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 407

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003470/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Tributação dos rendimentos da poupança e Cooperação administrativa em matéria de tributação

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0175/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «O funcionamento equilibrado e correto do mercado interno e a existência de condições mais equitativas poderão
também ser facilitados através da oportuna adoção, pelo Conselho, das propostas apresentadas pela Comissão no
sentido da alteração da diretiva relativa à tributação dos rendimentos da poupança e de uma nova diretiva relativa à
cooperação administrativa em matéria de tributação bem como, no plano externo, do acordo antifraude com o
Liechtenstein e da concessão, pelo Conselho, de um mandato para a Comissão negociar acordos de cooperação
antifraude e no domínio fiscal com outros quatro países europeus não membros da UE.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que acolhimento obtiveram as propostas apresentadas pela Comissão no sentido da alteração da diretiva
relativa à tributação dos rendimentos da poupança e de uma nova diretiva relativa à cooperação administrativa
em matéria de tributação?

—
Qual o ponto de situação nesta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de maio de 2013)_

A Diretiva 2011/16/UE do Conselho, relativa à cooperação administrativa no domínio da fiscalidade ( [1] ), foi
formalmente adotada pelo Conselho Ecofin de 15 de fevereiro de 2011. Além disso, em 6 de dezembro de 2012, a
Comissão adotou um regulamento que estabelece as normas de execução da diretiva ( [2] ). O regulamento estabelece
formulários normalizados e meios de comunicação a utilizar pelos Estados-Membros para o intercâmbio de
informações.

A diretiva e o regulamento entraram em vigor em 1 de janeiro de 2013, com exceção das disposições relativas ao
intercâmbio automático de informações em cinco categorias de rendimento e capitais. Estas disposições são
aplicáveis a partir de 1 de janeiro de 2015. A Comissão anunciou que apresentaria uma proposta no sentido de
alargar o âmbito de aplicação do intercâmbio automático de informações, a fim de garantir que, de futuro, todos os
rendimentos relevantes são incluídos.

Embora a proposta da Comissão de alteração da diretiva relativa à poupança goze de um apoio substancial a nível do
Conselho desde 2009, a sua adoção foi bloqueada devido à posição de dois Estados-Membros. Atendendo ao
inequívoco movimento de apoio ao intercâmbio automático de informações, a Comissão considera que existe hoje a
dinâmica necessária para avançar, e insiste junto dos ministros das finanças da UE para que cheguem rapidamente a
acordo quanto à alteração da diretiva relativa à poupança e ao mandato associado de reforçar, em conformidade, a
cooperação existente com a Suíça, o Listenstaine, Andorra, Mónaco e São Marinho.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2011/16/UE do Conselho, de 15 de fevereiro de 2011, relativa à cooperação administrativa no domínio da fiscalidade e que revoga a

Diretiva 77/799/CEE (JO L 64 de 11.3.2011, p.1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulamento de Execução (UE) n. ° 1156/2012 da Comissão, de 6 de dezembro de 2012, que fixa as normas de execução de certas disposições da

Diretiva 2011/16/UE do Conselho relativa à cooperação administrativa no domínio da fiscalidade.

( **|**

C 12 E / 408 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003470/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Savings Taxation Directive and administrative cooperation in the field of taxation

In answer to my Question E-0175/2010, Commissioner Šemeta stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘[a] smooth
and fair functioning of the internal market and a better level playing field could also be facilitated through the timely
adoption by the Council of the Commission proposals for amending the Savings Taxation Directive and for a new
directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and, externally, through the anti-fraud agreement with
Liechtenstein and the adoption by the Council of a mandate to the Commission for negotiating anti-fraud and tax
cooperation agreements with four other non-EU European countries.’

—
How have the Commission proposals for amending the Savings Taxation Directive and for a new directive on
administrative cooperation in the field of taxation been received?

—
What is the state of play on this issue?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2013)_

Council Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation ( [1] ) was formally adopted by the
Ecofin Council of 15 February 2011. Furthermore, on 6 December 2012 the Commission adopted a regulation laying
down detailed rules implementing the directive ( [2] ). The regulation sets out standard forms and means of
communication to be used by Member States when they exchange information.

The directive and the regulation became applicable on 1 January 2013, with the exception of the provisions relating
to automatic exchange of information on five categories of income and capital. Those provisions will apply from
1 January 2015. The Commission has announced that it will make a proposal to further extend the scope of
automatic exchange of information to ensure that all relevant income is covered in the future.

The Commission's proposal to amend the Savings Directive is substantially agreed at Council level since 2009, but its
adoption has been blocked because of the position of two Member States. In view of the clear groundswell of support
for automatic exchange of information, the Commission believes that the momentum for progress is there and urges
the EU Finance Ministers to come quickly to an agreement on the amended savings directive and on the associated
mandate to enhance accordingly the existing cooperation with Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Monaco and San
Marino.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC

(OJ L64 of 11.03.2011, p. 1).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1156/2012 of 6 December 2012 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions

of Council Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation.

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 409

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003471/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Seca na Europa

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-6073/2009, a senhora Comissária Mariann Fischer Boel declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «A análise feita pela Comissão no contexto do Livro Branco sobre a adaptação às alterações climáticas
e do documento de trabalho que o acompanha relativo à Agricultura (“Adaptação às alterações climáticas: um desafio
para a agricultura e as zonas rurais europeias”) mostra que é provável que, nos próximos anos, o tipo de condições
descritas pelo Senhor Deputado se tornem mais frequentes devido às alterações climáticas.

Por conseguinte, é importante que as autoridades nacionais e regionais tomem medidas para começarem a planear a
adaptação à mudança de condições e aproveitem as oportunidades oferecidas pelo Regulamento do Desenvolvimento
Rural para apoiar ações de adaptação ao nível agrícola.»

1. Para além das medidas que deverão ser tomadas a nível nacional e regional, atendendo à gravidade da situação,
pretende a Comissão tomar medidas a nível europeu no mesmo sentido?

2. Tem havido adesão significativa às ações de adaptação ao nível agrícola no quadro do Regulamento do
Desenvolvimento Rural?

3. Dispõe a Comissão de dados quanto ao número de pedidos recebidos e efetivamente concedidos neste âmbito?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de maio de 2013)_

Nos termos do Exame de Saúde da PAC e do Plano de Relançamento da Economia Europeia de 2008, os EstadosMembros/regiões da UE planearam gastar pelo menos 700 milhões de euros na atenuação das alterações climáticas e
na adaptação às mesmas. Este valor representa 14 % do financiamento adicional disponibilizado pelo Exame de Saúde
da PAC e pelo Plano de Relançamento da Economia Europeia. No entanto, este facto não dá uma ideia precisa das
despesas relacionadas com as alterações climáticas suportadas pelo orçamento do desenvolvimento rural no seu
conjunto, que devem ser substancialmente superiores.

De acordo com as propostas da Comissão para uma política de desenvolvimento rural pós 2013 ( [1] ), a atenuação das
alterações climáticas e a adaptação às mesmas constituem «objetivos transversais», dos quais determinados aspetos
estarão fortemente presentes nas «prioridades» mais pormenorizadas dessa política. Além disso, será criado um
sistema de seguimento para estimar a proporção dos gastos da PAC em objetivos ligados às alterações climáticas.

A Comissão apresentou recentemente uma estratégia da UE para a adaptação às alterações climáticas e um livro verde
sobre os seguros contra catástrofes naturais, a fim de assegurar a preparação para essas catástrofes. A Comissão
continuará a apoiar os Estados-Membros e as regiões nos seus esforços para adotar e aplicar políticas de adaptação.
Além disso, a Comissão está atualmente a melhorar os indicadores para monitorizar o impacto do financiamento da
PAC.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 627 final/2 de 19.10.2011.

C 12 E / 410 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003471/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Drought in Europe

In answer to my Question E-6073/2009, Commissioner Fischer Boel stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘The
Commission’s analysis in the context of the White Paper on adapting to climate change and its accompanying
Working Document on Agriculture (“Adapting to climate change: the challenge for European agriculture and rural
areas”), shows that it is likely that during the coming years the type of conditions described in the Honourable
Member’s question will become more frequent because of climatic changes.

It is, therefore, important that national and regional authorities take measures to start planning for adaptation to the
changing conditions, and make use of the opportunities offered by the Rural Development Regulation to support
adaptation actions at farm level.’

1. In view of the seriousness of the situation, will the Commission take EU-level measures in addition to those that
should be taken at national and regional level?

2. Has there been significant uptake of the farm-level adaptation actions under the Rural Development Regulation?

3. Does the Commission have any figures for the number of applications received and actually approved in this
area?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

Under the terms of the CAP Health Check and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) of 2008, EU Member
States / regions planned to spend at least EUR 700 million on mitigating climate change and adapting to it. This figure
represents 14% of the additional funding made available by the Health Check and the EERP. However, this fact does
not provide an accurate view of spending on climate change from the rural development budget as a whole, which
must be substantially higher.

According to the Commission's proposals for a post-2013 rural development policy ( [1] ), mitigating and adapting to
climate change will be ‘cross-cutting objectives’, and aspects of these objectives will be strongly present in the policy's
more detailed ‘priorities’. Furthermore, a tracking system will be set up for estimating the proportion of CAP spending
devoted to climate change objectives.

The Commission has recently put forward an EU Strategy on adaptation and a green paper on promoting insurance in
the context of natural disasters to enhance preparedness for these events. The Commission will continue supporting
Member States and regions in their efforts to adopt and implement adaptation policies. Moreover, the Commission is
currently improving the indicator base for monitoring the impact of CAP funding.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 627 final/2 of 19.10.2011.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 411

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003472/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Procuradoria de Justiça Europeia — proposta

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-011263/2012, a senhora Comissária Viviane Reding declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que, quanto à Procuradoria de Justiça Europeia, «O Presidente José Manuel Barroso confirmou no seu
discurso no Parlamento Europeu sobre o estado da União 2012 que a Comissão apresentará uma proposta em 2013.

A Comissão está atualmente a realizar as necessárias consultas e trabalhos preparatórios tendo em vista a preparação
de uma proposta. Os trabalhos preparatórios ainda não estão concluídos.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

Está em condições de informar sobre quais as consultas que já foram realizadas e quando pretende concluir os
trabalhos preparatórios e apresentar a referida proposta?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de junho de 2013)_

Em 2012, foram publicados dois questionários sobre a proteção dos interesses financeiros da UE e a criação da
Procuradoria de Justiça Europeia (EPPO), para distribuição, respetivamente, aos profissionais da justiça e ao público
em geral. A Comissão recebeu um grande número de respostas pormenorizadas.

Por outro lado, em 2012 e no início de 2013 tiveram lugar uma série de debates e reuniões a nível europeu, como a
reunião da rede dos representantes dos Ministérios Públicos ou instituições equivalentes junto dos Tribunais
Supremos dos Estados-Membros ou a conferência «A Blueprint for the European Public Prosecutor's Office». Além
disso, a Comissão organizou uma reunião de consulta com os procuradores-gerais e altos responsáveis do Ministério
Público dos diferentes Estados-Membros. A Comissão discutiu ainda diversas questões relacionadas com uma
eventual reforma do Eurojust e a criação de uma EPPO com a participação de representantes dos Estados-Membros. A
10. [a] conferência dos procuradores encarregados da luta contra a fraude, organizada pelo OLAF (novembro de 2012),
constituiu uma oportunidade para explorar as formas como os procuradores nacionais poderão vir a interagir com a
EPPO, caso venha a ser criada. As consultas informais aos representantes dos advogados (CCBE e ECBA) incidiram nas
garantias processuais de que beneficiam os suspeitos e delas resultaram recomendações úteis. A reunião do Grupo de
Peritos da Comissão sobre a Política Penal Europeia ( [1] ) permitiu a recolha de diversos pontos de vista sobre a criação
da EPPO.

Além disso, durante o segundo semestre de 2012, realizaram‐se ainda diversas reuniões bilaterais de concertação com
as autoridades dos Estados-Membros.

Tendo em conta os resultados de todas essas consultas, a Comissão tenciona apresentar uma proposta em 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) O grupo de peritos foi criado em 2011, no seguimento da Comunicação da Comissão «Rumo a uma política da UE em matéria penal: assegurar o

recurso ao direito penal para uma aplicação efetiva das políticas da UE» [COM(2011) 573]. A missão do grupo consiste na análise das questões
jurídicas associadas ao direito penal substantivo.

C 12 E / 412 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003472/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Public Prosecutor's Office — proposal

In answer to my Question on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, E-011263/2012, Commissioner Reding stated
on behalf of the Commission that ‘President Barroso has confirmed in his 2012 state of the Union speech before the
European Parliament that the Commission will present a proposal in 2013.

The Commission is currently conducting the necessary consultations and preparatory works in view of preparing a
proposal. The preparatory works are not yet finalised.’

Can the Commission say what consultations have already been conducted and when it expects to finalise the
preparatory works and present the aforementioned proposal?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

In 2012 two questionnaires on the protection of the EU's financial interest and the establishment of the European
Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO) were published and distributed respectively to justice professionals and the general
public. A large number of detailed replies were sent to the Commission.

In addition, throughout 2012 and early 2013, a number of discussions and meetings took place at European level,
such as the meeting of the network of Public Prosecutors or equivalent institutions at the Supreme Judicial Courts of
the Member States and the Conference ‘A Blueprint for the European Public Prosecutor's Office’. Moreover, the
Commission organised a consultation meeting with Prosecutors General and Directors of Public Prosecution from
Member States. The Commission also discussed issues relating to a possible reform of Eurojust and to the setting up
of an EPPO with representatives of Member States. The 10th OLAF Conference of Fraud Prosecutors
(November 2012) was an opportunity to explore the ways in which national prosecutors would interact with the
EPPO, if set up. The informal consultation held with defence lawyers (CCBE and ECBA) looked at procedural
safeguards for suspects and made useful recommendations. The meeting of the Commission Expert Group on
European Criminal Policy ( [1] ) allowed the collection on different views on the establishment of the EPPO.

Also, numerous bilateral consultation meetings with Member States’ authorities took place in the second half of
2012.

Taking into account the results of all those consultations, the Commission intends to present a proposal in 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The expert group has been set up in 2011 and follows up to the Commission Communication ‘Towards an EU Criminal Policy — Ensuring the

effective implementation of EU policies through criminal law’ (COM(2011) 573). The task of the group is to focus on legal issues of substantive
criminal law.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 413

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003473/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Impacto de produtos farmacêuticos no ambiente

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-010860/2012, o senhor Comissário Janez Potočnik declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «a Comissão está atualmente a examinar o significado dos vários problemas associados à presença de
produtos farmacêuticos no ambiente e tenciona apresentar um relatório sobre a matéria em 2013. Está em curso um
estudo para fundamentar o relatório.»

1. Que problemas conseguiu a Comissão já identificar associados à presença de produtos farmacêuticos no
ambiente?

2. Que entidade desenvolve o estudo referido?

**Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de maio de 2013)_

O estudo ainda não está concluído. Por conseguinte, é prematuro tecer comentários sobre as suas conclusões. A
Comissão tenciona publicar o relatório assim que estiver finalizado.

O estudo está ser realizado por um consultor externo, a BIO Intelligence Services.

C 12 E / 414 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003473/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Environmental impact of pharmaceuticals

In answer to my Question E-010860/2012, Commissioner Potočnik stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘the
Commission is currently examining the significance of various problems related to the presence of pharmaceuticals in
the environment and intends to report on the matter in 2013. A study to underpin the report is underway.’

1. What problems has the Commission managed to find so far as regards the presence of pharmaceuticals in the
environment?

2. Which body is conducting the aforementioned study?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2013)_

The study has not yet been finalised. It is therefore premature to report on the findings. The Commission intends to
publish the report as soon as it is ready.

The study is being performed by an external consultant, BIO Intelligence Services.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 415

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003474/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Açores — Recursos cinegéticos para fins turísticos

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000596/2013, o senhor Comissário Johannes Hahn declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «Medidas e projetos relacionados com os recursos cinegéticos deverão igualmente respeitar a
legislação prevista pela UE».

A que legislação se refere a Comissão?

**Resposta dada por Janez Potočnik em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de maio de 2013)_

A incidência e a elegibilidade das despesas dos Fundos Estruturais são determinadas pelo Regulamento Disposições
Comuns e pelos regulamentos relativos a cada um dos fundos para o período de 2014-2020, isto é, o Fundo Europeu
de Desenvolvimento Regional, o Fundo Social Europeu, o Fundo de Coesão, o Fundo Europeu Agrícola de
Desenvolvimento Rural e o Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e da Pesca, que ainda estão neste momento em
negociação ( [1] ); a legislação temática da UE que pode ser aplicável neste domínio é a Diretiva Aves ( [2] ) e a Diretiva
Habitats ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) As propostas de regulamentos podem ser descarregadas em:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm#1

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2009/147/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 30 de novembro de 2009, relativa à conservação das aves selvagens (versão

codificada).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Diretiva 92/43/CEE do Conselho, 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.

( **|**

( **|**

C 12 E / 416 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003474/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ The Azores — game resources for tourism purposes

In answer to my Question E-000596/2013, Commissioner Hahn stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘measures
and projects related to game resources will also need to abide by the relevant provisions of EU legislation.’

To what legislation is the Commission referring?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

While the focus and eligibility of Structural Funds’ expenditure is determined by the Common Provisions Regulation
and the relevant Fund-specific regulations for 2014-2020, i.e. European Regional Development Fund, European
Social Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund, which are currently still under negotiation ( [1] ), thematic EU legislation that could be relevant in this
field is the Birds Directive ( [2] ) and the Habitats Directive ( [3] ).

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The proposals for regulations can be downloaded at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm#1
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified

version).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 417

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003475/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Assistência às PME no Mercosul

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-00795/2013, o senhor Comissário Karel De Gucht declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «No que respeita ao apoio às pequenas e médias empresas (PME), a Comissão está a estudar a possibilidade de
instituir um serviço de assistência às PME no domínio dos direitos de propriedade intelectual na região do Mercosul, e
procede atualmente à identificação de dois projetos para a América Latina, ao abrigo do Instrumento dos Países
Industrializados (IPI+). Um projeto visa apoiar a criação de um centro de conhecimento e o outro a prestação de
serviços de apoio às empresas, designadamente, às PME.»

1. Quando pretende a Comissão apresentar as conclusões do estudo que presentemente desenvolve?

2. Como se processa a identificação dos projetos referidos? Quando tenciona a Comissão concluí-la?

**Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de maio de 2013)_

1. A Comissão está a preparar na América Latina, um «Centro de Informação do Conhecimento» e uma «Rede de
Serviços de Apoio a empresas europeias» financiados pelo Instrumento dos Países Industrializados (IPI +), com um
orçamento previsto de 4 milhões de euros para cada projeto. Foi recentemente realizada uma missão de identificação
de projetos para as duas possíveis ações e as conclusões serão incluídas na apresentação dos projetos numa reunião
do Comité IPI + no segundo semestre de 2013. Ambos os projetos começarão em 2014.

2. A Comissão está a preparar, na região do Mercosul, um _Helpdesk_ para as PME sobre Direitos de Propriedade
Intelectual (DPI) financiado no âmbito do Programa de Competitividade e Inovação (PCI), com um orçamento
previsto de 0,6 milhões de euros. O projeto foi aprovado pelo Comité do Programa de Empreendedorismo e Inovação
em 15 março de 2012. Foi lançado um convite à apresentação de propostas em 26 de fevereiro de 2013, e devendo
ter início em 1 de julho de 2013, por um período de 18 meses. O projeto irá abranger o Brasil e, opcionalmente,
outros países do Mercosul (e Chile). Irá fornecer os seus serviços através de um sítio Web completo, conselhos
específicos e ações de sensibilização apropriadas.

C 12 E / 418 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003475/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Assistance for Mercosur SMEs

In answer to my Question E-00795/2013, Commissioner De Gucht stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘As
regards support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the Commission is exploring the possibility of setting
up a Helpdesk for SMEs on Intellectual Property Rights in the Mercosur region, and is in the process of identifying two
projects for Latin America under the Industrialised Countries Instrument (ICI+). One project would support the
creation of a Knowledge Centre and the other would provide business support services, particularly to SMEs.’

1. When does the Commission intend to present the conclusions of the study it is currently conducting?

2. How is it identifying the aforementioned projects? When does the Commission intend to have identified them?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 May 2013)_

1. The Commission is preparing a ‘Knowledge Information Centre’ and a ‘European Business Support Services
Network’ in Latin America funded by the Industrialised Countries Instrument (ICI+) with a foreseen budget of
EUR 4 million for each project. A project identification mission for both possible actions has recently been performed
and the conclusions will be included in the presentation of both projects at an ICI+ Committee meeting in the second
semester 2013. Both projects would start in 2014.

2. The Commission is preparing a Helpdesk for SMEs on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Mercosur region
funded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) with a foreseen budget of EUR 0.6 million. The
project was approved by the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme Committee on 15 March 2012. A call for
proposals has been launched on 26 February 2013 and should start on 1 July 2013 for 18 months. The project will
cover Brazil and optionally other Mercosur countries (and Chile). It will provide its services through a comprehensive
website, specific advice and appropriate awareness actions.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 419

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003476/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Memória Ativa Europeia — Totalitarismos

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000812/2013, a senhora Comissária Viviane Reding declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «A Comissão está empenhada em sensibilizar as pessoas para o passado da Europa e os crimes
perpetrados por regimes totalitários. Para o efeito utiliza o programa “A Europa para os Cidadãos” (2007-2013) e
mais especificamente a ação “Memória europeia ativa”. Esta ação tem por objetivo a comemoração das vítimas do
nazismo e do estalinismo, como meio de superar o passado, mas transmitir às novas gerações de europeus a memória
do que aconteceu.»

1. Não considera a Comissão que a designação encontrada para identificar os totalitarismos é desequilibrada,
porquanto num caso se atribuem os crimes de guerra e contra a Humanidade a um regime e a um partido — o
nacional-socialista — e, noutro, apenas os imputam a um período e a uma liderança (estalinista) de um regime e de
um partido — o comunista soviético — sem que este seja expressamente referido?

2. Não considera a Comissão que esta designação demasiado restritiva contende com o objeto do programa
Europa para os cidadãos, que é também preservar a memória histórica dos europeus?

3. Não crê a Comissão que a União Europeia deveria condenar expressamente não apenas o estalinismo, mas todos
os crimes cometidos pelos regimes comunistas totalitários?

4. Estaria a Comissão disponível para promover esta alteração de designação nas futuras ações que desenvolva a
este respeito e junto das demais instituições europeias?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão não avança uma interpretação institucional específica da história, mas proporciona um fórum europeu
que permite a reflexão crítica e independente do passado recente da Europa por historiadores, outros peritos
relevantes e a sociedade civil.

No entanto, na sequência do desejo explícito dos Estados-Membros, e a fim de proporcionar uma oportunidade de
superar o passado à história do continente europeu, a proposta de regulamento que estabelece o novo programa
«Europa para os cidadãos» (2014-2020) inclui explicitamente os regimes totalitários comunistas.

C 12 E / 420 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003476/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Active European Remembrance — totalitarianism

In answer to my Question E-000812/2013, Commissioner Reding stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘The
Commission is committed to raising people’s awareness of Europe’s past and the crimes perpetrated by totalitarian
regimes. It does so through the Europe for Citizens Programme (2007‐2013) and more specifically through Action 4
“Active European Remembrance”. This Action is concerned with commemorating the victims of Nazism and
Stalinism, as a means of moving beyond the past and passing the memory of what happened on to the young
generation of Europeans.’

1. On the one hand, the Commission ascribes war crimes and crimes against humanity to a regime and a party —
the National Socialist Party — but, on the other, it only ascribes them to a particular period and leadership (Stalinist)
of a regime and a party — the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — without explicitly mentioning that party. In
view of this, does the Commission agree that the definition it has used to identify totalitarianism is unbalanced?

2. Does the Commission not take the view that this overly restrictive definition runs counter to the purpose of the
Europe for Citizens Programme, which is also intended to preserve Europeans’ historical memory?

3. Does the Commission not believe that the EU should explicitly condemn not just Stalinism, but all crimes
committed by totalitarian communist regimes?

4. Would the Commission be prepared to promote this change of definition in any future actions in this area that
it organises and co-organises with the other European institutions?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

The Commission does not advance a particular institutional interpretation of history but provides a European forum
allowing for independent and critical reflection of Europe's recent past by historians, other relevant experts and civil
society.

However, following the explicit wish of the Member States and in order to provide an opportunity to come to terms
with history of the European continent, the proposal for a draft regulation establishing the new European for Citizens
programme (2014-2020) explicitly includes totalitarian communist regimes.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 421

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-003477/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Matthias Groote (S&D)**

_(27. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ „Real-Life Tests“ des Kältemittels 1234yf in Fahrzeugen, MAC-Richtlinie 2006/40

Wie der Vizepräsident der Europäischen Kommission, Antonio Tajani, am 20. März 2013 im Umweltausschuss des
Europäischen Parlaments auf Nachfrage des Fragestellers mitteilte, sind Tests unter Realbedingungen (Real-Life Tests)
des Kühlmittels 1234yf durchgeführt worden. Auf Basis dieser Tests wurde festgestellt, dass bei diesem Kühlmittel
angeblich keine höheren Risiken bestehen als bei anderen.

Bei denen von Daimler berichteten Testresultaten, nachdem das Kühlmittel als gefährlich einzustufen sei, handele es
sich um eine Ausnahme.

Um diese Einschätzung besser nachvollziehen zu können, sind detaillierte Informationen über die der Kommission
vorliegenden Tests unter Realbedingungen erforderlich.

Welche Tests wurden unter welchen Bedingungen durchgeführt?

Inwiefern unterscheiden sich diese Tests von den von Daimler durchgeführten?

Auf Grundlage welcher Parameter kommt die Kommission zu einem anderen Ergebnis, nach welchem das Kühlmittel
als nicht gefährlich eingestuft wird?

**Antwort von Herrn Tajani im Namen der Kommission**

_(26. April 2013)_

Die Richtlinie 2006/40/EG über mobile Klimaanlagen wurde vor mehr als sechs Jahren nach einem langen
Verhandlungsprozess angenommen. Teil der Richtlinie war eine lange Anlaufzeit zur Anpassung; sie war ferner
technologieneutral.

2009 entschieden die Automobilhersteller einvernehmlich, die Richtlinie unter Verwendung von HFO 1234yf
umzusetzen, nachdem die Alternativen dazu und die Risiken seines Einsatzes in mobilen Klimaanlagen geprüft
worden waren. Die zahlreichen Einrichtungen, die die Prüfungen in dieser Phase durchgeführt haben, wurden z. B. in
einer Pressemitteilung des VDA vom 20.5.2010 ( [1] ) genannt. Im Einzelnen wurde die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer
Entzündung des Gases durch eine Motorraumleckage aufgrund einer undichten Stelle oder eines Aufpralls untersucht.
Berichte deuten nicht darauf hin, dass das Risiko größer ist als das bei derzeit verwendeten anderen entzündlichen
Flüssigkeiten. Darüber hinaus unterliegen mobile Klimaanlagen der Druckgeräte-Richtlinie 97/23/EG, und die
Strenge der Konformitätsbewertungsverfahren ist vom Entflammbarkeitsgrad des jeweiligen Kältemittels abhängig. Es
gelten die einschlägigen Normen (ISO).

Die allgemeine Schlussfolgerung war, wie vom VDA angegeben und in seinem Jahresbericht 2012 ( [2] ) bestätigt, dass
HFO-1234yf „vergleichbar sicher wie das bisherige Mittel“ ist und daher bedenkenlos in mobilen Klimaanlagen
eingesetzt werden kann.

Schließlich haben nach der Ankündigung Daimlers sowohl der SAE ( [3] ) als auch mehrere Hersteller eingehendere
Versuche und Bewertungen zu den genannten Punkten durchgeführt. Das KBA prüft ebenfalls diese Frage. Die bisher
bekannt gegebenen Schlussfolgerungen deuten nicht darauf hin, dass das Kältemittel generell ein Problem für die
Sicherheit darstellen würde oder ein schwerwiegenderes Risiko als das 2009 ermittelte mit sich brächte. Sie lassen
auch nicht erkennen, dass es keine technischen Maßnahmen gäbe, mit denen das Risiko gemindert und beherrscht
werden könnte.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Die Risikobewertung schloss folgende Elemente ein: Risikoanalyse auf globaler Ebene in Zusammenarbeit mit Fahrzeugherstellern, der

Zuliefererindustrie und der chemischen Industrie, unter Koordination des SAE; die größtmögliche Fachkompetenz und Akzeptanz durch weltweit
durchgeführte Untersuchungen (TNO/NL, WIL Research Lab./USA; Huntingdon Life Sciences/USA; Hammer Institute/USA, BAM/D; INERIS/F;
Hughes Ass. Inc./USA, Honeywell/USA and DuPont/USA); umfassende Laborversuche zur Ermittlung der chemischen und physikalischen
Wirkungsmechanismen; Versuche mit Fahrzeugen unter realistischen Grenzbedingungen zur Bestimmung der praktischen Relevanz
verschiedener Gefahrenszenarien; toxikologische Bewertungen zur Beurteilung der Ergebnisse und Festlegung von Grenzwerten;
Fehlerbaumanalysen zur Quantifizierung der Wahrscheinlichkeit ungewollter Vorkommnisse, durchgeführt durch Sachverständige der Carmeq
GmbH/D und der Gradient Cooperation/USA; Bewertung im Vergleich zu anderen Vorkommnissen bei der Nutzung des Fahrzeugs; TÜV-Prüfung
der Fehlerbaumanalyse.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.vda.de/de/publikationen/publikationen_downloads/detail.php?id=1092, S. 127
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=1984

( **|**
( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

C 12 E / 422 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003477/13**

**to the Commission**
**Matthias Groote (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Real-life tests of 1234yf coolant in vehicles, MAC Directive 2006/40

As Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission, stated in response to a question from the author on
20 March 2013 in Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, real-life tests of 1234yf coolant have been carried
out. On the basis of these tests it was found, he said, that this coolant posed no greater risk than any other.

The test results reported by Daimler which showed that the coolant should be classified as hazardous represented an
exception.

In order better to understand this assessment, detailed information about the real-life tests reported by the
Commission is needed:

What tests were conducted, and under what conditions?

In what way were these tests different from those carried out by Daimler?

On the basis of what parameters does the Commission arrive at a different result, according to which the coolant is
classified as not hazardous?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 April 2013)_

Directive 2006/40/EC on mobile air-conditioning (MAC) was adopted more than six years ago following a long
negotiation. It included a long lead-time for adaptation and was technologically neutral.

In 2009 the automotive manufacturers decided, consensually, that they would use HFO 1234yf to implement the
directive. This decision followed an analysis of the alternatives, as well as of the risks associated to its use in MAC
systems. The numerous organisations that conducted the tests in this phase were listed, e.g., in a press briefing of VDA
on 20/05/2010 ( [1] ). More specifically, the probabilities of an engine compartment leakage from a leak or crash
resulting in ignition from the gas have been studied with reports not pointing to a greater risk than the one associated
with the current use of other flammable fluids. Also, MAC systems are subject to the Pressure Equipment
Directive 97/23/EC, and the flammability levels of the refrigerant determine the stringency of the conformity
assessment procedures applied. Relevant standards (ISO) apply.

The general conclusion was, as stated by VDA, ‘that HFO-1234yf is as safe to use as today’s refrigerant and can
therefore be used in (MAC) systems without cause for concern’. This conclusion was confirmed in the VDA Annual
Report of 2012 ( [2] ).

Finally, following the announcement by Daimler, both the SAE ( [3] ) and several manufacturers have conducted more
specific tests and evaluations, covering the elements raised. KBA is also evaluating the issue. Until now, the
conclusions made available provide no evidence that the refrigerant poses a general safety problem or a more serious
risk than the risk determined in 2009, and that there are no technical mitigation measures available to deal with this
risk.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘The risk assessment included the following points: risk analysis in global cooperation with vehicle manufacturers, the supply industry and

chemical industry, coordinated by SAE;the greatest possible expertise and acceptance due to worldwide investigations (TNO/NL, WIL Research
Lab./USA; Huntingdon Life Sciences/USA; Hammer Institute/USA, BAM/D; INERIS/F; Hughes Ass. Inc./USA, Honeywell/USA and DuPont/USA);
extensive laboratory testing to identify the chemical and physical mechanisms of action; vehicle trials under realistic boundary conditions to
determine the practical relevance of various hazard scenarios; toxicological appraisals to assess the results and determine limit values; fault tree
analysis to quantify the probabilities of undesirable events by specialists from Carmeq GmbH/D and Gradient Cooperation/USA; assessment in
comparison to other events in vehicle use; TÜV certification of the fault tree analysis’.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.vda.de/en/publikationen/publikationen_downloads/detail.php?id=1092, page 127
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showRelease&RELEASE_ID=1984

( **|**
( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 423

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-003478/13**

**do Komisji**
**Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D)**

_(27 marca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Tworzenie miejsc pracy poprzez inwestowanie w infrastrukturę kolejową

Sektor kolejowy jest ważnym pracodawcą w Europie. Sektor ten zatrudnia bezpośrednio 700 000 osób, chociaż dane
różnią się w zależności od źródeł. Interesują mnie jednak dane pokazujące, ile miejsc pracy mogłoby powstać dzięki
zainwestowaniu 1 mln EUR z funduszy UE w infrastrukturę kolejową. W związku z tym mam następujące pytania:

1. Czy Komisja posiada dane lub wyniki badań, które pokazują, ile miejsc pracy można byłoby utworzyć
inwestując 1 mln EUR w infrastrukturę kolejową?

2. Czy Komisja posiada dane lub wyniki badań, które pokazują, ile miejsc pracy można byłoby utworzyć
inwestując 1 mln EUR w infrastrukturę drogową?

3. Jeżeli takie dane lub wyniki badań nie są dostępne, czy Komisja mogłaby zrealizować takie badania?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Siima Kallasa w imieniu Komisji**

_(24 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

Komisja nie posiada danych ani wyników badań pokazujących, ile miejsc pracy można byłoby utworzyć inwestując
1 mln EUR w infrastrukturę drogową lub kolejową oraz zwraca uwagę na znaczne różnice występujące w tym
względzie między różnymi regionami Europy. Konieczne jest rozróżnienie między fazą wdrażania infrastruktury
i fazą jej eksploatacji.

W fazie wdrażania infrastruktury zainwestowanie 1 mln EUR może spowodować utworzenie 15‐20 miejsc pracy
rocznie, w zależności od sytuacji gospodarczej danego państwa członkowskiego: projekty drogowe wiążą się
z powstaniem większej ilości miejsc pracy w przemyśle budowlanym, podczas gdy projekty kolejowe przyczyniają
się również do powstania miejsc pracy w branży hutniczej, elektrycznej i w innych sektorach. Według jednego
z badań przeprowadzonych w USA ( [1] ) dzięki zainwestowaniu 1 mln USD w autostrady można utworzyć nawet 30
miejsc pracy, z czego jednak 50 % jest tylko pośrednio związanych z inwestycją (co nie jest wyszczególnione
w wymienionych danych liczbowych). Według innego badania przeprowadzonego w USA ( [2] ), jeśli chodzi
o tworzenie nowych miejsc pracy, inwestycje w transport publiczny są o około 70 % skuteczniejsze niż inwestycje
w transport drogowy.

Najważniejsze są trwałe skutki pojawiające się po fazie wdrożenia, w szczególności ze względu na poprawę
dostępności infrastruktury. Lepszy dostęp do rynku przyczynia się do zwiększenia konkurencyjności regionalnej
gospodarki, co z kolei prowadzi do wyższych zysków i zrównoważonego wzrostu liczby miejsc pracy. Efekt ten
zależy również od innych czynników lokalnych, takich jak miejscowa infrastruktura i poziom edukacji, ale przede
wszystkim zależy od stopnia ulepszenia sieci transportowej: tworzenie nowych możliwości transportowych poprzez
wypełnienie brakujących połączeń jest bardziej skuteczne niż tylko skracanie czasu podróży na istniejących już
połączeniach. Obliczenia wykonane w ramach inicjatywy „Main Line for Europe” pokazują, że na każdy
zainwestowany milion euro przypada 1,5‐2 stałych miejsc pracy.

Wdrażając nowe wytyczne TEN-T ( [3] ), Komisja zwróci należytą uwagę na kwestie zatrudnienia związane z rozwojem
infrastruktury transportowej.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) „The Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Recovery” („Znaczenie robót publicznych przy rozbudowie infrastruktury w kontekście

ożywienia gospodarczego”), Służby Badawcze Kongresu USA.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) „Transportation Funding and Job Creation” („Finansowanie transportu a tworzenie nowych miejsc pracy”) Smart Growth America.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650 final.

( **|**
( **|**

C 12 E / 424 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003478/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Creating jobs by investing in rail infrastructure

The railway sector is a major employer in Europe. It employs 700 000 people directly, although figures differ
according to different sources. Nevertheless, I am interested in figures showing how many jobs would be created by
investing EUR 1 million in EU funds in rail infrastructure. Accordingly, I have the following questions:

1. Does the Commission have any figures or studies showing how many jobs would be created by investing
EUR 1 million in rail infrastructure?

2. Does the Commission have any figures or studies showing how many jobs would be created by investing
EUR 1 million in road infrastructure?

3. If no such studies or figures are available, is it possible that the Commission would undertake such a study?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 April 2013)_

The Commission has no specific figures or studies on job creation for the EU per EUR 1 million invested in road or
rail infrastructure and points to the great differences beween the different European regions. It is necessary to
distinguish between the phase of infrastructure implementation and infrastructure operation.

During the implementation phase, investing EUR 1 million may create some 15-20 jobs for one year, depending on
the economic situation of the corresponding Member State: road projects have a higher concentration of jobs in the
construction industry, while rail project also include jobs in steel, electro and other industries. A US study ( [1] ) ‘indicates
even 30 jobs per USD 1 million invested in motorways, of which however 50% are indirect effects’ (which are not
included in above figures). According to another US study ( [2] ), investment in public transport is some 70% more jobeffective than in road.

Most important are the enduring effects which emerge after implementation, in particular due to improved
accessibility. A better access to the market improves the competitiveness of the regional economy, leading to higher
profits and a sustainable increase of jobs. This effect depends on the mixture with other factors of location quality,
such as local infrastructure and education, but in particular also on the extent of the improvement: creating new
accessibilties by filling missing links is more effective than mere reduced travelling times along existing connections.
Calculations carried out by the ‘Main Line for Europe’ initiative show an order of 1.5 to 2 permanent jobs per each
EUR million invested.

In the implementation of the new TEN-T guidelines ( [3] ), the Commission will pay due attention to the employment
aspects of transport infrastructure.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘The Role of Public Works Infrastructure in Economic Recovery’ by US Congressional Research Service.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ‘Transportation Funding and Job Creation’ by Smart Growth America.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 650 final.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 425

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-003479/13**

**à la Commission**
**Frédéric Daerden (S&D)**

_(27 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Dumping social entre États membres au préjudice des travailleurs

Fin janvier 2013, des milliers de travailleurs européens ont dénoncé à Bruxelles l'exploitation et le dumping social de
la main-d'œuvre détachée pour «réclamer une meilleure protection des travailleurs envoyés dans un autre État
membre que ceux dans lesquels ils travaillent habituellement pour une période limitée et dans le cadre d'une
prestation de services définie».

De récentes déclarations officielles des autorités belges ont souligné l'ampleur de ce phénomène de dumping social,
d'exploitation des travailleurs détachés dans des conditions de travail et de rémunération inqualifiables et, par
conséquent, de non-respect des conditions de concurrence.

1. La Commission considère-t-elle que cette situation — notamment l'existence de sociétés «boîtes aux lettres», des
sous-traitants fictifs destinés à contourner les réglementations — de salaires de misère et de conditions de travail
déplorables ne doit pas faire l'objet, sinon de sanctions, au moins de contrôles de sa part dans la mesure où elle viole
de nombreuses législations en vigueur, aussi bien dans le domaine de la concurrence qu'en matière de conditions
de travail?

2. La Commission considère-t-elle que la compétitivité d'un État membre peut se faire par un dumping social au
détriment d'autres États membres, avec des conséquences désastreuses pour l'emploi?

3. La Commission estime-t-elle que la proposition législative, présentée en 2012, clarifiant la directive de 1996
(96/71/CE) concernant le détachement des travailleurs sera suffisante pour mettre un terme à cette situation, en
instituant des règles plus claires, des contrôles et des sanctions afin que l'ouverture des frontières ne soit pas un
prétexte pour introduire et développer dans certains États de l'Union des conditions de travail déplorables et illégales
au détriment des États membres disposant de législations respectant les droits élémentaires et la dignité
des travailleurs?

**Réponse donnée par M. Andor au nom de la Commission**

_(29 avril 2013)_

1. La proposition de la Commission de directive ( [1] ) relative à l'exécution de la directive 96/71/CE ( [2] ) établit une liste
indicative non exhaustive des critères qualitatifs et des éléments constitutifs caractérisant la notion de «détachement».
Cette proposition, qui contribuera à la lutte contre l'utilisation du détachement temporaire par des sociétés «boîtes
aux lettres», institue des règles plus claires, notamment pour la coopération entre les autorités nationales et,
singulièrement, pour l'utilisation du système d'information sur le marché intérieur, qui permet aux États membres
d'échanger des informations. Elle dispose également que des inspections doivent être menées par les organismes de
l'État membre responsables en la matière, prévoit des sanctions en cas de non-respect de cette obligation et introduit
un système limité de responsabilité solidaire pour protéger les droits des travailleurs détachés et empêcher leur
exploitation dans le cadre de la sous-traitance.

2 et 3. Pour fonctionner correctement, le marché unique doit être fondé sur une concurrence loyale et des
conditions de concurrence égales. C'est pourquoi la proposition de la Commission vise à améliorer les droits des
travailleurs détachés, veille à ce qu'ils soient respectés et appliqués plus efficacement, comme le prévoit la directive sur
le détachement de travailleurs, et vise à faciliter la prestation transfrontalière de services grâce à un cadre juridique
plus transparent et plus fiable. Elle garantit que les travailleurs détachés sont rémunérés à hauteur du travail fourni,
dans le respect des règles applicables, empêche le contournement ou l'utilisation abusive de ces règles et met un terme
à la concurrence déloyale des salaires. En outre, des projets d'amélioration de la coopération transnationale dans le
domaine du détachement des travailleurs pourraient être cofinancés par le programme Progress, que gère la
Commission.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 131 final du 21 mars 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 96/71/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 décembre 1996 concernant le détachement de travailleurs effectué dans le cadre

d'une prestation de services, JO L 18 du 21.1.1997.

C 12 E / 426 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003479/13**

**to the Commission**
**Frédéric Daerden (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Social dumping between Member States at the expense of workers

At the end of January 2013, thousands of European workers protested in Brussels against the social dumping of
posted workers, demanding better protection for workers posted for a limited period to a Member State, other than
that in which they normally work, to perform a specific service.

Recent official statements by the Belgian authorities have stressed the scale of this phenomenon of social dumping,
which represents the exploitation of posted workers for intolerable pay and conditions, and thus a failure to comply
with the conditions of competition.

1. Does the Commission not consider that this situation — in particular the existence of ‘letter box’ companies,
fictitious sub-contractors set up for the purpose of evading the rules, starvation wages and deplorable working
conditions — should be subject if not to penalties, then at least to checks by the Commission, given that it violates a
large number of existing laws both on competition and on working conditions?

2. Does the Commission consider that the competitiveness of a Member State may be achieved by social dumping
at the expense of other Member States, with disastrous consequences for employment?

3. Does the Commission consider that the legislative proposal it submitted in 2012, seeking to clarify
Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers, will be sufficient to put an end to this situation by enacting
clearer rules, as well as instituting checks and penalties, to prevent the opening of borders becoming an excuse for the
introduction and spread of deplorable and illegal working conditions in some Member States at the expense of
Member States which have legislation respecting the elementary rights and dignity of workers?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 April 2013)_

1. The Commission proposal for a directive ( [1] ) on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC ( [2] ) sets out an indicative,
non-exhaustive list of qualitative criteria/constituent elements characterising the concept of posting, which will help
in combating the use of temporary posting by letter-box companies. It establishes clearer rules _inter alia_ on
cooperation between national authorities, including the use of the internal market Information System for
exchanging information, provides for inspections by the Member State bodies responsible and penalties in the event
of non-compliance, and introduces a limited system of joint and several liability to protect the rights of posted
workers and prevent their exploitation in the subcontracting process.

2 and 3. To function properly, the Single Market must be based on fair competition and a level playing field. The
proposal therefore aims to improve posted workers' rights and ensure they are respected and enforced more
effectively, as guaranteed by the Posting of Workers Directive, and to facilitate the cross-border provision of services
by companies thanks to a more transparent and reliable legal framework. It should ensure that posted workers are
paid for the work they do, in accordance with the rules applicable, prevent the circumvention or abuse of such rules,
and stop unfair wage competition. In addition, projects relating to improving transnational cooperation in the area of
posting of workers could be co-financed under the Progress programme, which is managed by the Commission.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 131 final of 21 March 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of

the provision of services, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 427

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-003480/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Francesco De Angelis (S&D)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Ritardi nei pagamenti e situazione italiana

Le autorità nazionali italiane hanno deciso che le nuove regole relative alla trasposizione della direttiva contro i ritardi
nei pagamenti si applicheranno esclusivamente ai contratti conclusi a partire dal 1° gennaio 2013.

Il debito pregresso maturato in Italia dalle pubbliche amministrazioni nei confronti dei fornitori di beni e servizi
ammonta a molte decine di miliardi di euro, con drammatiche ripercussioni sulla competitività delle imprese.

Nella dichiarazione dei Vicepresidenti Rehn e Tajani, del 18 marzo, facendo esplicito riferimento al caso italiano si
precisa che «il Patto di Stabilità e Crescita permette di prendere in considerazione fattori significativi in sede di
valutazione della conformità del bilancio di uno Stato membro con i criteri di deficit e di debito del Patto stesso», e che
«in tale ambito, la liquidazione dei debiti commerciali potrebbe rientrare tra i fattori attenuanti».

Secondo indiscrezioni trapelate il 25 marzo, la Commissione avrebbe parzialmente smentito questa interpretazione,
precisando che il pagamento di 40 miliardi di debiti arretrati della pubblica amministrazione «renderebbe per l'Italia
più difficile la chiusura della procedura per deficit eccessivo aperta a Bruxelles», e che la maggiore flessibilità sul deficit
e sul debito in relazione allo smaltimento dei debiti arretrati delle pubbliche amministrazioni «riguarda i paesi che non
sono in procedura di deficit eccessivo, e questo non è il caso dell'Italia».

In considerazione di quanto precede, si chiede alla Commissione:

1. Può precisare una volta per tutte se, come annunciato dai Vicepresidenti Rehn e Tajani, la flessibilità prevista dal
Patto di Stabilità si applicherebbe anche all'Italia, o piuttosto se, come trapelato da indiscrezioni giornalistiche,
l'Italia ne è esclusa in quanto già soggetta a procedura di deficit eccessivo?

2. Quali iniziative sta adottando al fine di verificare il corretto adempimento da parte del governo italiano non
solo della trasposizione della direttiva contro i ritardi nei pagamenti, ma anche dell'istituzione di un piano per
la liquidazione dei debiti pregressi delle PA nei confronti delle aziende?

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-003651/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Patrizia Toia (S&D)**

_(28 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Debiti della pubblica amministrazione

Le autorità nazionali italiane hanno deciso che le nuove regole relative al recepimento della direttiva contro i ritardi
nei pagamenti si applicheranno esclusivamente ai contratti conclusi a partire dal 1° gennaio 2013. Il debito pregresso
maturato in Italia dalle pubbliche amministrazioni nei confronti dei fornitori di beni e servizi ammonta a molte
decine di miliardi di euro, con drammatiche ripercussioni sulla competitività delle imprese.

La dichiarazione dei vicepresidenti Rehn e Tajani del 18 marzo, facendo esplicito riferimento al caso italiano, precisa
che «il Patto di stabilità e crescita permette di prendere in considerazione fattori significativi in sede di valutazione
della conformità del bilancio di uno Stato membro con i criteri di deficit e di debito del Patto stesso», e che «in tale
ambito, la liquidazione dei debiti commerciali potrebbe rientrare tra i fattori attenuanti».

Secondo indiscrezioni trapelate il 25 marzo, la Commissione avrebbe parzialmente smentito questa interpretazione,
precisando che il pagamento di 40 miliardi di debiti arretrati della pubblica amministrazione «renderebbe per l'Italia
più difficile la chiusura della procedura per deficit eccessivo aperta a Bruxelles», e che la maggiore flessibilità sul deficit
e sul debito in relazione allo smaltimento dei debiti arretrati delle pubbliche amministrazioni «riguarda i paesi che non
sono in procedura di deficit eccessivo, e questo non è il caso dell'Italia».

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione precisare una volta per tutte se, come annunciato dai vicepresidenti Rehn e
Tajani, la flessibilità prevista dal Patto di stabilità si applica anche all'Italia, o piuttosto se, come trapelato da
indiscrezioni giornalistiche, l'Italia ne è esclusa in quanto già soggetta a procedura di deficit eccessivo?

C 12 E / 428 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

Quali iniziative sta adottando la Commissione al fine di verificare il corretto adempimento, da parte del governo
italiano, non solo della trasposizione della direttiva contro i ritardi nei pagamenti, ma anche dell'istituzione di un
piano per la liquidazione dei debiti pregressi delle pubbliche amministrazioni nei confronti delle aziende?

**Risposta congiunta di Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

1. L’Italia è attualmente oggetto di una procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi, con scadenza nel 2012. In seguito alla
convalida, da parte di Eurostat, del deficit dell’esercizio 2012 e in base alle previsioni economiche della primavera
2013 dei servizi della Commissione, quest’ultima valuterà se l’Italia soddisfa i criteri per l’abrogazione della suddetta
procedura, ossia se il disavanzo è stato allineato nel 2012 al valore di riferimento previsto dal trattato (3 % del PIL) e
se, in base alle previsioni della Commissione, manterrà tale livello nel 2013 e nel 2014.

I fattori significativi citati nella dichiarazione del membro della Commissione europea responsabile degli Affari
economici e monetari e del membro della Commissione europea responsabile dell’Industria e delle imprese sono i
fattori presi in considerazione quando si valuta l’ipotesi di avvio di una procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi, e non
quando si valutano le condizioni per l’abrogazione della stessa.

Infine, come qualsiasi altro Stato membro con un rapporto debito/PIL superiore al 60 %, l’Italia dovrà conformarsi
alla norma sul debito. Poiché l’Italia era oggetto di una procedura per i disavanzi eccessivi al momento dell’entrata in
vigore della norma sul debito, beneficierà di un periodo di transizione di tre anni durante il quale è tenuta a garantire
progressi sufficienti nel rispetto di tale norma. In caso contrario, la Commissione preparerà una relazione in base
all’articolo 126, paragrafo 3, del trattato, che terrà conto dei fattori significativi nel valutare il rispetto della norma sul
debito da parte dell’Italia. Come dichiarato dai vicepresidenti, la liquidazione accelerata dei debiti commerciali
pregressi potrebbe essere considerata un fattore attenuante in tal contesto.

2. In un comunicato stampa ( [1] ), la Commissione ha ribadito il suo sostegno al piano del governo italiano del
6 aprile 2013 volto ad accelerare la liquidazione dei debiti commerciali pregressi, alleviando in tal modo i problemi di
liquidità delle aziende e sostenendo la ripresa economica.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-317_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 429

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003480/13**

**to the Commission**
**Francesco De Angelis (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Late payment and the Italian situation

The Italian national authorities have decided that the new rules transposing the directive on combating late payment
will apply only to contracts concluded after 1 January 2013.

In Italy, public authorities have run up a combined debt to suppliers of goods and services amounting to billions of
euros, and this is having correspondingly crippling effects on business competitiveness.

According to the statement issued on 18 March by Vice-Presidents Rehn and Tajani, which refers explicitly to the
Italian case, ‘the Stability and Growth Pact allows taking into account relevant factors in the assessment of compliance
with the deficit and debt criteria. In this context, the liquidation of overdue commercial debt would represent a
mitigating factor’.

However, the information which leaked out on 25 March suggests that the Commission has to some extent reversed
the above interpretation, as it now apparently takes the view that the payment of the EUR 40 billion in debt arrears
accumulated by public authorities would make it more difficult for Italy to close the excessive deficit procedure
opened in Brussels and that the greater flexibility in terms of deficit and debt for the purpose of paying off public
authority debt arrears applies to countries not going through an excessive deficit procedure, which is not the case
with Italy.

In the light of the foregoing:

1. Can the Commission make it clear once and for all whether, as was stated by Vice‐Presidents Rehn and Tajani,
the flexibility afforded by the Stability Pact extends to Italy or whether, as has been revealed through journalistic
indiscretions, Italy is excluded because it is the subject of an ongoing excessive deficit procedure?

2. What is the Commission doing to ascertain that the Italian Government is taking the steps required not just to
transpose the directive on combating late payment, but also to draw up a plan for settling the debt arrears
which public authorities owe to companies?

**Question for written answer P-003651/13**

**to the Commission**

**Patrizia Toia (S&D)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Debts of public authorities

The Italian national authorities have decided that the new rules transposing the directive on combating late payment
will apply only to contracts concluded after 1 January 2013. In Italy, public authorities have run up a combined debt
to suppliers of goods and services amounting to many tens of billions of euros, and this is having correspondingly
crippling effects on business competitiveness.

According to the statement issued on 18 March by Vice-Presidents Rehn and Tajani, which refers explicitly to the
Italian case, ‘the Stability and Growth Pact allows taking into account relevant factors in the assessment of compliance
with the deficit and debt criteria. In this context, the liquidation of overdue commercial debt would represent a
mitigating factor’.

However, according to information which leaked out on 25 March, the Commission has to some extent reversed the
above interpretation, as it now apparently takes the view that the payment of the EUR 40 billion in debt arrears
accumulated by public authorities would make it more difficult for Italy to close the excessive deficit procedure
opened in Brussels and that the greater flexibility in terms of deficit and debt for the purpose of paying off public
authority debt arrears applies to countries not going through an excessive deficit procedure, which is not the case
with Italy.

C 12 E / 430 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

Can the Commission make it clear once and for all whether, as was stated by Vice-Presidents Rehn and Tajani, the
flexibility afforded by the Stability Pact extends to Italy or whether, as has been revealed through journalistic
indiscretions, Italy is excluded because it is the subject of an ongoing excessive deficit procedure?

What is the Commission doing to ascertain that the Italian Government is taking the steps required not just to
transpose the directive on combating late payment, but also to draw up a plan for settling the debt arrears which
public authorities owe to companies?

**Joint answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 2013)_

1. Italy is currently subject to an Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP), with a deadline in 2012. After validation by
Eurostat of the deficit outturn for 2012 and based on the Commission's spring 2013 forecast, the Commission will
assess whether Italy fulfils the criteria for abrogating the EDP, i.e. whether the deficit has been brought in line with the
Treaty reference value of 3% of GDP in 2012 and it is forecast by the Commission to remain so in 2013 and 2014.

The relevant factors mentioned in the statement by the Member of the Commission responsible for Economic and
Monetary Affairs and the Member of the Commission responsible for Industry and Entrepreneurship refer to factors
being taken into account when considering opening an EDP and not when assessing the conditions for abrogating it.

Finally, as any other Member State with a debt-to-GDP ratio above 60%, Italy will have to comply with the debt rule.
Given that Italy was in EDP at the time of entry into force of the rule, it will benefit from a three-year transition period
during which it should ensure sufficient progress towards meeting the rule. If it doesn't, the Commission will write a
report based on Article 126(3) of the Treaty in which the relevant factors will be considered in the assessment of
Italy's compliance with the debt rule. As stated by the Vice-Presidents, the accelerated liquidation of trade debt arrears
could be considered a mitigating factor in this context.

2. In a press statement ( [1] ), the Commission reaffirmed its support to the Italian government's plan of 6 April 2013
to accelerate the liquidation of the stock of trade debt, thus easing firms' liquidity constraints and supporting
economic recovery.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-317_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 431

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-003481/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Comissão confirma hipótese de estender o denominado «imposto sobre depósitos» a outros EstadosMembros

Considerando que:

1. Um porta-voz do comissário responsável pela regulação financeira, Michel Barnier, confirmou a hipótese de
estender o denominado «imposto sobre depósitos» — consistindo na cativação de parte dos mesmos depósitos
para efeitos de capitalização dos bancos — a outros Estados-Membros.

2. A supervisão dos bancos, destinada a evitar práticas insolventes do setor financeiro, compete aos Bancos
Centrais dos Estados e ao BCE. Não seria normal imputar aos depositantes as responsabilidades pelas falhas de
supervisão dos Estados e do BCE.

3. A denominação «imposto sobre depósitos», não sendo semântica, não faz da iniciativa um imposto.

4. Uma coisa é um imposto, outra bem diferente é um confisco, ou uma apropriação. E aqui, na possibilidade
anunciada, em causa estará verdadeiramente a legitimação do confisco, ou de apropriação de coisa alheia.

5. Uma coisa é estabelecer um imposto sobre a rentabilidade de um depósito, por exemplo sobre os respetivos
juros, outra coisa bem diferente é a apropriação de parte do próprio depósito em si mesmo.

6. Uma coisa é submeter a atividade bancária a um esforço fiscal que é legítimo nos Estados de direito
democráticos, outra coisa é o Estado de direito fazer seu o que não lhe pertence, «expropriando» sem
contrapartida a liquidez, isto é, o dinheiro de que os depositantes são legítimos titulares.

7. O direito à propriedade privada — abrangendo necessariamente no conceito o produto líquido disponível dos
cidadãos e das empresas — e a estabilidade dos depósitos são princípios fundamentais genéticos dos Estados de
direito e das democracias ocidentais.

