Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 219 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

**Volume 56**
##### English edition Information and Notices 31 July 2013

_Notice to reader_

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

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

### **EN**

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

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

**by a European Union institution**

(2013/C 219 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-006888/12** by Nigel Farage to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-through on ACTA rejection in EU‐Canada trade deal

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 13

**E-006889/12** by Gay Mitchell to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sewage treatment

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 14

**E-006890/12** by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Urban farming

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 17

**P-006892/12** by Francisco José Millán Mon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arbitration proceedings to settle claims concerning preference shares issued by Spain's Novagalicia Bank

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

**E-006893/12** by Doris Pack to the Commission
_Subject:_ Communication from the Commission on state aid for films and other audiovisual works

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 22

**E-006895/12** by John Stuart Agnew to the Commission
_Subject:_ CAP reform amendment deadlines

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 23

**E-006902/12** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ Polish citizen forced to change spelling of her name by German registry authorities

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 24
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 25

C 219 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

**E-006903/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cape Verde: strengthening the dialogue and policy convergence with the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 26
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 27

**E-006904/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cuban Sakharov Prize winners: state of play II

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 28
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 29

**E-006905/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Legislative elections in East Timor: state of play

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 30
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 31

**E-006907/12** by Ana Miranda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Management of forest fires in Valencia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 32
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 33

**E-006908/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dramatic rise in the suicide rate in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 34
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

**E-006910/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — China detains new bishop

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

**E-006911/12** by Mario Mauro to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arbitrary deportation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 39
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 40

**E-006912/12** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Off-shore workers and the Working Time Directive

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 41

**E-006915/12** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of Community funds for the period 2007-2013 by the municipalities of Perugia, Terni, Città di
Castello, Spoleto, Gubbio, Nardi and Corciano

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 42
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

**E-006916/12** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of Community funds for the period 2007-2013 by the municipalities of Arezzo, Grosseto, Firenze,
Siena, Pistoia, Carrara, Pisa, Massa and Livorno

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 42
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

**E-006917/12** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of Community funds for the period 2007-2013 by the municipalities of Urbino, Ancona, Pesaro and
Macerata

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 45

**E-006918/12** by Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lorry driving bans

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 46
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 47

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 3

**E-006921/12** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investigation into practices concerning the Euribor

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 48
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 49

**E-006922/12** by Peter Simon to the Commission
_Subject:_ Promoting the EU‐wide mobility of young job-seekers

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 50
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 51

**E-006924/12** by Amelia Andersdotter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investments in new cultural distribution models for the digital age under the MEDIA programme

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 52
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 53

**E-006925/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Church attacks in Kenya

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 54
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 55

**E-006927/12** by Fiorello Provera to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — The disappearance of Uyghurs in China

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 56
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 57

**E-006928/12** by Robert Sturdy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in the EU‐Canada negotiations for a Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 58

**E-006929/12** by Debora Serracchiani to the Commission
_Subject:_ World Conference on International Telecommunications: review of the International
Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs)

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 59
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 60

**E-006930/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Presence of Mario Monti at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in the United States

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 61
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 62

**P-006931/12** by Mario Pirillo to the Commission
_Subject:_ ‘Adriatic network’ gas pipeline

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 63
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

**P-006932/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transposition by the Italian Government of Directive 2009/52/EC

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 67
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 68

**E-006933/12** by Daniel Caspary to the Commission
_Subject:_ State of preparation for and implementation of the New Trade Policy for Europe

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 69
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 70

**E-006934/12** by Daniel Caspary to the Commission
_Subject:_ Development of a unified customs service

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 71
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 72

**E-006935/12** by Daniel Caspary to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trade in raw materials under the Europe 2020 strategy

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 73
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 74

C 219 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

**E-006937/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Urgent EU action to tackle new waves of migration

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 75
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 76

**E-006939/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact on the outermost regions of the EU‐Mercosur Association Agreement

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 77
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 78

**E-006940/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Recent events in Paraguay and their impact on EU‐Paraguay relations

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 79
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 81

**E-006959/12** by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ State of EU‐Paraguay trade relations

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 79
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 81

**P-006941/12** by Esther Herranz García to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Execution of a woman in Afghanistan

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 82
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 83

**P-006942/12** by Sabine Verheyen to the Commission
_Subject:_ ITU — Revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 84
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 85

**P-006943/12** by Struan Stevenson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Improper legislating and unforeseen consequences

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

**E-006945/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Retroactive legislation applied to the Spanish photovoltaic sector: comparison with the Greek situation

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 87
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 88

**E-006946/12** by Antolín Sánchez Presedo, María Muñiz De Urquiza and Antonio Masip Hidalgo to the
Commission
_Subject:_ Anti-competitive practices in the aluminium market

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 89
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 90

**E-006947/12** by Michael Cramer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible payment of subsidies to, and by, Berlin-Brandenburg airport (BER)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 91
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 92

**E-006948/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Risk of extreme poverty for a large section of the population of Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 93
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 95

**E-006949/12** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ South Korea’s ‘scientific’ whaling proposal

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

**E-006950/12** by Syed Kamall to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pan-European helpline for victims of trafficking

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 5

**E-006951/12** by Alyn Smith to the Commission
_Subject:_ Child soldiers

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

**E-006952/12** by Chrysoula Paliadeli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Horizon 2020 — Social sciences and humanities

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 100
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 101

**E-006953/12** by Simon Busuttil to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU sugar prices for consumers and industrial users

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 102
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-006954/12** by Hans-Peter Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Publication of consultation period contributions on shadow banking Green Paper

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 104
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 105

**E-006955/12** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Town of Cisterna Latina — Reduction of tax burden and compensatory measures to support farming

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 106
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 107

**E-006956/12** by Niccolò Rinaldi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mediterranean massacres

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 108
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 109

**E-006957/12** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Suspension of Croatia's accession to the European Union

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 110
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 111

**E-006958/12** by Marisa Matias and Sousa Alda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Derogations for pesticide use — The scale and situation in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 112
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 114

**E-006961/12** by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Closure of the Hydro Building Systems Pombal plant

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 115
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 116

**E-006962/12** by Inês Cristina Zuber and João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lay-offs and social situation in the Castelo Branco district

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 117
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 118

**E-006963/12** by Ivailo Kalfin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Equal treatment of Bulgarian citizens on the UK labour market

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 119
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 121

**E-006964/12** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legality of emissions allowances set aside under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 123
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 124

**E-006965/12** by Filip Kaczmarek to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accountability for EU expenditures on development resources

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 125
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 126

C 219 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

**E-006966/12** by Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Konrad Szymański, Herbert Reul and Giles Chichester to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illustrative nuclear programme

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 127
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 128
Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 129
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 130

**E-006967/12** by Judith Sargentini, Alf Svensson, Olle Schmidt, Ana Gomes, Ivo Vajgl and Franziska Keller to the
Commission
_Subject:_ European Development Fund (EDF) for Eritrea

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 131
Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 132

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 133
Slovenska različica ............................................................................................................................................................ 134

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 135
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 136

**E-006968/12** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ Method of poultry meat inspection

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 137
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 138

**E-006969/12** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rejection of ACTA and failure of the Commission's communication policy

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 139
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 141

**E-006970/12** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ Approval procedure, referral to the Court of Justice and rejection of ACTA

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 142
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 144

**E-006971/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal trafficking in used tyres

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 146
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 147

**E-006972/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lifelong learning — future challenges

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 148
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 149

**E-006973/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Paper Dolls campaign

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 150
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 151

**E-006974/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mortality rates in South Sudan's Jamam refugee camp above the level which constitutes an emergency

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 152
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 153

**E-006975/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Famine in Somalia

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 154
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 155

**E-006976/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Executions boost trafficking and ‘trade’ in organs in China

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 156
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 158

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 7

**E-006977/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ One-child policy: violation of human rights in China

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 159
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 160

**E-006978/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increasing availability of synthetic drugs

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 161
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 162

**E-006979/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Orphanages and care homes without any form of supervision

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 163
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 164

**E-006980/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Green prison to reduce environmental and psychological impacts

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

**E-006981/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revision of Directive 95/46/EC on protection of sensitive personal data

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

**E-006983/12** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Traces of alcohol in soft drinks

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

**E-006984/12** by José Manuel Fernandes and Maria do Céu Patrão Neves to the Commission
_Subject:_ Port maintenance and dredging work to allow fishing activities

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 171
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 172

**E-006985/12** by Petru Constantin Luhan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Special pensions for judges indicted on corruption charges

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 173
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 174

**E-006986/12** by Britta Thomsen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Clarification of the future of ILUC

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 175
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 176

**E-006987/12** by Konstantinos Poupakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ ILO research provides alarming data on employment in the eurozone

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 177
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 179

**E-006989/12** by Graham Watson to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Chemicals Agency and lead shot

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 181

**E-006991/12** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ethical principles for EU officials

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 182
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 183

**E-006993/12** by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen and Lucas Hartong to the Commission
_Subject:_ CO 2 tax damaging to trade and to European aviation (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 184
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 185

C 219 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

**E-006994/12** by Laurence J.A.J. Stassen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Policy on gender equality — a national matter

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

**E-006995/12** by Jan Březina to the Commission
_Subject:_ Discrimination when purchasing vehicles via an exclusive importer

České znění ........................................................................................................................................................................ 188
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 189

**E-006996/12** by Werner Langen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Turkey's treatment of non-Muslim minorities

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 190
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 191

**E-006997/12** by Stephen Hughes to the Commission
_Subject:_ Asbestos mining and shipping

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 192

**E-006998/12** by Dominique Vlasto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Duty-free purchases

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 193
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 194

**E-006999/12** by Jean-Luc Bennahmias to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rio+20: EU environmental strategy

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 195
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 196

**E-007000/12** by Lucas Hartong and Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ Pro-Palestinian propaganda

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 197
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 199

**E-007001/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Council
_Subject:_ Support for Cyprus during its Council presidency

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 200
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 202

**E-007002/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Standardisation of the criteria used to establish unemployment levels

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 204
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 206

**E-007005/12** by Ismail Ertug to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal bird-hunting in Cyprus

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

**E-007006/12** by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Progress made in promoting women to positions of responsibility in businesses

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 209
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 210

**E-007007/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Demographic changes and their impact on the labour market

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 211
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 212

**E-007008/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Developments regarding child labour in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 213
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 214

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 9

**E-007009/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Europe's Internal Security Strategy

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 215
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 216

**E-007010/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Limiting the exposure of minors to tobacco products

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 217
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 218

**E-007011/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Progress in the fight against match-fixing

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 219
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 220

**E-007012/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Role of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in recapitalising banks

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 221
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 222

**E-007013/12** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Respect for the principle of multilingualism in EU press releases

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 223
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 224

**E-007014/12** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Per capita contributions of Norway and the UK

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 225

**E-007015/12** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fire safety directive

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 226

**E-007016/12** by David Martin to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU audit

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 227

**E-007019/12** by Pavel Poc, Andrea Zanoni and Kriton Arsenis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Welfare of dairy cows

České znění ........................................................................................................................................................................ 228
Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 229
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 230
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 231

**E-007021/12** by Vicky Ford to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU state aid rules and tax incentives for infrastructure investment

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

**E-007022/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Analysis of European measures to control the crisis

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 233
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 234

**E-007023/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Peñalba-Isona high voltage power line

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 235
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 236

**E-007024/12** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Child obesity in Europe

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 237
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 239

C 219 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

**E-007025/12** by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission
_Subject:_ Application of functional unbundling to a dominant TV service provider (SMP)

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 240
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 241

**E-007026/12** by Nikolaos Salavrakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal immigration into the Schengen area

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 242
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 243

**E-007027/12** by Rita Borsellino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Yoga practitioners in Romania

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 244
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 245

**E-007028/12** by Franck Proust to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fighting unfair competition within the EU

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 246
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 247

**E-007030/12** by Philip Claeys to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commission excludes one particular party from debate on municipal elections

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 248
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 249

**E-007031/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Outermost regions and eligibility for cross-border cooperation programmes

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 250
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 251

**E-007032/12** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support from the structural and cohesion funds for the development of renewable energy and energy
efficiency in the outermost regions

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 252
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 253

**E-007034/12** by Carmen Romero López to the Commission
_Subject:_ Legal aid

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

**E-007035/12** by Carmen Romero López to the Commission
_Subject:_ Conditions of detention

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

**E-007037/12** by Morten Løkkegaard to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compulsory affiliation to local cable distribution networks

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 258
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 259

**E-007038/12** by Catherine Bearder to the Commission
_Subject:_ Directive 2006/126/EC and exemptions for Ministry of Defence driving examiners

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 260

**E-007039/12** by Anna Rosbach to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU imports of freshwater stingrays

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

**E-007040/12** by Auke Zijlstra to the Commission
_Subject:_ The Netherlands inundated with false passports (follow-up question)

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 263
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 264

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 11

**P-007042/12** by Regina Bastos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Car traffic: mandatory national rules within the European area

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 265
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 266

**P-007043/12** by Carl Schlyter to the Commission
_Subject:_ Welfare of dairy cows

Svensk version ................................................................................................................................................................... 267
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 268

**P-007044/12** by Gianluca Susta to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rumours about the possible halting by the French Government of the Turin-Lyon high speed railway
project

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

**E-007045/12** by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ European trade delegation to Colombia

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 271
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 273

**E-007046/12** by Vicky Ford to the Commission
_Subject:_ Competition issues in relation to petrol and diesel prices

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 274

**E-007047/12** by Frieda Brepoels to the Commission
_Subject:_ Refuse disposal facility in the Rijeka region of Croatia

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 275
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 276

**E-007048/12** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Risks posed by social networks to children

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

**E-007050/12** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ Actions to protect the stonemasonry industry in the EU

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 279
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 280

**E-007053/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: consequences of European Parliament resolution

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 281
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 282

**E-007054/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Proposal by the euro-nomics group: European Safe Bonds

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 283
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 284

**E-007055/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Change in the legal rate of VAT in Spain

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 285
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 286

**E-007056/12** by Diogo Feio to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: increase in drug trafficking

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 287
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 288

**E-007058/12** by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Information about and evaluation of policies to support the employment of people with disabilities in
Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 289
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 291

C 219 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

**E-007059/12** by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Council
_Subject:_ Asylum and Migration Fund

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 293

**E-007061/12** by Andrew Henry William Brons to the Council
_Subject:_ Expansion of the EU

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 13

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006888/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nigel Farage (EFD)**

_(10 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Follow-through on ACTA rejection in EU‐Canada trade deal

Following the rejection of the ACTA agreement by the EU parliament in July 2012, will the Commission be
undertaking a revision of the draft EU‐Canada trade deal to remove all proposals similar to ACTA which are
contained within that agreement? ( [1] )

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

( _14 August 2012_ )

The Commission fully respects the vote of the Parliament regarding ACTA. Until the conclusion of the CETA (or of
any other) negotiations, the Commission re-evaluates its negotiating positions to ensure that they are fully coherent
with the EU policy.

The intellectual property (IPR) chapter of CETA is currently being reviewed in the light of the position recently
expressed by the Parliament on ACTA as well as earlier positions of the Parliament. This may lead to certain IPR
provisions of CETA being adapted.

In this context, it should nevertheless be kept in mind that it is an objective for the EU to ensure to its innovative
companies, artists and researchers trading with or operating in Canada levels of protection and enforcement for their
creations identical to those available in Europe.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) As outlined in the following link: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6580/135/.

C 219 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006889/12**

**to the Commission**

**Gay Mitchell (PPE)**

_(10 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Sewage treatment

In relation to the treatment of waste water, Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC states that ‘Member States shall ensure
that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment’.

1. This suggests that the minimum requirement under EU regulations is to treat waste water twice. Will the
Commission clarify that this is the case and, if so, state how many Member States treat their waste water twice?

2. Will the Commission outline the plans it has, if any, to increase the number of times that waste water is treated
in the Member States?

3. Will the Commission comment on the upgrading of treatment plants in the Member States?

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

_(4 September 2012)_

1. ‘Secondary treatment’ does not mean that waste water is treated twice; as defined in Article 2.8 of
Directive 91/271/EEC ( [1] ) concerning urban waste-water treatment, secondary treatment is the treatment of waste
water by a process generally involving biological treatment, in which certain requirements have to be accomplished:
the biological oxygen demand (BOD5) and the chemical oxygen demand (COD) must respect, after such treatment,
certain values, which are established in Table 1 of Annex I of the directive.

2. Considering that secondary treatment has no link with the number of treatments which are applied on urban
waste water, the Commission has no plans to increase the number of times that waste water is treated, as such
requisite is not under the scope of the directive.

3. Upgrading of treatment plants is only applicable in those cases where plants are reported to the Commission by
Member States as having failing results (based on the requirements in the directive), and are, as a consequence, in
breach of the directive (Article 4 of the directive, and Article 5 thereof in certain cases), therefore making an
improvement of the plants necessary. The Commission closely follows the need to upgrade treatment plants in the
aforementioned situations; this is reflected in the legal infringement procedures that have been and are being
launched to remediate situations of breach, and also in the future compliance promotion strategy, which will be
addressed to support Member States and enhance implementation of the directive.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 15

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-006890/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)**

_(10 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Stadslandbouw

In heel wat Europese steden (net zoals in de VS overigens) wint stadslandbouw aan terrein: steeds vaker gaan zowel
particulieren als professionele teler op zoek naar manieren om binnen stedelijke gebieden aan landbouw te doen.
Zowel initiatiefnemers als consumenten zien voordelen op het vlak van vermeden transport, van water‐ en
meststoffengebruik, vergroening van de steden, sociale cohesie door te werken op buurtniveau… Vaak gebeurt dit op
kleine schaal en eerder traditioneel onder de vorm van volkstuinen of het telen van groenten en fruit in eigen tuin, op
een terras of een plat dak. Maar steeds meer ook in meer intensieve vormen, zoals volledige geconditioneerde
(gecontroleerde toevoer van licht, water en voedingsstoffen) inpandige teelten, grootschalige dakboerderijen, serres
op daken of volledige verticale boerderijen zoals het Plantagonproject in het Zweedse Linköping. Parijs riep 2012
overigens uit tot het jaar van de stadslandbouw.

1. Is de Commissie overtuigd van het feit dat stadslandbouw op diverse domeinen (klimaatverandering,
kwaliteitsvolle voedselvoorziening, waterbeheer, grondstoffenefficiëntie, duurzaam transport, verduurzaming van
steden) een bijdrage kan leveren aan de ambitie van Europa om uit te groeien tot een duurzame regio?

2. Beschikt de Commissie over cijfergegevens in verband met stadslandbouw?

3. Worden er al projecten van stadslandbouw met Europese middelen ondersteund?

— Zo ja, welke en vanuit welke beleidsdomeinen worden deze ondersteund?

— Zo neen, onder welke Europese fondsen kunnen projecten van stadslandbouw eventueel voor ondersteuning in
aanmerking komen?

4. Wordt er binnen de plannen tot herziening van het Europese landbouwbeleid specifiek aandacht gegeven aan de
rol die stadslandbouw kan hebben in de voedselvoorziening van onze steden?

5. Beschikt de Commissie over gegevens in verband met eventuele risico's van contaminatie (via lucht, water of
grond) van in steden geteelde groenten en fruit?

**Antwoord van de heer Cioloş namens de Commissie**

_(20 augustus 2012)_

1. Stadslandbouw kan een nuttige rol spelen in de door Europa nagestreefde duurzame ontwikkeling, mits deze
vorm van landbouw op een duurzame leest is geschoeid.

2. Hoewel de Commissie niet over statistieken over stadslandbouw als zodanig beschikt, kunnen de op NUTS 3niveau beschikbare landbouwstatistieken worden uitgesplitst naar EU-typologie voor stedelijke, plattelands‐ en
overgangsregio's ( [1] ). De gegevens over overwegend stedelijke regio's kunnen als substituut voor stadslandbouw
worden genomen ( [2] ). Aangezien het landbouwbedrijf de statistische waarnemingseenheid is, hebben de beschikbare
statistieken evenwel geen betrekking op volkstuinen of op het telen van groenten en fruit in eigen tuin, op een terras
of een plat dak, en waarschijnlijk evenmin op grootschalige dakboerderijen en serres op daken.

3-4. In beide GLB-pijlers is steun beschikbaar voor stadslandbouw, mits aan de subsidiabiliteitsvoorwaarden wordt
voldaan. De lidstaten dienen op ad-hocbasis te beoordelen of dit laatste het geval is. In deze aanpak zal na de
voorgestelde hervorming van het EU-landbouwbeleid waarschijnlijk geen verandering komen. Informatie over
stadslandbouwbedrijven die in het kader van het plattelandsontwikkelingsprogramma's steun ontvangen, is
verkrijgbaar bij de nationale en regionale instanties die belast zijn met het beheer van deze programma's.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Urban-rural_typology.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dit geldt met name voor de gegevens die om de tien jaar worden verzameld in het kader van de landbouwstructuurenquête, en daarnaast een

aantal hoofdindicatoren voor de jaren waarin tussentijdse enquêtes plaatsvinden (table ef_r_nuts).

C 219 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

Het Europees Fonds voor Regionale Ontwikkeling (EFRO) financiert in het kader van Urbact II ( [3] ) een project over
duurzaam voedsel in stadsgemeenschappen. Het gaat om een thematisch netwerk van vijf EU-steden die naar een
duurzamere teelt, levering en consumptie van voedsel streven ( [4] ).

5. De Commissie beschikt niet over algemene gegevens over de risico's van contaminatie van groenten en fruit die
in steden worden geteeld. Wel kent zij een recente studie ( [5] ) waarin is geconstateerd dat groenten die in de stad Berlijn
waren geteeld, hogere concentraties van bepaalde zware metalen bevatten dan groenten die in de winkel waren
gekocht. Groenten die dicht bij een drukke weg waren geteeld, bleken de grootste hoeveelheden van deze metalen te
bevatten.

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Urbact II is een uit het EFRO gefinancierd ervaringsuitwisselings‐ en leerprogramma.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) De deelnemende steden zoeken naar gezamenlijke, effectieve en duurzame oplossingen voor de ontwikkeling van CO2-arme en

hulpbronefficiënte stedelijke voedselsystemen. Naar verwachting zal het netwerk zich uitbreiden tot 8 à 12 steden.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Zie: Science for Environment Policy, DG Environment News Alert Service, News Alert Issue 291, 5 juli 2012 (website van de Europese

Commissie): http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/291na1.pdf

( **|**

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 17

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006890/12**

**to the Commission**
**Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D)**

_(10 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Urban farming

In a good many towns in Europe (and indeed in the USA), urban farming is gaining ground: both private and
professional cultivators are increasingly looking for ways of farming within urban areas. Both the people concerned
and consumers perceive advantages with regard to transport avoidance, use of water and fertilisers, greening of cities,
promotion of social cohesion by operating at neighbourhood level, etc. The initiatives are often small-scale and tend
towards the traditional in the form of allotments or fruit‐ and vegetable-growing in private gardens or on terraces or
flat roofs. But intensive methods are also increasingly being used, such as fully controlled indoor cultivation (with
regard to inputs of light, water and nutrients), large-scale rooftop farms, rooftop greenhouses or entire vertical farms
such as the Plantagon project in Linköping, Sweden. Paris has incidentally declared 2012 ‘Urban Farming Year’.

1. Is the Commission convinced that in various respects (with regard to climate change, high-quality food supply,
water management, efficient use of raw materials, sustainable transport, more sustainable cities), urban farming can
contribute to Europe’s ambition to become a sustainable region?

2. Does the Commission have any statistics on urban farming?

3. Are any urban farming projects already receiving European funding?

— If so, what projects and under which policies are they receiving support?

— If not, from which European funds could urban farming projects possibly be eligible for funding?

4. As part of the plans to reform the EU's agricultural policy, is specific attention being devoted to the role which
urban farming could play in feeding urban populations?

5. Does the Commission have any data concerning possible risks of contamination (via air, water or soil) of fruit
and vegetables grown in towns?

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

_(20 August 2012)_

1. Urban farming can contribute to the objectives of sustainable development in a territory if it follows the
principles of sustainable farming.

2. While the Commission does not have any statistics on urban farming as such, it is possible to disaggregate those
agricultural statistics which are available at NUTS 3 level according to the EU typology for urban, rural and
intermediate regions ( [1] ). Data for predominantly urban regions can be taken as proxies for urban farming. ( [2] ) As the
statistical unit observed is the agricultural holding, the available statistics do not cover allotments or fruit‐ and
vegetable-growing in private gardens or on terraces or flat roofs; they are unlikely to cover large-scale rooftop farms
and rooftop greenhouses.

3-4. Support to urban farming is available under both pillars of the CAP as long as the eligibility conditions are met.
Compliance with the latter must be assessed by the MS on a case by case basis. This approach is not likely to change
following the proposed reform of the EU's agricultural policy. Information on urban farms receiving support under
rural development programmes is available from the national and regional Managing Authorities who are in charge
of these programmes.

In the framework of URBACT II ( [3] ), the ERDF finances a project ‘Sustainable Food in Urban Communities’. It is a
thematic network of five EU cities that wish to grow, deliver and enjoy more sustainable food ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Urban-rural_typology.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) This applies in particular to data collected through the Farm Structure Survey every 10 years, completed by some key indicators presented in?

interim survey years (table ef_r_nuts).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) URBACT II is a programme for exchange of experience, learning and dissemination funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) The partners are looking for joint, effective and sustainable solutions to develop low-carbon and resource‐ efficient urban food systems. The

partnership is to be extended to 8-12 cities.

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

C 219 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

5. The Commission has no general data on the contamination risks of fruits and vegetables grown in towns. It is
aware of a recent study ( [5] ) in which higher concentrations of some heavy metals were found in vegetables grown on
plots in Berlin than in shop-bought vegetables, with the vegetables grown close to busy roads containing the greatest
quantities.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) ‘Science for Environment Policy’, European Commission DG Environment News Alert Service, News Alert Issue 291, 5 July 2012. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/291na1.pdf.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 19

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-006892/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE)**

_(11 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Vía arbitral para reclamaciones por participaciones preferentes de Novagalicia Banco (NGB)

En los últimos años, varias entidades financieras —ocho bancos y ocho cajas de ahorros, entre ellas las dos cajas que
dieron lugar a la creación de Novagalicia Banco (NGB), actualmente intervenido por el FROB— comercializaron en
Galicia (España) las llamadas participaciones preferentes. Novagalicia Banco mantiene entre detallistas un volumen
cercano a los 1 080 millones de euros.

Muchos de los adquirentes manifestaron que la información que habían recibido sobre estos productos era muy
deficiente. Estiman haber sido objeto de un abuso, o incluso de una estafa. En los últimos meses se aprecia una alta
movilización de colectivos de afectados, que quieren recuperar sus ahorros. El 3 de julio, según la prensa, la Fiscalía
Superior de Galicia presentó una demanda civil de acción colectiva contra NGB por la aplicación de una práctica
abusiva prohibida por la legislación.

Por otra parte, la vía arbitral se considera muy adecuada para resolver las reclamaciones por la comercialización de las
participaciones preferentes. Se trata del Sistema Arbitral de Consumo recogido en el Real Decreto 231/2008, de
15 de febrero. Así lo ha entendido la Xunta de Galicia, que ha constatado además que ni el Banco de España ni
el FROB tienen objeciones a esta vía arbitral.

La propia Comisión Europea se ha posicionado en general a favor del procedimiento arbitral por considerarlo una vía
que produce buenos resultados, al reducir el coste y la duración de los litigios en materia de consumo.

Pero el documento de la Comisión Europea de 30 de septiembre de 2011, C(2011)7031 final, titulado «State aid
n° SA.33096 (2011/N) — Spain — Recapitalisation of NCG Banco» indica, en sus puntos 27 y 50, que para cualquier
acuerdo sobre instrumentos híbridos es necesario consultar previamente a la Comisión. No obstante, en unas
recientes declaraciones a _El Faro de Vigo_, el Vicepresidente de la Comisión Europea y Comisario de Competencia
insiste en el carácter «español» del problema; de sus declaraciones parece desprenderse que la Comisión carece de
responsabilidades en materia de preferentes.

¿Podría indicar la Comisión si es necesaria una autorización, conformidad o comunicación de algún tipo por su parte
para que la entidad NGB acepte la posibilidad de resolver, a través del Sistema Arbitral de Consumo, las reclamaciones
presentadas como consecuencia de la comercialización de participaciones preferentes?

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

_(3 de septiembre de 2012)_

Según las normas sobre ayudas estatales de la UE, los bancos que recibieron ayuda estatal durante la actual crisis
financiera deben consultar a la Comisión antes de proceder a la amortización o recomprar instrumentos de capital
híbrido, como las participaciones preferentes, o de pagar cupones sobre estos instrumentos, salvo que tengan la
obligación legal de hacerlo. Si hay una obligación legal, tanto si se deriva de la legislación nacional como de sentencias
judiciales (o de arbitraje, siempre y cuando haya suficientes salvaguardias, de manera que el procedimiento pueda
considerarse similar a un procedimiento judicial), la Comisión no pondrá objeciones a la medida.

No obstante, no habiendo una obligación legal, si un banco no consultó a la Comisión previamente, este hecho se
consideraría un factor agravante que exigiría una reestructuración adicional del banco.

C 219 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-006892/12**

**to the Commission**
**Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Arbitration proceedings to settle claims concerning preference shares issued by Spain's Novagalicia Bank

In recent years, a number of financial institutions — eight banks and eight savings banks, including the two which
merged to form Novagalicia Bank, which is currently being supported by the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring —
issued preference shares in the Spanish autonomous community of Galicia. The total sum held by retail customers
amounts to approximately EUR 1.080 billion.

Many of the purchasers believe that they were mis-sold their shares, on the grounds that the information they
received about the products was extremely inadequate. Some have even called the banks' actions fraudulent. In recent
months, many of those affected have joined forces in protest, in the hope that they will recover their savings. The
press has also reported that the Galician Higher Public Prosecutions Department filed a joint claim against
Novagalicia on 3 July, alleging that the bank had engaged in malpractice.

However, the view is that arbitration proceedings would be the best way to resolve the claims in question, through the
Consumer Arbitration System established under Royal Decree 231/2008 of 15 February 2008. This is the view taken
by the Galician government, which has also noted that the Bank of Spain and the Fund for Orderly Bank
Restructuring have no objections to resolving the issue through these means.

The Commission has said that it is generally in favour of arbitration proceedings because they produce good results
by reducing the cost and duration of consumer-related disputes.

However, paragraphs 27 and 50 of the final Commission document, C(2011) 7031 of 30 September 2011, entitled
‘State aid No SA.33096 (2011/N) — Spain — Recapitalisation of NCG Banco’ say that the Commission should be
consulted prior to any agreement on hybrid instruments. This goes against the Vice-President and Commissioner for
Competition's recent comments to the newspaper El Faro de Vigo that the problem is a ‘Spanish’ one, a stance which
implies that the Commission does not have competence to make decisions about preference shares.

Could the Commission indicate whether or not it needs to grant authorisation or approval, or to issue some form of
communication before Novagalicia can agree to resolve, through the Consumer Arbitration System, the claims
resulting from the sale of preference shares?