Concorda que a apropriação sem contrapartida de parte dos depósitos aos respetivos titulares, para compensar falhas
de supervisão dos Estados e do BCE, não traduz um «imposto», antes um confisco, ou apropriação de coisa alheia,
incompatível com o princípio da estabilidade dos depósitos, mas mais do que isso, violador das mais elementares
regras inerentes ao funcionamento dos Estados de direito democrático?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(6 de maio de 2013)_

Na pendência da adoção da proposta de legislação da UE no domínio da resolução bancária, os Estados-Membros
dispõem de uma ampla margem de discrição no que se refere às modalidades de resolução bancária, desde que
respeitem as regras do Tratado e o direito derivado da UE em vigor.

Os depósitos inferiores a 100 000 euros estão atualmente garantidos na União Europeia e continuarão a ser
plenamente protegidos em qualquer futuro regime.

Neste contexto, a Comissão considera que é necessário adotar urgentemente a proposta de enquadramento para a
resolução bancária, que virá clarificar as regras e procedimentos aplicáveis no futuro à resolução dos bancos em
dificuldades. Conseguir-se-á assim uma segurança jurídica para todas as partes interessadas. Quando a diretiva estiver
em vigor, todos os Estados-Membros disporão dos instrumentos necessários para intervir de forma decisiva numa
crise bancária. Para minimizar o impacto sobre os contribuintes, o instrumento de resgate interno (« _bail-in_ ») previsto
nesse enquadramento permitirá a um banco ser recapitalizado através da anulação ou diluição das participações
acionistas e da redução ou conversão em ações dos créditos dos credores. Os depósitos inferiores a 100 000 euros
continuarão a ser plenamente garantidos e são explicitamente excluídos deste instrumento.

C 12 E / 432 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003481/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Commission confirms that ‘tax on deposits’ could cover several Member States

A spokesperson for the Commissioner responsible for financial regulation, Michel Barnier, has confirmed that the socalled ‘tax on deposits’ — whereby deposits are to be docked in order to capitalise banks — might be levied in more
than one Member State.

Banking supervision, intended to avert insolvency in the financial sector, is a task for Member States’ central banks
and the ECB. It would be wrong to make depositors bear the blame for inadequate supervision by national authorities
and the ECB.

The fact of calling it by the name (or, more accurately, misnomer) of ‘tax on deposits’ does not turn this move into a

tax.

A tax is one thing, but confiscation, or appropriation, is a different matter altogether. What has been raised in this
case as a possibility will reality legalise confiscation or appropriation of another person’s property.

It is one thing to tax the profit — interest, for example — accruing from a deposit, but quite another to appropriate a
portion of the deposit itself.

It is one thing to levy taxes on banking — banks can legitimately be called upon to contribute to tax revenue in a
democratic state under the rule of law — but quite another for that state to take what does not belong to it and,
without offering anything in return, ‘expropriate’ liquid assets, that is to say, money lawfully held by depositors.

The right to own private property — which must of necessity encompass the ready money available to citizens and
businesses — and the stability of deposits are fundamental principles intrinsic to the rule of law and Western
democracies.

Does the Commission agree that when deposits are partially appropriated with no quid pro quo for the holders, but,
on the contrary, purely in order to make good the shortcomings of supervision by national authorities and the ECB,
this amounts not to a ‘tax’, but to appropriation of what belongs to others and hence is incompatible with the
principle of stability of deposits and, more seriously, violates the most basic operating rules that serve to define
democratic states under the rule of law?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

Pending the adoption of proposed EU legislation in the field of bank resolution, Member States enjoy a wide margin
of appreciation as to the modalities of bank resolution as long as they respect treaty rules and existing EU secondary
legislation.

Deposits under EUR 100,000 are currently guaranteed in the European Union and will continue to be fully protected
under any future regime.

Against this background, the Commission considers it necessary to urgently adopt the proposal for a bank resolution
framework which will clarify the rules and procedures applicable to the resolution of ailing banks in the future. This
will provide legal certainty to all stakeholders. Once the directive is in place, all Member States will have the necessary
tools to intervene decisively in a banking crisis. To minimise taxpayer involvement, the bail-in tool enshrined in that
framework will allow a bank to be recapitalised by wiping out or diluting shareholders and by reducing or converting
the claims of creditors into shares. Deposits below EUR 100,000 will continue to be fully guaranteed and are
explicitly excluded from this tool.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 433

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003482/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(27 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Legislación de la UE

El pasado 19 de febrero, la Comisión publicó el cuadro de indicadores del mercado interior sobre la legislación
europea por parte de los Estados miembros ( [1] ). La correcta transposición en tiempo y forma de la legislación es la
condición necesaria para conseguir los objetivos establecidos en las Directivas.

¿Podría la Comisión informar acerca de qué directivas y reglamentos aún no han sido transpuestos por los
legisladores del Reino de España? ¿Cuáles de ellos están fuera de plazo?

El Reino de España es, juntamente con Italia y Grecia, uno de los países con más procedimientos de infracción sobre
legislación comunitaria incoados por la Comisión. De todos estos procedimientos, ¿podría aclarar la Comisión cuáles
cree que deberían ser una prioridad estratégica para su correcta transposición por parte del Reino de España?

El Reino de España tarda casi dos años de media en cumplir las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo por infracción de la
legislación de la UE. La Comisión parece proponer que, en los sectores clave, el cumplimiento de las sentencias sea de
doce meses. ¿Puede indicar la Comisión cuáles cree que son los sectores clave?

¿Puede indicar la Comisión cuántas sentencias del Tribunal Europeo está incumpliendo el Reino de España
actualmente?

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(8 de mayo de 2013)_

De conformidad con el artículo 288 del TFUE, los reglamentos serán obligatorios en todos sus elementos y
directamente aplicables en cada Estado miembro, por lo que no es necesario que los Estados miembros adopten
medidas para transponer los reglamentos a su Derecho interno. Las directivas, sin embargo, solo son vinculantes en
cuanto a los resultados que deban conseguirse, de ahí que los Estados miembros deban adoptar medidas de
transposición.

En el anexo se incluye un listado de las directivas que el Reino de España aún no ha transpuesto a su Derecho interno
(situación a 1 de abril de 2013).

A 1 de abril de 2013, son once los procedimientos de infracción incoados contra el Reino de España por no haber
comunicado las medidas de transposición de varias directivas. Uno de estos procedimientos se refiere a una directiva
(la Directiva 2010/31/UE) que en la Comunicación «Mejorar la gobernanza del mercado único» ( [2] ), de 8 de junio
de 2012, figura entre los «actos legislativos esenciales que requieren especial atención», y «en los que ha de realizarse
un esfuerzo especial para garantizar su oportuna transposición».

En esta Comunicación sobre la gobernanza, los sectores considerados clave para el periodo 2012-2013 son: el sector
servicios, los servicios financieros (de intermediación), el transporte, el mercado único digital y la energía.

En cuanto a los procedimientos de infracción incoados tras los dictámenes del Tribunal de Justicia de las
Comunidades Europeas, a fecha de 1 de abril de 2013 son ocho las sentencias de dicho Tribunal pendientes de
ejecución por parte del Reino de España, de las cuales solamente una se refiere a uno de los sectores clave citados (el
transporte).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/score/docs/score25_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/docs/governance/com_2012_259_en.pdf

C 12 E / 434 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003482/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU legislation

On 19 February, the Commission published the internal market Scoreboard on the transposition of European
legislation by Member States. ( [1] ) It is essential for legislation to be transposed in a timely and correct manner if the
objectives set out in the directives are to be achieved.

Can the Commission report which directives and regulations have not yet been transposed by Spanish legislators?
Which of these are overdue?

Together with Italy and Greece, Spain is one of the countries against which the Commission has opened most
infringement proceedings concerning Community legislation. Of all these proceedings, can the Commission clarify
which legislation it believes Spain should transpose as a matter of strategic priority?

On average, it takes Spain almost two years to enforce European Court judgments concerning infringement of EU
legislation. The Commission seems to be proposing that, in key sectors, judgments should be enforced within
12 months. Can the Commission indicate which these key sectors are?

Can the Commission indicate how many European Court judgments Spain is currently failing to enforce?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

Following Article 288 TFEU, a regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Thus, Member States do not need to take any measures to transpose regulations into domestic law. In contrast,
directives are only binding as to the result to be achieved and Member States have to adopt transposition measures.

In the annex a list of directives not yet transposed by the Kingdom of Spain into domestic law (as of 1 April 2013) can
be found.

As of 1 April 2013, there are eleven infringement cases open against the Kingdom of Spain for non-communication
of transposition measures of directives. Of all these cases, one concerns one directive listed in the communication of
8 June 2012 on Better Governance for the Single Market ( [2] ) as ‘legislative act requiring special attention’
(Directive 2010/31/EU). For this piece of legislation, ‘particular effort should be undertaken to secure timely
transposition’.

As key areas for 2012-2013, the Governance Communication has identified the following sectors: services, financial
(intermediation) services, transport, digital single market and energy.

As regards infringement cases open after the European Court of Justice has ruled, as of 1 April 2013, there are still
eight cases for which the Kingdom of Spain needs to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Justice.
Only one of these cases falls within one of the mentioned key areas (transport).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/score/docs/score25_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/strategy/docs/governance/com_2012_259_en.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 435

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003483/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(27 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Transposición de directivas en el Reino de España

En referencia a la respuesta E-005249/2012, de 9 de julio de 2012, el Sr. Barnier, en nombre de la Comisión,
contestó: «España aún no ha realizado la transposición de seis directivas relativas al mercado interior. Se trata de las
Directivas 2012/004/CE, 2009/128/CE, 2010/078/CE, 2010/044/CE, 2010/043/CE y 2009/065/CE. Entre ellas, la
Comisión considera una prioridad para el mercado interior la Directiva OICVM (2009/65/CE) y la Directiva general
(“Omnibus Directive” 2010/78/CE) a la luz de la difícil situación del sector financiero».

¿Podría indicar la Comisión cuáles de estas directivas, especialmente las consideradas prioritarias, ha transpuesto el
Reino de España desde el pasado mes de julio?

En caso afirmativo, ¿está satisfecha la Comisión de esta transposición?

**Respuesta del Sr. Barnier en nombre de la Comisión**

_(13 de mayo de 2013)_

En lo que respecta a las seis Directivas relativas al mercado interior mencionadas en la pregunta de Su Señoría
(2012/4/CE, 2009/128/CE, 2010/78/CE, 2010/44/CE, 2010/43/CE y 2009/65/CE), el Reino de España ha notificado
sus medidas de transposición para todas ellas:

—
Las medidas de transposición de la Directiva 2012/4 fueron notificadas el 4 de enero de 2012; todavía están
siendo examinadas.

—
Las medidas de transposición de la Directiva 2009/128 fueron notificadas plenamente el 17 de septiembre
de 2012.

—
Las medidas de transposición de la Directiva 2010/78 fueron notificadas plenamente el 8 de octubre de 2012.

—
Las medidas de transposición de la Directiva 2010/44, para las cuales se fijaron dos plazos de transposición
diferentes, fueron notificadas plenamente para la primera fecha límite de 23 de julio de 2012, y notificadas para
la segunda (las medidas de transposición de esta última aún se están examinando con el fin de considerar que se
ha transpuesto plenamente, no habiendo expirado aún la fecha límite de transposición).

—
Las medidas de transposición de la Directiva 2010/43 fueron notificadas plenamente el 23 de julio de 2012.

—
Las medidas de transposición de la Directiva 2009/65 fueron notificadas plenamente el 23 de julio de 2012.

La Comisión Europea ha dado por concluidas todas las infracciones pendientes por no comunicación de las medidas
nacionales de ejecución contra España en el ámbito del mercado interior; por otra parte, no hay procedimientos de
infracción abiertos contra España por falta de conformidad de las medidas de transposición con la legislación europea
en este ámbito.

C 12 E / 436 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003483/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Transposition of directives in the Kingdom of Spain

I refer to the answer to question E‐005249/2012 provided by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission on
9 July 2012: ‘There are six Directives concerning the internal market which have not yet been transposed by Spain.
These are: 2012/004/EC, 2009/128/EC, 2010/078/EC, 2010/044/EC, 2010/043/EC and 2009/065/EC. Of these, the
Commission considers the UCITS Directive (2009/65/EC) to be a priority for the internal market along with the
Omnibus Directive (2010/78/EC) in the light of the difficult situation concerning the financial sector.’

Can the Commission state which of these Directives, particularly those considered priorities, Spain has transposed
since last July?

If so, is the Commission satisfied with this transposition?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

Regarding the six Directives concerning the internal market mentioned in the question of the Honourable Member
(2012/4/EC, 2009/128/EC, 2010/78/EC, 2010/44/EC, 2010/43/EC and 2009/65/EC), the Kingdom of Spain has
notified its transposition measures for all of them:

—
The transposition measures for Directive 2012/4 were notified on 4 January 2012; they are still under
examination;

—
the transposition measures for Directive 2009/128 were fully notified on 17 September 2012;

—
the transposition measures for Directive 2010/78 were fully notified on 8 October 2012;

—
the transposition measures for Directive 2010/44, for which two different transposition deadlines were set,
were fully notified for its first deadline on 23 July 2012, and notified for the second one (the transposition
measures for the latter are still under examination in order to consider it fully transposed and the transposition
deadline has not yet expired);

—
the transposition measures for Directive 2010/43 were fully notified on 23 July 2012;

—
the transposition measures for Directive 2009/65 were fully notified on 23 July 2012.

The European Commission has closed all pending infringements for non-communication of the national measures of
execution against Spain in the field of the internal market; moreover, there are no infringement proceedings open
against Spain for non-conformity of the transposition measures with the European law in this area.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 437

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-003484/13**

**до Комисията**
**Ivailo Kalfin (S&D)**

_(27 март 2013 г.)_

_Относно:_ Разследване на ЕК за такса за достъп до енергийната мрежа в България

На мое запитване до Европейската комисия относно въвеждането на такса за достъп до енергийната мрежа в България
от 15 октомври 2012 г., Комисията отговори (E-009368/2012), че е започнала разследване по системата EU Pilot.
Съгласно условията на системата това разследване вече би трябвало да е приключило.

Във връзка с това бих искал Европейската комисия да ми отговори на следните въпроси:

—
Какви са основните резултати от разследването на сигналите за въвеждането такси за достъп до енергопреносната
мрежа в България, проведено от Европейската комисия;

—
Какви са изводите на Европейската комисия, направени в резултат на разследването;

—
Какви мерки ще предприеме Комисията, за да приложи на практика изводите ирезултатите, направени в своето
разследване в България.

**Отговор, даден от г-н Йотингер от името на Комисията**

_(21 май 2013 г.)_

Комисията получи отговора на българските власти и го проучи задълбочено. В резултат им бе поискана допълнителна
информация за въздействието на решението на Върховния административен съд относно правната сила на Решение
№ 33 на регулаторите от 14 септември 2012 г. Отговорът се очаква в скоро време.

C 12 E / 438 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003484/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ivailo Kalfin (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU investigation into an energy grid access charge in Bulgaria

In its answer (E-009368/2012) to my question submitted on 15 October 2012 regarding the introduction of an
energy grid access charge in Bulgaria, the Commission replied that it had initiated an investigation under the EU Pilot
system. Under the terms of the system, this investigation should already have been completed.

In this regard, I would like the Commission to answer the following questions:

—
What is the main outcome of the investigation into the alleged introduction of an energy grid access charge in
Bulgaria conducted by the Commission?

—
What conclusions has the Commission drawn as a result of the investigation?

—
What measures will the Commission take to implement the conclusions and results reached in its investigation
in Bulgaria?

**Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2013)_

The Commission has received the reply of the Bulgarian authorities and has thoroughly assessed it. As the result of the
assessment, additional information has been requested from the Bulgarian authorities with regard to the effect of the
ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court on the legal validity of the regulators’ decision no 33 of
14 September 2012. The reply is expected shortly.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 439

_(České znění)_

**Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-003485/13**

**Komisi**
**Hynek Fajmon (ECR)**

_(27. března 2013)_

_Předmět:_ Využití fondů Evropské unie pro revitalizaci nádražních objektů ve Středočeském kraji v České republice

Zástupci osmi středočeských měst mne informovali o záměru provést s pomocí evropských fondů rekonstrukce
nádražních budov, které jsou ve vlastnictví společnosti České dráhy, a.s. Evropská komise údajně má s realizací
tohoto projektu problémy s odkazem na pravidla hospodářské soutěže. Definitivní stanovisko však ze strany
Evropské komise dosud nebylo sděleno. Obracím se proto na Evropskou komisi s následujícími dotazy:

1. Je dle Komise možné financovat z evropských fondů rekonstrukce nádražních budov ve Středočeském kraji ve
vlastnictví společnosti České dráhy, a.s.?

2. Jak by měla města a České dráhy, a.s. postupovat, aby to bylo možné?

**Odpověď komisaře Hahna jménem Komise**

_(23. května 2013)_

Obecně platí, že ze strukturálních fondů lze spolufinancovat dopravní infrastrukturu včetně terminálů umožňujících
přestup z jednoho druhu dopravního prostředku do jiného. Financování železničních stanic, které vlastní jeden
z železničních podniků působících v České republice, v tomto případě České dráhy, představuje státní podporu.
České orgány oznámily tuto státní podporu Komisi. Toto oznámení je v současné době předmětem šetření a ohledně
slučitelnosti případné podpory dosud nebylo dosaženo konečného stanoviska.

Tento oznamovací postup je správním postupem mezi vnitrostátními orgány České republiky a Komisí. Orgány, na
které se mohou České dráhy a dotčená města obrátit, jsou tedy příslušné vnitrostátní orgány České republiky.
Vnitrostátním koordinátorem pro otázky státní podpory je český Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS).

C 12 E / 440 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003485/13**

**to the Commission**
**Hynek Fajmon (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Using EU funds to revitalise railway buildings in Central Bohemia, Czech Republic

Representatives of eight towns in Central Bohemia have notified me of their intention to use EU funds to reconstruct
railway buildings owned by the České Dráhy a.s. company. The Commission reportedly has problems with this
project being implemented in view of the rules on economic competition. However, the Commission has not yet
given its definitive view.

1. In the Commission’s view, is it possible to finance the reconstruction of railway buildingsin Central Bohemia
that are in the ownership of the České Dráhy from EU funds?

2. How should the towns and České Dráhy proceed in order to facilitate this?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

In general, the Structural Funds can co-finance transport infrastructure, including terminals allowing interchange
between different modes of transport. Financing of railway stations, which are owned by one of the railway transport
undertakings operating in the Czech Republic, in this case Czech Railways, constitutes state aid. The Czech authorities
notified this state aid to the Commission. This notification is currently under investigation; no final position has yet
been reached regarding the compatibility of possible aid.

This notification procedure is an administrative procedure between the Czech national authorities and the
Commission. The points of contact for Czech Railways and the towns concerned are the respective Czech national
authorities. The national coordinator for state aid issues is the Czech Competition Authority — ÚOHS.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 441

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003486/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE) und Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D)**

_(27. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Schließung von Linien auf dem polnischen Eisenbahnnetz

Nach verschiedenen Presseberichten plant der Betreiber der polnischen Eisenbahninfrastruktur, PKP Polskie Linie
Kolejowe S.A., zahlreiche Linien auf dem polnischen Netz zu schließen. Darunter sollen sich auch Linien befinden, die
aus EU-Mitteln ko-finanziert wurden.

1. Sind der Kommission derartige Pläne bekannt? Wenn ja, wie wurde sie informiert? Wenn nein, was wird sie
unternehmen, um Erkundigungen einzuholen?

2. Sollten von den geplanten Schließungen auch Linien betroffen sein, die aus EU-Mitteln ko-finanziert wurden,
welche Auswirkungen hätte dies auf die bisherige und künftige Ko-Finanzierung durch die EU?

**Antwort von Herrn Hahn im Namen der Kommission**

_(22. Mai 2013)_

1. Die Kommission wurde von Polen nicht offiziell über solche Pläne informiert, sondern erfuhr davon in
Medienberichten. Daraufhin sprach die Kommission das Thema in bilateralen Treffen mit den polnischen Behörden
(Verkehrsministerium, Verwalter für die Infrastruktur) an und brachte ihre Besorgnis zum Ausdruck. Die polnischen
Behörden rechtfertigten die Schließungen hauptsächlich durch Budgetüberlegungen (Einsparungen, da nur
Abschnitte mit äußerst geringem oder gar keinem Verkehrsaufkommen betroffen sind). Die Frage ist noch nicht
entschieden und der Verwalter der Infrastruktur ist bereit, die Pläne angesichts der Entwicklungen neu zu bewerten.

2. Gemäß den kohäsionspolitischen Regelungen sollten an Projekten, in die auch EU-Mittel geflossen sind, nach
ihrem Abschluss fünf Jahre lang keine erheblichen Veränderungen vorgenommen werden. Daher könnte es einen
Verstoß gegen die Regelungen darstellen, wenn Linien, deren Modernisierung oder erneute Nutzung mit EU-Mitteln
kofinanziert wurde, innerhalb eines solchen Zeitraums geschlossen werden. Allerdings haben die polnischen
Behörden angegeben, dass der Plan für die Schließungen der Linien keine Projekte betrifft, die eine EU-Kofinanzierung
erhalten oder erhalten haben.

Die Kommission betont, wie wichtig ein fundierter strategischer Ansatz gegenüber den aus den EU-Fonds
unterstützten Investitionen ist, und möchte im neuen Finanzrahmen die für Eisenbahnprojekte vorgesehenen
Finanzmittel anheben. Darüber hinaus ist die Kommission auch bereit, — zusätzlich zu größeren Investitionen in das
TEN-V-Schienennetz — in Form von Revitalisierungsprojekten dem Bedarf für Investitionen in wichtige regionale
Zubringerlinien Rechnung zu tragen. Manche der in Rede stehenden Linien könnten daher für eine Kofinanzierung
der EU infrage kommen.

C 12 E / 442 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003486/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE) oraz Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D)**

_(27 marca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Likwidacja linii polskiej sieci kolejowej

Według różnych doniesień prasowych firma zarządzająca polską infrastrukturą kolejową, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe
S.A., zamierza zlikwidować wiele linii kolejowych w Polsce. Wśród nich mają też być linie kolejowe
współfinansowane ze środków UE.

1. Czy Komisja wie o takich planach? Jeżeli tak – w jaki sposób została poinformowana? Jeżeli nie – jakie działania
podejmie, aby uzyskać informacje?

2. Gdyby planowana likwidacja dotyczyła także linii kolejowych, które były współfinansowane ze środków UE,
jaki wpływ miałoby to na dotychczasowe i przyszłe współfinansowanie przez UE?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji**

_(22 maja 2013 r.)_

1. Komisja nie została oficjalnie zawiadomiona przez Polskę o przedmiotowych planach i dowiedziała się o nich
z doniesień medialnych. Komisja podniosła wówczas tę kwestię podczas dwustronnych spotkań z władzami
polskimi (Ministerstwem Transportu, zarządcą infrastruktury) oraz wyraziła swe obawy. Władze polskie uzasadniły
wyłączenie z eksploatacji przedmiotowych linii kolejowych głównie przyczynami budżetowymi (oszczędności
wynikające z braku ruchu lub minimalnego ruchu na tych odcinkach). Kwestia ta wciąż ewoluuje, a zarządca
infrastruktury jest gotowy dokonać ponownej oceny swoich planów, uwzględniając rozwój sytuacji.

2. Zasady polityki spójności przewidują, że projekty otrzymujące europejskie fundusze nie mogą być poddawane
zasadniczej modyfikacji w terminie pięciu lat od ich zakończenia. Tym samym wyłączenie z eksploatacji linii, które
otrzymały współfinansowanie UE na modernizację lub renowację w wyżej wymienionym terminie może oznaczać
naruszenie tych zasad. Niemniej jednak polskie władze zaznaczyły, że planowane wyłączenie z eksploatacji linii
kolejowych nie obejmuje projektów, które otrzymują lub otrzymywały współfinansowanie z UE.

Komisja podkreśla znaczenie rozsądnego podejścia strategicznego do inwestycji wspieranych z funduszy UE i dąży
do zwiększenia środków przeznaczonych na projekty kolejowe w nowej perspektywie budżetowej. Ponadto, poza
głównymi inwestycjami przeznaczonymi na sieć kolejową TEN-T, Komisja przygotowana jest do wyjścia naprzeciw
potrzebom inwestycyjnym dotyczącym ważnych regionalnych linii dowozowych w ramach projektów
rewitalizacyjnych. Niektóre z tych linii mogą więc otrzymać dofinansowanie z UE.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 443

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003486/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE) and Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Closure of lines on the Polish rail network

According to various press reports, the operator of the Polish railway infrastructure, PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe S.A.,
is planning to close numerous lines on the Polish network. These are said to also include lines that were co-financed
from EU funds.

1. Is the Commission aware of any plans of this kind? If so, how was it informed? If not, what will it do to find out
about this?

2. If the planned closures also affect lines that were co-financed from EU funds, what impact would this have on
present and future co-financing by the EU?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

1. The Commission was not officially notified by Poland about such plans and learnt of them through media
reports. The Commission then raised the issue in bilateral meetings with the Polish authorities (Ministry of Transport,
the infrastructure manager) and expressed its concerns. The Polish authorities justified the closures principally on
budgetary grounds (savings due to no/minimal traffic on the sections concerned). The issue is still evolving and the
infrastructure manager is ready to reassess its plans in view of developments.

2. Cohesion policy rules require that projects benefitting from European funding should not undergo a substantial
modification within five years of their completion. Therefore, closure of lines which have received EU co-financing
for modernisation or revitalisation within such timeframe could signify a breach of the rules. However, the Polish
authorities have indicated that the plan for line closures does not include projects which are receiving or have received
EU co-financing.

The Commission underlines the importance of a sound strategic approach towards the investments supported by
the EU funds and aims at increased funding earmarked for rail projects in the new financial perspective. Furthermore,
the Commission is also prepared to address — in addition to major investments in the TEN-T rail network — the need
for investments in important regional feeder lines in the form of revitalisation projects. Some of the lines in question
might therefore be able to receive co-funding by the EU.

C 12 E / 444 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003487/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Ismail Ertug (S&D)**

_(27. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Folgenabschätzung: 4. Eisenbahnpaket

Artikel 63 der Richtlinie 2012/34/EU verpflichtet die Kommission, bis zum 31.12.2012 einen Bericht zur
Marktentwicklung, dem Stand der Vorbereitungen für die weitere Marktöffnung sowie eine Analyse verschiedener
Modelle für die Organisation des Schienenmarktes vorzulegen, wobei die Unterschiede zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten
(Netzdichte, Passagierzahlen, durchschnittliche Reiseentfernung) berücksichtigt werden sollten.

Am 30.1.2013 legte die Kommission das „4. Eisenbahnpaket“ und zeitgleich ein Folgenabschätzung zu den
Auswirkungen weiterer Trennungsmaßnahmen vor. Diese Folgenabschätzung enthält schwerwiegende methodische
Mängel hinsichtlich der Nachweisbarkeit und Vollständigkeit. Insbesondere fehlt die empirische Grundlage für die
dort gezogenen Schlussfolgerungen. Stattdessen basiert die Beweisführung im Kern auf unausgewogener und
unzutreffender „anekdotischer“ Evidenz.

1. Weshalb hat die Kommission ihre Verpflichtungen aus der Richtlinie 2012/34/EU nicht erfüllt und das EP nicht
rechtzeitig vor Vorlage weiterer Gesetzgebungsvorschläge („4. Eisenbahnpaket“) ausreichend über die Auswirkungen
verschiedener Modelle für die Organisation des Schienenmarktes informiert?

2. Ist die Kommission mit Blick auf die ersichtlichen qualitativen und methodischen Mängel der nunmehr
vorgelegten Folgenabschätzung zur weiteren Trennung von Infrastruktur und Betrieb der Auffassung, eine
ausreichende Grundlage für ihre sehr weitreichenden Gesetzgebungsvorschläge geschaffen zu haben?

3. Was unternimmt die Kommission, um die Qualitätsmängel ihrer Folgenabschätzung zur Frage der Bahnstruktur
im weiteren Verfahren zu beheben?

**Antwort von Herrn Kallas im Namen der Kommission**

_(6. Mai 2013)_

Der Herr Abgeordnete weist zu Recht darauf hin, dass die Gesetzgebungsorgane die Kommission im Rahmen der
Verhandlungen zur Richtlinie 2012/34/EU selbst dazu aufgefordert haben, Legislativmaßnahmen zur Öffnung des
inländischen Schienenpersonenverkehrsmarkts in Erwägung zu ziehen und einen diskriminierungsfreien Zugang zur
Infrastruktur sicherzustellen; dabei sollte sie auf den bestehenden Vorschriften zur Trennung von
Infrastrukturverwaltung und Verkehrsbetrieb aufbauen.

Die Kommission hat drei detaillierte Folgenabschätzungen zur Öffnung des inländischen Schienenverkehrsmarkts,
zur Verwaltung der Eisenbahninfrastruktur und zu einem gemeinsamen Konzept für die Sicherheits‐ und
Interoperabilitätsbestimmungen vorgenommen ( [1] ). Diese Folgenabschätzungen beruhen jeweils auf einer gründlichen
Analyse verschiedener politischer Optionen. Zu ihrer Unterstützung wurden externe Studien, eine
Eurobarometer-Erhebung bei 25 000 Bürgerinnen und Bürgern und ein umfangreiches Konsultationsverfahren
durchgeführt, an dem das Europäische Parlament und knapp 500 Interessenträger beteiligt waren. Auf der Grundlage
dieser Analyse hat die Kommission am 30. Januar 2013 sechs Legislativvorschläge vorgelegt.

Sie hat damit die Anforderungen des Artikels 63 der Richtlinie 2012/34/EU erfüllt, wenn man von der einmonatigen
Verspätung gegenüber dem vorgesehenen Datum (31. Dezember 2012) absieht. Nach Ansicht der Kommission ist
diese Verspätung jedoch vor dem Hintergrund der Komplexität, Diversität und Sensibilität der zu behandelnden
Probleme zu sehen. Zudem ist zu berücksichtigen, dass die Richtlinie 2012/34/EU erst am 21. November 2012 in
Kraft trat.

Die Kommission ist der Auffassung, dass ihre Vorschläge auf einer sehr soliden Evidenzgrundlage beruhen und
notwendig sind, um die zahlreichen Herausforderungen im Eisenbahnsektor zu bewältigen. Das 4. Eisenbahnpaket
enthält weitreichende, aber pragmatische Vorschläge im Hinblick auf eine bessere Qualität und eine größere Auswahl
im Eisenbahnverkehr.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/01/fourth-railway-package_de.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 445

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003487/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ismail Ertug (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Impact assessment: fourth Railway Package

Article 63 of Directive 2012/34/EU requires the Commission to submit a report, by 31 December 2012, on the
development of the market, the state of preparation of a further opening-up of the market and an analysis of different
models for organising the rail market, taking into account the differences between Member States (density of
networks, number of passengers, average travel distance).

On 30 January 2013, the Commission tabled the fourth Railway Package, along with an impact assessment of the
effects of further separation measures. This impact assessment has serious methodological shortcomings in terms of
demonstrability and completeness. In particular, there is no empirical basis for the conclusions it draws. Evidence is
instead furnished essentially on the basis of biased and incorrect ‘anecdotal’ evidence.

1. Why has the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2012/34/EU and not adequately
informed Parliament of the impact of the different models for organising the rail market in good time prior to tabling
further legislative proposals (the fourth Railway Package)?

2. In view of the clear qualitative and methodological shortcomings of the impact assessment that has now been
submitted concerning the further separation of infrastructure and operations, does the Commission believe that it has
established an adequate basis for its very far-reaching legislative proposal?

3. What will the Commission do to rectify the quality defects in its impact assessment in relation to the question of
the structure of the rail system for the next stage of the process?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The Honourable Member rightly points out that, in the context of the negotiations of Directive 2012/34/EU, the colegislators have themselves invited the Commission to envisage legislative measures in relation to the opening of the
domestic rail passenger market and to ensure non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure, building on the existing
separation requirements between infrastructure management and transport operations.

The Commission carried out three detailed impact assessments on rail domestic market opening, the governance of
the railway infrastructure and a common approach to safety and interoperability rules ( [1] ). These impact assessments
are based on a thorough analysis of various policy options. They have been supported by external support studies, a
Eurobarmoter survey of 25 000 citizens and an extensive consultation process which involved the European
Parliament as well as nearly 500 stakeholders. Based on this analysis, the Commission put forward six legislative
proposals on 30 January 2013.

The Commission therefore fulfilled the requirements of Article 63 of Directive 2012/34/EU, except for the one
month delay compared to the date of 31 December 2012. The Commission believes however that this delay should
be seen in light of the fact that Directive 2012/34/EU only entered into force on 21 November 2012 and the
complexity, diversity and sensitivity of the problems addressed.

The Commission believes that its proposals rely on very sound evidence and are necessary to address the numerous
challenges faced by the rail sector. The 4th railway package proposes far reaching but pragmatic solutions to provide
better quality and more choice in railway services.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/01/fourth-railway-package_en.htm

C 12 E / 446 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003488/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(27 marca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Stanowisko Europejskiej Izby Handlowej Tajwan (European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan – ECCT)
w sprawie wymiany handlowej UE-Tajwan

Stanowisko opublikowane w 2013 r. przez Europejską Izbę Handlową Tajwan (ECCT) „Unleashing the Taiwan Tiger:
A Path to Economic Prosperity” (Uwolnienie tajwańskiego tygrysa: droga do gospodarczej prosperity) zdecydowanie
popiera podpisanie umowy o wolnym handlu między UE a Tajwanem (termin stosowany przez ECCT to „środki
wspierania handlu”).

W stanowisku stwierdzono: „Wywóz towarów z UE do Tajwanu wzrósł w okresie od 2008 r. do 2011 r. o 40 %,
a wywóz usług – o 50 % w tym samym okresie. […] Badanie z 2008 r. szacowało wzrost wywozu UE do Tajwanu
o 12 mld EUR, a korzyść gospodarczą netto dla gospodarki europejskiej – 2 mld EUR rocznie”. Następnie podkreśla
się, że: „UE podpisała umowę o wolnym handlu z Koreą Południową, która weszła w życie w dniu 1 lipca 2011 r. UE
rozpoczęła także negocjacje umowy o wolnym handlu z Japonią. W miarę jak UE zawiera coraz więcej umów
o wolnym handlu w Azji, zwiększą się niekorzystne skutki zakłócające handel w wymianie handlowej UE-Tajwan
i wyraźniejsza stanie się potrzeba środków wspierania handlu UE-Tajwan”. W stanowisku stwierdza się także, że
podpisanie umowy ramowej o współpracy gospodarczej między Chinami i Tajwanem poprawiło warunki
„traktowania Tajwanu jako furtki do rynku Chin kontynentalnych”.

W stanowisku podkreśla się fakt, że „Tajwan także aktywnie działa na rzecz umów o handlu i inwestycjach z innymi
krajami, w tym ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi i Japonią. Jeżeli nie podejmie się działań na rzecz umowy handlowej UETajwan, UE może znaleźć się w tyle za swoimi głównymi partnerami handlowymi, jeżeli chodzi o zdobywanie
dostępu do rynku tajwańskiego”.

1. Jakie jest stanowisko Komisji wobec powyższych argumentów?

2. Czy Komisja podziela poglądy przedstawione przez ECCT?

3. Jaka jest opinia Komisji o ostatnim stwierdzeniu dotyczącym możliwych utrudnień dla UE w zdobywaniu
dostępu do rynku tajwańskiego?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela De Guchta w imieniu Komisji**

_(26 kwietnia 2013 r.)_

Komisja ściśle współpracuje z Europejską Izbą Handlową Tajwan (ECCT) i jest oczywiście dobrze poinformowana
o kwestiach przedstawionych w dokumentach określających stanowisko ECCT oraz w sprawozdaniach dotyczących
środków wspierania handlu pomiędzy UE a Tajwanem z 2008 r. i 2012 r.

Stanowisko wobec niekorzystnych skutków zakłócających handel pomiędzy UE a Tajwanem wywołanych przez
umowy o wolnym handlu zawarte przez UE w Azji, wyrażone w sprawozdaniu dotyczącym środków wspierania
handlu pomiędzy UE a Tajwanem, jest ostrożne. Odnośnie do potencjalnego szybkiego wpływu umowy o wolnym
handlu pomiędzy UE a Koreą Południową na unijny przywóz z Korei, a więc pośrednich skutków dla unijnego
przywozu z Tajwanu, sprawozdanie stanowi, że „trudno jest dostrzec wymierny wpływ umowy o wolnym handlu na
przywóz do UE”.

Jeśli chodzi o umowę ramową o współpracy gospodarczej (ECFA), analiza Komisji oraz niepotwierdzone dane
płynące z sektora przemysłowego UE wykazują, że wcześniejsze wdrożenie tej umowy jest rzadko wykorzystywane
przez UE – i w ujęciu ogólnym zagraniczne przedsiębiorstwa – z przyczyn nierozerwalnie związanych z ECFA.

Odnośnie do pozycji UE na rynku tajwańskim w stosunku do innych konkurentów, Stany Zjednoczone nie zawarły
z Tajwanem umowy o wolnym handlu ani dwustronnej umowy inwestycyjnej. Japonia zawarła natomiast umowę
inwestycyjną, która nie uwzględnia żadnych dodatkowych korzyści w zakresie dostępu do rynku.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 447

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003488/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Position paper by the European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan (ECCT) on EU-Taiwan trade

The position paper published in 2013 by the European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan (EECT), ‘Unleashing the
Taiwan Tiger: A Path to Economic Prosperity’, strongly supports the signing of a Free Trade Agreement between
the EU and Taiwan (the ECCT’s term is ‘trade enhancement measures’).

The paper states: ‘The EU’s exports of goods to Taiwan increased by more than 40% between 2008 and 2011 while
services exports increased by 50% over the same period. […] The 2008 study estimated an increase in EU exports to
Taiwan of EUR 12 billion and a net economic gain for the European economy of EUR 2 billion per year’. It further
stresses: ‘The EU has signed an FTA with South Korea, which entered into force on 1 July 2011. The EU has also
initiated FTA negotiations with Japan. As the EU concludes more free trade agreements in Asia, the trade distorting
impacts on EU-Taiwan trade will worsen and the rationale for EU-Taiwan trade enhancement measures will
strengthen’. The position paper also states that the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement
(ECFA) between mainland China and Taiwan has improved the conditions ‘for using Taiwan as a stepping stone into
the mainland Chinese market’.

The position paper underscores the fact that ‘Taiwan has also been actively pursuing trade and investment agreements
with other nations, including the United States (US) and Japan. If no action is taken towards an EU-Taiwan trade deal,
the EU could find itself one step behind its main trading partners with respect to gaining access to the Taiwanese
market’.

1. What is the Commission’s position regarding the above arguments?

2. Does the Commission share the views presented by the ECCT?

3. What is the Commission’s view on the final statement concerning potential setbacks for the EU in gaining
access to the Taiwanese market?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(26 April 2013)_

The Commission works closely with the European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan (ECCT) and is naturally well aware
of the positions developed in the ECCT position papers and in the 2008 and 2012 EU-Taiwan Trade Enhancement
Measures reports.

Concerning the trade distorting impacts on EU-Taiwan trade of Free Trade Agreements (FTA) concluded in Asia by
the EU, the 2012 EU-Taiwan Trade Enhancement Measures report takes a cautious position. Regarding a potential
early impact of the EU-Korea FTA on EU imports from Korea, and thus on an indirect effect on EU imports from
Taiwan, the report notes that ‘it is hard to see a measurable impact of the FTA on EU imports’.

Regarding the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), the Commission’s analysis and anecdotal
evidence from EU industry show that its early harvest is hardly used by the EU, and more generally foreign companies
for reasons inherent to the ECFA.

Concerning the EU's relative position regarding access to the Taiwanese market, the US has not concluded a FTA or a
bilateral investment agreement with Taiwan. Japan has concluded an investment agreement but it does not include
any additional gains in terms of market access.

C 12 E / 448 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003489/13**

**à la Commission**
**Michel Dantin (PPE)**

_(27 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Industrie européenne des panneaux photovoltaïques

Le développement des énergies renouvelables représente un enjeu considérable pour le devenir de l'Union
européenne, et l'industrie des panneaux photovoltaïques illustre tous les défis auxquels se confronte le secteur.

En effet, l'industrie des panneaux photovoltaïques est aujourd'hui menacée dans toute l'Europe par le dumping des
entreprises et des autorités chinoises.

Les États-Unis ont pris des dispositions pour protéger cette industrie nationale notamment en prenant des mesures de
taxation des importations en provenance de la République de Chine.

La Commission peut-elle indiquer quelles mesures elle compte essayer de mettre en œuvre pour préserver l'industrie
des énergies renouvelables, et spécialement celle des panneaux solaires, ayant la même finalité que les mesures prises
aux États-Unis? L'Union européenne envisage-t-elle la mise en place d'une taxation des importations en provenance
de la République populaire de Chine? Plus globalement, quelles mesures la Commission envisage-t-elle de mettre en
œuvre pour relancer l'industrie du photovoltaïque dans l'Union?

**Réponse donnée par M. De Gucht au nom de la Commission**

_(15 mai 2013)_

La Commission invite l'auteur de la question à se référer aux réponses qu'elle a données aux questions écrites
E-002027/2013, E-000425/2013, E-000220/2013, E-010933/2012, E-010653/2012, E-009749/2012 et
E-009296/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 449

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003489/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michel Dantin (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European photovoltaic panel industry

The development of renewable energies is vital for the future of the European Union. The photovoltaic panel industry
in particular is a good example of all the challenges facing the renewables sector.

Dumping by Chinese businesses and authorities has put the entire European photovoltaic panel industry under threat.

The United States has taken steps to protect its national industry, in particular by taxing imports from the Republic of
China.

Can the Commission say whether it intends to follow the example of the United States and take measures to protect
the renewable energy industry, particularly the solar panel industry? If so, what will these measures be? Does the EU
plan to tax imports from China? More generally, what does the Commission intend to do to boost the Union’s
photovoltaic industry?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to previous written questions E-002027/2013,
E-000425/2013, E-000220/2013, E-010933/2012, E-010653/2012, E-009749/2012 and E-009296/2012 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/application/home.do?language=EN.

C 12 E / 450 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003491/13**

**à la Commission**
**Astrid Lulling (PPE)**

_(27 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Application de la Directive 2010/41/UE

La directive 2010/41/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 7 juillet 2010 concernant l'application du principe
de l'égalité de traitement entre hommes et femmes exerçant une activité indépendante, et abrogeant la directive
86/613/CEE du Conseil, prévoit dans son article 16 sur la mise en œuvre, que les États membres mettent en vigueur
les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à ladite directive au plus
tard le 5 août 2012.

1. Quels États membres ont déjà communiqué à la Commission le texte des dispositions essentielles de droit
interne qu'ils ont adopté dans le domaine régi par la directive 2010/41/UE?

L'article 7 dispose que lorsqu'il existe, dans un État membre, un système de protection sociale pour les travailleurs
indépendants, ledit État membre prend les mesures nécessaires pour que les conjoints et les partenaires de vie visés à
l'article 2, point b) puissent bénéficier d'une protection sociale en conformité avec le droit national.

L'article 8 sur les prestations de maternité vise le droit, conformément au droit national, à une allocation de maternité
suffisante leur permettant d'interrompre leur activité professionnelle pour raison de grossesse ou de maternité
pendant au moins quatorze semaines, et des services de remplacement temporaire et sociaux existants au niveau
national. Les États membres peuvent prévoir que l'accès à ces services constitue une solution de substitution à
l'allocation visée dans le paragraphe 1 de l'article 8.

2. Quels États membres ont justifié des difficultés particulières pour un délai supplémentaire de deux ans jusqu'au
5 août 2015 afin de se conformer aux articles 7 et 8 visant les conjointes et les partenaires de vie qui participent, de
manière habituelle et dans les conditions prévues par le droit national, à l'activité du travailleur indépendant en
accomplissant soit les mêmes tâches, soit des tâches complémentaires (article 2, point b)?

**Réponse donnée par Mme Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(27 mai 2013)_

Tous les États membres ont notifié à la Commission des mesures de transposition de la directive 2010/41/UE.

Quatre États membres (l'Irlande, la France, la Slovénie et le Royaume-Uni) ont sollicité le délai supplémentaire visé à
l'article 16, paragraphe 2, afin de se conformer aux articles 7 et 8.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 451

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003491/13**

**to the Commission**
**Astrid Lulling (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Application of Directive 2010/41/EU

Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the
principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and
repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC stipulates, in Article 16 on implementation, that the Member States shall
bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive by
5 August 2012 at the latest.

1. Which Member States have already communicated to the Commission the text of the main provisions of
national law which they have adopted in the field covered by Directive 2010/41/EU?

Article 7 lays down that where a system for social protection for self-employed workers exists in a Member State, that
Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that spouses and life partners referred to in Article 2(b) can
benefit from a social protection in accordance with national law.

Article 8 on maternity benefits refers to the right, in accordance with national law, to be granted a sufficient maternity
allowance enabling interruptions in their occupational activity owing to pregnancy or motherhood for at least
14 weeks, and access to existing services supplying temporary replacements and existing national social services. The
Member States may provide that access to those services is an alternative to the allowance referred to in Article 8(1).

2. Which Member States have justified particular difficulties to obtain an additional period of two years until
5 August 2014 in order to comply with Articles 7 and 8 as regards female spouses and life partners who habitually,
under the conditions laid down by national law, participate in the activities of the self-employed worker and perform
the same tasks or ancillary tasks (Article 2(b))?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

All Member States have notified measures to the Commission transposing Directive 2010/41/EU.

Four Member States (Ireland, France, Slovenia and the United Kingdom) have requested the additional period
mentioned in Article 16(2) to comply with Articles 7 and 8.

C 12 E / 452 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003492/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Giuseppe Gargani (PPE)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Richiesta di un calendario di attività per la presentazione di una proposta legislativa per un'etichettatura dei
prodotti in pelle

Una regolamentazione europea per una corretta etichettatura di composizione dei prodotti in pelle è fondamentale
per tutelare i consumatori da informazioni fuorvianti e difendere le PMI da una concorrenza sleale. L'industria
conciaria ha infatti reso l'Europa leader mondiale nel settore grazie al suo forte impegno in termini di tutela
ambientale e responsabilità sociale. Essa è inoltre rinomata per la sua internazionalizzazione e per l'eccellente capacità
stilistica.

Considerato il documento di lavoro adottato dalla Commissione europea il 5 ottobre 2012 dal titolo «Scelte
strategiche per la competitività dell'industria europea della moda — Punto d'incontro tra produzione e creatività», nel
quale si riconosce questo vuoto legislativo e si esprime l'impegno a esaminare la necessità e la fattibilità di una
proposta di legge sull'utilizzo legittimo del termine «pelle»;

considerata la risoluzione del Parlamento europeo del 17 gennaio 2013 sull'indicazione del paese di origine di taluni
prodotti importati da paesi terzi nell'UE (P7_TA(2013)0029), nella quale viene ribadita l'importanza della marcatura
del paese di origine per garantire la competitività delle imprese europee e tutelare i consumatori;

considerati i risultati dello studio relativo alla fattibilità e alla necessità di un'etichettatura dei prodotti in pelle
promosso dalla Commissione ed eseguito da MATRIX, pubblicato il 1° febbraio 2013;

considerato inoltre che il Parlamento italiano ha già legiferato in materia, adottando la legge del 14 gennaio 2013 n. 8
recante nuove disposizioni in materia di utilizzo dei termini «cuoio», «pelle» e «pelliccia» e di quelli da essi derivati o
loro sinonimi;

può la Commissione far sapere:

—
quando intende avviare la valutazione di impatto legislativo;

—
qual è il calendario dei lavori per la presentazione di una proposta legislativa in materia?

**Risposta di Antonio Tajani a nome della Commissione**

_(7 maggio 2013)_

In seguito ai risultati dello studio MATRIX la Commissione ha già avviato una valutazione d’impatto in merito a un
eventuale sistema di etichettatura dell’autenticità dei pellami ( [1] ).

Nell’ambito di tale processo verrà commissionato ad un consulente esterno uno studio addizionale per approfondire
l’analisi. Si procederà inoltre ad indire una consultazione pubblica per raccogliere i punti di vista e le opinioni degli
stakeholder e dei cittadini per quanto concerne l’etichettatura dell’autenticità della pelle.

Sulla base di questi contributi la valutazione d’impatto condotta dalla Commissione analizzerà le diverse opzioni
d'intervento, tra cui un’opzione zero (nessun intervento). Qualora la Commissione concludesse, sulla base delle
risultanze della valutazione d’impatto, che sia necessaria una misura giuridica, la proposta del Collegio potrebbe
essere adottata al più presto nel secondo semestre del 2014.

L’etichettatura d’origine quale elemento di regole rafforzate in tema di tracciabilità per tutti i prodotti di consumo è
stata proposta dalla Commissione nel suo Pacchetto «Sicurezza dei prodotti e vigilanza del mercato» ed adottata il
13 febbraio 2013. I pellami derivanti da un processo di trasformazione che sono destinati ai consumatori o quelli per
i quali è ragionevole prevedibile prevedere un uso da parte dei consumatori, anche se non ad essi destinati, e che sono
messi a disposizione sul mercato sono coperti dal progetto di regolamento sulla sicurezza dei prodotti di consumo
che fa parte del Pacchetto summenzionato ( [2] ).

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «vera» pelle.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sulla sicurezza dei prodotti di consumo e che abroga la direttiva 87/357/CEE del

Consiglio e la direttiva 2001/95/CE, COM(2013)78 def., 13.02.2013.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 453

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003492/13**

**to the Commission**
**Giuseppe Gargani (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Request for a timetable for the presentation of a draft law on the labelling of leather products

EU legislation on the proper labelling of the composition of leather products is essential to protect consumers from
misleading information and to defend SMEs from unfair competition. The tanning industry has made Europe the
world leader in the sector, thanks to its great efforts in terms of environmental protection and social responsibility. It
is also renowned for its internationalisation and its excellent fashion sense.

On 5 October 2012, the Commission adopted the working document on entitled ‘Policy options for the
competitiveness of the European fashion industries: where manufacturing meets creativity’, which acknowledges this
legal vacuum and expresses a commitment to examine the need for — and feasibility of — a draft law on the
legitimate use of the term ‘leather’.

On 17 January 2013, the European Parliament adopted the resolution on the indication of country of origin for
certain products entering the EU from third countries (P7_TA(2013)0029), which stresses the importance of
indicating the country of origin in order to guarantee the competitiveness of European businesses and to protect

consumers.

On 1 February 2013, the results were published of the study sponsored by the Commission and carried out by
MATRIX into the feasibility and desirability of a labelling system for leather products.

The Italian Parliament has already passed legislation on this matter, adopting Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 setting
out new provisions on the use of the terms ‘hide’, ‘leather’ and ‘fur’ and their derivatives or synonyms.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

—
When does it intend to begin the legislative impact assessment?

—
What is the timetable for the presentation of a draft law on this issue?

**Answer given by Mr Tajani on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 2013)_

Following the results of the Matrix study, the Commission has already launched an impact assessment on a possible
labelling scheme on leather authenticity ( [1] ).

In this process, an additional study will be carried out by an external consultant in order to deepen the analysis.
Moreover, a public consultation will be launched in order to gather stakeholders' and citizens' views and opinions as
regards labelling on leather authenticity.

Drawing on this input, the Commission impact assessment will analyse different policy options, including a ‘no
action’ option. In the case the Commission concludes, informed by the findings of the impact assessment, that a legal
measure is necessary, the proposal by the College could be adopted in the second half of 2014 at the earliest.

Origin marking as part of reinforced traceability rules for all consumer products was proposed by the Commission in
its Product Safety and Market Surveillance Package as adopted on 13 February 2013. Leather products resulting from
a manufacturing process which are intended for consumers or leather products in respect of which it is reasonably
foreseeable that they would be used by consumers, even if not intended for them, and were made available on the
market are covered by the draft of the Consumer Product Safety Regulation which is part of the abovementioned
Package ( [2] ).

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘real’ leather.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer product safety and repealing Council Directive 87/357/EEC

and Directive 2001/95/EC, COM(2013) 78 final, 13.2.2013.

C 12 E / 454 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003493/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Salvataggio bancario di Cipro

Il presidente dell'Eurogruppo, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, ha recentemente dichiarato che il modello utilizzato per il
salvataggio di Cipro, ovvero un prelievo forzoso sui conti correnti oltre i 100 000 euro, sarebbe un metodo
auspicabile ed esportabile per risolvere i problemi bancari anche in altri paesi dell'Unione.

Se passasse questa logica, si potrebbe creare una pericolosa fuga di capitali da banche e paesi considerati a rischio
verso istituti considerati più affidabili: una simile situazione contribuirebbe a un drammatico peggioramento delle
condizioni di chi si trova già più in difficoltà di altri.

1. Ritiene la Commissione che la misura applicata a Cipro sia un modello da seguire ed eventualmente esportare
altrove?

2. Non ritiene che l'applicazione di un simile paradigma, creando panico e allarmismi tra risparmiatori e
investitori, possa portare a un immediato peggioramento dei conti degli istituti bancari e dei paesi in difficoltà, sul
modello di quanto descritto precedentemente?

**Risposta di Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione**

_(27 maggio 2013)_

Le dimensioni del settore bancario, unitamente alla sua struttura, al livello di rischi assunti e alla vigilanza non
ottimale, fanno di Cipro un caso unico. Le misure adottate sono state studiate appositamente per rispondere alla
situazione eccezionale di Cipro e perseguono l'obiettivo di risanare un settore bancario di dimensioni più limitate,
proteggendo al tempo stesso tutti i depositi al di sotto di 100.000 euro, conformemente ai principi dell'UE.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 455

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003493/13**

**to the Commission**
**Claudio Morganti (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bank rescue in Cyprus

The President of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, recently stated that the model used for the bank rescue in
Cyprus, namely a compulsory levy on deposits of more than EUR 100 000, would be an advantageous method that
could also be used to resolve the problems of banks in other EU countries.

If this logic were accepted, it could create a dangerous outflow of capital from banks and countries considered to be at
risk, in favour of establishments regarded as more reliable. Such a situation would contribute to a dramatic worsening
of the prospects for those who are already facing the greatest difficulties.

1. Does the Commission believe that the measure taken in Cyprus is a model that should be followed and possibly
exported elsewhere?

2. Does it not believe that the application of this kind of model, creating panic and alarmism among savers and
investors, could result in an immediate deterioration of the finances of banks and countries in difficulty?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

Cyprus is a unique case because of the size of its banking sector combined with its structure, level of risk-taking and
suboptimal supervision. Measures taken are tailor-made to the very exceptional situation in Cyprus in order to restore
the viability of a smaller banking sector while, at the same time, protecting all deposits below EUR 100 000 in
accordance with the EU principles.

C 12 E / 456 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003494/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Lotta alla pirateria

È purtroppo nota la vicenda dei due marò italiani trattenuti in carcere nello stato del Kerala in India in attesa del
processo. Facevano parte di un nucleo militare di protezione dalla pirateria sulla petroliera «Enrica Lexie». La stampa
italiana denuncia la mancanza di accordi di tutela con i paesi rivieraschi, che avrebbero dovuto far seguito alla legge
del luglio 2011 istitutiva del servizio antipirateria, per lo stazionamento e il transito dei fucilieri della Marina militare
facenti parte dei nuclei di protezione. La vicenda con l'India è emblematica di questa mancanza di accordi preventivi.

La Commissione:

1. È al corrente di come altri Stati dell'Unione, le cui navi sono state interessate da atti di pirateria, abbiano
provveduto alla loro protezione e a quella del relativo personale marittimo?

2. In caso affermativo, può dirci se la protezione è assicurata da personale militare?

3. È al corrente di accordi di tutela intervenuti con i paesi rivieraschi?

4. Non ritiene opportuno, fino a quando il rischio di attacchi di pirateria è possibile, proporre regole uniche di
comportamento agli Stati membri per la tutela degli equipaggi e dei nuclei militari di protezione nei confronti
dei paesi rivieraschi?

**Risposta dell’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente Catherine Ashton a nome della Commissione**

_(11 giugno 2013)_

Gli Stati membri adottano politiche diverse per proteggere dalla piaga della pirateria le navi mercantili battenti la loro
bandiera nazionale. Alcuni hanno modificato o adottato la legislazione che autorizza l’impiego di guardie di sicurezza
private a bordo delle navi, altri invece ricorrono alla protezione garantita dalle loro forze armate. L’Organizzazione
marittima internazionale (IMO) ha emanato una serie di orientamenti in merito destinati agli armatori e agli operatori
e ha prodotto un questionario per gli Stati di approdo e gli Stati costieri per identificare la legislazione e le pratiche
adottate in materia.

EUNAVFOR Atalanta fornisce pattuglie di protezione militare alle navi vulnerabili in transito al largo delle coste della
Somalia, in particolare quelle noleggiate nel quadro del programma alimentare mondiale. Lo status del personale
militare a bordo delle pattuglie è disciplinato dagli accordi sullo status delle forze armate conclusi dall’UE con gli Stati
della regione, in particolare Gibuti, le Seychelles e la Somalia. In Kenya, le pattuglie sono protette ai sensi di una
dichiarazione unilaterale del governo del paese. Lo status è applicabile solo al personale e alle unità che operano sotto
il comando e il controllo di EUNAVFOR.

La questione dello status e delle migliori pratiche in merito al personale di sicurezza a bordo di navi mercantili è
oggetto di discussioni nel comitato «Sicurezza marittima» dell’IMO e con il gruppo di contatto sulla pirateria al largo
delle coste della Somalia.

La Commissione ritiene auspicabile l’applicazione di regole uniformi per l’impiego sia di pattuglie di protezione per le
navi che di personale di sicurezza armato assunto privatamente a bordo delle navi. Si impegna a favore della
definizione di tali regole in primo luogo al livello internazionale dell’IMO. In caso contrario, sarà valutata la possibilità
di elaborare regole uniformi all’interno dell’UE, da applicare sia alle navi battenti bandiera dell’Unione europea che
alle imprese che forniscono personale di sicurezza privato a protezione delle navi.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 457

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003494/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fight against piracy

We are all unfortunately aware of the case of the two Italian marines held in prison in the State of Kerala in India,
awaiting trial. The men were part of an anti-piracy military protection unit on the tanker ‘Enrica Lexie’. The Italian
press has criticised the lack of protection agreements with coastal countries, which should have followed on from the
law of July 2011 establishing an anti-piracy service, for the stationing and transit of Navy riflemen who are members
of protective units. The incident in India is emblematic of this lack of prior agreements.