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

_(3 September 2012)_

According to EU state aid rules, banks that received state aid during the current financial crisis must consult the
Commission before calling or buying back hybrid capital instruments such as preference shares or making coupon
payments on these instruments, unless there is a legal obligation for the banks to do so. If such a legal obligation
exists, whether deriving from national law or court rulings (or arbitration rulings, provided that sufficient safeguards
are in place so that the procedure can be considered similar to a court proceeding), the Commission will not object to
the measure.

However, absent a legal obligation, if a bank did not consult the Commission beforehand, this failure would be
considered as an aggravating factor which would require additional restructuring of the bank.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 21

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006893/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Doris Pack (PPE)**

_(11. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Mitteilung der Kommission über staatliche Beihilfen für Filme und andere audiovisuelle Werke

Der Entwurf der _Mitteilung der Kommission über staatliche Beihilfen für Filme und andere audiovisuelle Werke_ scheint dem
Schutz der kulturellen Vielfalt wie auch dem souveränen Recht der Mitgliedstaaten auf eigenständige Ausgestaltung
ihrer Kulturpolitiken unzureichend Rechnung zu tragen. Die vertraglichen Verpflichtungen der EU-Politik, festgelegt
beispielsweise in der Unesco-Konvention zum Schutz der kulturellen Vielfalt, dürfen nicht durch innereuropäische
neue Regeln des Beihilferechts unterlaufen werden. Die beabsichtigte erhebliche Absenkung der zulässigen
territorialen Bindung von Fördermitteln ist weder aus wettbewerbsrechtlichen noch aus binnenmarktrechtlichen
Gründen nachvollziehbar.

Selbst die von der Kommission in Auftrag gegebene Studie hat keinen Nachweis erbracht über nennenswerte
nachteilige Auswirkungen auf den innergemeinschaftlichen audiovisuellen Markt; sie hat sogar positive
Auswirkungen festgestellt. Die Einführung der verschiedenen, in ihren Folgen nicht abgeschätzten Neuregelungen,
hat das Potential, den audiovisuellen Sektor in Europa zu destabilisieren und teilweise existenziell zu gefährden.

— Beabsichtigt die Kommission, mit diesem Entwurf die Unesco-Konvention zu unterlaufen?

— Ist sich die Kommission bewusst, dass von den vorgeschlagenen Neuregelungen eine erhebliche Gefährdung des
audiovisuellen Sektors in Europa ausgeht und dass die Kommission somit ihrer Verpflichtung zum Schutz der
kulturellen Vielfalt in der EU nicht angemessen Rechnung trägt?

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

_(28. August 2012)_

Die Kommission ist sich bewusst, dass Filme in der Kulturlandschaft eine wichtige Rolle spielen und die Identität und
die Vielfalt Europas wesentlich prägen. Diese Rolle will die Kommission wahren und schützen. Die geplanten neuen
Bestimmungen zu staatlichen Beihilfen für die audiovisuelle Produktion zielen keineswegs darauf ab, diese Rolle
infrage zu stellen. Eine Aushöhlung der Unesco‐Konvention zur kulturellen Vielfalt wird mit dem von der Frau
Abgeordneten erwähnten Mitteilungsentwurf ( [1] ) nicht beabsichtigt. Vielmehr wird die Unesco‐Konvention in dem
Entwurf für eine Mitteilung in Absatz 12 explizit genannt.

Zu den Bedingungen für die Territorialisierung der Ausgaben in Verbindung mit staatlichen Beihilfen ist anzumerken,
dass nach AEUV jede Beschränkung, die die Freiheit der Beihilfeempfänger, Waren und Dienstleistungen von einem
beliebigen Ort innerhalb des Binnenmarkts zu beziehen, beeinträchtigt, gleichzeitig ihrem Wesen nach auch eine
Beschränkung der Grundfreiheiten gemäß den Bestimmungen zum Binnenmarkt ist. Solche Beschränkungen können
unter bestimmten Bedingungen gerechtfertigt sein. Allerdings sind die Mitgliedstaaten dafür zuständig, festzustellen
ob sie notwendig und verhältnismäßig sind. Abgesehen davon hat die Kommission nicht vorgeschlagen, jegliche
Verbindung zwischen den Beihilfen und dem Hoheitsgebiet des Beihilfe gewährenden Mitgliedstaats abzuschaffen.

In der Praxis ist es so, dass keine Beihilferegelung für Filme in Europa das nach den derzeit geltenden Bestimmungen
gestattete sehr hohe Niveau für die Verpflichtung zur Territorialisierung der Ausgaben anwendet. Manche
Mitgliedstaaten haben niemals solche territorialen Beschränkungen angewandt und verfügen dennoch über eine
aktive Filmbranche.

Die Kommission erörtert ihren Vorschlag derzeit mit den Mitgliedstaaten und der audiovisuellen Branche und prüft
die von diesen vorgebrachten Argumente sorgfältig.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2012_state_aid_films/draft_communication_de.pdf

C 219 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006893/12**

**to the Commission**

**Doris Pack (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Communication from the Commission on state aid for films and other audiovisual works

The draft Communication from the Commission on state aid for films and other audiovisual works appears to make
insufficient accommodation for the protection of cultural diversity and the sovereign right of Member States to make
their own independent cultural policies. The contractual obligations shaping EU policy, which are enshrined in such
texts as the Unesco Convention on cultural diversity, should not be undermined by new rules on state aid within the
Union. The proposed substantial decoupling of aid from geographical area is incomprehensible in terms of both
competition rules and internal market rules.

Even the study ordered by the Commission failed to find any evidence of significant disadvantages for the EU
audiovisual market, and indeed identified advantages. Introducing these various new rules, whose consequences have
not been assessed, could potentially destabilise the European audiovisual sector and in some respects jeopardise its
existence.

— Is it the Commission’s intention, with this draft communication, to undermine the Unesco Convention?

— Is the Commission aware that the proposed new regulations represent a major threat to the audiovisual sector in
Europe, and that it is therefore failing in its duty to protect adequately cultural diversity in the EU?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The Commission is fully aware that films play an important role in shaping Europe's cultural identity and diversity. It
is the Commission's intention to safeguard this role. The planned new rules on aid for audiovisual production do not
aim to jeopardise this role. The draft Communication ( [1] ) mentioned by the Honourable Member does not propose to
undermine the Unesco Convention on Cultural Diversity. Indeed, the Unesco Convention is cited explicitly in
paragraph 12 of the draft Communication.

Regarding territorial spending conditions linked to state aid, it should be noted that under the Treaty any limitation
which restricts the freedom of aid beneficiaries to obtain goods or services from anywhere in the internal market is by
its nature also a limitation of the fundamental freedoms under the internal market rules. Such limitations may be
justified under certain conditions. It is, however, up to Member States to establish their necessity and proportionality.
In any case, the Commission did not propose to abolish altogether a link between the aid and the area of the granting
Member State.

In practice, no film scheme in Europe applies the very high possible level of territorial spending obligations allowed
by the current rules. Some Member States have never applied such territorial restrictions and nonetheless have active
film sectors.

The Commission is discussing its proposal with Member States and the audiovisual sector and is carefully considering
the arguments they put forward.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2012_state_aid_films/draft_communication_en.pdf

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 23

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006895/12**

**to the Commission**
**John Stuart Agnew (EFD)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ CAP reform amendment deadlines

Will the Commission explain why the deadline for the amendment of such important reports as CAP reform has to be
as early as 13 July 2012 when they will not be considered until September at the earliest? Is it due to poor
management of staff availability at a critical time and/or a conscious attempt to stifle and curtail democratic input and
debate?

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

_(7 August 2012)_

Deadlines for EP reports, such as on the CAP reform, are set within the EP in accordance with the internal EP rules and
not by the Commission.

C 219 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-006902/12**

**do Komisji**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(11 lipca 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Przymusowa zmiana pisowni imienia obywatelki polskiej przez niemiecki urząd stanu cywilnego

W związku z zadanym przeze mnie pytaniem P-1371/07 oraz odpowiedzią udzieloną w imieniu Komisji zwracam
się z pytaniem dotyczącym konkretnego przykładu dyskryminacyjnej, przymusowej zmiany pisowni polskiego
imienia dokonanej arbitralną decyzją niemieckiego urzędu stanu cywilnego.

W dniu 23.3.2012 Pani Patrycja zawarła na terenie Niemiec ślub cywilny. Decyzją urzędu stanu cywilnego w Kassel
(akt zawarcia małżeństwa o numerze E110/2012) zmieniono pisownię jej pierwszego imienia z „Patrycja” na
niemiecką formę „Patricia”.

Taką formą imienia zainteresowana „posługiwała się” jako osoba niepełnoletnia w latach 1989-1998, w związku
z tym, że została ona tak ujęta w tzw. dokumencie rejestrowym (Regiestrierschein) wypełnionym dla całej rodziny
w obozie dla wysiedleńców we Friedlandzie.

Od 1998 r., kiedy zainteresowana skończyła 16 lat i złożyła po raz pierwszy podanie o niemiecki dowód osobisty
i paszport, zmieniła ona pisownię swojego imienia na pisownię polską, wracając od niemieckiego „Patricia” do
polskiego „Patrycja”. Żaden z niemieckich urzędów nie kwestionował takiej formy pisowni jej imienia aż do 23 marca
2012 r.

W związku z tym pragnę zadać pytania:

1. Czy takie postępowanie niemieckiego urzędu stanu cywilnego nie narusza prawa UE, w szczególności art. 18
i 21 TFUE?

2. Czy nagła decyzja urzędu stanu cywilnego ws. żądania zmiany pisowni imienia w momencie zawierania
związku małżeńskiego nie jest szczególnym przykładem bezprawnego wywierania presji mającej na celu
zmuszenie zainteresowanej do rezygnacji z prawa do ochrony własnej tożsamości i życia prywatnego, które
jest chronione art. 8 Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności?

3. Czy ponadto sytuacja, w której przymusowo zmienia się pisownię imienia, mimo że nie występują w nim
znaki diakrytyczne, nie jest nie tylko bezprawna, ale też po prostu w żaden sposób nieuzasadniona?

4. Jakie działania zamierza w związku z tym podjąć Komisja w tej sprawie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Viviane Reding w imieniu Komisji**

_(24 sierpnia 2012 r.)_

Komisja potrzebuje bardziej szczegółowych informacji, które umożliwiłyby jej analizę przedstawionego problemu,
w związku z czym nie jest w stanie udzielić odpowiedzi na pytanie w chwili obecnej. Komisja prosi Szanownego Pana
Posła o przedstawienie bardziej szczegółowych informacji na temat ewolucji pisowni imienia danej osoby
w oficjalnych rejestrach i dokumentach w Polsce i w Niemczech. W szczególności nie jest dla Komisji jasne, czy
w 1998 r., gdy dana osoba ubiegała się o swój pierwszy niemiecki dowód tożsamości i paszport, podjęła ona
inicjatywę używania imienia „Patrycja” zamiast „Patricia” bez złożenia u władz niemieckich wniosku o zmianę
pisowni imienia, czy też władze niemieckie wyraziły jednoznaczną zgodę na zmianę pisowni z „Patricia” na
„Patrycja”. W tym drugim przypadku Komisja zwraca się do Szanownego Pana Posła o określenie, które dokumenty
wydawane w Niemczech zawierają lub zawierały imię w pisowni polskiej i określenie organu, który podpisał
dokument, oraz datę wydania dokumentu.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 25

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006902/12**

**to the Commission**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Polish citizen forced to change spelling of her name by German registry authorities

Further to my Question P‐1371/07 and the response given by the Commission, I should like to put a question
concerning a specific case of discrimination in which the German registry authorities made an arbitrary decision to
force a Polish citizen to change the spelling of her name.

On 23 March 2012, Patrycja was married in a civil ceremony in Germany. On the basis of a decision taken by the
registry authorities in Kassel (marriage certificate No E110/2012), ‘Patrycja’ was changed to the German form of the
name ‘Patricia’.

The woman concerned had used the German form of her name as a minor between 1989 and 1998 on account of the
fact that she had been included in a registration certificate ( _regiestrierschein_ ) filled in for her entire family in a camp for
displaced persons in Friedland.

In 1998, when the woman concerned reached the age of 16 and applied for her first German identity card and
passport, she changed the spelling of her name from the German ‘Patricia’ to the Polish ‘Patrycja’. No German civil
servants had objected to this way of spelling her name prior to 23 March 2012.

In this connection:

1. Is the German registry authorities’ behaviour not in violation of EC law, specifically Articles 18 and 21 of the
TFEU?

2. Is the registry authorities’ sudden decision to demand that the spelling of a name be changed at the moment of
marriage not a clear example of the unlawful exertion of pressure with a view to forcing the woman concerned
into giving up the right to protect her identity and private life, a right which is protected under Article 8 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

3. Furthermore, is it not the case that imposing changes to the spelling of a name — in spite of the name’s lack of
diacritics — is not only unlawful, but completely unjustifiable?

4. What action does the Commission plan to take in this matter?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The Commission would need more detailed information on the matter to be able to investigate the problem raised
and is not therefore in a position to answer the question at the moment. It would ask the Honourable Member to
provide more details on the evolution of the spelling of the concerned person's name in official registers and
documents in Poland and Germany. It is in particular not clear to the Commission whether in 1998, when the person
concerned applied for her first German identity card and passport, she took the initiative to use the name ‘Patrycja’
instead of ‘Patricia’ without applying with the German authorities for a change of name or whether the German
authorities explicitly accepted the change from ‘Patricia’ to ‘Patrycja’. In the latter case, the Commission would kindly
ask the Honourable Member to specify which documents issued in Germany bear or have borne the name in the
Polish version, as well as the authority who signed the document and the date of issuance.

C 219 E / 26 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006903/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(11 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Cabo Verde: reforço do diálogo e da convergência política com a UE

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-003090/2012 sobre o reforço do diálogo e da convergência política entre Cabo
Verde e a União Europeia, a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante afirmou que «estão a ser ponderadas novas iniciativas
em setores como a segurança regional, a energia e a convergência técnica e normativa».

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Está em condições de adiantar informações mais concretas acerca daquilo que está a ser ponderado?

—
Em caso negativo, quando prevê poder fazê-lo?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2012)_

No respeitante à convergência técnica e normativa, o Governo de Cabo Verde está atualmente a concluir um libro
branco que inclui atividades estratégicas e prioritárias, devendo estar disponível durante as próximas semanas.

No que se refere à segurança regional e à energia, o Governo de Cabo Verde manifestou a sua intenção de realizar duas
reuniões regionais em Cabo Verde, no âmbito da Comunidade Económica dos Estados da África Ocidental (Cedeao), a
fim de promover uma estratégia comum e novas iniciativas. As datas ainda não estão disponíveis.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 27

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006903/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cape Verde: strengthening the dialogue and policy convergence with the EU

In reply to my Question E‐003090/2012 on strengthening the dialogue and policy convergence between Cape Verde
and the EU, the Vice-President/High Representative stated that ‘new initiatives in sectors such as regional security,
energy, technical and normative convergence are currently being considered’.

— Can the Vice-President/High Representative add any more specific information on what is being considered?

— If not, when does she expect to be able to do so?

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

_(21 August 2012)_

Concerning technical and normative convergence, a white paper containing strategy and priority activities is
currently being finalised by the Government of Cape Verde and should be available during the next few weeks.

In respect of regional security and energy, the Government of Cape Verde indicated its intention to convene two
regional meetings in Cape Verde, within the framework of Ecowas, in order to promote a common strategy and new
initiatives. The dates are not yet available.

C 219 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006904/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(11 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Prémios Sakharov cubanos: ponto da situação II

Agradeço a resposta dada pela Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante à minha pergunta E-004922/2012. Não obstante
este meu agradecimento pelas informações prestadas, considero que a primeira pergunta que fiz continua por
responder.

Assim, pergunto novamente à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Está disposta a convidar Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, as «Damas de Blanco» e Guillermo Fariñas a deslocarem-se às
instituições europeias para que possam testemunhar, de viva voz, acerca do estado de coisas em Cuba?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de agosto de 2012)_

O Parlamento convidou as Damas de Branco e Guillermo Fariñas para se deslocarem a Bruxelas. Uma vez que a sua
deslocação não foi autorizada, um convite para vir a Bruxelas está atualmente fora de questão. A AR/VP — e as
instituições da UE — dispõem de informações fiáveis sobre a situação em Cuba, recolhidas junto de várias fontes,
nomeadamente através de contactos em Havana efetuados pela Delegação junto da oposição pacífica, como as Damas
de Branco e Guillermo Fariñas.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 29

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006904/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cuban Sakharov Prize winners: state of play II

I appreciate the reply given by the Vice-President/High Representative to my Question E‐004922/2012. Nevertheless,
even though I am grateful for the information provided, I believe that my first question remains unanswered.

I would therefore ask the Vice-President/High Representative once again:

—
Is she willing to invite Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, the Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas to travel to the EU
institutions to personally testify on the state of affairs in Cuba?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The Ladies in White and Guillermo Fariñas were invited by the Parliament to Brussels. Given that their travel was not
permitted, an invitation to Brussels is currently not under consideration. The HR/VP — and the EU institutions — do
have reliable information on the situation in Cuba, compiled from various sources _inter alia_ through contacts in
Havana by the Delegation with the peaceful opposition, including the Damas de Blanco and Guillermo Fariñas.

C 219 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006905/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(11 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Timor-Leste: eleições legislativas — balanço

Em resposta à minha pergunta E-011578/2011, a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante afirmou que «as eleições de
2012 serão um teste decisivo à estabilidade [de Timor-Leste], mas a expectativa é que decorram pacificamente,
embora se mantenha o risco».

Assim, pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Que balanço faz do processo que culminou nas eleições legislativas de 7 de julho de 2012 em Timor-Leste?
Como o avalia?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de agosto de 2012)_

Em 9 de julho, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente fez uma declaração sobre as eleições em Timor-Leste. A avaliação
global do processo eleitoral é muito positiva. Os observadores internacionais e, nomeadamente, a Missão de
Observação Eleitoral da UE (MOE) afirmaram, na sequência da realização das eleições, que estas foram realizadas em
conformidade com os princípios constantes dos instrumentos internacionais em matéria de eleições democráticas. Os
poucos problemas técnicos que foram identificados pela MOE da UE e as correspondentes recomendações serão
incluídos no relatório final que será entregue às autoridades nacionais no final de setembro.

Contudo, a Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente lamenta profundamente a agitação que eclodiu em 15 de julho em
Dili e nalguns distritos, na sequência da transmissão do congresso nacional do CNRT de que resultou a morte de um
jovem voluntário.

Será importante que o Primeiro-Ministro em funções, como líder político da coligação anunciada CNRT-PD-Frente
Mudança, consiga gerir cuidadosamente a formação e anúncio do novo Governo para evitar mais perturbações.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 31

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006905/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Legislative elections in East Timor: state of play

In her response to my Question E‐011578/2011, the Vice-President/High Representative stated that ‘the 2012
elections will be a crucial test for stability, but — even if risks remain — it is expected that they will proceed
peacefully’.

— What is the Vice-President/High Representative’s assessment of the process leading up to the legislative elections in
East Timor on 7 July 2012? What is her opinion of it?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

The HR/VP made a statement on the elections in Timor-Leste on 9 July. The overall assessment of the election process
is very positive. The international observers and notably the EU Electoral Observation Mission (EOM) have stated in
the aftermath of the polling that the elections were in line with the principles contained in the international
instruments for democratic elections. The few technical problems that have been, however, identified by the EU EOM
and the related recommendations will be included in the Final Report to be handed over to the National Authorities in
the end of September.

We, however, deeply regret the unrest that broke out on 15 July in Dili and in some districts, following the broadcast
of CNRT national congress that resulted in a death of a young man.

It will be important that the incumbent Prime Minister, as the political leader of the announced CNRT-PD-Frente
Mudança coalition, carefully manages the formation and notification of the new Government to avoid further
disturbances.

C 219 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-006907/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(11 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Gestión de los incendios en Valencia

Los incendios forestales de la semana pasada en Cortes de Pallás y Andilla (Valencia) han provocado graves daños
ambientales, tanto a la fauna como a la flora de la zona. Se han calcinado más de 50 000 hectáreas, un espacio que
tardará varias décadas en regenerarse. La diversidad de flora y fauna de la zona se traduce en 25 especies de mamíferos
o 94 especies de aves.

Estos espacios se encuentran en zonas protegidas por la Red Natura 2000, como las ZEPA (Zonas de Especial
Protección para las Aves) de Sierra de Martés — Muela de Cortes (ES0000212) y el Alto Turia y Sierra del Negrete
(ES0000449), y los LIC (Lugar de Interés Comunitario) de Serra Calderona (ES5232002) y Muela de Cortes y el
Caroche (ES5233040).

Las políticas de prevención son vitales para el mantenimiento y la conservación de estos espacios naturales. La
Generalitat de la Comunidad Valenciana redujo, entre 2008 y 2012, multitud de recursos públicos en materia de
prevención y extinción de incendios. Se estima que la cuantía total de este recorte asciende a unos 15 millones de
euros en total, dejando, por tanto, a 31 municipios sin brigada contra incendios.

¿Conoce la Comisión esta situación?

¿Dispone la Comisión de un plan de medidas para instar a los Estados miembros a que protejan de manera efectiva los
espacios naturales de la Red Natura con arreglo a la Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo, de 21 de mayo de 1992, relativa
a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y la flora silvestres?

¿Estaría de acuerdo la Comisión en apoyar iniciativas encaminadas a blindar la inversión pública en materia de
prevención y extinción de incendios en la Unión Europea?

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

_(17 de agosto de 2012)_

La prevención y contención de incendios forestales es una competencia de los Estados miembros, mientras que el
Reglamento de desarrollo rural prevé la cofinanciación de medidas de prevención y recuperación. En el caso de los
incendios forestales ocurridos cerca de Valencia, el Mecanismo de Protección Civil de la UE (MPC) siguió
estrechamente la situación en cooperación con la autoridad de protección civil española y se mantuvo preparada para
actuar si así se le pedía. Sin embargo, España no activó el mecanismo durante los incendios forestales sucedidos cerca
de Valencia.

El Sistema europeo de información sobre incendios forestales de la Comisión (EFFIS) sigue y supervisa estrechamente
los incendios forestales en la UE y los países vecinos y mantiene estrecho contacto con los servicios nacionales de
bomberos.

El objetivo 3b de la estrategia en materia de biodiversidad ( [1] )prevé actuaciones destinadas a integrar las medidas de
protección de la biodiversidad en los planes de gestión forestal.Con arreglo a la acción 12, los Estados miembros
deben garantizar que los planes incluyan medidas ecosistémicas dirigidas a aumentar la capacidad de resistencia de los
bosques contra los incendios, como parte de los planes de prevención de los incendios forestales.

Conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 6, apartado 2, de la Directiva de hábitats ( [2] ), los Estados miembros deben
adoptar las medidas apropiadas para evitar el deterioro de los hábitats naturales y de los hábitats de especies, así como
las alteraciones que repercutan en las especies que hayan motivado la designación de las zonas, en la medida en que
dichas alteraciones puedan tener un efecto apreciable en lo que respecta a los objetivos de la Directiva. Esto supone
que los Estados miembros deben tomar medidas razonables para prevenir cualquier perturbación o deterioro
importantes, lo que entraña asimismo medidas preventivas para impedir el deterioro.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Estrategia de la UE sobre la biodiversidad hasta 2020, COM(2011) 244 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo, de 21 de mayo de 1992, relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres,

DO L 206 de 22.7.1992.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 33

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006907/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Management of forest fires in Valencia

Last week’s forest fires in Cortes de Pallás and Andilla (Valencia) have caused extensive environmental damage to the
area’s flora and fauna. Over 50 000 hectares have been burnt to the ground and will take decades to grow back. The
area is home to a diverse range of animal and plant life, including 25 species of mammal and 94 species of birds.

The affected areas lie within protected Natura 2000 spaces, such as the Sierra de Martés — Muela de Cortes
(ES0000212) and Alto Turia and Sierra del Negrete (ES0000449) Special Protection Areas (SPA) for birds and the
Serra Calderona (ES5232002) and Muela de Cortes and el Caroche (ES5233040) Sites of Community Importance
(SCI).

Fire prevention policies are vital to the maintenance and conservation of these natural spaces. Between 2008 and
2012, the government of the autonomous community of Valencia has massively cut back on public funding for fire
prevention and extinction. An estimated EUR 15 million has been cut overall, with 31 municipalities left without a
fire brigade.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission have a plan containing measures with which it could encourage Member States to effectively
protect the Natura 2000 network of natural spaces, in line with the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora?

Would the Commission be prepared to support initiatives aimed at safeguarding public investment in fire prevention
and extinction within the EU?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

Forest fire prevention and suppression is a competence of the Member States, whereas the Rural Development
Regulation provides co-funding of prevention and restoration measures. In the case of the forest fires near Valencia
the EU Civil Protection Mechanism (MIC) was closely monitoring the situation in cooperation with the Spanish Civil
Protection Authority, standing ready to activate it if required. However, Spain did not activate the Mechanism during
the forest fires near Valencia.

The Commission's European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) closely follows and monitors the forest fires in
the EU and neighbouring countries and stays in close contact to the national fire services.

Target 3b of the Biodiversity Strategy ( [1] ) foresees actions aiming at integrating biodiversity measures in forest
management plans. According to action 12, Member States are invited to ensure that the plans include ecosystembased measures to increase the resilience of forests against fires as part of forest fire prevention schemes.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive ( [2] ), Member States shall take the
appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of the natural habitats and the habitats of the species as well as
disturbances of the species for which the area have been designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant
in relation with the objectives of the directive. This requires Member States to take the actions which it may
reasonably be expected to take, to ensure that no significant deterioration or disturbance occurs, which also implies
preventive action to avoid deterioration.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, COM(2011) 244 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora.m OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

C 219 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-006908/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(11 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δραματική αύξηση του ποσοστού των αυτοκτονιών στην Ελλάδα

Η Ελλάδα μέχρι και το 2008 εμφάνιζε ένα από τα χαμηλότερα ποσοστά αυτοκτονιών σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο με 2,8
αυτοκτονίες ανά 100 000 κατοίκους. Με το ξέσπασμα της οικονομικής κρίσης και τη μετεξέλιξή της σε οξεία κοινωνική και
ανθρωπιστική κρίση παρατηρούμε μια συνεχή και ραγδαία αύξηση των αυτοκτονιών, οι οποίες τους τελευταίους μήνες έχουν
μετατραπεί σε ένα οδυνηρό σχεδόν καθημερινό φαινόμενο, που συγκλονίζει την ελληνική κοινωνία. Τόσο οι αυτοκτονίες όσο
και οι απόπειρες, στη συντριπτική τους πλειοψηφία, συνιστούν μια αντανάκλαση της αυξανόμενης απελπισίας και απόγνωσης
εξαιτίας των ιδιαίτερα δυσμενών κοινωνικοοικονομικών συνθηκών που βιώνουν οι Έλληνες πολίτες. Η έλλειψη εργασίας και η
υπερχρέωση των νοικοκυριών, η συρρίκνωση του διαθέσιμου εισοδήματος και η φτώχεια -ιδιαίτερα με τις ακραίες της
εκδοχές π.χ. φαινόμενα αστέγων και υλικής υστέρησης- η οποία απειλεί ολοένα και περισσότερους συμπολίτες μας επιφέρουν
σημαντικές ψυχικές επιπτώσεις που οδηγούν στην αυτοχειρία. Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο και σύμφωνα με προγενέστερη απάντηση
της Επιτροπής για την ευθεία διασύνδεση του ποσοστού ανεργίας με το ποσοστό των αυτοκτονιών, ερωτάται:

—
Διαθέτει πρόσφατα στατιστικά δεδομένα για τη διακύμανση του ποσοστού των αυτοκτονιών στα κράτη μέλη;

—
Διαθέτει στοιχεία που να αποδεικνύουν μεταβολές στο «προφίλ του αυτόχειρα» κατά την περίοδο της οικονομικής
κρίσης;

—
Προτίθεται να αναλάβει κεντρικές δράσεις ευαισθητοποίησης της κοινής γνώμης για την πρόληψη των αυτοκτονιών με
δεδομένη και την αύξηση της ανεργίας που εντείνει τον κίνδυνο για πολλαπλασιασμό των κρουσμάτων αυτοχειρίας;

—
Προτίθεται να προωθήσει την ανταλλαγή βέλτιστων πρακτικών, προκειμένου να αναδειχθούν οι πιο ενδεδειγμένοι
τρόποι για την αντιμετώπιση αυτού του ιδιαίτερα επώδυνου κοινωνικού φαινομένου;

—
Υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα κονδύλια από τα Ευρωπαϊκά Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία για την ψυχοκοινωνική στήριξη ατόμων (π.χ.
ανέργων) που βρίσκονται σε δυσμενή κοινωνική και οικονομική κατάσταση;

—
Υπάρχουν στοιχεία για τα ποσοστά απορροφητικότητας των κρατών μελών σε Προγράμματα Ψυχοκοινωνικής
Στήριξης και τα αδιάθετα κονδύλια που δύναται να χρησιμοποιήσουν για αντίστοιχες δράσεις;

**Απάντηση του κ. Dalli εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(30 Αυγούστου 2012)_

Η αντιμετώπιση των αυτοκτονιών εμπίπτει στην αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών. Η Eurostat συλλέγει στοιχεία σχετικά με
αυτό το θέμα, όπως παρασχέθηκαν από τα κράτη μέλη — και τα δημοσιεύει στη βάση δεδομένων για τη δημόσια υγεία ( [1] )
από το 2001. Επί του παρόντος, τα στοιχεία για το 2010 είναι διαθέσιμα για 21 κράτη μέλη, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της
Ελλάδας.

Μολονότι η πρόληψη των αυτοκτονιών αποτελεί ζήτημα που υπάγεται στην αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών, οι εργασίες στο
πλαίσιο του ευρωπαϊκού συμφώνου για την ψυχική υγεία και ευεξία, ιδίως όσον αφορά τις ανταλλαγές μεταξύ των κρατών
μελών για την κατάθλιψη, μπορεί να συμβάλουν στη στήριξη της εθνικής δράσης για την πρόληψη των αυτοκτονιών. Η
Επιτροπή δεν διαθέτει στοιχεία σχετικά με αλλαγές στο προφίλ των αυτοχείρων — που προσδιορίζεται από μια σειρά
παράγοντες — και δεν σχεδιάζει να αναλάβει δράση για να ενισχυθεί η ευαισθητοποίηση του κοινού όσον αφορά την
πρόληψη αυτοκτονιών.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/public_health/data_public_health/database.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 35

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο (EΚΤ) στηρίζει τις δράσεις των κρατών μελών για την αντιμετώπιση των κοινωνικών
δυσχερειών που σχετίζονται με την αυτοκτονία. Για παράδειγμα, το ελληνικό επιχειρησιακό πρόγραμμα ανάπτυξης των
ανθρώπινων πόρων αποσκοπεί στην προώθηση της κοινωνικής και επαγγελματικής ένταξης των ευάλωτων ομάδων, όπως οι
μετανάστες, τα άτομα με αναπηρία και οι μακροχρόνια άνεργοι. Για την περαιτέρω στήριξη των ευάλωτων ομάδων, η
Επιτροπή πρότεινε τουλάχιστον το 20 % της χρηματοδότησης του ΕΚΤ να διατίθεται για θέματα κοινωνικής ένταξης.

Η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει επίσης τον κ. βουλευτή στις απαντήσεις της στις ερωτήσεις E-006873/2012, E-002077/2012 και
E-000761/2012 ( [2] ) για το ίδιο θέμα.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 219 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006908/12**

**to the Commission**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Dramatic rise in the suicide rate in Greece

Until 2008 Greece had one of the lowest suicide rates in the world, with 2.8 suicides per 100 000 inhabitants. With
the eruption of financial crisis and its transformation into an acute social and humanitarian crisis, there has been a
continuous and rapid increase in the number of suicides, which in recent months have become a painful and virtually
daily occurrence, shocking Greek society. Both suicides and suicide attempts are, in the overwhelming majority of
cases, a reflection of increasing desperation and despair due to the extremely adverse socioeconomic conditions
experienced by Greek citizens. The lack of work and household over-indebtedness, the reduction in disposable
income, and the poverty — particularly in its extreme forms, e.g. homelessness and material deprivation — that
threatens more and more of our citizens have a significant psychological impact that leads to suicide. In this context
and in response to the Commission's previous answer on the direct connection between the unemployment rate and
the suicide rate, will the Commission say:

—
Does it have any recent statistics on variations in the suicide rate in the Member States?

—
Does it have any evidence of changes in the ‘profile of the person who commits suicide’ during the economic
crisis?

—
Will it take key actions to raise public awareness about suicide prevention, given the increase in unemployment
which aggravates the risk of a proliferation of cases of suicide?

—
Will it promote exchanges of best practices to identify the most appropriate ways of addressing this very
painful social phenomenon?

—
Are there any funds available from the European Structural Funds for the psycho-social support of persons who
are disadvantaged socially and economically (e.g. the unemployed)?

—
Are there any statistics for take-up rates of the Member States in respect of psycho-social support programmes
and unused funds that may be used for actions of this kind?

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

_(30 August 2012)_

Addressing suicide falls under the responsibility of Member States. Eurostat collects data on this issue — as provided
by the Member States — and publishes the data on its public health database ( [1] ) since 2001. At present, data for 2010
are available for 21 Member States including Greece.

While preventing suicide is an issue falling under Member States' responsibility, work under the European Pact for
Mental Health and Well-being, in particular as regards exchange between Member States on depression, can help
support national action in suicide prevention. The Commission has no evidence on changes in the profile of people
committing suicide — which is driven by a range of factors — and does not plan to take action to raise public
awareness about suicide prevention.

The European Social Fund (ESF) supports Member States in tackling social difficulties linked to suicides. For example,
the Greek Human Resources Development Operational Programme aims to promote the social and professional
integration of vulnerable groups such as immigrants, disabled persons, and long-term unemployed. To further
support vulnerable groups, the Commission has proposed that at least 20% of ESF funding is earmarked to social
inclusion.

The Commission would further refer the Honourable Member to its replies to E‐006873/2012, E‐002077/2012 and
E‐000761/2012 ( [2] ) on the same subject.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/health/public_health/data_public_health/database.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 37

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006910/12**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Un nuovo vescovo detenuto in Cina

Un vescovo cinese, ordinato di recente, è stato confinato in un seminario nei pressi di Shangai dopo aver annunciato
di voler lasciare la sua carica all'interno dell'Associazione patriottica cattolica (CPA) sostenuta dal governo. I 10
milioni di cattolici cinesi si suddividono fra la CPA, che non è riconosciuta dal Vaticano, e i fedeli del Papa, la cui
autorità non è riconosciuta dal governo cinese. Quando il Vaticano ha ordinato vescovo il prete, quest'ultimo si è
dimesso dalla carica che rivestiva nella CPA per essere in linea con Roma, il che rappresenta una provocazione nei
confronti del controllo esercitato dalla Cina sui vescovi e i prelati. Da allora non se ne hanno notizie: l'avrebbero
portato via, impedendogli qualsiasi contatto con altre persone. Un'inchiesta cinese non è ancora stata fatta.

La Cina ha rotto le relazioni diplomatiche con il Vaticano nel 1951 e da allora molti vescovi non sono stati
riconosciuti dalla CPA e sono stati incarcerati per una ventina o una trentina d'anni.

Sono sottoposte all'attenzione della Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante le seguenti domande:

1. È a conoscenza la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante di questa recente violazione del diritto fondamentale alla
libertà di religione in Cina?

2. In che modo l'UE reagisce a tali violazioni in Cina?

3. Cosa si può fare per questo nuovo vescovo?

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

_(28 agosto 2012)_

L'UE segue da vicino la situazione dei diritti umani in Cina ed è particolarmente preoccupata per le restrizioni alla
libertà religiosa e le vessazioni inflitte alle persone a causa delle loro credenze.

Ha nuovamente espresso la propria preoccupazione durante l'ultima tornata del dialogo UE-Cina sui diritti umani, il
29 maggio 2012 a Bruxelles. Facendo riferimento a numerose notizie di vessazioni e arresti di fedeli in chiese non
riconosciute, nonché di preti e vescovi non riconosciuti, l'UE ha chiesto alle autorità cinesi di indicare quali misure
adottano per garantire la protezione della libertà di religione e di credo.

L'UE ha appreso la notizia della scomparsa da metà luglio del nuovo vescovo di Shanghai, Thaddeus Ma Daqin.
Continuerà a monitorare attentamente la sua situazione e a far presente alle autorità cinesi la propria preoccupazione,
anche nel quadro del dialogo UE-Cina sui diritti umani.

C 219 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006910/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — China detains new bishop

A newly ordained Chinese bishop has been confined in a seminary near Shanghai after stepping down from his post
in the government-backed Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA). China’s 10 million Catholics are divided between the
CPA, which is not recognised by the Vatican, and followers of the Pope, whose authority is not recognised by the
Chinese Government. When the Vatican ordained this priest as a bishop, he resigned his position with the CPA to be
in line with Rome. This move was seen as a challenge to Chinese control over priests and bishops, and he has since
gone missing. He is said to have been taken away and been refused contact with others. A Chinese investigation is
pending.

China broke off diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1951, and since then there has been a history of bishops not
recognised by the CPA facing twenty or thirty years’ imprisonment.

The following questions are submitted for the consideration of the Vice-President/High Representative:

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this most recent violation of the fundamental right of
religious freedom in China?

2. How is the EU currently responding to such violations in China?

3. What can be done for this newly ordained bishop?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The EU follows closely the human rights situation in China and is particularly concerned by restrictions on freedom
of religion and harassment of people in relation to their beliefs.

The EU raised its concern once again in the context of the last round of the EU‐China human rights dialogue which
took place on 29 May 2012 in Brussels. Referring to numerous reports of harassment and detention of worshippers
in unregistered churches, as well as of unregistered priests and bishops, the EU asked the Chinese authorities to
indicate which measures are taken to ensure the protection of the freedom of religion and belief.

The EU is aware of reports of the disappearance of newly ordained Shanghai bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin since MidJuly. The EU will continue to monitor his situation closely and to raise its concern with the Chinese authorities,
including in the framework of the EU‐China Human rights dialogue.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 39

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006911/12**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Espulsione arbitraria nella Repubblica democratica del Congo

Nella Repubblica democratica del Congo un giornalista belga si è visto recentemente rifiutare l'ingresso nel paese ed è
stato quindi espulso perché, a quanto sembra, avrebbe prodotto un documentario che ricostruisce le procedure
giudiziarie in cui sarebbero coinvolte persone sospettate del doppio omicidio del direttore esecutivo di «Voice of the
Voiceless» e di un membro dell'assemblea generale dell'Organizzazione mondiale contro la tortura.

Al momento di entrare nel paese il giornalista è stato fermato alla dogana dell'aeroporto e arrestato da tre addetti
congolesi del servizio immigrazione. Gli è stato annullato il visto arbitrariamente, è stato imbarcato su un volo di
ritorno e gli è stato proibito di comunicare telefonicamente con qualsiasi persona sul territorio congolese.

Il giornalista belga si era recato nella Repubblica democratica del Congo per il lancio del suo documentario.
L'Osservatorio francese per la protezione dei difensori dei diritti umani non ha trovato nulla nel documentario che
esulasse dal diritto alla libertà di espressione del giornalista — l'obiettivo del film è di contribuire alla ricostruzione di
fatti già appurati concernenti il suddetto doppio assassinio. L'Osservatorio chiede alla Repubblica democratica del
Congo di garantire il buono stato di salute fisica e mentale di tutti i difensori dei diritti umani sul suo territorio nonché
la libertà di movimento del giornalista in questione in tutto il paese.

Sono sottoposte all'attenzione della Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante le seguenti domande:

1. La Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante è a conoscenza di casi di espulsione come questo nella Repubblica
democratica del Congo?

2. Concorda la Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante con l'Osservatorio sul fatto che questa espulsione rappresenta
una violazione dei diritti del giornalista?

3. Vi è motivo di credere che altre persone che operano nel settore dei diritti umani nella Repubblica democratica
del Congo siano in pericolo e, in caso affermativo, cosa si può fare per aiutarli?

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

_(5 settembre 2012)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è al corrente della recente espulsione del giornalista belga Thierry Michel al suo
arrivo all’aeroporto di Kinshasa e se ne rammarica. Al di là dei cavilli legali e amministrativi utilizzati
dall’amministrazione congolese per giustificare l’espulsione di Thierry Michel dalla Repubblica democratica del
Congo, l’UE deplora il fatto che ciò abbia impedito la promozione del suo film sul caso Chebeya nella RDC. A tal
riguardo, l’AR/VP ha già chiesto al capo della delegazione della RDC di farsi interprete delle nostre preoccupazioni
riguardo all’espulsione del signor Michel. Tenuto conto delle diffuse violazioni dei diritti umani nella Repubblica
democratica del Congo, per noi resta importante che il governo della RDC dimostri il proprio attaccamento ai
principi fondamentali di libertà di stampa e di espressione.

Nel 2010, l’UE ha adottato una strategia locale per l’attuazione degli orientamenti dell’UE sui difensori dei diritti
umani nella RDC. Questa strategia rappresenta uno dei fondamenti della politica dell’UE in materia di diritti umani
nella RDC e comprende specifici programmi in materia di diritti umani per la protezione dei difensori degli stessi.
Inoltre, i diritti umani, e quindi anche il caso Chebeya, restano uno dei principali argomenti del dibattito politico
regolare tra il governo della RDC e i capi missione.

C 219 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006911/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Mario Mauro (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arbitrary deportation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a Belgian journalist was recently refused access to the country and deported
due, it is believed, to his production of a documentary that retraces the judicial procedures involving those suspected
of the double assassination of both the executive director of the ‘Voice of the Voiceless’ and a member of the general
assembly of the World Organisation Against Torture.

On entering the country, the journalist was stopped by customs at the airport and detained by three Congolese
immigration officials. His visa was arbitrarily annulled, he was put on a return flight, and he was forbidden from
communicating with anyone in the Congolese territory by phone.

He was in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to launch his documentary there. The French Observatory for the
Protection of Human Rights Defenders has found nothing in the documentary that is outside the realm of the
journalist’s right to free speech — the aim of the film is to contribute to the already established facts regarding the
aforementioned double assassination. The Observatory is asking the Democratic Republic of the Congo to guarantee
the physical and psychological well-being of all human rights defenders within its borders, as well as free movement
throughout the country to the journalist in question.

The following questions are submitted for the consideration of the Vice-President/High Representative:

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of deportations such as this in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree with the Observatory that this deportation is a violation of
the journalist’s rights?

3. Is there reason to believe that others involved in human rights work in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
are in danger, and, if so, what action can we take on their behalf?

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

_(5 September 2012)_

The HR/VP has been informed about the recent deportation of Belgian journalist Thierry Michel at his arrival at the
Kinshasa airport and deplores it. Beyond legal and administrative quibbles raised by the Congolese administration to
justify his deportation from DRC, the EU regrets that this move has hindered the promotion of Mr Michel's film
regarding the Chebeya's trial in DRC. In this regard, the HR/VP has already asked the Head of Delegation in DRC to
express our concerns regarding Mr Michel's deportation. Taking into account widespread human rights violations in
DRC, it remains important to us that the DRC government demonstrates its attachment to the fundamental values of
freedom of press and expression.

In 2010, the EU adopted a local strategy for implementing the EU guidelines regarding human rights defenders in
DRC. This strategy is one of the cornerstones of EU human rights policy in DRC and includes dedicated human rights
programmes for the protection of human rights defenders. Furthermore, human rights, including the Chebeya trial
remain an essential element of regular political dialogue between the DRC government and heads of missions.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 41

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006912/12**

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

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Off-shore workers and the Working Time Directive

Is the Commission aware that off-shore workers who must travel to their places of work do not have their travel time
included as part of their work time?

Can the Commission state whether this is in line with the Working Time Directive?

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

_(21 August 2012)_

The Working Time Directive ( [1] ) defines working time at Article 2.1 as ‘any period during which the worker is
working, at the employer's disposal and carrying out his activity or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or
practice’.

The directive does not state that time travelling to the workplace should be considered as working time, and there
have been no decisions of the Court of Justice interpreting the directive on this point.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 299, 18.11.2003, p. 9.

C 219 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006915/12**

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

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Informazioni circa l'utilizzo dei fondi europei per il periodo 2007-2013 da parte dei Comuni di Perugia,
Terni, Città di Castello, Spoleto, Gubbio, Nardi e Corciano

Nell'ambito del quadro finanziario dell'Unione europea 2007-2013 sono stati inseriti numerosi programmi intesi a
sostenere le politiche europee in varie aree tematiche quali, ad esempio, la ricerca e lo sviluppo tecnologico, i
programmi di formazione, la promozione della cultura, l'ambiente, i trasporti e l'energia, nonché la tutela della salute
e del consumatore.

Per quanto riguarda i Comuni di Perugia, Terni, Città di Castello, Spoleto, Gubbio, Nardi e Corciano, può la
Commissione far sapere se questi hanno presentato progetti per i seguenti programmi:

—
programma per l'apprendimento permanente,

—
programma «Energia intelligente per l'Europa»,

—
programma per la sanità pubblica,

—
strumento europeo di vicinato e partenariato (ENPI),

—
programma «Safer Internet»?

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006916/12**

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

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Informazioni circa l'utilizzo dei fondi comunitari del periodo 2007-2013 da parte dei Comuni di Arezzo,
Grosseto, Firenze, Siena, Pistoia, Carrara, Pisa, Massa e Livorno

Nell'ambito del quadro finanziario dell'Unione europea 2007-2013 sono stati inseriti numerosi programmi intesi a
sostenere le politiche comunitarie in varie aree tematiche quali, ad esempio, ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico,
formazione, promozione della cultura, ambiente, trasporti, energia nonché tutela della salute e del consumatore.

Per quanto riguarda i singoli Comuni di Arezzo, Grosseto, Firenze, Siena, Pistoia, Carrara, Pisa, Massa e Livorno, può
la Commissione far sapere se hanno presentato progetti per i programmi di seguito elencati?

— Apprendimento permanente (Lifelong Learning)

— Energia intelligente per l'Europa (Intelligent Energy for Europe)

— Sanità pubblica

— Politica europea di vicinato (ENPI)

— Internet più sicuro (Safer Internet)

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 43

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006917/12**

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

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Informazioni circa l'utilizzo dei fondi comunitari del periodo 2007-2013 da parte dei comuni di Urbino,
Ancona, Pesaro e Macerata

Nell'ambito del quadro finanziario dell'Unione europea 2007-2013 sono stati inseriti numerosi programmi intesi a
sostenere le politiche comunitarie in varie aree tematiche quali, ad esempio, ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico,
programmi di formazione, promozione della cultura, ambiente, trasporti, energia nonché tutela della salute e del

consumatore.

Per quanto riguarda i comuni di Urbino, Ancona, Pesaro e Macerata, può la Commissione far sapere se ciascuno di
essi ha presentato progetti per i seguenti programmi:

—
Lifelong Learning

—
Intelligent Energy for Europe

— Sanità Pubblica

—
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENPI)

— Safer Internet?

**Risposta congiunta di Janusz Lewandowski a nome della Commissione**

_(6 settembre 2012)_

Come richiesto, l'allegato presenta l'elenco delle proposte di progetti presentate alla Commissione.

La Commissione nota che l'onorevole parlamentare è interessato ai finanziamenti concessi direttamente alle città
italiane nell'ambito di specifici programmi dell'UE gestiti dalla Commissione. Se l'onorevole parlamentare lo desidera,
la Commissione può fornirgli una tabella contenente queste informazioni per le principali città italiane che
potrebbero partecipare a tali programmi. In questo modo la Commissione potrebbe risparmiare il tempo impiegato
per rispondere a ogni singola interrogazione e fornire all'onorevole parlamentare un unico esauriente insieme di dati.

C 219 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006915/12**

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

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of Community funds for the period 2007-2013 by the municipalities of Perugia, Terni, Città di Castello,
Spoleto, Gubbio, Nardi and Corciano

Under the EU financial framework for the period 2007-2013 many programmes make funding available to support
EU policies in a number of thematic areas, such as research and technological development, training programmes,
promotion of culture, the environment, transport, energy and health and consumer protection.

Can the Commission state whether the municipalities of Perugia, Terni, Città di Castello, Spoleto, Gubbio, Nardi and
Corciano have submitted projects for the following programmes:

—
Lifelong Learning

—
Intelligent Energy for Europe

— Public Health

—
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)

— Safer Internet?

**Question for written answer E-006916/12**

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

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of Community funds for the period 2007-2013 by the municipalities of Arezzo, Grosseto, Firenze, Siena,
Pistoia, Carrara, Pisa, Massa and Livorno

Under the EU financial framework for the period 2007-2013 many programmes make funding available to support
EU policies in a number of thematic areas, such as research and technological development, training programmes,
promotion of culture, the environment, transport, energy and health and consumer protection.

Can the Commission state whether the municipalities of Arezzo, Grosseto, Firenze, Siena, Pistoia, Carrara, Pisa, Massa
and Livorno have submitted projects for the following programmes:

—
Lifelong Learning

—
Intelligent Energy for Europe

— Public Health

—
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)

— Safer Internet?

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 45

**Question for written answer E-006917/12**

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

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Use of Community funds for the period 2007-2013 by the municipalities of Urbino, Ancona, Pesaro and
Macerata

Under the EU financial framework for the period 2007-2013 many programmes make funding available to support
EU policies in a number of thematic areas, such as research and technological development, training programmes,
promotion of culture, the environment, transport, energy and health and consumer protection.

Can the Commission state whether the municipalities of Urbino, Ancona, Pesaro and Macerata have submitted
projects for the following programmes:

—
Lifelong Learning

—
Intelligent Energy for Europe

— Public Health

—
European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI)

— Safer Internet?

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

_(6 September 2012)_

The attached annex presents a list of requested project applications submitted to the Commission.

The Commission notes that the Honourable Member is interested in the funding granted directly to Italian cities from
specific EU programmes managed by the Commission. Should the Honourable Member so wish, the Commission
could prepare a table providing this information for the major Italian cities likely to take part in these programmes.
This would save the Commission time needed to reply to each individual question and provide the Honourable
Member with one single set of comprehensive data.

C 219 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-006918/12**

**do Komisji**
**Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE)**

_(11 lipca 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zakazy jazdy dla pojazdów ciężarowych

W związku z przechodzącą przez Europę falę upałów kierowcy pojazdów ciężarowych objęci są zakazami
przemieszczania się ze względu na możliwość uszkodzenia nawierzchni dróg. Obecnie przepisy w zakresie zakazów
poruszania się pojazdów niestety nie są ze sobą spójne i organy krajowe decydują o czasie wydania zakazu.

Sytuacja staje się skomplikowana w sytuacji przewozów o charakterze transgranicznym. Kierowcy niejednokrotnie
ze względu na obowiązek postoju nie mogą kontynuować przewozu. Następnie w sytuacji zniesienia zakazu
i powrotu na trasę okazuje się, że kolejne państwo stanowiące trasę przejazdu wprowadza zakaz i kierowca jest
zmuszony do postoju. Z tego względu czas przejazdu wydłuża się o kolejne doby negatywnie wpływając na stan
kierowców.

Zatem czy Komisja planuje w tym zakresie ujednolicenie przepisów i wprowadzenie wspólnego europejskiego
systemu, czy może planowane są inne rozwiązania?

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

_(4 września 2012 r.)_

Komisja zdaje sobie sprawę z problemu braku jednolitych przepisów dotyczących zakazu ruchu w Europie, co
stanowi przeszkodę w świadczeniu usług w transporcie międzynarodowym. W związku z tym w 1998 r. Komisja
zaproponowała stworzenie przejrzystego systemu zharmonizowanych przepisów dotyczących ograniczeń ruchu
pojazdów ciężarowych w transporcie międzynarodowym na niektórych trasach ( [1] ). Wniosek okazał się bardzo
kontrowersyjną kwestią dla znacznej większości państw członkowskich. Zmieniony wniosek został po raz pierwszy
przyjęty przez Komisję w 2000 r. ( [2] ), a w następnie, po wprowadzeniu niewielkich poprawek w trakcie procesu
legislacyjnego, ponownie w 2003 r. ( [3] ). Wniosek nie uzyskał jednak dostatecznego poparcia w Radzie, w związku
z czym w 2005 r. Komisja postanowiła go wycofać ( [4] ).

Odpowiedzialność za zarządzanie ruchem drogowym, w tym za wprowadzenie zakazu ruchu samochodów
ciężarowych spoczywa dlatego w rękach organów władzy krajowej, a niekiedy również regionalnej państw
członkowskich UE. Komisja obecnie nie przewiduje wprowadzenia żadnych środków zmierzających do harmonizacji
przepisów dotyczących zakazu ruchu czy wprowadzenia wspólnego systemu europejskiego. Komisja zachowuje
jednak ostrożność i zapewnia, że zakaz ruchu nie narusza podstawowych zasad UE, takich jak zasada
niedyskryminacji, swobodnego przepływu towarów i swobody świadczenia usług.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(1998) 115 wersja ostateczna z 11.03.1998 (98/0096 (synonim)).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2000) 759 wersja ostateczna z 22.11.2000 (98/0096 (COD)).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2003) 473 wersja ostateczna z 01.08.2003 (1998/0096 (COD)).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2005) 462 wersja ostateczna z 27.09.2005.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 47

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006918/12**

**to the Commission**
**Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Lorry driving bans

As a result of the heat waves that Europe has been experiencing, lorry driving bans have been imposed on account of
the damage such vehicles could cause to road surfaces. Regrettably, however, the current provisions regarding bans
on vehicle movements conflict with each other and it is national agencies that decide when to impose a ban.

The situation regarding cross‐border haulage is particularly complicated. The obligatory halts that such bans impose
upon drivers mean that they are often forced to break their journeys. Then, when the ban is lifted and lorries are once
again allowed to continue their journeys, other countries along the route introduce bans and drivers are once again
forced to come to a halt. This can extend the length of journeys by a number of days and have an adverse impact on
drivers.

In view of this situation, is the Commission planning to harmonise the rules and introduce a common European
system, or is it looking at other arrangements?

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

_(4 September 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the problem of differing provisions for traffic bans across Europe which impedes the
provision of international transport services. It therefore proposed a transparent system of harmonised rules for
driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads in 1998 ( [1] ). The
proposal proved to be very controversial for a large majority of Member States. An amended proposal was adopted
by the Commission in 2000 ( [2] ) and, following some finetuning during the legislative process, again in 2003 ( [3] ). The
proposal however, had not found sufficient support in the Council which was why the Commission decided to
withdraw it in 2005 ( [4] ).

The responsibility for road traffic management including the introduction of HGV driving bans therefore lies with the
national, and sometimes also with the regional governments of the EU Member States. The Commission does
currently not foresee any measures to harmonise the rules regarding traffic bans and introduce a common European
system. It is however vigilant and ensures that traffic bans do not violate basic EU principles such as the nondiscrimination principle, free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(1998) 115 final of 11.3.1998 (98/0096 (SYN)).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2000) 759 final of 22.11.2000 (1998/0096 (COD)).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2003) 473 final of 1.8.2003 (1998/0096 (COD)).
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2005) 462 final of 27.9.2005.

C 219 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-006921/12**

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

_(11 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Investigación sobre el índice Euribor

El 19 de octubre de 2011 la Comisión comenzó una investigación ( [1] ) sobre un posible caso de cárteles y de prácticas
restrictivas entre entidades relacionadas con el tipo europeo de oferta interbancaria (Euribor).

1. ¿Podría indicar la Comisión en qué estado se encuentra la investigación?

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

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

_(31 de agosto de 2012)_

En octubre de 2011 la Comisión confirmó que varias empresas activas en el sector de los productos financieros
derivados vinculados al tipo de interés de oferta en el mercado interbancario del euro (euríbor) habían sido objeto de
una serie de inspecciones efectuadas sin previo aviso. En efecto, la Comisión investiga actualmente varios posibles
acuerdos de cártel relacionados con los tipos de interés de referencia (euríbor, LIBOR, TIBOR, etc.) y la negociación de
derivados financieros conexos en una serie de monedas.

Aunque todavía es demasiado pronto para revelar su contenido, pues las investigaciones aún no han concluido, la
Comisión otorga gran prioridad a estos casos y espera que permitan ampliar y complementar tanto la labor realizada
por otras autoridades como sus propias propuestas modificadas de Reglamento ( [2] ) y de Directiva ( [3] ) para prohibir y
penalizar la manipulación de los indicadores de referencia.

Teniendo en cuenta el número y el valor de los derivados sobre tipos de interés y el papel crucial que desempeñan en
la gestión del riesgo, estos productos son muy significativos para el sector y para el conjunto de la economía europea.
Si las reservas de la Comisión se confirman, se adoptarían las medidas necesarias para sancionar y erradicar tales
prácticas, lo que debería propiciar asimismo un cambio de cultura en el sector bancario.

Por lo que respecta a la regulación de los indicadores de referencia en sentido más amplio, la Comisión está
investigando los hechos en colaboración con las autoridades competentes, el Banco Central Europeo y sus socios
internacionales, con el fin de determinar qué medidas adicionales convendría adoptar. Hoy día, algunos indicadores
de referencia se basan en transacciones reales y otros en estimaciones. Entre las cuestiones que deben examinarse
figura cómo garantizar la integridad y la transparencia de los métodos de cálculo de tales indicadores, así como las
modalidades de gobierno y vigilancia. Mantendremos al Parlamento Europeo informado del curso de este asunto.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) MEMO/11/711.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 421 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 420 final.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 49

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006921/12**

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

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Investigation into practices concerning the Euribor

On 19 October 2011 the Commission began an investigation ( [1] ) into allegations of a cartel and restrictive business
practices concerning the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor).

1. Can the Commission say how far advanced the investigation is?

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

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

_(31 August 2012)_

In October 2011 the Commission confirmed that unannounced inspections had taken place at the premises of a
number of companies active in the sector of financial derivative products linked to the Euro Interbank Offered Rate
(EURIBOR). In fact the Commission is currently investigating several possible cartel arrangements, involving
benchmark interest rates including EURIBOR, LIBOR and TIBOR, and trading in related financial derivatives in a
number of currencies.

Although it is too early to reveal the content of the investigations since they are ongoing, the Commission is giving
high priority to these cases and expects them to broaden and complement the efforts of other authorities as well as its
amended proposals for a regulation ( [2] ) and for a directive ( [3] ) to prohibit and criminalise the manipulation of
benchmarks.

Given the number and value of the interest-rate derivatives and their crucial role in the management of risk, these
products are highly significant to the sector and the European economy as a whole. If the Commission's concerns are
confirmed, the necessary actions will be taken to sanction and bring these practices to an end; this should also prompt
a change of culture in the banking sector.

Concerning the regulation of benchmarks more broadly, the Commission is investigating the facts in cooperation
with competent authorities, the European Central Bank and its international partners, to determine what further
action is required. Today, some benchmarks are based on real transactions and others on estimates. Issues to be
examined include how to ensure the integrity and transparency of benchmark calculation methodologies, as well as
governance and surveillance arrangements. The European Parliament will be kept informed of progress.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) MEMO/11/711.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 421 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 420 final.

C 219 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006922/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Peter Simon (S&D)**

_(11. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Förderung der EU-weiten Mobilität junger Arbeitssuchender

Die anhaltende Krise in der EU führt zu einer Verknappung der Arbeitsplätze, wovon insbesondere die jungen
Menschen in den wirtschaftsschwachen EU-Ländern, allen voran in Spanien und Griechenland, betroffen sind. Durch
gezielte Betreuungsmaßnahmen junger mobiler EU-Bürger kann deren Eingliederung in die Arbeitsmärkte in den
prosperierenden EU-Ländern, wie beispielsweise Deutschland, vorangetrieben werden. Hierzu wären arbeitsbezogene
Sprachkurse, Unterstützung bei der Arbeitssuche sowie fachliche und persönliche Betreuung zweckmäßig. Im
Rahmen der Freizügigkeit der Personen, der Dienstleistungsfreiheit und der angestrebten Anpassung innerhalb der EU
sind dies sinnvolle und wünschenswerte Schritte. Der Beschluss des Europäischen Rates vom 28./29. Juni 2012, das
EURES‐Portal zu einem echten europäischen Arbeitsvermittlungsinstrument auszubauen, ist daher zu begrüßen.

Kann die Kommission vor diesem Hintergrund folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Hat die Kommission derzeit noch weitere Maßnahmen geplant, um die Mobilität von jungen
Arbeitssuchenden aus den EU‐Krisenländern in wirtschaftlich starken EU-Ländern zu erleichtern?

2. Welche Möglichkeiten der finanziellen Unterstützung für oben genannte Maßnahmen werden im Rahmen von
EU-Programmen angeboten, auch im Hinblick auf gemeinnützig organisierte Begleitmaßnahmen?

3. Welche Möglichkeiten ergeben sich aus dem vom Europäischen Rat am 28./29. Juni 2012 beschlossenen
„Beitrag der europäischen Politik zu Wachstum und Beschäftigung“ für finanzielle
Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten?

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

_(29. August 2012)_

Die Kommission hat die neue vorbereitende Maßnahme mit dem Titel „Dein erster EURES-Arbeitsplatz“ im Mai 2012
ins Leben gerufen ( [1] ). Ziel ist es, junge Europäerinnen und Europäer zwischen 18 und 30 Jahren bei der Suche nach
einer Arbeitsstelle in einem anderen EU‐Land zu unterstützen; hierzu werden zu dem Profil der Arbeitsuchenden
gezielt geeignete Stellenangebote ermittelt und EU-Mittel bereitgestellt. Rund 5 000 jungen Menschen soll im
Zeitraum 2012-2013 eine Stelle in einem anderen EU-Land als ihrem Wohnsitzland vermittelt werden ( [2] ).