Does the Commission

1. Have any information about the measures taken to protect vessels and their crews by other EU States whose
ships have been affected by acts of piracy?

2. If so, can it state whether the protection is provided by military personnel?

3. Is it aware of any protection agreements entered into with coastal countries?

4. Does it not believe that, as long as there is a possible risk of attacks by pirates, it would be appropriate to
propose uniform rules of conduct to the Member States for the protection of crews and military protection units with
regard to coastal countries?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(11 June 2013)_

Practice among Member States with regard to the protection of merchant vessels flying their flag from the scourge of
piracy varies. Some have either amended or adopted legislation to authorise private security guards aboard their
vessels, others rely on protection teams of their armed forces. The international Maritime Organisation (IMO) has
issued guidance with regard to the operation of such security details to ship owners and operators and a questionnaire
to port and coastal States to identify legislation and practice in this regard.

EUNAVFOR Atalanta has been providing military Vessel Protection Detachments (VPD) to vulnerable shipping off
the coast of Somalia, in particular ships chartered by the World Food Programme. The status of the military personnel
of such VPD is governed by the Status of Forces Agreements concluded with States in the region by the EU, notably
with Djibouti, the Seychelles and Somalia. In Kenya, the VPDs are protected under the terms of a unilateral Kenyan
governmental declaration. This status is available only to personnel and units operating under the Command and
control of EUNAVFOR.

The issue of status and best practices with regard to security personnel on board merchant vessels is being discussed
within the Maritime Security Committee of the IMO and the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia.

The Commission believes that uniform rules for the use of both VPDs and privately contracted armed security
personnel (PCASPs) on board ships would be desirable. The Commission is striving for such rules to be set firstly at
the international level by IMO. If not possible, the development of uniform rules within the EU, applying to both EUflagged ships and EU companies providing PCASPs to ships, will be considered.

C 12 E / 458 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003495/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Necessità che la Commissione tuteli la portabilità dei telefoni cellulari

La portabilità del numero di telefono cellulare, sancita dalla legislazione europea, è messa a rischio, in Italia, dalla
richiesta di limitare il diritto alla portabilità rivolta dalle compagnie telefoniche all'AgCom.

Le compagnie lamentano che la portabilità le espone a pratiche truffaldine da parte dei consumatori, i quali ricorrono
al cambio di gestore telefonico per non pagare gli importi dovuti. Tuttavia, se da un lato nel Codice Civile sono
disponibili tutti gli strumenti di rivalsa contro i clienti morosi, dall'altro la richiesta di limitare il diritto del
consumatore di cambiare azienda fornitrice comporterebbe il rischio che quest'ultima possa in qualche modo
trattenere il cliente sulla base di presunte irregolarità.

Intende la Commissione vigilare affinché non si verifichino violazioni dei diritti dei consumatori in relazione al diritto
alla portabilità sancito dalla direttiva europea 98/61/CE?

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(21 maggio 2013)_

La Commissione si impegna a garantire la piena attuazione da parte di tutti gli Stati membri delle norme dell’UE,
compreso il diritto alla portabilità del numero in un giorno conformemente alla direttiva sul servizio universale.

L'articolo 30, paragrafo 4, della direttiva prevede che le autorità nazionali di regolamentazione delle
telecomunicazioni stabiliscano la procedura per la portabilità del numero, tenendo conto delle disposizioni nazionali
in materia di contratti, della fattibilità tecnica e della necessità di assicurare all'abbonato la continuità del servizio. In
ogni caso, l’interruzione del servizio durante l'espletamento della procedura non dovrebbe superare un giorno
lavorativo. Le autorità nazionali devono garantire la tutela degli abbonati durante l'intera procedura di trasferimento,
evitando altresì il trasferimento ad altro operatore contro la loro volontà. Ai sensi dell’articolo 30, paragrafo 6, della
direttiva citata, gli Stati membri hanno l'obbligo di provvedere affinché le condizioni e le procedure di risoluzione del
contratto non agiscano da disincentivo al cambiamento del fornitore di servizi.

Secondo le informazioni a disposizione della Commissione, le regole applicabili in Italia ( [1] ) stabiliscono chiaramente
che la portabilità del numero non pregiudica gli obblighi contrattuali concernenti la relazione dell’abbonato con
l’operatore _donating_, mentre quest’ultimo può respingere la richiesta soltanto in casi specifici che non includono le
violazioni contrattuali, a meno che la disattivazione del numero trasferito sia sancita da un provvedimento
giudiziario.

La Commissione continuerà a seguire da vicino l’evolversi della situazione per quanto concerne l’efficace attuazione
in Italia della legislazione dell’UE in materia di portabilità del numero.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Delibera n. 147/11/CIR.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 459

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003495/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Need for the Commission to protect the portability of mobile telephone numbers

The portability of mobile telephone numbers, as provided for by EU legislation, is being put at risk in Italy by a
request to AgCom by the telephone companies to limit the right of portability.

The companies complain that portability exposes them to fraudulent practices on the part of consumers, who change
operator to avoid paying the sums owed. However, while the Italian Civil Code provides all measures for recovering
debts from defaulting customers, the request to limit consumers’ right to change supplier entails the risk that the
supplier might in some way restrain the customer on the grounds of alleged unlawful behaviour.

Does the Commission intend to ensure that there are no violations of consumers’ rights in relation to the right of
portability set out in Directive 98/61/EC?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2013)_

The Commission is committed to ensuring full implementation by all Member States of EU rules including the right
to number portability within one day in accordance with the Universal Service Directive.

Article 30(4) of that directive gives national telecom regulators the task of establishing the process of number
portability, taking into account national provisions on contracts, technical feasibility and the need to maintain
continuity of service to the subscriber. In any event, loss of service during the process should not exceed one working
day. National authorities need to ensure that subscribers are protected throughout the switching process and are not
switched to another provider against their will. Under Article 30(6) of this directive Member States have to ensure that
conditions and procedures for contract termination do not act as a disincentive against changing service provider.

According to information available to the Commission, the rules applicable in Italy ( [1] ) make it clear that number
portability does not affect any contractual claim concerning the relationship of the subscriber with the donating
operator, while the latter can refuse the request only in specified cases that do not include contractual breaches unless
deactivation of the ported number is imposed by judicial order.

The Commission will continue to monitor any further developments regarding the effective implementation of EU
legislation regarding number portability in Italy.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Delibera n. 147/11/CIR.

C 12 E / 460 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003496/13**

**aan de Commissie**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**
_(27 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Videogames — stand van zaken pan-Europese gedragscode en leeftijdsverificatie

In haar mededeling over videospellen en de bescherming van minderjarigen van 22 april 2008 riep de Commissie alle
belanghebbenden die betrokken zijn bij de detailhandel in videospellen op om binnen twee jaar overeenstemming te
bereiken over een pan-Europese gedragscode inzake de verkoop van spellen aan minderjarigen.

Ook erkende de Commissie dat online-videospellen nieuwe uitdagingen met zich meebrengen, zoals doeltreffende
systemen voor leeftijdsverificatie, en riep zij de lidstaten en belanghebbenden op om samen aan innoverende
oplossingen te werken;

In zijn resolutie van 12 maart 2009 verzocht het Europees Parlement de lidstaten ook om passende maatregelen te
nemen om te voorkomen dat kinderen spellen kopen en spelen die geclassificeerd zijn voor een hogere leeftijdsgroep,
bijvoorbeeld door middel van identiteitscontroles. Het voorstel van de Commissie om een pan-Europese gedragscode
voor detailhandelaars en producenten van videospellen in te voeren, werd ook nadrukkelijk onderschreven.

— Hoe staat het inmiddels met de gedragscode voor detailhandel en de naleving ervan?

— Hoe beoordeelt de Commissie de huidige situatie wat betreft de toegankelijkheid van online games voor
minderjarigen die volgens de PEGI classificatie niet tot de doelgroep behoren?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Kroes namens de Commissie**

_(15 mei 2013)_

In het verslag „Bescherming van kinderen in de digitale wereld” ( [1] ) van de Commissie uit 2011 wordt aangegeven dat
„de door de lidstaten gegeven antwoorden de noodzaak verder bevestigen om meer actie te ondernemen als het gaat
om de detailhandel van videospellen teneinde de verkoop van videospellen aan minderjarigen aan te pakken. In
slechts zes lidstaten en Noorwegen waren er bewustmakingsmaatregelen op dit gebied en in slechts vier lidstaten
hebben detailhandelaren relevante gedragscodes toegepast.”

In de Europese Strategie voor een beter internet voor kinderen ( [2] ) benadrukt de Commissie het belang van een
algemeen toepasbare, transparante en consistente aanpak voor leeftijdclassificaties voor de hele EU. Deze aanpak zou
ouders duidelijke informatie moeten bieden over leeftijdscategorieën voor online spelletjes, apps en andere inhoud. Er
moet worden gezocht naar innovatieve oplossingen, bijvoorbeeld classificatie door gebruikers of automatische
classificatie.

Het PEGI (Pan-European Game Information System) heeft zich aangepast aan de onlineomgeving. Zo heeft het in juli
2012 „PEGI for APPS” geïntroduceerd, dat is ontworpen om leeftijdsclassificaties eveneens toe te passen op
platformen waar kleine softwareapplicaties, zoals spelletjes, kunnen worden gedownload en gebruikt. Een van de
uitdagingen in dit opzicht houdt verband met het feit dat sommige grote operatoren van internetplatformen hun
eigen classificaties hanteren en niet die van het PEGI.

De betrokkenheid van de sector is belangrijk om de doelstellingen te verwezenlijken: naar aanleiding van een oproep
van de Commissie hebben 31 bedrijven toegezegd ( [3] ) om aan concrete maatregelen te werken, met inbegrip van een
ruimer gebruik van inhoudsclassificaties.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0209:NL:NOT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-445_en.htm?locale=en.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/better-internet-kids-ceo-coalition-1-year.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 461

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003496/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**
_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Video games — status of the pan-European code of conduct and age verification

In its communication on the protection of consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games of
22 April 2008, the Commission called on all stakeholders involved in the sale of video games in retail shops to agree
within two years on a pan-European code of conduct on the sale of games to minors.

The Commission also recognised that online video games bring new challenges, such as effective age verification
systems and called upon Member States and stakeholders to work together on innovative solutions.

In its resolution of 12 March 2009, the European Parliament also called on the Member States to put in place
adequate measures to prevent children buying and playing games which are rated for a higher age level, for example
through identity checks. The resolution also emphatically supported the Commission’s proposal to introduce a panEuropean code of conduct for retailers and producers of video games.

— What is the current situation with regard to the code of conduct for retailers and compliance therewith?

— What is the Commission’s assessment of the current situation with regard to access to online games for minors
who do not fall within the target group under the PEGI classification?

**Answer given by Ms Kroes on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

The Commission's 2011 report ‘Protecting Children in the Digital World’ ( [1] ) indicates that ‘the replies given by the
Member States furthermore confirm the need for more action on the retail sale of video games in shops in order to
deal with the “underage” sale of video games. There have been relevant awareness raising measures in six Member
States and Norway only and in only four Member States retailers have implemented relevant codes of conduct’.

In the European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children ( [2] ), the Commission underlines the importance of having a
generally applicable, transparent and consistent approach to age ratings EU-wide. It should give parents information
on understandable age-categories applied to online games, apps and other content. Innovative solutions should be
explored e.g. rating by users or automated rating.

PEGI — Pan-European Game Information System — has been adapting to the online environment. In particular, in
July 2012 it introduced ‘PEGI for APPS’, designed to bring the age ratings to platforms where small software
applications, including games, can be downloaded and used. One of the challenges in this respect is the fact that some
major Internet platform operators use their own proprietary ratings rather than PEGI.

Engagement by industry is important to reach the aims: following invitation by the Commission 31 companies have
made commitments ( [3] ) to work on concrete actions, including wider use of content classification.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0556:EN:NOT.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-445_en.htm?locale=en.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/better-Internet-kids-ceo-coalition-1-year.

C 12 E / 462 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003497/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Mecanismos de financiamento inovadores

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0177/2010, o senhor Comissário Algirdas Šemeta declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «A Comissão Europeia está a examinar mecanismos de financiamento inovadores a nível global, tal como
solicitado pelo Conselho Europeu em outubro de 2009».

1. Que mecanismos de financiamento inovadores examinou a Comissão a nível global?

2. Que mecanismos parecem à Comissão mais adequados à estrutura e às circunstâncias da União Europeia?

3. Que principais benefícios e riscos destaca a Comissão?

4. Que medidas tomou ou prevê a Comissão tomar no sentido de esses mecanismos poderem vir a ser postos em
prática?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de maio de 2013)_

1. Em abril de 2010, foi publicado ( [1] )um documento de trabalho dos serviços da Comissão relativo ao
financiamento inovador a nível mundial. Este documento discute os benefícios e os custos de uma série de
instrumentos de financiamento e incide, em termos gerais, sobre as questões levantadas pelo Senhor Deputado.

Além disso, em 25 de março de 2013, a Comissão publicou um Livro Verde sobre o financiamento a longo prazo da
economia Europeia ( [2] ), no qual procede a uma reflexão em matéria de fontes de financiamento inovadoras.

2. Ver 4.

3. Cada opção configura o seu próprio conjunto de benefícios e riscos, constantes dos relatórios.

4. O financiamento da União através de recursos próprios é regulamentado nos termos das regras consignadas no
Tratado (artigo 310.° do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia). Para o período de 2014, a Comissão
apresentou uma proposta ( [3] ) com vista a adaptar o sistema em vigor, designadamente apresentando uma definição
mais simples e transparente dos recursos próprios baseados no IVA e incluindo um recurso próprio baseado num
imposto sobre as transações financeiras ( [4] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Para mais informações consultar:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/articles/international/2010-04-06-global_innovative_financing_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 150 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 739 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Um sistema comum de imposto sobre transações financeiras constitui o objeto de uma iniciativa distinta conduzida pela Comissão. Todos os

documentos relativos a essa iniciativa estão publicados no seguinte endereço eletrónico:
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/index_en.htm

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 463

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003497/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Innovative financing

In answer to my Question E-0177/2010, Commissioner Šemeta stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘The
European Commission is examining innovative financing at a global level following a request by the European
Council in October 2009.’

1. What innovative global-level financing has the Commission examined?

2. What financing does the Commission consider to be best suited to the EU’s structure and circumstances?

3. What are the main benefits and risks that the Commission would highlight?

4. What measures has the Commission taken or does it plan to take to actually implement this financing?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

1. In April 2010, a Commission Staff Working Document on innovative finance at a global level has been
published ( [1] ): This document discusses the benefits and costs of a number of financing instruments and covers in
general terms the issues raised by the honourable Member of Parliament.

Moreover, on 25 March 2013 the Commission published a Green Paper on long-term financing of the European
economy ( [2] ) where reflection is given to innovative sources of finance.

2. See 4.

3. Each option contained its own set of benefits and risks which are spelled out in the reports.

4. The financing of the Union through own resources is regulated in Treaty rules (Article 310 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union). For the period as from 2014, the Commission has made a proposal ( [3] ) with a
view to adapt the current system, notably through a simpler and more transparent definition of the VAT based own
resource and the inclusion of an own resource based on a financial transaction tax ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For all details see http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/articles/international/2010-04-06-global_innovative_financing_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013)150 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 739 final.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) A common system of financial transaction tax forms the object of a separate initiative pursued by the Commission. All documents relating to that

initiative are published here: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 464 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003498/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Estágios profissionais — função e qualidade

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000831/2013, o senhor Comissário László Andor declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que, «No âmbito deste pacote de medidas, foi igualmente lançada uma consulta dos parceiros sociais sobre um quadro
de qualidade para os estágios, destinado a garantir que os estágios servem realmente de trampolim para o emprego.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Obteve muitos contributos por parte dos parceiros sociais?

—
Quais deles destaca? Quais as principais linhas das propostas recebidas?

—
Dispõe de dados sobre quantas pessoas ingressaram no mercado de trabalho por via dos estágios profissionais
realizados? E sobre a qualidade da formação ministrada no seu decurso?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão recebeu nove contributos dos parceiros sociais a nível europeu e dois de organizações de parceiros
sociais nacionais.

A consulta confirmou o apoio à ideia de um quadro de qualidade para os estágios, mas não conduziu a negociações
entre os parceiros sociais sobre esta matéria. A CES manifestou a sua disponibilidade para negociar com os
empregadores um acordo autónomo, ao abrigo do artigo 154.° do TFUE. No entanto, a BusinessEurope e outras
organizações de empregadores consideram que os estágios profissionais devem ser tratados no quadro das ações dos
parceiros sociais europeus para combater o emprego dos jovens, e não ao abrigo do artigo 154.° do TFUE.

A Comissão não dispõe de dados sobre o número de pessoas que entraram no mercado de trabalho graças à
participação num estágio. No entanto, 16 % dos inquiridos num estudo realizado pelo Fórum Europeu da Juventude
em 2011 afirmaram terem sido recrutados pela organização que lhes facultou um estágio profissional e outros 18 %
consideraram que os estágios os tinham ajudado a encontrar um emprego junto de outra empresa. Embora estas
considerações possam não ter por base critérios quantitativos absolutamente objetivos, 75 a 80 % dos inquiridos
nesse estudo classificaram a qualidade dos seus estágios como satisfatória, boa ou excelente, em termos do conteúdo
da aprendizagem, do desempenho do mentor e da compensação/remuneração.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 465

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003498/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Professional traineeships — role and quality

In answer to my Question E-000831/2013, Commissioner Andor stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘[t]he

[Youth Employment Package] also launched a social partner consultation on a Quality Framework for Traineeships to
ensure that traineeships really serve as a stepping stone to a job.’

—
Has the Commission had many contributions from social partners?

—
Which contributions are particularly significant and what are the main areas in which proposals have been
received?

—
Does the Commission have any figures on the number of people who have entered the labour market via a
traineeship and on the quality of training that these provide?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

The Commission has received nine contributions from European-level social partners and two contributions from
national social-partner organisations.

The consultation has confirmed the support for the idea of a quality framework for traineeships, but has not led to
social-partner negotiations on this subject. ETUC has expressed its readiness to negotiate with the employers on an
autonomous agreement under Article 154 TFEU. However, BusinessEurope and other employers’ organisations
consider that traineeships should be dealt with as part of the European social partners' framework of actions to tackle
youth employment rather than under Article 154 TFEU.

The Commission has no figures on the number of people who have entered the labour market thanks to a traineeship.
However, 16% of the respondents to a survey conducted by the European Youth Forum in 2011 said they were
recruited by the organisation that gave them a traineeship, and another 18% felt that their traineeships had helped
them to find a job with another company. While their assessments may not be based on wholly objective quantitative
criteria, 75 to 80% of the respondents to that survey rated the quality of their traineeships as satisfactory, good or
excellent, on the basis of learning content, mentor performance and compensation/pay.

C 12 E / 466 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003499/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Pagamentos Contactless — Projetos-piloto

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-0470/2010, o senhor Comissário Michel Barnier declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «No que respeita aos pagamentos Contactless, nomeadamente através de telemóveis, estão em curso na Europa
(Reino Unido, Itália, França, Alemanha, Polónia e Espanha) alguns projetos-piloto.»

1. Dispõe a Comissão de informações acerca dos projetos-piloto em curso?

2. Que resultados destaca a Comissão?

3. Que riscos identifica a Comissão?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(6 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão está a acompanhar de perto a evolução do mercado dos cartões «sem contacto» (contactless) e dos
pagamentos móveis. Após análise dos resultados de uma consulta pública sobre o Livro Verde ( [1] ), realizada em 2012,
a Comissão tenciona facilitar e acelerar os esforços no sentido da normalização e da interoperabilidade no setor dos
pagamentos móveis. Ainda este ano, deverão ser anunciadas ações concretas, no âmbito da proposta de revisão da
Diretiva Serviços de Pagamento (2007/64/CE) ( [2] ).

1. Atualmente, muitos dos projetos da UE no domínio dos pagamentos baseiam-se, em grande medida, nos
pagamentos por cartão sem contacto. Em vez de inserir um cartão de pagamento no terminal de retalhista, o titular
do cartão aproxima simplesmente o seu cartão do dispositivo. Em função do montante da transação, poderá ser
solicitado um código pessoal. A aplicação que permite o pagamento com um cartão desse tipo pode também ser
incorporada num telemóvel. A Comissão investigou recentemente (no âmbito do Regulamento Concentrações) o
maior desses projetos, o WEVE, um empreendimento conjunto entre as principais empresas de telecomunicações do
Reino Unido. Este projeto foi aprovado sem condições suplementares.

2. O mercado dos pagamentos móveis continua a estar numa fase de desenvolvimento muito precoce, com o
surgimento de inúmeras soluções nacionais ou locais que procuram chamar a atenção dos consumidores e dos
restantes utilizadores. Ainda não se destacou nenhuma solução de mercado claramente vencedora ou que se
sobreponha às restantes, embora os pagamentos por cartão utilizando o telemóvel estejam a ser fortemente
promovidos pelos sistemas internacionais de cartões de pagamento.

3. O principal risco identificado pela Comissão é a ausência de normas abertas, o que conduz à fragmentação do
mercado e, por conseguinte, a soluções que não serão perfeitas em termos de custo, eficiência e alcance do mercado.
Outro risco é o desenvolvimento de modelos de pagamento móvel com base nas comissões interbancárias,
dominante nos sistemas de pagamento por cartão, o que teria um impacto negativo em termos das tarifas cobradas
aos utilizadores dos serviços de pagamento.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Para um mercado europeu integrado dos pagamentos por cartão, por Internet e por telemóvel» — COM(2011) 941 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 319 de 5.12.2007, p. 1.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 467

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003499/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Contactless payments — pilot projects

In answer to my Question E-0470/2010, Commissioner Barnier stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘As far as
contactless payments are concerned, in particular via mobile phones, a certain number of pilot projects are ongoing
in Europe, notably in the United Kingdom, Italy, France, Germany, Poland and Spain.’

1. Does the Commission have any information about the ongoing pilot projects?

2. What results would the Commission highlight?

3. What risks has the Commission identified?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission is closely following the developments in the contactless cards and m-payments markets. After
analysing the results of a public consultation on the Green Paper ( [1] ) in 2012, the Commission intends to facilitate and
accelerate the standardisation and interoperability efforts in the mobile payments sector. Concrete actions should be
announced with the proposal for the revised Payment Services Directive (2007/64/EC) ( [2] ) later this year.

1. Currently many payment projects in the EU are largely based on contactless card payments. Instead of inserting
a payment card in the retailer's terminal, the cardholder moves it close to the device. Depending of the amount of the
transaction, a personal code can be requested. The card payment application can also be embedded in a mobile
phone. The Commission investigated recently (under the Merger Regulation) the largest of such projects, WEVE, a
joint venture between the major telecommunication companies in the UK. It was approved without further
conditions.

2. The mobile payments market is still in a very early development stage, with numerous national or local
solutions emerging and competing for the attention of consumers and other users. No clear market winners or
prevailing payment solutions have emerged, though card-based payments through mobile phones are heavily
promoted by the international card schemes.

3. The main risk identified by the Commission is an absence of open standards, leading to market fragmentation
and therefore suboptimal solutions in terms of costs, efficiency and market reach. Another risk is the development of
m-payment models based on the interchange fees, dominant in the card payments, which would have negative
impact on charges for payment service users.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, Internet and mobile payments’ — COM(2011) 941 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 319/1 from 05 December 2007.

C 12 E / 468 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003500/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Apoios à reconversão de motores

Numa reunião recente que tive com o Sindicato dos Trabalhadores da Pesca do Centro, em Peniche, um dos temas
abordados foi o da reconversão de motores, tendo em vista uma maior eficiência energética e poupança de
combustível. Foi referida, em particular, a possível adaptação dos motores para o gás natural.

Solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre que programas e medidas podem apoiar esta reconversão, quer no atual
Quadro Financeiro Plurianual quer no próximo (2014-2020), e quais as taxas de cofinanciamento previstas.

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de junho de 2013)_

No presente período de programação, a conversão dos motores poderá ser elegível ao abrigo do Regulamento (CE)
n.° 1198/2006 do Conselho, relativo ao Fundo Europeu das Pescas (FEP). O artigo 25.°, n.° 2, cobre os investimentos
que permitam melhorar a eficiência energética, desde que não aumentem a capacidade de captura do navio. No seu
Relatório Especial n.° 12/2011, contudo, o Tribunal de Contas Europeu ( [1] ) indicou que o investimento na eficiência
energética poderá, na realidade, resultar num aumento da capacidade de captura.

O Programa Operacional (PO) do FEP para Portugal prevê o apoio a soluções técnicas que permitam reduzir as
emissões poluentes, aumentando assim a eficiência energética. Em conformidade tanto com o Regulamento FEP
como com o PO para Portugal, a intensidade máxima dos auxílios para essas medidas será de 40 %, o que implica que
o beneficiário final deverá contribuir com um mínimo de 60 %. A taxa de cofinanciamento prevista para medidas
deste tipo é de 75 % do montante total do apoio público.

A Comissão está a procurar dar resposta, no que respeita ao período 2014-2020, às preocupações suscitadas pelo
Tribunal de Contas Europeu. A proposta da Comissão relativa ao Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e das
Pescas (FEAMP) refere explicitamente a necessidade de não aumentar a capacidade de pesca e prevê também que os
investimentos ligados à modernização da frota deverão ser limitados e estar associados a objetivos claramente
definidos. O FEAMP não prevê, portanto, disposições de apoio à substituição dos motores. No entanto, as propostas
da Comissão incluem a possibilidade de apoio a investimentos a bordo concebidos para aumentar a eficiência
energética e também a possibilidade de ajudas para a mudança de arte de pesca de uma forma que dê efetivamente
resposta ao problema do consumo de combustível. O FEAMP encontra-se atualmente em discussão perante o
Conselho e o Parlamento.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Relatório Especial n.° 12/2011 do Tribunal de Contas, «As medidas da UE contribuíram para adaptar a capacidade das frotas de pesca às
possibilidades de pesca disponíveis?».

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 469

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003500/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Support for engine reconditioning

One of the issues covered at my recent meeting with the Union of Fishery Workers of Central Portugal (STPC) in
Peniche was the reconditioning of engines to make them more energy-efficient and to save fuel. In particular, we
discussed the possible conversion of engines to run on natural gas.

Can the Commission say what programmes and measures could support this reconditioning, either under the present
multiannual financial framework or the next one (2014-2020), and what co-financing rates it envisages.

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

In the current programming period, conversion of engines can be eligible under Council Regulation (EC)
No 1198/2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (EFF). Article 25.2 covers investments improving energy efficiency
provided that they do not increase the ability of the vessels to catch fish. In its Special Report 12/2011, however, the
European Court of Auditors ( [1] ) pointed out that investments in energy-efficient engines could in practice increase the
ability to catch fish.

The EFF Operational Programme (OP) of Portugal foresees support for technical solutions resulting in the reduction
of pollutant emissions, thus increasing energy efficiency. In line with both the EFF regulation and the Portuguese OP,
the aid intensity for such actions is maximum 40%, meaning that the final beneficiary's contribution should be at least
60%. The co-financing rate foreseen for such actions is 75% of the total amount of public support.

For the 2014-2020 period, the Commission is seeking to address the concerns raised by the European Court of
Auditors. The Commission proposal for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) makes an explicit
reference to ‘non-increase of fishing capacity’ and also foresees that investments linked to vessel modernisation
should be restricted and linked to clearly defined objectives. Thus, the EMFF does not include provisions for support
for engine replacement. Nevertheless, Commission's proposal does include support for on-board investments
designed to improve energy efficiency and aid for change of fishing gear as a way to effectively address fuel
consumption. Discussions in Council and Parliament on the EMFF are ongoing.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Court of Auditors Special Report No 12/2011 Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available
fishing opportunities?.

C 12 E / 470 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003501/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Apoios comunitários à construção naval

Relativamente aos apoios à construção naval, oriundos do orçamento da UE, solicito à Comissão que me informe
sobre o seguinte:

1. Que apoios foram dirigidos à construção naval no âmbito do 7°. Programa-Quadro? Quais as empresas de
construção naval envolvidas e de que países são essas empresas?

2. Foi concedido algum apoio comunitário à construção naval no quadro de algum outro programa que não o
Programa-Quadro?

3. Que possíveis apoios comunitários à construção naval estão previstos na proposta de Quadro Financeiro
Plurianual 2014-2020?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

1. O apoio à construção naval no âmbito do 7.° Programa-Quadro de atividades de investigação, desenvolvimento
tecnológico e demonstração (7.° PQ, 2007-2013) insere-se na rubrica «Transportes de superfície sustentáveis». É
difícil, contudo, quantificar exatamente os apoios de que beneficiaram estaleiros navais e construtores de
equipamento naval, uma vez que os projetos envolvem geralmente parceiros de vários segmentos do setor marítimo e
universidades. As dotações financeiras variam, assim, de projeto para projeto. Os apoios dirigem-se às tecnologias de
construção naval e aos navios, mas contemplam igualmente as máquinas, os sistemas de navegação avançados, os
materiais, a segurança e a eficiência energética.

O apoio ao subsetor do transporte por via aquática, no âmbito do 7.° PQ, cifrou-se em cerca de 240 milhões de euros,
o que representa cerca de 28 % do apoio proporcionado a projetos no setor dos transportes. O número de projetos do
7.° PQ neste subsetor ronda os 65.

Entre os participantes nos projetos contam-se estaleiros navais (reparação e construção) de todos os EstadosMembros interessados, bem como da Croácia, da Noruega e da Turquia.

2. Não houve outros apoios comunitários diretos ao setor da construção naval.

3. Está previsto que o apoio direto à investigação e inovação no setor da construção naval, no âmbito do Quadro
Financeiro Plurianual para 2014-2020, provenha de novo maioritariamente do orçamento da investigação e
inovação. As oportunidades de financiamento ao abrigo do Horizonte 2020, o novo programa-quadro da UE para a
investigação e a inovação, inscrever-se-ão na parte III (desafios societais), rubrica 4 (transportes inteligentes,
ecológicos e integrados). Como as negociações interinstitucionais sobre o programa Horizonte 2020 estão ainda a
decorrer, é demasiado cedo para definir que domínios específicos de investigação poderão ficar abrangidos.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 471

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003501/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU support for shipbuilding

With regard to EU budgetary support for shipbuilding:

1. What support has been allocated to shipbuilding under the Seventh Framework Programme? Which
shipbuilding companies are involved and which countries are these companies from?

2. Has EU support for shipbuilding been granted under any programme other than the framework Programme?

3. What possible EU support for shipbuilding is provided for in the draft Multiannual Financial Framework 2014‐
2020?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

1. In the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities
(FP7, 2007-2013), support for shipbuilding has been provided under the ‘Sustainable Surface Transport’ heading.
However, the exact benefit for shipyards and marine equipment manufacturers is difficult to establish as projects are
generally undertaken with partners from various maritime sectors and from academia. Financial allocations vary
therefore from project to project. The support concerns shipbuilding technologies and vessels but also includes
aspects such as marine engines, safety, advanced navigation systems, energy efficiency, materials etc.

In FP7, the waterborne transport sector was funded with ca. EUR 240 mio, which represents ca. 28% of the funding
for transport projects. The number of FP7 projects in waterborne transport is ca. 65.

Among the project participants are shipyards from all relevant Member States plus Croatia, Norway and Turkey
(covering both the repair and new building segments).

2. There has been no other direct EU support to the shipbuilding industry.

3. It is expected that in the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020, direct support for shipbuilding
Research and Innovation activities will again come mainly from the research and innovation budget. Funding
opportunities under Horizon 2020, the next EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, would be in
part III — Societal Challenges, ‘4. Smart, green and integrated transport’. However, since the interinstitutional
negotiations on Horizon 2020 are still ongoing, it is too early to define the specific research issues that could be
addressed.

C 12 E / 472 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003502/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Execução do eixo 4 do Promar (FEP) e reprogramação do Promar

Pergunto à Comissão se dispõe de informação atualizada relativa às taxas de execução do eixo 4 do Promar, em
especial na região do Algarve. Discutiu recentemente alguma reprogramação do Promar com o governo português?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

As autoridades portuguesas decidiram atribuir ao eixo 4 (desenvolvimento sustentável das zonas de pesca) do
Programa Operacional Pesca (Promar), para o período 2007-2013, um montante de 17,4 milhões de euros. Cada um
dos sete grupos de ação costeira tem ao seu dispor 2,3 milhões de euros, em média, provenientes do Fundo Europeu
das Pescas (FEP) ( [1] ), para desenvolver a sua estratégia territorial. No quadro da revisão em curso do Promar, está
prevista a redução em 0,7 milhões de euros das dotações FEP afetas ao eixo 4, em resultado de a Região Autónoma
dos Açores ter optado por não aplicar esta medida.

Em finais de fevereiro de 2013, os grupos de ação costeira tinham afetado 58,7 % dos montantes disponíveis e a taxa
de execução situava-se em 11 % do orçamento total. As taxas de execução dos dois grupos de ação costeira do
Algarve, o GAC Barlavento do Algarve e o GAC Sotavento do Algarve, eram de 7 % e 10,7 % respetivamente.

Caso pretenda obter mais informações, o Senhor Deputado deverá dirigir-se à Autoridade de Gestão portuguesa ( [2] ), a
quem incumbe a responsabilidade pela gestão e execução do programa operacional. O texto do Programa
Operacional Pesca 2007-2013 do FEP está disponível no sítio Web do governo português ( [3] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento (CE) n.° 1198/2006 do Conselho, de 27 de julho de 2006, JO L 223 de 15.8.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DGRM — Direção-Geral dos Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.promar.gov.pt/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 473

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003502/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Execution of Axis 4 of the Portuguese Fisheries Operational Programme (PROMAR) and the reprogramming
of this programme

Could the Commission provide updated information on the execution rates of Axis 4 of the Portuguese Fisheries
Operational Programme (PROMAR), particularly in the Algarve region? Has it recently discussed any reorganisation
of this programme with the Portuguese Government?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

For the period 2007-2013, the Portuguese authorities have chosen to allocate an amount of EUR 17.4 million to the
sustainable development of fisheries areas (Axis 4) inside of the Operational Programme for Fisheries in Portugal
(PROMAR). Each of the seven Fisheries Local Action Group has at its disposal in average EUR 2.3 million of the
European Fisheries Fund ( [1] ) (EFF) to develop their territorial strategies. The ongoing revision of the PROMAR
programme foresees a reduction of the EFF allocations to Axis 4 of EUR 0.7 million since the autonomous region of
Azores has opted not to apply this measure.

By the end of February 2013 the Fisheries Local Action Groups had committed 58.7% of the available amounts and
the level of execution was 11% of their total budget. The two Fisheries Local Action Groups from Algarve ‘GAC
Barlavento do Algarve’ and ‘GAC Sotavento do Algarve’ present the execution rates of 7% and 10.7% respectively.

Should the Honourable Member need further details, he is invited to contact the Portuguese Managing Authorities ( [2] ),
responsible for managing and implementing the Operational Programme. The text of the EFF Operational
Programme 2007-2013 is available on the Portuguese Government web page ( [3] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006, OJ L 223, 15.8.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DGRM — Direcção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.promar.gov.pt/

C 12 E / 474 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003503/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Fundo ORIO

O Fundo ORIO, financiado pelo Ministério das Relações Exteriores dos Países Baixos, apoia a realização de grandes
projetos de infraestrutura em diversos países. Este fundo prevê linhas de crédito no exterior e cobre parte do
financiamento para possibilitar a compra de bens, conhecimentos e competência técnica. Os governos de países
terceiros fazem o pedido, embora este possa ser iniciado por empresas privadas. Muitas empresas holandesas têm
beneficiado das linhas de crédito abertas por este fundo que, assim, apoia a aquisição por países terceiros de bens e
serviços produzidos ou prestados por estas empresas. É o caso da construção naval, por exemplo.

1. Tem a Comissão conhecimento da existência do Fundo ORIO, das quantias por ele já disponibilizadas e, bem
assim, dos montantes envolvidos na aquisição de bens e serviços (financiados pelo ORIO) a empresas holandesas?

2. Tem a Comissão conhecimento da existência de outros fundos, com objetivos idênticos, noutros países da UE?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento do mecanismo para o desenvolvimento de infraestruturas/ORIO financiado pelos
Países Baixos, mas não participa no seu cofinanciamento. A Comissão não dispõe de informações internas no que
respeita aos montantes disponibilizados através do programa ou aos montantes envolvidos na aquisição de bens e
serviços financiados pelo Fundo ORIO. No entanto, as informações sobre o orçamento do Fundo ORIO podem ser
consultadas no sítio Web do programa ( [1] ).

Em 2013 foi lançado um estudo com o objetivo, entre outros, de recolher informações sobre programas de
desenvolvimento de parcerias público-privadas semelhantes financiados pelos Estados-Membros e outros grandes
organismos de desenvolvimento. O estudo, relativo à participação do setor privado no desenvolvimento e ao
alargamento das atividades de financiamento misto da UE ( _Engaging the private sector in development and extending_
_blending activities of the EU)_, inclui, entre outros elementos, um recenseamento dos programas de colaboração públicoprivada que possam contribuir para a reflexão da Comissão em termos de saber onde e como a UE pode facilitar a
colaboração público-privada na cooperação externa. As primeiras conclusões do estudo deverão estar disponíveis no
final de 2013.

Nos diálogos políticos e processos de cooperação que a Comissão desenvolve com um certo número de países
terceiros (por exemplo, os países vizinhos mediterrânicos), a experiência e as boas práticas em matéria de parcerias
entre os setores público e privado são partilhadas, procurando‐se a máxima sinergia com as ações dos EstadosMembros neste domínio.

Por outro lado, a Comissão estabelece diálogos idênticos diretamente com os Estados-Membros, nomeadamente
através do Grupo de Peritos da UE com os Estados-Membros sobre o desenvolvimento do setor privado em países
terceiros ( [2] ), e a plataforma da UE para o financiamento misto na cooperação externa.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.agentschapnl.nl/en/onderwerp/background-information-orio
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2748&news=1&mod_groups=1&month=10&

year=2012

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 475

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003503/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Facility for Infrastructure Development (ORIO)

The Facility for Infrastructure Development (ORIO), funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, supports the
implementation of major infrastructure projects in a number of countries. ORIO provides credit lines abroad and
provides partial funding for the purchase of goods, knowledge and technical know-how. The governments of third
countries submit an application, although this can be started by private companies. Many Dutch companies have
benefitted from credit lines opened by ORIO, which thereby helps third countries buy goods produced and services
provided by these companies. That is the case with shipbuilding, for example.

1. Is the Commission aware of ORIO, the sums it has made available, and the sums involved in the purchasing of
ORIO-funded goods and services from Dutch companies?

2. Is the Commission aware of other funds with the same objectives in other Member States?

**Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_
The Commission is aware of the Facility for Infrastructure Development/ORIO funded by the Netherlands but does
not co-finance this facility. The Commission has no internal information about sums made available through the pro­
gramme and sums involved in the purchasing of ORIO ‐funded goods and services. However, information on the
ORIO budget can be found on the official website of the programme ( [1] ).

A study has just been launched in 2013 to, _inter alia,_ gather information on similar private-public development
partnership programmes funded by Member States and other major development agencies. This study ‘Engaging the
private sector in development and extending blending activities of the EU’ comprises, among other things, a mapping
of private-public collaboration programmes that should provide an input into the Commission’s thinking on where
and how the EU could facilitate private-public collaboration in external cooperation. The first conclusions of the
study are expected in late 2013.

In policy dialogues and cooperation processes that the Commission has with a number of third countries
(e.g. Mediterranean Neighbourhood countries), experience and good practice relating to public-private partnerships is
shared and maximum synergy with Member States' actions in this field is sought.

The Commission also holds similar dialogues with Member States directly, for instance through the EU Expert Group
with Member States on Private Sector Development in Third Countries ( [2] ), and the EU Platform for Blending in
External Cooperation.

( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.agentschapnl.nl/en/onderwerp/background-information-orio
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2748&news=1&mod_groups=1&month=10&

year=2012

C 12 E / 476 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003504/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Concursos públicos na área da construção naval divulgados no Jornal Oficial

Relativamente aos concursos públicos divulgados no Jornal Oficial da UE, na área da construção naval, solicito à
Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. Quantos concursos públicos internacionais na área da construção naval foram até à data anunciados no Jornal
Oficial?

2. Quais as nacionalidades das entidades adjudicantes?

3. Quais as nacionalidades das empresas que ganharam os concursos?

**Resposta dada por Michel Barnier em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

Desde o início de 2009, as entidades adjudicantes da União Europeia e do Espaço Económico Europeu publicaram
1 207 anúncios de adjudicação de contratos na área da construção naval (tal com especifica o grupo de códigos 345
do Vocabulário Comum para os Contratos Públicos (CPV) relativo a navios e barcos) no Jornal Oficial da União
Europeia.

A tabela em anexo apresenta uma repartição por Estado-Membro da entidade adjudicante e do país das empresas a
quem foram adjudicados contratos públicos. Tal está limitado aos contratos que contêm informações suficientes. Não
há qualquer indicação quanto ao país de origem do contratante vencedor em relação a 105 destes contratos. Os
anúncios de adjudicação não mencionam o país de origem de quaisquer subcontratantes.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 477

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003504/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Public tenders in the field of shipbuilding published in the Official Journal

With regard to public tenders in the field of shipbuilding published in the _Official Journal of the European Union_ :

1. How many international public tenders in the field of shipbuilding have been published in the Official Journal
to date?

2. What are the nationalities of the contracting authorities?

3. What are the nationalities of the companies that have won the tenders?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

Since the beginning of 2009 contracting authorities from the European Union and European Economic Area have
published 1 207 contract award notices in the field of shipbuilding (as identified by the Common Procurement
Vocabulary code group 345: ships and boats) in the Official Journal of the EU.

The table in annex gives the breakdown by Member State of the awarding authority and country of the companies
which won the contracts. This is limited to those contracts where sufficient information is provided. For 105 of these
contracts, there is no indication of the country of origin of the winning contractor. The notices do not record the
country of origin of any subcontractors.

C 12 E / 478 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003505/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ «A água é um direito humano» — Iniciativa da Federação Europeia dos Serviços Públicos

A Federação Europeia dos Serviços Públicos anunciou que mais de um milhão de cidadãos de vários países da UE já
subscreveu a sua iniciativa «A água é um direito humano». Esta iniciativa visa reconhecer e salvaguardar a água como
um bem público, cuja posse, propriedade e gestão devem ser públicas, rejeitando qualquer forma de privatização. A
iniciativa visa ainda a implementação das medidas necessárias para efetivar o direito à água e ao saneamento,
considerado um direito humano fundamental pela Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas.

Tendo em conta esta importante iniciativa e a impressionante mobilização que suscitou de mais de um milhão de
cidadãos de diferentes países, perguntamos à Comissão:

1. Que seguimento vai dar à iniciativa da Federação Europeia dos Serviços Públicos «A água é um direito
humano»?

2. Está disponível para rever a legislação pertinente, em especial no que diz respeito à contratação pública e às
concessões, a fim de garantir que a propriedade e a gestão da água, bem como das empresas de distribuição,
permaneçam no setor público?

3. Que outras iniciativas pensa desenvolver para garantir que a totalidade dos cidadãos, sem exclusões, possa
gozar do direito à água e ao saneamento?

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de maio de 2013)_

Os Senhores Deputados referem-se a uma proposta de iniciativa cívica que não foi apresentada à Comissão nos
termos do artigo 9.° do Regulamento sobre a iniciativa de cidadania ( [1] )

Por uma questão de princípio, a Comissão abstém-se de se pronunciar sobre iniciativas cujo processo de recolha de
assinaturas esteja a decorrer.

A Comissão continuará a explicar aos cidadãos a sua proposta sobre a adjudicação de contratos de concessão ( [2] ). No
que respeita à escolha de um regime de propriedade pública ou privada para gestão da água, tal como já
reiteradamente indicado, a Comissão mantém uma posição neutra, nos termos do artigo 345.° do TFUE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento (UE) n.° 211/2011 sobre a iniciativa de cidadania.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposta de Diretiva do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativa à adjudicação de contratos de concessão [COM(2011) 897 final].

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 479

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003505/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ ‘Water is a human right’ — European Federation of Public Service Unions initiative

The European Federation of Public Service Unions has announced that it has collected over one million signatures
from citizens of several EU countries for its ‘Water is a human right’ initiative. This initiative aims to recognise and
protect water as a public good, to support the public possession, ownership and management of water and to reject of
any form of privatisation. The initiative also aims to implement the measures needed to ensure the right to water and
sanitation, which the United Nations General Assembly considers a fundamental human right.

In the light of this important initiative and the impressive mobilisation of over a million citizens from several
countries:

1. What action will the Commission take regarding the European Federation of Public Service Unions initiative
‘Water is a human right’?

2. It is prepared to review the relevant legislation, particularly that on public procurement and concessions, to
ensure the continued public ownership and management of water and distribution companies?

3. What other initiatives will it develop to ensure that all citizens, without exception, can enjoy the right to water
and sanitation?

**Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Honourable Members are referring to a proposed citizens' initiative which has not been submitted to the
Commission in accordance with Article 9 of the regulation on the citizens' initiative ( [1] ).

As a matter of principle the Commission never pronounces itself on any registered initiative while the process of
collecting signatures is still ongoing.

The Commission will continue to explain to citizens its proposal on the award of concession contracts ( [2] ). With
regard to the choice of a regime of public or private ownership of water utilities, as it has indicated on several
occasions, the Commission maintains a neutral position in accordance with Article 345 of the TFEU.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the citizens' initiative.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the award of concession contracts — COM(2011) 897 final.

C 12 E / 480 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003506/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Grupos de Ação Costeira e Grupos de Ação Local

Numa reunião recente com responsáveis autárquicos fui alertado para algumas dúvidas relativamente ao futuro dos
Grupos de Ação Costeira (GAC — atual FEP, futuro FEAMP) e dos Grupos de Ação Local (GAL — Feader),
nomeadamente quanto a uma possível abordagem comum ou fusão. Sucede que se os GAC têm de corresponder a
um território com faixa litoral, já os GAL não podem ter litoral.

Assim, solicito à Comissão que me informe sobre o seguinte:

1. O que está previsto relativamente ao futuro dos GAC e dos GAL?

2. Que medidas irão ser tomadas para incentivar a criação e a atividade destes grupos?

3. Que recursos lhes irão ser afetados em termos de orçamento?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de junho de 2013)_

A partir de 2014, o desenvolvimento promovido pelas comunidades locais (DPCL) poderá ser apoiado não só pelo
Feader ( [1] ) (Leader) e pelo FEAMP ( [2] ), como também pelo FEDER ( [3] ) e pelo FSE ( [4] ). Os grandes princípios do DPCL são
estabelecidos no Regulamento Disposições Comuns ( [5] ) e complementados pelas regras específicas do Feader e do
FEAMP. As regras comuns para o DPCL deverão facilitar a aplicação de abordagens integradas entre os diferentes
Fundos.

No quadro da aplicação do DPCL pós-2013, um Estado-Membro ou região poderá decidir apoiar estratégias
financiadas por um único Fundo ou poderá dar aos Grupos de Ação Local (GAL) a possibilidade de combinar o
financiamento a partir de vários Fundos numa estratégia única e integrada. A Comissão já emitiu projetos de
orientação sobre o DPCL em intenção dos Estados-Membros ( [6] ), nos termos das quais estes deverão descrever as suas
abordagens no âmbito dos Acordos de Parceria. No entanto, e em última análise, caberá aos GAL decidir se optam por
uma estratégia financiada apenas por um ou por vários Fundos, caso o Estado-Membro envolvido permita essa
possibilidade.

Nos termos do FEAMP, os Grupos de Ação Local da Pesca (GALP) podem ser apoiados em todas as zonas de pesca,
tanto costeiras como em águas interiores. No caso do Feader, os GAL podem ser apoiados em todas as zonas rurais
definidas como tal pelo Estado-Membro envolvido.

Os Estados-Membros são encorajados a utilizar os seus respetivos orçamentos de assistência técnica ( [7] ) para prestar
informação às partes interessadas sobre a forma como o DPCL irá funcionar a partir de 2014 e a utilizar os
financiamentos disponíveis nesse contexto ( [8] ) para dar apoio à preparação de medidas de capacitação dos atores
locais, de criação de parcerias locais e de conceção de estratégias de desenvolvimento local.

As autoridades responsáveis pela gestão dos diferentes Fundos definirão o orçamento para os GALP e os GAL Leader.
O DPCL é voluntário ao abrigo do Fundo Europeu das Pescas ( [9] ) e da proposta relativa ao FEAMP. No que respeita ao
Feader, pelo menos 5 % dos fundos terão de ser afetados através do programa Leader.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural (ver: proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo ao apoio ao

desenvolvimento rural pelo Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural (COM(2011) 627 final/2).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e da Pesca (ver: proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo ao Fundo

Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e da Pesca (COM/2011/0804 final).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Fundo Social Europeu.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho que estabelece disposições comuns relativas ao Fundo Europeu de

Desenvolvimento Regional, ao Fundo Social Europeu e ao Fundo de Coesão, ao Fundo Europeu Agrícola de Desenvolvimento Rural e ao Fundo
Europeu para os Assuntos Marítimos e as Pescas, abrangidos pelo Quadro Estratégico Comum, e que estabelece disposições gerais relativas ao
Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional, ao Fundo Social Europeu e ao Fundo de Coesão, e que revoga o Regulamento (CE) n.° 1083/2006
do Conselho, COM(2011) 615 final, proposta alterada COM(2012) 496 final.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/experts_documents_en.cfm#3
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) No âmbito do FEP e do Feader (2007-2013).
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) No âmbito do Feader, do FEAMP, do FEDER e do FSE (2014-2020); ver o artigo 31.° da proposta relativa ao Regulamento Disposições Comuns.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) Durante o período de 2007-2013, em média, 13 % do orçamento do FEP foram utilizados para o desenvolvimento sustentável das pescas nos

vários Estados-Membros.

( **|**

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 481

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003506/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Coastal Action Groups and Local Action Groups

In a recent meeting with local authorities, my attention was drawn to doubts about the future of Coastal Action
Groups (CAGs — current European Fisheries Fund, and future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) and Local
Action Groups (LAGs — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development), in particular regarding a possible joint
approach or merger. It follows that if CAGs must correspond to coastal territories, LAGs may not cover stretches of
coastline.

1. What are the future plans for CAGs and LAGs?

2. What measures will be adopted to encourage the creation of these groups and activity within them?

3. What budgetary resources will be allocated to them?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

From 2014, community-led local development (CLLD) can be supported not only by the EAFRD ( [1] ) (Leader) and
EMFF ( [2] ), but also by the ERDF ( [3] ) and ESF ( [4] ). The main principles for CLLD are set out in the proposed Common
Provisions Regulation ( [5] ) and complemented by fund-specific rules for the EAFRD and EMFF. The common rules for
CLLD should facilitate the implementation of integrated approaches among the different Funds.

To implement CLLD post-2013, a Member State or region can decide to support strategies funded by one Fund only
or it can make the option available to Local Action Groups (LAGs) to combine funding from several Funds into a
single strategy in an integrated way. The Commission has already issued draft guidance to Member States on CLLD ( [6] )
and the Member States are expected to describe their approach in the Partnership Agreements. However, eventually it
is up to the LAGs to decide if they opt for a strategy funded by one or several Funds, if this possibility has been made
available in the MS.

Under the EMFF Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs) can be supported both in coastal and inland fisheries areas.
Under the EAFRD, LAGs can be supported in rural areas as defined by the Member State concerned.

Member States are encouraged to use their technical assistance budgets ( [7] ) to inform relevant stakeholders how CLLD
will be implemented from 2014 and to use funding available under CLLD ( [8] ) for preparatory support to provide
capacity-building for local actors and support the creation of local partnerships and design of local development
strategies.

Managing authorities of the different Funds decide on the budget for FLAGs and Leader LAGs. CLLD is voluntary
under the European Fisheries Fund ( [9] ) and the proposed EMFF. Under EAFRD, a minimum of 5% has to be allocated to
Leader.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (see: proposal for a regulation of the EP and the Council on support for rural development by

the EAFRD (COM(2011) 627 final/2).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (see: proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the EMFF (COM(2011) 804

final).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) European Regional Development Fund.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) European Social Fund.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development

Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and
Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund,
the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, COM(2011) 615 final, amended
proposal COM(2012) 496 final.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/experts_documents_en.cfm#3
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) From the EFF and EAFRD (2007-13).
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) From the EAFRD, EMFF, ERDF and ESF (2014-20); see Article 31 of the proposed Common Provisions Regulation.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) In the 2007-13 period an average of 13% of the EFF budget is used for the sustainable development of fisheries areas across MS.

( **|**

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

C 12 E / 482 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003507/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Condições de trabalho na ESIP (Portugal) e discriminação das mulheres trabalhadoras

Em outubro de 2010, na pergunta escrita E-8114/2010 foi referida a precariedade laboral reinante na ESIP (European
Seafood Investments Portugal), uma das maiores unidades fabris da indústria conserveira existentes em Portugal,
assim como a prática de discriminação salarial das mulheres trabalhadoras da empresa. A ESIP, atualmente detida por
capitais tailandeses do maior grupo mundial conserveiro, fechou o ano de 2011 com um volume de negócios de
60 milhões de euros, prevendo-se que faturasse em 2012 mais de 10 milhões de euros.

Numa reunião recente com representantes dos trabalhadores fomos alertados para a persistência de grande
precariedade laboral na empresa, assim como de significativas desigualdades salariais entre homens e mulheres. Com
uma agravante: o despedimento preferencial de homens tem vindo a levar ao aumento da percentagem de mulheres
na empresa (que eram já francamente maioritárias), que agora são chamadas a desempenhar tarefas mais pesadas,
algumas exigindo um significativo esforço físico.

Este é um setor em que as condições de trabalho são tipicamente difíceis, mesmo violentas, com longos períodos de
trabalho em exigentes linhas de produção/embalamento. Não obstante, dominam os salários baixos, pouco acima do
salário mínimo nacional (que é de 485 euros mensais).

Em face do exposto, e tendo em conta a resposta da Comissão à pergunta E-8114/2010, perguntamos:

1. Que avaliação faz da situação descrita?

2. Que avaliação faz da sua «Estratégia para a igualdade entre homens e mulheres 2010/2015», que
manifestamente tarda em ter aplicação concreta no terreno, como bem o demonstra a situação vivida na ESIP?

3. Quais os resultados práticos, até à data, do «conjunto de ações, incluindo estudos e projetos de intercâmbio, no
âmbito de um projeto-piloto para tratar do problema da precariedade nas relações laborais e para promover a
conversão de relações laborais precárias em contratos de trabalho com mais direitos sociais» que a Comissão
disse em 2010 que ia lançar?

4. Sabe se esta empresa ou o respetivo grupo recebeu alguns apoios comunitários, em Portugal ou noutros países
da UE?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de maio de 2013)_

1. A Comissão promove a responsabilidade social das empresas, o respeito pelos princípios da igualdade e não
discriminação, as boas condições de trabalho, bem como as normas de saúde e segurança no trabalho. A
discriminação em razão do sexo no que se refere às remunerações e a outras condições de trabalho, nomeadamente o
despedimento, é proibida nos termos da Diretiva 2006/54/CE ( [1] ) e os Estados‐Membros têm a obrigação de garantir
que as disposições da diretiva são efetivamente respeitadas.

2. A Estratégia para a Igualdade entre Homens e Mulheres — 2010-2015 ( [2] ), é o quadro político da Comissão
destinado a promover a igualdade entre homens e mulheres em todas as políticas da União e constitui o programa de
trabalho da Comissão neste domínio. Está prevista para 2013 a publicação de uma revisão intercalar da referida
estratégia.

3. Relativamente à discriminação em matéria de remunerações, a Comissão elegeu as disparidades salariais entre
homens e mulheres como uma das prioridades da Estratégia para a Igualdade entre Homens e Mulheres — 20102015. Em 2013, a Comissão publicará um relatório sobre a aplicação da Diretiva 2006/54/CE. A fim de dar
cumprimento à resolução do Parlamento Europeu de maio de 2012, esse relatório incidirá principalmente na
avaliação da aplicação prática das disposições sobre igualdade de remuneração em todos os Estados‐Membros,
incluindo Portugal.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 204 de 26.7.2006, p. 23.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 491 final.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 483

4. A Comissão não tem conhecimento de que a European Seafood Investments Portugal (ESIP) ou a sua empresamãe tenham recebido apoio financeiro da UE em Portugal ou noutros Estados‐Membros. Em especial, de acordo com
a informação prestada pelas autoridades portuguesas, nem o Fundo Social Europeu (FSE), nem o Fundo Europeu de
Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) concederam qualquer contribuição financeira à empresa ESIP. Além disso, esta
empresa não recebeu apoios do Fundo Europeu das Pescas.

C 12 E / 484 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003507/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Working conditions at ESIP (Portugal) and discrimination against female workers

In October 2010, written Question E-8114/2010 pointed out the prevalent job insecurity at European Seafood
Investments Portugal (ESIP), one of the largest canning factories in Portugal, as well as the company’s practice of pay
discrimination against its female workers. ESIP’s accounts for the financial year 2011 showed a turnover of
EUR 60 million, with forecasted profits of over EUR 10 million for 2012. It is currently Thai-owned by the largest
canning group in the world.

At a recent meeting with workers’ representatives, they told us that there was a high level of job insecurity at the
company and a significant gap between the wages paid to men and women. To make matters worse, the company has
been laying off men as a matter of preference. Women were already very much in the majority at the company, but
this has increased the percentage of women in the workforce and means that they are now called on to do very heavy
work, some of which requires significant physical strength.