Die nationalen Arbeitsvermittlungen bieten Informationen, Stellen‐ und Bewerbersuche sowie finanzielle
Unterstützung sowohl für junge Arbeitssuchende als auch für Unternehmen, die außerhalb ihres Sitzstaates nach
Personal suchen möchten. Mit Pauschalbeträgen können Arbeitssuchende einen Teil ihrer Fahrt‐ und Umzugskosten
im Zusammenhang mit Vorstellungsgespräch und/oder Arbeitsantritt abdecken, und Unternehmen erhalten einen
Zuschuss, der die Kosten von Integrationsprogrammen für neue Angestellte teilweise abdeckt. Außerdem können im
Rahmen der Maßnahme Sprachkurse (oder andere erforderliche Schulungen) finanziert werden, die junge
Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmer vor ihrem Umzug in einen anderen Mitgliedstaat absolvieren.

Folgende Haushaltsmittel stehen zur Verfügung: Haushaltsplan 2011: 4 Mio. EUR, 2012: 3,5 Mio. EUR und 2013:
4,5 Mio. EUR ( _vorläufig_ ). Angesichts der Schlussfolgerungen des Europäischen Rates vom Juni 2012 plant die
Europäische Kommission eine Aufstockung der Haushaltsmittel für 2013, um die Maßnahme auszuweiten (auf
Arbeitsplätze und Ausbildungs-/Praktikumsplätze) und so noch mehr Arbeitssuchende unterstützen zu können.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Weitere Informationen dazu unter: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=993&langId=de.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dieses Ziel ist in der Initiative „Chancen für junge Menschen“ festgelegt, KOM(2011)933 endg. vom 20.12.2011.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 51

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006922/12**

**to the Commission**

**Peter Simon (S&D)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Promoting the EU‐wide mobility of young job-seekers

The ongoing crisis in the EU is causing a scarcity of jobs, which is affecting in particular young people in
economically-weak Member States, primarily Spain and Greece. Targeted support measures for young, mobile EU
citizens can help them to enter the job market in the more prosperous Member States such as Germany. These might
usefully include work-oriented language courses, support in job-seeking and personal and professional supervision.
This would be a practical, worthwhile measure in the context of the freedom of movement of persons, the freedom to
provide services and the ability to adapt which we are striving for. The decision of the Council of 28/29 June 2012 to
develop the EURES portal into a real European placement and recruitment tool should therefore be welcomed.

1. Has the Commission planned further measures to facilitate the ability of young job-seekers from crisis-hit
Member States to move to economically-stronger Member States?

2. What possibilities for financial support for the abovementioned measures are available from EU programmes,
including accompanying measures organised for the public good?

3. What possibilities for financial support are available as a result of the Council’s ‘European Policy Contribution to
Growth and Employment’, which was adopted on 28/29 June 2012?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

The Commission launched the new preparatory action ‘Your first EURES job’ in May 2012 ( [1] ). The objective is to help
young Europeans aged 18-30 to find work in other EU countries, on the basis of tailor-made job matching services
combined with EU funding. The objective for 2012-2013 is to ensure around 5000 job placements in another
Member State than the country of residence of the young person concerned ( [2] ).

National employment services provide information, job search, and recruitment, funding for both young jobseekers
and businesses interested in recruiting from outside their home country. Flat-rate funding can cover part of the costs
borne by the job applicant with an interview trip and/or with travelling to the host country to take up the job as well
as part of the costs borne by the employer with an induction training programme for the new recruited worker. The
action also covers the costs of language training (or other training need) for young recruited workers before departure
to another Member State.

The budget appropriations made available are as follows: EUR 4 million (2011 budget); EUR 3.5 million (2012) and
EUR 4.5 million _(provisional_ 2013). In light of the June 2012 European Council conclusions, the Commission is
seeking to increase the budget envelope for 2013 in order to broaden the scope of the action (include both jobs and
apprenticeships/traineeships) and thus support a higher number of jobseekers.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Further info at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/yourfirsteuresjob.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) The objective is laid down in the ‘Youth Opportunities Initiative’, COM(2011)933 final, 20.12.2011.

C 219 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-006924/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)**

_(11 juli 2012)_

_Angående:_ Investeringar i nya distributionsmodeller för kultur i den digitala tidsåldern inom ramen för Mediaprogrammet

Det är allmänt känt att framtiden för EU:s kreativa sektorer äventyras av företagens uppenbara svårigheter att, mot
bakgrund av den exempellösa bolagskonsolideringen och svårreglerbara digitala nätverk, utveckla en effektiv global
distributionsmodell som kan omsättas i pengar. Upphovsrättsliga bestämmelser verkar inte ge vederbörligt stöd till
dessa aktörer som verkar i en ny teknisk miljö präglad av ohämmad spridning av digitala kopior.

Under debatten om Acta-avtalet nyligen, och det efterföljande avvisandet av detsamma, uppfattar Europaparlamentet
det som tydligt att de sociala mönstren för fildelning verkar relativt djupt rotade. När bredbandshastigheterna och
internetuppkopplingarna nu kommer att öka i Europa, i samband med genomförandet av den digitala agendan och
FSE-programmen, verkar det som om den icke-hierarkiska distributionen, som ger användarna huvudrollen i
spridningen av innehåll, kommer fortsätta att vinna mark. Fastän detta av vissa kan uppfattas som att problemet
förvärrats, menar andra att det utgör en potentiell möjlighet för den europeiska innehållsindustrin i dess kamp för att
skapa och inrikta sig på nya internationella marknader.

Därför är det oroande att det fortfarande finns ett antal nätbaserade distributionsplattformar som försöker skapa
intäktsmöjligheter genom att koppla samman innehållsproducenter och den fildelande allmänheten.

1. Hur säkerställer kommissionen stödet till denna nya typ av bolag genom tilldelning av, exempelvis, tillgängliga
medel för medie‐ och innehållsproduktion och distribution inom ramen för Media-programmet?

2. Kommer kommissionen se till att dessa nya nättjänster och nätplattformar får större uppmärksamhet och
ekonomiskt stöd under bolagsstarten när det nya programmet Kreativa Europa träder i kraft?

**Svar från Androulla Vassiliou på kommissionens vägnar**

_(4 september 2012)_

Över hälften av Mediaprogrammets budget anslås till distribution av europeiska filmer. Pengarna går i första hand till
biografdistribution, men andra distributionskanaler som plattformar för beställvideo får också stöd. Genom olika
utbildningsprogram uppmuntrar Mediaprogrammet filmbranschen att använda ny teknik och nya företagsmodeller
som utnyttjar digitaliseringen.

Det föreslagna programmet Kreativa Europa kommer att ha en Mediadel som ersätter och bygger vidare på de
nuvarande programmen Media 2007 och Media Mundus. Mediadelen kommer i hög grad att inriktas på digitalisering
och ska hjälpa filmmakare att dra nytta av övergången till digital teknik. Stöd till utbildning, distribution och
utveckling kommer att medföra nya finansieringsmöjligheter för digital produktion och distribution.

Ett övergripande mål är att nå ut till en större publik, särskilt barn, unga och andra underrepresenterade grupper.
Sociala nätverk och andra digitala plattformar gör det möjligt att nå nya tittare och öka deras intresse för europeisk
film. De innebär också nya möjligheter att snabbt sprida filmtips till många människor.

Programmet Kreativa Europa kommer också att ha en garantifond som ska göra det lättare att få privata banklån.
Fonden vänder sig till små och medelstora företag, bland annat plattformar som erbjuder kreativt innehåll, och
kommer att tillgodose allt från investeringar i nystartade företag till att täcka återstående finansieringsbehov.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 53

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006924/12**

**to the Commission**
**Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Investments in new cultural distribution models for the digital age under the MEDIA programme

It is well known that the future of the creative industries in the European Union has been called into question by their
apparent difficulties in developing an effective, monetisable global distribution in the context of unprecedented
corporate media consolidation and hard-to-regulate digital networks. The copyright framework seems to provide
inadequate support for these actors in a new technological environment characterised by the unrestricted
proliferation of copies.

As has become apparent to Parliament in its recent debate and subsequent rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement, social patterns with regard to sharing seem fairly entrenched. With European broadband speeds and
connectivity set to increase following the implementation of the Digital Agenda and CEF Programmes, it seems likely
that peer-to-peer distribution, allowing users protagonist roles in the distribution of content, will continue to gain
traction. While this may be perceived by some as exacerbating the problem, it could also be seen as a potential
opportunity for our European content industries as they struggle to create and address new international markets.

It is therefore worrying that there remain very few examples of online distribution platforms trying to create revenue
opportunities by connecting creative producers and the file-sharing public.

1. How does the Commission ensure its support for such new enterprises through is allocation of, for instance, the
funding available for media and content production and distribution under the MEDIA programme?

2. Will the Commission ensure that these new online services and platforms get additional attention and financial
support during the start-up periods when the new Creative Europe programme enters into effect?

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

_(4 September 2012)_

More than 50% of the budget of the MEDIA programme is dedicated to the distribution of European films. Most of
this is allocated to theatrical distribution, but other means, notably Video on Demand platforms are included in the
funding schemes. The MEDIA Programme further encourages film professionals to use new technologies and
business models drawing on digitisation through various training schemes.

The proposed Creative Europe Programme will comprise a MEDIA Strand, following on from the current MEDIA
2007 and MEDIA Mundus Programmes, which will build on and continue successful action lines. The MEDIA Strand
will have a significant focus on digitisation and will help film professionals to benefit from the digital shift. Training as
well as distribution and development will offer new funding opportunities for digital production and distribution.

A cross cutting objective is the support to the development of new audiences in particular children and young people
and other under-represented groups. Social networks and other digital platforms make it possible to address new
audiences and to raise their interest in European audiovisual content. They offer new possibilities to promote a film
also through a ‘word of mouth’ effect.

The Creative Europe Programme will also include a financial instrument to facilitate access to private bank loans
through a guarantee fund. This fund will be addressed to SMEs including platforms offering creative content, and will
serve a range of financial needs from investing in start-ups to gap financing.

C 219 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006925/12**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Attentati contro due chiese in Kenia

Il 2 luglio 2012 uomini armati hanno aperto il fuoco e fatto esplodere bombe a mano in due chiese della città keniana
di Garissa, a circa 200 chilometri a ovest del confine con la Somalia, provocando la morte di 17 persone e ferendone
varie decine. Dopo aver ucciso due poliziotti impegnati a sorvegliare le chiese e aver rubato i loro fucili, gli aggressori
si sono introdotti nell'edificio per lanciare bombe a mano. Altri attentatori aspettavano all'esterno per sparare sui
fedeli mentre fuggivano dalla chiesa. Un secondo attentato si è verificato in un'altra chiesa cattolica, dove sono state
fatte esplodere diverse bombe a mano. Secondo la Croce Rossa keniana i feriti dei due attentati sarebbero almeno 75 e
le vittime avrebbero affollato gli ospedali locali.

Sebbene le autorità non abbiano fatto alcun nome, i sospetti si concentrano su al-Shabab. Il presidente keniano Mwai
Kibaki ha dichiarato che intende condurre «un'indagine approfondita su questi inutili attentati terroristici alle chiese».

L'ufficio stampa della Casa Bianca ha affermato che gli attentatori «non hanno dimostrato alcun rispetto per la vita e la
dignità umane e deve essere fatta giustizia per l'atrocità di tali fatti».

Il pastore della Chiesa Pentecostale dell'Africa orientale ha dichiarato: «Il governo ha aumentato la sicurezza a Garissa,
dispiegando poliziotti nelle chiese a difesa dei fedeli. Tuttavia, gli aggressori hanno deciso di venire allo scoperto e di
attaccare le chiese della città».

1. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante al corrente dell'aumento di attentati ai danni di obiettivi cristiani
nell'Africa orientale?

2. È l'UE disposta a prestare aiuto alle autorità keniane per indagare sui recenti attentati?

3. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante disposto a dare un aiuto concreto per rafforzare le misure di sicurezza a
favore delle comunità cristiane in Kenia e di altre minoranze oggetto di possibili attentati da parte di al-Shabab?

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

_(17 agosto 2012)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza dell’attentato recentemente avvenuto a Garissa e segue da vicino
l’evolversi della situazione per quanto concerne i potenziali attacchi terroristici in Kenya.

Dal momento dell’incursione keniota in territorio somalo dell’ottobre 2011 è cresciuto il rischio di ritorsioni da parte
di gruppi militanti. È probabile che almeno alcuni di questi attentati siano stati commessi da membri di Al-Shabab o
di gruppi estremisti analoghi.

Nell’ambito del suo dialogo con le autorità keniote, l’UE solleva periodicamente la questione della sicurezza di tutti i
kenioti e di tutti gli stranieri che si trovano nel paese. Al fine di promuovere attivamente una società pacifica e
armoniosa in Kenya, l’UE finanzia anche progetti volti ad allentare le tensioni in zone notoriamente ad alta
concentrazione di violenza.

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente attribuisce la massima importanza alla libertà di religione e si adopera con
impegno per assicurare la coesistenza pacifica delle comunità religiose in Africa.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 55

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006925/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Church attacks in Kenya

On 2 July 2012, two churches in the Kenyan town of Garissa were attacked by armed men with guns and hand
grenades. Seventeen people were killed and dozens more were wounded. The town of Garissa is situated 120 miles
west of the Somali border. The attackers killed two policemen guarding one of the churches, stole their guns and
proceeded to throw hand grenades into the building. More gunmen waited outside to shoot people as they ran out. A
second attack took place at a Catholic church and hand grenades were thrown inside the church. The Kenya Red
Cross said at least 75 people were injured in the two attacks. The number of victims overwhelmed regional hospitals.

There are suspicions that the attack was the work of al-Shabab, but the authorities have not named any suspects. The
Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki said he intends to direct ‘a thorough investigation concerning this futile terror attack
on churches’.

The press office of the White House said the attackers ‘have shown no respect for human life and dignity, and must be
brought to justice for those heinous acts’.

The pastor of the East Africa Pentecostal Church has noted: ‘The government has stepped up security in Garissa and
posted policemen to guard the church faithful. But these attackers have now come into the open to attack the
churches in Garissa’.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the upsurge in attacks against Christian targets in East
Africa?

2. Is the EU prepared to lend support to the Kenyan authorities to support the investigation into these recent
attacks?

3. Is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to offer practical support to reinforce security measures for
Kenyan Christian communities and other minorities who are vulnerable to al-Shabab attacks?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

The HR/VP is fully aware of the recent incident in Garissa and follows closely the evolving situation of potential
terrorist attacks in Kenya.

Since Kenya's incursion into Somali terrority in October 2011 there is a risk of retaliatory action by militant groups. It
is likely that at least some of these attacks are perpetrated by affiliates of Al-Shabab or similar extremist groups.

The EU regularly raises security concerns in its dialogue with Kenyan authorities to ensure the safety of all Kenyans
and foreigners staying in the country. To actively foster a peaceful and harmonious society in Kenya, the EU also
funds projects aimed at defusing tensions in known hotspots of violence.

The HR/VP attaches utmost importance to religious freedom and is fully committed to ensuring peaceful co-existence
of religious communities in Africa.

C 219 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006927/12**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Scomparsa degli uighuri in Cina

Il 4 luglio 2012 «Amnesty International» ha reso noto di aver ricevuto, nell'ultimo mese, numerose denunce da parte
di famiglie uighure in merito alla sparizione di loro congiunti, avvenuta nel 2009. Tre anni fa, il 5 luglio 2009, gli
uighuri organizzarono una protesta nella città di Urumqi, nell'ovest del paese, per chiedere l'apertura di un'indagine
sulla morte di due lavoratori immigrati di etnia uighura. I manifestanti all'epoca sostenevano che le autorità non
avessero tutelato questi lavoratori. Negli scontri scoppiati successivamente tra cinesi di etnia han e uighuri persero la
vita 197 persone. Furono quindi effettuati arresti di massa, con migliaia di persone poste arbitrariamente in stato di
fermo. Le famiglie che hanno chiesto informazioni sui propri congiunti sono state minacciate e arrestate.

Le persone scomparse provengono da contesti diversi, ma non esistono dati in merito al loro numero. Molti dei
parenti degli uighuri scomparsi hanno protestato di fronte alle sedi della polizia e del governo a Urumqi. Una madre
ha dichiarato: «Da quasi tre anni non so dove si trovi mio figlio, né se sia ancora in vita». Dopo aver denunciato la
situazione su Radio Free Asia, la donna è stata sottoposta a una sorveglianza continua e a pedinamenti. Il capo del
Dipartimento di pubblica sicurezza di Urumqi avrebbe ricevuto 300 richieste di aiuto da parte di famiglie che
desiderano ritrovare i propri cari. Tuttavia, invece di ottenere l'assistenza richiesta, le famiglie lamentano di aver
subito anni di minacce, intimidazioni e arresti da parte delle autorità. Alcune affermano di non essere neanche
interessate ad un risarcimento, ma di voler semplicemente sapere se i propri congiunti sono ancora vivi.

1. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a conoscenza del fatto che decine di uighuri sono stati tratti in arresto e
segregati fin dal luglio del 2009?

2. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante riguardo alla difficile situazione in cui versa la
popolazione uighura in Cina?

3. Ha il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante sollevato questo tema di recente con le autorità cinesi competenti,
oppure intende farlo nel prossimo futuro?

4. Come valutano i funzionari dell'UE in Cina il trattamento riservato dal governo cinese alla popolazione uighura
presente nel paese?

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

_(27 agosto 2012)_

1. L'AR/VP è a conoscenza del fatto che numerosi uiguri sono stati arrestati e segregati dal luglio 2009 ed è
preoccupata perché la Cina non ha risposto alla richiesta del Gruppo di lavoro dell'ONU sulle sparizioni forzate del
6 agosto 2010 riguardante gli arresti di massa e le sparizioni di giovani uiguri nel luglio 2009. Durante il dialogo UECina sui diritti umani del 29 maggio 2012, l'UE ha esortato il paese a cooperare maggiormente con gli esperti delle
procedure speciali dell'ONU, compreso il Gruppo di lavoro sulle sparizioni forzate. Continuerà inoltre a menzionare
alle autorità cinesi la questione delle sparizioni di massa di uiguri.

2. e 4. L'AR/VP è molto preoccupata per la situazione della minoranza uigura in Cina. Destano preoccupazione,
fra l'altro, le segnalazioni secondo cui le persone accusate di aver partecipato ai disordini nello Xinjiang nel luglio
2009 potrebbero non aver avuto processi equi, sono state eseguite esecuzioni capitali, alcuni imputati potrebbero
aver ricevuto pene detentive eccessivamente lunghe e quasi tutte le espressioni dell'identità uigura o le critiche delle
politiche governative nello Xinjiang sono punite come «divisionismo», a volte con lunghe pene detentive, le notizie di
forti restrizioni alla pratica religiosa e trasferimenti forzati di giovani dallo Xinjiang ad altre regioni, l'affermazione
secondo cui il riassetto di Kashgar mette a repentaglio la caratteristica cultura uigura della città e il crescente ricorso
nello Xinjiang all'accusa di «minaccia alla sicurezza dello Stato».

3. L'UE ha sollevato tali questioni durante il dialogo UE-Cina sui diritti umani del 2012. La delegazione cinese ha
respinto le argomentazioni dell'UE, ha attirato l'attenzione sul miglioramento della situazione economica nello
Xinjiang ed ha affermato che era stata dimostrata grande clemenza nei confronti degli autori dei disordini del 2009.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 57

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006927/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — The disappearance of Uyghurs in China

On 4 July 2012, Amnesty International reported that, in the past month, dozens of Uyghur families have come
forward with accounts of family members who have disappeared since 2009. Three years ago, on 5 July 2009, in the
western city of Urumqi, Uyghurs organised a protest calling for an investigation into the deaths of two Uyghur
migrant workers. Protestors at the time claimed that the authorities failed to protect the workers. Violence later
erupted between Han Chinese and Uyghurs, leading to the deaths of 197 people. Mass arrests took place, and
thousands of people were arbitrarily detained. Families seeking information about their relatives have been
intimidated and detained.

The individuals missing come from a variety of backgrounds. No figures exist for the number of Uyghurs that have
suffered forced disappearances. Many family members of those missing have protested outside police and
government buildings in Urumqi. One mother said: ‘For almost three years, I have not known where my son is —
even whether he is alive or dead’. Since she spoke out to Radio Free Asia, she has been under constant surveillance and
followed everywhere. The chief of the Urumqi Public Security Department is reported to have received 300 requests
from families for help in locating lost relatives. Instead of assistance, however, many families describe the years of
threats, intimidation and detention that they have suffered at the hands of the authorities. Some admit that they do
not even ask for compensation from the authorities, but simply want to know if their relatives are dead or alive.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the case of the dozens of Uyghurs who have forcibly been
kept detained and incommunicado since July 2009?

2. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative with regard to the plight of China’s Uyghur
population?

3. Has the Vice-President/High Representative recently discussed this issue with the relevant Chinese authorities,
or does she intend to raise it in the near future?

4. What is the assessment of EU officials in China regarding the Chinese Government’s treatment of the country’s
Uyghur population?

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

_(27 August 2012)_

1. The HR/VP is aware of reports that large numbers of Uighurs have been detained incommunicado since
July 2009 and is concerned that China has not responded to the request of the UN Working Group on Enforced
Disappearance of 6 August 2010 concerning mass arrests and disappearances of young Uighur men in July 2009. At
the EU‐China human rights dialogue of 29 May 2012, the EU urged China to improve its cooperation with UN special
procedures, including the Working Group on Enforced Disappearance. The EU will continue to raise the issue of the
mass disappearance of Uighurs with the Chinese authorities.

2 and 4. The HR/VP is deeply concerned at the situation of the Uighur minority in China. Particular issues of
concern include: reports that persons accused of involvement in the unrest in Xinjiang in July 2009 may not have
been subject to a fair trial, that executions were carried out and that some persons accused of involvement may have
received excessively long prison sentences; reports that almost any expression of Uighur identity or criticism of
government policies in Xinjiang is punished as ‘splittism’, sometimes with long prison sentences; reports of extensive
restrictions upon religious practice; reports of forced transfers of young persons out of Xinjiang to other regions;
reports that the redevelopment of Kashgar is undermining the distinctive Uighur culture of the city; and an increase in
the use of ‘endangering state security’ charges in Xinjiang.

3. The EU raised these issues at the 2012 EU‐China human rights dialogue. The Chinese delegation rejected the
EU's concerns, drew attention to improvements to the economic situation in Xinjiang and claimed that great leniency
had been shown to the perpetrators of the 2009 unrest.

C 219 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006928/12**

**to the Commission**
**Robert Sturdy (ECR)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) in the EU‐Canada negotiations for a Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement

The European Union is in the process of negotiating with the Government of Canada a Comprehensive Economic and
Trade Agreement (CETA), with the potential to foster trade flows, create new jobs and generate investments on both
sides.

According to the Commission’s 2010 Agenda on Trade, Growth and World Affairs, the intellectual property clauses
in free trade agreements negotiated by the EU should as far as possible offer identical levels of IPR protection to that
existing in the Union, while taking into account the level of development of the partner countries concerned.

After Germany, Canada is currently the best-performing G7 economy, projected to grow faster than the other EU
economies in the coming years. Growth is expected to be 1.9% in 2012, just behind the US and Japan, and 2.5% in
2013, in which case Canada will share the G7 top spot with the US (OECD Economic Outlook, November 2011).

1. What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the CETA negotiations create a level playing field for the
protection of IPRs and that the EU’s high standards of protection are not watered down, especially in such highly
innovative sectors as ICT, life sciences and biotechnology?

2. What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that the IPR chapter in CETA complies with the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights, and especially its provisions on the right to property, including intellectual property, and
freedom of expression?

3. Can the Commission provide details of the proposed calendar for the technical and political rounds of
negotiations between the parties scheduled for 2012?

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

_(14 August 2012)_

1. The Commission is well aware of a number of important areas where Canada's intellectual property (IPR)
system falls short of the needs for European stakeholders, and hence of the need for a more level playing field between
the EU and Canada. Accordingly, the Commission has taken EU IPR legislation as a reference and objective when
negotiating the IPR chapter of the CETA, including with regard to the protection of pharmaceuticals.

2. By taking existing EU legislation as a reference, the Commission considers that it will safeguard the respect of
fundamental rights and ensure the balance between the right to (intellectual) property and to freedom of expression. It
is however paying due attention to this matter.

3. The EU and Canada had a technical working session in the week of 16 July 2012. The next technical meeting is
foreseen for the week of 17 September 2012. The Chief negotiators will decide after summer on the work plan
following the September session. A meeting in October has already been tentatively agreed. The timing of political
meetings will be decided once the technical negotiations are at a more advanced stage.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 59

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006929/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Debora Serracchiani (S&D)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Conferenza mondiale per la revisione delle regole internazionali sulle telecomunicazioni (ITR)

I 193 paesi membri dell'ITU (International Telecommunication Union) si riuniranno nella Conferenza mondiale in
dicembre a Dubai per decidere se modificare l'attuale normativa («ITR») che definisce il quadro normativo mondiale
delle telecomunicazioni, e quindi di Internet. La rinegoziazione del trattato potrebbe fornire a diversi governi
l'imperdibile opportunità di imporre un controllo totale sulla rete, trasferendo il governo della rete alle Nazioni Unite,
dando ad esse la possibilità di controllare le condizioni di trasmissione delle comunicazioni elettroniche sulle reti di
nuova generazione e di ciò che può o non può transitare sul web, con grandi conseguenze per gli utenti.

Sulla base di tali premesse, può la Commissione comunicare lo stato delle negoziazioni e del coordinamento con gli
Stati membri?

Può far sapere se ha portato tale conferenza all'attenzione del Consiglio?

Può indicare la posizione dell'Unione europea e se l'Europa è unita?

Può indicare se la Commissione sarà rappresentata ad alto livello durante la Conferenza mondiale?

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(16 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione rinvia l’onorevole parlamentare alla propria risposta all’interrogazione scritta P-006942/2012.

C 219 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006929/12**

**to the Commission**
**Debora Serracchiani (S&D)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ World Conference on International Telecommunications: review of the International Telecommunications
Regulations (ITRs)

The 193 member countries of the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) will be holding a world conference
in Dubai in December in order to review the current regulations (ITRs) constituting the binding global framework for
telecommunications and hence the Internet. Renegotiation of the treaty could be a golden opportunity for
governments to impose total control of the Net by transferring governance to the United Nations, which would then
be able to determine how electronic communications would be transmitted on the new-generation networks and
what data could or could not be sent over the Web: this would have far-reaching implications for users.

What is the state of play regarding the negotiations and coordination with the Member States?

Has the Commission brought the conference to the attention of the Council?

What is the EU position, and is there a European consensus?

Will the Commission be sending a high-level representative to the conference?

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

_(16 August 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P‐006942/2012.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 61

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006930/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Presenza di Mario Monti alla Allen Conference negli USA

Mario Monti sta per partecipare alla _Allen Sun Valley Conference_ che si terrà nell'Idaho (Stati Uniti); si tratta di un evento
organizzato dalla banca d'affari _Allen&Co_ . che riunisce i leader della comunicazione e dei media per un incontro
informale a porte chiuse.

Gli incontri, che iniziano oggi, sono caratterizzati dalla segretezza dei contenuti. Essi si svolgono annualmente e
vertono su politica, tecnologia e informazione. I temi chiave di quest'anno saranno i rapporti Israele-Iran, la Cina e la
situazione economica europea. Tra i partecipanti figurano Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, il numero uno di Google Larry
Page e il direttore della CIA George Tenet.

1. Ha la Commissione inviato un gruppo di suoi rappresentanti all'incontro in questione?

2. Intende chiedere un riscontro al primo ministro italiano in merito agli accordi politici ed economici
eventualmente intercorsi durante l'evento segreto in oggetto?

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(30 agosto 2012)_

La presenza dei Capi governo degli Stati membri a conferenze quali la Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference del
2012 nell'Idaho è una questione di spettanza nazionale e la Commissione europea non è in grado di poter chiedere un
feedback in merito.

La Commissione europea non ha inviato nessun rappresentante alla conferenza del 2012.

C 219 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006930/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Presence of Mario Monti at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in the United States

Mario Monti is about to attend the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in the US state of Idaho; the conference,
organised by the investment firm Allen & Company, is an event at which leading communication industry and media
figures meet informally behind closed doors.

This year’s conference is starting today, and its proceedings will be secret. The conferences take place annually and
focus on politics, technology, and information. The main themes this year will be relations between Israel and Iran,
China, and the economic situation in Europe. The guests include Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Google CEO, Larry
Page, and former CIA Director George Tenet.

1. Has the Commission sent any representatives to the conference?

2. Will it ask the Italian Prime Minister to report on such political and economic agreements as might have been
entered into at this secret meeting?

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

_(30 August 2012)_

The attendance by Prime Ministers of Member States of conferences such as the 2012 Allen & Company Sun Valley
Conference in Idaho is a national matter, and the European Commission is not in a position to request feedback
regarding such attendance.

The European Commission has not sent any representatives to the 2012 Conference.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 63

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-006931/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Pirillo (S&D)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Gasdotto «Rete adriatica»

La Società Snam rete gas S.p.A. sta realizzando un gasdotto denominato «Gas adriatico» della lunghezza di 687 km. La
finalità del gasdotto è aumentare la portata per far fronte alle richieste della British gas di trasportare 8 miliardi di
metri cubi di gas l'anno. Il gasdotto prevede 5 lotti facenti parte di un unico grande progetto. In base alla direttiva
dell'UE sulla valutazione d'impatto ambientale (VIA), la valutazione deve essere estesa all'intero progetto e non ai
singoli lotti. La giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia delle Comunità europee è chiara su questo aspetto e, nella causa
C-2/07, sottolinea che la VIA deve essere effettuata complessivamente anche in caso di insediamenti da realizzare in
più fasi. Il gasdotto «Rete adriatica» costituisce un singolo progetto, così come indicato nella sua stesura e come
approvato, e avrebbe dovuto svilupparsi lungo il versante adriatico del territorio nazionale. All'altezza del tracciato di
Biccari (Foggia) è stato invece dirottato all'interno lungo la dorsale appenninica. Tale deviazione solleva diverse
criticità: la distruzione di numerose aree boschive e protette, criticità di rischio geologico nonché rischio sismico
molto elevato lungo l'Appennino.

In Italia i vari livelli della pubblica amministrazione delle regioni interessate alla realizzazione dell'opera hanno tutti
espresso parere negativo all'opera nella versione attualmente proposta, proprio per le criticità ambientali ed
urbanistiche che l'infrastruttura pone in essere.

1. La Commissione è stata informata della variante apportata al progetto di Snam rete gas?

2. La VIA ricevuta dalla Commissione è ritenuta sufficiente per stabilire che non ci siano violazioni delle direttive
92/43/CEE, 85/337/CEE e 97/11/CE?

3. La Commissione, accettando una valutazione per lotti anziché complessiva, non ritiene di aver violato le
interpretazioni della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia europea?

4. Non ritiene di dover rivedere le direttive CE sulla valutazione ambientale strategica (2001/42/CE) e sulla
valutazione di impatto ambientale (97/11/CE) per inserire il rischio sismico tra i criteri di valutazione?

5. Non ritiene che sia stato violato il principio di sussidiarietà della governance di multilivello quale azione
dell'Unione volta a coinvolgere gli enti regionali e locali nella definizione di azioni e politiche?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(16 agosto 2012)_

Il progetto di gasdotto «Rete Adriatica» della società Snam Rete Gas è stato oggetto di un’indagine che la Commissione
ha avviato nel 2010 e chiuso nel maggio 2011. In base alle informazioni fornite sia dagli autori della denuncia sia
dalle autorità italiane, la Commissione non ha trovato prove di violazione della direttiva 85/337/CEE sulla
valutazione dell’impatto ambientale (VIA), ora codificata come direttiva 2011/92/UE ( [1] ) né della direttiva Habitat
92/43/CEE ( [2] ).

In base alle informazioni disponibili risulta quanto segue:

—
La modifica menzionata dall’onorevole parlamentare è stata apportata prima che le autorità italiane
sottoponessero il progetto alle procedure di valutazione nell’ambito delle direttive VIA e Habitat. In particolare,
sembra che il progetto sia stato suddiviso in cinque sezioni che sono state tutte sottoposte a procedure di
valutazione.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2011/92/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 13 dicembre 2011, concernente la valutazione dell’impatto ambientale di

determinati progetti pubblici e privati, GU L 26 del 28.1.2012.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 92/43/CEE del Consiglio, del 21 maggio 1992, relativa alla conservazione degli habitat naturali e seminaturali e della flora e della fauna

selvatiche, GU L 206 del 22.7.1992.

C 219 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

—
La Commissione non ha dati concreti attestanti che la suddivisione del progetto nelle suddette sezioni abbia
comportato una violazione della direttiva VIA. Nella fattispecie risulta che si è proceduto alla valutazione
dell’impatto ambientate di ciascuna sezione e che ciascuna procedura VIA ha fatto riferimento all’intero
progetto. Gli effetti cumulativi sono pertanto stati valutati.

—
Le autorità regionali e locali sono state coinvolte nelle varie procedure VIA.

La direttiva 2001/42/CE sulla valutazione ambientale strategica (VAS) ( [3] ) e la direttiva VIA non contengono
riferimenti espliciti ai rischi sismici. Nel contesto della revisione della direttiva VIA, si è ravvisata la necessità di una
valutazione adeguata degli effetti connessi ai rischi di catastrofe. Tuttavia, la versione vigente delle direttive
comprende già il rischio di incidenti tra i criteri da prendere in considerazione nel vagliare la necessità di una
valutazione ambientale. Inoltre, quando si procede ad una valutazione ambientale, occorre individuare e valutare tutti
gli effetti di rilievo sull’ambiente.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2001/42/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 27 giugno 2001, concernente la valutazione degli effetti di determinati piani e
programmi sull’ambiente, GU L 197 del 21.7.2001.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 65

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-006931/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Pirillo (S&D)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ ‘Adriatic network’ gas pipeline

The company Snam Rete Gas S.p.A. is building a 687-km-long pipeline called ‘Adriatic Gas’. The purpose of the
pipeline is to increase capacity to meet the requirements of British Gas to transport 8 billion cubic meters of gas per
year. The pipeline consists of 5 lots that are part of one big project. Under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) directive, the assessment must cover the entire project and not just individual lots. The Court of Justice is clear in
this regard and, in Case C‐2/07, points out that an overall EIA must be carried out even if a project is to be
implemented in several stages. The Adriatic network pipeline is a single project and was drawn up and approved as
such. It was supposed to have been built along the Adriatic coast of Italy. However, in the area of Biccari (Foggia), it
was instead diverted inland, along the Apennines. This diversion has raised a number of critical issues — the
destruction of numerous forests and protected areas, geological hazards and the very high risk of earthquake along
the Apennines.

In Italy, the various tiers of government in the regions concerned by the pipeline work have all expressed a negative
opinion on the current version of the project, precisely because of the critical environmental and planning issues that
this infrastructure is raising.

1. Has the Commission been informed of the change made to the Snam Rete Gas project?

2. Is the EIA received by the Commission deemed to be sufficient to establish that there has been no breach of
Directives 92/43/EEC, 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC?

3. Does the Commission, having accepted an assessment per lot rather than an overall assessment, not think it
may have violated the ruling of the Court of Justice?

4. Does it not agree that it should revise the EC Directives on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2001/42/EC)
and Environmental Impact Assessment (97/11/EC) in order to include seismic risk among the assessment criteria?

5. Does it not agree that the principle of subsidiarity and multi-level governance has been infringed, since the EU is
supposed to involve regional and local authorities in the framing of measures and policies?

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

_(16 August 2012)_

The Snam Rete Gas project ‘Rete Adriatica’ was the object of a Commission investigation launched in 2010 and
closed in May 2011. Based on the information provided by both the complainants and the Italian authorities, the
Commission found no evidence of a breach of the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC (now codified as
Directive 2011/92/EU) ( [1] ) and of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC ( [2] ).

Based on the available information, the following can be pointed out:

—
The change mentioned by the Honourable Member was made before the Italian authorities subjected the
project to the assessment procedures under the EIA and the Habitats Directives. In particular, it appears that the
project has been split into five sections, which have all been subjected to assessment procedures.

—
The Commission has no evidence that the splitting of the project into the above sections resulted in a breach of
the EIA Directive. In particular, it appears that an EIA was carried out for each section and that each EIA
procedure made reference to the whole project. Thus the cumulative effects have been assessed.

—
Regional and local authorities were involved in the various EIA procedures.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/92/EU of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment, OJ L 26, 28.1.2012.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

( **|**

C 219 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

The SEA Directive 2001/42/EC ( [3] ) and the EIA Directive do not explicitly refer to seismic risks. In the context of the
revision of the EIA Directive, the need for properly assessing effects related to disaster risks has been identified as an
issue to be addressed. However, the current version of the directives already includes the risk of accidents among the
criteria to be taken into account when assessing the need for an environmental assessment. In addition, when an
environmental assessment is carried out, all significant effects on the environment should be identified and assessed.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on
the environment, OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 67

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-006932/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Recepimento della direttiva 2009/52/CE da parte del governo italiano

Il 6 luglio u.s. il governo italiano ha recepito la direttiva 2009/52/CE, del 18 luglio 2009, che introduce norme
minime relative a sanzioni e a provvedimenti nei confronti di datori di lavoro che impiegano cittadini di paesi terzi il
cui soggiorno è irregolare.

Il governo italiano, in particolare il ministero dell'Integrazione, ha intenzione di introdurre, di sua sponte, una norma
transitoria cosiddetta «ravvedimento operoso»: attraverso questa norma il datore di lavoro ha la possibilità di mettere
in regola il lavoratore immigrato clandestino pagando una somma come punizione, somma che dovrebbe
ammontare a 1 000 euro. In tal modo, i datori di lavori che si autodenunciano pagando questa cifra forfettaria
eviterebbero sanzioni ancora più gravi.

La motivazione resa dal ministero per poter introdurre questa norma è stata quella di ammorbidire l'applicazione
della norma europea e dare la possibilità ai datori di lavoro di adeguarsi alla nuova disciplina.

1. Come valuta la Commissione l'introduzione della norma auspicata dal governo italiano?

2. Non ritiene la Commissione che tale norma possa portare de facto ad una sanatoria di massa di immigrati
clandestini?

3. Non ritiene la Commissione che l'introduzione di tale norma snaturi la severità della direttiva?

4. Non ravvisa la Commissione in tale innovamento rispetto alla lettera e allo spirito della direttiva citata la
possibilità di introdurre surrettiziamente un espediente giuridico che consente e incentiva i percorsi di clandestinità e
di lavoro nero in luogo dei percorsi legali?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(7 agosto 2012)_

Il termine ultimo per il recepimento della direttiva sulle sanzioni ai datori di lavoro scadeva il 20 luglio 2011. L’Italia
ha notificato alla Commissione la normativa di recepimento il 30 luglio 2012.

Sembrerebbe che le autorità italiane abbiano deciso di prepararsi all’attuazione delle nuove norme concedendo agli
immigrati e ai datori di lavoro un periodo limitato per regolarizzare la loro situazione. Il periodo transitorio
permettere sia ai datori di lavoro di immigrati in posizione irregolare che agli immigrati stessi di porre fine alla loro
situazione di illegalità mediante il pagamento di una sanzione, il recupero delle eventuali retribuzioni non versate e la
stipula di un contratto di lavoro regolare.

La Commissione non ha ancora analizzato in dettaglio la legislazione italiana in oggetto ed è tuttora impegnata a
valutarne la compatibilità con la direttiva di cui sopra. Inoltre, la legislazione fa riferimento a modalità che dovranno
essere specificate mediante decreto.

C 219 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-006932/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Transposition by the Italian Government of Directive 2009/52/EC

On 6 July 2012 the Italian Government transposed Directive 2009/52/EC of 16 June 2009 providing for minimum
standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.

The Italian Government, with specific reference to the Ministry for Integration, now intends to introduce a
transitional amnesty measure enabling employers to regularise the position of illegal migrant workers by paying a
fine, which is likely to be set at EUR 1000. This would allow employers who come forward voluntarily to avoid more
serious punishment.

The ministry has stated that the aim of this measure is to mitigate the impact of the EU provisions and give employers
an opportunity to adjust to the new rules.

1. What view does the Commission take of the above measure?

2. Would it not agree that it could result in the mass regularisation of illegal migrants?

3. Would it not agree that it would make the directive less effective?

4. Would it not agree that this departure from the letter and spirit of the directive could be seen as a means of
surreptitiously introducing provisions permitting and facilitating illegal migration and employment?

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

_(7 August 2012)_

The deadline for transposition of the Employer Sanctions Directive was 20 July 2011. Italy has notified the
transposing legislation to the Commission on 30 July 2012.

It seems that the Italian authorities have decided to prepare for the implementation of the new rules by creating a
window of opportunity, of very limited duration, for migrants and the employers to regularise their situation. This
transitional period would allow both the employers of irregularly-staying immigrants and the migrants themselves, to
put an end to the illegal situation by paying a fine, recovering any unpaid remuneration and concluding a lawful work

contract.

The Commission has not yet analysed in detail the recently notified Italian legislation and the assessment of the
compatibility with the Employer Sanctions Directive is still ongoing. Moreover, the legislation refers to modalities to
be specified in a decree.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 69

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006933/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE)**

_(11. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Stand der Vorbereitung und Umsetzung der neuen EU-Handelsstrategie

In seiner Entschließung vom 27. September 2011 zu einer neuen Handelspolitik für Europa im Rahmen der Strategie
Europa 2020 (2010/2152(INI)), forderte das Parlament die Kommission auf, bis zum Sommer 2013 eine
überarbeitete mittel‐ und langfristig angelegte Handelsstrategie vorzulegen.

Welche Schritte wurden seitens der Kommission unternommen um den entsprechenden Forderungen des Parlaments
nachzukommen? Insbesondere wird in diesem Zusammenhang um Beantwortung folgender Fragen gebeten:

1. Wurde bereits damit begonnen, eine mittel‐ und langfristig angelegte Handelsstrategie auszuarbeiten? Falls ja,
wann ist mit der Veröffentlichung zu rechnen? In welchem Zeitrahmen plant die Kommission, die
Handelsstrategie umzusetzen?

2. Wurde eine Prognose über die „Welt des Handels“ in 15-20 Jahren erstellt? Falls ja, wie sieht diese aus? Falls
nein, wann soll diese erstellt werden?

**Antwort von Karel De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(20. August 2012)_

Seit der Annahme der Entschließung des Parlaments setzt die Kommission ihre ehrgeizige Handelspolitik und ‐
strategie fort und entwickelt diese weiter. Sie hat eine Reihe neuer, wichtiger Initiativen eingeleitet, die alle einen
Beitrag zur EU-Agenda für Wachstum leisten sollen. Diese langfristige Politik wird in der kürzlich fertig gestellten
Arbeitsunterlage der Kommissionsdienststellen über externe Wachstumsquellen beschrieben; es handelt sich dabei
um den Fortschrittsbericht über die EU-Handels‐ und Investitionsbeziehungen mit wichtigen Wirtschaftspartnern
(„External sources of growth — Progress report on EU trade and investment relationships with key economic
partners“, veröffentlicht am 18. Juli 2012 ( [1] )).

In dieser Arbeitsunterlage wird der allgemeine Ansatz aufgezeigt und erklärt, wie vertiefte Beziehungen zwischen der
EU und ihren wichtigsten Handelspartnern zu einer erheblichen wirtschaftlichen Erholung beitragen können. Wenn
die EU ihre ehrgeizige Außenhandelsagenda weiter verfolgt, könnte dies dem BIP ( [2] ) der Europäischen Union einen
Impuls geben, der einer Steigerung von 2 %, d. h. mehr als 250 Mrd. EUR entspricht. Über zwei Drittel dieser
Steigerung beim Wachstum und in der Beschäftigung kämen durch Handelsabkommen mit den Vereinigten Staaten
von Amerika und mit Japan zustande. Vor diesem Hintergrund hat die Kommission unlängst Verhandlungsleitlinien
für die Verhandlungen mit Japan vorgelegt. Im Juni 2012 wurde im Zwischenbericht der Hochrangigen
Arbeitsgruppe EU-USA zu Wachstum und Beschäftigung der Nutzen eines umfassenden transatlantischen
Handelsabkommens betont. Im Verlauf dieses Jahres ist eine Empfehlung über die Perspektiven für die Einleitung von
Verhandlungen vorgesehen. In Bezug auf andere wichtige Handelsbeziehungen wird in der Arbeitsunterlage
festgestellt, dass es für das künftige Wachstum in Europa immer entscheidender wird, das Potenzial der Märkte
unserer wichtigsten Handelspartner — vor allem der strategischen Wirtschaftspartner der EU — zu nutzen. Ein
weiterer Abschnitt ist einer fundierten Analyse gewidmet, in der erläutert wird, wie sich die Handelspolitik ändert und
weshalb die grundlegenden Änderungen in den globalen Lieferketten bedeuten, dass wir uns näher damit
beschäftigen müssen, wo ein Mehrwert für Produkte erzielt wird, und nicht wo Exporte verbucht werden.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/july/tradoc_149807.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) BIP = Bruttoinlandsprodukt.

C 219 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006933/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ State of preparation for and implementation of the New Trade Policy for Europe

In its resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy
(2010/2152(INI)), the European Parliament called on the Commission to present a revised mid‐ and long-term trade
strategy by summer 2013.

What action has the Commission since taken in order to meet Parliament’s demands? In particular, can it answer the
following questions in this context:

1. Has a start been made on drawing up a mid‐ and long-term trade policy? If so, when is it likely to be published?
What time frame is the Commission planning for its implementation?

2. Have any forecasts been made of how the ‘world of trade’ will develop in 15-20 years? If so, what do they
predict? If not, when are such forecasts due to be made?

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

_(20 August 2012)_

Since the adoption of Parliament's Resolution, the Commission has continued to implement and further develop its
ambitious trade policy agenda and strategy. It has launched a number of new important initiatives, all aimed at
contributing to the EU's growth agenda. This long-term policy is described in the recent Staff Working Paper on
‘External sources of growth — Progress report on EU trade and investment relationships with key economic partners’
(published 18/07/2012 ( [1] )).

The Staff Working Paper sets out the general approach and explains how deepening relationships between the EU and
its key trading partners can contribute significantly to Europe's recovery. If the EU pursues its ambitious external trade
agenda, this could boost the EU's GDP ( [2] ) by 2% or more than EUR 250 billion. More than two-thirds of these gains in
growth and jobs would materialise through trade agreements with the US and Japan. In this context, the Commission
has recently presented negotiating directives for negotiations with Japan. In June 2012, the interim report of the EU‐
US High Level Working Group on growth and jobs underlined the benefits of a comprehensive transatlantic trade
agreement. A recommendation should follow later in 2012 on prospects for launching negotiations. Regarding other
important trade relationships, the paper argues that tapping into the markets of the EU's key trading partners — in
particular its strategic economic partners — will play an increasingly significant role for Europe's growth in the
future. It also contains a solid analytical section, explaining how trade policy is changing and how the fundamental
changes in global supply chains mean that we need to look more closely at where value is added to products and less
at where exports are booked.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/july/tradoc_149807.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) GDP = Gross Domestic Product.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 71

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006934/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE)**

_(11. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Entwicklung eines vereinheitlichten Zolldienstes

In seiner Entschließung vom 27. September 2011 zu einer neuen Handelspolitik für Europa im Rahmen der Strategie
Europa 2020 (2010/2152(INI)) fordert das Parlament die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten auf, ernsthaft zu
prüfen, ob ein vereinheitlichter Zolldienst der EU eingerichtet werden kann, damit die Zollregeln und ‐verfahren im
gesamten Zollgebiet der EU wirksamer angewendet werden können.

Welche Schritte wurden seitens der Kommission seither unternommen, um den Forderungen des Parlaments
nachzukommen? In diesem Zusammenhang wird insbesondere um Beantwortung folgender Fragen gebeten:

1. Wurde von der Kommission geprüft, ob ein vereinheitlichter Zolldienst der EU eingerichtet werden kann?
Wenn ja, wie sehen die Resultate aus? Wenn nein, warum nicht bzw. wann ist mit den Ergebnissen zu rechnen?

2. Wann plant die Kommission gegebenenfalls, mit der Umsetzung der Vereinheitlichung zu beginnen?

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

_(14. August 2012)_

1. Die Kommissionsdienststellen haben unlängst eine Studie über das Funktionieren der Zollunion in Auftrag
gegeben. Aus den Ergebnissen der Studie lässt sich ableiten, dass die Auswirkungen eines Vorschlags für einen
vereinheitlichten Zolldienst in der Vorstellung zwar attraktiv erscheinen, in der Praxis aber hinsichtlich der
Zuständigkeiten, Kosten und organisatorischen Veränderungen so schwerwiegend und weitreichend wären, dass sich
ein solches Vorhaben praktisch nicht durchführen ließe, so dass eine erhebliche Abweichung von der (mit den
Mitgliedstaaten im Jahr 2008 vereinbarten) Strategie für die weitere Entwicklung der Zollunion zum jetzigen
Zeitpunkt kaum für praktikabel gehalten wird. Außerdem ist zu berücksichtigen, dass die meisten, wenn nicht sogar
alle nationalen Zollbehörden über Aufgaben und Zuständigkeiten (insbesondere im Bereich Steuern) verfügen, die
über die der Zollunion hinausgehen.

Derzeit wird jedoch eine umfassendere Bewertung vorgenommen, um den Zustand und die Auswirkungen der
Zollunion auf ihre unterschiedlichen Interessenträger in größerem Umfang zu untersuchen. Nach Abschluss dieser
Bewertung werden weitere Informationen über das Konzept der Kommission, einschließlich eines stärkeren
Zusammenschlusses der Zollunion durch das nächste Zollprogramm, veröffentlicht.

Aus diesem Grund ist die Kommission nicht bereit, weitere Studien zu einem vereinheitlichen EU-Zolldienst
einzuleiten, bevor das neue, mit dem Zollprogramm 2014-2020 geschaffene Instrumentarium angenommen,
umgesetzt und bewertet wurde.

2. Die Beantwortung dieser Frage hat sich mit den obigen Ausführungen erübrigt.

C 219 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006934/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Development of a unified customs service

In its resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy
(2010/2152(INI)), the European Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to give serious
consideration to the idea of setting up a unified EU customs service for a more effective application of custom rules
and procedures throughout the customs territory of the EU.

What action has the Commission since taken in order to meet Parliament’s demands? In particular, can it answer the
following questions in this context:

1. Has the Commission examined whether it is feasible for a unified EU customs service to be established? If it has
done so, what has been the outcome of this examination? If it has not done so, why has it not done so, or when
will the outcome become available?

2. If it is feasible, when is the Commission planning to start implementing the unification of the service?

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

_(14 August 2012)_

1. Commission services have recently commissioned a study on the functioning of the customs union. The
outcomes of that study support the conclusion, _a priori,_ that the implications of a proposal for a unified EU customs
service, while attractive as a theoretical concept, would in practice be so significant and far-reaching in terms of
competencies, cost and organisational change, that the feasibility of such a project is virtually non-existent, to the
extent that such a massive deviation from the evolution strategy (agreed with Member States in 2008) is not
considered to be an even remotely viable option at this point in time. Furthermore, it should be underlined that most
if not all national customs administrations have integrated tasks and competencies that go above and beyond those of
the customs union (most notably in the area of taxation).

Nevertheless, a wider evaluation is currently being undertaken to assess the broader state and impact of the customs
union on its various stakeholders. The Commission's approach, including further integration of the customs union
through the next Customs programme, will be further communicated on after completion of the evaluation.

In this light, the Commission is not prepared to launch further studies regarding a unified EU customs service concept
before the adoption, implementation and assessment of the effectiveness of the new instruments created by the
Customs programme 2014-2020.

2. n/a.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 73

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006935/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE)**

_(11. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Handel mit Rohstoffen im Rahmen der Strategie Europa 2020

In seiner Entschließung vom 27. September 2011 zu einer neuen Handelspolitik für Europa im Rahmen der Strategie
Europa 2020 (2010/2152(INI)), forderte das Parlament die Kommission auf, bei Rohstoffen eine kohärente,
nachhaltige, umfassende und politikbereichsübergreifende Handelspolitik zu betreiben, mit dem Ziel, unfairen
Handelspraktiken wie Ausfuhrbeschränkungen, Ausfuhrsteuern und sogenannten Preisdifferenzierungssystemen auf
multilateraler und bilateraler Ebene vorzubeugen und diese abzuschaffen.

Das Parlament stellte jedoch in der gleichen Entschließung auch fest, dass Ausfuhrbeschränkungen unter bestimmten
Umständen als wichtig angesehen werden können, um die Verwirklichung von Entwicklungszielen, den
Umweltschutz oder die nachhaltige Nutzung von natürlichen Ressourcen in ärmeren Entwicklungsländern wie den
am wenigsten entwickelten Ländern und den kleinen Inselstaaten unter den Entwicklungsländern zu fördern, daher
forderte das Parlament die Kommission auf, die Rohstofflieferanten zu diversifizieren und in diesem Bereich bilaterale
Abkommen mit langer Laufzeit mit anderen Ländern als China zu schließen.

Es wäre interessant zu erfahren, was in der Zwischenzeit auf den Weg gebracht wurde. In diesem Zusammenhang
wird um Beantwortung folgender Fragen gebeten:

1. Wurden seitens der Kommission Maßnahmen ergriffen, um oben genannte unfaire Handelspraktiken auf
multilateraler und bilateraler Ebene vorzubeugen und diese abzuschaffen, wenn ja welche? Wenn nein, warum
nicht?

2. Wurden seit der Entschließung bilaterale Abkommen im Bereich der Rohstoffe abgeschlossen, wenn ja mit
welchen Ländern? Wenn nein, warum nicht?

**Antwort von Herrn De Gucht im Namen der Kommission**

_(14. August 2012)_

Seit der Frage des Herrn Abgeordneten nach den Bestimmungen zu Rohstoffen der EU-Handelsabkommen seit
September 2011 hat die Kommission ein umfassendes Freihandelsabkommen mit der Ukraine fertiggestellt. Dieses
sieht unter anderem vor, dass für Waren, die zur Zeit der Verhandlungen keinen Ausfuhrzöllen unterlagen, auch nach
dem Inkrafttreten keine solchen Zölle eingeführt werden dürfen. Für eine begrenzte Zahl von Waren, für die damals
Ausfuhrzölle galten, wurde ein Mechanismus zur stufenweisen Abschaffung vereinbart. Zudem wurden ein Verbot
von Doppelpreissystemen sowie Regelungen für die Vergabe von Lizenzen und Genehmigungen im Bergbau sowie
im Erdöl‐ und Erdgassektor ausgehandelt. Dieses Freihandelsabkommen kann nur gleichzeitig mit dem Gesamt‐
Assoziierungsabkommen zwischen der EU und der Ukraine abgeschlossen werden.

Mit Kanada, Indien, Malaysia und dem Mercosur laufen derzeit Verhandlungen über Freihandelsabkommen, die auch
Bestimmungen zu Rohstoffen enthalten. Mit Singapur wurden gute Fortschritte erzielt, da das Land eine horizontale
Bestimmung über die Abschaffung von Ausfuhrzöllen akzeptiert hat.

Auf multilateraler Ebene wurden 2011 die Verhandlungen über den Beitritt Russlands zur Welthandelsorganisation
(WTO) abgeschlossen. Russland hatte sich dabei verpflichtet, zum Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme in die WTO oder im
Verlauf eines Übergangszeitraums sämtliche Ausfuhrzölle auf über 700 Zolltarifpositionen abzuschaffen und/oder zu
deckeln, wobei hauptsächlich Rohstoffe (Fisch, Gas‐ und Ölerzeugnisse, Kunststoffe, Häute und Felle, Edelsteine und ‐
metalle sowie unedle Metalle) betroffen sind. Bei bestimmten Holzerzeugnissen erfolgt die Anwendung reduzierter
Ausfuhrzölle über Kontingente, welche Gegenstand einer Durchführungsverordnung der Kommission zur Schaffung
eines Systems für die EU-seitige Verwaltung der russischen Ausfuhrzollkontingente sind.

Die Verhandlungen über den WTO-Beitritt von Kasachstan und Tadschikistan, bei denen es auch um Bestimmungen
über Rohstoffe geht, dauern noch an.

C 219 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006935/12**

**to the Commission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Trade in raw materials under the Europe 2020 strategy

In its resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy
(2010/2152(INI)), the European Parliament called on the Commission to pursue a consistent, sustainable,
comprehensive and cross-policy strategy concerning raw materials with the aim of preventing and eliminating unfair
trade practices such as export restrictions, export taxes and so-called dual pricing mechanisms at multilateral and
bilateral level.

However, in the same resolution Parliament also observed that under certain circumstances export restrictions may
be seen as important for the support of development objectives, the protection of the environment or the sustainable
exploitation of natural resources in poorer developing countries such as LDCs and SIDs and therefore called on the
Commission to diversify its raw material suppliers and to conclude long-term bilateral agreements in this area with
countries other than China.

It would be interesting to know what has been done since then.

1. Has the Commission taken measures to prevent and eliminate the abovementioned unfair trade practices at
multilateral and bilateral level? If so, what measures? If not, why not?

2. Have any bilateral agreements concerning raw materials been concluded since the resolution was adopted, and
if so, with which countries? If not, why not?

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

_(14 August 2012)_

Since the enquiry by the Honourable Member on raw materials-related provisions in EU trade agreements since
September 2011, the Commission completed a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Ukraine including
the prohibition of export duties at entry into force for goods not subject to export duties at the time of the
negotiations. For a limited number of goods subject to export duties at that time, a phase-out mechanism was agreed.
Moreover, a prohibition on dual pricing was agreed, as well as disciplines on licensing and authorisation covering the
mining and hydrocarbon sector. This FTA can only be finalised at the same time as the overall Association Agreement
between the EU and Ukraine.

Comprehensive FTA negotiations, including raw materials-related provisions, are ongoing with Canada, India,
Malaysia, and Mercosur. With Singapore, good progress has been made as it has accepted a horizontal provision on
the elimination of export duties.

On the multilateral level, Russia's accession negotiations to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) were completed in
2011, where it undertook to eliminate and/or cap the levels of all applied export duties of over 700 tariff lines of
products, mainly raw materials (fish, gas and oil products, plastics, hides and skins, precious stones and metals, and
base metals) at WTO entry or over a transition period. For certain wood products, reduced export duties will apply
with a quota, which will be administered by a Commission Implementing Regulation setting up a system of EU
management of the Russian export tariff rate quota.

WTO accession negotiations, including on raw materials-related provisions, are ongoing with Kazakhstan and
Tajikistan.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 75

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006937/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Intervento urgente dell'UE sulle nuove ondate migratorie

Alla luce delle tragedie in mare — verificatesi anche negli ultimi giorni — di immigrati libici che tentano di
raggiungere le coste italiane, il pericolo di nuove ondate migratorie verso l'Italia annunciato tempo fa dal ministro
degli Esteri libico al suo omologo italiano si sta concretizzando.

La Commissione si ritiene preoccupata per la situazione in cui versa il sud dell'Unione, ma è evidente che questo non
basta.

1. Si afferma che Frontex è pronta a sostenere l'Italia con attività operative da realizzare nel 2012 e prevede la
riassegnazione flessibile di mezzi tecnici ed esperti nel caso di arrivi improvvisi e massicci di immigrati irregolari e di
richiedenti asilo. L'operazione Hermes verrà ripresa il 1 [o] luglio 2012. È già in atto questa operazione?

2. Si sostiene che l'Italia è tra i maggiori beneficiari del Fondo per le frontiere esterne, il Fondo per i rimpatri e il
Fondo europeo per i rifugiati. A quanto ammonta tale beneficio?

3. Quali interventi concreti e urgenti intende attuare la Commissione europea per stroncare i traffici di migranti
provenienti dalle coste libiche?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(17 agosto 2012)_

L’operazione Hermes è ripresa il 1 [o] luglio 2012. Da quando è stata avviata, sono stati intercettati in totale 407
migranti irregolari, principalmente somali e tunisini, nel tentativo di raggiungere le coste della Sicilia o le isole Pelagie,
circa la metà dei quali provenienti dalla Libia, il resto da Tunisia, Egitto o Grecia.

Gli stanziamenti per l’Italia per il periodo 2010-2012 ammontano a 105,5 milioni di euro dal Fondo per le frontiere
esterne, 22,5 milioni dal Fondo per i rimpatri, 22 milioni dal Fondo europeo per i rifugiati e 82 milioni dal Fondo
europeo per l’integrazione, pari a un totale di 232 milioni di euro. Inoltre è previsto che l’Italia riceva per il 2013
ulteriori 81,6 milioni di euro dal Fondo per le frontiere esterne, 9 milioni dal Fondo per i rimpatri, 6,8 milioni dal
Fondo europeo per i rifugiati e 37 milioni dal Fondo europeo per l’integrazione. Nel 2011 l’Italia ha ricevuto un
sostegno finanziario aggiuntivo per un importo pari a 12,1 milioni di euro nel quadro delle «misure d’urgenza» del
Fondo europeo per i rifugiati.

La Commissione sta già finanziando diversi progetti in Libia che mirano, tra l’altro, a contribuire a mettere a punto un
sistema di gestione della migrazione equo, efficace e rispettoso dei diritti umani, a accrescere la capacità libiche di
controllo delle frontiere e prevenire la migrazione irregolare e la criminalità organizzata transnazionale. Tale
assistenza potrebbe aumentare in funzione dell’andamento delle relazioni dell’UE con la Libia.