Working conditions are typically hard, even brutal, in this industry, with long working hours and demanding
production/canning lines. Nevertheless, low wages predominate: they are barely above the national minimum wage
of EUR 485 per month.

In view of this and in light of its answer to Question E-8114/2010:

1. What is the Commission’s view of this situation?

2. The Commission’s Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-15 is clearly overdue in terms of
actually being implemented on the ground, as the situation at ESIP clearly demonstrates. What is the
Commission’s assessment of that strategy?

3. What are the practical results to date of the ‘number of actions, including studies and exchange projects, under
a pilot project to address the problem of precariousness in employment relationships and to promote the
conversion of precarious employment relationships into work contracts carrying more social rights’ that the
Commission stated it would be launching in 2010?

4. Does the Commission know whether this company or its parent group has received any EU aid, in Portugal or
other Member States?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

1. The Commission promotes corporate social responsibility, respect for principles of equality and antidiscrimination and good working conditions as well as occupational health standards and safety at work. Sex
discrimination in relation to pay and to other working conditions including dismissal is prohibited under
Directive 2006/54/EC ( [1] ) and Member States are obliged to ensure that the provisions of this directive are respected in
practice.

2. The strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 ( [2] ) is the Commission's policy framework for
promoting gender equality in all policies of the Union and represents the work programme of the Commission on
gender equality. A mid-term review of the strategy is scheduled to be published in 2013.

3. As regards pay discrimination, the Commission made tackling the gender pay gap one of its priorities in its
Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015. The Commission will issue a report on the application of
Directive 2006/54/EC in practice in 2013. Responding to the European Parliament's resolution on equal pay of
May 2012, this report will in particular focus on assessing the implementation of the provisions on equal pay in
practice in all Member States, including Portugal.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 204/23, 26.7.2006.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2010) 491 final.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 485

4. The Commission is not aware that European Seafood Investments Portugal (ESIP) or its parent group have
received any EU aid in Portugal, or in other Member States. In particular, according to information received from the
Portuguese authorities neither the European Social Fund (ESF) nor the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
has ever granted any financial contribution to the ESIP Company. Besides, this company has not received aid from the
European Fisheries Fund.

C 12 E / 486 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003508/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Declarações de um responsável do BCE sobre o programa de privatizações em Chipre

Em declarações públicas feitas no passado mês de fevereiro, um alto responsável do Banco Central Europeu referiu
esperar que o acordo a alcançar ao abrigo do chamado «plano de resgate» a Chipre pudesse incluir um «extenso»
programa de privatizações.

Este responsável referiu-se às dificuldades colocadas pelo anterior Presidente da República de Chipre à concretização
deste plano e afirmou esperar que, com a eleição de um novo presidente, o mesmo pudesse estar concluído até ao
final de março.

Em face do exposto, pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Que avaliação faz dos comentários supramencionados, feitos por um alto responsável do BCE antes da segunda
volta das eleições presidenciais em Chipre?

2. Foi já concretizado este plano? Que privatizações estão nele incluídas?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão informa o Senhor Deputado que o Memorando de Acordo contém as medidas acordadas neste domínio.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 487

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003508/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ ECB official's statements on the privatisation programme in Cyprus

In public statements made in February, a senior European Central Bank (ECB) official said that he hoped that the
agreement to be reached under the so-called ‘bailout plan’ for Cyprus would include an ‘extensive’ privatisation

programme.

The official mentioned how the former Cypriot President had hindered the development of this plan, and stated that
he hoped that the election of a new president would enable the plan to be finalised by the end of March.

1. What is the Commission’s view of the aforementioned comments, made by a senior ECB official before the
second round of the Cypriot presidential elections?

2. Has the plan already been drawn up? What privatisations does it include?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the memorandum of understanding contains the
agreed measures in this respect.

C 12 E / 488 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003509/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Estudo do Eurostat sobre os preços da eletricidade na UE — Classe IG

Num recente estudo sobre os preços da eletricidade na UE, relativamente a Portugal o Eurostat não apresenta dados
para a classe IG — os maiores consumidores, com consumo acima de 150 000 MWh/ano.

Pode a Comissão informar sobre o motivo para a falta destes dados?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de maio de 2013)_

A Diretiva da Comissão 2008/92/CE ( [1] ) estabelece a metodologia para a recolha e compilação dos preços da
eletricidade para os consumidores finais industriais.

Tal como se refere no anexo II, alínea j), da referida diretiva, as autoridades competentes são obrigadas a comunicar os
preços da eletricidade em 6 segmentos de consumo. O maior segmento de consumo corresponde a um consumo
anual entre 70 000 e 150 000 MW/h por ano.

Os preços da eletricidade para os consumidores finais industriais com um consumo anual superior a 150 000 MW/h
são apurados apenas numa base voluntária. Portugal (e vários outros Estados-Membros) não comunicam preços para
este segmento de consumo.

A Comissão informa o Senhor Deputado do seguinte:

1) as grandes unidades industriais dispõem, muitas vezes, de geradores próprios e não compram energia elétrica
no mercado. Deste modo, qualquer preço comunicado não seria representativo de todas as indústrias neste
segmento de consumo.

2) em vários países, são muito poucas as indústrias neste segmento de consumo e, por conseguinte, os preços
seriam declarados confidenciais.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0092:EN:NOT

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 489

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003509/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Eurostat study on electricity prices in the EU — Band IG

The recent Eurostat study on electricity prices in the EU does not provide data on Band IG consumers — the largest
consumers, with consumption above 150 000 MWh/year — in Portugal.

Can the Commission explain the reason for the lack of these data?

**Answer given by Mr Šemeta on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

Commission Directive 2008/92/EC ( [1] ) defines the methodology for the survey of natural gas and electricity prices for
industrial end-users.

As stated in Annex II under point (j) of this directive, reporting authorities are obliged to report the electricity prices
for 6 consumption bands. The largest consumption band is set to an annual consumption between 70 000 and
150 000 MWh per year.

Electricity prices of industrial end-users which annual electricity consumption is above 150 000 MWh is surveyed
only on a voluntary basis. Portugal (and several other Member States) do not report prices in this consumption band.

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that:

1. Large industrial installations often have their own power generators and do not buy electricity power on the
market. Thus any reported price would not be representative of all industries in this consumption band.

2. In several countries there are too few industries in this consumption band and consequently prices would be
declared confidential.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0092:EN:NOT

C 12 E / 490 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003510/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) e Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ajudas e garantias ao setor financeiro

Na sua intervenção na sessão plenária do Parlamento Europeu, em Estrasburgo, em 28 de setembro de 2011, sobre o
estado da União, o Presidente da Comissão referiu que «nos últimos 3 anos, os Estados-Membros — ou, antes, os
contribuintes — concederam ajuda e garantias ao setor financeiro no valor de 4,6 biliões de euros. Está na hora de o
setor financeiro retribuir à sociedade a ajuda que recebeu».

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Qual a atualização do valor acima mencionado, ou seja, até à data qual o montante total das ajudas e garantias
concedidas ao setor financeiro?

2. Do total de ajudas e garantias concedidas, dispõe a Comissão de alguma avaliação sobre quanto terá sido, até à
data, devolvido?

3. De que formas (utilizando as palavras do Presidente da Comissão) retribuiu o setor financeiro, até à data, as
ajudas que recebeu?

4. Dispõe de informação atualizada sobre a concessão de créditos às empresas e às famílias? Que avaliação faz da
mesma?

**Resposta dada por Joaquin Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de junho de 2013)_

O montante total das ajudas e garantias concedidas ao setor financeiro, ou seja, «o montante de auxílio utilizado»
ascendeu a 1 615,96 mil milhões de euros, dos quais 1 084,83 mil milhões de euros foram concedidos sob a forma de
garantias (período compreendido entre 1 de outubro de 2008 e 31 de dezembro de 2011, segundo os últimos dados
disponíveis).

No que se refere à segunda pergunta, não há qualquer estimativa sobre o montante já reembolsado, uma vez que, até à
data, estes dados não são sistematicamente recolhidos. No entanto, prevê-se que o painel de avaliação dos auxílios
estatais de 2013 dê uma panorâmica sobre os montantes de auxílio que as instituições financeiras reembolsaram em
2012. O painel de avaliação deste ano deve ser publicado no outono.

Note-se que o Eurostat publicou dados exaustivos sobre os fluxos e os montantes das transações entre os EstadosMembros e o setor financeiro, no quadro dos cálculos que efetuou no que respeita à dívida e ao défice ( [1] ).

Quanto à terceira pergunta, a contribuição do setor financeiro para a sociedade é exemplificada da melhor forma
através do seu apoio continuado ao financiamento da atividade da economia real. Foi evitada uma importante crise do
crédito, e os bancos continuaram a conceder crédito, em consonância com a evolução da procura e tendo em conta a
conjuntura económica geral. Por último, mas não menos importante, as poupanças individuais foram protegidas.

No que respeita à última pergunta, as informações mensais sobre a concessão de crédito às empresas e às famílias são
recolhidas e publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu. O abrandamento na concessão de crédito é compatível com a
necessidade de corrigir desequilíbrios anteriores, bem como com as novas condições económicas. Os dados não são
reveladores de escassez de crédito.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ver comunicados de imprensa a partir de 22 de abril de 2013, anexo 2.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 491

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003510/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) and Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Aid and guarantees to the financial sector

In his State of the Union address before the Strasbourg plenary on 28 September 2011, the President of the
Commission stated that ‘in the last three years, Member States — I should say taxpayers — have granted aid and
provided guarantees of EUR 4.6 trillion to the financial sector. It is time for the financial sector to make a contribution
back to society.’

1. What is the latest figure for the above amount; in other words, what is the total amount granted in aid and
guarantees to the financial sector to date?

2. Of the total aid and guarantees granted, does the Commission have an estimate of how much has been repaid to
date?

3. How — to use the President of the Commission’s own words — has the financial sector contributed back to

society up to now?

4. Does the Commission have up-to-date information on the granting of credit to businesses and households?
What is its view of such granting of credit?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 June 2013)_

The total amount granted to the financial sector i.e. ‘the amount of aid used’ amounted to EUR 1615.96 billion, out of
which EUR 1084.83 billion was granted in the form of guarantees (period 1 Oct 2008 until 31 Dec 2011, which
refers to the latest data available).

As regards the second question, there is no estimate on how much has been repaid to date as these figures are not
systemically collected so far. However, it is envisaged that the State Aid Scoreboard 2013 will give an overview on the
aid amounts that financial institutions reimbursed in the year 2012. This year's Scoreboard can be expected to be
published in the course of autumn.

Please note that Eurostat has published extensive data on the flows and amounts of the transactions between Member
States and the financial sector in the frame of its determination on debt and deficit ( [1] ).

On the third question, the contribution of the financial sector to society is best exemplified by its continued support
to the funding of the activity of the real economy. A major credit crunch has been avoided, and banks have continued
to provide credit, in line with the changes in demand and given the general economic conditions. Last but not least,
individual savings have been protected.

As regards the final question, the monthly information on the granting of credit to businesses and households is
gathered and published by the European Central Bank. The slowdown in credit granting is commensurate with the
need to correct past imbalances, as well as with the new economic conditions. The data provides no evidence of
shortage of credit.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See Press release from 22 April 2013, Annex 2.

C 12 E / 492 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003511/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Projeto «Mar Vivo Sudoeste» — minimização de capturas acidentais

O Projeto «Mar Vivo Sudoeste», elaborado pela Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves (SPEA), tem como
objetivo fundamental fomentar a pesca sustentável minimizando os impactos negativos nas aves e os prejuízos
económicos dos profissionais da pesca, enquadrando-se assim nos objetivos do plano de ação da UE para reduzir as
capturas ocasionais de aves marinhas nas artes de pesca.

Segundo estimativas da _BirdLife International_, mais de 200 mil aves morrem anualmente na Europa como
consequência da captura acidental. Os dados que a SPEA tem vindo a recolher na Zona Económica Exclusiva
Portuguesa indicam que a captura acidental é uma realidade, tendo expressão significativa para várias espécies de aves
e determinadas artes de pesca. O projeto «Mar Vivo Sudoeste» (com um orçamento previsto de cerca de 75 mil euros)
representa, assim, uma excelente oportunidade para integrar os interesses do setor pesqueiro com a preservação da
avifauna marinha.

Em face do exposto, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Que programas e medidas poderão apoiar a concretização do projeto «Mar Vivo Sudoeste»?

2. Tem conhecimento de projetos semelhantes em curso noutros países?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de maio de 2013)_

1. Em resposta à pergunta sobre possíveis fontes de financiamento do projeto, a Comissão gostaria de remeter o
Senhor Deputado para o programa LIFE +. O sítio Web ( [1] ) apresenta informações pormenorizadas sobre a
elegibilidade, os prazos e o processo do atual convite à apresentação de propostas.

O projeto _Mar Vivo Sudoeste_ poderá beneficiar de financiamento do FEP se o seu âmbito o permitir e se o EstadoMembro em causa tiver incluído no seu programa operacional ações ao abrigo do artigo 41.° do Regulamento (CE)
n.° 1198/2006 do Conselho, de 27 de julho de 2006, relativo ao Fundo Europeu das Pescas. Por conseguinte, a
Comissão sugere que o Senhor Deputado ou a Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves contactem diretamente
as autoridades portuguesas.

2. A Comissão não tem conhecimento de outros projetos semelhantes que estejam atualmente a decorrer noutros
países da UE. Gostaria, no entanto, de chamar a atenção do Senhor Deputado para o projeto MarPro ( [2] ), financiado no
âmbito do programa LIFE+, que, embora tenha um âmbito mais vasto, inclui alguns elementos relacionados com as
capturas acessórias de aves marinhas.

O projeto de monitorização das capturas acessórias de aves marinhas Filey ( [3] ) e o projeto GloBAL ( [4] ), já terminados,
podem igualmente ter interesse.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus2013/call/index.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3842
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/whatwedo/partnership/casestudies/fileyseabirds.aspx
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 493

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003511/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Mar Vivo Sudoeste project — minimising bycatch

The core objective of the _Mar Vivo Sudoeste_ project of the Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds (SPEA) is to
promote sustainable fishing, minimising negative impact on birds and economic damage to fishermen. As such, it is
in line with the goals of the EU action plan for reducing seabird bycatch.

BirdLife International estimates that over 200 000 birds die as bycatch in Europe every year. The data that the SPEA
has been gathering in Portugal’s exclusive economic area indicate that bycatch is a reality, significantly affecting
several bird species and involving certain types of fishing gear. The _Mar Vivo Sudoeste_ project, which has a planned
budget of around EUR 75 000, therefore provides an excellent opportunity to integrate the interests of the fishing
sector with the preservation of seabirds.

1. What programmes and measures could support the implementation of the _Mar Vivo Sudoeste_ project?

2. Is the Commission aware of similar projects under way in other EU countries?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

1. In response to the question on possible sources of funding of the project, the Commission would like to refer
the Honourable Member to the LIFE+ programme. The website ( [1] ) provides details on eligibility, deadlines and process
of the current call for proposals.

Depending on the scope of the _Mar Vivo Sudoeste_ project, and on whether the Member State concerned has included
actions under Article 41 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund
in its Operational Programme, there may be EFF funding available. The Commission would therefore suggest to the
Honourable Member or to the Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds to contact directly the Portuguese authorities.

2. The Commission is not aware of similar projects currently under way in other EU countries. It would however
draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the MarPro project ( [2] ) which is being funded under LIFE+. This
project has a wider scope but includes some elements related to by-catch of seabirds.

Other projects which have already been concluded and which may be of interest are the Filey seabirds by-catch
monitoring project ( [3] ) and the ‘Project GloBAL’ ( [4] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus2013/call/index.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=3842.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/whatwedo/partnership/casestudies/fileyseabirds.aspx.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/.

C 12 E / 494 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003512/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Projetos e ações no domínio do termalismo e saúde

Pode a Comissão prestar informações sobre os projetos e ações que a UE tem vindo a desenvolver, promover ou
apoiar no domínio do termalismo e saúde?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão promove e incentiva a diversificação da oferta turística relacionada com o bem‐estar e o turismo termal.
Os projetos transnacionais que promovem o bem‐estar e o turismo termal, entre outros, poderiam ser candidatos a
subvenções da UE no âmbito dos convites à apresentação de propostas em matéria de produtos de turismo temáticos
transnacionais. O convite à apresentação de candidaturas de 2013 para apoiar o reforço e a promoção dos produtos
de turismo temáticos transnacionais ( _Supporting the enhancement and promotion of sustainable transnational thematic_
_tourism products_ ), a título do Programa-Quadro Competitividade e Inovação, será lançado no segundo trimestre de
2013 ( [1] ).

A Comissão não desenvolveu nem apoia ações e projetos específicos no domínio da balneologia e saúde.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/contracts-grants/calls-for-proposals/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 495

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003512/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Projects and actions in the field of balneology and health

Can the Commission provide information on the projects and actions that the EU has been developing, promoting
and supporting in the field of balneology and health?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

The Commission promotes and encourages diversification of the tourism offer also related to wellness and spa
tourism. Transnational projects promoting wellness and spa tourism, amongst others, could possibly apply for EU
grants under the calls for proposals on sustainable transnational thematic tourism products. The 2013 call for
proposals ‘Supporting the enhancement and promotion of sustainable transnational thematic tourism products’
under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme will be launched during the second quarter
2013 ( [1] ).

The Commission has not developed or supported specific projects and actions in the field of balneology and health.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/contracts-grants/calls-for-proposals/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 496 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003513/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Situação da Linha do Oeste (Portugal) e investimentos necessários

Numa reunião recente com a Comissão de Defesa da Linha do Oeste fui alertado para o preocupante desinvestimento
nesta importante linha ferroviária, que acarreta claros prejuízos para as condições de vida das populações e para o
desenvolvimento regional. A supressão de horários (cada vez mais desfasados das necessidades das populações), o
encerramento de estações, a escassez de pessoal, os longos tempos de percurso, a vetusta idade das composições, a
ausência de obras que procedam a correções na linha tendo em vista a otimização da circulação — são alguns dos
problemas referidos.

Desde 2010 que existem estudos sobre a modernização da Linha do Oeste (e ramal de Alfarelos), tendo em vista uma
otimização da circulação, uma melhoria das condições de segurança, melhores horários e diminuição dos tempos de
percurso. Estes estudos incluem a modernização do troço Meleças/Caldas da Rainha. Mas são necessárias intervenções
também noutros troços. Globalmente, as intervenções necessárias compreendem, entre outras, a eletrificação da linha
(o que permitiria baixar significativamente os custos de operação) e a implementação de sistemas de sinalização
eletrónica e telecomunicações.

Tendo em conta as sucessivas afirmações da Comissão sobre a importância da promoção do modo de transporte
ferroviário e dos investimentos neste domínio, pergunta-se:

1. Tem conhecimento de algum projeto, envolvendo financiamento comunitário, para a modernização da Linha
do Oeste?

2. Ao abrigo de que programas e medidas poderá ser apoiada a modernização da Linha do Oeste, com fundos da
UE? Qual o financiamento máximo e quais as percentagens de cofinanciamento previstas?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

1. Para o período atual, as autoridades portuguesas pretendem usar o Fundo de Coesão para financiar a
quadruplicação da linha ferroviária entre Barcarena e Cacém. O objetivo é melhorar a capacidade e velocidade das
linhas Lisboa-Sintra e do Oeste. No entanto, a Comissão ainda não recebeu qualquer pedido oficial por parte das
autoridades portuguesas. O pedido terá de ser avaliado, uma vez que se tratará de um projeto grande (custo total
superior a 50 milhões de euros).

2. No período de 2007-2013, as medidas para a eletrificação da linha ferroviária são elegíveis a título do Fundo de
Coesão. A taxa máxima de cofinanciamento é de 85 %. Esta taxa poderia ser inferior, uma vez que o financiamento
está sujeito ao cálculo do défice de financiamento dos projetos geradores de receitas ( [1] ). No entanto, em princípio, não
estão disponíveis mais fundos para o atual período, tendo em conta os compromissos já assumidos para o Fundo de
Coesão. Para o período de 2014-2020, a Linha do Oeste não pertence às redes transeuropeias.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artigo 55.° do Regulamento (CE) n.° 1083/2006 do Conselho de 11 de julho de 2006.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 497

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003513/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Situation of the western railway line (Portugal) and required investment

At a recent meeting of the Western Line Protection Committee (CDLO), I was made aware of the worrying lack of
investment in this major railway line, which is clearly damaging to the living conditions of local people and to
regional development. Abolished timetables, which are increasingly out of step with the needs of the public, closed
stations, staff shortages, long journey times, ancient rolling stock, and a lack of works to improve the line in order to
improve usage; those are just some of the problems mentioned.

Since 2010, studies have been conducted into modernising the western railway line and the Alfarelos branch line,
with a view to increasing usage, improving safety conditions, improving timetables and reducing journey times.
These studies cover modernisation of the Meleças to Caldas da Rainha stretch. However, work is needed on other
stretches of the line. Overall, the work needed includes, _inter alia_, electrification of the line — which would
significantly lower operating costs — and installation of electronic signalling and telecommunications systems.

In view of the Commission’s insistence on the importance of promoting rail transport and investing in this area:

1. Is it aware of any project involving EU funding to modernise the western railway line?

2. What programmes and measures could be used to support modernisation of the western railway line with EU
funds? What is the maximum amount of funding and what proportion of co-financing does it envisage?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

1. For the current period, the Portuguese authorities intend to use the Cohesion Fund to finance the quadrupling of
the railway line between Barcarena and Cacém. The objective is to improve capacity and speed for both the LisboaSintra line and the Western Line (Linha do Oeste). However, the Commission has not yet received an official request
from the Portuguese authorities which it will have to assess since this will be a major project (total cost above EUR 50
million).

2. In the 2007-2013 period, measures for the electrification of railways are eligible under the Cohesion Fund. The
maximum co-financing rate is 85%; this rate could be lower since funding is subject to the calculation of the financing
gap since these are revenue generating projects ( [1] ). However, in principle no more funds are available for the current
period, taking into account the commitments already made for the Cohesion Fund. For the 2014-2020 period, the
Western Line is not part of the Trans-European networks.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 55 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006.

C 12 E / 498 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003514/13**

**à Comissão**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Obras de renovação do Hospital Termal das Caldas da Rainha

A criação do Hospital Termal das Caldas da Rainha remonta ao século XV. Em meados do século XVIII, o hospital foi
reedificado. No final do século XIX, construíram-se novos equipamentos, tendo as primeiras décadas do século XX
correspondido a um período áureo da vida da instituição.

Hoje, este é o único hospital termal que, em Portugal, está integrado no Serviço Nacional de Saúde. Dispõe de serviços
de otorrinolaringologia, reumatologia e ortopedia. Não obstante o seu caráter único e a procura que continua a ter, o
hospital tem sido encerrado por períodos mais ou menos prolongados, devido a bactérias perigosas que se instalam
nas suas condutas de ar. Fora desses períodos, apesar de continuar a desempenhar as funções para as quais foi criado,
fá-lo de forma limitada. Para garantir o seu normal funcionamento são necessárias obras profundas de renovação,
cujo orçamento poderá ascender a cerca de 3 milhões de euros.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento de algum projeto, envolvendo financiamento comunitário, para a realização de obras de
renovação do Hospital Termal das Caldas da Rainha?

2. Que programas e medidas poderão apoiar a realização das profundas obras de renovação necessárias ao bom
funcionamento do hospital termal? Quais as percentagens de cofinanciamento previstas?

3. Tem conhecimento da existência de instituições semelhantes noutros países, igualmente integradas nos
respetivos sistemas públicos de saúde?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(17 de maio de 2013)_

1. A Comissão não tem conhecimento de qualquer projeto que envolva o financiamento da UE para realizar obras
de renovação no Hospital Termal das Caldas da Rainha.

2. Á luz do princípio da gestão partilhada, a seleção e implementação de projetos no âmbito de programas é da
responsabilidade das autoridades nacionais e regionais dos Estados-Membros. Assim, a Comissão convida o Senhor
Deputado a contactar diretamente a autoridade de gestão e a consultar o sítio web dos programas «Centro» e
«Compete» do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional.

Autoridade de gestão: Mais Centro — Programa Operacional Regional do Centro
Rua Bernardim Ribeiro, 80
3000-069 Coimbra

Telefone: +351 239 863 505

Fax: +351 239 863 510
[maiscentro@ccdrc.pt](mailto:maiscentro@ccdrc.pt)
http://www.maiscentro.qren.pt/

Autoridade de gestão: PO Compete
Edifício Expo 98
Av. D. João II
Lote 1.07.2.1 (3 piso)
1998-014 Lisboa

Telefone: +351 211 548 700
[info@compete-pofc.pt](mailto:info@compete-pofc.pt)
[www.pofc.qren.pt](http://www.pofc.qren.pt/)

3. Na sua generalidade, os tratamentos termais não são abrangidos pelos sistemas de saúde dos Estados-Membros.
No entanto, alguns Estados-Membros, por razões culturais, reembolsam os tratamentos termais. A Comissão não
dispõe da lista de hospitais públicos que ofereçam tratamentos termais.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 499

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003514/13**

**to the Commission**
**João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Renovation works on the thermal treatment hospital in Caldas da Rainha

The thermal treatment hospital in Caldas da Rainha was built in the 15th century. The hospital was rebuilt in the mid18th century. New facilities were built in the late 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century were a golden
age in the life of the hospital.

It is now the only thermal treatment hospital that is part of the Portuguese health service. It has ear, nose and throat,
rheumatology, and orthopaedics departments. Despite its uniqueness and continued demand for its services, the
hospital has been closed several times for varying periods because of dangerous bacteria that have colonised its air
ducts. Outside these periods, it has continued to provide the services for which it was built, albeit in a limited way.
Extensive renovation works are required to ensure it keeps running normally, which could cost around
EUR 3 million.

1. Is the Commission aware of any project involving EU funding to carry out renovation works on the thermal
treatment hospital in Caldas da Rainha?

2. What programmes and measures could support the extensive renovation works required for the thermal
treatment hospital to operate as normal? What amount of co-financing does the Commission envisage?

3. Is the Commission aware of similar institutions in other countries that are also part of their public health
services?

**Answer given by Mr Johannes Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

1. The Commission is not aware of any project involving EU funding to carry out renovation works on the thermal
treatment hospital in Caldas da Rainha.

2. Within the framework of the shared management principle, the selection and implementation of projects
within programmes is the responsibility of national and regional authorities in the Member States. Therefore the
Commission invites the Honourable Member to contact directly the managing authority and to consult the Internet
site of the ‘Centro’ and ‘Compete’ European Regional Development Fund programmes:

Managing authority: MAIS CENTRO — Programa Operacional Regional do Centro
Rua Bernardim Ribeiro, 80
3000-069 Coimbra

Tel.: +351 239 863 505

Fax: +351 239 863 510
[maiscentro@ccdrc.pt](mailto:maiscentro@ccdrc.pt)
[http://www.maiscentro.qren.pt/](http://www.maiscentro.qren.pt/)

Managing authority: PO COMPETE
Edifício Expo 98
Av. D. João II
Lote 1.07.2.1 (3 piso)
1998-014 Lisboa

Tel.: +351 211 548 700
[info@compete-pofc.pt](mailto:info@compete-pofc.pt)
[www.pofc.qren.pt](http://www.pofc.qren.pt/)

3. Thermal treatments are usually not covered by Member State health systems. However, some Member States,
for cultural reasons, reimburse thermal treatments. The Commission does not have a list of public hospitals providing
thermal treatments.

C 12 E / 500 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003515/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)**

_(27 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Explotación de la mina de oro de Corcoesto

El Diario Oficial de Galicia, de 2 de mayo de 2012, publicaba la resolución de la Xunta de Galicia de 20 de abril
anterior por la que se sometía a información pública el proyecto de explotación, estudio de impacto ambiental y plan
de restauración para la concesión de un proyecto de explotación sobre el conjunto minero sito en las municipalidades
de Ponteceso, Cabana de Bergantiños y Coristanco de la provincia de A Coruña (Galicia, España). El proyecto fue
promovido por la entidad canadiense Edgewater Corporation, cuya filial es Corcoesto Gold Mines. La resolución abría
un período de información pública de 30 días hábiles cuando la normativa comunitaria establece para este tipo de
proyectos un plazo de exposición pública de 6 meses y la necesidad de una evaluación medioambiental estratégica.

El 15 de diciembre de 2012, la Consellería de Medio Ambiente de la Xunta de Galicia emitió informe favorable a la
Declaración de Impacto Ambiental en la explotación minera de oro.

Diversas organizaciones ecologistas han alertado de que la explotación producirá efectos perniciosos. Provocará más
de 400 hectáreas de mina a cielo abierto por cada kilo de oro, el consumo de 128 kg de cianuro en el proceso, la
generación de 4 000 toneladas de residuos y escombros que contendrán 250 kg de arsénico finamente molido y muy
soluble, 20 millones de metros cúbicos de estériles de mina y 100 000 toneladas anuales de estériles de mina tratados
con cianuro-sosa cáustica-ácido clorhídrico que, además del oro, solubilizarán también el arsénico de las rocas. En las
piscinas de lixiviados, podrán quedar acumuladas 12 toneladas de cianuro.

¿Podría aclarar la Comisión si el procedimiento seguido para la explotación de la mina de oro de Corcoesto cumple la
normativa comunitaria?

En caso contrario, ¿va a adoptar la Comisión medidas urgentes a fin de asegurar su cumplimiento y evitar los riesgos
que, para el entorno natural de la zona y la salud humana, podría entrañar la puesta en marcha de esta explotación
minera?

**Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión**

_(17 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión quisiera remitir a Su Señoría a la respuesta a la pregunta escrita E‐000329/2013 ( [1] ), relativa a este
proyecto minero en Galicia.

Mientras tanto, la Comisión ha solicitado información a las autoridades competentes de España en relación con los
requisitos que impone la legislación medioambiental de la UE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 501

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003515/13**

**to the Commission**
**Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Exploitation of the Corcoesto gold mine

On 2 May 2012, the Official Gazette of Galicia published the resolution of the Galician regional government of
20 April 2012 under which information about the mining project, environmental impact study and restoration plan
was made public with a view to authorising a mining project in the mining basin across the municipalities of
Ponteceso, Cabana de Bergantiños and Coristanco in the province of A Coruña (Galicia, Spain). The project was put
forward by Edgewater Corporation, a Canadian undertaking which is the parent company of Corcoesto Gold Mines.
The resolution opened a public consultation period of 30 working days whereas Community legislation establishes a
public consultation period of six months for this kind of project, and also calls for a strategic environmental impact
assessment to be undertaken.

On 15 December 2012, the Environment Ministry of the Galician regional government issued a favourable report on
the Environmental Impact Assessment on the gold mining.

Various environmental organisations have warned that the mining will have harmful effects. It will result in more
than 400 hectares of open-cast mine per kilo of gold, the consumption of 128 kg of cyanide in the process, the
generation of 4 000 tonnes of residual waste and rubble which will contain 250 kg of finely milled and highly soluble
arsenic, 20 million cubic metres of mining tailings and 100 000 tonnes a year of mining tailings treated with cyanidecaustic soda-hydrochloric acid which will solubilise the arsenic in the rocks as well as the gold. Twelve tonnes of
cyanide could accumulate in the leachate pools.

Can the Commission clarify whether the procedure followed for the exploitation of the Corcoesto gold mine
complies with Community legislation?

If not, will the Commission adopt urgent measures to ensure compliance and avoid the risks to the natural
environment of the area and human health which could result from this mining activity?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-000329/2013 ( [1] )
regarding this mining project in Galicia, Spain.

In the meantime, the Commission has requested information from the competent Spanish authorities concerning
compliance with the relevant requirements under EU environmental law.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 502 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003516/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Acuerdo Pesquero UE-Marruecos

El Gobierno de Marruecos y la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante de la Unión Europea están manteniendo relaciones
diplomáticas con respecto al Acuerdo Pesquero entre las dos partes. Sin embargo, Marruecos está negociando dicho
acuerdo sobre aguas en las que carece de cualquier tipo de derecho, ya que se trata de las aguas pertenecientes a los
territorios ocupados del Sahara Occidental.

La posición del Consejo con respecto a este tema fue fijada en las Conclusiones del 3 de febrero de 2012, que
consideran que un acuerdo que incluya aguas pertenecientes a los territorios ocupados del Sahara Occidental solo
puede ser firmado si se respeta el Derecho internacional y si Marruecos respeta los derechos humanos. Debido a que
Marruecos carece de ningún tipo de soberanía sobre las aguas pertenecientes a los territorios ocupados, estos
acuerdos no pueden ser firmados puesto que se oponen a la soberanía que el pueblo saharaui mantiene en los
territorios ocupados si nos atenemos al Derecho internacional.

Sobre el respeto a los derechos humanos, existen numerosos informes que reflejan la dramática situación de los
derechos humanos en los territorios ocupados. Desde los informes del Centro Robert F. Kennedy para la Justicia y los
derechos humanos, hasta el reciente informe del Relator Especial de la ONU sobre la Tortura, Juan E. Méndez, señalan
las numerosas violaciones que las autoridades marroquíes cometen a diario con el pueblo del Sahara Occidental. Esto
convierte al Gobierno de Marruecos en un interlocutor diplomático que viola sistemáticamente el Derecho
internacional, así como los derechos humanos, anulando cualquier tipo de soberanía que pudiera reclamar sobre
dichas aguas.

El Parlamento Europeo también expresó su posición sobre el tema en la Resolución de 14 de diciembre de 2011 en la
que sostenía que dicho acuerdo debería incluir como parte al pueblo del Sahara Occidental, así como contribuir a su
beneficio.

¿Cómo evalúa la Comisión la situación de los derechos humanos en Marruecos? ¿Considera que las violaciones de
derechos humanos documentadas por los citados informes pueden ser causa suficiente para la suspensión del
acuerdo? A raíz de lo expuesto, ¿considera la Comisión que Marruecos cumple con el Derecho internacional para
poder negociar dicho acuerdo de pesca? ¿Considera la Comisión que el acuerdo cumple con el Derecho internacional,
considerando que se ha excluido al pueblo saharaui de la negociación y de los beneficios? ¿Puede informar la
Comisión si en las negociaciones se está teniendo en cuenta el beneficio para el pueblo saharaui?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(23 de mayo de 2013)_

Las negociaciones entre la Comisión (en nombre de la UE) y Marruecos sobre un nuevo protocolo en el marco del
Acuerdo Pesquero se encuentran efectivamente en curso, de acuerdo con las directrices de negociación adoptadas por
el Consejo el 14 de febrero de 2012. Estas negociaciones se están llevando a cabo teniendo presente la Resolución del
Parlamento Europeo, de diciembre de 2011, referida al respeto del Derecho internacional, los derechos humanos y el
posible impacto económico y social de dicho protocolo sobre las poblaciones locales.

En lo que respecta a los derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental, en repetidas ocasiones, la UE i) ha expresado su
preocupación por la larga duración del conflicto del Sáhara Occidental y sus consecuencias; ii) ha instado a todas las
partes a evitar la violencia; iii) ha apoyado la Resolución del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas 2044
(2012) que subraya la «importancia de mejorar la situación de los derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental y en los
campos de Tinduf»; y iv) ha acogido con satisfacción la creación del Consejo Nacional de Comisiones de Derechos
Humanos que operan en Dajla y El Aaiún.

Los derechos humanos son abordados con regularidad en las reuniones de los organismos conjuntos creados en
virtud del Acuerdo de Asociación UE-Marruecos. La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta considera que, en general,
Marruecos avanza hacia un mayor respeto de los principios relativos a los derechos humanos internacionalmente
acordados, y la UE sigue manteniendo su compromiso de apoyar a Marruecos en este proceso.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 503

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003516/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement

The Government of Morocco and the Vice‐President/High Representative of the European Union are engaged in
diplomatic relations concerning the Fisheries Agreement between the two parties. However, Morocco is negotiating
this agreement for waters over which it does not have any rights, as the waters concerned belong to the occupied
territories of Western Sahara.

The Council’s position on this issue was established in the conclusions of 3 February 2012, which state that an
agreement which includes waters belonging to the occupied territories of Western Sahara can only be signed if it
respects international law and if Morocco respects human rights. Given that Morocco does not have any kind of
sovereignty over waters belonging to the occupied territories, these agreements cannot be signed because under
international law they violate the sovereignty maintained by the Saharawi people in the occupied territories.

Regarding respect for human rights, there are a number of reports detailing the dramatic human rights situation in
the occupied territories. From the reports by the Robert F. Kennedy Centre for Justice and Human Rights to the recent
report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan E. Méndez, they all highlight numerous violations committed
by the Moroccan authorities on a daily basis against the people of Western Sahara. This means that the Moroccan
Government is a diplomatic party which systematically violates international law and human rights, thereby
forfeiting any kind of sovereignty it could claim over these waters.

The European Parliament also expressed its position on the subject in its Resolution of 14 December 2011 in which it
stated that the people of Western Sahara should be a party to this agreement and benefit from it.

What is the Commission’s assessment of the human rights situation in Morocco? Does it believe that the human
rights violations documented in the aforementioned reports could be sufficient cause to suspend the agreement? In
view of the above, does the Commission believe that Morocco is complying with international law and in a position
to negotiate this fishing agreement? Does the Commission believe that the agreement complies with international
law, bearing in mind that the Saharawi people have been excluded from the negotiation and the benefits? Can the
Commission state whether the benefit to the Saharawi people is being taken into account in the negotiations?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

Based on negotiating directives adopted by the Council on 14 February 2012, negotiations are indeed ongoing
between the Commission (on behalf of the EU) and Morocco for a new protocol under the Fisheries Partnership
Agreement EU-Morocco. These negotiations are carried out taking into account EP resolution of December 2011,
including on the issue of the respect of international law, human rights and the economic and social impact of the
protocol in question on the local populations.

Regarding human rights in Western Sahara, the EU has repeatedly (i) Expressed concern about the long duration of
the Western Sahara conflict and the implications; (ii) Called on all parties to restrain from violence; (iii) Supported UN
Security Council Resolution 2044 (2012) which underlines ‘the importance of improving human rights situation in
Western Sahara and the Tindouf camps;’ (iv) Welcomed the opening of the National Council on Human Rights
Commissions operating in Dakhla and Laayoune.

Human rights are regularly addressed in the meetings of the joint bodies established under the EU-Morocco
Association Agreement. The HR/VP considers that overall Morocco is making progress towards more compliance
with internationally agreed human rights principles; the EU remains committde to support Morocco in this process.

C 12 E / 504 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-003517/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 de marzo de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Prospecciones para la explotación de gas de esquisto en Cádiz (España)

Según informan diferentes fuentes periodísticas, la compañía estadounidense Scheupebach Energy está mostrando su
interés en realizar prospecciones sobre el terreno en la búsqueda de yacimientos de gas de esquisto en la provincia de
Cádiz (España). La citada empresa, que no ha realizado comunicado oficial alguno, lleva, al parecer, dos años
interesada en dichas explotaciones, cumpliendo tareas administrativas y recopilando datos históricos sobre el suelo.

La provincia de Cádiz, una provincia llena de parques naturales y áreas con diferente grado de protección
medioambiental, goza de ecosistemas únicos en todo el continente y la mera prospección en busca de estos
yacimientos supondrá la contaminación de los acuíferos subterráneos de la zona. Con la gravísima contaminación
que la práctica del gas fracking acarrea, se destruirían los acuíferos de la provincia, lo que afectará a su rica agricultura
y ganadería e incluso a la calidad de sus aguas costeras debido a que los productos químicos contaminantes liberados
en el subsuelo pueden llegar a alcanzar la costa. El Gobierno ha autorizado la unificación de los permisos para
autorizar la exploración en dos parcelas que suponen 82 000 hectáreas y comprenden tres parques naturales y ricas
tierras agrícolas.

La Plataforma Andalucía Libre de Fracking, así como el Alcalde de Medina Sidonia, municipio dentro de las zonas
afectadas, han denunciado la falta de información con la que las autoridades locales son tratadas por el Gobierno
central, así como por la empresa interesada. La legislación europea en materia de declaración de impacto ambiental en
proyectos como este se encuentra en la Directiva 2011/92/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo. En dicha
Directiva se específica su competencia en el caso de este tipo de proyectos y además se recogen y, por tanto,
garantizan los derechos de los ciudadanos a ser debidamente informados durante el proceso (artículo 9), y se estipula
que los ciudadanos que aleguen el menoscabo de un derecho puedan hacer alegaciones a los proyectos de la
administración competente. En el presente proyecto, los habitantes han denunciado que no se les ha facilitado
información ninguna y que el proyecto carece de declaración de impacto ambiental si la empresa desea explotar
dichos recursos.

¿Piensa solicitar la Comisión al Gobierno la declaración de impacto ambiental pertinente para una empresa que
pretende explotar dicho gas?

¿Considera la Comisión que la Administración española está cumpliendo los artículos citados de la Directiva
2011/92/UE?

¿Piensa abrir la Comisión un procedimiento de infracción de confirmarse el incumplimiento de dicha Directiva?

**Respuesta del Sr. Potočnik en nombre de la Comisión**

_(6 de mayo de 2013)_

La Comisión se ha puesto en contacto con las autoridades españolas para pedirles más información. Schuepbach
Energy España ha recibido permisos de investigación de hidrocarburos ( [1] ) por un periodo de seis años a partir
de 2011. La perforación de sondeos de exploración está prevista para 2015 y 2016. Según las autoridades españolas,
estos proyectos estarán sujetos a la legislación en materia de evaluación del impacto ambiental.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Puede consultarse una copia del permiso en http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2011-1194

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 505

(English version)

**Question for written answer E-003517/13**

**to the Commission**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject_ : Exploration for the exploitation of shale gas in Cádiz (Spain)

According to various media sources, the US company Scheupebach Energy is interested in carrying out field
explorations in search of shale gas fields in the province of Cádiz (Spain). The company, which has not released an
official communication, has apparently been interested in these exploitations for two years, and has been undertaking
administrative tasks and gathering historical data about the site.

The province of Cádiz is full of natural parks and areas enjoying varying degrees of environmental protection. It has
unique ecosystems which cannot be found anywhere else in Europe and mere exploration in search of these fields will
result in pollution of the underground aquifers in the area. The serious pollution caused by gas fracking would
destroy the region’s aquifers, which will affect its successful agriculture and livestock rearing and even the quality of
its coastal water, as the polluting chemical products released into the ground could reach the coast. The Government
has authorised the amalgamation of permits authorising exploration in two plots of land totalling 82 000 hectares
and encompassing three natural parks and rich agricultural land.

The Andalusia Anti-Fracking Platform and the Mayor of Medina Sidonia, a municipality located within the affected
areas, have complained that central government and the company concerned have failed to share information with
local authorities. European legislation on environmental impact assessments for projects such as this is contained in
Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. This directive applies specifically to projects of
this kind and, moreover, it recognises and therefore guarantees the citizens’ right to be duly informed throughout the
process (Article 9). It also states that citizens claiming their rights have not been respected may lodge complaints
about the competent authority’s projects. Regarding this project, residents have complained that no information has
been provided to them and that the project lacks the environmental impact assessment required if the company
wishes to exploit these resources.

Does the Commission intend to ask the government for the environmental impact assessment required concerning
any company intending to exploit this gas?

Does the Commission believe that the Spanish Government is complying with the aforementioned articles of
Directive 2011/92/EU?

Does the Commission intend to open infringement proceedings if non-compliance with this directive is confirmed?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The Commission contacted the Spanish authorities and asked for further information. Schuepbach Energy España has
received operational permits ( [1] ) that allow exploration of hydrocarbon reserves over a period of 6 years, starting in
2011. Exploratory drilling is planned for the years 2015 and 2016. According to the Spanish authorities, these
projects will be subject to EIA legislation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A copy of the permit is available at http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2011-1194

C 12 E / 506 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003518/13**

**à la Commission**
**Alain Cadec (PPE)**

_(27 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Collecte des données sur la population de phoques

La proposition de création d'un Fonds européen pour les affaires maritimes et la pêche (FEAMP) confirme
l'importance des données scientifiques et la façon dont la collecte des données et avis scientifiques peut soutenir la
coopération et contribuer à la régionalisation de la nouvelle PCP.

La Commission pourrait-elle préciser si elle a l'intention de faire usage de cet instrument notamment pour:

—
évaluer l'évolution de la population des phoques dans les eaux européennes;

—
déterminer le seuil acceptable pour la population des phoques qui permettrait d'assurer la durabilité de
l'écosystème?

**Réponse donnée par Mme Damanaki au nom de la Commission**

_(28 mai 2013)_

La proposition de création d'un Fonds européen pour les affaires maritimes et la pêche (FEAMP) prévoit la possibilité
pour la Commission d'octroyer aux États membres un soutien financier pour la collecte de données relatives aux
effets de la pêche sur l'écosystème marin, et notamment aux effets des prises accessoires sur les populations
de phoques.

Il n'existe actuellement aucune obligation légale de l'Union relative à la surveillance des populations de phoques. La
proposition de nouvelle politique commune de la pêche (PCP) définit les obligations qui incombent aux États
membres en ce qui concerne la collecte de données relatives à l'état des ressources biologiques marines exploitées et
aux incidences de la pêche sur ces ressources et sur les écosystèmes marins. En vertu de ces dispositions, les États
membres seront tenus de collecter des données sur les prises accessoires d'oiseaux et de mammifères marins, dont
les phoques.

De plus, en vertu de la directive‐cadre «stratégie pour le milieu marin» ( [1] ), les États membres doivent surveiller la
qualité environnementale des écosystèmes marins. Les données relatives aux populations de phoques, qui seront
collectées dans le contexte de la PCP, pourront être utilisées pour évaluer l'état écologique des écosystèmes marins, en
particulier du point de vue de leur biodiversité.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/56/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, JO L 164 du 25.6.2008.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 507

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003518/13**

**to the Commission**

**Alain Cadec (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Collecting data on the seal population

The proposal to create a European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) confirms the importance of scientific data and
the way in which the collection of scientific data and opinions can support cooperation and play a part in the
regionalisation of the new CFP.

Can the Commission specify whether it intends to use this instrument in order to, in particular:

—
evaluate the evolution of the seal population in European waters;

—
establish an acceptable threshold for the seal population which would ensure the sustainability of the
ecosystem?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The proposed European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) provides possibilities for the Commission to provide
financial support to Member States for data collection regarding the effects of fisheries on the marine ecosystem —
such as on seal populations due to by catch.

Currently there are no EU legal obligations to monitor seal populations. Under the proposed Future Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP) obligations are defined for Member States on data collection with regard to the state of the
exploited marine biological resources and the impact of fisheries on those resources and on marine ecosystems.
Under these provisions Member States will be required to collect data on by-catch of birds and mammals, including
seals.

In addition under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive ( [1] ) Member States are required to monitor the
environmental quality of marine ecosystems. Data on populations of seals, when collected under the CFP, may in
future be used to evaluate the environmental status of marine ecosystems, in particular with regard to biodiversity.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 164, 25.6.2008.

C 12 E / 508 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003519/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Estendere il progetto «Erasmus» agli istituti nautici e alberghieri

Nell'ambito dei nuovi programmi «Erasmus per tutti» 2014-2020 lanciati dalla Commissione europea nel campo
dell'istruzione per incrementare le competenze e l'occupabilità delle persone, modernizzando altresì i sistemi di
istruzione e formazione, sarebbe il caso di estendere il progetto «Erasmus» anche agli istituti nautici e alberghieri, al
fine di permettere ai giovani iscritti in questi istituti di migliorare la loro conoscenza dell'inglese, recuperando così
decine di migliaia di posti di lavoro per i ragazzi europei nel settore crocieristico, dove i lavoratori sono in larghissima
maggioranza filippini, indonesiani e indiani provenienti da paesi che hanno già avviato una sorta di processo
formativo all'inizio del percorso lavorativo.

Questo personale «non comunitario» di qualità professionale discutibile ha un'ottima conoscenza della lingua inglese.
È questo l'elemento che potrebbe farci rimettere migliaia di posti di lavoro nel prossimo futuro se non si provvederà
con iniziative specifiche. Pertanto, è indispensabile che siano intrapresi programmi di scambio per permettere ai
nostri giovani, in particolare in Italia dove la formazione scolastica per le lingue è scadente, di superare l'handicap
linguistico e competere con il personale «non comunitario» per posti di lavoro nel polo crocieristico, unico settore
attualmente in forte sviluppo economico.

La dotazione finanziaria proposta dalla Commissione europea nell'ambito del piano pluriennale 2014-2020 per i
nuovi programmi «Erasmus per tutti» è di 19 miliardi di EUR, inclusi 1,8 miliardi per la cooperazione internazionale.
Si tratta di un impegno importante da parte della Commissione europea, un aumento del budget di oltre il 70 %
rispetto agli attuali programmi considerati singolarmente, per giungere ad offrire a cinque milioni di persone
l'opportunità di studiare o formarsi all'estero.

A fronte di questo, non crede la Commissione che sia il caso di estendere il progetto «Erasmus per tutti» anche agli
istituti nautici e alberghieri, visto anche l'aumento del bilancio per tali programmi?

**Risposta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione**

_(17 maggio 2013)_

La proposta della Commissione relativa al programma «Erasmus per tutti» coprirà gli aspetti dell'istruzione, della
formazione, della gioventù e dello sport per il periodo 2014-2020.

Il programma è rivolto a tutte le organizzazioni, pubbliche o private, attive nel campo dell'istruzione, della
formazione, della gioventù e dello sport (ad esempio scuole, istituzioni di istruzione e formazione professionali,
istituzioni di istruzione superiore, ONG, ecc.), a condizione che soddisfino i criteri di ammissibilità esposti negli inviti
a presentare proposte per il nuovo programma.

Per quanto concerne le istituzioni di istruzione superiore, il rilascio di una Carta Erasmus per l'istruzione superiore
(ECHE) continua ad essere condizione indispensabile per la loro partecipazione al programma.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 509

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003519/13**

**to the Commission**
**Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Extending the ‘Erasmus’ project to maritime and hospitality colleges

Within the context of the new 2014‐2020 ‘Erasmus for All’ programmes launched by the Commission in the field of
education for increasing skills and employability, as well as the modernisation of the education and training systems,
the ‘Erasmus’ project should also be extended to maritime and hospitality colleges. This would allow the young
people enrolled in these colleges to improve their knowledge of English, thus recovering tens of thousands of jobs for
young Europeans in the cruise industry, where the vast majority of workers are Filipino, Indonesian and Indian,
coming from countries that have already begun some kind of training process to start young people on their career
path.

These ‘non-EU’ employees, whose professional quality is questionable, have an excellent command of English, and
this is a factor that could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs unless special measures are taken. It is therefore essential
that exchange programmes are launched to enable our young people — especially in Italy, where school education in
languages is poor — to overcome the linguistic handicap and compete with ‘non-EU’ staff for jobs in the cruise
industry, the only sector that is currently enjoying strong economic growth.

The funding proposed by the Commission within the framework of the 2014‐2020 multiannual plan for the new
‘Erasmus for All’ programmes is EUR 19 billion, including EUR 1.8 billion for international cooperation. This is a
major commitment by the Commission, representing a budget increase of more than 70% compared with the current
programmes (considered individually), aiming to offer five million people the chance of studying or training abroad.

Does the Commission not believe that the ‘Erasmus for All’ project should also be extended to maritime and
hospitality colleges, particularly in view of the increase in the budget for these programmes?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

The Commission's programme proposal ‘Erasmus for All’ will cover education, training, youth and sport for the
period 2014-2020.

The programme is addressed to any organisation, public or private, active in the fields of education, training, youth
and sport (e.g. schools, vocational education and training institutions, higher education institutions, NGOs, etc.),
provided they meet the eligibility criteria that will be established in the calls for proposals for the new programme.

For higher education institutions, the award of an Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) will continue to be a
pre-requisite for their participation in the programme.

C 12 E / 510 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Tekstas lietuvių kalba)_

**Klausimas, į kurį atsakoma raštu, Nr. E-003520/13**

**Komisijai**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(2013 m. kovo 27 d.)_

_Tema:_ Draudimo užsieniečiams įsigyti žemės ūkio paskirties žemę ir miškus Lietuvoje susiejimas su tiesioginėmis
išmokomis

2003 m. Stojimo Akte Lietuvai yra numatyta teisė septynerius metus nuo įstojimo dienos taikyti draudimą
užsieniečiams pirkti žemės ūkio paskirties žemę ir miškus Lietuvoje. Ši išimtis yra grindžiama tuo, kad, nesant tokio
apribojimo, iškiltų rimtos grėsmės nacionalinės žemės ūkio paskirties žemės rinkos iškraipymui.

Stojimo akte taip pat numatoma galimybė pratęsti pereinamąjį laikotarpį trejiems metams, jei yra pagrindo manyti,
kad pasibaigus pereinamajam laikotarpiui atsiras didelių trikdymų ar kils didelių trikdymų grėsmė Lietuvos žemės
ūkio paskirties žemės rinkai.

2011 m. balandžio 11 d. Komisijos sprendimu Lietuvai buvo suteiktas pereinamojo laikotarpio pratęsimas iki
2014 m. birželio 30 d. Šis sprendimas buvo grindžiamas Komisijos išvada, jog netaikant papildomo apribojamojo
laikotarpio gali būti iškreipta žemės ūkio paskirties žemės rinka Lietuvoje. Tuo pat metu Lietuva raginama kuo
skubiau vykdyti struktūrines reformas žemės ūkio srityje.

Žemės ūkio perspektyvos Lietuvoje yra tiesiogiai susijusios su ES parama žemės ūkiui, ypač tiesioginių išmokų srityje.
Šiuo metu Lietuvoje, dėl itin didelių tiesioginių žemės išmokų skirtumų lyginant su kitoms ES valstybėmis narėmis,
žemės ūkis tampa vis mažiau konkurencingas nacionalinėje rinkoje, nekalbant apie konkurenciją ES žemės ūkio
rinkoje. Todėl tinkamų ir teisingų struktūrinių žemės ūkio reformų vykdymas nebus įmanomas, kol tiesioginių
išmokų lygis už hektarą nepasieks ES vidurkio. Todėl minėto apribojimo panaikinimas 2014 m. dar labiau iškreips
žemės ūkio paskirties žemės rinką Lietuvoje.

Jau dabar yra aišku, kad iki kitos daugiametės finansinės perspektyvos pabaigos tiesioginių išmokų lygis Lietuvos
žemdirbiams gali siekti vos 75 proc. ES vidurkio, o tiesioginių išmokų priartinimas prie ES vidurkio bus nukeliamas
po 2020 m.

Ar Komisija nemano, kad atsižvelgiant į lėtą tiesioginių išmokų didėjimą Lietuvai ir po 2014 m. toliau turi būti
suteikta išimtinė galimybė taikyti apribojimus dėl žemės ūkio paskirties žemės ir miškų įsigijimo užsieniečiams, kol
tiesioginių išmokų lygis Lietuvoje nepasieks ES tiesioginių išmokų vidurkio?

**Komisijos nario M. Barnier atsakymas Komisijos vardu**

_(2013 m. gegužės 8 d.)_

Kaip nurodo gerbiamas Europos Parlamento narys, 2003 m. Stojimo akte žemės ūkio paskirties nekilnojamojo turto
rinkos visiškam atvėrimui buvo numatytas septynerių metų pirminis pereinamasis laikotarpis. Pagal Stojimo aktą
Lietuvai suteikta teisė prašyti pratęsti pereinamąjį laikotarpį, per kurį tam tikromis sąlygomis būtų galima įsigyti
žemės ūkio paskirties žemės, ne daugiau kaip dar trejiems metams. Komisija leido šį laikotarpį pratęsti dar trejiems
metams, todėl Lietuva savo žemės ūkio paskirties žemės rinką visų ES ir EEE valstybių narių investicijoms turėtų
atverti ne vėliau kaip 2014 m. gegužės 1 d. Laikinai taikoma nukrypti leidžianti nuostata nesieta su tiesioginių išmokų
Lietuvos ūkininkams arba daugiametės finansinės programos pokyčiais, tad daugiau pratęsti pereinamojo laikotarpio
pagal Stojimo aktą ir Sutartį dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo (SESV) galimybių nėra. Taigi nuo nurodytos datos
taikomos visos SESV nuostatos, o Lietuvos teisės aktai, susiję žemės ūkio paskirties nekilnojamojo turto įsigijimu, turi
atitikti ES teisę, visų pirma laisvo kapitalo judėjimo ir atitinkamos ES Teisingumo Teismo jurisprudencijos nuostatas.

Kadangi pagal Sutartį pereinamąjį laikotarpį žemės ūkio paskirties nekilnojamajam turtui įsigyti Lietuvoje galima
pratęsti ne daugiau kaip trejiems metams ir šia pratęsimo teise jau pasinaudota, dar kartą jo pratęsti Komisija negali.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 511

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003520/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Linking of the ban on foreigners acquiring agricultural land and forests in Lithuania with direct payments

The 2003 Act of Accession provides for the right of Lithuania to impose a ban on foreigners purchasing agricultural
land and forests in Lithuania for seven years from the date of accession. This right is based on the fact that without
such a restriction, there would be a serious threat that the national agricultural land market could be distorted.

The Act of Accession also provides for the possibility to extend the transitional period for three years if there is reason
to suppose that at the end of the transitional period there will be major disturbances or a threat of major disturbances
to the Lithuanian agricultural land market.

The Commission decision of 11 April 2011 granted Lithuania an extension of the transitional period until
30 June 2014. This decision was based on the Commission’s conclusion that without the application of an additional
restrictive period, the agricultural land market in Lithuania could be distorted. At the same time, Lithuania has been
urged to implement structural reforms in the field of agriculture as soon as possible.

Agricultural prospects in Lithuania are directly linked to EU support for agriculture, particularly in the field of direct
payments. At present in Lithuania, due to the particularly significant discrepancies in direct payments compared to
other EU Member States, agriculture is becoming less and less competitive in the national market, not to mention the
competitive EU agricultural market. The implementation of adequate and fair structural reforms in agriculture will
therefore be impossible until the direct payment rate per hectare reaches the EU average. The abolition of the
abovementioned restriction in 2014 will therefore further distort the agricultural market in Lithuania.

It is already clear that by the end of the next multi-annual financial framework, the level of direct payments for
Lithuanian farmers may be barely 75% of the EU average, and the movement of direct payments towards the EU
average will be postponed until after 2020.

Does the Commission not feel that given the slow increase in direct payments, Lithuania should continue to be
granted the exceptional opportunity to impose restrictions on the acquisition of agricultural land and forests by
foreigners after 2014 until the level of direct payments in Lithuania reaches the EU direct payment average?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

As the Honourable Member indicates, according to the Act of Accession of 2003, the original transitional period for
the full opening of the agricultural real estate market in Lithuania was seven years. Under the Act of Accession
Lithuania was entitled to request an extension of the transition period for the acquisition of agricultural land, under
certain conditions, for a maximum of three more years. The Commission granted this extension for three years,
therefore, Lithuania should open its agricultural land markets to investments from all EU/EEA Member States at the
latest by 1 May 2014. The temporary derogation was not linked to developments in direct payments to Lithuanian
farmers or in the multiannual financial framework and no further extension of the transitional period is possible
under the Act of Accession and the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union (TFEU). Thus, as from the said date
the TFEU fully applies and the Lithuanian legislation on the acquisition of agricultural real estate has to comply with
EC law, in particular with the provisions on free movement of capital and the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of
Justice of the EU.

As the three years extension of the transitional period for the acquisition of agricultural real estate in Lithuania is the
maximum permitted under the Treaty and was already granted, the Commission has no competence to further
prolong this extension.

C 12 E / 512 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003521/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Turistas raptados no Sinai

Considerando o seguinte:

—
Dois turistas foram hoje raptados na península egípcia do Sinai por beduínos armados;

—
O rapto de turistas no Sinai é frequente, sobretudo após a deposição de Hosni Mubarak, há dois anos, facto que
fragilizou as forças de segurança no local, e os raptores visam usar os reféns como moeda de troca para a
libertação de beduínos presos.

Assim, pergunta-se à Vice-Presidente/Alta-Representante:

Tem conhecimento desta situação?

Em que medida estes raptos recorrentes contribuem para a deterioração da segurança nesta zona do Egito junto à
fronteira com Israel?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

A AR/VP tem conhecimento dos acontecimentos referidos e está profundamente preocupada com o agravamento da
situação da segurança no Sinai.

O Egito prossegue a sua transição complexa. É evidente que há necessidade de proceder a profundas reformas em
diferentes domínios, incluindo no setor da segurança.

A UE tem repetidamente disponibilizado apoio à reforma do setor da segurança no Egito e aguarda uma reação da sua
parte.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 513

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003521/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Tourists kidnapped in Sinai

Two tourists were kidnapped today in the Egyptian peninsula of Sinai by armed Bedouin tribesmen.

Tourist kidnappings in Sinai are frequent, particularly since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, two years ago, which
weakened security forces in the area. The kidnappers aim to use the hostages as bargaining chips for the release of
Bedouin prisoners.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this situation?

To what extent are these recurrent kidnappings contributing to worsening security in this Egyptian region bordering
Israel?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the events referred to and is deeply concerned of the worsening of the security situation in
Sinai.

Egypt is continuing its complex transition. Clearly there is a need for Egypt to undertake serious reforms in different
areas, including the reform of the security sector.

The EU has repeatedly offered support to the reform of Egypt's security sector and awaits a reaction from the Egyptian
side.

C 12 E / 514 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003522/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Irão ameaça Israel

O líder iraniano Ali Khamenei ameaçou recentemente Israel, afirmando que, se for alvo de um ataque militar israelita,
tem capacidade para «aniquilar» as cidades de Telavive e Haifa.

Assim, pergunta-se à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Como avalia esta ameaça?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de maio de 2013)_

A retórica deve ser entendida no contexto da campanha eleitoral e da visita recente do Presidente Barack Obama a
Israel, durante a qual apoiou publicamente as preocupações do país em matéria de segurança. A AR/VP considera
inaceitáveis as ameaças contra Israel.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 515

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003522/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iran threatens Israel

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently threatened Israel, saying that the Islamic Republic could ‘destroy’ the
cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa if it were subjected to an Israeli military attack.

How does the Vice-President/High Representative assess this threat?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

This rhetoric should be understood in the context of the electoral campaign and the recent visit of President Obama
to Israel, during which he publicly supported Israel's security concerns. The HR/VP considers that such threats against
Israel are unacceptable.

C 12 E / 516 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003523/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Insinuação de Dmitry Medvedev

Recentemente, o primeiro-ministro russo Dmitry Medvedev insinuou que a UE quer destruir o sistema bancário
cipriota.

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

De que forma avalia e como justifica a particular ingerência das autoridades russas numa questão da UE?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

Relativamente à questão colocada pelo Senhor Deputado, é de referir que a União Europeia e os seus EstadosMembros tiveram de intervir em circunstâncias particularmente difíceis. Com efeito, Chipre foi vítima de uma crise
bancária sem precedentes e era necessária uma ação rápida para impedir um colapso total do sistema financeiro do
país e o contágio a outros Estados-Membros da UE.

A Comissão rejeita as alegações de que o envolvimento da UE contribui para a destruição do sistema bancário
cipriota. É verdade que as autoridades cipriotas tiveram de tomar medidas drásticas, nomeadamente a autonomização
das sucursais gregas e a resolução de um banco, a fim de fazer face à situação económica e financeira insustentável e à
fragilidade da liquidez das instituições de crédito. O sistema bancário cipriota não está a ser destruído, pelo contrário.
O sistema bancário tornar-se-á mais forte e racional, e irá financiar a economia cipriota de modo produtivo. A
Comissão está consciente de que Chipre tem grandes desafios a enfrentar e está a seu lado para o ajudar a restabelecer
a estabilidade financeira e criar condições propícias ao crescimento sustentável e à criação de emprego.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 517

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003523/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Comments by Dmitry Medvedev

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently suggested that the EU wants to destroy the Cypriot banking
system.

How does the Commission evaluate and justify this particular interference by the Russian authorities in an EU issue?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

With respect to the issue raised by the Honourable Member, it has to be stressed that the European Union and its
Member States had to intervene in particularly difficult circumstances. Indeed, Cyprus suffered from an
unprecedented banking crisis and swift action was necessary to stop a complete melt-down of the financial system in
the country and contagion to other EU Member States.

The Commission disagrees with allegations that the EU involvement destroys the Cypriot banking system. True,
drastic measures had to be taken by the Cypriot authorities, including carving out the Greek branches and the
resolution of one bank, to address the unsustainable financial and economic situation and the fragile liquidity
position of the credit institutions. Rather than destroying the Cypriot banking system, the contrary is true. The result
will be a stronger and leaner banking system that will finance the Cypriot economy in a productive way. The
Commission realises that significant challenges lie ahead and stands by Cyprus in helping to restore financial stability,
and create conditions for sustainable growth and job creation.

C 12 E / 518 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003524/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Armas químicas na Síria

Considerando o seguinte:

—
Com base nos últimos documentos do Departamento de Informações dos Estados Unidos sobre a situação na
Síria, o Presidente do Comité de Informações da Câmara dos Representantes afirmou recentemente existirem
«grandes probabilidades de uso de armas químicas na Síria»;

—
A situação na Síria, apesar de todas as medidas de contenção para travar o conflito, tem vindo a piorar, com
mais de 70 000 mortos, um milhão de refugiados e um maior número de deslocados internamente, depois de
quase três anos de guerra civil entre as forças rebeldes e as forças do regime.

Assim, pergunta-se ao Conselho:

Que comentário faz destas afirmações?

**Resposta**
_(24 de junho de 2013)_

A UE tem repetidamente manifestado grande preocupação perante a probabilidade de uso de armas químicas na Síria
e tem instado a Síria a não utilizar os seus arsenais, em circunstância alguma, e a armazenar as armas em condições de
segurança, até que sejam destruídas sob verificação independente.

Através da averiguação que está a realizar, a missão nomeada pelo Secretário‐Geral da ONU, Ban Ki‐moon, de que
fazem parte membros da Organização para a Proibição de Armas Químicas (OPAQ), vai procurar determinar apenas
se foram ou não utilizadas armas químicas. Ainda falta que o regime sírio dê o seu acordo a esta missão. A OPAQ é a
única organização internacional com capacidade para confirmar o uso de armas químicas e empreender uma análise e
uma avaliação a respeito do seu uso e natureza.

A UE continuará a acompanhar de muito perto o evoluir da situação.

A UE e os seus Estados‐Membros têm prestado assistência a todos os sírios, num montante de quase 800 milhões de
euros. A assistência é dirigida tanto a quem se encontra na Síria como aos refugiados e comunidades de acolhimento
nos países vizinhos. O Conselho está empenhado em colaborar com todas as partes envolvidas, em especial a ONU,
no sentido de uma resolução política do conflito, e em prosseguir a ação de assistência em curso.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 519

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003524/13**

**to the Council**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Chemical weapons in Syria

In the light of the latest US intelligence documents on the situation in Syria, the Chairman of the US House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence has recently stated that there is a ‘high probability’ that chemical weapons have been
deployed.

The situation in Syria has worsened, despite all efforts to end the conflict. After almost three years of civil war
between rebel forces and those fighting for the regime, over 70 000 people have been killed, and there are one million
refugees and an even greater number of internally displaced persons.

What is the Council’s assessment of this statement?

**Reply**
_(24 June 2013)_

The EU has repeatedly expressed serious concern at the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria and has called on
Syria not to use its stockpile under any circumstances and to store the weapons securely pending independently
verified destruction.

The investigation by the mission appointed by UN SG Ban Ki-moon that includes members of the Organisation for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), will seek to determine only whether or not chemical weapons have
been used. The Syrian regime still has to agree to this mission. OPCW is the only international organisation with the
capacity to confirm the use of chemical weapons and undertake an analysis and assessment related to its use and

nature.

EU will continue to monitor developments very closely.

The EU and its Member States have provided assistance to all Syrians amounting to almost EUR 800 million.
Assistance is directed both to persons inside Syria and to refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries.
The Council is committed to working with all stakeholders, in particular the UN, towards a political settlement of the
conflict and to maintaining current assistance efforts.

C 12 E / 520 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003525/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Armas químicas na Síria

Considerando o seguinte:

—
Com base nos últimos documentos do Departamento de Informações dos Estados Unidos sobre a situação na
Síria, o Presidente do Comité de Informações da Câmara dos Representantes afirmou recentemente existirem
«grandes probabilidades de uso de armas químicas na Síria».

—
A situação na Síria, apesar de todas as medidas de contenção para travar o conflito, tem vindo a piorar, com
mais de 70 000 mortos, um milhão de refugiados e um maior número de deslocados internamente, depois de
quase três anos de guerra civil entre as forças rebeldes e as do regime.

Assim, pergunta-se à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Que comentário faz destas afirmações?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(9 de julho de 2013)_

A UE tem repetidamente manifestado grande preocupação perante a probabilidade de uso de armas químicas na Síria
e tem instado este país a não utilizar os seus arsenais, em circunstância alguma, e a armazenar as armas em condições
de segurança, até que sejam destruídas sob verificação independente.

Com base nas informações de livre acesso atualmente disponíveis, os serviços da UE avaliam que podem ter sido
utilizadas substâncias químicas, de forma limitada e com um número limitado de vítimas.

As investigações efetuadas pela missão designada pelo Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas, Ban Ki-moon, a qual inclui
membros da Organização para a Proibição de Armas Químicas (OPCW), procurará determinar exclusivamente se
foram ou não usadas armas químicas, não tirando conclusões sobre a atribuição do uso das mesmas. Esperamos que o
acordo (por parte do regime sírio) para o envio da missão seja alcançado em breve. Não devemos esquecer que a
OPCW é a única organização internacional que tem inspetores com capacidade para confirmar a utilização de armas
químicas e fornecer qualquer análise e avaliação relacionadas com a sua utilização e a natureza.

Um inquérito da ONU na Síria será extremamente útil para que se possa investigar uma série de recentes alegações
sobre o emprego de armas químicas no conflito.

A UE continuará a acompanhar de perto este assunto em consulta com os seus parceiros.

A assistência total da UE (incluindo os Estados-Membros da UE) a todos os sírios afetados pelo conflito, através da
utilização de todos os instrumentos disponíveis, ascende a quase 800 milhões de EUR. A assistência destina-se a
pessoas na Síria, mas também aos refugiados e às comunidades de acolhimento nos países vizinhos. A União
Europeia está empenhada em trabalhar com todas as partes interessadas, como as Nações Unidas, em primeiro lugar,
e sobretudo no sentido de uma solução política para o conflito e em manter os atuais esforços de assistência.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 521

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003525/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Chemical weapons in Syria

In the light of the latest US intelligence documents on the situation in Syria, the Chairman of the US House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence has recently stated that there is a ‘high probability’ that chemical weapons have been
deployed.

After almost three years of civil war between rebel forces and those fighting for the regime, over 70 000 people have
been killed, and there are one million refugees and an even greater number of internally displaced persons.

What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of this statement?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(9 July 2013)_

The EU has repeatedly expressed serious concern at the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria and has called on
Syria never to use its stockpile under any circumstances and to store the stockpile securely pending independently
verified destruction.

On the basis of currently available open source information, the EU services assess that chemical substances might
have been used at a limited level with limited number of casualties.

The investigation by the mission appointed by SG Ban Ki-moon, that includes members of the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the World Health Organisation (WHO), will seek to determine only
whether or not chemical weapons were used and will not draw any conclusions as to the attribution of any use. We
hope the agreement (by the Syrian regime) to deploy the team will be reached soon. We must remember that the
OPCW is the only international organisation that has inspectors with the capacity to confirm the use of chemical
weapons and undertake any analysis and assessment related to its use and nature.

A UN investigation inside Syria will be extremely useful in order to investigate a range of recent allegations about the
employment of chemical weapons in the fighting.

The EU will continue to monitor very closely this matter in consultation with its partners.

The EU's (including EU member states) total assistance to all Syrians affected by the conflict through the use of all
available instruments amounts to almost EUR 800M. Assistance is directed to persons inside Syria, but also to
refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries. The EU is committed to work with all stakeholders such as
the UN first and foremost towards a political settlement of the conflict and to maintain the current assistance efforts.

C 12 E / 522 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003526/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Ataque cibernético na Coreia do Sul

Considerando que:

—
A polícia sul-coreana detetou endereços IP dos EUA e de três países europeus durante a investigação que foi
posta em curso para encontrar os responsáveis pelo ataque informático de que foram alvo várias entidades sulcoreanas na semana passada, e que gerou um «apagão» generalizado nos computadores de vários bancos e
televisões;

—
A polícia da Coreia do Sul pediu ao governo dos quatro países — EUA e os três países europeus (que não foram
identificados) — para cooperarem com a investigação,

Pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Que comentários faz desta situação?

Qual deve ser o papel da UE nesta investigação?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(20 de junho de 2013)_

O incidente referido pelo Senhor Deputado demonstra uma vez mais que o cibercrime é um fenómeno que não pode
ser atacado com êxito de uma forma unilateral. É necessário estabelecer uma cooperação entre os diferentes países e
comunidades de partes interessadas, públicas e privadas. A cooperação na aplicação do direito internacional à
investigação dos ciberataques é regida por acordos entre os Estados-Membros da UE e países terceiros. A Convenção
do Conselho da Europa sobre o Cibercrime («Convenção de Budapeste») constitui um instrumento jurídico eficaz para
facilitar a cooperação internacional na investigação dos crimes informáticos.

A visão da UE sobre a forma de responder às questões de cibersegurança foi recentemente adotada pela «Estratégia da
União Europeia para a Cibersegurança». A Comissão assegura, em cooperação com os Estados-Membros, uma ação
coordenada a nível internacional no domínio da cibersegurança. Desta forma, a Comissão defende os valores
fundamentais da UE e promove uma utilização pacífica, aberta e transparente das cibertecnologias.

Em determinadas condições e numa base casuística, o recém-criado Centro Europeu da Cibercriminalidade da
Europol também pode ser encarregado pelos Estados-Membros da UE da coordenação de investigações em matéria de
cibercriminalidade.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 523

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003526/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cyber-attack on South Korea

South Korean police have detected IP addresses from the United States and from three European countries during the
investigation launched to find those responsible for the cyber-attack that targeted various South Korean institutions
last week and that caused a widespread ‘shutdown’ of computer networks at several banks and television stations.

South Korean police have asked the governments of the four countries — the United States and the three European
countries (which have not been named) — to cooperate with the investigation.

What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of this situation?

What role should the EU play in this investigation?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(20 June 2013)_

The incident cited by the Honourable Representative demonstrates once more that cybercrime is not an issue that can
be addressed successfully in a unilateral manner. It requires cooperation across countries and across the different
communities of stakeholders, both public and private. International law enforcement cooperation to investigate
cyber attacks is regulated by agreements among EU Member States and third countries. The Council of Europe
Convention on Cybercrime (the ‘Budapest Convention’) constitutes an effective legal instrument to facilitate
international cooperation in cybercrime investigations.

The EU’s vision of how to respond to cybersecurity issues is set out in the recently adopted ‘Cybersecurity Strategy for
the European Union’. The Commission ensures, together with the Member States, coordinated international action in
the field of cybersecurity. In so doing, the Commission will uphold EU core values and promote a peaceful, open and
transparent use of cyber technologies.

Under certain conditions and on a case by case basis, the newly established EU Cybercrime Center within Europol can
also be tasked by EU Member States to coordinate cybercrime investigations.

C 12 E / 524 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003527/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Plano contra eventuais agressões da Coreia do Norte

— A Coreia do Sul e os Estados Unidos implementarem um novo plano conjunto de defesa contra eventuais
agressões da Coreia do Norte. Esta informação foi já confirmada pelo Ministério da Defesa sul-coreano;

— A resposta a eventuais agressões norte-coreanas era, até agora, da exclusiva responsabilidade do exército da Coreia
do Sul, sendo a intervenção dos EUA apenas contemplada em caso de guerra total;

— Este acordo, que já entrou em vigor e que inclui «procedimentos de consulta e ação para permitir uma dura e
decisiva resposta», surge como um elemento dissuasor de eventuais «provocações» levadas a cabo pelo regime de Kim
Jong-un.

Pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

Como avalia este plano conjunto?

Qual deve ser o papel da UE nesta questão?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(7 de junho de 2013)_

A aliança militar entre a Coreia do Sul e os EUA data de 1953 e, desde então, tem sido um fator de estabilidade na
Península Coreana e em toda a região do Nordeste Asiático.

Os EUA têm 28 000 militares estacionados na Coreia do Sul e dispõem de meios militares importantes na região.

Por conseguinte, uma estreita consulta entre os EUA e a República da Coreia, uma prerrogativa de Estados soberanos,
é desejável para responder de forma coerente e mais eficaz possível a eventuais incidentes no atual contexto de tensão
na Península Coreana.

A UE está em contacto com todos os países diretamente envolvidos e continuará a desenvolver esforços para manter e
reforçar a unidade da comunidade internacional na procura de um acordo duradouro para uma Península Coreana
sem armas nucleares e de melhores perspetivas para o povo norte-coreano, que há muito vive em condições difíceis.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 525

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003527/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Plan to combat possible attacks from North Korea

— South Korea and the United States have adopted a new joint defence plan to combat possible attacks from North
Korea. The South Korean Ministry of Defence has confirmed this information.

— Until now, the South Korean army has been solely responsible for responding to possible North Korean attacks,
with US intervention contemplated only in the event of all-out war.

— This agreement, which has already entered into force, includes ‘procedures for consultation and action to allow for
a strong and decisive combined ROK‐US response’ and acts as a deterrent to any ‘provocation’ from Kim Jong-un’s
regime.

What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of this joint plan?

What is the role of the EU in this scenario?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

The RoK and the US established a military alliance in 1953 and, since then, this has been a factor of stability on the
Korean Peninsula and the wider North East Asia region.

There are 28 000 US troops stationed in South Korea and the US have significant military assets deployed in the
region.

Therefore close consultation between the US and ROK, a prerogative of sovereign States, is desirable in order to deal
coherently and to best effect with any possible incidents in the context of the current tension on the Korea Peninsula.

The EU keeps contact with all the countries immediately involved and will continue to work to maintain and
strengthen the unity of the international community in seeking a durable agreement for a nuclear free Korean
Peninsula and in offering the long-suffering people of the DPRK a better perspective for their welfare.

C 12 E / 526 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003529/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(27. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Verbraucherschutz bei der grenzüberschreitenden Erbringung von Dienstleistungen im Bereich
Online-Glücksspiel

Nach uns vorliegenden Beschwerden von betroffenen Spielern verzögert ein bei der maltesischen Lotterie‐ und
Geldspielaufsichtsbehörde (Malta Lotteries and Gaming Authority, LGA) lizenziertes Glücksspielunternehmen seit
Sommer 2012 Auszahlungen gegenüber gewinnberechtigten Mitgliedern. Seit Herbst 2012 blockiere das
Unternehmen jegliche Auszahlungen. Die zuständige Kontrollbehörde (LGA) reagiere schon seit mehreren Monaten
nicht mehr auf diesbezügliche Anfragen betroffener Spieler.

1. Liegen der Kommission bereits Informationen bezüglich des beschriebenen Sachverhalts vor?

2. Steht die Kommission diesbezüglich im Kontakt mit der zuständigen Kontrollbehörde (LGA)?

3. Wie viele ähnliche Beschwerden von Verbrauchern über unterlassene Kontrollpflichten von
Regulierungsbehörden anderer Mitgliedstaaten liegen der Kommission insgesamt vor? Welche Mitgliedstaaten sind
dabei betroffen?

4. Sind derartige Probleme im Zusammenhang mit Verbraucherschutz bei der grenzüberschreitenden Erbringung
von Dienstleistungen innerhalb der Expertengruppe für Glücksspiel diskutiert worden oder ist dies für die Zukunft
geplant?

5. Welche Maßnahmen könnten im Rahmen des Aktionsplans der Kommission für Online-Glücksspiele getroffen
werden, um Verbraucher künftig besser vor Verlusten ihrer Einzahlungen zu schützen?

**Antwort von Herrn Barnier im Namen der Kommission**

_(6. Juni 2013)_

Die Kommission hat keine Kenntnis von den angeblichen Beschwerden und steht diesbezüglich auch nicht in Kontakt
mit der zuständigen Kontrollbehörde.

Die Kommission erkennt die Bedeutung der Frage des Verbraucherschutzes an. Gegenwärtig können die
Mitgliedstaaten im Rahmen der vom Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union vorgegebenen Grenzen die Ziele ihrer
Glücksspielpolitik und das angestrebte Schutzniveau festlegen. Die Kommission erkennt an, dass wirksame
Maßnahmen der Mitgliedstaaten zur Durchsetzung ihrer nationalen Rechtsvorschriften — wofür die Einhaltung des
EU-Rechts eine Grundvoraussetzung bildet — der Schlüssel zur Verwirklichung der öffentlichen Interessen sind, die
Mitgliedstaaten mit ihrer Glücksspielpolitik verfolgen.

Wie in ihrer im Oktober 2012 angenommenen Mitteilung über Online-Glücksspiele ( [1] ) angekündigt wird die
Kommission als eine zentrale Maßnahmen eine Empfehlung verabschieden mit dem Ziel, Verbrauchern, die
Glücksspieldienstleistungen in Anspruch nehmen, ein hohes Maß an einheitlichem Schutz zu bieten. In der
Expertengruppe zu Glücksspieldienstleistungen konzentrieren sich die Diskussionen betreffend den
Verbraucherschutz auf die Ausarbeitung der oben genannten Empfehlung, die Grundsätze wie
Spielererkennungskontrollen, Setzung finanzieller und zeitlicher Grenzen sowie Ausschlussmöglichkeiten umfassen
sollte. Die Sachverständigengruppe wird einen Austausch von Erfahrungen und bewährten Verfahren herbeiführen,
unter anderem zu nationalen Durchsetzungsstrategien.

Darüber hinaus erhielt die Kommission Anfragen von Bürgern in Bezug auf das Anbieten von Glücksspieldiensten in
den Mitgliedstaaten. Diese Anfragen enthielten jedoch keine Beschwerden über die Kontrollbehörden.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2012)596 endg.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 527

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003529/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Consumer protection in connection with the cross-border provision of online gambling services

According to complaints we have received from players who have been affected, since summer 2012 a gambling
company, which is licensed by the Lotteries and Gaming Authority of Malta (LGA), has delayed payouts to its winning
members. The company has blocked all payments since autumn 2012. The competent supervisory authority (the
LGA) has apparently failed for several months to respond to enquiries regarding this issue from players who have
been affected.

1. Has the Commission received any information on the facts set out above?

2. Has the Commission made any contact with the competent supervisory authority (the LGA) regarding this
issue?

3. How many similar complaints has the Commission received in total from consumers concerning the nonperformance of supervisory duties by regulatory authorities in other Member States? Which Member States are
affected?

4. Has the Expert Group on Gambling Services debated problems of this kind relating to consumer protection in
connection with the cross-border provision of services, or are there plans for such a debate in the future?

5. What measures could be taken under the Commission’s action plan for online gambling in order to provide
consumers with better protection in future against the loss of money they have paid in?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 June 2013)_

The Commission is not aware of the alleged complaints nor is it in contact with the competent supervisory authority
on this matter.

The Commission acknowledges the pertinence of the issue of protection of consumers. In the current situation,
Member States may, within the limits established by the Court of Justice of the EU, set the objectives of their gambling
policy and define the level of protection sought. The Commission recognises that effective enforcement by Member
States of their national legislation — a prerequisite of which is compliance with EC law — is essential for the
attainment of the public interest objectives of their gambling policy.

As announced in its communication on online gambling ( [1] ) adopted in October 2012, the Commission will, as one of
the key measures, adopt a recommendation with the aim of providing a high level of common protection of
consumers of gambling services. Discussions in the Group of Experts on Gambling Services regarding consumer
protection are focusing on the elaboration of the abovementioned recommendation, which should include principles
such as player identification controls, financial and temporal limit setting, and exclusion possibilities. The expert
group will bring about an exchange of experiences and good practices, including on national enforcement policies.

Further to the above, the Commission has received questions from citizens regarding the offer of gambling services in
the Member States. However, these do not include complaints about the regulatory authorities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 596 final.

C 12 E / 528 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003530/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Δηλώσεις Μπαγίς

Σε πρόσφατες δηλώσεις του, ο Τούρκος υπουργός Ευρωπαϊκών Υποθέσεων, Εγκεμέν Μπαγίς, προσφέρει τα 5 δισ. ευρώ που
χρειάζεται η Κύπρος με την προϋπόθεση να τα ζητήσει αυτά η Λευκωσία από το κατοχικό καθεστώς.

Παράλληλα, δηλώνει ότι η Αγκυρα δεν θα είχε αντίρρηση εάν η Κύπρος επέλεγε να χρησιμοποιήσει ως νόμισμά της την
τουρκική λίρα. Για την ακρίβεια, δήλωσε: «Αυτά είναι πλέον για εμάς μικρά ποσά. Μπορούν να κάνουν αίτηση για να
εκμεταλλευτούν το δάνειο των 5 δισ. ευρώ που θα δώσουμε στο ΔΝΤ. Δεν θα είχαμε μάλιστα αντίρρηση, εάν ήθελαν, να
χρησιμοποιήσουν, ως νόμισμα, αντί του ευρώ την τουρκική λίρα, όπως κάνει η ΤΔΒΚ».

Ο Τούρκος υπουργός με ιδιαίτερη υπεροψία ζήτησε να ασκηθούν πιέσεις στη Λευκωσία για να δεχτεί λύση του Κυπριακού,
όπως φυσικά εννοεί τη λύση η Τουρκία: «Η ΕΕ πρέπει να πιέσει τους Ελληνοκυπρίους να αποδεχτούν μία λύση στη νήσο και
πρέπει να καταλάβουν οι Ελληνοκύπριοι ότι δεν έχουν άλλη επιλογή από τη λύση. Γνώρισαν με άσχημο τρόπο και σε σύντομο
διάστημα τι σημαίνει να έχεις απέναντί σου την τουρκική πλευρά».

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη πως οι ανωτέρω δηλώσεις ελέχθησαν από τον υπουργό Ευρωπαϊκών Υποθέσεων της Τουρκίας,
αξιωματούχο αρμόδιο για την ενταξιακή πορεία της Τουρκίας στην ΕΕ, και οι δηλώσεις αυτές δεν προσβάλλουν την Κυπριακή
Δημοκρατία, αλλά την ΕΕ συνολικά, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Προτίθεται να του απαντήσει επισήμως.

**Απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(30 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή αναμένει από την Τουρκία να στηρίξει ενεργά τις τρέχουσες διαπραγματεύσεις που αποσκοπούν στη δίκαιη,
συνολική και βιώσιμη διευθέτηση του κυπριακού ζητήματος στο πλαίσιο του ΟΗΕ, σύμφωνα με τις σχετικές αποφάσεις του
Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας των ΗΕ και με τις αρχές στις οποίες θεμελιώνεται η Ένωση. Η Επιτροπή κάλεσε επανειλημμένως την
Τουρκία να δεσμευτεί και να συνεργαστεί με συγκεκριμένο τρόπο για συνολική διευθέτηση, μεταξύ άλλων και με την έκθεση
προόδου 2012 σχετικά με την Τουρκία ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 529

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003530/13**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Statements by Bağiş

In a recent statement, the Turkish Minister for EU Affairs, Egemen Bağiş, offered Cyprus the EUR 5 billion it needs, on
condition that Nicosia requests it from the occupying regime.

At the same time, he stated that Ankara would have no objection if Cyprus were to choose the Turkish pound as its
currency. What he actually said was: ‘This is peanuts for us. They can apply to use the EUR 5 billion loan that we shall
give the IMF. We would have no objection if they wanted to use the Turkish pound as their currency, as does the
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.’

The Turkish minister asked with a great deal of arrogance for pressure to be exerted on Nicosia to accept a solution to
the Cyprus question, by which of course he meant the Turkish solution to the Cyprus question: he said that the EU
needs to persuade the Greek Cypriots to accept a solution on the island and that the Greek Cypriots need to
understand that they have no option other than to accept a solution, having seen in a very short space of time what it
means to be up against the Turkish side.

Given that the above statements were made by the Turkish Minister for EU Affairs, the official responsible for
Turkey’s accession prospects, and that these statements insult not the Republic of Cyprus but the EU as a whole, will
the Commission say:

—
Does it intend to respond officially?

**Answer given by Mr Füle on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 May 2013)_

The Commission expects Turkey to actively support the ongoing negotiations aimed at a fair, comprehensive and
viable settlement of the Cyprus issue within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council
resolutions and in line with the principles on which the Union is founded. The Commission has repeatedly called on
Turkey to commit and contribute in concrete terms to such a comprehensive settlement, including in its 2012
Progress Report on Turkey ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/index_en.htm

C 12 E / 530 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003531/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Τραπεζικές καταθέσεις στην Ευρώπη

Μιλώντας στο πρακτορείο Reuters και τους Financial Times, ο κ. Ντάισελμπλουμ δήλωσε ότι η αξιοποίηση καταθέσεων για
την αναδιάρθρωση των κυπριακών τραπεζών μπορεί να αποτελέσει ένα πρότυπο για τη διαχείριση των τραπεζικών
προβλημάτων στην ευρωζώνη. «Εάν υπάρχει κάποιο ρίσκο σε μία τράπεζα, το πρώτο μας ερώτημα θα πρέπει να είναι: “Εντάξει,
τι θα κάνεις εσύ, στην τράπεζα για αυτό; Τι μπορείς να κάνεις προκειμένου να ανακεφαλαιοποιηθείς μόνος σου;”. Εάν η
τράπεζα δεν μπορεί ανταποκριθεί, τότε θα απευθυνθούμε στους μετόχους και τους ομολογιούχους, θα τους ζητήσουμε να
εισφέρουν στην ανακεφαλαιοποίηση της τράπεζας. Και, εάν είναι απαραίτητο, θα στραφούμε στους καταθέτες με μη
εγγυημένες καταθέσεις [άνω των 100 000 ευρώ]», σχολίασε χαρακτηριστικά ο κ. Ντάισελμπλουμ. Επιπρόσθετα, την Τρίτη, η
κ. Σαντάλ Χιούς, εκπρόσωπος του αρμόδιου επίτροπου της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για ζητήματα Εσωτερικής Αγοράς και
Υπηρεσιών κ. Μισέλ Μπαρνιέ, δήλωσε πως οι καταθέσεις άνω των 100 000 ευρώ δεν αποκλείεται να χρησιμοποιούνται για τις
διασώσεις προβληματικών τραπεζών, στο πλαίσιο νέου νομοσχεδίου που επεξεργάζεται η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

«Στην πρόταση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, η οποία έχει τεθεί προς συζήτηση, δεν εξαιρείται το ενδεχόμενο οι καταθέσεις άνω
των 100 000 ευρώ να χρησιμοποιηθούν ως εργαλεία ενός bail-in», όπως σχολίασε η εκπρόσωπος του Επίτροπου Μπαρνιέ,
Σαντάλ Χιούς, μιλώντας σε δημοσιογράφους. «Είναι μία πιθανότητα».

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τα ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Η οικονομική πολιτική της ΕΕ οδηγείται πλέον σε φορολογία των καταθέσεων άνω των 100 000;

—
Είναι αυτή η πρώτη ένδειξη ότι η ηγεσία της νομισματικής ένωσης προτίθεται να υποχρεώσει τις μη βιώσιμες τράπεζες
να επωμισθούν μεγάλο μέρος τυχόν αναδιάρθρωσης ή ανακεφαλαιοποίησής τους, μειώνοντας αντίστοιχα το βάρος
που θα κληθούν να σηκώσουν οι φορολογούμενοι;

—
Το μοντέλο που προαναγγέλλει ο κ. Ντάισελμπλουμ θα σημαίνει το τέλος του παλαιότερου σχεδίου που προέβλεπε
την απ’ ευθείας ανακεφαλαιοποίηση αδύναμων χρηματοπιστωτικών ιδρυμάτων από τον μόνιμο μηχανισμό διάσωσης
ESM;

**Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(15 Μαΐου 2013)_

Το σχέδιο οδηγίας για την ανάκαμψη και την εξυγίανση των τραπεζών (BRR) αποβλέπει στην αποσαφήνιση των όρων που θα
εφαρμόζονται στην εξυγίανση προβληματικών τραπεζών στο μέλλον. Αφ' ης στιγμής εκδοθεί η οδηγία, τα κράτη μέλη θα
έχουν τα απαραίτητα εργαλεία παρέμβασης για την πρόληψη και την διευθέτηση τραπεζικών κρίσεων, συπεριλαμβανομένων
εθνικών ταμείων εξυγίανσης χρηματοδοτούμενων από συμβολές του ιδιωτικού τομέα. Για να ελαχιστοποιηθεί η εμπλοκή του
φορολογούμενου σε τραπεζικές κρίσεις, το ενσωματωμένο στο πλαίσιο αυτό εργαλείο διάσωσης με ίδια μέσα θα επιτρέψει
την ανακεφαλαιοποίηση τραπεζών, αποκλείοντας ή περιορίζοντας τη βαρύτητα των παλαιών μετόχων και μειώνοντας ή
μετατρέποντας σε μετοχές τις απαιτήσεις των πιστωτών. Οι καταθέσεις κάτω των 100 000 ευρώ θα εξακολουθήσουν να
προστατεύονται πλήρως και θα αποκλείονται ρητά από το εργαλείο διάσωσης με ίδια μέσα. Όσον αφορά την ακριβή
αντιμετώπιση των άνω των 100 000 ευρώ καταθέσεων στο μελλοντικό πλαίσιο εξυγίανσης, αυτή αποτελεί ακόμη το
αντικείμενο διαπραγματεύσεων.

Σκοπός της οδηγίας είναι να εξασφαλιστεί ότι η ανακεφαλαιοποίηση προβληματικών τραπεζών με δημόσια μέσα θα αποτελεί
το ύστατο καταφύγιο. Τυχόν προσφυγή σε δημόσια χρήματα (εθνικής προέλευσης ή από τον Ευρωπαϊκό Μηχανισμό
Σταθερότητας (ΕΜΣ)), θα εξακολουθήσει να υπόκειται στο ευρωπαϊκό πλαίσιο κρατικών ενισχύσεων.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 531

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003531/13**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bank deposits in Europe

Speaking to _Reuters_ and the _Financial Times_, Mr Dijsselbloem stated that the use of deposits to restructure the Cypriot
banks may set a precedent for managing banking problems in the euro area. ‘If there is a risk to a bank, the first
question we ask must be: “Okay, what are you the bank going to do about that? What can you do to recapitalise
yourself?” If the bank can’t do it, we’ll talk to the shareholders and the bondholders, we’ll ask them to contribute in
recapitalising the bank, and if necessary the uninsured deposit holders [deposits over EUR 100 000]’, was what
Mr Dijsselbloem had to say. Furthermore, on Tuesday, Chantal Hughes, spokesperson for Mr Michel Barnier, the EU
Commissioner responsible for internal market and services, stated that there was a possibility that deposits over
EUR 100 000 would be used to save ailing banks under new legislation being prepared by the European Union.

Speaking to journalists, Chantal Hughes, spokesperson for Commission Barnier, said: ‘In the Commission’s proposal,
which is under discussion, it is not excluded that deposits over EUR 100 000 could be instruments eligible for bail-in.
It is a possibility.’

Considering the above, will the Commission say:

—
Is the EU’s economic policy now moving towards taxation of deposits over EUR 100 000?

—
Is this the first sign that the leaders of monetary union intend to force ailing banks to shoulder the lion’s share
of any restructuring or recapitalisation, by reducing the burden that taxpayers will be required to pay?

—
Will the model predicted by Mr Dijsselbloem mean the end of the previous scheme of direct recapitalisation of
ailing credit institutions from the permanent rescue mechanism (ESM)?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

The draft Directive on Bank Recovery and Resolution (BRR) aims to clarify the rules applicable to the resolution of
ailing banks in the future. Once the directive is in place, Member States will have the necessary tools to intervene to
prevent and resolve bank crises, including national resolution funds which should be financed by contributions from
the private sector. To minimise taxpayer involvement in bank crises, the bail-in tool enshrined in that framework will
allow a bank to be recapitalised by wiping out or diluting shareholders and by reducing or converting the claims of
creditors into shares. Deposits below EUR 100 000 will continue to be fully protected and explicitly excluded from
the bail-in tool. As regards the exact treatment of deposits above EUR 100 000 within the future resolution
framework, this is still subject to negotiations.

The purpose of the directive is to ensure that recapitalisation of ailing banks through public means will become the
very last resort. Any possible recourse to public money (be it national or the ESM), will remain subject to the EU state
aid framework.

C 12 E / 532 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003532/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Νέος Ευρωπαϊκός Μηχανισμός Διάσωσης Τραπεζών (Bail-in)

Σε δηλώσεις της, η εκπρόσωπος του Επιτρόπου Barnier, αναφερόμενη στο θέμα της εγγύησης των καταθέσεων στην
Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, είπε ότι «Στην πρόταση της Επιτροπής, που έχει τεθεί σε διάλογο, δεν αποκλείεται καταθέσεις άνω των
100 000 ευρώ να μπορούν να αποτελούν επιλέξιμα εργαλεία σε διασώσεις τραπεζών, bail-in».

Με βάση τα παραπάνω, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής αφορά σε ένα μελλοντικό μηχανισμό διάσωσης τραπεζών με τη συμμετοχή των καταθετών;
Θα υπάρξει πανευρωπαϊκός μηχανισμός εγγύησης καταθέσεων σε αντικατάσταση της οδηγίας 2009/14, που αφορά
την εγγύηση καταθέσεων από τα κράτη μέλη και έως του ποσού των 100 000 ευρώ;

—
Υπάρχει σκέψη για «εθελοντική ασφάλιση καταθέσεων» με ευθύνη των αποταμιευτών;

**Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(13 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η μελλοντική οδηγία για την ανάκαμψη και την εξυγίανση των τραπεζών θα αποσαφηνίσει τους εφαρμοστέους κανόνες για
την εξυγίανση των προβληματικών τραπεζών στο μέλλον. Μετά την έκδοση της εν λόγω οδηγίας, τα κράτη μέλη θα έχουν τα
απαραίτητα εργαλεία για να παρεμβαίνουν στην τραπεζική κρίση, περιλαμβανομένης της διάσωσης με ίδια μέσα (bail-in). Οι
καταθέσεις κάτω των 100 000 ευρώ θα εξακολουθήσουν να είναι πλήρως εγγυημένες και θα εξαιρούνται ρητά από τη
συνεισφορά για δαπάνες εξυγίανσης μέσω του εργαλείου διάσωσης με ίδια μέσα. Όσον αφορά τη μεταχείριση των
καταθέσεων άνω των 100 000 ευρώ στο πλαίσιο του μελλοντικού πλαισίου εξυγίανσης, το ζήτημα αυτό αποτελεί ακόμη
αντικείμενο διαπραγματεύσεων.

Το σχέδιο οδηγίας περί ΣΕΚ που έχει υποβληθεί επικεντρώνεται στην εναρμόνιση των εθνικών συστημάτων εγγύησης των
καταθέσεων που προβλέπονται εκ του νόμου. Ταυτόχρονα, τα εθελοντικά συστήματα εγγύησης των καταθέσεων που
λειτουργούν σε συμβατική βάση και παρέχουν επιπλέον εγγυήσεις πέραν των 100 000 ευρώ επιτρέπονται από τη νομοθεσία
της ΕΕ.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 533

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003532/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New European bail-in mechanism for banks

Referring to the question of deposit guarantee schemes in the European Union, Commissioner Barnier’s spokesperson
said that in the Commission’s proposal, which is under discussion, it is not excluded that deposits over EUR 100 000
could be instruments eligible for bail-in.

In light of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Does the Commission proposal refer to a future bank rescue mechanism supported by depositors? Will there
be a pan-European deposit guarantee scheme to replace Directive 2009/14/EC in order to guarantee Member
States’ deposits up to the sum of EUR 100 000?

—
Is it giving any thought to the ‘voluntary deposit guarantees’ for which savers are responsible?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The forthcoming Directive on Bank Recovery and Resolution will clarify the rules applicable to the resolution of
ailing banks in the future. Once the directive is in place, Member States will have the necessary tools to intervene in
banking crisis, including bail-in. Deposits below EUR 100 000 will continue to be fully guaranteed and explicitly
excluded from contributing to resolution costs through the bail-in tool. As regards the treatment of deposits above
EUR 100 000 within the future resolution framework, this is still subject to negotiations.

The draft DGS Directive which is currently on the table focuses on harmonising national statutory deposit guarantee
schemes. At the same time, voluntary deposit guarantee schemes functioning on a contractual basis and offering
additional guarantees beyond EUR 100 000 are allowed by EU legislation.

C 12 E / 534 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003533/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Προβληματικά δάνεια γερμανικών τραπεζών στη ναυπηγική βιομηχανία

Ο οίκος Moody’s έχει ήδη υποβαθμίσει μεγάλες γερμανικές τράπεζες, επειδή, όπως αναφέρει, έχουν εκτεθεί σε προβληματικά
δάνεια προς τη ναυπηγική βιομηχανία, ύψους περίπου 100 δισ. ευρώ. Σύμφωνα με τον ίδιο οίκο, το ποσό αυτό είναι
υπερδιπλάσιο από το σύνολο της αξίας των ομολόγων Ελλάδας, Ισπανίας, Ιταλίας, Πορτογαλίας και Ιρλανδίας, που κατέχουν
οι ίδιες τράπεζες.

Τις ίδιες ανησυχίες εξέφρασε και μέλος του διοικητικού συμβουλίου της Deutsche Bundesbank (Andreas Dombert —
«The year 2013: Challenges from a financial stability perspective»), ο οποίος προέβλεψε πρόσφατα ότι η κρίση στη
ναυτιλία θα προκαλέσει τριγμούς στο τραπεζικό σύστημα της Γερμανίας, καθώς οι γερμανικές τράπεζες διαδραματίζουν
πρωτεύοντα ρόλο στην παγκόσμια ναυτιλιακή χρηματοδότηση, επισημαίνοντας μάλιστα πως πολλά funds που
δραστηριοποιούνται στη ναυτιλία, σημειώνουν μεγάλες απώλειες, ενώ άλλα έχουν ήδη καταθέσει αίτηση πτώχευσης.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Γνωρίζει ποιες γερμανικές τράπεζες έχουν τη μεγαλύτερη έκθεση στη ναυπηγική βιομηχανία; Πώς αξιολογεί τον
κίνδυνο που έχουν αναλάβει;

—
Τι κατέδειξαν τα stress-test των ευρωπαϊκών τραπεζών σχετικά με το θέμα αυτό; Υπάρχει ευρωπαϊκό νομικό πλαίσιο
αντιμετώπισης τέτοιων καταστάσεων;

—
Υπάρχει σχετική έκθεση της εθνικής ρυθμιστικής αρχής της Γερμανίας; Έχει ασχοληθεί με το θέμα η Ευρωπαϊκή Αρχή
Τραπεζών; Πώς αντιμετωπίζεται το πρόβλημα; Ποιος θα καλύψει τα ελλείμματα;

**Απάντηση του κ. Barnier εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(3 Ιουνίου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή έχει υπόψη της την ομιλία του κ. Dombret στην οποία αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή δεν
γνωρίζει την έκταση των ελλειμμάτων στον ναυπηγοεπισκευαστικό κλάδο.

Η Επιτροπή δεν συγκεντρώνει στοιχεία σχετικά με τα ανοίγματα των γερμανικών τραπεζών στον ναυπηγοεπισκευαστικό
κλάδο ή τη ναυτιλία. Επίσης, δεν σταθμίζει τους κινδύνους που αναλαμβάνουν οι τράπεζες.

Υπό το δυσμενές μακροοικονομικό σενάριο της προηγούμενης προσομοίωσης ακραίων καταστάσεων σε ολόκληρη την ΕΕ, η
οποία πραγματοποιήθηκε από την Ευρωπαϊκή Αρχή Τραπεζών (ΕΑΤ) το 2011 για τις γερμανικές τράπεζες που
συμπεριλήφθηκαν στην προσομοίωση αυτή, εκτιμήθηκαν συμπληρωματικές προβλέψεις και κεφαλαιακές απαιτήσεις για την
παροχή δανείων προς τον ναυπηγοεπισκευαστικό κλάδο — πέραν των δανείων σε άλλους τομείς της οικονομίας. Τα
αποτελέσματα της προσομοίωσης αυτής δημοσιεύθηκαν από την ΕΑΤ τον Ιούλιο του 2011. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, πρέπει να
υπενθυμίσουμε ότι η τελευταία προσομοίωση που αφορούσε τα χαρτοφυλάκια τραπεζικών δανείων πραγματοποιήθηκε στο
τέλος του 2010 και ότι ο χρονικός ορίζοντας της προσομοίωσης κάλυψε την περίοδο 2011-2012.

Γενικότερα, το νομικό πλαίσιο της ΕΕ καλύπτει τους κανόνες σύστασης προβλέψεων για μη εξυπηρετούμενα δάνεια, καθώς
και δημιουργίας αποθεματικών, ανάλογα με τον κίνδυνο που αντιπροσωπεύουν τα ανοίγματα για τυχόν μελλοντικές μη
αναμενόμενες ζημίες.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 535

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003533/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Problem loans by German banks to the shipbuilding industry

Moody’s has already downgraded major German banks, because they have underwritten problem loans to the
shipbuilding industry totalling approximately EUR 100 billion. According to Moody’s, that is over double the total
value of Greek, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Irish bonds held by those same banks.

The same concerns were expressed by a member of the board of directors of the Deutsche Bundesbank (Andreas
Dombert: ‘The year 2013: Challenges from a financial stability perspective’), who recently predicted that the crisis in
the shipbuilding industry would send shockwaves through the German banking system, because German banks play
a leading role in financing shipbuilding worldwide, and pointed out that numerous funds active in the shipbuilding
industry have reported major losses, while others have already filed for bankruptcy.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Does it know which German banks have the greatest exposure to the shipbuilding industry? How does it rate
the risk which they have underwritten?

—
What was the outcome of the stress tests on European banks in connection with this matter? Is there a
European legal framework for addressing such situations?

—
Has the German regulatory authority reported on this matter? Has the European Banking Authority addressed
this matter? How is it addressing the problem? Who will cover the shortfalls?

**Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission is aware of Mr Dombret’s speech quoted by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission is
not aware of the extent of shortfalls in the shipbuilding industry.

The Commission does not collect information about German banks' exposures to shipbuilding or shipping. It also
does not rate the risks banks have underwritten.

For those German banks that participated in the previous EU-wide stress test exercise conducted by EBA in 2011,
additional provisions and capital requirements for loans to the shipping — together with loans to other sectors of the
economy — were estimated under the adverse macroeconomic scenario. The results of the stress test were published
by EBA in July 2011. In this context, it shall be reminded that the last stress test was conducted on bank loan
portfolios as of end 2010 and the stress horizon covered the period of 2011-2012.

More generally, the EU legal framework covers the rules on provisioning for non-performing loans and setting aside
capital, commensurate with the risk level of exposures, for any further unexpected losses.

C 12 E / 536 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003534/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Σημαντική επιδείνωση του φαινομένου της φτώχειας στην Ελλάδα. Επιτακτική η ανάγκη στήριξης των ευπαθών
κοινωνικών ομάδων

Όπως προκύπτει τόσο από τα σχετικά στατιστικά στοιχεία της Eurostat, όσο και από έγκυρες επιστημονικές μελέτες Διεθνών
και Ευρωπαϊκών Ινστιτούτων, τα φαινόμενα φτώχειας και υλικής υστέρησης αυξάνονται ραγδαία στην Ελλάδα. Σύμφωνα
μάλιστα με την ετήσια Έκθεση της Τράπεζας της Ελλάδος (2012), η φτώχεια αυξήθηκε στη χώρα μας κατά 43,1% σε ένα
μόλις έτος, ενώ η Συγκριτική Έρευνα του Ινστιτούτου Γερμανικής Οικονομίας (IW) κατατάσσει την Ελλάδα στην 25η θέση
στην Ευρώπη των 27 αναφορικά με τα ποσοστά φτώχειας του πληθυσμού της. Την ίδια ώρα, οι περικοπές σε κοινωνικές
δαπάνες και μεταβιβάσεις στο πλαίσιο του ακολουθούμενου Προγράμματος Δημοσιονομικής Εξυγίανσης αποδυναμώνουν
σημαντικά την αναγκαία στήριξη στις πιο ευπαθείς κοινωνικές ομάδες που αντιμετωπίζουν έντονο τον κίνδυνο του
κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού και της ακραίας φτωχοποίησης.

Σε αυτήν την κατεύθυνση, και με δεδομένη τη συμμετοχή της στην Τρόικα, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Διαθέτει στατιστικά στοιχεία για τη διακύμανση των ποσοστών φτώχειας στα κράτη μέλη για το 2012;

—
Πώς αξιολογεί και σχολιάζει το γεγονός ότι η Ελλάδα κατατάσσεται στην 25η θέση όσον αφορά την εισοδηματική
φτώχεια των πολιτών της, δηλαδή πολύ χαμηλότερα από χώρες που εισήλθαν στην ΕΕ αρκετά μεταγενέστερα από
αυτήν;

—
Προτίθεται να υποστηρίξει την αναθεώρηση μέτρων που περιλαμβάνουν περικοπές επιβεβλημένων κοινωνικών
δαπανών για την προστασία των πιο ευάλωτων οικονομικά ομάδων, περικοπές που υποβαθμίζουν ευθέως την επίτευξη
του εμβληματικού στόχου της ΕΕ για περιορισμό της φτώχειας και του κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού στην ευρωπαϊκή
επικράτεια;

—
Εκτιμά ότι τα υψηλά ποσοστά φτώχειας σε κράτη μέλη του στενού ευρωπαϊκού πυρήνα, όπως η Ελλάδα, υπονομεύουν
τη συνοχή, τη σύγκλιση και συνολικότερα την προοπτική του ευρωπαϊκού οικοδομήματος;

**Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(28 Μαΐου 2013)_

Tο 2011 η Ελλάδα παρουσίαζε το υψηλότερο ποσοστό φτώχειας στην ευρωζώνη (με βάση τα τελευταία δεδομένα της
Eurostat). Εντούτοις, το ποσοστό του πληθυσμού που διέτρεχε κίνδυνο να βρεθεί κάτω από το όριο της φτώχειας ή να
υποστεί κοινωνικό αποκλεισμό πριν από την πραγματοποίηση κοινωνικών μεταβιβάσεων ήταν κατά τι υψηλότερο στην
ευρωζώνη σε σχέση με την Ελλάδα (25,4% και 24,8% αντίστοιχα). Αντιθέτως, εφόσον λάβουμε υπόψη κοινωνικές τις
μεταβιβάσεις, το ποσοστό της φτώχειας πέφτει σε ποσοστό 16,9% στην ευρωζώνη σε σύγκριση με ποσοστό 21,4% στην
Ελλάδα.

Το σύστημα κοινωνικής πρόνοιας στην Ελλάδα δεν περιλαμβάνει γενική στήριξη του εισοδήματος και στοχεύει σε
περιορισμένο αριθμό πληθυσμού, σε αντίθεση με συστήματα άλλων χωρών της ΕΕ. Η Επιτροπή συνεργάζεται με τις ελληνικές
αρχές για την αντιμετώπιση του εν λόγω προβλήματος (βλ. το πλαίσιο που αφορά την κοινωνική ισότητα στην ανασκόπηση
του προγράμματος του Δεκεμβρίου 2012 ( [1] )). Λόγω του δυσχερούς δημοσιονομικού πλαισίου, η επανεξισορρόπηση του
συστήματος κοινωνικής πρόνοιας πρέπει να πραγματοποιηθεί σταδιακά. Εντούτοις, οι παροχές ευεργετημάτων βάσει του
επιπέδου των πόρων ζωής των δικαιούχων θεσπίστηκαν ήδη το 2013. Ένα δοκιμαστικό πρόγραμμα για ένα ελάχιστο
εγγυημένο εισόδημα προγραμματίζεται για το 2014. Προγραμματίζονται επίσης περαιτέρω ενεργές πολιτικές της αγοράς
εργασίας.

Επιπλέον, σημαντικές προσπάθειες καταβάλλονται για να εξασφαλιστεί ότι ο πληθυσμός υφίσταται ισότιμα τις προσπάθειες
προσαρμογής. Με τη μεταρρύθμιση του φόρου εισοδήματος θα επιμερισθεί πιο δίκαια η φορολογική επιβάρυνση. Στο
πλαίσιο της τρέχουσας μεταρρύθμισης της φορολογικής διοίκησης, ενισχύθηκε η καταπολέμηση της φοροδιαφυγής, της
νομιμοποίησης εσόδων από παράνομες δραστηριότητες και της διαφθοράς, αλλά πρέπει να καταβληθούν περαιτέρω
προσπάθειες. Η Επιτροπή συνεργάζεται με τις αρχές ώστε να επιταχυνθούν οι προσπάθειες προς την κατεύθυνση αυτή.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «European Economy Occasional Paper» 123, Δεκέμβριος 2012.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 537

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003534/13**

**to the Commission**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Significant increase in poverty in Greece and urgent need to support vulnerable social groups

According to Eurostat statistics and reliable academic studies by international and European institutions, the
problems of poverty and shortage of goods are spiralling out of control in Greece. According to the Bank of Greece’s
2012 annual report, poverty increased in Greece by 43.1% in just one year and a comparative investigation by the
German Institute for Economic Research (IW) ranks Greece 25th in the EU of the 27 in terms of the poverty rate
among its population. At the same time, cuts in social spending and benefits under the fiscal reform programme are
undermining the support needed by the most vulnerable social groups, which are at serious risk of social exclusion
and extreme poverty.

This being so and in light of its involvement in the Troika, will the Commission say:

—
Does it have statistics on changes in poverty rates in the Member States in 2012?

— How does it assess and what are its comments on the fact that Greece ranks 25th in terms of its citizens’ income
poverty, i.e. far below countries which joined the EU much later than Greece?

—
Does it intend to support the review of measures that include cuts to the social spending needed in order to
protect the most financially vulnerable groups, cuts that directly undermine attainment of the EU’s flagship
objective of reducing poverty and social exclusion within Europe?

—
Does it consider that high poverty rates in Member States at the core of Europe, such as Greece, are
undermining cohesion, convergence and the prospects of the European construct as a whole?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

Greece had the highest poverty rate in the euro area in 2011 (last Eurostat data). However, the rate of people at risk of
poverty or social exclusion before social transfers was a little higher in euro area than in Greece (25.4% and 24.8%
respectively). In contrast, after accounting for social transfers the poverty rate falls to 16.9% in the euro area
compared with 21.4% in Greece.

The Greek social welfare system does not comprise a general income support and has limited targeting, in contrast
with systems elsewhere in the EU. The Commission is working with the Greek authorities to address this problem (see
box on social equity in Programme Review from December 2012 ( [1] )). Given the difficult fiscal context, the
rebalancing of the social welfare system will have to be undertaken gradually. Nevertheless, a means-tested child
benefit has already been instituted in 2013. A pilot programme for a minimum guaranteed income is planned for
2014. Further active labor market policies are also planned.

In addition, important efforts are being made to ensure that the adjustment efforts are equally shared among the
population. The income tax reform will share more equally the tax burden. In the context of the ongoing revenue
administration reform, the fight against tax evasion, money laundering and corruption has been reinforced but more
needs to be done. The Commission is working with the authorities to step up efforts in this direction.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Economy Occasional Paper 123, December 2012.

C 12 E / 538 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-003535/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE) und Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE)**

_(27. März 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Thailand: Der Fall Andy Hall

Die EU hat vor kurzem ein Partnerschafts‐ und Kooperationsabkommen mit Thailand geschlossen und verhandelt
derzeit über ein Freihandelsabkommen mit dem Land.

Im Verlauf dieser Verhandlungen wurden schwere Verstöße gegen grundlegende Menschen‐ und Arbeitnehmerrechte
in den wichtigsten Branchen der Exportindustrie Thailands, wie der Garnelen-, der Thunfisch‐ und der
Ananasverarbeitung, gemeldet.