Inoltre, come richiesto dalle conclusioni del Consiglio GAI del 9 giugno 2011, non appena la situazione lo consentirà
la Commissione intende avviare, congiuntamente con gli Stati membri dell’UE, il SEAE e le agenzie competenti
dell’UE, un dialogo in materia di migrazione, mobilità e sicurezza con le autorità libiche, che potrebbe contribuire a
rendere più strutturata la cooperazione fra l’UE e la Libia in tutti e tre questi settori.

C 219 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006937/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Urgent EU action to tackle new waves of migration

In the light of the tragedies at sea — most recently within the last few days — involving Libyans attempting to reach
the Italian coast, the danger of new waves of migration to Italy, of which the Libyan Foreign Minister warned his
Italian opposite number some time ago, is becoming more real.

The Commission claims to be worried about the situation in the South of the EU, but that is plainly not enough.

1. Frontex is said to be ready to support Italy at the operational level in 2012 and is planning to redeploy experts
and technical resources on a flexible basis should there be any sudden mass influx of irregular migrants and asylumseekers. Operation Hermes was due to restart on 1 July 2012. Is the operation now under way?

2. Italy is said to be one of the largest recipients under the External Borders Fund, the Return Fund, and the
European Refugee Fund. How much is it receiving?

3. What specific urgent measures will the Commission take to halt the traffic in migrants from the Libyan coast?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

Operation Hermes has been resumed on 1 July 2012. Since its inception a total of 407 irregular migrants, mainly
Somalis and Tunisians have been intercepted trying to reach the coasts of Sicily or the Pelagic Islands. Around half left
from Libya and the others from Tunisia, Egypt and Greece.

The allocations for Italy for the period 2010-2012 amount to EUR 105.5 million for the External Borders Fund,
EUR 22.5 million for the Return Fund, EUR 22 million for the European Refugee Fund and EUR 82 million for the
European Integration Fund, i.e. a total envelope of EUR 232 million. Furthermore, for 2013 Italy is expected to
receive a further EUR 81.6 million for the External Borders Fund, EUR 9 million for the Return Fund, EUR 6.8 million
for the European Refugee Fund and EUR 37 million for the European Integration Fund. In 2011, Italy has received
additional financial support for an amount of EUR 12.1 million under the ‘emergency measures’ of the European
Refugee Fund.

The Commission is already financing several projects in Libya, which aim, _inter alia_, to support the establishment of a
fair and effective migration management system respectful of human rights, and to build up the Libyan capacity to
control borders and prevent irregular migration and transborder organised crime. This assistance may be further
expanded depending on the evolution of the EU relations with Libya.

Furthermore, as requested by the JHA Council conclusions of 9 June 2011 and as soon as the situation will allow, the
Commission intends to launch, jointly with the EU Member States, the EEAS and the relevant EU Agencies, a Dialogue
on migration, mobility and security with Libyan authorities, which may lead to the establishment of a more
structured cooperation between the EU and Libya in all these three areas.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 77

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006939/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Impacto nas Regiões Ultraperiféricas do Acordo de Associação entre a UE e o Mercosul

Tendo em conta que:

A Comissão Europeia, na sua Comunicação sobre as Regiões Ultraperiféricas, de 20 de junho de 2012, prevê que as
Regiões Ultraperiféricas devem ser tidas devidamente em conta nos Acordos de comércio e de pesca, no caso de tais
Acordos dizerem respeito a produtos fabricados nessas Regiões, nomeadamente, através de avaliações de impacto e
de cláusulas de salvaguarda;

O Parlamento Europeu, na sua resolução sobre o papel da política de coesão nas Regiões Ultraperiféricas da União
Europeia no contexto da UE2020, de 29 de março de 2012, « _insiste na necessidade de realizar estudos para medir o impacto_
_dos acordos internacionais em matéria comercial e em matéria de pescas e respetivos efeitos nas RUP e produções locais, criando_
_assim medidas compensatórias que permitam compensar todos os prejuízos daí decorrentes»_ ;

Nomeadamente no âmbito das negociações bilaterais de acordos comerciais entre a União Europeia e o Mercosul, se
discute a liberalização do comércio de produtos do setor pecuário, como o setor bovino, para além do setor agrícola,
que poderá também ter impacto nas pequenas e dependentes economias das Regiões Ultraperiféricas.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Como serão as Regiões Ultraperiféricas devidamente tidas em conta no Acordo de Associação entre a União
Europeia e o Mercosul?

2. Serão efetuadas avaliações de impacto para medir os efeitos das referidas negociações no mercado europeu de
produtos agrícolas e de carne, no caso de tais Acordos dizerem também respeito a produtos fabricados nas
Regiões Ultraperiféricas?

**Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(31 de agosto de 2012)_

1. Tal como noutros acordos de comércio livre, a Comissão tenciona ter em conta a situação específica das regiões
ultraperiféricas na parte comercial do Acordo de Associação que está atualmente a negociar com o Mercosul. (Em
especial, a Comissão tenciona incluir uma cláusula específica no acordo que permita à UE adotar, excecionalmente,
medidas de salvaguarda limitadas ao território de uma região ultraperiférica, no caso de um aumento de produtos
importados provenientes do Mercosul causar, ou ameaçar causar, perturbações graves na situação económica da
região ultraperiférica da UE.)

2. Já foi realizada, e disponibilizada publicamente desde março de 2009, uma avaliação de impacto sustentável
pormenorizada relativa à proposta de Acordo de Associação UE-Mercosul ( [1] ). Além disso, a Comissão decidiu, em
2010, atualizar os estudos económicos sobre o impacto da referida proposta de acordo. Os resultados preliminares
desses estudos económicos atualizados foram apresentados à Comissão INTA do Parlamento Europeu em 21 de
junho de 2011, enquanto as versões finais desses estudos foram enviadas ao Parlamento em 15 de julho de 2011.
Também já estão publicamente disponíveis ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/analysis/sustainability-impact-assessments/assessments/).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/analysis/chief-economist/).

C 219 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006939/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Impact on the outermost regions of the EU‐Mercosur Association Agreement

In its communication on the outermost regions of 20 June 2012, the Commission considers that the outermost
regions should be duly taken into account in trade and fisheries agreements, where these concern products made in
these regions, particularly through the use of impact analyses and safety clauses.

In its resolution on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of EU
2020, of 29 March 2012, Parliament ‘highlights the need to carry out studies to measure the impact of international
trade and fisheries agreements and their effects on the ORs and their local production, while also establishing
compensatory measures to mitigate any damage resulting from such agreements’.

In the specific context of the bilateral negotiations for a trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur, the
liberalisation of trade in products from the livestock sector — for example, the cattle sector — as well as the
agricultural sector is under discussion. This could have repercussions for the small, dependent economies of the
outermost regions.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. How will the EU‐Mercosur Association Agreement take due account of the outermost regions?

2. Will impact assessments be carried out to measure the effects of these negotiations on the European market in
agricultural and meat products, where such agreements also cover products produced in the outermost
regions?

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

_(31 August 2012)_

1. Like in other free trade agreements, the Commission intends to take into account the specific situation of the
outermost regions in the trade part of the Association Agreement that it is currently negotiating with Mercosur. (In
particular it is the Commission's intention to include a specific clause in the agreement which would allow the EU to
exceptionally take safeguard measures limited to the territory of an outermost region, in the case that an increase in
imported products from Mercosur causes, or threatens to cause, serious disturbance in the economic situation of the
EU's outemost region.)

2. A detailed Sustainable Impact Assessment of the proposed EU‐Mercosur Association Agreement has already
been conducted and made publicly available since March 2009 ( [1] ). In addition the Commission decided in 2010 to
commission updated economic studies on the impact of this proposed agreement. The preliminary results of these
updated economic studies were presented to the INTA Committee of the Parliament on 21 June 2011 while the final
versions of these studies were sent to the Parliament on 15 July 2011. They are also now publicly available ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/trade/analysis/sustainability-impact-assessments/assessments/.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/trade/analysis/chief-economist/.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 79

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006940/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Acontecimentos recentes no Paraguai e efeitos nas relações com a União Europeia

Considerando que:

Na sequência dos recentes acontecimentos na República do Paraguai, a União das Nações Sul-Americanas (Unasul)
suspendeu a participação deste Membro nas instâncias da União e dos mecanismos de diálogo e de concertação
política da região, após ter condenado a rutura da ordem democrática naquele Estado;

A Assembleia Parlamentar Euro-latino-americana expressou também a sua preocupação pela destituição do
Presidente Fernando Lugo, exortando o Estado do Paraguai a rever o sucedido, para que exista um maior respeito pela
democracia e pela investidura do Presidente;

O Mercado Comum do Sul suspendeu a República do Paraguai, condenando a rutura da ordem democrática neste
Estado, ao considerar que a plena vigência das instituições democráticas é condição necessária para o processo de
integração desta Organização.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. De que forma pode tal suspensão da República do Paraguai do Mercosul afetar o estado das negociações entre a
União Europeia e o Mercosul quanto ao Acordo de Associação?

2. Como vê as relações com a União Europeia no seio da Assembleia Parlamentar Euro-latino-americana, tendo
em consideração este novo conjunto de acontecimentos?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006959/12**

**à Comissão**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Situação das relações comerciais UE-Paraguai

Nos passados dias 28 e 29 de junho, na Cimeira dos Chefes de Estado do Mercosul, que decorreu na Argentina, foi
decidida a suspensão do Paraguai deste órgão regional até abril de 2013. Esta decisão foi tomada tendo por base a
opinião dos chefes de Estado dos países do Mercosul, que consideraram não existir neste momento no Paraguai um
processo democrático, uma vez que a ordem democrática e constitucional foi objetivamente posta em causa na
sequência do golpe de Estado que depôs o Presidente democraticamente eleito, Fernando Lugo.

Sendo que, neste momento, estão em curso negociações entre a UE e o Mercosul para a possibilidade de
estabelecimento de um Acordo Comercial de Associação, pergunto à Comissão o seguinte:

1. Não considera necessário condenar o golpe de estado, a violação dos direitos democráticos do povo paraguaio
e a ordem constitucional no país?

2. Como pretende abordar este assunto no âmbito das negociações?

**Resposta conjunta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de agosto de 2012)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente, passadas algumas horas sobre os acontecimentos, manifestou preocupação
pelo sucedido no Paraguai e pela celeridade do processo de impugnação de Fernando Lugo. Sublinhou igualmente que
era essencial respeitar a vontade democrática do povo paraguaio. A UE mantém uma visão crítica sobre a situação no
Paraguai, seguindo o consenso geral na região para evitar qualquer medida que possa ter um impacto negativo na vida
do povo paraguaio.

C 219 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

A UE está empenhada em concluir um Acordo de Associação com o Mercosul e continuará a trabalhar nesse sentido.
Cabe ao Mercosul decidir a forma como se organiza internamente para prosseguir as negociações com a UE. A UE e a
atual presidência brasileira estão a discutir a data da próxima ronda de negociações que poderá ter lugar no outono de
2012.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 81

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006940/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Recent events in Paraguay and their impact on EU‐Paraguay relations

Following recent events in Paraguay, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) suspended Paraguay’s
participation in the group and in the region’s political convergence and dialogue mechanisms, after condemning the
rupture of democratic order in the country.

The EuroLat Parliamentary Assembly also expressed its concern at the removal of President Fernando Lugo and urged
Paraguay to reconsider its action, to ensure greater respect for democracy and the role of the President.

Mercosur has also suspended Paraguay’s membership and condemned the rupture of democratic order there, since it
considers that full respect for democratic institutions is a necessary condition for membership of the organisation.

Can the Commission say:

1. How is the suspension of Paraguay from Mercosur likely to affect the state of EU‐Mercosur negotiations
towards the association agreement?

2. How does it view relations between the EuroLat Parliamentary Assembly and the EU in light of these latest
events?

**Question for written answer E-006959/12**

**to the Commission**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ State of EU‐Paraguay trade relations

It was decided at the summit of Mercosur Heads of State, held on 28 and 29 June 2012 in Argentina, to suspend
Paraguay’s membership of the group until April 2013. This decision was based on the opinion of the Heads of State of
the Mercosur countries, who considered that the democratic process in Paraguay has been interrupted and the
democratic and constitutional order endangered as a result of the coup which ousted the democratically elected
president, Fernando Lugo.

In view of the negotiations currently underway between the EU and Mercosur towards establishing a commercial
association agreement, could the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it not see a need to condemn the coup and the violation of the Paraguayan people’s democratic rights and
the country’s constitutional order?

2. How does it intend to address this matter in the context of the negotiations?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The HR/VP expressed concern about events in Paraguay and about the speed of Fernando Lugo’s impeachment
process a few hours after the events. She also underlined that respecting the democratic will of the Paraguayan people
was paramount. The EU keeps a critical eye on the situation in Paraguay and follows the general consensus in the
region to avoid any measure that could have a negative impact on the livelihood of the Paraguayan people.

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 to continue negotiations with the EU. The EU and the
current Brazilian Presidency of Mercosur are discussing a date for the next round of negotiations, likely to be held in
autumn 2012.

C 219 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-006941/12**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Esther Herranz García (PPE)**

_(12 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Ejecución de mujer Afganistán

La pasada semana fue acribillada una mujer afgana frente a una multitud en la provincia afgana de Parwan, al norte de
Kabul, acusada de adulterio. Este es un acto brutal e inhumano ejecutado por los talibán que intentan gobernar a
través del terrorismo y en el que lamentablemente la mujer su encuentra en una situación de vulnerabilidad absoluta.

1. ¿Se ha pronunciado la Comisión a través de la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante de Política Exterior y Política
de Seguridad, Sra. Catherine Asthon, sobre este acto indignante?

2. ¿Piensa la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante condenar y sancionar estos actos y de qué manera?

3. ¿Qué acciones piensa tomar la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante en el caso de que se sigan violando los
derechos humanos por el régimen afgano?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(13 de agosto de 2012)_

El Representante Especial de la Unión Europea y Jefe de la Delegación en Afganistán ha condenado este acto y la
deplorable y continuada violencia contra las mujeres en una declaración de 10 de julio de 2012. El incidente a que se
hace referencia es, lamentablemente, sólo uno de muchos y no todos son comunicados. El Gobierno afgano, la
Comisión Independiente de Derechos Humanos de Afganistán y los medios de comunicación afganos han condenado
igualmente la ejecución. El Presidente Karzai ha ordenado una investigación y la detención de los presuntos
implicados.

En la Conferencia de Tokio de 8 de julio de 2012, el Gobierno de Afganistán reafirmó su compromiso de defender los
derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales de sus ciudadanos, en particular la igualdad entre hombres y
mujeres según lo garantizado por la Constitución y las obligaciones internacionales de Afganistán en materia de
derechos humanos.

La UE ha reiterado su posición en las Conclusiones del Consejo ( [1] ), y seguirá promoviendo un mayor respeto de los
derechos humanos al tiempo que aborda la cuestión directamente con el Gobierno de Afganistán, según proceda. La
Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta ha planteado la cuestión a las autoridades afganas en las conferencias de Kabul y
Bonn, y más recientemente en una reunión con el Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores en abril de 2012.

La Comisión facilita asistencia al Gobierno afgano y a la sociedad civil para luchar contra la violencia contra las
mujeres, abordar la cuestión de los matrimonios precoces o forzados y proporcionar refugio seguro para los
necesitados. Los programas de ayuda de la UE siguen centrándose en la gobernanza, incluida la reforma del sector de
la justicia y sus instituciones. La UE ha destinado más de 31 millones de euros en proyectos de ayuda directa a las
mujeres, contemplando más ampliamente su marginación social, cultural y económica e incluyendo servicios sociales
para los más vulnerables, tales como asesoramiento, justicia gratuita y mediación para las mujeres en conflicto con las
tradiciones.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Por última vez, el 14 de mayo de 2012.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 83

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-006941/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Esther Herranz García (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Execution of a woman in Afghanistan

Last week a woman accused of adultery was shot to death in front of a crowd in Parwan province, to the north of
Kabul. This is a brutal and inhumane act carried out by the Taliban as part of their efforts to rule through terrorism, a
situation in which women are unfortunately left totally defenceless.

1. Has the Commission issued a statement on this outrageous act via the Vice-President/High Representative of the
Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to condemn this act and apply penalties? If so, in what way?

3. What action does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to take if the Afghan regime continues
violating human rights?

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

_(13 August 2012)_

The EU Special Representative/Head of Delegation in Afghanistan has condemned this act and the deplorable and
continued violence against women in a statement on 10 July 2012. The incident referred to is, regrettably, only one of
many and not all are reported. The Afghan Government, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and
Afghan media have equally condemned the execution. President Karzai has ordered an investigation and the arrest of
those believed to be involved.

The Government of Afghanistan has, at the Tokyo Conference on 8 July 2012, reaffirmed its commitment to uphold
the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens, in particular the equality of men and women as
guaranteed under the Constitution and Afghanistan's international human rights obligations.

The EU has reiterated its position in Council conclusions ( [1] ) and will continue to champion greater respect for human
rights while raising the issue directly with the Government of Afghanistan as appropriate. The HR/VP raised the
issue with the Afghan authorities at both the Kabul and Bonn Conferences, most recently in a meeting with the
Foreign Minister in April 2012.

The Commission provides assistance to the Afghan Government and civil society to fight violence against women,
address the issue of early and forced marriages and provide safe shelter for those in need. EU assistance programmes
continue to focus on governance, including reform of the justice sector and its institutions. The EU has spent more
than EUR 31 million on projects in direct support of women addressing more broadly their social, cultural and
economic marginalisation, including social services to the most vulnerable such as counselling, legal aid and
mediation for women in conflict with traditions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Most recently on 14 May 2012.

C 219 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-006942/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Sabine Verheyen (PPE)**

_(12. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ ITU — „Überarbeitung der International Telecommunication Regulations“

Die Mitgliedstaaten der Internationalen Fernmeldeunion (ITU) erwägen, ob und in welchem Maße sie ihren
Wirkungsbereich auf Internetfragen ausdehnen sollten, indem sie ihre Basisbestimmungen, die 1988 verabschiedeten
„International Telecommunication Regulations“ (ITRs), abändern.

Dabei wachsen die Besorgnisse über die von einigen Ländern unterbreiteten Vorschläge, die sich nicht nur negativ auf
das Internet und seine Grundlagen wie Architektur, Betrieb, Inhalte, Sicherheit, Geschäftsbeziehungen und
Governance auswirken werden, sondern in einigen Fällen sogar auf den freien Online-Informationsfluss. Die größte
Bedrohung aber stellt die Überarbeitung der Begriffsbestimmungen dar, die der ITU generell die Befugnis zur
Regulierung des Internets verschaffen würde.

Vor diesem Hintergrund stellen sich folgende Fragen:

1. Kann die Kommission Informationen über den Sachstand bezüglich Vorbereitung und Koordinierung der
ITRs-Überarbeitung vorlegen?

2. Kann die Kommission den Standpunkt der EU zur Überarbeitung der ITRs erläutern und mitteilen, ob die EU
diesbezüglich mit einer Stimme spricht?

3. Ist die EU auf hoher Ebene vertreten, auch bei den vorbereitenden Sitzungen?

4. Teilt die Kommission meine Auffassung, wonach die ITU nicht das zuständige Gremium zur Regulierung des
Internet darstellt, weil dadurch der jetzige, die Vielzahl aller Stakeholder umfassende Ansatz verloren gehen
würde?

5. Kann die Kommission erklären, ob gewisse spezifische Bestimmungen, wenn sie angenommen würden,
Vorrang vor bereits bestehenden EU-Rechtsvorschriften hätten?

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

_(16. August 2012)_

Die letzten Vorbereitungssitzungen der für die Internationalen Telekommunikationsvorschriften (ITR) zuständigen
Arbeitsgruppe der Internationalen Fernmeldeunion (ITU) wurden im Juni 2012 abgeschlossen. Das Sekretariat der
ITU hat ein Verzeichnis der bislang von ITU‐Mitgliedern eingereichten Vorschläge zusammengestellt, die auf der
Weltkonferenz zur internationalen Telekommunikation (WCIT) vom 3. bis 14. Dezember 2012 in Dubai im Hinblick
auf eine Überarbeitung der ITR erörtert werden sollen.

Die EU-Mitgliedstaaten und die Kommission haben sich aktiv an den Vorbereitungen beteiligt, sowohl in der
zuständigen ITU-Arbeitsgruppe als auch im einschlägigen regionalen ITU-Forum (der Europäischen Konferenz der
Verwaltungen für Post und Telekommunikation, CEPT). Die Kommission nimmt an der ITU als Sektorenmitglied teil
und hat beratende Funktion im CEPT.

Gemäß Artikel 218 Absatz 9 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union erlässt der Rat auf Vorschlag
der Kommission einen Beschluss zur Festlegung der Standpunkte, die im Namen der Union bei der WCIT in Bezug auf
Fragen zu vertreten sind, die dem EU-Recht unterliegen. Die Kommission erarbeitet derzeit einen solchen Vorschlag.

Nach Ansicht der Kommission ist es wichtig, dafür zu sorgen, dass die Bestimmungen in den überarbeiteten ITR
weder gegen geltendes EU-Recht verstoßen noch die EU hinsichtlich künftiger politischer Entwicklungen
einschränken.

Die Kommission hätte auch Bedenken gegenüber Vorschlägen, wonach das WCIT-Verfahren genutzt werden soll, um
Elemente der Internetverwaltung einzubeziehen.

Die Kommission wird in Dubai auf der Ebene eines Stellvertretenden Generaldirektors vertreten sein.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 85

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-006942/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sabine Verheyen (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ ITU — Revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations

Member States of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are considering whether and to what extent it
should expand its jurisdiction to Internet matters by amending its underlying treaty, the International
Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) adopted in 1988.

Concerns are growing over proposals, presented by various countries, that will have an impact on the Internet, its
architecture, operations, content, security, business relations and governance, and, in some cases, on the free flow of
information online. The biggest threats, however, are the changes proposed to the definitions section that would in
large measure give the ITU power to regulate the Internet.

Against this background:

1. Can the Commission provide information on the status of the preparations for and coordination of the ITRs
revision?

2. Can the Commission explain the EU’s position on the ITRs revision, and can it state whether the EU is speaking
with one voice?

3. Is the EU represented at a high level, including during the preparatory meetings?

4. Does the Commission share my view that the ITU is not the right place to regulate the Internet, as the current
multi-stakeholder approach would disappear?

5. Can the Commission explain whether any specific provisions adopted would prevail over EU legislation already
in place?

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

_(16 August 2012)_

The final preparatory meetings of the designated International Telecommunication Union (ITU) working group on
the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) were completed in June 2012. A list of proposals received
to date from ITU members has been compiled by the ITU secretariat and these will now be discussed at the World
Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai from 3 to 14 December 2012 with a view to
updating the ITRs.

The EU Member States and the Commission have been actively involved in the preparatory process, both in the
relevant ITU working group and in the relevant regional ITU forum — the European Conference of European Postal
and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). The Commission participates in the ITU as a sector member and in
CEPT as a counsellor.

Article 218(9) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union requires that the Council shall adopt, on a
proposal from the Commission, a decision establishing the positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in the WCIT
in relation to issues which are subject to the EU _acquis._ The Commission is currently in the process of formulating
such a proposal.

The Commission considers that it is important to ensure that provisions in the revised ITRs do not conflict with EU
legislation already in place, nor restrict the EU in respect of future policy developments.

The Commission would also be concerned by any proposals seeking to utilise the WCIT process to incorporate
elements of Internet governance.

The Commission will be represented in Dubai at the level of Deputy Director General.

C 219 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-006943/12**

**to the Commission**

**Struan Stevenson (ECR)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Improper legislating and unforeseen consequences

In the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety of offshore oil and gas
prospection, exploration and production activities, the Commission has inserted an amendment to
Directive 2004/35/EC, also known as the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD).

The amendment concerns Article 37 of the proposal for a regulation which is specifically aimed at the oil and gas
industry. However, the ELD covers all operators, including the fishing industry, who work in the maritime sector and
indeed others who have an interest in certain maritime affairs, such as the insurance industry.

On page 39 of the Commission’s impact assessment which accompanies the proposal for a regulation, it states that
‘Concern is also expressed that extending ELD could create uncertainty and duplication of liability and inadvertent
capture of other sectors (shipping)’. However, the Commission has not adequately elaborated how other relevant
sectors may be affected or how the Commission has ensured that they will not be affected. Furthermore, only the
shipping industry is specifically mentioned when there are many other actors involved in offshore activities who may
be affected by an extended ELD.

Strengthening legislation to enhance safety in the oil and gas industry is laudable, but the Commission must ensure
that all other relevant sectors are made aware of the proposed changes in order to avoid unforeseen, negative,

consequences.

1. Should the regulation be used to amend Directive 2004/35/EC, as it would seem to be more competent and
probably more appropriate to directly amend the directive?

2. Will extending the geographical scope of the directive affect other industry sectors that have no direct interest in
the proposed Regulation which is aimed specifically at the oil and gas industry?

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

_(8 August 2012)_

The inclusion of an amendment to the Environmental Liability Directive ( [1] ) (ELD) within the proposal on safety of
offshore oil and gas prospection, exploration and production activities ( [2] ) will ensure an integrated, efficient and quick
response to the identified legal gap regarding damage to marine waters within the present scope of the ELD. Whether
a stand alone initiative or incorporation into the regulation, it does not change the fact that the Environmental
Liability Directive is subjected to an ordinary legal amendment including the setting of a transposition period.

Extending the geographical scope of the ELD as regards water damage is necessary to ensure equal treatment with
other categories of environmental damage, as well as between similar activities on land and at sea (e.g. protected
species and natural habitats). Other industry activities (e.g. disposal of waste at sea or maritime pollution from land
based sources) may also be covered, but only insofar as all requirements to trigger the application of the ELD are
fulfilled. Ship source pollution covered by the International Conventions pursuant to Article 4(2) in conjunction with
Annex IV of the ELD will remain exempt from the application of the ELD through the current amendment.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/35/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and

remedying of environmental damage, OJ L 143, 30.4.2004.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 688 final.

( **|**

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 87

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-006945/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(12 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Normativa retroactiva en el sector fotovoltaico español en comparación con la normativa griega

Como ya es conocido por la Comisión Europea, el Estado español ha tomado medidas retroactivas en contra de los
intereses de los productores fotovoltaicos (RDL 14/2010 y RD 1565/2010), todo ello, con la supuesta intención de la
reducción del déficit de tarifa y de la situación de crisis económica del país.

Sin embargo, el Estado griego, en una situación si cabe más grave que la del Estado español, lejos de aplicar medidas
retroactivas en contra de la seguridad jurídica de las inversiones en el sector, no ha modificado retrospectivamente las
condiciones de las instalaciones fotovoltaicas promovidas a instancias de su país.

La circunstancia puede ser agravada aún más si, como se presume, el Gobierno de España introduce nuevas medidas
de recorte por vía de la fiscalidad, a los productores fotovoltaicos, sin realizar ninguna de las distinciones que la
Comisión Europea reclama de forma constante, al respecto de diferenciar la fiscalidad de las energías limpias de las
convencionales.

1. ¿Qué opina la Comisión sobre el agravio comparativo de la fotovoltaica española con el caso griego?

2. ¿No cree la Comisión que esta circunstancia provoca un importantísimo agravio comparativo entre los
ciudadanos miembros de la Comunidad Europea que debiera de ser impedido?

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

_(23 de agosto de 2012)_

Aunque España y Grecia tienen diferentes regímenes de apoyo a la energía procedente de fuentes renovables, la
Comisión considera necesarias en ambos países medidas urgentes para reducir el gasto público, lo que incluye
contener el llamado «déficit tarifario». Dicho esto, los Estados miembros deberían evitar las medidas retroactivas y los
planteamientos arrítmicos que afectan negativamente al clima de inversión para los proyectos de energía de fuentes
renovables.

La Comisión considera necesarias nuevas medidas para garantizar la coherencia de los regímenes de ayuda de los
Estados miembros a fin de eliminar las distorsiones y fomentar de manera rentable los recursos energéticos
renovables, haciendo así que los regímenes de ayuda sean menos vulnerables a los cambios de política. Para ello,
como se anuncia en la Comunicación «Energías renovables: principales protagonistas en el mercado europeo de la
energía» ( [1] ), la Comisión tiene la intención de elaborar orientaciones sobre las mejores prácticas y la experiencia
adquirida en estos asuntos y, en caso necesario, sobre la reforma del régimen de ayudas, a fin de garantizar una mayor
coherencia de los planteamientos nacionales y prevenir la fragmentación del mercado interior.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 271 final, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/communication_2012_es.htm

C 219 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006945/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Retroactive legislation applied to the Spanish photovoltaic sector: comparison with the Greek situation

As the Commission is already aware, Spain has applied retroactive measures harmful to the interests of solar energy
producers (laws RDL 14/2010 and RD 1565/2010), with the declared intention of reducing the tariff deficit amid the
current situation of economic crisis.

Greece, however, which is in a possibly even worse situation than Spain, far from applying retroactive measures
undermining the legal certainty of investments in this sector, has made no retroactive changes to the conditions
applied to solar energy installations set up at the instance of the State.

The situation is likely to worsen if the Spanish Government sticks to its intention of applying further cuts to solar
energy producers by fiscal means, without making any of the distinctions repeatedly demanded by the Commission
with regard to differentiating between clean energies and conventional ones.

1. How does the Commission assess the comparative disadvantage suffered by the Spanish solar energy sector as
compared with the case of Greece?

2. Does the Commission not think that this situation creates an extremely serious comparative disadvantage
between EU citizens, which should be prevented?

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

_(23 August 2012)_

While Spain and Greece have different support schemes for renewable energy, the Commission believes that in both
countries urgent steps are needed to reduce government expenditure, including curbing the so-called ‘tariff deficit’.
This being said, Member States should avoid retroactive measures and stop-start approaches that affect negatively the
investment climate for renewable energy projects.

The Commission believes that more action is needed to ensure consistency of support schemes across Member States
in order to remove distortions and develop renewable energy resources in a cost effective way, thus making the
support schemes less vulnerable to policy changes. To encourage this, as announced in the communication
‘Renewable Energy: a major player in the European energy market’ ( [1] ), the Commission plans to prepare guidance on
best practice and experience gained in these matters and, if needed, on support scheme reform, to help ensure greater
consistency in national approaches and avoid fragmentation of the internal market.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 271 final, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/communication_2012_en.htm

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 89

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-006946/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D) y Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D)**

_(12 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Prácticas anticompetitivas en el mercado del carbón

En una pregunta de junio de 2011, Sánchez Presedo inquirió a Comisión por las prácticas anticompetitivas en el
sector de las materias primas en que algunas empresas multinacionales podrían estar incurriendo al acumular
aluminio en sus depósitos obstaculizando su puesta en circulación a fin de mantener los precios elevados de manera
artificial. En su respuesta de 5 de septiembre de 2011, el Vicepresidente Almunia indicaba que «desde el punto de vista
del Derecho de Competencia europeo, los acuerdos y las prácticas concertadas relacionados con estrategias para
retener aluminio llevadas a cabo por una serie de operadores financieros podría plantear problemas de competencia al
amparo del artículo 101 del TFUE si restringen de forma apreciable la competencia».