Die öffentlichen Bediensteten Thailands haben nur unzulänglich auf diese ausführlich dokumentierten Vergehen
reagiert. Die thailändischen Rechtsvorschriften und die politischen Strategien der öffentlichen Bediensteten
schränken die rechtmäßigen Tätigkeiten und das Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung der Menschenrechtsaktivisten,
die diese Verstöße zu Tage gefördert haben, in vieler Hinsicht sogar ein.

Ein vor kurzem veröffentlichter Bericht von Finnwatch, einer finnischen gemeinnützigen Forschungsorganisation,
enthielt beispielsweise ausführlich dokumentierte Aussagen von Arbeitnehmern, laut denen ein thailändisches
Unternehmen mit engen Beziehungen zum europäischen Markt, Zwangsarbeit sowie Praktiken, die als
Menschenhandel bezeichnet werden können, anwendet. Der Experte für Migration und Menschenrechte, der diese
Forschung durchgeführt hat, ein britischer Staatsbürger namens Andy Hall, wurde nun von dem Unternehmen wegen
Verleumdung verklagt und muss möglicherweise mit einer mehrjährigen Haftstrafe rechnen.

Was wird die EU im Rahmen der aktuellen bilateralen Verhandlungen unternehmen, um die Situation der
Menschenrechte in den Branchen der thailändischen Exportindustrie zu verbessern und Thailand dazu zu bewegen,
das Recht von Menschenrechtsaktivisten auf freie Meinungsäußerung zu schützen?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(29. Mai 2013)_

Die EU ist über das Gerichtsverfahren gegen Andy Hall in Thailand im Zusammenhang mit seiner Tätigkeit für
Finnwatch informiert. Die EU verfolgt diese Angelegenheit aufmerksam, hat sie von Anfang an vorfolgt und wird dies
auch weiterhin in Zusammenarbeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten tun. Die EU-Delegation in Thailand war am ersten Tag der
Verhandlungen im April 2013 anwesend und wird auch weiterhin bei den Verhandlungen anwesend sein.

Die EU hat sich stets für die Freiheit der Meinungsäußerung in Thailand eingesetzt und hierzu Ende Januar 2013 ein
wichtiges Seminar in Bangkok veranstaltet.

Die EU legt großen Wert darauf, in die kürzlich wieder aufgenommenen Verhandlungen über ein
Freihandelsabkommen mit Thailand auch Bestimmungen über den Handel und die nachhaltige Entwicklung
aufzunehmen. Hierzu gehört auch die Förderung der wirksamen Umsetzung der Kernarbeitsnormen. Die
Bestimmungen über den Handel und die nachhaltige Entwicklung im Freihandelsabkommen könnten auch einen
Rahmen für den Dialog in diesem Bereich, auch mit den betroffenen Akteuren, bieten.

In Bezug auf die Studie von Finnwatch möchten wir die Damen Abgeordneten auf die bereits übermittelte Antwort
verweisen, die das für Handel zuständige Kommissionsmitglied im Namen der Kommission auf die
Frage E-00618/2013 erteilt hat ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/de/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 539

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-003535/13**

**komissiolle**
**Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE) ja Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE)**

_(27. maaliskuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Thaimaa: Andy Hallin tapaus

Euroopan unioni on vastikään solminut kumppanuus‐ ja yhteistyösopimuksen Thaimaan kanssa, ja neuvottelut EU:n
ja Thaimaan vapaakauppasopimuksesta ovat parhaillaan käynnissä.

Neuvotteluiden aikana Thaimaasta on raportoitu vakavia perusoikeuksiin ja työntekijöiden oikeuksiin kohdistuvia
rikkomuksia Thaimaan keskeisillä vientiteollisuuden aloilla, kuten katkarapujen, tonnikalan ja ananaksen
jalostuksessa.

Thaimaan viranomaisten vastaukset kyseisiin hyvin dokumentoituihin väärinkäytöksiin ovat olleet riittämättömiä.
Thaimaan lainsäädäntö ja viranomaisten noudattama politiikka ovat monin tavoin rajoittaneet niiden
ihmisoikeuksien puolustajien lainmukaista toimintaa ja sananvapautta, jotka ovat tuoneet kyseiset rikkomukset esiin.

Esimerkkinä voidaan mainita suomalaisen voittoa tavoittelemattoman kansalaisjärjestön Finnwatchin laatima tuore
raportti. Siinä esitetyissä työntekijöiden hyvin dokumentoiduissa lausunnoissa todetaan, että thaimaalainen yhtiö,
jolla on tiiviit yhteydet Euroopan markkinoihin, käyttää pakkotyövoimaa ja harjoittaa ihmiskauppaan viittaavia
käytäntöjä. Yhtiö on nyt nostanut kanteen tutkimuksen tehnyttä siirtolaisuuden ja ihmisoikeuksien asiantuntijaa,
Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan kansalaista Andy Hallia vastaan kunnianloukkauksesta. Hall voidaan tuomita usean
vuoden vankeusrangaistukseen.

Meneillään olevien kahdenvälisten neuvottelujen yhteydessä pyydämme komissiota vastaamaan seuraaviin
kysymyksiin: Mitä suunnitelmia EU:lla on ihmisoikeustilanteen parantamiseksi Thaimaan keskeisillä
vientiteollisuuden aloilla? Mitä suunnitelmia EU:lla on sen edistämiseksi, että Thaimaan ihmisoikeuksien puolustajien
sananvapaus turvataan?

**Korkean edustajan, varapuheenjohtaja Catherine Ashtonin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(29. toukokuuta 2013)_

EU on tietoinen siitä, että Thaimaan tuomioistuimet käsittelevät Andy Hallia vastaan nostettuja kanteita, jotka
liittyvät hänen Finnwatchille tekemään työhönsä. EU seuraa asiaa tiiviisti, on tehnyt niin alusta lähtien ja tekee niin
vastakin yhdessä jäsenvaltioiden kanssa. EU:n edustusto Thaimaassa osallistui ensimmäiseen oikeudenistuntoon
huhtikuussa 2013 ja osallistuu niihin myös jatkossa.

Yleisemmin voidaan todeta, että EU työskentelee määrätietoisesti sananvapauden puolesta Thaimaassa ja järjesti
asiasta laajan seminaarin Bangkokissa tammikuun lopussa 2013.

EU pitää hyvin tärkeänä sitä, että Thaimaan kanssa hiljattain käynnistettyihin neuvotteluihin
vapaakauppasopimuksesta sisällytetään kauppaa ja kestävää kehitystä koskevia määräyksiä. Työelämän
perusnormien tehokkaan täytäntöönpanon edistäminen muodostaa osan tästä tavoitteesta. Kauppaa ja kestävää
kehitystä koskevat vapaakauppasopimuksen määräykset voisivat lisäksi tarjota puitteet aihetta koskevalle
keskustelulle, jota käytäisiin myös alan sidosryhmien kanssa.

Finnwatchin tutkimukseen liittyen haluamme kiinnittää arvoisien parlamentinjäsenien huomion vastaukseen, jonka
kauppapolitiikasta vastaava komissaari on antanut jo aiemmin komission puolesta kysymykseen E-000618/2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fi/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm

C 12 E / 540 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003535/13**

**to the Commission**
**Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE) and Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Thailand: the case of Andy Hall

The EU has recently concluded a partnership and cooperation agreement with Thailand and is currently negotiating
an EU-Thailand free trade agreement.

While these negotiations have been underway, serious violations of fundamental human and labour rights have been
reported in Thailand’s key export industries, such as shrimp, tuna and pineapple processing.

Thai officials’ responses to such well-documented misdoings have been inadequate. In fact, the legitimate activities
and freedom of expression of the human rights defenders who have brought these violations to light are in many
ways restricted by Thai legislation and the policies applied by public officials.

A case in point is a recent report by Finnwatch, a Finnish non-profit research organisation, which provides welldocumented worker testimonies pointing to the use of forced labour and practices which may amount to human
trafficking by a Thai company with strong ties to the European market. The migration and human rights expert who
conducted the research, a British citizen named Andy Hall, has now been sued by the company for defamation and
may face several years’ imprisonment.

In the context of the ongoing bilateral negotiations, what does the EU plan to do to improve the human rights
situation in Thailand’s export industries and to encourage Thailand to protect the freedom of expression of human
rights defenders?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The EU is aware of the cases before Thai courts against Mr Andy Hall related to his work for Finnwatch. The EU
follows this matter closely, has done so from the beginning and will continue to do so together with Member States.
The EU Delegation in Thailand attended the first trial hearing in April 2013 and will continue to do so.

On a more general note, the EU works consistently for freedom of expression in Thailand, and organised a major
seminar in Bangkok about this matter in late January 2013.

The EU attaches great importance to including provisions on Trade and Sustainable Development in the recently
launched Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with Thailand. Promoting the effective implementation of core
labour standards form part of this objective. The trade and sustainable development provisions in the FTA could also
provide a framework for dialogue in this area, including with relevant stakeholders.

Regarding the Finnwatch study, we would also like to draw the Honourable Members' attention to the reply already
given by the Commissioner responsible for Trade on behalf of the Commission, namely previous Question
E-00618/2013 ( [1] )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 541

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003536/13**

**to the Commission**
**Robert Sturdy (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU-US trade statistics

Would the Commission please provide the following statistics:

1. the average tariff levied by the EU on goods imported from the US;

2. the annual income provided by these tariffs to Member States in the years 2010, 2011 and 2012, and how
much of this was passed to the EU budget in each of those years;

3. the expected loss of tariff income from reducing to 0% almost all tariffs on US goods with exception of the
most sensitive.

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

The simple average EU tariff applicable on imports from non-preferential countries is around 4.5%. The weighted
average applicable to actual imports from the US. in 2012 is however less than 2% given the specific composition of
imports from the US.

EU tariff revenue is part of the own resources of the European Commission and therefore flows into the EU budget. It
consequently only has an indirect effect on the Member States budgets.

The current yearly tariff revenue, as estimated for the impact assessment, is around EUR 2.6 billion.

C 12 E / 542 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003537/13**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCPD)

To follow-up from my Written Question E-011445/2012, could the Commission confirm whether an
announcement under the EU Technical Standards Directive will be required by the British Government before the
implementation of the communications Capabilities Development Programme (CCPD) can take place?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The United Kingdom Communications Data Bill should be notified under Directive 98/34/EC laying down a
procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on
information society services (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37) at a draft stage, if it contains technical regulations and/or
rules on information society services falling within the scope of the above Directive.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 543

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003538/13**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Re-opening of Khojaly Airport in Nagorno-Karabakh

I have been contacted by a constituent who is concerned over the Government of Armenia’s announcement that it
intends to re-open Khojaly Airport in Nagorno-Karabakh.

My constituent tells me that Khojaly is in territory recognised by the United Nations as being Azerbaijani sovereign
territory, and that not a single country has recognised Nagorno-Karabakh as being either independent or as being part
of Armenia.

Does the Commission consider that such an action would be in breach of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation — also known as the Chicago Convention?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

As the Honorary Member might recall and as a general policy line the EU emphasises the importance of finding a
peaceful settlement to the conflicts in the South Caucasus. The EU continues to support the OSCE Minsk Group. The
Minsk Group Co-Chairs have already expressed their concerns regarding the issue of civilian flights to NagornoKarabakh. They have received renewed assurances from the sides that any threat or use of force against civil aircraft
will be rejected and that the matter would be pursued through diplomatic channels without further politicizing the
issue. The EU expects the sides to abide by these assurances. In the same vein, the EU shares the view that operation of
the airport in Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be used to support any claim of change in the status of the region and recalls
that the Co-Chairs urged the sides to act in accordance with international law and in consistency with current practice
for flights over their territory.

Regarding specifically the Chicago Convention, any assessment of conformity of such potential flights with the
Convention can only be done by the relevant UN actors, once the exact factual circumstances are clarified.

C 12 E / 544 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003539/13**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Employee engagement initiatives

I have been contacted by a constituent who works for a company which advises on and conducts employee
engagement initiatives.

My constituent tells me that his business has achieved great results in this area, which includes conducting employee
engagement master classes over the past 10 years to raise awareness of this subject ( [1] ).

My constituent informs me that he recently met with the Hungarian Economic, Trade & Investment Commissioner,
and that she expressed interest in exploring the adoption of leading UK employee engagement practices into her
native Hungary. He is keen to conduct his programme elsewhere in the European Union but is concerned about the
extra costs that this will incur.

Given that my constituent’s initiative is helping to improve business results in the UK by means of good employee
engagement, could the Commission say:

1. whether it is aware of any EU funding which could help my constituent conduct his programme in other
Member States?

2. how my constituent can apply for any such funding?

**Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

The most relevant EU funding instruments could be the European Social Fund and Progress.

1. The mentioned activities are eligible under the ESF Regulation. The specific criteria for assistance under
programmes from the ESF and the scope of such assistance are however determined by the Managing Authorities in
the Member States ( [2] ). Hungarian legislation does not exclude foreign organisations from submitting a funding
application; however, individual calls for proposals may set other conditions. The relevant Hungarian Managing
Authority is the National Development Agency.

As regards the UK, ESF programmes are aiming to help people mainly by extending employment opportunities and
by developing a skilled and adaptable workforce. Supporting companies exploring employee engagement practices
into other Member States, such as in this case in Hungary, does not fall within the remit of the current ESF
programmes in the UK.

2. Another EU financing instrument is PROGRESS, whose objectives include promoting policy transfer, learning
and support among Member States on the implementation of EU employment policies. Such actions are often
implemented through calls for tenders or proposals. More information on PROGRESS (and its proposed successor,
the Programme for Social Change and Innovation 2014-20) can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1093

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Please see this website for further information: http://www.engageforsuccess.org/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Their contact details are available at http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=524&langId=en

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 545

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003541/13**

**to the Commission**
**James Nicholson (ECR)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Double funding within the context of CAP reform

The issue of so-called double funding has been the subject of much debate during the ongoing reform of the common
agricultural policy (CAP). As we approach the trilogues, can the Commission provide clarification as to the definition
of double funding and detail the extent, nature and source of the advice — legal and other — it has sought and
received with regard to this matter?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(8 May 2013)_

The Treaty on the European Union sets out the principle of sound financial management in view of achieving the best
relationship between resources employed and results achieved. Hence, the EU budget shall not be used twice for
funding the same activity. This is in contradiction with the financial principles of the EU and is called ‘double funding’.

However, multiple payments on the same piece of land do not represent double funding as long as the rationale for
the payment is different and therefore related to different requirements. If both payments are provided for the same
requirement, double funding would occur. Hence, a clear distinction between CAP payments is necessary in order to
reflect the EU principles for budget expenditure.

C 12 E / 546 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-003542/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(27 marca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Prognozy kosztów pakietu klimatycznego dla Polski

Czy Komisja dysponuje prognozą wydatków, jakie w latach 2014-2020 Polska będzie zmuszona wydać w związku
ze zobowiązaniami wypływającymi z pakietu klimatycznego?

Jaka część tych zobowiązań będzie mogła być pokryta z funduszy przeznaczonych Polsce w budżecie unijnym 20142020?

Czy Komisja dysponuje własną lub zewnętrzną długoterminową (np. 10- lub 20-letnią) prognozą kosztów
związanych z wprowadzeniem przez Polskę pakietu klimatycznego?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Connie Hedegaard w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 maja 2013 r.)_

Komisja oszacowała, że dostosowanie do pakietu klimatyczno-energetycznego będzie kosztować Polskę
2,2 mld EUR, co odpowiada 0,52 % PKB w 2020 r. ( [1] ). Potrzeba dodatkowych inwestycji w wysokości 0,8 mld EUR
rocznie w okresie 2016-2020 doprowadzi w tym samym okresie i kolejnych latach do oszczędności w zakresie paliw
w wysokości 0,4 mld EUR rocznie.

Zgodnie z prognozami zawartymi w podstawowej analizie ( [2] ) koszty te będą się zmniejszały w dalszej perspektywie,
np. do 1,6 mld EUR w 2025 r. (0,33 % PKB) i do 0,7 mld EUR w 2030 r. (0,12 % PKB).

W aktualnym projekcie wieloletnich ram finansowych na lata 2014-2020 uzgodnionym przez Radę Europejską
przewiduje się, że 20 % wszystkich wydatków powinno być przeznaczane na zwalczanie zmiany klimatu. Ramy te
oferują zatem istotne możliwości w zakresie wspierania inwestycji w technologie niskoemisyjne.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Zob.: dokument roboczy służb Komisji SWD(2012) 5. Są to dodatkowe koszty związane z energią służące świadczeniu wszystkich usług

energetycznych w Polsce, nie zaś redukcja PKB. Porównanie z PKB służy ukazaniu wysiłków w odpowiedniej perspektywie.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Zob.: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/docs/technical_report_analysis_2012_en.pdf

( **|**

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 547

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003542/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Climate package cost estimates for Poland

Does the Commission have an estimate of the costs that Poland will be forced to pay from 2014 to 2020 in
connection with its commitments under the climate package?

What number of these commitments could be covered by funds allocated to Poland in the Multiannual Financial
Framework 2014‐2020?

Does the Commission have its own or an external long‐term (e.g. 10‐ or 20‐year) estimate for the costs that Poland
will incur as a result of the introduction of the climate package?

**Answer given by Ms Hedegaard on behalf of the Commission**

_(21 May 2013)_

The Commission has estimated the costs of Poland to comply with the climate and energy package at EUR 2.2 bn or
0.52% of GDP in 2020 ( [1] ). A need for additional investments of EUR 0.8 bn per year in the period 2016 to 2020,
leads to annual fuel savings of EUR 0.4 bn in the same period, and continuing thereafter.

The background analysis ( [2] ) projects that these costs decrease in the longer term, e.g. to EUR 1.6 bn in 2025 (0.33% of
GDP) and EUR 0.7 bn in 2030 (0.12% of GDP).

The current draft of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014 2020 as agreed by the European Council envisages
that 20% of all expenditures should be climate related. So it offers significant opportunities to support low carbon
investments.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See SWD(2012) 5. These are additional energy-related expenses to deliver all energy-related services in Poland, not a reduction of GDP. The GDP

is used to put the effort into perspective.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/docs/technical_report_analysis_2012_en.pdf

( **|**

C 12 E / 548 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003543/13**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Exportações de origem europeia com destino a Angola

As exportações de origem europeia de bens alimentares para Angola estão a ficar retidas no porto de Luanda, devido
às inspeções laboratoriais que passaram a ser exigidas pelas autoridades daquele país para que os produtos possam
entrar no circuito de comercialização. Os problemas com as exportações começaram a tornar-se flagrantes há cerca
de mês e meio, a partir do momento em que o Serviço Nacional de Alfândegas (SNA) entregou à uma empresa
angolana a responsabilidade da fazer análises a todas as mercadorias destinadas a consumo humano.

Além da pouca eficácia da empresa angolana, os exportadores queixam-se dos preços praticados por esta empresa
para fazer as suas análises. Assim, a inspeção de um contentor de bens alimentares custa 1 500 dólares (1 154 euros),
enquanto a de um contentor frigorífico sobe para os 7 400 dólares (5 696 euros, ao câmbio de segunda-feira). Os
importadores dos bens alimentares nacionais acabam por pagar duas vezes o mesmo serviço, dado que são realizadas
inspeções sanitárias tanto em Portugal como, agora, em Angola.

Em julho de 2012, a União Europeia e Angola assinaram um novo acordo de parceria, o qual visa aprofundar o
diálogo político e a cooperação em várias áreas. O objetivo principal da UE nas suas relações com Angola tem sido até
agora o de contribuir para o desenvolvimento sustentável através do apoio institucional, e nomeadamente para o
combate da pobreza e a prossecução dos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento do Milénio, com base num orçamento de
214 milhões de euros até 2013.

1. Como vê a Comissão o atual problema ao nível da entrada das exportações de origem europeia de bens
alimentares em Angola?

2. Como pode este recente acontecimento contribuir para um aprofundamento das relações comerciais e,
eventualmente, uma harmonização das normas técnicas e de inspeção entre a União Europeia e Angola?

3. Prevê a Comissão Europeia iniciar negociações com Angola com vista à celebração de um Acordo de Livre
Comércio?

4. O que pode a Comissão fazer no futuro para salvaguardar os interesses e as expectativas das empresas europeias
exportadoras e também para evitar uma situação semelhante ao caso concreto acima descrito?

**Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão não recebeu até à data qualquer queixa de operadores europeus ou Estados-Membros. Seriam necessárias
informações mais detalhadas sobre os requisitos impostos aos operadores de empresas (por exemplo, legislação
aplicável e regras exatas) para poder comentar e tomar eventuais medidas.

Se Angola decidir aderir às negociações entre a UE e o grupo APE SADC, as partes irão negociar artigos sobre normas
sanitárias e fitossanitárias, assim como normas sobre os obstáculos técnicos ao comércio. Estas negociações acabarão
por contribuir para a harmonização.

Angola está presente nas negociações do Acordo de Parceria Económica entre a UE e o grupo dos países APE SADC,
mas ainda não apresentou qualquer oferta de acesso ao mercado. As negociações sempre estiveram abertas a Angola.

Para evitar problemas semelhantes, a Comissão está empenhada na aplicação do acordo SPS da Organização Mundial
do Comércio a fim de garantir que todos os procedimentos de verificação e do cumprimento das medidas sanitárias
ou fitossanitárias não criem obstáculos desnecessários ao comércio internacional e sejam limitados ao que é razoável
e necessário.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 549

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003543/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European exports to Angola

European exports to Angola are being held back at the port of Luanda due to the laboratory checks that the country’s
authorities have started demanding in order for products to be allowed to enter circulation there. The problems with
exports became obvious around a month and a half ago, when the Angolan customs service (SNA) put an Angolan
company in charge of testing all goods intended for human consumption.

In addition to the Angolan company being inefficient, exporters are complaining about the prices that the company
charges to perform its tests. Inspecting a food container costs USD 1 500 (EUR 1 154), while the price for a
refrigerated container rises to USD 7 400 (EUR 5 696, at Monday’s rates). Importers of Portuguese foodstuffs end up
paying for the same service twice, since health inspections are conducted both in Portugal and, now, in Angola.

In July 2012, the EU and Angola concluded a new partnership agreement aimed at deepening political dialogue and
cooperation in a number of areas. Up to now, the EU’s main objective in its relations with Angola has been to
contribute to sustainable development through institutional support and, in particular, to combat poverty and pursue
the Millennium Development Goals, with a budget of EUR 214 million until 2013.

1. What is the Commission’s view of the current problem as regards European food exports entering Angola?

2. How can this recent development contribute to deepening trade relations and, potentially, to harmonising
technical and inspection standards between the European Union and Angola?

3. Does the Commission plan to start negotiating with Angola about concluding a free trade agreement?

4. What can the Commission do in future to safeguard the interests and expectations of European exporters and to
prevent situations similar to the specific one outlined above?

**Answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Commission has so far not received complaints from European operators or Member States. Further detailed
information about requirements imposed on business operators (e.g. applicable legislation and exact rules) would be
necessary to comment and take any action.

If Angola decides to join the EU-SADC EPA Group negotiations, the parties will negotiate articles on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) as well as standards on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). This will ultimately
contribute to harmonisation.

Angola attends the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations between the EU and the SADC EPA Group but has
not yet made any market access offer. The negotiations have always been open to Angola.

To avoid similar problems, the Commission is engaged in the application of the World Trade Organisation SPS
Agreement in order to ensure that any procedures to check and ensure the fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary
measures do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade and are limited to what is reasonable and

necessary.

C 12 E / 550 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003544/13**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Descoberta de gás natural liquefeito em Moçambique e mercado europeu

A União Europeia é o maior parceiro comercial de Moçambique, sendo o seu maior exportador (53 %) e o segundo
maior importador depois da África do Sul (21 %), tendo aquele Estado também como principais parceiros a China, a
Índia e os Estados Unidos da América.

As relações entre a UE e Moçambique foram reforçadas pela assinatura do Acordo de Parceria Económica, em junho
de 2009, juntamente com o Botsuana, o Lesoto e a Suazilândia, nos termos do qual foi acordado um acesso ao
mercado europeu livre de direitos aduaneiros em troca da liberalização do comércio de Moçambique com a UE na
ordem dos 80 %. No que diz respeito ao mercado dos serviços, as negociações estão ainda em curso.

A recente descoberta de gás natural liquefeito em Moçambique pode transformar o país num dos principais atores na
área do mercado do gás, a par de outras potências energéticas na África Oriental, no que respeita a reservas de gás e
óleo. As reservas de gás em Moçambique e na Tanzânia têm, provavelmente, a mesma dimensão das reservas da
Austrália, país que é líder no fornecimento de gás liquefeito no mercado asiático. As reservas de gás recentemente
descobertas serviriam para cobrir uma grande parte da procura energética para a próxima década.

1. Tem a Comissão algum plano de parceria estratégica no sentido de estreitar as relações políticas e institucionais
com Moçambique?

2. Como vê a Comissão a possibilidade de aprofundar a parceria ao nível das relações económicas da UE com
Moçambique e, nomeadamente, o mercado do gás natural liquefeito?

3. Como vê a Comissão a possibilidade de desenvolver a parceria económica da UE com a Tanzânia e outras
potências energéticas da África Oriental de forma a negociar um fornecimento ao mercado europeu do gás natural
liquefeito aí existente?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de maio de 2013)_

1. A parceria UE-Moçambique é determinada pelo Acordo de Cotonou e os três pilares respetivos de diálogo
político, cooperação para o desenvolvimento e trocas comerciais. Através do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento, a
UE apoia, designadamente, o reforço institucional, o melhoramento da prestação de serviços e a supressão de lacunas
infraestruturais. As conversações com o governo moçambicano incidem igualmente no melhoramento do ambiente
empresarial, no sentido de permitir o desenvolvimento não só das pequenas, mas também das grandes empresas. São
esforços no âmbito da luta contra a corrupção e de garantia do estado de direito, fundamentais para um ambiente
estável propício ao investimento.

2. Moçambique assinou o Acordo Provisório de Parceria Económica, mas ainda não o ratificou. Em vez disso, os
Estados do APE SADC ( [1] ), que inclui Moçambique, estão a negociar um APE regional exaustivo com a UE. As
negociações estão em curso e intensificam‐se. Dado o seu estatuto de país menos avançado, as exportações de
Moçambique, incluindo as de gás, estarão isentas de direitos aduaneiros e de quotas no acesso ao mercado da UE.

3. Os intervenientes emergentes no campo dos hidrocarbonetos, incluindo os países da África Oriental, vão
contribuir para a reformulação do mapa mundial das fontes de gás natural e das rotas de abastecimento, no sentido de
uma maior diversificação. A UE está altamente interessada neste processo de diversificação, tendo em vista garantir
melhor o abastecimento de gás no seu território. Neste contexto, a Comissão pretende intensificar o diálogo político e
a cooperação com potenciais parceiros energéticos, como a Tanzânia e Moçambique.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunidade de Desenvolvimento da África Austral.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 551

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003544/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Discovery of liquefied natural gas in Mozambique and the European market

As its largest exporter (53%) and its second-largest importer, after South Africa, the EU is Mozambique’s largest
trading partner; its other important trading partners include China, India and the US.

EU-Mozambique relations were strengthened by the conclusion of the economic partnership agreement in
June 2009, along with Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. Under the agreement, Mozambique was granted duty-free
access to the European market in exchange for liberalising 80% of its trade with the EU. Negotiations regarding the
services market are still under way.

The recent discovery of liquefied natural gas in Mozambique could transform the country into a major regional player
in the gas market, alongside the other east African countries whose gas and oil reserves make them energy powers.
The gas reserves in Mozambique and Tanzania are probably the same size as those of Australia, which is the leading
supplier of liquefied natural gas to the Asian market. The recently discovered gas reserves would cover a significant
proportion of energy demand over the coming decade.

1. Does the Commission have a strategic partnership plan for closer political and institutional relations with
Mozambique?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the possibility of deepening the EU’s economic partnership with
Mozambique, specifically as regards the liquefied natural gas market?

3. Is the Commission in favour of developing the EU’s economic partnership with Tanzania and other east African
energy powers, so as to negotiate supplying the European market with those countries’ liquefied natural gas?

**Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

1. The EU-Mozambique partnership is driven by the Cotonou Agreement and its three pillars of political dialogue,
development cooperation and trade exchange. Through the European Development Fund the EU is notably
supporting institutional strengthening, improved service delivery and closing infrastructure gaps. Issues around
improving the business environment are also taken up in dialogue with the Mozambican Government, as a way to
provide a level playing field for both small and large companies to thrive; similar efforts relate to the fight against
corruption and ensuring the rule of law, all fundamental elements for a stable environment for investors.

2. Mozambique has signed the interim Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) but has not yet ratified it. Instead,
the SADC ( [1] ) EPA Group members, which include Mozambique, are negotiating with the EU a comprehensive
regional EPA. These negotiations are ongoing and intensifying. As a Least Developed Country, Mozambique’s exports,
including gas, will have duty-free, quota-free access to the EU market.

3. Emerging hydrocarbons players, including East Africa countries, will contribute to reshaping the global map of
natural gas sources and supply routes in the sense of a greater diversification. The EU has a strong interest in this
process of diversification, with a view to achieving greater security of gas supply to the EU. In this context, the
Commission is committed to intensify policy dialogue and cooperation with potential energy partners such as
Tanzania and Mozambique.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Southern African Development Community.

C 12 E / 552 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003545/13**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Indicadores na política de coesão após 2020

A Comissão está a estudar a possibilidade de obter indicadores de pobreza regional e de exclusão social provenientes
do inquérito sobre o rendimento e as condições de vida e indica que, consoante os resultados desse inquérito, irá
examinar se os indicadores referidos podem ser eventualmente considerados na política de coesão após 2020, de
acordo com a resposta da Comissão à pergunta E-000654/2013, por mim enviada.

Segundo a Comissão Europeia, fatores como a distância, o isolamento, os transportes e a mobilidade são
particularmente relevantes para a conceção da política de coesão, mas não existem dados harmonizados disponíveis a
nível europeu, pelo que estes dados não podem ser utilizados na consideração da atribuição dos fundos estruturais ao
abrigo daquela política.

O artigo 174.° do TFUE refere que uma especial atenção deve ser consagrada às regiões com limitações particulares,
tais como as regiões insulares, e que medidas específicas podem ser executadas nas Regiões Ultraperiféricas da União
Europeia, ao abrigo do artigo 349.° do TFUE.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Como podem os indicadores de pobreza regional e de exclusão social vir a ser incluídos na política de coesão
após o ano de 2020, isto é, como seria o recurso aos mesmos articulado com o tradicional critério do PIB e qual
a ponderação de cada um dos critérios no contexto da atribuição dos fundos estruturais da política de coesão?

2. Todos os outros indicadores — que não os indicadores de pobreza regional e de exclusão social — estão
excluídos da possibilidade de virem a ser considerados, eventualmente, na política de coesão após 2020?

3. Quais os fatores que considera incluídos nos indicadores de pobreza regional e de exclusão social?

4. Como devem os fatores como a distância, o isolamento, os transportes e a mobilidade ser devidamente tidos
em conta na realização da política de coesão, sem que haja uma harmonização dos dados existentes a seu
respeito?

5. Antevê a possibilidade de que tais dados sobre a distância, o isolamento, os transportes e a mobilidade possam
vir a estar harmonizados e disponíveis a nível europeu até 2020? Ou, pelo menos, alguns deles, de forma a dar
pleno efeito às disposições do Tratado sobre as regiões insulares e as RUP?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de maio de 2013)_

1. Os indicadores de pobreza regional e de exclusão social poderiam ser utilizados para verificar em que medida o
PIB _per capita_ subestima a pobreza e a exclusão de uma região.

2. Ainda não se iniciou o debate sobre o período após 2020. Por conseguinte, é prematuro afirmar que outros
indicadores irão ser tidos em consideração.

3. Para mais informações sobre indicadores de pobreza e exclusão social, consultar o seguinte endereço:
[http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:At_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion_(](http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:At_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion_(AROPE))
[AROPE)](http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:At_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion_(AROPE))

4. Na medida em que a distância, o isolamento e os transportes/a mobilidade influenciam a atividade económica, a
pobreza ou a exclusão social, a política de coesão após 2020 poderia tomar em consideração estas questões.

5. A Comissão não tem planos para recolher estatísticas oficiais relativas a distância ou isolamento. O Eurostat
publica vários indicadores sobre transportes e mobilidade a nível nacional e regional. Para mais informações,
consultar o seguinte endereço:
[http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/transport/introduction](http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/transport/introduction)

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 553

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003545/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Indicators in cohesion policy post-2020

In answer to my Question E-000654/2013 the Commission said that it is investigating the possibility of obtaining
regional poverty and social exclusion indicators from the survey on income and living conditions. Depending on the
outcome of this investigation, the Commission will examine whether these indicators could possibly be considered in
the allocation of cohesion policy post-2020.

The Commission considers that factors such as distance, isolation and transport/mobility are particularly relevant
when designing programme strategies. However, since there is no harmonised data available at European level, these
factors cannot be taken into account in the allocation of funds.

Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states that particular attention shall be
paid to regions suffering from certain handicaps, such as island regions, and Article 349 provides that specific
measures shall be implemented in the EU’s outermost regions.

1. How could regional poverty and social exclusion indicators be included in cohesion policy post-2020? How
would they be linked to the traditional GDP criterion and to what extent would each criterion be considered in the
allocation of structural funds under cohesion policy?

2. Are regional poverty and social exclusion indictors the only indicators being considered for possible inclusion
in cohesion policy post-2020?

3. What factors do regional poverty and social exclusion indicators encompass?

4. How should factors such as distance, isolation and transport/mobility be duly taken into account in the
allocation of cohesion policy, without a harmonisation of existing data in this regard?

5. Does the Commission anticipate that such data on distance, isolation and transport/mobility may be
harmonised and available at European level by 2020? Will at least some of these data be harmonised and available, to
give full effect to the TFEU provisions on island regions and on the outermost regions?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

1. Regional poverty and social exclusion indicators could be used to verify to what extent GDP per capita
underestimates poverty and exclusion in a region.

2. The discussion on the period after 2020 has yet to start. Therefore, it is too early to say which other indicators
will be considered.

3. More information on poverty and social exclusion indicators can be found here:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:At_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion_(
AROPE)

4. To the extent that distance, isolation and transport/mobility influence economic activity, poverty or social
exclusion, cohesion policy post-2020 could take these issues into account.

5. The Commission has no plans to gather official statistics for distance or isolation. Eurostat publishes a number
of indicators on transport and mobility at the national and regional level. More information can be found here:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/transport/introduction

C 12 E / 554 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003546/13**

**à Comissão**
**Edite Estrela (S&D)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Igualdade de género na seleção de pessoal para a Administração Pública Europeia

O Serviço Europeu de Seleção de Pessoal (EPSO) lançou em 2012 o concurso EPSO AD 230/231/12 para seleção de
pessoal (AD5/AD7) para as áreas de Administração Pública Europeia, Comunicação, Auditoria, Direito e Relações
Externas. Como resultado desse processo de seleção foi elaborada uma lista de laureados. Tendo em conta que a
promoção da igualdade de género constitui uma das missões e um objetivo transversal da União Europeia, solicito à
Comissão Europeia a disponibilização de informação que permita analisar como a problemática de género foi
considerada neste contexto, designadamente elementos relativos ao número de candidatos por cada uma das áreas,
bem como o número de laureados, com estratificação de género.

Gostaria também que a Comissão explicitasse como esta problemática foi tratada em todo o processo de seleção,
desde o seu início, que medidas concretas foram tomadas para assegurar uma representação coerente com a
percentagem de candidaturas de homens e mulheres e informasse da sua análise dos resultados relativamente a esta
variável.

**Resposta dada por Maroš Šefčovič em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão confirma que o EPSO aplicou uma série de medidas destinadas a assegurar a igualdade de género nos
concursos gerais. Os júris destes concursos (a igualdade de género é um elemento obrigatório da sua composição) são
informados das ações e atitudes que poderiam comprometer a sua imparcialidade, incluindo as questões da igualdade
de género, no contexto da formação obrigatória que recebem. No que se refere aos testes, foram tomadas medidas
destinadas a garantir que os materiais utilizados nos processos de seleção não contêm qualquer elemento
discriminatório em termos de género, idade, nacionalidade ou etnia. O EPSO procede também a uma análise
psicométrica contínua das perguntas usadas nos testes feitos em computador para controlar eventuais desvios do
princípio da igualdade de género. As perguntas que possam ser consideradas tendenciosas são bloqueadas na base de
dados e deixam de ser usadas nos concursos gerais. Apesar destas medidas, no último ciclo de seleção de
administradores (EPSO/AD 230-231/12) as candidatas obtiveram piores resultados do que os candidatos (cf. quadro
em anexo).

Os estudos encomendados pelo EPSO mostram que esta situação não está ligada à natureza ou ao conteúdo dos
testes, podendo ser atribuída ao método de pontuação e à dimensão da população de candidatos. Na verdade, os
resultados dos testes variam de concurso para concurso e em alguns perfis e testes as mulheres obtêm melhores
resultados do que os homens. Em determinados casos, só uma pequena percentagem dos candidatos com melhor
pontuação nos testes de pré-seleção passa à fase seguinte do concurso, o que pode exacerbar as eventuais diferenças
na distribuição dos pontos em alguns testes. O Conselho de Administração do EPSO decidiu, por conseguinte, com
base em dados empíricos, alterar a pontuação de um teste a realizar em computador, a fim de reduzir o eventual
impacto negativo do método de pontuação.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 555

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003546/13**

**to the Commission**
**Edite Estrela (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Gender equality in the European Public Administration selection procedure

In 2012 the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) launched an open competition (EPSO AD 230/231/12) for
Administrators (AD5‐AD7) in the fields of European Public Administration, Law, Audit, Communication and
External Relations. A list of successful candidates was drawn up as a result of this selection procedure. Given that
promoting gender equality is one of the EU’s missions and cross-cutting objectives: can the Commission provide
information for an analysis of how gender was taken into account during this procedure, namely the number of
candidates for each field and how many of these were successful, stratified by gender?

Can it also explain how this issue was handled throughout the selection procedure, from the outset, what specific
measures were taken to ensure a coherent representation of the percentage of applications from men and women,
and present its analysis of the results on this variable?

**Answer given by Mr Šefčovič on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

The Commission confirms that EPSO has implemented a number of measures in order to address gender balance
across open competitions. Selection Boards (besides gender equality as a compulsory element of their composition)
are made aware of actions and attitudes which could result in biais in general, including gender specific issues, in the
context of their compulsory training. As regards the tests, a number of measures are taken in order to ensure that test
material used in selection procedures is free of any biais towards gender, age, nationality or ethnicity. EPSO also
carries out a continuous psychometric review of the performance of the questions used in computer-based testing to
monitor any potential gender biais. Questions which show a gender-biased behaviour are blocked in the database and
no longer used in open competitions. Despite these measures, in the latest cycle for Administrators (EPSO/AD 230231/12) female candidates performed less well than male candidates (cf. table in annex).

Studies commissioned by EPSO show that this situation is not linked to the nature or content of the tests, but can
rather be attributed to the scoring methodology and the size of the candidate population. In fact performance in the
tests varies from competition to competition, and for some profiles and tests women outperform men. In some cases
only a small percentage of the top-scoring candidates in pre-selection tests go forward to the next stage of the
competition, which can exacerbate any difference in the distribution of scores in some tests. The EPSO Management
Board therefore decided, on the basis of empirical data, to change the scoring of one computer-based test in order to
reduce any adverse impact of the scoring methodology.

C 12 E / 556 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003547/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Aflatossine: quali rischi e quali controlli sui derivati del mais contenuti nei prodotti ad uso medico —
farmacologico in particolare di provenienza extra UE?

Le micotossine sono metaboliti secondari, tossici per gli animali superiori, prodotti da muffe che colonizzano gli
alimenti. In condizioni favorevoli allo sviluppo di funghi tossigeni, le micotossine possono essere formate in una
qualunque delle fasi di produzione e di trasformazione di un prodotto alimentare. In particolare, le micotossine
possono essere prodotte nelle piante infette in pieno campo, nel corso delle operazioni di raccolta, nelle derrate
immagazzinate (stoccaggio, trasporto), nel corso delle trasformazioni tecnologiche e delle preparazioni alimentari. Le
aflatossine possono essere presenti in prodotti alimentari, come mais, arachidi, frutta a guscio, granoturco riso, fichi e
altra frutta secca, spezie, oli vegetali grezzi e semi di cacao; gli effetti e le conseguenze delle contaminazioni da
micotossine sono evidenti principalmente negli allevamenti zootecnici, ma esse hanno un impatto allarmante anche
sulla salute umana, in particolare se si pensa alla contaminazione di tutti quei prodotti derivati dal mais utilizzati per
scopo non alimentare, ossia medicinali a base di mais, nonché dei parafarmaci e degli integratori alimentari. In
particolare, l'aflatossina B1 è la più diffusa in tali prodotti ed è una delle più potenti dal punto di vista genotossico e
cancerogeno. Diversi studi hanno inoltre evidenziato come le micotossine aumentano con periodi lunghi di
stoccaggio e di trasporto soprattutto del mais GM da USA, Canada, Brasile e Argentina, passando mesi nelle stive di
navi umide, il migliore fattore di proliferazione. In particolare poi nell'agricoltura OGM si coltiva mais a ciclo lungo
che si raccoglie in autunno, ossia con le piogge che favoriscono le micotossine. In Italia, il limite massimo di
aflatossina stabilito per legge in conformità alla normativa europea è di 50 parti per trilione, vale a dire una quantità
infinitesimale, mentre la _Food and Drug Administration_ degli USA prescrive tolleranze dieci volte superiori a quelle

europee.

Considerato che:

—
le c.d. aflatossine micotossine derivano dai luoghi di stoccaggio e dai trasporti nelle navi, da fattori ambientali
come umidità e temperature elevate, ma anche dalle colture ripetute del mais GM;

—
campionare correttamente le partite è quindi molto difficile e spesso le valutazioni commerciali di conformità
vengono effettuate su campioni, contrattuali o meno, che possono difettare di reale rappresentatività;

—
esiste una legislazione europea puntuale in materia di campionamenti ufficiali (da ultimo il regolamento (UE) n.
574/2011) cui tuttavia si affiancano norme volontarie e contrattuali soprattutto rispetto ai controlli con i paesi
extra UE,

può la Commissione far sapere quali controlli vengono effettuati per verificare l'assenza di aflatossine in tutti i
prodotti di importazione, in particolare sui derivati del mais per uso medico o farmacologico quali medicinali,
parafarmaci e integratori alimentari?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

L'UE dispone di una copiosa legislazione relativa alla presenza di aflatossine nei mangimi e negli alimenti. La
direttiva 2002/32/CE ( [1] ) e il regolamento (CE) n. 1881/2006 ( [2] ) fissano i tenori massimi per le aflatossine presenti nel
mais e nei prodotti derivati dal mais destinati rispettivamente all'alimentazione animale e all'alimentazione umana.

Per controllare alle frontiere gli alimenti importati da paesi terzi è adottata una politica impostata sul rischio. Ciò
avviene conformemente alle disposizioni del regolamento (CE) n. 882/2004 ( [3] ).

Inoltre, i regolamenti (CE) n. 669/2009 ( [4] ), (CE) n. 1152/2009 ( [5] ) e (UE) n. 91/2013 ( [6] ) impongono una maggiore
frequenza dei controlli della presenza di aflatossine in determinati prodotti provenienti da alcuni paesi terzi.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 140 del 30.5.2002, pag. 10.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GU L 364 del 20.12.2006, pag. 5.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) GU L 191 del 28.5.2004, pag. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) GU L 194 del 25.7.2009, pag. 11.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) GU L 313 del 28.11.2009, pag. 40.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) GU L 33 del 3.2.2013, pag. 2.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 557

Per quanto riguarda i medicinali, nell'Unione sono in atto diversi meccanismi di controllo volti a garantirne la
sicurezza e la qualità.

La legislazione dell'UE ( [7] ) impone al titolare di un'autorizzazione di fabbricazione o di importazione di medicinali di
conformarsi ai principi e alle linee guida sulle buone prassi di fabbricazione (GMP) dei medicinali ( [8] ) e a utilizzare
come materie prime solo sostanze attive fabbricate secondo le GMP, parte II ( [9] ).

Inoltre, dal 2 luglio 2013, tutte le sostanze attive che entrano nell'UE dovranno essere accompagnate da una
conferma scritta dell'autorità competente del paese terzo esportatore, attestante che gli standard di buone prassi di
fabbricazione e di controllo dell'impianto sono equivalenti a quelli dell'Unione ( [10] ).

Infine, nel presentare la domanda di autorizzazione all'immissione in commercio, le imprese devono tra l'altro
documentare che il medicinale finito è di qualità adeguata e che i criteri di qualità fissati dalla legislazione e nelle linee
guida dell'UE sono soddisfatti.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

**|** )

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Titolo IV della direttiva 2001/83/CE; articolo 13 della direttiva 2001/20/CE, titolo IV della direttiva 2001/82/CE.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/vol-4/
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-4/pdfs-en/2005_10_03_gmp-partii-activesubstance_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) Articolo 46ter della direttiva 2011/62/UE.

C 12 E / 558 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003547/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Aflatoxins: what are the risks connected with, and controls on, maize derivatives — particularly those
originating outside the EU — contained in products used for medical or pharmacological purposes?

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites, toxic to higher animals, produced by mould growing on foodstuffs. If
conditions favour the development of toxic fungi, mycotoxins can form at any stage in the production and processing
of a food product. In particular, mycotoxins can be produced in crops contaminated in the field or in the course of
harvesting, in foodstuffs being stored or transported, and in the course of technical processing and food preparation.
Aflatoxins can be present in food products such as maize, peanuts and other nuts, rice, figs and other dried fruit,
spices, raw vegetable oils and cocoa beans. The effects and repercussions of mycotoxin contamination are most
evident in the livestock production sector, but it also has an alarming impact on human health, particularly in relation
to the contamination of products derived from maize which are used for purposes other than food, including maizebased medicinal products, parapharmaceutical products and food supplements. Aflatoxin B1, the aflatoxin most
widely found in such products, is one of the most genotoxic and carcinogenic of these mycotoxins. Various studies
have also shown how subjecting commodities to long periods of storage and transport increases the incidence of
mycotoxins, particularly in the case of GM maize from the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina, which can spend
months in the humid atmosphere of ships’ holds, the main factor favouring aflatoxin production. In the GM
agricultural sector, in particular, long-cycle maize is grown; it is harvested in autumn, when rain is likely to favour the
formation of mycotoxins. In Italy, the maximum limit for aflatoxins laid down by law in line with EU legislation is 50
parts per trillion, in other words an infinitesimally small quantity, whereas the maximum levels laid down by the US
Food and Drug Administration are ten times higher than the European maximum level.

Aflatoxin mycotoxins can occur as a result of storage and transport by ship, environmental factors such as humidity
and warm conditions, or indeed the repeated cultivation of GM crops. Correct sampling of consignments is therefore
very difficult, and commercial assessments of conformity are often made on the basis of — contractual or other —
samples which may not be truly representative. European legislation covering official sampling exists (most recently,
Regulation (EU) No 574/2011), but is accompanied by voluntary and contractual rules, particularly in the case of
controls involving non-EU countries.

Could the Commission state what controls are carried out to ensure the absence of aflatoxins in all imported
products, in particular in the case of maize derivatives used for medical or pharmacological purposes, such as
medicinal and parapharmaceutical products and food supplements?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The EU has very extensive legislation on the presence of aflatoxins in feed and food. Maximum levels are established
for aflatoxins in maize and derived products intended for feed by Directive 2002/32/EC ( [1] ) and intended for food by
Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 ( [2] ).

A risk based policy is adopted to check at the border food imported from third countries. This approach is fully in line
with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 ( [3] ).

In addition, increased frequency of controls on the presence of aflatoxins on certain products from certain third
countries is imposed by Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 ( [4] ), Regulation (EC) No 1152/2009 ( [5] ) and Regulation (EU)
No 91/2013 ( [6] ).

As regards medicinal products, several control mechanisms are in place in the Union to guarantee safety and quality.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )
**|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L140, 30.5.2002, p. 10.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 364, 20.12.2006, p. 5.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 191, 28.5.2004, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 194, 25.7.2009, p. 11.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 313, 28.11.2009, p. 40.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) OJ L L33, 3.2.2013, p. 2.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 559

EU legislation ( [7] ) obliges the holder of a manufacturing or import authorisation for medicinal products to comply
with the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice (GMP) for medicinal products ( [8] ) and to use as
starting materials only active substances which have been manufactured in accordance with GMP Part II ( [9] ).

In addition, as of 2 July 2013, all active substances entering the EU will have to be accompanied by a written
confirmation from the competent authority of the exporting third country confirming that the standards of good
manufacturing practice and control of the plant are equivalent to those in the Union ( [10] ).

Last but not least, when applying for a marketing authorisation, companies, _inter alia_, must document that the
finished medicinal product will be of appropriate quality and that the criteria set for quality in EU legislation and
guidelines are fulfilled.

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

**|** )

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Title IV of Directive 2001/83/EC; Article 13 of Directive 2001/20/EC, Title IV of Directive 2001/82/EC.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/vol-4/
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-4/pdfs-en/2005_10_03_gmp-partii-activesubstance_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) Article 46(b) of Directive 2011/62/EU.

C 12 E / 560 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003549/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Nuove sostanze stupefacenti: quali sono gli effetti sul corpo umano e come eradicare il traffico illegale?

Attualmente il problema delle sostanze stupefacenti risulta essere uno tra i più allarmanti della nostra società. La
velocità con cui vengono immesse di continuo nuove sostanze sul mercato è impressionante. Secondo alcune
statistiche riguardanti l'anno 2012, alcune tra queste, conosciute come «sballo legale», sono facilmente reperibili in
rete e sono diffuse in maniera capillare, tanto che contribuiscono a un notevole aumento dei rischi per la salute
pubblica. Questo è in parte dovuto al fatto che quando si comincia a fare uso di droghe il corpo non è più in grado di
eliminarle completamente. I metaboliti, che ne costituiscono i residui organici, anche se eliminati dai tessuti organici
del corpo, possono fermarsi in tessuti grassi e rimanervi per anni. In seguito possono penetrare nel sangue e
provocare un desiderio irrefrenabile di ripiombare nel «tunnel della droga», anche per chi aveva deciso di uscirne.

Considerato che:

—
i servizi per la tossicodipendenza sono servizi pubblici dei sistemi sanitari nazionali dediti alla cura,
prevenzione e riabilitazione di persone con problemi dovuti all'assunzione di sostanze stupefacenti;

—
non è possibile affrontare il problema della dipendenza con un percorso univoco ma è auspicabile un
intervento multidisciplinare che verta sull'aspetto psicologico così come su quello farmacologico, educativo e
sociale;

—
nonostante i divieti degli Stati membri, le innumerevoli organizzazioni criminali riescono a evadere i controlli
scegliendo altri paesi per la produzione;

sono a chiedere alla Commissione:

—
se ritiene importante appoggiare sistemi e servizi di informazione e prevenzione che agiscano direttamente nei
luoghi frequentati dai giovani e collaborino con il personale operante all'interno di centri specializzati;

—
se reputa significativo promuovere attività informative su quelli che sono gli effetti sul sistema cerebrale, in
correlazione all'età di assunzione, delle nuove sostanze stupefacenti;

—
quali misure restrittive intende adottare per aumentare e rendere più efficaci i controlli sullo stoccaggio e la
distribuzione della droga sul territorio europeo.

**Risposta di Viviane Reding a nome della Commissione**

_(7 giugno 2013)_

La riduzione della domanda di droga è principalmente di competenza degli Stati membri, che sviluppano e attuano
politiche in materia di prevenzione, trattamento e riduzione dei danni, per informare i cittadini e ridurre l’uso di
sostanze stupefacenti.

La Commissione europea integra l’azione degli Stati membri, promuovendo lo sviluppo di approcci innovativi e la
condivisione delle migliori pratiche, nonché finanziando la ricerca nel campo delle droghe attraverso programmi
finanziari dell’UE. Il Programma di prevenzione e informazione in materia di droga ( [1] ) ha finanziato numerosi
progetti destinati a esplorare gli effetti e i rischi delle nuove sostanze stupefacenti e ad aumentare la consapevolezza di
tali rischi, in particolare tra i giovani, le famiglie e i professionisti che operano nel settore della prevenzione e della
salute.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Per i dettagli del programma, cfr. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/programme/drug-prevention-information/index_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 561

Nella comunicazione «Verso un’azione europea più incisiva nella lotta alla droga» ( [2] ), adottata nell’ottobre 2011, la
Commissione ha individuato la diffusione delle nuove sostanze psicoattive come una delle sfide più impegnative nella
politica in materia di droga, a cui l’UE deve rispondere in modo più deciso. Ha inoltre sottolineato come, per
affrontare il problema della droga nell’Unione europea, sia importante ridurre la domanda. La Commissione prevede
di presentare proposte legislative riguardanti le nuove sostanze stupefacenti, e appoggia lo sviluppo di standard
minimi di qualità nel contenimento della domanda di stupefacenti, per migliorare nell’UE l’efficacia dei servizi e degli
interventi di prevenzione, trattamento e riduzione dei danni cagionati da tali sostanze.

È inoltre prioritario sostenere l’azione degli Stati membri nella lotta contro il traffico illecito di stupefacenti, anche
finanziando progetti di cooperazione transfrontaliera nell’ambito di programmi finanziari dell’UE.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)689 definitivo.

C 12 E / 562 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003549/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New drugs: what are their effects on the human body, and how can we eradicate illegal trafficking?

The drugs problem is one of the most alarming issues facing our society today. New substances continue to come on
to the market at a startling pace. According to statistics for 2012, some of these substances — known as ‘legal highs’
— are easily available via the Internet and are now widespread, to the extent that they represent a significant increase
in the risks for public health. This is partly because once someone starts using drugs, the body can no longer
completely eliminate them. Even if they are eliminated from the organs, the metabolites — which are the organic
residues of the drugs — may lodge in fatty tissue and stay there for years. Subsequently, these substances may enter
the bloodstream and trigger an irresistible urge to start using the drugs again, even in people who have decided to kick
the habit.

Drug addiction services are public services offered by national health systems for the treatment, prevention and
rehabilitation of people with drug-related problems.

It is not possible to tackle the problem of addiction with a single-strand approach. There needs to be a
multidisciplinary approach that takes account of the psychological aspect, as well as the pharmacological, educational
and social aspects.

Despite the bans imposed by the Member States, countless criminal organisations manage to evade the controls by
using other countries to produce the drugs.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Does it believe it is important to support information and prevention systems and services that act directly on the
ground in places frequented by young people and that collaborate with the staff working in specialised centres?

Does it believe it is important to promote information activities about the effects of these new drugs on the brain,
according to the age at which the user starts taking them?

What restrictive measures does it intend to take to increase and improve the effectiveness of controls on the storage
and distribution of drugs in Europe?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 June 2013)_

Drug demand reduction is primarily a competence of the Member States, which develop and implement policies on
drug prevention, treatment and harm reduction, to inform citizens and reduce the use of psychoactive substances.

The European Commission complements Member States’ action, by promoting the development of innovative
approaches, the sharing of best practices and by funding drug research through EU financial programmes. The Drug
Prevention and Information Programme ( [1] ) has funded several projects exploring the effects and risks of new
psychoactive substances and raising awareness of such risks, particularly among young people, families and
professionals working in prevention and health.

In its communication ‘Towards a stronger European response to drugs’ ( [2] ), adopted in October 2011, the
Commission identified the spread of new psychoactive substances as one of the most challenging developments in
drugs policy requiring a firmer EU response. It also stressed the importance of demand reduction in addressing the
drugs problem in the EU. The Commission is planning to present legislative proposals on new psychoactive
substances. The Commission supports the development of minimum quality standards in drug demand reduction, to
improve the effectiveness of drug prevention, treatment and harm reduction interventions and services in the EU.

Supporting Member States' action in addressing illicit drug trafficking, including through the funding of cross-border
cooperation projects under EU financial programmes, is also a priority.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For details of the Programme, see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/anti-drugs/programme/drug-prevention-information/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 689 final.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 563

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003550/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Reti da pesca abbandonate: quali misure urgenti per ridimensionare il problema?

Il problema delle reti da pesca abbandonate in mare costituisce una grave minaccia per l'ecosistema marino e per gli
organismi viventi che lo popolano. Secondo un rapporto realizzato dall'Unep (Programma delle Nazioni Unite per
l'Ambiente) e dalla Fao (Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per l'Alimentazione e l'Agricoltura), le reti dismesse negli
oceani ammontano a 640.000 tonnellate e causano danni ingenti, quantificabili nel decesso di 100.000 cetacei e
100.000 squali. Si tenga inoltre presente che, a causa del crescente inquinamento, il 40 % del plancton e metà delle
barriere collarine sono scomparsi. Attualmente, numerosi progetti mirano a ridurre il numero delle reti fantasma,
riciclandole e ricavandone altri prodotti quali calze, costumi da bagno e tappeti. Tra questi merita particolare
menzione un'iniziativa a livello internazionale, «The Healthy Seas, a Journey from Waste to Wear», che interessa l'area
mediterranea, adriatica e del Mare del Nord ed è mirata a sensibilizzare e mobilitare autorità competenti e cittadini
europei, al fine di ottenere risultati tangibili e duraturi.

Considerato che le reti fantasma rimangono alla deriva per anni, devastando i fondali e causando gravi danni ecologici
nonché rischi notevoli per la navigazione, sono a chiedere alla Commissione se:

—
intenda sostenere l'approvazione di leggi e misure di prevenzione per il recupero della qualità dell'ambiente
marino, avvalendosi del sostegno e delle competenze tecnico-scientifiche delle associazioni ambientaliste;

—
ritenga opportuno valutare un eventuale utilizzo di sostanze biodegradabili per produrre le reti, in modo da
renderle facilmente disintegrabili in acqua, dunque inoffensive;

—
reputi necessario avvalersi di nuove tecnologie per monitorare i fondali e ridurre la presenza di reti fantasma;

—
consideri concretizzabile la possibilità di dare incentivi economici ai pescatori per incoraggiarli a denunciare la
perdita di attrezzature specifiche e a riportare a terra le reti danneggiate e non più utilizzabili;

—
reputi opportuno istituire un registro per contrassegnare ogni rete in dotazione ai pescherecci al fine di
tracciare eventuali perdite e ridurre la portata del fenomeno.