En esta ocasión, informaciones aparecidas recientemente en distintos medios de comunicación señalan como la
misma entidad estaría llevando a cabo prácticas similares en el mercado del carbón. En concreto, según estas
informaciones se estarían almacenando centenares de miles de toneladas de carbón colombiano en el puerto
asturiano de El Musel (Gijón, España) para venderlo en el mercado de futuros por motivos meramente especulativos
alejados de la economía real.

— ¿Tiene la Comisión alguna información al respecto?

— ¿Pueden constituir estas prácticas una violación del Derecho comunitario?

— Y si es así, ¿qué medidas va a tomar para corregir esta situación?

**Respuesta del Señor Almunia en nombre de la Comisión**

_(12 de septiembre de 2012)_

La Comisión no tiene información alguna sobre los hechos concretos a los que se refiere la pregunta de Su Señoría, ni
tampoco ha recibido ninguna queja de operadores del mercado sobre prácticas anticompetitivas en relación con este

asunto.

En principio, la estrategia de retención por la que un operador del mercado incrementa de manera artificial los precios
del mercado podría, en determinadas circunstancias, constituir un incumplimiento del Derecho de competencia
(artículo 102 del TFUE). Puesto que no hay sospecha de ningún acuerdo contrario a la competencia que nos lleve a la
actuación en cuestión, el artículo 101 del TFUE no sería aplicable. Para que el artículo 102 del TFUE (abuso de
posición dominante) fuese de aplicación, la empresa implicada en una estrategia de retención tendría que ser un
operador en el mercado de referencia. Además, dado que las materias primas, como el carbón, se venden
normalmente a escala mundial, la cantidad de carbón que debería retirarse para influir en el precio mundial tendría
que ser significativa.

Cabe señalar que cualquier procedimiento seguido en virtud del artículo 102 del TFUE haría recaer en la Comisión la
carga de la prueba, dado que sería necesario demostrar una desviación de la conducta habitual del mercado, como por
ejemplo, la compra, el almacenamiento y la comercialización de carbón. También habría que estudiar si la
información pública acerca de una presunta estrategia de retención no contrarrestaría algún posible efecto en el
precio, en particular en el mercado de futuros, debido a la expectación del mercado sobre un incremento futuro del
suministro.

La Comisión observará cuidadosamente el desarrollo del mercado y no dudará en iniciar una investigación si fuese
necesario.

C 219 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006946/12**

**to the Commission**
**Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D) and Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Anti-competitive practices in the aluminium market

In a written question addressed to the Commission from June de 2011, Mr Sánchez Presedo referred to allegations of
anti-competitive practices on the part of certain multinationals that were said to be accumulating aluminium in their
warehouses, thereby obstructing its circulation in order to keep prices artificially high. In his response of
5 September 2011, Vice-President Almunia stated that ‘[f]rom the viewpoint of European competition law,
agreements or concerted practices relating to strategies to keep aluminium production off the market by a number of
financial operators could raise competition concerns under Article 101 TFEU if they appreciably restrict competition’.

Now, recent reports in various media outlets indicate that the same company is engaging in similar practices in the
coal market. More specifically, according to these sources, it is storing thousands of tonnes of Colombian coal at the
Asturian port of El Musel (Gijón, Spain) with a view to selling it on the futures market for purely speculative reasons
that are completely divorced from the real economy.

— Does the Commission have any information on this?

— Could these practices be in breach of EC law?

— If, so, what action will it take to remedy this state of affairs?

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

_(12 September 2012)_

The Commission does not have information on the particular facts referred to by the Honourable Members' question,
nor has it received any complaints from market participants as regards anti-competitive conduct in relation to this

matter.

In principle, a withholding strategy by which a market player artificially increases market prices might, under specific
circumstances, constitute an infringement of competition law (Article 102 TFEU). Since there is, according to the
facts referred to by the Honourable Members, no suspicion of anti-competitive agreements leading to the behaviour
in question, Article 101 TFEU would not be applicable. In order for Article 102 TFEU (abuse of a dominant position)
to apply, the company engaging in a withholding strategy would have to be a dominant market player on the relevant
market. Since commodities such as coal are normally traded on a worldwide basis, the amount of coal that would
have to be withdrawn in order to appreciably influence world prices would, moreover, have to be significant.

It is worth noting that any procedure pursuant to Article 102 TFEU would require the Commission to discharge a
high burden of proof, since it would be necessary to show a departure from normal market behaviour which may
consist of buying, storing and trading coal. It would also need to be considered whether public information about an
alleged withholding strategy would not counteract any possible effect on price, particularly on futures markets, due to
the market's expectation of a future increase in supply.

The Commission will carefully observe market developments and will not hesitate to open an investigation if

necessary.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 91

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006947/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(12. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Mögliche Beihilfen für und durch den Flughafen Berlin-Brandenburg BER

Die Verzögerung der Eröffnung des Berlin-Brandenburger Flughafens BER ist für die beteiligten Akteure
Bundesrepublik Deutschland, die Bundesländer Berlin und Brandenburg sowie die betreibende Flughafen Berlin
Brandenburg GmbH eine hohe finanzielle Belastung. In diesem Rahmen ist zu klären, inwieweit die staatlichen
Akteure weitere Finanzmittel zum Flughafen BER beisteuern dürfen, und ob dies mit EU‐Recht vereinbar ist. Zudem
sollte geprüft werden, inwieweit die Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH Langstreckenflüge von Berlin aus fördern
darf.

1. Ist der Kommission das Berliner Förderprogramm zum Aufbau von Langstreckenverbindungen ( [1] ) bekannt?

2. Hält die Kommission das oben genannte Förderprogramm an einem großen Flughafen der Kategorie A für
vereinbar mit dem geltenden EU-Recht? Wenn ja, warum, wenn nein, was wird die Kommission in dieser
Angelegenheit unternehmen?

3. Wie bewertet die Kommission die geplanten Flughafengebühren bzw. wie ist der Stand des diesbezüglichen
Verfahrens?

4. Wie hoch sind die Benutzungsgebühren für den BER, wie hoch waren sie bisher in Schönefeld und Tegel,
werden sie für alle Airlines gleich hoch sein, und wie wirken sich die Förderprogramme auf die Benutzungsgebühren
für die Fluggesellschaften am BER aus?

5. Wie bewertet die Kommission eine zusätzliche finanzielle Unterstützung durch den Bund, das Bundesland
Berlin und/oder das Bundesland Brandenburg für den im Bau befindlichen Großflughafen Berlin-Brandenburg BER,
sollten die Finanzmittel durch die Verzögerung der Fertigstellung des BER aufgebraucht sein?

6. Hält die Kommission diese zusätzlichen Gelder für eine Beihilfe, die genehmigungspflichtig ist? Wenn ja,
warum, wenn nein, warum nicht?

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

_(14. August 2012)_

1. und 2. Der Kommission ist das Programm, auf das der Herr Abgeordnete hinweist, nicht bekannt. Dieses
Programm war weder Gegenstand einer Beschwerde noch einer Untersuchung der Kommission. Das Bestehen eines
solchen Programms scheint in jedem Fall Teil der normalen Ausübung des Flughafenbetriebs zu sein.

3. und 4. Weder die geplanten Flughafenentgelte am neuen Flughafen Berlin-Brandenburg noch die derzeitigen
Entgelte an den Flughäfen Schönefeld oder Tegel sind der Kommission bekannt. Flughäfen sind nicht verpflichtet, die
Kommission über ihre Entgelte zu unterrichten.

5. und 6. Mit ihrem Beschluss NN25/2009 vom 13.5.2009 ( [2] ) hat die Kommission staatliche Beihilfemaßnahmen
für den Flughafen Berlin-Brandenburg genehmigt. Die EU-Mitgliedstaaten müssen alle geplanten neuen
Beihilfemaßnahmen oder Änderungen bestehender Beihilfen zwar so rechtzeitig bei der Kommission anmelden, dass
sie sich dazu äußern kann (Artikel 108 Absatz 3 AEUV), der Zeitpunkt der Meldung liegt jedoch ganz allein bei den
Mitgliedstaaten. Bisher ist bei der Kommission keine weitere Anmeldung bezüglich des Flughafens BerlinBrandenburg eingegangen. In jedem Fall wird jede Anmeldung einzeln geprüft.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.berlin-airport.de/DE/GeschaeftskundenUndPartner/Entgelte/Download/2010-Langstreckenfoerderung_Berliner_Flughaefen.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ABl. C 179 vom 1.8.2009, S. 5.

C 219 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006947/12**

**to the Commission**
**Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Possible payment of subsidies to, and by, Berlin-Brandenburg airport (BER)

The delay in opening Berlin-Brandenburg airport (BER) is proving very costly for the stakeholders, namely the
German Federal Government, the _Land_ governments of Berlin and Brandenburg and the operating company
Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH. In this context it needs to be clarified to what extent the public-sector
stakeholders are permitted to provide further financial support for Berlin-Brandenburg airport, and whether this is
compatible with EC law. It also needs to be considered to what extent Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH is
permitted to promote long-haul flights from Berlin.

1. Is the Commission aware of Berlin’s support programme seeking to increase the number of long-haul
connections? ( [1] )

2. Does the Commission regard the abovementioned programme of aid to a major (Category A) airport as
compatible with EC law? If so, why, and if not, what action will the Commission take?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the proposed airport charges? What stage has been reached in the
proceedings on this matter?

4. What are the user charges for Berlin-Brandenburg, what have they hitherto been at [Berlin’s other airports]
Schönefeld and Tegel, will they be the same for all airlines, and what impact will the aid programmes have on user
charges for airlines at Berlin-Brandenburg?

5. What is the Commission’s view of extra financial support being provided by the Federal Government, the _Land_
government of Berlin and/or the _Land_ government of Brandenburg for the major Berlin-Brandenburg airport
currently under construction, in the event that funding runs out as a result of delays in the airport’s completion?

6. Does the Commission regard such additional funding as aid requiring authorisation? If so, why? If not, why not?

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

_(14 August 2012)_

1 and 2. The Commission is not aware of the programme mentioned by the Honourable Member. This programme
has not been the subject of a complaint nor of a Commission investigation. In any event, the existence of such a
programme appears to be part of the normal conduct of airport business.

3 and 4. The Commission is not aware of the proposed airport charges at the new Berlin-Brandenburg airport, nor of
the current charges at the existing airports Schönefeld or Tegel. Airports are not obliged to notify their charges to the
Commission.

5 and 6. With its decision NN25/2009 of 13.5.2009 ( [2] ) the Commission approved state aid measures in favour of
Berlin-Brandenburg airport. While EU Member States must notify any envisaged new aid measures or changes to
existing aid measures to the Commission in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments (cf. Art. 108(3) TFEU),
the timing of the notification is entirely up to the Member State. So far, the Commission has not received any further
notification from the German authorities with regard to Berlin‐ Brandenburg airport. In any event, each notification
will be assessed on its own merits.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.berlin-airport.de/DE/GeschaeftskundenUndPartner/Entgelte/Download/2010-Langstreckenfoerderung_Berliner_Flughaefen.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ C 179, 1.8.2009, p. 5.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 93

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-006948/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Κίνδυνος ακραίας φτώχειας για ένα μεγάλο μέρος του ελληνικού πληθυσμού

Σύμφωνα με τα πρόσφατα δημοσιοποιημένα στοιχεία της Τριμηνιαίας Έκθεσης της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής για την Κοινωνική
Κατάσταση στην Ευρώπη για το Α' Τρίμηνο του 2012, το 68 % των Ελλήνων πολιτών διαβιεί κάτω από το όριο της φτώχειας,
ενώ διαθέτει πάνω από το 40 % του εισοδήματός του για ενοίκιο ή αποπληρωμή στεγαστικού δανείου. Ταυτόχρονα, ιδιαίτερα
σημαντική είναι η αύξηση του ποσοστού των αστέγων που πολλαπλασιάζονται καθημερινά. Η σοβαρή επιδείνωση της
κοινωνικής κατάστασης στην Ελλάδα θρυμματίζει τον κοινωνικό ιστό δημιουργώντας έντονο τον κίνδυνο εξαθλίωσης για μια
μεγάλη μερίδα του ελληνικού πληθυσμού. Η παρατεταμένη ύφεση, η ολοένα αυξανόμενη ανεργία και μακροχρόνια ανεργία,
η σημαντική και συνεχιζόμενη μείωση των μισθών στο Δημόσιο και Ιδιωτικό Τομέα σε συνδυασμό με την αδυναμία
αποκλιμάκωσης των τιμών σε βασικά αγαθά και υπηρεσίες, την επιβολή φόρων και την αποδυνάμωση του κοινωνικού
κράτους αποτελούν βασικά αίτια για την ραγδαία επιδείνωση του βιοτικού επιπέδου των Ελλήνων πολιτών.

Με δεδομένη τη συμμετοχή της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής στην «Τρόικα», αλλά και τους διακηρυγμένους στόχους της
Στρατηγικής «Ευρώπη 2020» για τη μείωση του πληθυσμού που βρίσκεται σε κίνδυνο φτώχειας ή κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού
κατά 20 εκατ. στην ΕΕ και κατά 450 000 στην Ελλάδα, ερωτάται:

1. Επεξεργάζεται κάποιες εναλλακτικές προτάσεις για την αναθεώρηση των μέτρων του Προγράμματος Δημοσιονομικής
Εξυγίανσης της Ελλάδος, ώστε να ενισχυθούν οι δομές κοινωνικής προστασίας-πρόνοιας και να ελαφρυνθούν οι
εισοδηματικά ασθενέστερες κοινωνικές τάξεις που αντιμετωπίζουν έντονο κίνδυνο ακόμη και για ακραία φτώχεια;

2. Προτίθεται να προβεί σε συστάσεις προς τα κράτη μέλη για την αντιμετώπιση του φαινομένου της υπερχρέωσης των
νοικοκυριών; Ποιό θεωρεί ότι πρέπει να είναι το μέγιστο ποσοστό μηνιαίων τραπεζικών υποχρεώσεων επί του
εισοδήματός τους;

3. Διαθέτει στοιχεία για την ποσοστιαία αύξηση των αστέγων στα κράτη μέλη;

4. Υπάρχουν διαθέσιμα κονδύλια που μπορεί να χρησιμοποιήσει η Ελλάδα για την καταπολέμηση του φαινομένου των
αστέγων και σε τί ποσοστό κυμαίνεται η απορροφητικά της χώρας για τις εν λόγω δράσεις;

**Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(21 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

1. Οι πολιτικές κοινωνικής προστασίας και πρόνοιας αποτελούν αρμοδιότητες των κρατών μελών. Σύμφωνα με τη
στρατηγική «Ευρώπη 2020», η Επιτροπή εξετάζει τις πτυχές ανταγωνιστικότητας των πολιτικών αυτών καθώς και τη μείωση
της φτώχειας στο κράτος μέλος μέσω του Ευρωπαϊκού Εξαμήνου. Στην περίπτωση της Ελλάδας, το ΠΟΠ ( [1] ) συνεπάγεται
συμφωνία σχετικά με φορολογικό σύστημα μεσοπρόθεσμα μεταξύ των ελληνικών αρχών και του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού
Ταμείου και της Επιτροπής, εξ ονόματος των κρατών μελών της ζώνης του ευρώ. Η Επιτροπή τονίζει ότι τα μέτρα
δημοσιονομικής εξυγίανσης που έχουν ληφθεί τα τελευταία έτη άφησαν σε μεγάλο βαθμό άθικτες τις κοινωνικές παροχές
προς τα νοικοκυριά χαμηλών εισοδημάτων, πράγμα το οποίο δείχνει τη σημασία που δίδεται στη διατήρηση των κοινωνικών
διχτυών ασφαλείας.

2. Παρακαλούμε να λάβετε υπό σημείωση ότι εκδόθηκε στην Ελλάδα νόμος για την αφερεγγυότητα φυσικού
προσώπου ( [2] ), ο οποίος προτάθηκε στο πλαίσιο του ΠΟΠ. Ο νόμος ισχύει από τα μέσα του 2010 και προστατεύει τα
υπερχρεωμένα νοικοκυριά, π.χ. τα ακίνητα αξίας κάτω των 200 000 ευρώ δεν μπορούν να επανακτηθούν από τις τράπεζες
εφόσον αποτελούν τη μόνη περιουσία του οφειλέτη ( [3] ).

3. Η Επιτροπή επιθυμεί να αποσαφηνίσει ότι, σύμφωνα με την Eurostat, το 20,1 % των Ελλήνων ζούσε κάτω από το όριο
της φτώχειας στην Ελλάδα το 2010. Το κείμενο της τριμηνιαίας επισκόπησης θα πρέπει να διαβαστεί ως εξής: «το 68 % των
φτωχών στην Ελλάδα δαπανούν περισσότερο από 40 % του προϋπολογισμού τους για τη στέγαση» ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Πρόγραμμα Οικονομικής Προσαρμογής.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Νόμος 3869/2010, ΦΕΚ A — 130 της 3ης Αυγούστου 2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Η Επιτροπή εξέδωσε πρόταση οδηγίας σχετικά με τις συμβάσεις πίστωσης για ακίνητα κατοικίας, η οποία μεταξύ άλλων έχει ως στόχο να εξασφαλίσει ότι οι

πιστωτές δεν υπερεκτιμούν την ικανότητα αποπληρωμής των δανειοληπτών, απαιτώντας από αυτούς να εξετάζουν προσεκτικά την ικανότητα αποπληρωμής
του δανείου στο παρόν και στο μέλλον εκ μέρους των καταναλωτών.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Η Επιτροπή δεν διαθέτει συνολικά και αξιόπιστα δεδομένα σχετικά με το εύρος και την εξέλιξη του φαινομένου των αστέγων στο κράτος μέλος. Από τα

αποσπασματικά δεδομένα που συλλέγονται με τη βοήθεια παρόχων υπηρεσιών και των τοπικών αρχών προκύπτει ότι αυξήθηκαν οι άστεγοι μετά την κρίση.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 219 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

4. Στην Ελλάδα, προβλέπονται πρωτοβουλίες που προορίζονται για την προώθηση της κοινωνικής και εργασιακής
ένταξης των ανθρώπινων πόρων σε κοινωνία ίσων ευκαιριών μέσω του συγχρηματοδοτούμενου επιχειρησιακού
προγράμματος του ΕΚΤ «Ανάπτυξη Ανθρώπινου Δυναμικού» (ΕΠ ΑΑΔ). Ο συνολικός προϋπολογισμός που προορίζεται για
τις πρωτοβουλίες αυτές ανέρχεται περίπου σε 310 εκατ. ευρώ. Οι άστεγοι θα μπορούσαν πιθανώς να επωφεληθούν από το
ποσό αυτό. Όσον αφορά το ποσοστό απορρόφησης των δράσεων αυτών, σας παραπέμπουμε στη Διαχειριστική Αρχή του ΕΠ
ΑΑΠ ( [5] ).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Κοραή 4, 105 64 Αθήνα, Τηλ: 210 5201200, Φαξ: 210 5241311, e-mail: eydanad@mou.gr.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 95

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006948/12**

**to the Commission**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Risk of extreme poverty for a large section of the population of Greece

According to recently published data in the Commission's Social Situation Quarterly Review for the first quarter of
2012, 68% of Greek citizens are living below the poverty threshold, having to spend more than 40% of their income
on rent or mortgage repayments. At the same time, there has been a very sharp increase in the percentage of homeless
people whose numbers are multiplying daily. The severe deterioration of the social situation in Greece is destroying
the social fabric, creating a grave risk of destitution for a large portion of the Greek population. The prolonged
recession, growing unemployment and long-term unemployment, the significant and continuing reduction of wages
in public and private sectors combined with the inability to reduce prices of essential goods and services, the
imposition of taxes and the weakening of the welfare state — all these are basic causes for the rapid deterioration in
living conditions of Greek citizens.

Given the European Commission's involvement in the ‘Troika’, and also the declared goals of the ‘Europe 2020’
Strategy to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 20 million in the EU and 450 000 in
Greece, will the Commission say:

1. Is it drawing up alternative proposals for the revision of the measures of Greece's fiscal consolidation
programme so as to strengthen the structures of social protection and welfare and ease the situation of the
lower-income social classes which are at acute risk of even extreme poverty?

2. Will make recommendations to Member States to address the phenomenon of over-indebtedness of
households? What does it consider should be the maximum monthly bank liabilities on their income?

3. Does it have any data on the percentage increase of homelessness in the Member States?

4. Are any funds available for use by Greece to combat homelessness and what is Greece's take up rate for such
actions?

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

_(21 September 2012)_

1. Social protection and welfare policies are matters of competence of the individual Member States (MS). In line
with the Europe 2020 strategy the Commission addresses the competitiveness aspects of those policies and also
poverty reduction in MS through the European Semester. In the case of Greece, the EAP ( [1] ) involves an agreement on
the fiscal path for the medium term between the Greek authorities and the International Monetary Fund and the
Commission, on behalf of the euro area MS. The Commission emphasises that the fiscal consolidation measures taken
in recent years have left social payments to low income households largely untouched, which shows the importance
attached to the preservation of social safety nets.

2. Please note that a personal insolvency law ( [2] ) was adopted in Greece, which had been proposed by the EAP. The
law is in force since mid‐2010 and protects over-indebted households e.g. properties below a value of EUR 200 000
cannot be repossessed by banks, if it's the only property of the debtor ( [3] ).

3. The Commission wishes to clarify that, according to Eurostat, 20.1% of Greek people lived under the poverty
line in Greece in 2010. The text of the quarterly review should be read as ‘68% of the poor people in Greece spend
more than 40% of their budget on housing’ ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Economic Adjustment Programme.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Law 3869/2010, FEK A — 130 of 3 August 2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The Commission has adopted a proposal for a directive on credit agreements relating to residential property which among others aims to ensure

that creditors do not overestimate the repayment capacity of borrowers by requiring they carefully consider the consumer's ability to repay the
loan now and in the future.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) The Commission doesn't have comprehensive and reliable data on the extent and evolution of homelessness in the MS. Piecemeal data collected

with the help of service providers and local authorities indicate that homelessness has risen after the crisis.

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 219 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

4. In Greece, interventions dedicated to promote the social and employment integration of human resources into a
society of equal opportunities are envisaged through the ESF co-financed operational programme ‘Human Resources
Development’ (OP HRD). The total budget dedicated to these interventions amounts to approx. EUR 310 million;
homeless people could potentially benefit from them. For the take-up rate of the actions, please refer to the Managing
Authority of the OP HRD ( [5] ).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) 4 Korai st., 105 64 Athens, Tel: 210 5201200, Fax: 210 5241311, e-mail: eydanad@mou.gr.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006949/12**

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

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ South Korea’s ‘scientific’ whaling proposal

Is South Korea’s ‘scientific’ whaling proposal in line with the sustainable development chapter of the EU‐South Korea
Free Trade Agreement?

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

_(10 September 2012)_

At the 64th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the EU reiterated its opposition to
scientific whaling, strongly regretted that the South Korean government seemed to be considering undertaking
whaling for scientific purposes and disagreed with the conclusions presented by South Korea on the impact of minke
whales on fish stocks. The EU also expressed concerns on the potential impact of whaling on North Pacific minke
whales and considered that caution should prevail. In the meantime, after the IWC meeting, South Korea has taken a
step back from its declared intention to undertake scientific whaling.

The Commission would also like to recall that the Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter of the EU‐South
Korea FTA does not regulate the issue of scientific whaling. However, the EU‐South Korea Framework Agreement
concluded in parallel to the FTA also contains provisions on environment which are relevant for biodiversity
conservation, including of marine biodiversity, which provides an opportunity to pursue the dialogue with South
Korea, _inter alia_ on this issue.

C 219 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006950/12**

**to the Commission**
**Syed Kamall (ECR)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Pan-European helpline for victims of trafficking

I have been contacted by a constituent who works with victims of human trafficking in London. He discussed the
issues his charity faces in tackling this problem.

— Does the Commission compile estimates on the extent of human trafficking across the EU and of the provenance
of the victims and their captors?

— Given that there is a freephone number in the UK that victims of trafficking can call, is the Commission looking
into the idea of coordinating a single easy-to-remember telephone number that victims of trafficking anywhere in
the EU can call, manned by experts who can speak to the victims in their mother tongue to the extent that it is
possible?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

Trafficking in human beings is a serious crime and violation of human rights. Due to its hidden nature the real extent
of the phenomenon is hard to estimate. Comparable and reliable data is key in addressing trafficking in human
beings. Hence, the recently adopted EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings ( [1] ) foresees
specific actions on data collection, including on the gender dimension thereof. In the autumn of 2012, the
Commission, in cooperation with Eurostat, will publish more detailed results.

The Commission recognises the importance of helplines as a tool for assistance and support to victims trafficking
and, therefore, welcomes the setting up of national helplines. The Commission, furthermore, had also launched a
study on the feasibility of an EU‐wide helpline for victims of trafficking. The study concluded that there are numerous
‘pros’ and ‘cons’ in establishing an easy-to-remember telephone number, however, on the whole the study stated that
it is unclear whether one outbalances the other. Further information is needed before a decision on setting up an EU
helpline is taken.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/trafficking_in_human_beings_eradication-2012_2016_en.pdf

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 99

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006951/12**

**to the Commission**
**Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Child soldiers

The end of this year will mark the tenth anniversary of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the
Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. As of March 2012, 144 governments have ratified this
protocol. However, there are still approximately 300 000 child soldiers currently being used worldwide. Children as
young as eight are exposed to horrific violence, drugs and sexual abuse.

In some countries, assistance to help former child soldiers re-enter civilian life is available in the form of rehabilitation
centres. Here, child soldiers are provided with support in trying to locate their families, are helped back into schools
and can receive vocational training. However, many children do not have access to these rehabilitation programmes
and, as such, find themselves at risk of re-recruitment. This risk is increased as many children feel that they are unable
to return to their home communities after being forced to fight or even kill their own family, friends or neighbours
during conflicts.

1. Could the Commission clarify what steps it is taking in order to ensure that the human rights of these children
are upheld?

2. Could the Commission also explain what steps it is taking to encourage the remaining 49 countries to ratify the
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child?

3. Further, can the Commission clarify what action it is currently taking to assist in the rehabilitation of child
soldiers and the rebuilding of their lives?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The EU accords a high priority to help children associated with armed conflicts being violence against children a
priority area in the ‘EU Guidelines on the Rights of the Child’ ( [1] ). Furthermore the EU Guidelines on Children Affected
by Armed Conflicts commit the EU to address the impact of armed conflicts on children in a comprehensive manner,
through conflict prevention instruments and crisis management and post-conflict disarmament, demobilisation and
reintegration (DDR) efforts. Preventing recruitment and promoting DDR of child soldiers, including girls associated
with armed groups, is also underlined as a priority in the Staff Working Document ‘Children in Emergency and Crisis
Situations’ ( [2] ).

In 2012, the EU launched a lobbying campaign to promote the ratification of two Optional Protocols to the
Convention on the rights of the child (CRC) and the ILO Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour. In this
way, the EU joined the global campaign for the ratification of these legal instruments. The EU promotes universal
ratification of the CRC and its Optional Protocols also through political dialogue with third countries.

In order to protect the human rights of child soldiers and assist in the rehabilitation and rebuilding of their lives,
the EU funds a good number of projects through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
(EIDHR), the Investing in People Programme, and country schemes, such as the DDR projects funded under the
European Development Fund. A call for proposals on violence against children is currently being prepared, where
children affected by armed conflict will be considered priority vulnerable cases. Moreover, the EU also provides
assistance to children affected by armed conflict through humanitarian aid.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/human_rights/human_rights_in_third_countries/r10113_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SEC(2008) 135.

C 219 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-006952/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Chrysoula Paliadeli (S&D)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ορίζοντας 2020 — Κοινωνικές και ανθρωπιστικές επιστήμες

Έπειτα από την απάντηση της κυρίας Geoghegan-Quinn της 26ης Απριλίου 2012 εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής σχετικά με
την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος Ορίζοντας 2020, αναγνωρίζουμε την συνεχή υποστήριξη της
Επιτροπής προς την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά. Καθώς η συνέχιση αυτής της υποστήριξης είναι όντως πολύ σημαντική, τίθενται
στην Επιτροπή οι εξής συμπληρωματικές ερωτήσεις:

1. Θα ορίσει η Επιτροπή την «συνεργατική έρευνα στον τομέα των κοινωνικών και ανθρωπιστικών επιστημών» ως
ιδιαίτερη γραμμή δράσης στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος Ορίζοντας 2020, όπως στο Έβδομο Πρόγραμμα Πλαίσιο;

2. Θα διασφαλίσει η Επιτροπή ότι κάθε μία από τις «τρεις αλληλοενισχυόμενες προτεραιότητες» του προγράμματος
Ορίζοντας 2020 («Επιστήμη αριστείας», «Βιομηχανική υπεροχή» και «Κοινωνιακές προκλήσεις») θα αναφέρεται σαφώς
στην χρηματοδότηση της έρευνας και της καινοτομίας στον τομέα της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς;

3. Προτίθεται η Επιτροπή να μετονομάσει και να επανασχεδιάσει σαφέστερα την έκτη κοινωνιακή πρόκληση
(«Κατανοώντας τις ευρωπαϊκές κοινωνίες και την κοινωνιακή αλλαγή») και να την διαχωρίσει σαφώς από μία νέα
έβδομη πρόκληση, ονομαζόμενη «Προστατεύοντας την ελευθερία και την ασφάλεια στην Ευρώπη»;

4. Θα αναγνωρίσει η Επιτροπή ότι οι κοινωνικές επιστήμες δεν πρέπει να ταυτίζονται με τις ανθρωπιστικές και πως, σε
αυτό το πλαίσιο, κάθε δράση που σχετίζεται με τις τελευταίες δεν θα πρέπει να γίνεται αντιληπτή ως ανθρωπιστική
αλλά ως ανθρωποκεντρική;

5. Θα περιλάβει η Επιτροπή την αρχαιολογία ως σταθμό για την βασική και εφαρμοσμένη έρευνα στον τομέα «Επιστήμη
αριστείας»;

**Απάντηση της κας Geoghegan-Quinn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(21 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

Στο έβδομο πρόγραμμα πλαίσιο για την έρευνα και την τεχνολογική ανάπτυξη (7ο ΠΠ, 2007-2013), εκτός των
περιβαλλοντικών δραστηριοτήτων για την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά, μέσω του προγράμματος «Κοινωνικές και ανθρωπιστικές
επιστήμες» (ΚΑΕ) χρηματοδοτήθηκαν διάφορα ερευνητικά έργα που καλύπτουν τις ανθρωπιστικές επιστήμες, κυρίως μέσω
της δραστηριότητας 5 «Συμμετοχή του Ευρωπαίου πολίτη στα κοινά». Οι ερευνητικές δραστηριότητες ΚΑΕ αφορούν θέματα
όπως η πολιτιστική πολυμορφία, η πολυγλωσσία και οι θρησκείες.