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(29 maggio 2013)_

Le reti da pesca abbandonate sono considerate rifiuti marini e in quanto tali a esse si applica la direttiva quadro sulla
strategia per l'ambiente marino (2008/56/CE). Inoltre l'allegato V della convenzione MARPOL proibisce alle navi di
scaricare e abbandonare in mare i rifiuti, compresi gli attrezzi da pesca.

Nell'ambito dell'attuazione della direttiva quadro sulla strategia per l'ambiente marino, il sottogruppo tecnico per i
rifiuti marini raccomanda agli Stati membri di sviluppare metodi armonizzati di monitoraggio dei rifiuti in questione,
inclusi i rifiuti trovati sui fondali. La Commissione ha recentemente avviato un progetto pilota, lanciato dal
Parlamento europeo, inteso a valutare le migliori pratiche per i programmi di rimozione di questo tipo di rifiuti
marini, inclusi gli attrezzi perduti. Il progetto procederà alla consultazione di diverse parti interessate, tra cui i
pescatori, e costituirà inoltre la base per valutare la fattibilità del finanziamento. È troppo presto per stabilire quali
metodi siano più promettenti, dato che il progetto dovrebbe terminare nel 2014.

Quanto all'eventuale uso di materiali biodegradabili, la loro decomposizione dipende da diversi fattori e tra l'altro da
condizioni specifiche che spesso non si trovano nell'ambiente marino. Le questioni concernenti i materiali
biodegradabili sono valutate nel Libro verde della Commissione sui rifiuti di plastica ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)123 del 7.3.2013.

C 12 E / 564 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003550/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Abandoned fishing nets: what urgent measures can be taken to reduce the problem?

The problem of fishing nets abandoned at sea poses a serious threat to the marine ecosystem and to the living
organisms that inhabit it. According to a report published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), there are 640 000 tonnes of discarded nets
in the sea, which cause enormous damage and have resulted in the death of 100 000 cetaceans and 100 000 sharks. It
is also noted that, as a result of increasing pollution, 40% of plankton and half of all coral reefs have disappeared.
Currently, many projects aim to reduce the number of ‘ghost nets’ by recycling them and turning them into other
products such as socks, swimsuits and carpets. One particularly notable project is an international initiative called
‘The Healthy Seas, a Journey from Waste to Wear’. This covers the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and the North Sea, and
aims to raise awareness among the relevant European authorities and the general public, and to prompt action that
will produce tangible and lasting results.

Ghost nets carry on drifting for years, ruining the sea bed and causing serious ecological damage, as well as posing
considerable hazards to navigation.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

Does it intend to support the adoption of laws and preventive measures to restore the quality of the marine
environment, drawing on the support and the technical and scientific skills of environmental associations?

Does it believe it would be useful to assess the possible use of biodegradable materials for producing nets, so that they
would break down easily in the water and thus be made harmless?

Does it believe that new technologies should be used to monitor the sea beds and reduce the presence of ghost nets?

Does it regard it as feasible to give financial incentives to fishermen, to encourage them to report any losses of gear
and to bring back to shore any damaged nets that can no longer be used?

Does it believe it would be a good idea to set up a register to identify every net in use on fishing vessels, in order to
track any losses and reduce the scale of the problem?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

Abandoned fishing nets are considered to be marine litter and as such are addressed through the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). Furthermore, MARPOL Convention, Annex V forbids waste including fishing
gear from ships to be discharged or abandoned at sea.

The Technical Subgroup on marine litter under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive implementation advises
Member States developing harmonised methods for monitoring of marine litter, including the litter found at the
seabed. The Commission has recently started a pilot project, initiated by the European Parliament, assessing best
practices for this type of marine litter removal schemes including lost fishing gear. The project will consult different
stakeholders including fishermen and will also provide a basis for judging the feasibility of funding. It is too early to
say which are the most promising methods as the project is expected to end in 2014.

As regards the possible use of biodegradable materials, their decomposition depends on many factors including
specific conditions which are often not found in the marine environment. Questions related to biodegradable
materials are addressed in the Commission’s Green Paper on Plastic Waste ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 123 of 7.3.2013.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 565

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-003551/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 marzo 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Vietare l'uso di pesticidi neonicotinoidi per proteggere le api: quali prospettive per il futuro a livello europeo?

Il ruolo delle api è duplice in quanto non si occupano solo della produzione di miele, propoli e di un integratore
importante quale la pappa reale, ma anche dell'impollinazione dei fiori di molte piante di frutta e verdura delle quali ci
nutriamo. Di conseguenza migliorano la qualità dei prodotti ortofrutticoli nella cui creazione vengono impiegate. In
Europa l'84 % delle 264 colture più importanti vengono impollinate, mentre 4 000 specie di vegetali sopravvivono
grazie all'impollinazione. Sotto il profilo economico, ad esempio, in Italia il mercato dei prodotti dell'apicoltura conta
un fatturato di 1 600 milioni di euro l'anno, mentre nei paesi europei ammonta a circa 70 miliardi annui. Le frequenti
morie di api verificatesi tra il 2005 e il 2008 in Italia, Germania e altri paesi hanno spinto i ricercatori ad analizzarne
le cause scatenanti. La responsabilità va attribuita principalmente ad alcuni pesticidi, noti come neonicotinoidi, usati
come fertilizzanti per i semi di mais e altre colture, che vengono dispersi nell'aria al momento della semina a causa
della sottile pellicola che li lega ai semi e che si disgrega facilmente. Queste sostanze, assunte dalle api, provocano non
solo danni ai loro neuroni e al loro intestino ma anche un'alterazione del comportamento; a causa di ciò, infatti, non
sono più in grado di orientarsi, dunque non riuscendo più a individuare le fonti di cibo, vivono una fase di iperattività
al termine della quale muoiono paralizzate. A livello europeo la direttiva 91/414/CEE prevede che i blocchi cautelativi
in questo ambito differiscano da Stato a Stato e che i controlli finali su queste sostanze siano sempre a carico dei
produttori senza nessuna possibilità di intervento da parte degli enti di controllo.

Considerato che:

—
la recente proposta di abolire per due anni l'uso di sostanze dannose avanzata dalla Commissione non ha
ricevuto piena approvazione da parte degli Stati membri;

—
molti paesi europei si sono mobilitati per ottenere restrizioni sulla concia del mais,

può la Commissione far sapere:

—
se intende imporre un divieto a lungo termine sull'uso di determinate sostanze che non sia esteso solo a mais e
colza e che accomuni tutti gli Stati membri;

—
se intende promuovere ulteriori campagne di sensibilizzazione a livello europeo che aiutino a capire
l'importanza delle api per il nostro ecosistema?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(27 maggio 2013)_

1. La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputato alla propria risposta all'interrogazione scritta E‐002933/2013 ( [1] ).
Non sono proposti interventi per le colture in relazione alla quali l'EFSA non ha individuato nessun rischio.

2. L'azione dell'UE per le api è trasversale e interessa diversi ambiti, dal monitoraggio della salute delle api all'uso
sostenibile dei pesticidi, dai progetti di ricerca al sostegno finanziario per il ripopolamento del patrimonio apicolo.
Sono state inoltre condotte attività di comunicazione per attirare l'attenzione sull'importanza degli insetti pronubi.
Anche grazie a questa azione il livello di sensibilizzazione tra i cittadini dell'UE sull'importanza delle api per il nostro
ecosistema è estremamente alto, come è dimostrato da diverse petizioni firmate negli ultimi mesi per promuovere
l'azione dell'UE sui neonicotinoidi.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/it/parliamentary-questions.html

C 12 E / 566 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003551/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides to protect bees — what are the future prospects in the EU?

The role of bees is twofold, as not only do they produce honey, propolis and the important royal jelly supplement, but
they also pollinate flowers and many of the fruit and vegetable plants we eat. Consequently, they improve the quality
of the fruit and vegetables they are used to create. In Europe, 84% of the 264 most important crops are pollinated,
while 4 000 species of plants survive thanks to pollination. From an economic perspective, for example, in Italy, the
market for bee products has a turnover of EUR 1.6 billion per year, while in European countries overall the figure is
approximately EUR 70 billion per year. The frequent bee die-offs that occurred between 2005 and 2008 in Italy,
Germany and other countries have prompted researchers to study the underlying causes. The responsibility lies
mainly with some pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, which are used as fertilisers for corn seeds and other crops;
they are dispersed in the air during sowing because of the thin film that binds them to the seeds, which easily erodes.
These substances, when taken in by bees, not only damage their neurons and intestines, but also change their
behaviour — they lose their sense of direction and are therefore no longer able to identify sources of food; they then
go through a phase of hyperactivity, after which they become paralysed and die.

At EU level, Directive 91/414/EEC provides that precautionary suspensions in this area may differ from country to
country and that the final tests on these substances should always be the responsibility of their producers, with
supervisory bodies being unable to intervene.

Given that:

—
the recent Commission proposal to abolish the use of harmful substances for two years did not meet with the
full approval of the Member States;

—
many EU countries have mobilised to seek restrictions on the coating of corn seeds,

can the Commission say:

—
whether it intends to impose a universal long-term ban on the use of certain substances — and not only for
corn and oilseed rape — in all the Member States;

—
whether it will promote further awareness-raising campaigns at EU level to help people to understand how
important bees are to our ecosystem?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

1. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐002933/2013 ( [1] ).
No actions are proposed for the crops for which EFSA did not identify risks.

2. The EU action on bees is cross-cutting and concerns several areas, from bee health monitoring to the sustainable
use of pesticides, from research projects to financial support on restocking of hives. In addition communication
activities have been carried out to draw the attention to the importance of pollinators. Also thanks to this action, the
level of awareness among EU citizens on the importance of bees for our ecosystem is very high, as demonstrated by
numerous petitions signed over the last months to promote EU action on neonicotinoids.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 567

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003552/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Memória Ativa — momentos decisivos da história europeia moderna

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000812/2013, Viviane Reding, Vice-Presidente, declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «A Comissão propôs que na próxima geração do programa (2014‐2020) se alargasse a vertente “Memória ativa”
para incluir “momentos decisivos da história europeia moderna”».

Assim, pergunto à Comissão que critério presidirá à escolha dos «momentos decisivos da história europeia moderna»?
Pode adiantar exemplos dos mesmos?

**Resposta dada por Viviane Reding em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão propôs, com efeito, que na próxima geração do programa (2014-2020) se alargasse a vertente «Memória
ativa» para incluir «momentos decisivos da história europeia moderna».

Trata-se de eventos que representam um importante ponto de viragem na história moderna da Europa, com
consequências profundas na sua vida política, social e económica.

C 12 E / 568 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003552/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Active remembrance — defining moments in modern European history

In answer to my Question E-000812/2013, Vice-President Reding, on behalf of the Commission, said that ‘The
Commission has proposed for the next generation of the programme (2014‐2020) broadening the focus of the
Remembrance strand to include “defining moments in modern European history”’.

What criteria will the Commission use to select the ‘defining moments in modern European history’? Can it provide
examples of such moments?

**Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission**

_(27 May 2013)_

The Commission has indeed proposed for the next generation of the programme (2014‐2020) broadening the focus
of the Remembrance strand to include ‘defining moments in modern European history’.

These are events which represent a major turning point in Europe's modern history with profound consequences on
its political, social and economic life.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 569

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003553/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Marca do Património Europeu

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000812/2013, a senhora Vice-Presidente Viviane Reding declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «a Comissão está a preparar a implementação da Marca do Património Europeu. O objetivo desta
iniciativa é conferir visibilidade aos sítios que celebram e simbolizam a integração, os ideais e a história da Europa. A
primeira seleção de sítios realizar-se-á em finais de 2013.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que critérios presidirão à escolha das «marcas do património europeu»? Pode adiantar exemplos dos mesmos?

—
Não considera que esta designação é equívoca, redutora e mesmo ofensiva porquanto a União Europeia não
pode arrogar-se a ter o exclusivo daquilo que se designa por «património europeu» e que este não remete apenas
para o período de existência das comunidades europeias?

—
Não considera que os termos constantes da decisão n.° 1194/2011/UE, de 16 de novembro de 2011,
nomeadamente aquele que advoga o apoio «sem reservas» da integração europeia por parte dos cidadãos,
preconizam uma inadmissível acriticidade dos cidadãos face ao projeto europeu?

**Resposta dada por AndroullaVassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de maio de 2013)_

De acordo com a decisão que estabelece a Marca do Património Europeu ( [1] ), os sítios irão ser designados com base nos
seguintes critérios: o valor europeu simbólico e o seu papel na história e na cultura da Europa e/ou na construção da
União Europeia; a qualidade do projeto proposto pelo sítio para promover a sua dimensão europeia (informação,
atividades educativas, etc.) e a qualidade do plano de trabalho a executar pelo sítio ( boa gestão, acesso, comunicação,
etc.).

O ano de 2013 é o primeiro ano de seleção para a Marca. Foram pré-selecionados um total de nove locais de entre os
cinco Estados-Membros que participaram no ano de seleção, nomeadamente a Áustria, a Dinamarca, a Estónia, o
Luxemburgo e os Países Baixos.

A lista dos sítios propostos está publicada no sítio web da Comissão ( [2] ). Serão avaliados por um painel de peritos
independentes com base nos critérios acima mencionados.

Não há especificação quanto à época de construção dos sítios que possam ser distinguidos com a Marca.

A Marca tem como objetivos realçar o valor simbólico e aumentar a visibilidade de sítios que tenham desempenhado
um papel significativo na história europeia e contribuir para que os cidadãos europeus compreendam melhor o seu
património cultural comum, ainda que diverso. Tal abordagem ajuda a informar os cidadãos e a incentivar o debate
aberto.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) N.° 1194/2011/UE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc/label/list-of-preselected-sites-ehl-2013.pdf

C 12 E / 570 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003553/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Heritage Label

In answer to my Question E-000812/2013 Vice-President Reding, on behalf of the Commission, said that ‘the
Commission is preparing the implementation of the European Heritage Label. The aim of this scheme is to highlight
heritage sites that symbolise European integration, ideals and history. The first selection of sites will take place later in
2013.’

—
What criteria will the Commission use to designate ‘European Heritage Labels’? Can it provide examples of
eligible sites?

—
Does it not believe that this designation is misleading, simplistic and even offensive since the EU cannot claim
exclusive rights to all ‘European heritage’, which encompasses a period greater than the Union’s existence?

—
Does it not believe that Decision No 1194/2011/EU of 16 November 2011, by calling for citizens to lend their
‘full’ support to European integration, prevents them from applying the necessary critical judgment to the
European project?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 May 2013)_

According to the decision establishing the European Heritage Label ( [1] ) the sites will be designated on the basis of the
following criteria: the symbolic European value of the site and its role in the history and culture of Europe and/or in
the creation of the European Union; the quality of the project proposed by the site to promote its European
dimension (information, educational activities etc.); the quality of the work plan implemented by the site (sound
management, access, communication etc.).

2013 is the first selection year for the label. A total of nine sites were pre-selected by the five Member States
participating in the selection year, namely Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

The list of the proposed sites is published on the Commission website ( [2] ). They will be assessed by a panel of
independent experts against the criteria mentioned above.

There is no specification as to when sites, which may be awarded the label, have been built.

The objectives of the label are to stress the symbolic value and raise the profile of sites which have played a significant
role in European history and to increase European citizens' understanding of their common, yet diverse cultural
heritage. Such an approach helps to inform citizens and encourage open debate.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) No 1194/2011/EU.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/culture/our-programmes-and-actions/doc/label/list-of-preselected-sites-ehl-2013.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 571

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003554/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Estratégia Conjunta UE-África

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000811/2013, o senhor Comissário Andris Piebalgs declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «a tradução na prática de uma tal estratégia ambiciosa revelou-se um desafio e as modalidades de
execução existentes não se revelaram tão eficazes como se tinha inicialmente previsto» e que «do lado da UE, está em
curso uma reflexão a nível interno sobre o futuro da Estratégia Conjunta, que será vastamente discutida com todos os
parceiros europeus e africanos, incluindo a UA, as comunidades económicas regionais, os parlamentos e a sociedade
civil, na perspetiva da próxima Cimeira em 2014.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que razões motivaram essa menor eficácia na execução?

—
Por que formas pretende manter a ambição da estratégia e fazê-la coincidir com uma execução mais eficaz?

—
Quando tenciona apresentar resultados da reflexão interna em curso?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de maio de 2013)_

A ECAE 2007 ( [1] ) baseia-se em valores comuns, interesses e a visão de África e da UE sobre a sua relação. É executada
através de planos de ação sucessivos, com 8 parcerias temáticas com diálogo político e uma dimensão operacional.
Foram alcançadas importantes realizações na maior parte dos domínios ( [2] ).

Em retrospetiva, os planos de ação da Estratégia Conjunta África-UE sofriam de uma agenda demasiado ambiciosa,
assim como da falta de participação dos principais intervenientes a nível regional e nacional, da apropriação e
integração de instrumentos para a cooperação existentes insuficientes e da falta de ajuda financeira específica para
apoiar uma estratégia transcontinental inovadora. Para resolver estas insuficiências, é necessário refletir sobre a forma
de melhorar a estrutura e organizar o trabalho, de modo a obter resultados mais tangíveis. No âmbito do QFP, a
Comissão terá um novo Programa Pan-Africano para apoiar a Estratégia Conjunta África-UE de forma específica.
Atualmente, uma pequena dotação de 10 milhões de EUR constitui um mecanismo de apoio e a Comissão continua a
apoiar o reforço das capacidades da União Africana (UA), através do Programa de Apoio da UA.

Na reunião CE-AUC (25-26 de abril de 2013), ambas as partes analisaram a situação e decidiram dar início aos
primeiros diálogos sobre a reforma da Estratégia Conjunta África-UE. A Cimeira África-UE de 2014 deverá fazer o
balanço dos resultados destes diálogos, aprovar propostas de reforma e conferir o impulso necessário para o trabalho
futuro. A cimeira poderá igualmente acordar as prioridades operacionais e uma arquitetura de aplicação mais eficaz,
com base nos respetivos interesses estratégicos e os resultados esperados.

O diálogo com o Parlamento sobre o Programa Pan-Africano proposto encontra-se em curso no contexto do Quadro
Financeiro Plurianual (QFP). Nas vésperas da Cimeira, a Comissão está disposta a discutir sugestões de reforma com o
Parlamento Europeu e todos os outros interessados.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Estratégia Conjunta África-UE.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Para informações mais pormenorizadas consultar: www.africa-eu-partnership.org

C 12 E / 572 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003554/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Joint Africa-EU Strategy

In answer to my Question E-000811/2013 Commissioner Piebalgs, on behalf of the Commission, said that ‘the
translation of such an ambitious strategy into practice has proved challenging and the working arrangements in place
have not proved as effective as originally foreseen’. He added that ‘Internal reflection on the future of the Joint Strategy
is ongoing on the EU side and will also be widely discussed with all European and African partners, including the AU,
Regional Economic Communities, parliaments and civil society, ahead of the next Summit in 2014.’

—
Why has the implementation of this strategy been less effective than foreseen?

—
How will the Commission ensure a more effective implementation of this strategy while maintaining its
ambition?

—
When does it intend to present the results of the ongoing internal reflection?

**Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The 2007 JAES ( [1] ) is based on shared values, interests and vision of Africa and the EU on their relationship. It is
implemented through successive Action Plans, with 8 thematic partnerships with political dialogue and an
operational dimension. Important achievements have been made in most areas ( [2] ).

In retrospect, the JAES Action Plans suffered from an over-ambitious agenda, lack of buy-in from key stakeholders at
regional and national levels, insufficient appropriation and mainstreaming in existing cooperation-instruments and
the lack of dedicated financial support to underpin such an innovative transcontinental Strategy. To address these
shortfalls, we need to reflect on how to better structure and organise our work so as to deliver more tangible results.
Under the MFF, the Commission will have a new Pan-African Programme to provide dedicated support for the JAES.
At present, a small envelop of EUR 10 million serves as a support mechanism and the Commission continues to
support the capacity building of the African Union (AU) via the AU Support Programme.

At the EC-AUC meeting (25-26 April 2013) both Colleges reviewed the situation and decided to start first discussions
on the reform of the JAES. The IV. Africa-EU Summit in 2014 is expected to take stock of results of these discussions,
endorse reform proposals and provide the necessary impetus for future work. The Summit could also agree the
operational priorities and a more effective implementation architecture, based on our respective strategic interests
and expected results.

Discussions with Parliament on the proposed Pan-African Programme are ongoing in the MFF context. In the run-up
to the Summit, the Commission stands ready to discuss the reform suggestions with the EP and all other stakeholders.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Joint Africa-EU Strategy.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) for detailed information see: www.africa-eu-partnership.org

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 573

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003555/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Prejuízos decorrentes do mau tempo nos Açores

O mau tempo na ilha de São Miguel, no arquipélago dos Açores, originou diversas derrocadas e causou três mortos.
No grupo central, as ilhas da Terceira e das Flores foram também afetadas pela intempérie. Segundo o Governo
Regional, os prejuízos patrimoniais estão orçados em 35 milhões de euros. Campanhas de solidariedade estão já em
curso para minorar os prejuízos das populações atingidas.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento desta situação?

—
Recebeu pedido de apoio por parte das autoridades regionais?

—
Estará disponível para o avaliar caso venha a recebê-lo?

—
Em que áreas crê que o seu auxílio poderia ser mais relevante e eficaz?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão está ciente da situação e contactou as autoridades regionais dos Açores, que inquiriram sobre a
possibilidade de solicitar assistência financeira do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE. Os pedidos, contudo, só podem ser
apresentados à Comissão pelas autoridades nacionais no prazo de 10 semanas a contar da ocorrência da catástrofe.

Se as autoridades portuguesas tencionam apresentar um pedido, a Comissão está disposta a proporcionar uma maior
orientação e aconselhamento. Todos os pedidos recebidos são avaliados de acordo com os critérios estabelecidos no
Regulamento do Fundo de Solidariedade ( [1] ). O limiar normal de ativação do Fundo de Solidariedade no caso de
Portugal corresponde a um montante de danos superior a 1 002 milhões de euros. Só podemos avaliar se os critérios
de ativação excecional do fundo para uma catástrofe regional de caráter extraordinário estão preenchidos uma vez
conhecidas as informações pormenorizadas constantes do pedido.

Se o apoio do Fundo de Solidariedade for concedido, as autoridades portuguesas serão as responsáveis pela seleção de
operações de emergência que merecem beneficiar do financiamento como, por exemplo, reparação de infraestruturas
essenciais, habitações provisórias ou compensação das despesas incorridas com as operações de salvamento. Os
danos privados não podem ser compensados pelo Fundo de Solidariedade.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento (CE) n.° 2012/2002 do Conselho, de 11 de novembro de 2002, que institui o Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia, JO L 311
de 14.11.2002.

C 12 E / 574 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003555/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Damage caused by bad weather in the Azores

Bad weather on the island of São Miguel, in the Azores archipelago, has caused several landslides and claimed three
lives. The islands of Terceira and Flores, in the Central Group, were also hit by the storm. According to the regional
government, property damage is estimated at EUR 35 million. Solidarity campaigns are already underway to
minimise the losses of those affected.

— Is the Commission aware of this situation?

—
Has it received an aid application from the regional authorities?

—
Is it prepared to assess such an application should it receive one?

— In which areas does it believe that EU aid could be most relevant and effective?

**Answer given by Mr Hahn on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the situation and has been in contact with the regional authorities of the Azores who
enquired about the possibility to request financial assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund. Applications, however, can
only be presented to the Commission by the national authorities within 10 weeks of the occurrence of the disaster.

If the Portuguese authorities intend to submit an application, the Commission is ready to provide further guidance
and advice. All applications received are assessed according to the criteria laid down in the Solidarity Fund
Regulation ( [1] ). The normal threshold for activating the Solidarity Fund in the case of Portugal is damage exceeding
EUR 1.002 billion. Whether the criteria for exceptionally activating the Fund for a so-called extraordinary regional
disaster are met could only be assessed on the basis of detailed information to be provided in the application.

If aid from the Solidarity Fund were to be granted, the Portuguese authorities would be responsible for selecting
relevant emergency operations for financing, for instance to repair essential infrastructure, for provisional housing or
to compensate the cost of rescue operations. Private damage may not be compensated from the Solidarity Fund.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund, OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 575

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-003556/13**

**komissiolle**
**Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)**

_(27. maaliskuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Tutkimusrahoitus Israelin siirtokuntien yrityksille

EU on jatkuvasti ilmaissut olevansa huolissaan Israelin toimista siirtokunta-alueilla. Siirtokunnat rikkovat
kansainvälistä oikeutta ja häiritsevät Palestiinan ja Israelin hallitusten välistä rauhanprosessia. Israelin hallituksen
suorien toimien lisäksi siirtokunta-alueilla on israelilaisia (ja ulkomaisia) yrityksiä, jotka toimivat tukeakseen Israelin
hallituksen pyrkimyksiä rikkoa kansainvälistä oikeutta, erityisesti neljännen Geneven yleissopimuksen 49 artiklaa.

Komission ja EU:n toimielinten olisi pidättäydyttävä rahoittamasta näitä yrityksiä. Lisäksi komission olisi selvitettävä,
saavatko kyseiset yritykset rahoitusta EU:lta. Tästä syystä tiedustelen seuraavaa:

1. Rahoittaako EU tutkimushankkeita, joissa on vastaanottajina tällaisia israelilaisia (tai ulkomaisia) yrityksiä?

2. Jos vastaus on myönteinen, mistä tutkimushankkeista tällaisia yrityksiä rahoitetaan?

3. Mihin toimiin EU aikoo ryhtyä varmistaakseen, ettei EU:n rahoituksella tueta suoraan tai epäsuorasti Israelin
pyrkimyksiä rikkoa neljännen Geneven yleissopimuksen 49 artiklaa?

**Maire Geoghegan-Quinnin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(14. toukokuuta 2013)_

Israelilaisten tutkimusyksiköiden osallistumista seitsemännestä tutkimuksen, teknologian kehittämisen ja
demonstroinnin puiteohjelmasta (2007–2013) tuettaviin tutkimushankkeisiin säännellään Euroopan yhteisön ja
Israelin valtion välisellä tieteellistä ja teknistä yhteistyötä koskeva sopimuksella ( [1] ). Kyseisen sopimuksen 2 artiklan
1 kohdan ja liitteen I nojalla Israelin tutkimusyksiköt voivat osallistua ja saada rahoitusta seitsemännestä
puiteohjelmasta samoin edellytyksin kuin EU:n jäsenvaltioista peräisin olevat tutkimusyksiköt.

Useita mekanismeja on otettu käyttöön sen estämiseksi, että EU:n rahoitusta käytetään suoriin toimiin, jotka voivat
olla kansainvälisen oikeuden vastaisia.

Ensinnäkin komissio tarkistaa huolellisesti, että tutkimusyhteenliittymiin hakevat israelilaiset tutkimusyksiköt eivät
ole sijoittautuneet siirtokunta-alueille, vaan Israelin vuotta 1967 edeltävien rajojen sisäpuolelle.

Toiseksi useimmat seitsemännen puiteohjelman hankkeet ovat luonteeltaan yhteistoiminnallisia, ja niissä on useita
osanottajia eri maista. Kaikki hankkeet valitaan tieteellisen huippuosaamisen perusteella ja tarvittaessa niille tehdään
eettinen arviointi. Eettisessä arvioinnissa tarkastellaan muun muassa sitä, onko kulloinenkin tutkimuksen tuote tai
teknologia mahdollisesti kaksikäyttöistä. Tätä sovelletaan esimerkiksi yrityksiin, jotka osallistuvat
turvallisuustutkimuksen alan toimiin tai jotka toimivat puolustus‐ ja turvallisuusalalla.

Komissio on tietoinen Euroopan parlamentin ja kansalaisyhteiskunnan organisaatioiden esille ottamista
huolenaiheista, jotka liittyvät tiettyjen israelilaisten tutkimusyksiköiden osallistumiseen puiteohjelman hankkeisiin.
Komissio pohtii parhaillaan keinoja näiden ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi EU:n seuraavan tutkimus‐ ja
innovointirahoituksen Horisontti 2020 ‐puiteohjelman (2014–2020) täytäntöönpanossa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUVL L 220, 25.8.2007.

C 12 E / 576 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003556/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Research funding to Israeli settlement companies

The EU has continually expressed its concern over Israeli actions in the settlement areas. These settlements violate
international law and damage the peace process between the Palestinian and the Israeli Governments. In addition to
the Israeli Government’s direct actions, there are Israeli (and foreign) companies in the settlement areas which operate
to support the Israeli Government’s efforts in breaking international law, specifically Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva
Convention.

The Commission and the EU institutions should refrain from funding these companies. Moreover, the Commission
should find out whether such companies are receiving research funding from the EU. I therefore ask:

1. Is the EU funding research projects which have such Israeli (or foreign) companies as fund recipients?

2. If so, which research projects are funding such companies?

3. What actions will the EU take in order to make sure that the EU funding does not, directly nor indirectly,
support Israeli actions that infringe Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

**Answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

The participation of Israeli entities in research projects supported by the Seventh Framework Programme for
Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007-2013) is governed by the
‘Agreement on Scientific and Technical Cooperation between the European Community and the State of Israel’. ( [1] ) On
the basis of Art 2(1) and Annex I of this Agreement, research entities from Israel participate in and receive funding
from FP7 under the same conditions as those applicable to entities from EU Member States.

Several mechanisms have been put in place to prevent EU funding from being used directly for activities that might be
contravening international law.

First, the Commission checks carefully whether Israeli entities applying for participation in research consortia are not
established in settlements but in Israel's pre-1967 borders.

Secondly, most FP7 projects are of a collaborative nature and include several participants from different countries. All
projects are selected on the basis of scientific excellence and, when relevant, subject to ethical review. The ethical
review examines i.a. issues such as the possible dual use of the given research product or technology. This applies, for
example, to companies participating in security research activities and active in the fields of defence and security.

The Commission is aware of the concerns raised by the European Parliament and civil society organisations in
relation to the participation of certain Israeli entities in FP projects and it is currently reflecting on ways to address
those concerns in the implementation of Horizon 2020, the future research and innovation funding programme
(2014-2020).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 220, 25.8.2007.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 577

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003557/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Luta europeia contra o extremismo violento

Na sua resposta à minha pergunta E-001002/2013, a senhora Comissária Cecilia Malmström não respondeu à
terceira e quarta perguntas que então coloquei e que agora reitero.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Como avalia as manifestações de extremismo violento na Europa? Quais são as suas principais causas e
consequências?

—
Que medidas concretas tem tomado quanto a esta matéria? Quais foram os seus resultados?

**Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão**

_(6 de maio de 2013)_

O potencial de extremismo violento existe em todos os países. O extremismo violento não se limita a uma religião ou
ideologia política e pode manifestar-se de diferentes formas, seja extremismo de direita ou de esquerda, seja
separatismo ou extremismo por motivos religiosos.

As causas subjacentes ao fenómeno não podem ser meramente explicadas por um só conjunto de fatores. Embora
alguns investigadores apontem causas socioeconómicas gerais relacionadas com a globalização e o enfraquecimento
das comunidades e identidades tradicionais, outros argumentam que o extremismo violento pode ser explicado por
teorias relativas às redes sociais e às interações sociais. Outra escola de pensamento aponta para fatores de caráter
individual, como necessidades pessoais e inclinações psicológicas.

A Comissão continua a estudar formas de ajudar os Estados-Membros a responderem à radicalização,
independentemente da sua motivação e métodos, como uma das prioridades da segurança interna, tendo em conta
que a responsabilidade principal continua a ser exercida a nível local e nacional. Mais especificamente, em setembro
de 2011, a Comissão lançou a Rede de Sensibilização para a Radicalização na UE (RAN), que liga grupos envolvidos
na prevenção da radicalização que conduz ao terrorismo e ao extremismo violento. A rede destina-se a reunir os
conhecimentos, as experiências e os ensinamentos colhidos, de modo a preparar melhor os profissionais de primeira
linha para o seu trabalho diário com os indivíduos e grupos de risco.

Tal como anunciado na Conferência de Alto Nível dedicada ao tema «Responsabilizar os órgãos de poder local no
combate ao extremismo violento» (29 de janeiro de 2013), a Comissão utilizará a experiência adquirida no quadro da
RAN para atualizar e rever o quadro político de resposta ao problema do extremismo violento.

C 12 E / 578 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003557/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ European fight against violent extremism

In answer to my Question E-001002/2013 Commissioner Malmström did not respond to my third and fourth
questions, which I will ask once again.

—
How does the Commission assess manifestations of violent extremism in Europe? What are their main causes
and consequences?

—
What specific measures has it taken on this issue? What were the outcomes of these measures?

**Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The potential for violent extremism exists in all countries. Violent extremism is not confined to one faith or political
ideology and it may manifest itself in different forms, be it right-wing or left-wing extremism, separatism or
religiously motivated extremism.

The underlying causes of the phenomenon cannot be simply explained by one set of factors. Whereas some
researchers point to overall socioeconomic causes linked to globalisation and the weakening of traditional
communities and identities, others argue that violent extremism can be explained by theories of social networks and
social interactions. Another school of thought points to the individual-level factors such as individual needs and
psychological inclinations.

The Commission continues to work on ways to assist Member States in addressing radicalisation regardless of
motivation and methods, as one of the internal security priorities, bearing in mind that the primary responsibility
remains at local and national level. More specifically in September 2011 the Commission launched the EU
Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), connecting groups involved in preventing radicalisation leading to
terrorism and violent extremism. The Network aims to pool experience, knowledge and lessons learned to better
equip first-line practitioners in their daily work with at risk individuals and groups.

As announced at the High Level Conference on empowering local actors to prevent violent extremism
(29 January 2013), the Commission will use the experience gathered within the RAN to update and revise the policy
framework to address the issue of violent extremism.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 579

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003558/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Fim das quotas leiteiras — estudo de impacto

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-000594/2013, o senhor Comissário Dacian Cioloș declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «a Comissão lançou um estudo independente com o objetivo de obter uma análise prospetiva sobre a evolução
mais provável do setor do leite no futuro contexto sem quotas. Embora sem incidir especificamente nos Açores, o
estudo, que deverá estar concluído no verão de 2013, abordará, em especial, o papel do setor do leite na manutenção
de comunidades rurais vivas, em especial nas zonas mais frágeis.»

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que entidade desenvolve o estudo independente?

—
Que fará se, como se prevê, a evolução das economias mais dependentes do setor do leite no futuro contexto
sem quotas for muito negativa?

—
Se se verificar que sem quotas leiteiras será extremamente difícil a manutenção de comunidades rurais vivas, em
especial nas zonas mais frágeis, admite propor a sua reposição?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de abril de 2013)_

O estudo obedeceu a um convite à apresentação de propostas. Todas as informações estão no sítio Web da
Comissão ( [1] ), incluindo o nome do adjudicando: Ernst & Young Actuaires Conseils. Entre as atribuições do mesmo,
conta‐se a seleção de seis técnicos independentes altamente considerados a nível internacional. Incumbe-lhes
responder a diversas questões relacionadas com a evolução provável do setor leiteiro num contexto futuro sem
quotas.

Os pareceres independentes dos técnicos serão discutidos com as partes interessadas da cadeia de abastecimento de
leite, as instituições europeias e os Estados‐Membros, numa conferência a decorrer a 24 de setembro, organizada pela
Comissão, na qual todos os participantes poderão exprimir a sua opinião.

Enquanto não se conhecerem os resultados do estudo e da conferência, são prematuros os comentários da Comissão.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/calls-for-tender/2012-257989_en.htm

C 12 E / 580 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003558/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ End of milk quotas — impact study

In answer to my Question E-000594/2013 Commissioner Cioloş, on behalf of the Commission, said that ‘The
Commission has initiated an independent study to obtain a prospective analysis on the most likely evolution of the
milk sector in the future context without quotas. While there is no specific focus on the Azores, the study, which is
expected to be finalised by the summer 2013, will tackle particularly the role of the milk sector in maintaining vibrant
rural communities, especially in the most fragile areas.’

—
Which body conducted the independent study?

—
What will the Commission do if, as expected, the economies most dependent on the milk sector in the future
context without quotas experience a significant downturn?

—
Will it propose that milk quotas be restored should it prove extremely difficult to maintain vibrant rural
communities, especially in the most fragile areas, without them?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 April 2013)_

The study has been launched through an open call for tender. All information is available on the Commission's
website ( [1] ), including the name of the successful tenderer: Ernst & Young Actuaires Conseils. One of the contractor's
tasks was to select six independent experts enjoying the highest international reputation. Those experts' role is to
reply to a series of questions linked to the likely evolution of the milk sector in the future context without quotas.

Independent views of experts will be discussed with the stakeholders of the milk supply chain, all interested European
institutions and the Member States in a conference that the Commission has planned on 24 September, where the
opportunity will be given to all parties involved to express their opinion.

As long as the findings of the study and of the conference are not available, it is premature for the Commission to

comment.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/calls-for-tender/2012-257989_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 581

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003559/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Menções tradicionais — vinho do Porto

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-1233/2013, o senhor Comissário Dacian Cioloș declarou, em nome da Comissão,
que «após a publicação dos referidos pedidos no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, Portugal transmitiu pedidos de
oposição relativamente a cada uma destas menções.

A Comissão está ainda a avaliar os pedidos em causa em conformidade com o procedimento e os critérios enunciados
no capítulo III do Regulamento (CE) n.° 607/2009 da Comissão que estabelece normas de execução do Regulamento
(CE) n.° 479/2008 no que respeita às denominações de origem protegidas e indicações geográficas protegidas, às
menções tradicionais, à rotulagem e à apresentação de determinados produtos vitivinícolas.»

Está a Comissão em condições de antecipar uma data indicativa para a publicitação da sua decisão quanto a esta
matéria?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloș em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de abril de 2013)_

Os pedidos das organizações profissionais americanas estão ainda em exame e a Comissão não tomará qualquer
decisão a curto prazo, dado que muitos dos pedidos em questão estão sujeitos a oposições que implicarão
procedimentos mais demorados.

C 12 E / 582 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003559/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Traditional descriptions — port wine

In answer to my Question E-1233/2013 Commissioner Cioloș, on behalf of the Commission, said that ‘Following the
publication of those applications in the _Official Journal of the European Union_, Portugal submitted requests of objection
for each of those terms.

The Commission is still evaluating the concerned applications in accordance with the procedure and the criteria laid
down in Chapter III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and
geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products.’

Is the Commission able to provide an indicative date for the publication of its decision on this matter?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloș on behalf of the Commission**

_(30 April 2013)_

The requests of the American professional organisations are still under examination and no decision will be made by
the Commission in a short-term since many of these requests are subject to oppositions which imply longer delays in
proceedings.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 583

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003560/13**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(27 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Grandes livros da cultura europeia

Na sua resposta à minha pergunta E-000801/2013, a senhora Comissária Androulla Vassiliou declarou, em nome da
Comissão, que «em conformidade com o Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia, os Estados‐Membros
são os únicos responsáveis pela organização e pelo conteúdo dos sistemas de ensino. Cabe, portanto, a cada EstadoMembro decidir quais as obras literárias que devem ser estudadas nos estabelecimentos de ensino. No entanto, a
Comissão está empenhada em promover a divulgação das obras literárias da cultura europeia.».

Chamo a atenção para o facto de em nenhum momento sugerir ou recomendar à Comissão que se substitua aos
Estados na organização e conteúdo dos respetivos sistemas de ensino. Esta circunstância não deveria impedir a
Comissão de promover, não apenas a divulgação mas o conhecimento efetivo das mesmas. Lamento que, no entender
da Comissão, a palavra «estudo» aparente ser apenas reconduzível aos sistemas educativos e que a Comissão não
subscreva uma noção mais ampla do significado da mesma.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Não considera que, mais do que disponibilizar primeiras edições em suporte digital das grandes obras
europeias, deveria promover a publicação e difusão dos grandes livros da cultura europeia e o seu
conhecimento efetivo por parte dos cidadãos europeus? E que esta promoção extravasa o aspeto escolar e é, ela
própria, essencial para o conhecimento e divulgação da história, civilização e cultura europeias?

—
Dispõe de especialistas capazes de, em colaboração com os Estados‐Membros, propor e decidir que obras
deveriam figurar nessa lista?

—
Que montante gasta anualmente com edições em papel? Não poderia alocar parte do seu orçamento para a
edição de grandes obras europeias que já façam parte do domínio público?

**Resposta dada por Androulla Vassiliou em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de junho de 2013)_

A Comissão está empenhada em promover a difusão do conhecimento, incluindo as grandes obras da cultura
europeia, através do programa «Cultura». A Comissão concorda com o Senhor Deputado que tal promoção não se
confina à educação formal. No entanto, a Comissão não está em posição de estabelecer quais são os livros essenciais
para o conhecimento e a difusão da cultura europeia.

Com vista a celebrar a diversidade cultural da Europa e reforçar o seu património cultural comum, o programa
«Cultura» incentiva a circulação da literatura pela Europa fora, segundo várias modalidades, promovendo assim a
diversidade cultural e o diálogo intercultural. Em especial, o Prémio da UE para a Literatura procura promover novos
autores europeus.

A Europeana — o ponto de acesso multilingue comum ao património cultural europeu em linha, que atualmente dá
acesso a cerca de 27 milhões de objetos provenientes de mais de 2 200 instituições parceiras — contribui
amplamente para a promoção e difusão das grandes obras literárias da cultura europeia. Cerca de 40 % dos objetos
atualmente acessíveis através da Europeana referem‐se a texto, incluindo obras-primas da literatura europeia,
nomeadamente sonetos de Fernando Pessoa, «A Tempestade» de Shakespeare, «Tartufo» de Molière ou «Dom Quixote
de La Mancha» de Cervantes.

O acesso a obras-primas da literatura europeia deve continuar a melhorar até 2015: mediante a sua Recomendação
sobre a digitalização e a acessibilidade em linha de material cultural e a preservação digital, de 27 de outubro de
2011 ( [1] ), a Comissão convidou os Estados-Membros a contribuírem para o desenvolvimento da Europeana, fazendo
com que todas as suas obras‐primas no domínio público estejam disponíveis, através dela, em 2015.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 283 de 29.10.2011, p. 39.

C 12 E / 584 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003560/13**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Great books of European culture

In her answer to my Question E-000801/2013, Commissioner Vassiliou stated on behalf of the Commission that ‘[i]n
accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Member States have the sole responsibility for
the organisation and content of education systems. It is therefore up to each Member State to decide which literary
works to study at school. However, the Commission is committed to promoting the dissemination of literary works
of European culture.’

I would point out that at no point did I suggest or recommend that the Commission assume the Member States’
responsibility for the organisation and content of their education systems. That should not prevent the Commission
from promoting not just the dissemination, but also genuine knowledge of such works. It is regrettable that the
Commission seems to understand the word ‘study’ as relating solely to education systems and that the Commission
does not subscribe to a broader notion of the word.

—
Does the Commission agree that, beyond making available digital versions of the first editions of great
European books, it should promote the publication and dissemination of the great works of European culture
and genuine knowledge of them by the European public? Does it also agree that such promotion goes beyond
schools and is itself essential to knowledge and dissemination of European history, civilisation and culture?

—
Does it have any specialists who could work with the Member States to propose and decide which books
should feature on this list?

—
How much does it spend per year on paper publishing? Could it not allocate part of its budget to publishing
great European works that are already in the public domain?

**Answer given by Ms Vassiliou on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 June 2013)_

The Commission is committed to promoting the dissemination of knowledge, including great works of European
culture, through the Culture Programme. The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that such promotion
is not limited to formal education. However, the Commission is not in a position to prescribe which books are
essential to knowledge and dissemination of European culture.

Aiming to celebrate Europe’s cultural diversity and enhance its shared cultural heritage, the Culture Programme
stimulates the circulation of literature across Europe in several ways, thereby promoting cultural diversity and
intercultural dialogue. In particular, the EU Prize for Literature seeks to promote emerging European authors.

Europeana — the common, multilingual access point to Europe's cultural heritage online, which currently gives
access to almost 27 million objects from over 2 200 partner institutions, contributes vastly to the promotion and
dissemination of great books of European culture. Some 40% of the objects currently accessible through Europeana
represent text, including masterpieces of European literature, such as sonnets by Fernando Pessoa, The Tempest by
Shakespeare, Le Tartuffe by Molière or Don Quijote de la Mancha by Cervantes.

Access to masterpieces of European literature should further improve by 2015: Through its Recommendation on the
digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation of 27 October 2011 ( [1] ), the
Commission has invited the Member States to contribute to the further development of Europeana by ensuring that
all their public domain masterpieces will be accessible through Europeana by 2015.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 283, 29.10.2011, p. 39.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 585

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-003561/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Spyros Danellis (S&D)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρακτικές υποβολής αιτήσεων για καταβολή ενιαίων άμεσων ενισχύσεων

Στην Ελλάδα, η υποβολή αιτήσεων των δικαιούχων για την είσπραξη της ενιαίας άμεσης ενίσχυσης γίνεται με έναν από τους
εξής τρεις τρόπους:

1. άμεσα, από τον δικαιούχο μέσω διαδικτύου,

2. άμεσα, από τον δικαιούχο μέσω αλληλογραφίας,

3. έμμεσα, μέσω τρίτων που παρεμβάλλονται για τη διεκπεραίωση της διαδικασίας.

Ερωτάται η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή:

1. Ποια είναι γενικά η πρακτική που ακολουθείται στα άλλα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ;

2. Πώς αξιολογεί η Επιτροπή τις πρακτικές που ακολουθούνται ως προς τη διαφάνεια, την απλοποίηση, την
αποτελεσματικότητα και την αποδοτικότητά τους τόσο για το κράτος μέλος, την ΕΕ, όσο και για τους δικαιούχους;

3. Σε περίπτωση που η Επιτροπή μπορεί να υποδείξει πιο αποτελεσματικές πρακτικές από αυτές που εφαρμόζονται στην
ΕΕ ως προς τα κριτήρια που αναφέρονται στην προηγούμενη ερώτηση, θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να βοηθήσει την
Ελλάδα, παρέχοντας τεχνική βοήθεια, ώστε να υιοθετηθεί από τη χώρα μια πιο άμεση, διαφανής, αποτελεσματική και
αποδοτική διαδικασία;

**Απάντηση του κ. Cioloş εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(23 Απριλίου 2013)_

Σχετικά με τις πρακτικές που ακολουθούνται στην Ελλάδα και σε άλλα κράτη μέλη ως προς τη διαχείριση των αιτήσεων για
το καθεστώς ενιαίας ενίσχυσης, οι απαιτήσεις καθορίζονται στην νομοθεσία της ΕΕ και, σύμφωνα με τις ρυθμίσεις που
διέπουν την εφαρμογή των κοινοτικών καθεστώτων στήριξης στο πλαίσιο της κοινής γεωργικής πολιτικής, εναπόκειται στα
κράτη μέλη να λαμβάνουν όλα τα αναγκαία μέτρα για να διασφαλίζουν ότι οι εν λόγω απαιτήσεις τηρούνται έτσι ώστε οι
ενισχύσεις να χορηγούνται ορθά, καθώς και να προλαμβάνονται και να αντιμετωπίζονται οι παρατυπίες. Η Επιτροπή υποβάλει
τα κράτη μέλη σε τακτικούς ελέγχους εκκαθάρισης λογαριασμών ώστε να ελέγχεται η ορθή εφαρμογή της ενωσιακής
νομοθεσίας.

Ειδικότερα όσον αφορά τις αιτήσεις άμεσων ενισχύσεων, τα κράτη μέλη παρέχουν στους γεωργούς, μεταξύ άλλων με τη
χρήση ηλεκτρονικών μέσων, τυποποιημένα έντυπα αιτήσεων με βάση τις εκτάσεις που είχαν καθορισθεί το προηγούμενο έτος
καθώς και σχεδιαγράμματα στα οποία εντοπίζεται η θέση αυτών των εκτάσεων (άρθρο 19 παράγραφος 2 του κανονισμού
(ΕΚ) αριθ. 73/2009 ( [1] ) του Συμβουλίου).

Ως μέσο απλούστευσης, δίνεται γενικά στα κράτη μέλη η δυνατότητα να επιτρέπουν ή να απαιτούν οι πάσης φύσεως
ανακοινώσεις βάσει του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1122/2009 ( [2] ) της Επιτροπής, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των αιτήσεων
ενίσχυσης, να υποβάλλονται ηλεκτρονικά τόσο από την πλευρά των γεωργών προς τις αρχές όσο και αντιστρόφως. Το άρθρο
20 του εν λόγω κανονισμού ορίζει επίσης όσον αφορά την υποβολή των αιτήσεων ενίσχυσης, ότι τα κράτη μέλη μπορούν να
προβλέπουν απλουστευμένες διαδικασίες εφόσον τα δεδομένα βρίσκονται ήδη στη διάθεση των αρχών, ιδίως στην περίπτωση
όπου η κατάσταση δεν έχει μεταβληθεί από την τελευταία υποβολή αίτησης ενίσχυσης δυνάμει του σχετικού καθεστώτος
ενίσχυσης.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 30 της 31.1.2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 316 της 2.12.2009.

C 12 E / 586 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-003561/13**

**to the Commission**
**Spyros Danellis (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Practices followed in applying for the Single Direct Farm Payment

In Greece, beneficiaries apply for the Single Direct Farm Payment in one of the following ways:

1. Directly via the Internet;

2. Directly by mail;

3. Indirectly, through third parties, who intervene to complete the procedure.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What is the practice generally followed in other EU Member States?

2. How does it evaluate the practices followed as regards transparency, simplicity, effectiveness and efficiency
from the point of view of the Member State in question, the EU and the beneficiaries?

3. In so far as it is able to designate more effective practices than those applied in the EU in terms of the criteria
stated above, could it help Greece by providing technical assistance so that Greece adopts a more direct,
transparent, efficient and effective procedure?

**Answer given by Mr Cioloş on behalf of the Commission**

_(23 April 2013)_

Concerning the practices followed by Greece and other Member States in managing the applications for the single
payment scheme, the requirements are defined in the EU legislation and, under the arrangements governing the
implementation of Union support schemes in the framework of the common agricultural policy, it is for the Member
States to take all the measures necessary to ensure that those requirements are implemented in such a way that
subsidies are granted correctly and to prevent and deal with irregularities. The Commission undergoes regular audits
of clearance of accounts in the Member States to check that the EU legislation has been correctly implemented.

In particular, Member States shall provide to farmers, for the aid applications of direct payments, _inter alia_ by the use
of electronic means, pre-established forms based on the areas determined in the previous year as well as graphic
material indicating the location of those areas (Article 19(2) of Council Regulation No (EC) 73/2009 ( [1] )).

As means of simplification, Member States are generally allowed to permit or require that any kind of
communications under the Commission Regulation No (EC) 1122/2009 ( [2] ), including aid applications, both from the
farmers to the authorities and vice versa be made by electronic means. Article 20 of that regulation also stipulates
with regard to the submission of aid applications that Member States may provide for simplified procedures where
data is already available to the authorities, in particular where the situation has not changed since the latest
submission of an aid application under the aid scheme concerned.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 30, 31.1.2009.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 316, 2.12.2009.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 587

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003562/13**

**to the Commission**

**Gay Mitchell (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Credit union deposits with the Irish Banking Resolution Corporation (IBRC)

In 2005, a number of Irish credit unions invested in an Anglo Irish Bank deposit-based tracker bond which was
custom-made for credit unions and duly named the Anglo Irish Bank Credit Union Bond 2005 (the ‘deposit-based
tracker bond’). The deposit-based tracker bond was an eight year, three month product which was due to mature on
30 September 2013. The capital was to be guaranteed at maturity with an additional minimum 12% return.

These credit unions were encouraged and advised to invest excess funds in the security of deposits of highly rated
financial institutions. Anglo Irish Bank was an A-rated institution at the time these deposit-based tracker bonds were
purchased and the purchase was fully permitted under the Trustee Authorised Investments Order, 1998, with which
credit unions were compelled to comply at that time.

It is my understanding that when Anglo Irish Bank deposits were transferred to Allied Irish Bank in 2011,
Anglo/IBRC refused to transfer the deposit-based tracker bond despite repeated requests from credit unions to do so.

Each of the credit unions has now received EUR 100 000 from the State’s Deposit Guarantee Scheme (being the
maximum available under the terms of that scheme). While the average investment in these deposits by credit unions
was EUR1 million, some credit unions invested EUR 2 m and so are now carrying a loss of EUR 1.9 million.

Is there an EU competence to assist these credit unions with this matter?

**Answer given by Mr Almunia on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

The resolution of IBRC was an important step in the restructuring of the Irish financial sector which significantly
reinforced the sustainability of the well-performing Irish programme. The Commission is firmly of the view that
Member States in the EU are obliged to ensure full and effective protection of depositors, even in times of severe crisis.
That is why all depositors in the European Union have since 2010 been guaranteed up to EUR 100.000. As part of the
resolution of IBRC the Irish authorities fully met their commitments under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme and also
under the Eligible Liabilities Guarantee Scheme (‘ELG’) introduced in December 2009. As the Anglo Irish Bank Credit
Union Bond 2005 was issued in 2005 it is not covered by the ELG as it pre dates the scheme. While it is very
regrettable that any losses may incur to Irish Credit Unions as a result of the resolution of IBRC, the process fully
respected the relevant guarantee applicable to the Anglo Irish Bank Credit Union Bond 2005 in a liquidation
procedure.

The liquidation of IBRC was carried out under Irish national law. Likewise, the State Deposit Guarantee Scheme is part
of the Irish national legislative framework. We are not aware of any infringement of competition law or any other
area of EC law in the context of the IBRC liquidation. Therefore, any possible disputes would have to be settled in
national courts.

C 12 E / 588 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003563/13**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Στρατόπεδο Liberty στο Ιράκ

Στις 9 Φεβρουαρίου στο στρατόπεδο Liberty, στο Ιράκ, που φιλοξενεί 3 100 ιρανούς πρόσφυγες, έγινε επίθεση με
πυραύλους που άφησε επτά νεκρούς και 100 τραυματίες. Το στρατόπεδο Liberty δεν έχει σταθερά κτίρια ή καταφύγιο, και οι
κάτοικοι αναγκάζονται να ζουν σε ιδιαίτερα ευάλωτα ρυμουλκούμενα. Η UNHCR επιβεβαιώνει ότι οι ιρανοί πρόσφυγες
δικαιούνται διεθνή προστασία σύμφωνα με το διεθνές δίκαιο. Επιπλέον, ο Ειδικός Αντιπρόσωπος του Γενικού Γραμματέα του
ΟΗΕ στο Ιράκ, Martin Kobler, έχει υποσχεθεί σε αυτούς τους κατοίκους του στρατοπέδου Liberty, ασφάλεια και προστασία
και ταχεία μετεγκατάσταση σε ασφαλείς χώρες. Δυστυχώς, ωστόσο, μόνο επτά άτομα έχουν επανεγκατασταθεί, και η
ασφάλεια έχει αποδειχθεί ότι είναι ανύπαρκτη.

Παρά την τραγωδία η ιρακινή κυβέρνηση αρνείται να παραχωρήσει στους ανθρώπους αυτούς βασικά μέτρα ασφαλείας, όπως
κράνη ή θωρακισμένα γιλέκα. Επιπλέον, τίποτα δεν έχει γίνει είτε από τον Ύπατο Εκπρόσωπο της ΕΕ για Θέματα Εξωτερικής
Πολιτικής είτε από κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ, επιτρέποντας στο ιρανικό καθεστώς και την κυβέρνηση του Ιράκ να συνεχίσουν τις
δολοφονίες και τις επιθέσεις.

Θέτουμε, λοιπόν, τα εξής ερωτήματα:

1. Πώς μπορεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Υπηρεσία Εξωτερικής Δράσης να εξασφαλίσει την ασφάλεια αυτών των προσφύγων, οι οποίοι
ζουν σε διαρκή φόβο;

2. Ποια είναι η απάντηση της ΕΥΕΔ στο αίτημα των κατοίκων της Liberty να επιστρέψουν αμέσως στην πόλη Ασράφ,
όπου μπορούν να έχουν περισσότερη ασφάλεια, και να επανεγκατασταθούν αργότερα σε μια ασφαλέστερη τρίτη χώρα;

**Απάντηση της Υπάτου Εκπροσώπου της Ένωσης/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(22 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η ΕΕ παρακολουθεί το θέμα της επανεγκατάστασης των πρώην κατοίκων του στρατοπέδου Ασράφ και υποστηρίζει τις
προσπάθειες εξεύρεσης μιας ειρηνικής και ομαλής λύσης.

Τόσο η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος/Αντιπρόεδρος της Επιτροπής, όσο και η Επιτροπή, έχουν τονίσει επανειλημμένα την πλήρη
υποστήριξή τους προς την εν εξελίξει διαδικασία που προωθείται από τα Ηνωμένα Έθνη,καθώς και προς τον Ειδικό
Εκπρόσωπο Martin Kobler. Ο Ύπατος Αρμοστής του ΟΗΕ για τους Πρόσφυγες (UNHCR) προχωρεί, όπως προβλέπεται, με
τον «καθορισμό του καθεστώτος του πρόσφυγα» των κατοίκων που διαμένουν προσωρινά στο στρατόπεδο Hurriya. Η ΕΕ έχει
τη μεγαλύτερη συνεισφορά σε αυτή τη διαδικασία, με 12 εκατ. ευρώ, ώστε να βοηθήσει τους οργανισμούς των Ηνωμένων
Εθνών που συμμετέχουν — και ιδίως την UNHCR και το Γραφείο των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τις υπηρεσίες υποστήριξης των
προγραμμάτων (UNOPS) — στη χρηματοδότηση των δραστηριοτήτων τους.

Η στήριξη της ΕΕ στη διαδικασία αυτή, ωστόσο, δεν συνεπάγεται την ανάληψη ευθύνης για τη θέσπιση περαιτέρω μέτρων
προστασίας της ασφάλειας των διαμενόντων στο στρατόπεδο Hurriya, — ευθύνη της ιρακινής κυβέρνησης, σύμφωνα με το
μνημόνιο συμφωνίας της 25ης Δεκεμβρίου 2011 μεταξύ της ιρακινής κυβέρνησης και των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Μετά τις
πρόσφατες επιθέσεις στο στρατόπεδο Hurriya, η ιρακινή κυβέρνηση αντέδρασε άμεσα με την αποστολή ομάδων
περιφρούρησης της περιοχής του καταυλισμού και αναλαμβάνοντας τη μετακομιδή των τραυματιών. Ο πρωθυπουργός
διόρισε επιτροπή για να ερευνήσει το περιστατικό. Οι επιθέσεις μας υπενθυμίζουν την επείγουσα ανάγκη επιτάχυνσης της
διαδικασίας επανεγκατάστασης, με τη συνεργασία τόσο των κατοίκων, όσο και των τρίτων χωρών που προσφέρονται να τους
φιλοξενήσουν. Επομένως, είναι σημαντικό να ανταποκριθούν θετικά οι κάτοικοι στις προσφορές επανεγκατάστασης.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 589

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003563/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Iraq's Camp Liberty

On 9 February at Camp Liberty, which hosts 3 100 Iranian refugees in Iraq, there was an attack by missiles that left
seven dead and 100 wounded. Camp Liberty has no fixed buildings or shelter, and the residents are forced to live in
highly vulnerable trailers. The UNHCR reaffirms that the Iranian refugees are entitled to international protection
under international law. Furthermore, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Iraq, Martin Kobler, has
promised these residents of Camp Liberty safety, security and rapid resettlement to countries of safety. Unfortunately,
however, only seven people have been resettled, and safety has proved to be non-existent.

Despite this tragedy the Iraqi Government refuses to give these people basic security measures such as helmets or
armoured vests. Moreover, nothing has been done by either the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs or by
the EU Member States, allowing the Iranian regime and the Government of Iraq to continue with murders and
aggression.

We therefore ask the following:

1. How can the European External Action Service secure safety for these refugees, who live in permanent fear?

2. What is the response of the EEAS to the request by Liberty residents to be immediately returned to the town of
Ashraf, where they could have more security, and to be resettled further to a safer third country?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(22 May 2013)_

The EU follows the issue of resettlement of the former residents of Camp Ashraf and supports efforts to find a
peaceful and orderly solution.

Both the HR/VP and the Commission have repeatedly stressed their full support to the ongoing process facilitated by
the United Nations and to Special Representative Martin Kobler. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) is proceeding as foreseen with the ‘refugee status determination’ of the residents who are staying at the
temporary transit location Camp Hurriya. The EU has been the biggest contributor to this process, with
EUR 12 million provided to help the United Nations agencies involved — notably the UNHCR and the United
Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) — to finance their operations.

The EU support to this process however does not imply responsibility for introducing further measures to protect the
safety of Camp Hurriya residents, as it is the responsibility of the Iraqi Government in accordance with the
memorandum of understanding of 25 December 2011 between the Iraqi Government and the United Nations. After
the recent attacks on Camp Hurriya, the Iraqi Government responded rapidly by dispatching teams to secure the area
around the camp and assisting with medical transportation of the wounded. The Prime Minister formed a committee
to investigate the incident. The attacks remind us of the urgency to accelerate the resettlement process, with the
cooperation of both the residents and third countries that are ready to receive them. It is therefore crucial that the
residents respond positively to the resettlement offers made.

C 12 E / 590 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-003564/13**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(27 Μαρτίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων: καταδίκη του δημοσιογράφου Avaz Zeynalli στο
Αζερμπαϊτζάν

Έχει υποπέσει στην αντίληψή μου ότι το Ινστιτούτο για την Ελευθερία και την Ασφάλεια των Δημοσιογράφων (IRFS)
καταγγέλλει την καταδίκη του αρχισυντάκτη της εφημερίδας Khural, Avaz Zeynalli σε εννέα χρόνια φυλάκιση για
δωροδοκία, εκβιασμό και φοροδιαφυγή, κατηγορίες οι οποίες, όπως πιστεύει ο οργανισμός, είναι κατασκευασμένες. Η
απόφαση αυτή και η 16μηνη κράτηση του Zeynalli θεωρείται ως παραβίαση των διεθνών προτύπων που εγγυώνται την
ελευθερία της έκφρασης, και το IRFS απευθύνει έκκληση για την άμεση απελευθέρωσή του.

Επιπλέον, υπάρχει ένας αυξανόμενος αριθμός δημοσιογράφων στο Αζερμπαϊτζάν που αντιμετωπίζουν μεγάλες ποινές
φυλάκισης με βάση κατασκευασμένες κατηγορίες.

Το δικαίωμα στην ελευθερία της έκφρασης και της πληροφόρησης είναι εγγυημένο και προστατεύεται από τις διατάξεις των
διεθνών οργάνων και τις συνθήκες που έχουν υπογραφεί και κυρωθεί από την κυβέρνηση του Αζερμπαϊτζάν.

Ερωτάται η Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος της Ένωσης για Θέματα Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής και Πολιτικής Ασφαλείας
Catherine Ashton:

Τι μπορεί να κάνει η ΕΕ στο πλαίσιο των σχέσεών της με την κυβέρνηση του Αζερμπαϊτζάν για να σταματήσουν αυτές οι
συλλήψεις, που βασίζονται σε κατασκευασμένα γεγονότα και αντίκεινται στα διεθνή πρότυπα που εγγυώνται την ελευθερία
της έκφρασης;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(29 Μαΐου 2013)_

Η κατάσταση στον τομέα των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και των θεμελιωδών ελευθεριών στο Αζερμπαϊτζάν εμφανίζει σημάδια
επιδείνωσης κατά τους τελευταίους μήνες. Αυτό ισχύει ιδίως όσον αφορά την κατάσταση που επικρατεί στον τομέα
ελευθερίας της έκφρασης. Ενόψει των προεδρικών εκλογών του Οκτωβρίου, προβάλλει η ανάγκη να εξασφαλιστεί ένας
ανοικτός πολιτικός χώρος για δημόσιο διάλογο και συζήτηση: τα ελεύθερα και ενεργά μέσα ενημέρωσης μπορούν να
συνεισφέρουν σημαντικά σε κάθε δημοκρατία.

Η ΕΕ έχει επανειλημμένα χρησιμοποιήσει όλους τους διαύλους επικοινωνίας με την κυβέρνηση του Αζερμπαϊτζάν με σκοπό
να εκφράσει τις ανησυχίες της σε αυτόν τον τομέα και να προτείνει την υποστήριξή της στις προσπάθειες που καταβάλλονται
για βελτίωση της κατάστασης. Αυτό ισχύει και για την περίπτωση του κ. Zeynalli, την οποία παρακολουθεί στενά η
αντιπροσωπεία της ΕΕ στο Μπακού.

Η διεξαγωγή των εκλογών στο Αζερμπαϊτζάν, καθώς και ο σεβασμός των δημοκρατικών δικαιωμάτων και ελευθεριών στο
πλαίσιο των εκλογών αυτών, θα αντανακλούν την κατάσταση εφαρμογής από τη χώρα των δεσμεύσεών της έναντι του ΟΟΣΑ
και του Συμβουλίου της Ευρώπης, καθώς και στο πλαίσιο της ανατολικής εταιρικής σχέσης. Το γεγονός αυτό θα έχει εν τέλει
αντίκτυπο στο επίπεδο των στόχων που επιδιώκονται στο πλαίσιο των σχέσεων μεταξύ ΕΕ και Αζερμπαϊτζάν.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 591

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003564/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights violations: the sentencing of journalist Avaz Zeynalli in Azerbaijan

It has come to my attention that the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS) condemns the sentencing of
Khural newspaper chief editor Avaz Zeynalli to nine years in jail for bribery, extortion and tax evasion, charges which
the organisation believe to have been fabricated. This verdict and Zeynalli’s 16-month detention are seen as a breach
of international standards guaranteeing freedom of expression, and the IRFS is calling for his immediate release.

Furthermore, there are an increasing number of Azerbaijani journalists facing lengthy prison sentences based on
fabricated charges.

The right to freedom of expression and information is guaranteed and protected by the provisions of international
instruments and treaties signed and ratified by the Government of Azerbaijan.

We ask the Vice-President/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton:

What can the EU do in the framework of its relations with the Government of Azerbaijan to stop these arrests, which
are based on allegedly fabricated facts and go against international standards that guarantee freedom of expression?

**Answer given by High Representative/Vice-President Ashton on behalf of the Commission**

_(29 May 2013)_

The situation regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms in Azerbaijan has shown signs of deterioration in
recent months. This is particularly true for the situation regarding freedom of expression. Ahead of the October
Presidential Elections, there is a need to ensure an open political space for debate and discussion: a free and active
media has an important contribution to make in any democracy.

The EU has repeatedly used all communication channels with the Azerbaijani government to express its concerns in
this area, and to propose support to efforts aimed at improving the situation. This applies equally to the case of
Mr Zeynalli, which has been followed closely by the EU Delegation in Baku.

The conduct of elections in Azerbaijan, and the respect for democratic rights and freedoms around those elections,
will reflect the state of the country's implementation of its commitments towards the OSCE, the Council of Europe
and in the framework the Eastern Partnership.This will ultimately impact on the degree of ambition of relations
between the EU and Azerbaijan.

C 12 E / 592 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-003565/13**

**à la Commission**
**Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE)**

_(27 mars 2013)_

_Objet:_ Durabilité des écosystèmes marins et accroissement des populations de phoques

De nombreuses études scientifiques menées ces dernières années ont analysé et quantifié les différents types de
dommages causés par les populations de phoques en croissance en Europe. Certaines études établissent clairement un
lien entre les populations grandissantes de phoques et la réduction des stocks de poissons (ce qu'a reconnu le
Parlement européen lui-même dans deux résolutions du 12 septembre 2012). La même préoccupation a été évoquée
par plusieurs États membres qui, de fait, contrôlent les populations locales de phoques: le Royaume-Uni
(en particulier en Écosse), la Suède, le Danemark, la Finlande, l'Estonie et les Pays-Bas.

Les États membres supportent directement les coûts résultant des dommages générés par les phoques. La Suède à elle
seule a dépensé 4,6 millions d'euros en 2009 pour compenser les dommages occasionnés par les phoques gris aux
communautés de pêcheurs. Le Fonds européen pour la pêche affecte spécifiquement des fonds à l'indemnisation de
ces dommages dans plusieurs États membres, dont l'Irlande, la Lettonie et la Finlande.

La Commission peut-elle expliquer comment elle entend concilier la nécessité de gérer les populations de phoques
avec la protection des stocks de poissons, à un moment où les subventions publiques sont mises sous pression?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Damanaki au nom de la Commission**

_(17 mai 2013)_

La Commission est consciente des conflits entre la pêche et les phoques; les phoques nuisent aux pêcheries dans la
mesure où ils causent des dommages aux captures et aux engins et ont une incidence directe sur les stocks de poissons
du fait de la prédation. Toutefois, la Commission tient à souligner que la pêche a des répercussions bien plus
importantes sur les stocks de poissons que les phoques. En outre, en raison de l'insuffisance des données, il est difficile
de déterminer si la prédation des phoques a une incidence significative sur ces stocks (cabillaud de l’ouest de l’Écosse,
par exemple ( [1] )).

La gestion des populations de phoques relève de la responsabilité des autorités compétentes des États membres.
Celles-ci doivent définir les mesures de conservation nécessaires afin d'assurer le maintien ou le rétablissement, dans
un état de conservation favorable, de toutes les populations de phoques couvertes par la directive «Habitats». Dans ce
contexte, il appartient aux États membres d'évaluer l'état de la population de phoques. Les États membres peuvent, le
cas échéant, prendre des mesures pour réduire la population de phoques, tant que celle-ci est maintenue dans un état
de conservation favorable.

La Commission est consciente du fait que des crédits du Fonds européen pour la pêche (FEP) ont été utilisés dans le
passé par la Finlande et que des fonds nationaux ont été débloqués en Suède pour indemniser des pêcheurs qui avaient
subi des dégâts causés par des phoques. Toutefois, ce type de financement n'a pas été inclus dans la proposition de
Fonds européen pour les affaires maritimes et la pêche (FEAMP). En revanche, le FEAMP financera des études pilotes et
des mesures d'atténuation visant à réduire la prédation par les phoques.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2012/2012/cod-scow.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 593

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003565/13**

**to the Commission**
**Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE)**

_(27 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Durability of marine ecosystems and increase in seal populations

Many scientific studies carried out in recent years have analysed and quantified the different kinds of damage caused
by growing seal populations in Europe. Some studies establish a clear connection between the growing seal
populations and the decline in fish stocks, which the Parliament itself recognised in two resolutions on
12 September 2012. The same concern has been raised by several Member States which actually control local seal
populations: the United Kingdom (particularly in Scotland), Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Estonia and the Netherlands.

Member States themselves are bearing the cost of the damage caused by the seals. Sweden alone spent
EUR 4.6 million in 2009 to pay for the damage caused by grey seals in fishing communities. The European Fisheries
Fund specifically allocates funds to compensate for this damage in several Member States, including Ireland, Latvia
and Finland.

Can the Commission explain how it intends to reconcile the need to manage seal populations with the protection of
fish stocks, at a time when public subsidies are under pressure?

**Answer given by Ms Damanaki on behalf of the Commission**

_(17 May 2013)_

The Commission is aware of conflicts between seals and fisheries, with seals affecting fisheries through damage to
catches and gear as well as impacting directly on fish stocks through predation. However, the Commission would
point out that fishing has a far greater impact on fish stocks than seals. Moreover data limitations make it difficult to
determine whether seal predation significantly impact on those stocks (e.g. cod in the west of Scotland ( [1] )).

The management of seal populations is the responsibility of the competent authorities in Member States. They must
determine the necessary conservation measures in order to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of
all populations of seals covered under the Habitats Directive. Under this framework it is for the Member States to
assess the state of the seal population. If necessary, they may take measures to reduce the seal population, as long as
they are maintained at favourable conservation status.

The Commission is aware that funding from the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) has been used in the past by Finland
and national funds in Sweden to compensate fishermen for damage caused by seals. However, such type of funding
has not been included in the proposed European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). Instead, the EMFF does provide
funding for pilot studies and mitigation measures to reduce predation by seals.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2012/2012/cod-scow.pdf

C 12 E / 594 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-003566/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(28 maart 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Misdrijven met betrekking tot wilde diersoorten

Het EU-actieplan voor de Overeenkomst inzake de internationale handel in bedreigde in het wild levende dier‐ en
plantensoorten (CITES) werd op 13 juni 2007 aangenomen door de Commissie, in de vorm van een aanbeveling aan
de 27 lidstaten. Dit actieplan moet ervoor zorgen dat in de Europese Unie beter wordt toegezien op de naleving van
CITES. Ik wil graag weten wat de stand van zaken van dit actieplan is. Daarnaast zou ik een overzicht willen
ontvangen dat ten minste op de volgende vragen antwoord biedt:

Hebben de lidstaten nationale actieplannen aangenomen om de handhaving te coördineren, met duidelijk
omschreven doelstellingen en tijdschema's?

Zorgen de lidstaten ervoor dat alle relevante handhavingsinstanties over voldoende financiële en personele middelen
beschikken voor de handhaving van Verordening (EG) nr. 338/97, en toegang hebben tot speciale apparatuur en
relevante deskundigheid? Hebben de lidstaten bevestigd dat sancties voor inbreuken op Verordening (EG) nr. 338/97
een afschrikkend effect hebben tegen het plegen van misdrijven met betrekking tot wilde diersoorten?

Hebben alle desbetreffende handhavingsinstanties in de lidstaten toegang tot passende training wat Verordening (EG)
nr. 338/97 en het vaststellen van soorten betreft?

Zorgen de lidstaten voor een adequate informatievoorziening aan het publiek en belanghebbenden, met name om het
bewustzijn over de negatieve gevolgen van illegale handel in wilde diersoorten te vergroten? ( [1] )

Kan de Commissie mij ook voorzien van afzonderlijke overzichten van de bestaande sancties voor misdrijven met
betrekking tot wilde diersoorten per lidstaat en van de financiële en personele middelen per lidstaat?

Is de Commissie het met mij eens dat de huidige inspanningen, zowel op Europees als internationaal niveau, met
inbegrip van de meest recente (financiële ) initiatieven, niet voldoende zijn? Deelt de Commissie het standpunt dat
misdrijven met betrekking tot wilde diersoorten, evenals de handel daarin, niet alleen via naleving van CITES kunnen
worden tegengegaan, maar dat deze op alle niveaus moeten worden aangepakt? Zo niet, waarom niet? Is de
Commissie op de hoogte van mijn actieplan inzake de handel in wilde diersoorten?

Volgens TRAFFIC (het netwerk dat toeziet op de handel in wilde dier‐ en plantensoorten) werd in 2012 elke
15 minuten een olifant door stropers om het leven gebracht. Als deze moorden in het huidige tempo doorgaan,
zullen wilde olifanten snel tot het verleden behoren. De situatie van neushoornen en tijgers en veel andere soorten is
zelfs nog nijpender. Volgens Europol hebben internationale criminaliteit, rebellengroepen en terroristen misdrijven
met betrekking tot wilde diersoorten tot de op drie na meest lucratieve misdrijven ter wereld gemaakt. Het is een
bijzonder winstgevende handel, waarin circa 14 miljard euro per jaar omgaat.

Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat dringend actie moet worden ondernomen, niet alleen om de meest iconische
diersoorten van onze planeet te redden, maar ook om rebellengroepen en de activiteiten van terroristen een halt toe
te roepen? Is zij daartoe bereid een reactie te geven op mijn actieplan?

**Antwoord van de heer Potočnik namens de Commissie**

_(7 mei 2013)_

De Commissie werkt nauw samen met de lidstaten om de EU-regels voor handel in wilde dieren steeds beter te
handhaven.

De lidstaten verstrekken informatie over de tenuitvoerlegging van de Aanbeveling van de Commissie C(2007) 2551
over het EU-actieplan voor handhaving (EU EAP) in de tweejaarlijkse verslagen die worden ingediend uit hoofde van
de CITES-overeenkomst.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://site.d66.nl/gerbrandy/document/eu_action_plan_against_wildlife/f=/vj7iilz6wlmw.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 595

De meest recente compilatie en analyse van deze verslagen op EU-niveau zijn online te vinden op:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/analysis_2009-2010.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/compilation_2009-2010.pdf

De Commissie ziet toe op de tenuitvoerlegging van het EU-actieplan voor handhaving en zal overwegen of nieuwe
initiatieven moeten worden gelanceerd. De Commissie beoordeelt ook momenteel de omzetting door de lidstaten van
Richtlijn 2008/99/EG inzake de bescherming van het milieu door middel van het strafrecht, die lidstaten ertoe
verplicht illegale handel in wilde dieren en planten als een strafrechtelijk delict te behandelen.

Vanwege het verband met georganiseerde misdaad en, in sommige gevallen, met vrede‐ en
veiligheidsaangelegenheden, is de Commissie het ermee eens dat de illegale handel in wilde dieren en planten op een
alomvattende wijze moet worden bestreden. De Commissie heeft kennis kunnen nemen van het door het geachte
Parlementslid opgesteld actieplan, dat veel interessante initiatieven in die richting bevat.

Als een zeer concrete stap heeft de EU onlangs 1,7 miljoen euro toegekend aan het internationaal consortium ter
bestrijding van criminaliteit op het gebied van wilde dieren (International Consortium for Combating Wildlife Crime
of ICCWC), waarin voor het eerst een grote verscheidenheid aan deskundigheid (CITES-secretariaat, Interpol,
UNODC, de Wereldbank en de Werelddouaneorganisatie) onder één paraplu bijeen worden gebracht. Ook zal zij
ernaar streven het politieke profiel van dit thema bij haar partners en in het VN-systeem te versterken.

C 12 E / 596 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003566/13**

**to the Commission**
**Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Wildlife crime

The European Community Action Plan on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES) was adopted on 13 June 2007 by the Commission, in the form of a recommendation to the
27 EU Member States. Its purpose is to strengthen the enforcement of CITES in the European Union. I would like to
know what the state of play of this action plan is and I would like to be provided with an overview addressing at least
the following questions:

Have Member States adopted national action plans to coordinate enforcement, with clearly defined objectives and
time-frames?

Do Member States ensure that all relevant enforcement agencies have adequate financial and personnel resources for
the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, with access to specialised equipment and relevant expertise? Have
Member States ensured that penalties for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 act as a deterrent against
wildlife trade crime?

Do all relevant enforcement agencies in the Member States have access to adequate training on Regulation (EC)
No 338/97 and on the identification of species?

Do Member States ensure the provision of adequate information to the public and stakeholders with a view, in
particular, to raising awareness about the negative impacts of the illegal wildlife trade? ( [1] )

Can the Commission also provide me with separate overviews of existing penalties for wildlife crime per Member
State and of financial and personnel resources per Member State?

Does the Commission agree with me that current efforts, both at European and international level, including the most
recent (financial) initiatives, are not sufficient? Does the Commission agree that wildlife crime and trafficking cannot
be solved solely through CITES enforcement, but that illegal wildlife crime needs to be addressed at all levels? If not,
why not? Is the Commission aware of my action plan on wildlife trade?

According to the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC, an elephant was killed by poachers every 15 minutes in
2012. At the current rate of killings, wild elephants will soon become something of the past. The situation of rhinos
and tigers and many other species is even more threatening. International crime, rebel groups and terrorists have
made wildlife crime the fourth most lucrative crime in the world, according to Europol. It is an extremely profitable
business, worth approximately EUR 14 billion a year.

Does the Commission agree that urgent action is needed to save not only the most iconic species on our planet, but
also to fight rebel groups and terrorist activities? Is it therefore willing to provide me with a reaction to my action
plan?

**Answer given by Mr Potočnik on behalf of the Commission**

_(7 May 2013)_

The Commission works closely with the Member States to constantly strengthen enforcement of EU wildlife trade
rules.

Member States provide information on the implementation of Commission Recommendation C(2007)2551 on
the EU Enforcement Action Plan (EU EAP) in the biennial reports that are submitted pursuant to the CITES
Convention.

The latest compilation and analysis of those reports at EU level are available online:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/analysis_2009-2010.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/compilation_2009-2010.pdf

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://site.d66.nl/gerbrandy/document/eu_action_plan_against_wildlife/f=/vj7iilz6wlmw.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 597

The Commission scrutinises the implementation of the EU Enforcement Action Plan and will consider if new
initiatives should be launched. The Commission is also in the process of assessing the transposition by Member States
of Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law which obliges Member State to
consider wildlife trafficking a criminal offence.

Given its link with organised crime and, in some cases, peace and security issues, the Commission agrees that the
combat against wildlife trafficking should be dealt with in a comprehensive way. The Commission has been made
aware of the action plan prepared by the Honourable Member which contains many interesting initiatives going in
that direction.

As a very concrete step, the EU provided recently EUR 1.7 million to the International Consortium for Combating
Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), which for the first time assembles expertise from a broad range of actors (CITES Secretariat,
Interpol, UNODC, the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation) under one umbrella. It will also endeavour
to raise the political profile of the issue with its partners and in the UN system.

C 12 E / 598 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003567/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Banca cipriota

Sabendo-se já em 2008, ano de entrada de Chipre na moeda única, que a sua banca era sobredimensionada em
relação ao PIB do país e que tal situação poderia acarretar futuros problemas, pergunto à Comissão:

—
Não se poderia ter previsto atempadamente os problemas agora verificados na banca cipriota, face às suas
características?

—
O reconhecimento, atempado, desses problemas não poderia ter evitado mais esta grave crise do euro?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de maio de 2013)_

A decisão de adoção do euro foi formalmente tomada pelo Conselho a 10 de julho de 2007 ( [1] ). No momento da
tomada da decisão de adoção do euro, Chipre cumpria plenamente todos os critérios formais, segundo a avaliação do
relatório de convergência ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eurozone.europa.eu/media/migrated/596488/c.decision_on_adoption_of_single_currency_cyprus_2007.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication_summary443_en.htm

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 599

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003567/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cypriot banking sector

Having known that the Cypriot banking sector was oversized in relation to national GDP when Cyprus adopted the
single currency in 2008 and that this could lead to future problems:

—
Could the problems now facing the Cypriot banking sector not have been foreseen earlier, given its
characteristics?

—
Could the timely recognition of these problems not have helped prevent this serious euro crisis?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(14 May 2013)_

The decision on euro adoption was formally taken by the Council on 10 July 2007 ( [1] ). At the time of the decision on
euro adoption, Cyprus succesfully complied with all formal criteria as assessed in the convergence report ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eurozone.europa.eu/media/migrated/596488/c.decision_on_adoption_of_single_currency_cyprus_2007.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication_summary443_en.htm).

C 12 E / 600 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003568/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Restrições na circulação de capitais em Chipre

A medida de controlo sobre os movimentos de capitais no Chipre destina-se a proteger a economia cipriota de uma
previsível fuga de vastas quantidades de dinheiro dos grandes depositantes. No entanto, vários analistas consideram a
medida o maior risco para a permanência de Chipre no euro. Sem a capacidade de movimentar dinheiro de um país
para outro dentro de uma união monetária, «o valor de um euro num banco cipriota torna-se significativamente
inferior ao valor de um euro em qualquer outro banco da zona euro», avisa Guntram Wolff, do centro de reflexão
Bruegel. «O que significa, de facto, que um euro cipriota deixou de ser um euro», prossegue, frisando que, com esta
medida, se «introduziu uma nova moeda em Chipre».

1. Tem a Comissão consciência das consequências das restrições na circulação de capitais em Chipre?

2. Está a Comissão de acordo com as conclusões de Guntram Wolff, do centro de reflexão Bruegel?

3. Considera a Comissão que esta medida põe em causa a permanência do Chipre na Zona Euro?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(15 de maio de 2013)_

Os Estados-Membros podem, em certas circunstâncias e condições rigorosas, justificadas por razões de ordem pública
ou de segurança pública, restringir e controlar a circulação de capitais. Em conformidade com a jurisprudência do
Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia, poderão ser igualmente introduzidas medidas por razões imperiosas de
interesse público geral.

Uma tal exceção ao princípio da livre circulação de capitais deve ser interpretada de forma muito estrita e não
discriminatória, adequada, proporcional, e aplicada durante um período o mais curto possível.

Nas atuais circunstâncias, a estabilidade dos mercados financeiros e do sistema bancário de Chipre constitui uma
questão imperativa de interesse público e de ordem pública que justifica a imposição de restrições temporárias à
circulação de capitais.

Embora as medidas restritivas impostas sejam necessárias nas atuais circunstâncias, a livre circulação de capitais deve
ser restabelecida assim que possível, no interesse da economia cipriota e do mercado interno da União Europeia no
seu conjunto. A Comissão, enquanto guardiã dos Tratados, está a acompanhar de perto a situação e garantirá que
estas medidas não duram mais tempo que o estritamente necessário.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 601

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003568/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restrictions on capital movements in Cyprus

The aim of controls on capital movements in Cyprus is to protect the Cypriot economy from the likely withdrawal of
huge sums held by major depositors. However, a number of analysts consider this measure the greatest threat to
Cyprus staying in the euro. According to Guntram Wolff, of the think tank Bruegel, without the ability to move
money from one country to another within a monetary union, a euro in a Cypriot bank becomes worth significantly
less than a euro in any other bank in the euro area. He adds that it effectively means that a Cypriot euro is not a euro
anymore, stressing that this measure has introduced a new currency in Cyprus.

1. Is the Commission aware of the consequences of restricting capital movements in Cyprus?

2. Does the Commission agree with the conclusions of Bruegel’s Guntram Wolff?

3. Does the Commission think that this measure jeopardises Cyprus staying in the euro area?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(15 May 2013)_

Member States may introduce restrictions on capital movement, including capital controls, in certain circumstances
and under strict conditions on the grounds of public policy or public security. In accordance with the case law of the
European Court of Justice, measures may also be introduced for overriding reasons of general public interest.

Such exception to the principle of the free movement of capital must be interpreted very strictly and be nondiscriminatory, suitable, and proportionate and applied for the shortest possible period.

In current circumstances, the stability of financial markets and the banking system in Cyprus constitutes a matter of
overriding public interest and public policy justifying the imposition of temporary restrictions on capital movements.

While the imposed restrictive measures were necessary in the current circumstances, the free movement of capital
should be reinstated as soon as possible in the interests of the Cypriot economy and the European Union's single
market as a whole. The Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, is closely monitoring the situation and will
ensure that these measures last no longer than strictly necessary.

C 12 E / 602 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003569/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Setor público empresarial do Estado em Portugal

Considerando que:

Tem vindo a ser referido há muito que o setor empresarial do Estado Português, nomeadamente o setor dos
transportes, está excessivamente endividado, referindo-se valores na ordem dos 20 mil milhões de euros; e que esse
endividamento excessivo tem contribuído para retirar o crédito necessário aos privados, para que estes possam ter
liquidez para investir, levando assim ao necessário crescimento económico.

Pergunta-se:

1. Tem conhecimento desta realidade do setor público empresarial português?

2. Não teria sido oportuno, aquando da negociação inicial do envelope de 78 mil milhões de euros para Portugal,
ter sido prevista uma verba para a reestruturação deste setor, à semelhança do que foi feito para a banca?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de maio de 2013)_

1. A Comissão tem acompanhado de perto a situação financeira do setor público empresarial do Estado Português
(SPE) desde o início do programa de ajustamento. O programa requer a apresentação de dados que incluem a
prestação mensal de dados sobre as necessidades de financiamento do setor registadas e previstas, incluindo
necessidades de financiamento para equilíbrio operacional, despesas de capital, pagamento de juros e reembolsos do
capital da dívida. As reformas destinadas a conter passivos contingentes que emanam do setor das empresas públicas
(SPE) e a melhorar a sua eficácia têm sido muito importantes no programa. Estas reformas permitiram ao setor
alcançar um equilíbrio operacional até ao final de 2012, através de medidas como a racionalização do pessoal, tarifas
que refletem mais os custos ou redução das derrogações das tarifas gerais. Além disso, em fevereiro de 2013 entrou
em vigor a nova lei sobre governação das empresas públicas, que permite uma maior racionalização dessas despesas.

2. As reformas estruturais previstas no programa permitirão controlar a dívida do setor público ao longo do
tempo. Os dados do Banco de Portugal sobre o endividamento indicam que o risco de exclusão do acesso ao crédito é
pouco provável uma vez que a dívida das empresas públicas é relativamente pequena em comparação com a dívida
global de todas as empresas portuguesas. Os empréstimos a nível interno às empresas de exportação têm vindo a
aumentar desde 2011, depois de terem registado uma queda em 2010. O país enfrenta agora uma desalavancagem
regular, dado que as famílias, as empresas e o governo acumularam níveis de dívida insustentáveis. Neste contexto, é
normal que o nível global da dívida diminua e que as condições de acesso ao crédito sejam restringidas. Os dados
sobre o acesso dos exportadores ao crédito provam, no entanto, que as empresas com planos comerciais viáveis não
foram excluídas da oferta de crédito.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 603

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003569/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Portugal's state-owned companies

It has been observed for some time that Portugal’s state-owned companies, particularly in the transport sector, are in
too much debt, owing sums of around EUR 20 billion. It is thought that this excessive debt has contributed to keeping
credit out of the hands of individuals, who need it to have liquidity to invest, which would lead to much needed
economic growth.

1. Is the Commission aware of the situation of Portugal’s state-owned companies?

2. Would it not have been judicious to have provided for a sum for restructuring this sector, as was the case for the
banking sector, during the initial negotiations of the EUR 78 billion for Portugal?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(24 May 2013)_

1. The Commission has been closely monitoring the financial situation of the Portuguese state-owned enterprises
(SOEs) since the inception of the Adjustment Programme. The programme data requirements include the monthly
provision of data on the past and projected financing needs of SOEs, including financing needs for the operational
balance, capital expenditure, interest payments and debt principal repayments. Reforms aimed at containing
contingent liabilities emanating from the SOEs sector and at improving its efficiency have been very prominent in the
programme. These reforms allowed SOEs to reach operational balance on average by the end of 2012 through
measures such as staff rationalisation, making the tariffs more cost reflective or reducing the exemptions from the
general tariffs. Moreover in February 2013 the new law on SOEs governance entered into force, which allows further
rationalisation of the SOE expenditure.

2. The structural reforms foreseen in the programme will allow controlling SOEs debt over time. The data by
Banco de Portugal on Indebtedness indicate that crowding out is unlikely as the debt of the SOEs is relatively small as
compared to the overall debt of all the Portuguese enterprises. Domestic loans to the exporting corporations have
been increasing since 2011, after they registered a fall in 2010. The country faces now an orderly deleveraging, as
unsustainable levels of debt were accumulated by households, corporations and the government. In this context, it is
normal that overall level of debt is falling and the access conditions to credit are tightened. The data on the exporters'
access to credit proves, however, that companies with viable business plans have not been cut off from the credit
supply.

C 12 E / 604 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003570/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Análise do Tribunal Constitucional português a normas do orçamento de Estado 2013

O Governo português aguarda a decisão do Tribunal Constitucional no que respeita a algumas normas constantes do
orçamento de Estado de 2013. O chumbo dessas normas pelo referido tribunal representará a quebra de uma receita
significativa inscrita no orçamento de Estado.

1. Tem a Comissão acompanhado esta situação com o Governo português?

2. Considera a Comissão que existe uma alternativa para a quebra de receita anunciada, caso o Tribunal
Constitucional chumbe as normas em análise?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(31 de maio de 2013)_

Em 5 de abril de 2013, o Tribunal Constitucional pronunciou-se contra várias medidas do orçamento para 2013 com
um impacto orçamental global de 1,3 mil milhões de euros ou 0,8 % do PIB. O Tribunal declarou, nomeadamente,
inconstitucional o corte no décimo quarto mês de salário dos trabalhadores do setor público e pensionistas, bem
como a contribuição para a segurança social sobre os subsídios de doença e desemprego. O Governo português
convocou um Conselho de Ministros extraordinário em 6 de abril de 2013 reiterando o seu empenhamento nos
objetivos do programa.

Por outro lado, em 12 de abril de 2013, o Conselho (Ecofin) e o Eurogrupo acordaram em prolongar os prazos de
vencimento dos empréstimos do MEEF e do FEEF concedidos à Irlanda e a Portugal mediante o aumento do limite
médio ponderado de vencimento do prazo por sete anos, tendo em vista apoiar os esforços destes países para
recuperarem o pleno acesso aos mercados e saírem com êxito dos seus programas. No caso de Portugal esta decisão
foi condicionada pela conclusão da sétima revisão do programa de ajustamento, tal como virá a acontecer.

A Comissão acompanhou e tem acompanhado de perto esta situação. As autoridades portuguesas convidaram a
Comissão, o BCE e o FMI, a realizar uma visita a Lisboa, de 15 a 18 de abril de 2013, com vista a avaliar o impacto da
decisão do Tribunal e identificar medidas compensatórias. Estas medidas devem garantir o cumprimento dos
objetivos de défice revistos da sétima revisão — 5,5 % do PIB em 2013, 4 % do PIB em 2014 e 2,5 % do PIB em 2015.
O Conselho de Ministros português de 17 de abril de 2013 preparou um pacote de medidas que foi integrado na
análise mais abrangente da despesa pública anunciada pelo Primeiro-Ministro em 3 de maio de 2013. A delegação
técnica de 7 a 11 de maio concluiu que estas medidas eram suficientes tanto em termos de dimensão como de
qualidade para garantir a concretização dos objetivos entre 2013 e 2015. Estas conclusões foram apoiadas pelo
Eurogrupo em 13 de maio de 2013.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 605

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003570/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Portuguese Constitutional Court analysing 2013 budget items

The Portuguese Government is awaiting the decision of the Constitutional Court regarding certain items included in
the 2013 Portuguese budget. If the court rules against these items, it will represent the loss of a significant proportion
of the revenue included in the budget.

1. Has the Commission been monitoring this situation with the Portuguese Government?

2. Does the Commission think there is an alternative to the aforementioned loss of revenue if the Constitutional
Court rules against the items under consideration?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

On 5 April 2013 the Constitutional Court ruled against various measures of the 2013 budget, with an overall fiscal
impact of EUR 1.3 billion or 0.8% of GDP. In particular, the Court ruled unconstitutional the cut in the 14th salary of
public sector employees and pensioners and the contribution to the social security of sickness and unemployment
benefits. The Portuguese Government held an extraordinary Council of Ministers on 6 April 2013 reiterating its
commitment with the programme objectives.

Furthermore, on 12 April 2013, the Council (Ecofin) and the Eurogroup took position in favour of lengthening the
maturities of the EFSM and EFSF loans to Ireland and Portugal by increasing the weighted average maturity limit by
seven years in view of supporting their efforts to regain full market access and successfully exit their programmes. For
Portugal, this decision was conditional on the completion of the 7th review of the adjustment programme, which is
now the case.

The Commission has been and is currently monitoring this situation very closely. The Portuguese authorities invited
the Commission, the ECB and the IMF, to a mission to Lisbon on 15-18 April 2013 to evaluate the impact of the
Court decision and identify compensatory measures. These measures should ensure that the revised 7th review deficit
targets — 5.5% of GDP in 2013, 4% of GDP in 2014 and 2.5% of GDP in 2015 — are met. The Portuguese Council of
Ministers on 17 April 2013 prepared a package of measures, which was embedded in the broader public expenditure
review announced by the Prime Minister on 3 May 2013. A technical mission on 7‐11 May concluded that these
measures were sufficient in size and quality to ensure the attainment of the targets in 2013-2015. These conclusions
were endorsed by the Eurogroup of 13 May 2013.

C 12 E / 606 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003571/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Preços da energia e das telecomunicações em Portugal

Considerando que o Chefe de missão do FMI, Abebe Selassie, se mostrou «desapontado» com os preços ainda
praticados em Portugal nas telecomunicações e na energia, pergunto à Comissão:

1. É também da opinião de que os preços da energia e das telecomunicações em Portugal são demasiado elevados?

2. O que tem sido exigido para que esses preços sejam ajustados?

3. Não considera que preços mais justos na energia e nas telecomunicações poderiam contribuir para o
crescimento económico, face às poupanças que iriam gerar nas empresas e particulares?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(31 de maio de 2013)_

Um dos principais fatores que contribuem para que os custos da energia sejam tão elevados em Portugal são os
chamados «custos políticos», ou seja, as generosas compensações resultantes da extinção dos anteriores acordos de
compra de energia e as tarifas demasiado generosas que são pagas aos produtores de energias renováveis que
alimentam a rede. Outro elemento é a falta de concorrência no setor da energia. No setor das telecomunicações, os
principais problemas são os reativamente abundantes obstáculos à entrada no mercado, o acesso limitado às
radiofrequências para o acesso em banda larga sem fios e a falta de competitividade e transparência na prestação do
serviço universal.

O Memorando de Entendimento (ME) celebrado entre a Comissão e as autoridades portuguesas no âmbito da
assistência prestada pelo MEEF incluía diversas medidas específicas para resolver estas questões, nomeadamente:
completar a liberalização dos mercados da eletricidade e do gás; garantir a sustentabilidade financeira do sistema
energético, eliminando o défice tarifário; completar o mercado ibérico da eletricidade e do gás e reforçar os poderes da
entidade reguladora; reforçar a independência das telecomunicações nacionais; facilitar a entrada no mercado através
da concessão do direito a utilizar as «novas» radiofrequências para o acesso sem fios em banda larga a novos
operadores; e reduzir as tarifas de terminação móvel.

A Comissão está de acordo em dizer que a promoção da competitividade dos preços da energia e das
telecomunicações, através de um reforço da concorrência e da criação de condições equitativas, resolveria um grave
problema estrutural da economia portuguesa e contribuiria para o crescimento económico. As medidas do ME acima
descritas deverão contribuir para inverter a tendência de aumento dos preços, que no entanto são influenciados
também por outros fatores exógenos.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 607

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003571/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Energy and telecommunications costs in Portugal

Abebe Selassie, the IMF Mission Chief for Portugal, has expressed his disappointment at current energy and
telecommunications costs in the country.

1. Does the Commission also believe that energy and telecommunications costs in Portugal are too high?

2. What demands have been made regarding adjustments to these prices?

3. Does it not believe that fairer energy and telecommunications costs could contribute to economic growth, given
the resulting savings for businesses and individuals?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(31 May 2013)_

A main factor making Portuguese energy costs high are the so-called ‘political cost’, i.e. generous compensations
resulting from the extinction of previous power purchasing agreements and over-generous feed-in tariffs for
renewable generators. Another element has been the weak competition in the energy sector. In the telecom sector, the
main problem has been relatively high barriers to entry, restrained access to radio frequencies for broadband wireless
access, and lack of competitive and transparent universal service provision.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concluded between the Commission and the Portuguese authorities
within the framework of the assistance provided by the EFSM included several specific measures meant to address
these issues such as: completing the liberalisation of the electricity and gas markets; ensuring financial sustainability
of energy system by eliminating the tariff deficit; completing the Iberian market for electricity and gas and reinforcing
the power of the energy regulator; enhanced independence of the national telecom; facilitated market-entry by
awarding new players the right to use ‘new’ radio frequencies for broadband wireless access; and lowering mobile
termination rates.

The Commission agrees that promoting competitive prices of energy and telecommunications through enhanced
competition and by creating a level playing field addresses a serious structural problem of the Portuguese economy
and contributes to economic growth. The MoU measures described above should help curbing the trend of increasing
prices which however are influenced also by other exogenous factors.

C 12 E / 608 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003572/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Desemprego e quebra do PIB

Considerando o seguinte:

Segundo um estudo de um economista português, o crescente desemprego dos últimos três anos levou a que se
produzisse menos 91 mil milhões de euros, cerca de 55 % do PIB; com as previsões do desemprego existentes esses
valores podem atingir os 142 mil milhões de euros;

Pergunta-se:

1. Tem a Comissão conhecimentos deste estudo?

2. O que tem sido feito para minimizar as profundas consequências na economia do crescente desemprego?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(16 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão não tem conhecimento do estudo referido pelo Senhor Deputado. Contudo, procedeu à análise da
relação entre o PIB e a evolução do desemprego em Portugal. Por conseguinte, remetemos o Senhor Deputado para a
consulta do «Programa de ajustamento económico para Portugal — quarta avaliação» («The Economic Adjustment
Programme for Portugal — Fourth review») (páginas 11-12) ( [1] ). Este mesmo relatório apresenta uma análise das
medidas destinadas a melhorar o funcionamento do mercado do trabalho em Portugal, incluindo políticas ativas
neste setor que facilitem um regresso mais rápido dos desempregados ao mercado do trabalho (páginas 35-36). A
nível da UE, a Comissão apresentou várias iniciativas favoráveis à criação de emprego e à melhoria das políticas
sociais. Estas medidas incluem o Pacto para o crescimento e o emprego, a Análise anual do crescimento para 2013, o
Pacote relativo ao emprego dos jovens e o Pacote de investimento social.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp111_en.pdf

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 609

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003572/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Unemployment and fall in GDP

According to a study by a Portuguese economist, rising unemployment over the past three years has led to
production losses of EUR 91 billion, which is around 55% of Portuguese GDP. Current unemployment forecasts
could see this figure reach EUR 142 billion.

1. Is the Commission aware of this study?

2. What has been done to mitigate the serious economic impact of rising unemployment?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(16 May 2013)_

The Commission is not aware of the study mentioned by the Honourable Member. However, the Commission has
analysed the relation between GDP and unemployment developments in Portugal. The Commission would like
therefore to refer the Honourable Member to ‘The Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal — Fourth review’
(pages 11-12) ( [1] ). This same report presents a review of measures to improve the labour market functioning in
Portugal, including Active Labour Market Policies to facilitate a faster return of unemployed to work (pages 35-36).
At the EU level the Commission has presented various initiatives conducive to employment creation and to improve
social policies. These measures include the Compact for Growth and Jobs, the 2013 Annual Growth Survey, the
Youth Employment Package and the Social investment package.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/occasional_paper/2012/pdf/ocp111_en.pdf

C 12 E / 610 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003573/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Consequências das medidas a serem tomadas em Chipre

Considerando que:

As medidas que podem vir a ser adotadas em Chipre podem acarretar duas graves consequências:

—
corrida massiva aos depósitos, com a consequente falta de liquidez da banca cipriota; e

—
grande redução do PIB, havendo especialistas que falam numa redução na ordem dos 30 a 50 %;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Tem a Comissão previstas as possíveis consequências, na zona euro, das medidas a serem tomadas no Chipre?

2. Poderá haver uma quebra da confiança nos bancos, que levará a uma corrida aos depósitos em outros países da
zona euro, nomeadamente nos intervencionados?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

Não obstante a dimensão reduzida da economia cipriota relativamente à dimensão da área do euro, a sua estabilidade
financeira é importante para o bom funcionamento da área do euro. Qualquer desenvolvimento adverso pode ter
implicações diretas para a Grécia e consequências indiretas para toda a zona euro, nomeadamente através de efeitos
na confiança. Tal poderá constituir um risco suscetível de conduzir a uma nova instabilidade financeira que exija a
adoção de medidas de correção adicionais e a uma nova perda de crescimento na área do euro.

Chipre é um caso único devido à dimensão do seu setor bancário (7 a 8 vezes o PIB), conjugado com a sua estrutura,
nível de assunção de riscos e insuficiência de supervisão. Assim, as medidas são adaptadas à situação absolutamente
excecional em Chipre, com vista a restabelecer a viabilidade do setor bancário, protegendo, ao mesmo tempo, todos
os depósitos abaixo de um limiar de 100 000 euros em conformidade com as regras da UE.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 611

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003573/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Consequences of the steps being taken in Cyprus

The steps that could be taken in Cyprus could have two serious consequences:

—
massive deposit flight with the resulting lack of liquidity in the Cypriot banking system; and

—
a major reduction in GDP, with some experts talking about a 30-50% reduction.

1. Has the Commission planned for the potential consequences for the euro area of the steps to be taken in
Cyprus?

2. Could there be a loss of confidence in banks, leading to deposit flight in other euro area countries, particularly
those undergoing bailout programmes?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

Despite the small size of the Cypriote economy relative to the size of the euro area, its financial stability is important
for the functioning of the euro area. Any adverse developments could have direct implications for Greece and indirect
consequences for the wider euro area, _inter alia_ via confidence effects. This could pose a risk to renewed financial
instability requiring further mitigating policies and to a further loss of growth in the Eurozone.

Cyprus is a unique case because of the size of its banking sector (7 to 8 times GDP), combined with its structure, level
of risk-taking and suboptimal supervision. So measures are tailor-made to the very exceptional situation in Cyprus in
order to restore the viability of a smaller banking sector while, at the same time, protecting all deposits below
EUR 100 000 in accordance with EU rules.

C 12 E / 612 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003574/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Empresas de capitais estrangeiros a laborar em Chipre

Considerando que:

Segundo a imprensa internacional, os montantes russos «ilegais» depositados em Chipre serão uma pequena amostra,
quando comparados com os negócios legais efetuados em Chipre devido à baixa carga fiscal. «Há tantas empresas
russas registadas em Chipre para evitar impostos, que o país é já o primeiro da lista de investimento direto estrangeiro
na Rússia».

Pergunta-se:

1. A Comissão tem conhecimento desta realidade?

2. Os interesses «legais» das empresas estrangeiras sediadas em Chipre vão ser salvaguardados quando se proceder
ao programa de resgate?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de maio de 2013)_

1. A Comissão está ciente do facto de que Chipre é o maior investidor direto estrangeiro na Rússia (dados do final
de 2011).

2. Foi realizada uma avaliação independente da execução da estrutura de combate ao branqueamento de capitais
(AML) em instituições financeiras cipriotas, com a participação do comité Moneyval e de uma empresa internacional
privada de auditoria. Na sua declaração de 13 de maio de 2013, o Eurogrupo acolheu favoravelmente a conclusão
dessa avaliação. As instituições da Troica comunicaram as principais conclusões do Eurogrupo, devendo as
recomendações com vista a retificar as deficiências ser integradas no plano de ação AML a ser acordado entre as
instituições da Troica e as autoridades cipriotas na primeira revisão do programa. O plano de ação deverá visar
domínios que abrangem a aplicação de diligências adequadas relativamente aos clientes por parte de bancos,
nomeadamente através de uma supervisão adequada, bem como o funcionamento do registo de empresas, entre

outros.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 613

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003574/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Foreign-owned companies operating in Cyprus

According to the international media, ‘illegal’ Russian deposits in Cyprus pale in comparison with legal business
conducted there because of its low tax rate. There are so many Russian companies registered in Cyprus to avoid tax
that the country tops the list of Russian foreign direct investment.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. Will the ‘legal’ interests of foreign companies registered in Cyprus be safeguarded when the bailout programme
is implemented?

**Answer given by Mr Rehn on behalf of the Commission**

_(28 May 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the fact that Cyprus is the largest foreign direct investor in Russia (data as of end2011).

2. There has been an independent assessment of implementation of the anti-money laundering (AML) framework
in Cypriot financial institutions, involving Moneyval alongside a private international audit firm. In its statement of
13 May 2013, the Eurogroup welcomed the completion of this assessment. The Troika institutions have reported the
key findings to the Eurogroup, and recommendations to rectify deficiencies will be integrated in the AML action plan
to be agreed between the Troika institutions and the Cypriot authorities at the time of the first programme review.
The action plan will need to target areas covering implementation of customer due diligence by banks, including
through adequate supervision, and the functioning of the company registry, among others.

C 12 E / 614 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003575/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Mortes em acidentes com bicicletas

Considerando que:

—
Há cada vez mais cidadãos em toda a União Europeia a utilizarem a bicicleta, seja por questões de saúde, seja
por razões económicas ou ambientais. Por outro lado, os dados relativos ao aumento dos acidentes com
bicicletas resultantes em mortes têm vindo a revelar‐se cada vez mais preocupantes;

—
Em Londres, só em 2011, dos 16 ciclistas que morreram em acidentes de trânsito, nove envolveram camiões.
Além dos mortos, houve 555 feridos graves, num total de 4 497 acidentes;

—
Uma associação de ciclistas de Londres, com mais de 11 mil membros, propôs um novo desenho para os
camiões, de forma a evitar acidentes fatais com bicicletas ou peões;

—
Uma das associações, que representa algumas empresas que utilizam este tipo de camiões, já mostrou abertura
para «considerar qualquer inovação no _design_ do veículo que possa reduzir o risco de colisão entre camiões e
qualquer utilizador vulnerável da estrada»,

como avalia a Comissão esta medida?

**Resposta dada por Siim Kallas em nome da Comissão**

_(6 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão está muito empenhada em incentivar a crescente utilização da bicicleta: neste contexto, é importante ter
em consideração as questões que se prendem com a segurança rodoviária.

A proposta da Comissão para a revisão da Diretiva relativa a pesos e dimensões ( [1] ), adotada em 15 de abril de 2013,
deverá conduzir a grandes melhorias em termos de segurança para os ciclistas.

Permite aos fabricantes de camiões conceberem cabines mais inteligentes, que contribuirão para melhorar não só o
desempenho aerodinâmico dos veículos como também a segurança, designadamente no que se refere aos utentes
vulneráveis da estrada, como os ciclistas e os peões. Essas cabines mais inteligentes permitirão nomeadamente ao
condutor ter uma melhor visibilidade. Introduzirão também uma zona de deflexão que, num impacto a baixa
velocidade, impede que os peões e os ciclistas sejam atropelados em caso de acidente. Além disso, uma zona
deformável na frente da cabina reduz o impacto das colisões frontais.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 96/53/CE do Conselho, de 25 de julho de 1996, que fixa as dimensões máximas autorizadas no tráfego nacional e internacional e os
pesos máximos autorizados no tráfego internacional para certos veículos rodoviários em circulação na Comunidade.

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 615

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003575/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fatal bicycle-related accidents

An increasing number of EU citizens are riding bicycles, for health, economic and environmental reasons. However
the rise in fatal bicycle-related accidents is becoming an increasing concern.

In London, 16 cyclists were killed in road traffic accidents — nine of which involved lorries — in 2011 alone. A
further 555 cyclists were seriously injured in a total of 4497 accidents.

A London-based cyclists’ association, with over 11 000 members, has come up with a new lorry design, to prevent
fatal accidents involving bicycles and pedestrians.

An association that represents a number of companies using these types of lorries has said that it is ‘happy to consider
any innovation in vehicle design which could help reduce the risk of collision between lorries and any vulnerable road
user’.

What is the Commission’s assessment of this measure?

**Answer given by Mr Kallas on behalf of the Commission**

_(6 May 2013)_

The Commission is very keen to encourage further increases in cycling: in this context it is important that road safety
issues are addressed.

The Commission proposal for the revision of the directive on weights and dimensions ( [1] ), adopted on 15 April 2013,
should result in significant safety improvements in safety for cyclists.

It allows truck manufacturers to design smarter cabins which will improve both the aerodynamic performance of the
vehicle and safety, especially with regard to vulnerable users such as cyclists and pedestrians. In particular, the smarter
cabins will provide for better driver vision. They will also introduce a deflecting shape which for low speed impact
helps prevent pedestrians and cyclists from being overrun in the event of an accident. Moreover, a crumple zone in
the front of the cabin reduces the impact of frontal collisions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 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.

C 12 E / 616 EN Official Journal of the European Union 16.1.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-003576/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(28 de março de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Novas regras para combater a doença de Alzheimer

Considerando que:

—
A agencia que vigia os medicamentos e os alimentos nos Estados Unidos — FDA — mudou as recomendações
para testar a eficácia de medicamentos no tratamento da doença de Alzheimer;

—
Foi proposta uma nova regulamentação para promover estudos de produtos químicos que combatam a doença
neurodegenerativa, com o objetivo de facilitar o desenvolvimento de tratamento dos sintomas avançados da
doença e assim travar os sintomas de um problema que afeta milhões de pessoas em todo o mundo;

Como avalia a Comissão esta proposta?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de maio de 2013)_

A Comissão e a Agência Europeia de Medicamentos têm conhecimento do projeto de orientações relativas ao
desenvolvimento de medicamentos para a doença de Alzheimer ( [1] ) elaborado pela FDA norte‐americana.

Na UE, as orientações científicas sobre os requisitos pormenorizados para demonstrar a qualidade, a segurança e a
eficácia dos medicamentos, tal como exigidas pela legislação farmacêutica da UE ( [2] ), são elaboradas pela Agência
Europeia de Medicamentos.

As orientações relativas aos medicamentos para o tratamento da doença de Alzheimer e de outras demências ( [3] )
entraram em vigor em 2009. Em fevereiro de 2012, a Agência publicou um documento de reflexão sobre a não‐
necessidade de reapreciação dessas orientações ( [4] ). Esse documento sublinha que uma atualização das orientações,
neste momento, é considerada prematura, em virtude da atual investigação de base e clínica, em especial nos
domínios dos critérios de diagnóstico e da potencial utilização de biomarcadores nas diferentes fases de
desenvolvimento de um medicamento. No entanto, o documento de reflexão menciona uma eventual reapreciação de
uma atualização das orientações em 2013.

Neste contexto, a Agência, no âmbito das suas interações regulares com a FDA, procede ao intercâmbio de
conhecimentos e partilha abordagens científicas, inclusive no domínio da doença de Alzheimer, com vista a facilitar o
desenvolvimento de medicamentos à escala mundial.

Além disso, a Agência presta aconselhamento científico às empresas sobre programas de desenvolvimento
inovadores, no quadro das atividades de investigação e desenvolvimento em matéria de produtos farmacêuticos. Os
respetivos pareceres sobre a qualificação, inclusive sobre biomarcadores e a doença de Alzheimer, são publicados no
sítio Web da Agência ( [5] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM338287.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2001/83/CE que estabelece um código comunitário relativo aos medicamentos para uso humano, JO L 311 de 28.11.2001, alterada.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003562.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/03/WC500124534.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/document_listing/document_listing_000319.jsp&mid=WC0b01

ac0580022bb0

16.1.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 12 E / 617

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-003576/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(28 March 2013)_

_Subject:_ New rules for combating Alzheimer's disease

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has offered new guidance on testing the efficacy of drugs used to treat
Alzheimer’s disease.

The proposed rule changes promote studies into chemicals used to combat the neurodegenerative disease, with the
aim of helping develop treatment for the early indications thereof and thus forestall the symptoms of a condition that
affects millions of people worldwide.

What is the Commission’s assessment of this proposal?

**Answer given by Mr Borg on behalf of the Commission**

_(13 May 2013)_

The Commission and the European Medicines Agency are aware of the US FDA's draft guidance for Alzheimer's
disease drug development ( [1] ).

In the EU, scientific guidelines on detailed requirements for demonstrating the quality, safety and efficacy of medicinal
products as required by the EU's pharmaceutical legislation ( [2] ) are prepared by the European Medicines Agency.

The Guideline on medicinal products for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias ( [3] ) came into effect
in 2009. In February 2012 the Agency published a ‘Concept paper on no need for revision of this guideline’ ( [4] ). It
outlines that currently an update of the guideline is considered premature due to the ongoing basic and clinical
research, particularly in the areas of diagnostic criteria and the potential use of biomarkers in the different stages of
development of a medicinal product. However, the concept paper mentions a possible reconsideration of an update
of the guideline in 2013.

In this context, the Agency as part of its regular interactions with the FDA is exchanging knowledge and sharing
scientific approaches including in the area of Alzheimer’s disease, aiming at facilitating global product development.

[In addition, the Agency provides scientific advice to companies on innovative development programs in the context](http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_000049.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac05800229b9)
of the research and development into pharmaceuticals. Respective qualification opinions including those on
biomarkers and Alzheimer disease are published on the Agency's website ( [5] ).

( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**
( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM338287.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, as amended.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003562.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/03/WC500124534.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/document_listing/document_listing_000319.jsp&mid=WC0b01

ac0580022bb0

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