Η Επιτροπή υπέβαλε το πρόγραμμά της για το πρόγραμμα «Ορίζοντας 2020» ( [1] ) για το επόμενο πολυετές δημοσιονομικό
πλαίσιο. Δεδομένου ότι η πολιτιστική κληρονομιά συμβάλλει στη δημιουργία ευέλικτων κοινωνιών χωρίς αποκλεισμούς στην
Ευρώπη, οι ερευνητικές δραστηριότητες για την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά περιλαμβάνονται στην ευρεία έννοια της κοινωνικής
καινοτομίας και δημιουργικότητας στην πρόκληση 6.

Όπως γνωρίζει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου, οι προτάσεις του προγράμματος «Ορίζοντας 2020» συζητούνται επί
του παρόντος στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο με σκοπό την έγκρισή τους πριν από τα τέλη του 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-documents.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 101

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006952/12**

**to the Commission**
**Chrysoula Paliadeli (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Horizon 2020 — Social sciences and humanities

Following the answer given by Ms Geoghegan-Quinn on behalf of the Commission on 26 April 2012 with regard to
the cultural heritage under Horizon 2020, we acknowledge the Commission’s ongoing support for the cultural
heritage. As it is indeed very important that this support continues, the following additional questions are addressed
to the Commission:

1. Will the Commission identify ‘collaborative research in the social sciences and humanities’ as a specific action
line in Horizon 2020, as it was in the Seventh Framework Programme?

2. Will the Commission ensure that each of the ‘three mutually reinforcing priorities’ of Horizon 2020 (‘Excellent
Science’, ‘Industrial Leadership’ and ‘Societal Challenges’) explicitly refers to funding for research and
innovation in the sphere of cultural heritage?

3. Would the Commission be willing to rename and redraft more clearly the sixth societal challenge
(‘Understanding European Societies and Societal Change’) and to clearly distinguish it from a new seventh
challenge, named ‘Protecting Freedom and Security in Europe’?

4. Will the Commission recognise that social sciences should not be identified with the humanities and, in this
connection, that any action referring to the latter should not be conceived as humanitarian but as humanistic?

5. Will the Commission include archaeology as a milestone for basic and applied research within the pillar
‘Excellent Science’?

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

_(21 September 2012)_

In the seventh framework programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007‐13), in addition to
the Environment activities related to cultural heritage, the Social Sciences and Humanities Programme (SSH) has
funded several research projects covering humanities mostly through Activity 5 ‘European citizenship’. SSH research
activities concern issues such as multiculturalism, multilingualism and religions.

The Commission has presented its proposal on Horizon 2020 ( [1] ) for the next multi-annual financial framework. As
cultural heritage contributes to build resilient and inclusive societies in Europe, cultural heritage research activities are
included in the broad concept of social innovation and creativity in Challenge 6.

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Horizon 2020 proposals are currently discussed with the European
Parliament and the Council, with a view to adoption before the end of 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-documents.

C 219 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-006953/12**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Simon Busuttil (PPE)**

_(12 ta' Lulju 2012)_

_Suġġett:_ Il-prezzijiet taz-zokkor tal-UE għall-konsumaturi u l-utenti industrijali

Ir-reġim fis-suq taz-zokkor tal-UE huwa responsabbli għall-fatt li l-prezzijiet interni taz-zokkor huma daqstant
għoljin għall-produtturi u l-proċessuri. Għal dawn l-aħħar żewġ deċennji, jidher illi l-prezz tas-suq intern inżamm
għal madwar darbtejn jew tliet darbiet iktar mill-prezz dinji u l-produtturi taz-zokkor u l-bdiewa ġew protetti millkompetizzjoni b'tariffi għoljin għall-importazzjoni. B'hekk, ir-riżultat huwa li l-utenti industrijali taz-zokkor u lkonsumaturi tal-UE qegħdin iħallsu prezz għoli għaz-zokkor. Is-sitwazzjoni qiegħda teqred il-kompetittività ta'
diversi produtturi fl-Ewropa li jitħallew mingħajr ebda għażla ħlief li jixtru z-zokkor minn pajjiżi terzi.

1. X'qed tagħmel il-Kummissjoni sabiex tawtorizza l-produtturi tal-UE biex ikollhom aċċess għall-prodotti tazzokkor bi prezzijiet li wieħed jiflaħ għalihom, indaqs jew simili għall-prezzijiet tas-suq dinji?

2. Il-Kummissjoni meta beħsiebha taġixxi f'dan ir-rigward?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sur Cioloş f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(14 ta' Awwissu 2012)_

Fit-tliet snin ta’ qabel ir-riforma tas-settur taz-zokkor tal-2006, kif indikat mill-Onorevoli Membru, il-prezz tazzokkor l-abjad fl-UE kien aktar mid-doppju tal-prezz dinji. Wara r-riforma, il-prezzijiet taz-zokkor fl-UE diġà tqarrbu
konsiderevolment lejn dawk fil-livell dinji. Attwalment, il-prezz tal-UE huwa madwar terz ogħla mill-prezz dinji. Liskadenza li jmiss tal-kwoti tal-produzzjoni taz-zokkor, li hija fl-2015, li se ttemm din ir-riforma, se tkompli tqarreb
il-prezzijiet tal-UE lejn dawk dinjin.

Il-produzzjoni tal-Unjoni skont il-kwoti taz-zokkor tkopri madwar 85 % tal-domanda tal-UE għaz-zokkor. Iddifferenza tiġi koperta mill-importazzjonijiet li jsiru skont diversi ftehimiet preferenzjali tal-kummerċ. Jekk ikun
hemm riskju ta' provvista insuffiċjenti, il-Kummissjoni tieħu miżuri biex ittejjeb id-disponibbiltà u tevita ż-żidiet filprezzijiet.

Fis-sena kummerċjali 2010/11, il-miżuri meħuda mill-Kummissjoni żiedu l-provvista taz-zokkor bi kważi 1.4 miljun
tunnellata u b'1.1 miljun tunnellata fl-2011/12, inkluż ir-rilaxx ta' zokkor barra mill-kwota fis-suq tal-Unjoni
(500,000 tunnellata fl-2010/11 u 650,000 tunnellata fl-2011/12), li kienu partikolarment ta' vantaġġ għall-industrija
taz-zokkor kif ukoll għall-utenti taz-zokkor. Minħabba f'hekk, f'Mejju 2012, il-prezz medju taz-zokkor fl-UE (il-prezz
l-aktar riċenti) naqas b'EUR 4 għal EUR 711 għal kull tunnellata — l-ewwel tnaqqis minn Mejju 2010. B'kuntrast ma'
dan, il-prezzijiet dinjin taz-zokkor żdiedu b'EUR 42 għal EUR 538 għal kull tunnellata.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 103

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006953/12**

**to the Commission**
**Simon Busuttil (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU sugar prices for consumers and industrial users

The EU sugar market regime is responsible for the internal sugar prices being so high for producers and processors.
For the last two decades, it appears that the internal market price has been maintained at approximately two or three
times the world price and sugar producers and farmers have been protected from competition by high import tariffs.
In turn, the result is EU industrial sugar users and consumers paying a high price for sugar. The situation is destroying
the competitiveness of several producers in Europe who are left with no option other than to buy sugar from third
countries.

1. What is the Commission doing to enable EU producers to access sugar produce at more affordable prices, equal
or similar to world market prices?

2. When does the Commission plan to act in this regard?

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

_(14 August 2012)_

In the three years preceding the 2006 sugar sector reform, as the Honourable Member indicates, the EU white sugar
price was more than double the world price. Following the reform, EU sugar prices have already considerably aligned
closer to world level. Currently EU price is about one third higher than the world price. The forthcoming expiry of
sugar production quotas in 2015, which will finalise this journey of reform, will align even further EU and world
prices.

Union production under sugar quotas covers about 85% of the EU sugar demand. The gap is met from imports under
various preferential trade agreements. If there is a risk of undersupply the Commission takes measures to improve
availability and prevent price hikes.

In marketing year 2010/11 the measures taken by the Commission increased the sugar supply by nearly 1.4 Mt and
by 1.1 Mt in 2011/12, including the release of out-of-quota sugar on the Union market (500 000 t in 2010/11 and
650 000 t in 2011/12), which were particularly beneficial for the sugar industry and the sugar users as well. As a
result in May 2012 (most recent) Union's average sugar price decreased by EUR 4 to 711 EUR/t, the first decrease
since May 2010. By contrast world sugar prices have increased by EUR 42 to 538 EUR/t.

C 219 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006954/12**

**an die Kommission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(12. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Veröffentlichung der Beiträge zur Konsultationsphase für das Grünbuch zum Schattenbankwesen

In seiner Antwort auf die parlamentarische Anfrage E-004725/2012 von Hans-Peter Martin zur Konsultationsphase
für das Grünbuch zum Schattenbankwesen hat Kommissionsmitglied Barnier erklärt, dass die Kommission „alle
Beiträge auf ihrer Webseite veröffentlichen“ wird. Die Konsultationsphase wurde zwar vom 1. Juni 2012 auf den
15. Juni 2012 verlängert, und die letzte Aktualisierung erfolgte am 6.7.2012, doch wurde bisher immer noch nichts
über die Beiträge auf den Webseiten der Kommission zum Schattenbankwesen oder zur Konsultation veröffentlicht.

Warum wurde noch nichts veröffentlicht?

Wo sind diese Beiträge zu finden?

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

_(22. August 2012)_

Die Konsultationsphase für das Grünbuch der Kommission zum Schattenbankwesen endete am 15. Juni 2012.

Am 27. Juni wurden 130 Antworten auf der Website der Kommission veröffentlicht. Die Beiträge lassen sich in drei
Kategorien einteilen (21 von Behörden, 45 von registrierten Organisationen, 64 von nicht registrierten
Organisationen). Bei 5 Beiträgen wurde um vertrauliche Behandlung gebeten. Sie wurden daher nicht veröffentlicht.

Bis Ende Juli sind insgesamt 140 Antworten eingegangen. Die veröffentlichten Antworten können heruntergeladen
[werden unter: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/shadow/index_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/shadow/index_en.htm)

Die Kommissionsdienststellen prüfen derzeit die eingegangenen Beiträge und beabsichtigen, noch in diesem Jahr eine
Zusammenfassung vorzulegen. Bei der Fortsetzung dieser Arbeit werden auch Berichte anderer Organisationen, z. B.
FSB, IOSCO und Basel, sowie der Initiativbericht des Europäischen Parlaments (MEP Said El Khadraoui)
Berücksichtigung finden.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 105

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006954/12**

**to the Commission**

**Hans-Peter Martin (NI)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Publication of consultation period contributions on shadow banking Green Paper

In his answer to my Written Question E‐004725/2012 about the consultation period for the Green Paper on shadow
banking, Commissioner Barnier states that ‘all contributions will be published on the Commission’s website’. Given
that the consultation period was extended from 1 June 2012 to 15 June 2012 and that the last update was performed
on 6 July 2012, there are no publications of the received contributions yet available on the shadow banking or
consultation web pages of the Commission.

Why is this the case?

Where can these contributions be found?

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

_(22 August 2012)_

The consultation period for the Commission's Green Paper on shadow banking ended on 15 June 2012.

On 27 June, 130 responses were published on the Commission's website. Respondents can be divided in 3 categories
(21 public authorities, 45 registered organisations, 64 non-registered organisations); 5 submissions had requested
confidential treatment and were consequently not published.

By end of July, a total of 140 responses have been received. Published responses can be downloaded at the following
address: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2012/shadow/index_en.htm

The Commission services are currently analysing the responses received and intends to issue a summary statement
later this year. In taking this work stream forward, reports provided by other organisations as e.g. FSB, IOSCO and
Basel, as well as the European Parliament's own initiative report by MEP El Khadraoui, will also be considered.

C 219 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006955/12**

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

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Comune di Cisterna Latina — Riduzione degli oneri fiscali e misure compensative di sostegno per il settore
agricolo

In Italia, dal 1 [o] gennaio 2012, è in vigore l'imposta municipale unica (IMU). Nel settore agricolo, la nuova tassa si
applica, a determinate condizioni, sui terreni agricoli, posseduti e condotti da coltivatori diretti o imprenditori agricoli
professionali, sui terreni non coltivati dagli stessi, nonché, con alcune eccezioni, sui fabbricati rurali e sulle aree
edificabili.

Gli agricoltori, soprattutto le piccole aziende agricole e i giovani agricoltori, in un contesto economico già poco
favorevole, si trovano in difficoltà, visto anche il danno causato dal batterio del kiwi (PSA). Sono stati tagliati circa un
terzo degli ettari coltivati, con perdite economiche enormi per gli imprenditori agricoli e tutto l'indotto che ne deriva.

L'agricoltura è un settore notoriamente ad alta patrimonializzazione ma a bassa redditività, con sproporzione tra il
capitale investito in immobili e il reddito prodotto.

Può la Commissione far sapere:

—
se esistono misure e programmi per intervenire a sostegno degli agricoltori, anche attraverso una riduzione
degli oneri fiscali, in una situazione particolarmente difficile che potrebbe danneggiare pesantemente l'intero
settore produttivo del comune di Cisterna Latina;

—
qual è il quadro generale della situazione.

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(24 agosto 2012)_

Gli eventuali sgravi d’imposta (a livello nazionale, regionale o comunale) per gli agricoltori colpiti dal batterio del kiwi
dovrebbero essere considerati nel quadro delle relative norme sugli aiuti di Stato.

Per quanto concerne invece le misure di sostegno previste dalla politica agricola comune, gli articoli 88 e 89 del
regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 543/2011 della Commissione ( [1] ) del 7 giugno 2011 stabiliscono norme specifiche
sull’assicurazione del raccolto per produttori ortofrutticoli che potrebbero essere pertinenti nel presente caso.
L’obiettivo delle misure di assicurazione del raccolto consiste nel contribuire a salvaguardare il reddito dei produttori
e a risarcire le perdite commerciali dovute a calamità naturali, avversità atmosferiche o, eventualmente, a fitopatie o
infestazioni parassitarie. Per poter beneficiare dell’assicurazione, i produttori devono appartenere a
un’organizzazione di settore riconosciuta e il cui programma operativo preveda tali misure.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 157 del 15.6.2011, pag. 1.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 107

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006955/12**

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

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Town of Cisterna Latina — Reduction of tax burden and compensatory measures to support farming

In Italy, since 1 January 2012, the single municipal tax known as IMU has been in force. In the farming sector, the
new tax will apply, under certain conditions, to farmland that is owned and managed by owner-occupiers or farm
entrepreneurs who do not actually farm the land themselves; the tax also applies, with a few exceptions, to farm
buildings and areas suitable for building.

Farmers, especially small farms and young farmers, who are already in an unfavourable economic environment, are
having difficulty, also in view of the damage caused by the kiwifruit bacterium (PSA). Around one-third of cultivated
land has been cut, involving huge economic losses for farmers and satellite industries.

Farming is a notoriously high capitalisation sector, but with low profitability, with little proportion between the
capital invested in property and the income produced.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

—
Are there any measures and programmes to intervene in support of farmers, also by reducing taxes in a
particularly difficult situation that could severely damage the entire farming sector in the town of Cisterna
Latina?

—
Can it give an overview of the situation?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

Possible reductions of taxes (be they national, regional or municipal taxes) for farmers affected by the kiwifruit
bacterium would likely require examination under the applicable state aid rules.

Concerning support measures under the common agricultural policy, Commission Implementing Regulation (EC)
No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 ( [1] ) lays down in Articles 88 and 89 the specific rules on harvest insurance for fruit and
vegetable producers, which may be of use in this case. The aim of the harvest insurance measures is to contribute to
safeguarding producers' income and covering market losses caused by natural disasters, climatic events and, where
appropriate, diseases or pest infestations. To benefit from the harvest insurance measure, the producers need to
belong to a recognised producer organisation and the operational programme has to include this measure.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.

C 219 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006956/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Stragi nel Mar Mediterraneo

L'Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati ha comunicato che cinquantaquattro persone sono morte
disidratate dopo un viaggio in gommone di quindici giorni. Secondo quanto riportato dai giornali, l'unico superstite
ha riferito che i dispersi si sarebbero imbarcati dalla Libia.

Sembra che tuttora altre imbarcazioni siano in mare verso l'Italia e che in una di queste, con cinquanta eritrei e somali,
gli stessi passeggeri abbiano rifiutato il soccorso delle Forze armate maltesi.

Alla luce del susseguirsi di queste tragedie e al fine di intensificare l'attività di vigilanza, ritiene la Commissione di
istituire una guardia costiera europea per porre fine alle stragi del mare?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(17 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione ha preso atto con preoccupazione della recente ondata di flussi migratori misti dalle coste libiche
alle frontiere meridionali dell’UE. Gli arrivi sono ancora relativamente modesti, ma con il migliorare delle condizioni
atmosferiche aumenteranno anche i migranti che cercano di raggiungere le coste europee a rischio delle proprie vite.

Istituire una guardia costiera europea per affrontare il fenomeno non rientra fra le competenze dell’Unione europea.

Dal 2011 sono state però messe in atto molte iniziative per far fronte a tali flussi, prestare assistenza agli Stati membri
più interessati e assicurare il rispetto dei diritti umani. Fra queste, le numerose operazioni di sorveglianza delle
frontiere coordinate da Frontex nell’ambito della rete europea di pattuglie, con particolare attenzione alle rotte dalla
Tunisia e dalla Libia all’Italia (operazione Hermes). L’operazione Hermes è ripresa il 1 [o] luglio 2012.

La Commissione ha inoltre proposto l’istituzione di EUROSUR ( [1] ), con l’intento precipuo di ridurre
considerevolmente le perdite di vite umane migliorando la capacità di individuazione, identificazione e localizzazione
delle piccole imbarcazioni e agevolando di conseguenza le operazioni di ricerca e soccorso in stretta collaborazione
con i centri di coordinamento del soccorso.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che istituisce il sistema europeo di sorveglianza delle frontiere (EUROSUR),
COM(2011)873 definitivo.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 109

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006956/12**

**to the Commission**
**Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mediterranean massacres

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has announced that 54 people died from dehydration after
being out at sea in a rubber dinghy for two weeks. According to press reports, the only survivor stated that the
deceased had boarded the boat in Libya.

There are apparently other boats that are still sailing towards Italy; in one of these, carrying 50 Eritreans and Somalis,
the passengers themselves have allegedly refused the assistance of the Armed Forces of Malta.

Given this succession of tragedies, and in order to strengthen supervision, does the Commission not think it should
establish a European Coastguard to put an end to these massacres at sea?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

The Commission has noticed with concern a recent surge in mixed migratory flows from the Libyan shores directed
towards the Southern borders of the EU. The recent arrivals are still small in number, but with improving weather
conditions more migrants might attempt to reach European shores, putting their lives at risk.

The creation of a European Coastguard to address this phenomenon falls beyond the competence of the European
Union.

However, many initiatives have been in place since 2011 to address those flows, assist the Member States affected and
ensure the respect of human rights. In particular a number of border surveillance operations coordinated by Frontex
in the framework of the European Patrol Network were launched, with a special focus on the routes from Tunisia and
Libya to Italy (Operation Hermes). Operation Hermes has been resumed on 1 July 2012.

The Commission has also proposed the establishment of Eurosur ( [1] ), which will aim, _inter alia_, to considerably reduce
the loss of human lives at sea, by improving the detection, identification and tracking of small boats, thereby
facilitating Search and Rescue operations in close cooperation with responsible Rescue Coordination Centres.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur),
COM(2011) 873 final.

C 219 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006957/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Sospendere l'adesione della Croazia all'Unione europea

Slavko Linić, ministro delle Finanze del governo di Zagabria, ha affermato che «la situazione economica in Croazia è
estremamente difficile e l'anno prossimo potrebbe essere ancora peggiore, al punto da non escludere anche un aiuto
del Fondo monetario internazionale».

Le problematiche finanziarie elencate dal ministro riguardano, in particolare un permanente calo del PIL, un'enorme
insolvenza nonché una costante crescita della disoccupazione e del numero di lavoratori che non percepiscono lo
stipendio.

La dichiarazione chiave è, tuttavia, che il 2013 sarà ancora più difficile, se l'economia reale non vedrà una ripresa
entro la fine dell'anno.

La Commissione ha sempre sostenuto che la Croazia avrebbe dovuto attuare ampie riforme strutturali per aumentare
il potenziale di crescita dell'economia e rafforzare la competitività a livello internazionale. Inoltre deve perseguire il
risanamento finanziario per ridurre il deficit di bilancio e garantire la sostenibilità del debito pubblico.

— In quale modo intende reagire la Commissione alle affermazioni del ministro Linić?

— Non ritiene che costituiscano un fortissimo campanello d'allarme per la già traballante economia europea?

— Dato il periodo di grave crisi finanziaria che l'Europa sta attraversando, non ritiene opportuno sospendere l'entrata
della Croazia nell'UE, prevista per il 1 [o ] luglio 2013, onde evitare di aggravare ulteriormente l'instabilità economica
della stessa UE?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(5 settembre 2012)_

Le uniche informazioni di cui dispone la Commissione in merito alle varie dichiarazioni del ministro croato Linić
sono quelle riferite dai media. Il ministro avrebbe dichiarato che attualmente la Croazia non ha bisogno del sostegno
del FMI, ma che questa possibilità potrebbe essere presa nuovamente in considerazione qualora la situazione
economica dovesse cambiare.

I risultati ottenuti negli ultimi anni dalla Croazia in termini di crescita del PIL e di occupazione sono stati deludenti.
Secondo le più recenti proiezioni economiche della Commissione, nel 2012 il PIL della Croazia subirà un'ulteriore
contrazione dell'1,2 % per poi tornare nel 2013 a un tasso di crescita positivo dello 0,8 % grazie al miglioramento del
contesto esterno e a una ripresa degli investimenti parzialmente collegata all'adesione all'UE.

Fermo restando che la Croazia deve attuare riforme strutturali di ampia portata e proseguire il risanamento di
bilancio, la Commissione si aspetta che il paese soddisfi integralmente i criteri economici e sia pronto per aderire
all'Unione il 1 [o ] luglio 2013.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 111

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006957/12**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Suspension of Croatia's accession to the European Union

Slavko Linić, Minister of Finance of the Croatian Government, has stated that ‘Croatia's economic situation is
extremely difficult and could get even worse next year, to the point where we might have to ask the IMF for help’.

The financial problems listed by the minister concern, in particular a permanent decline in GDP, a huge insolvency
crisis and a steady rise in unemployment and in the number of workers who are not receiving their salaries.

The key statement, however, was that 2013 will be even more difficult if the real economy does not recover by the
end of the year.

The Commission has always maintained that Croatia should have implemented wide-ranging structural reforms to
increase the economy's growth potential and strengthen its international competitiveness. It should also pursue fiscal
consolidation to reduce the budget deficit and ensure that public debt is sustainable.

— How does the Commission intend to respond to the statements by Minister Linić?

— Does it not agree that this is a very strong wake-up call for an already shaky European economy?

— Given the severe financial crisis that Europe is undergoing, does the Commission not think it might be advisable to
suspend Croatia's entry into the EU, scheduled for 1 July 2013, to avoid further exacerbating the EU's economic
instability?

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

_(5 September 2012)_

The Commission is aware of various statements of Croatian Minister Linić, only as referred to by the media. These
statements would indicate that Croatia does not currently need IMF support but should there be changes in the
economic situation, this option could be reconsidered.

Croatia's GDP growth and employment performance has been poor in recent years. The Commission's most recent
Economic Forecast projects that Croatia's GDP will still contract by 1.2% in 2012. For 2013, however, it projects a
return to a positive growth rate of 0.8% in the context of an improving external environment and a pickup of
investments partly related to EU accession.

While it is true that Croatia needs to implement comprehensive structural reforms and to pursue fiscal consolidation,
the Commission expects Croatia to fully meet the economic criteria and to be ready for EU membership by
1 July 2013.

C 219 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006958/12**

**à Comissão**
**Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL) e Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Derrogações no uso de pesticidas — âmbito e situação portuguesa

Foi publicado hoje o relatório _Meet (chemical) agriculture: The «120-day derogation» — One year ahead, what happened?_ . O
relatório da ONG _Pesticide Action Network Europe_ compila os dados sobre as derrogações no uso de pesticidas em
2011. Verifica-se uma melhoria relativamente a 2010. Contudo, dos países que lideram em número de derrogações,
Portugal é o único que o mantém.

A pergunta E-005034/2012 já abordava esta questão das derrogações. A respetiva resposta (E-005034/2012)
atualiza esses dados e dá conta do trabalho em curso da Comissão. Nesta resposta, a Comissão alude a derrogações
para «culturas secundárias». Transparece ainda que a União Europeia dispõe de pouca informação relativamente às
derrogações o que, tendo em conta que muitos dos químicos são tóxicos a baixas concentrações, se perde a
capacidade de avaliar, decidir e impedir perigos para a segurança pública.

1. O Estado-Membro é responsável pelos pedidos. Num ano em que houve um decréscimo global no número de
derrogações, com destaque para os países que mais tinham, por que motivo Portugal manteve um número elevado de
derrogações? A Comissão dispõe de dados ou de informações que possam justificar esta situação excecional de
Portugal face aos restantes Estados‐Membros? O Estado-Membro apresentou informação detalhada sobre as
derrogações como obriga a legislação? Em algum momento a Comissão fez ou tem conhecimento de controlos para
aferir que as derrogações se justificavam?

2. As derrogações no uso de pesticidas banidos podem ser dadas para culturas secundárias? As derrogações não
deveriam estar reservadas para situações de emergência? O papel das derrogações não está, assim, a ser desvirtuado e a
tornar-se na regra e não na exceção?

3. A Comissão dispõe de informações relativas aos tipos, quantidades e locais do ou dos pesticidas utilizados sob a
licença de derrogação?

**Resposta dada por John Dalli em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de agosto de 2012)_

1. e 2. Com base nas notificações transmitidas à Comissão em 2010 e 2011, em conformidade com o artigo 53.°
do Regulamento (CE) n.° 1107/2009 relativo à colocação dos produtos fitofarmacêuticos no mercado ( [1] ), constata-se
que também em Portugal diminuiu o número de derrogações.

A grande maioria das derrogações aplicadas por Portugal em 2011 diz respeito a substâncias já aprovadas a nível da
UE ou relativamente às quais estava pendente uma aprovação quando as derrogações foram aplicadas. Além disso,
grande parte foi concedida para utilização em culturas secundárias e/ou contra pragas que obrigam a quarentena ou
contra surtos de novas pragas.

A Comissão está a elaborar um documento de orientação para estabelecer critérios harmonizados referentes à
avaliação e ao processo de decisão relativo a tais derrogações e para definir informações pormenorizadas a notificar à
Comissão e aos restantes Estados-Membros.

Os Estados-Membros podem também estabelecer derrogações à utilização de pesticidas proibidos em culturas
secundárias, mas têm de o fazer em conformidade com as condições estipuladas no artigo 53.° Durante as reuniões do
Comité Permanente, a Comissão reitera sistematicamente a obrigação de os Estados-Membros informarem
imediatamente a Comissão e os restantes Estados-Membros sobre as medidas tomadas ao abrigo do artigo 53.°,
especialmente fornecendo informações pormenorizadas sobre a situação e sobre quaisquer medidas tomadas para
garantir a segurança do consumidor. Além disso, em várias ocasiões, a Comissão assinalou que, para utilizações
secundárias, os Estados-Membros devem utilizar, sempre que possível, as disposições constantes do artigo 51.° do
Regulamento (CE) n.° 1107/2009 no sentido de limitar o recurso às derrogações de emergência.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 309 de 24.11.2009, p. 1.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 113

3. Atualmente, a Comissão não recolhe informações sobre as quantidades nem sobre os locais onde os pesticidas
foram utilizados ao abrigo das derrogações.

C 219 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006958/12**

**to the Commission**
**Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL) and Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Derogations for pesticide use — The scale and situation in Portugal

The report ‘Meet (chemical) agriculture: The “120-day derogation” — One year ahead, what happened?’ was published
today. This report by the NGO Pesticide Action Network Europe compiles data on the derogations for pesticide use in
2011. It finds that there has been some improvement by comparison with 2010. Nevertheless, of the countries with
the highest number of derogations, Portugal is the only one not to have recorded any reduction.

The issue of derogations was already addressed in Question E‐005034/2012. The answer to that question gave an
update on the figures and described the work currently being carried out by the Commission. In its answer, the
Commission refers to derogations for ‘minor crops’. However, it appears that the European Union has little
information on derogations. Given that many of the chemicals concerned are toxic even in low concentrations,
the EU is consequently not in a position to assess, determine and prevent the risks to public safety.

1. The Member States are responsible for handling requests for derogations. In a year when there was an overall
drop in the number of derogations, particularly in the countries that had previously granted the highest number, why
does Portugal still have so many derogations? Does the Commission have any figures or information that could justify
this exceptional situation for Portugal vis-à-vis the remaining Member States? Did the Member State submit detailed
information on derogations as required by the legislation? Did the Commission carry out any checks to ensure that
the derogations were justified, or has it been informed of any such checks?

2. Can derogations for the use of banned pesticides be granted for minor crops? Should derogations not be
reserved for emergencies? Is the role of derogations not being distorted with the result that they are becoming the rule
rather than the exception?

3. Does the Commission have any information on the types, quantities and locations of pesticides used under
derogations?

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

_(23 August 2012)_

1-2. On the basis of notifications transmitted in the years 2010 and 2011 in accordance with Article 53 of
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on placing of plant protection products on the market ( [1] ) to the Commission, it
results that also in Portugal there is a reduction in number of derogations.

The vast majority of the derogations applied by Portugal in 2011 concerns substances already approved at EU level or
for which approval was pending at the moment of derogation. Furthermore, the majority has been granted for uses in
minor crops and/or against quarantine pests or for outbreaks of new pests.

The Commission is working on a guidance document to establish harmonised criteria concerning the evaluation and
decision-making on such derogations and to define detailed information to be notified to the Commission and to the
other Member States.

Member States can derogate also for the use of banned pesticides in minor crops but it has to be in compliance with
conditions laid down in Article 53. During the Standing Committee meetings, the Commission systematically
reiterates the obligation of the Member States to immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States
on the measures taken under Article 53, in particular by providing detailed information about the situation and on
any measures taken to ensure consumer safety. Furthermore, the Commission has in several occasions underlined
that for minor uses Member States should make use, whenever possible, of the provisions laid down in Article 51 of
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to limit the use of emergency derogations.

3. At present the Commission does not collate information on the quantities and locations of pesticides used
under the derogations.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 115

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006961/12**

**à Comissão**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Encerramento da empresa Hydro Building Systems, em Pombal

A unidade de produção da empresa Hydro Building Systems sediada em Pombal, distrito de Leiria, irá encerrar em
agosto, tendo já anunciado o despedimento dos 79 trabalhadores. A administração desta empresa de produção de
sistema de alumínio para construção alega como motivos para o encerramento a diminuição das vendas e clientes,
decorrente da crise que perpassa o setor da construção. No entanto, é conhecido que o grupo austríaco Hydro
Buildings Systems é um dos líderes mundiais na área de sistemas de alumínio para a construção, tendo empresas em
mais de 40 países. O despedimento destes trabalhadores deixará muitas famílias do distrito de Leiria em dificuldades
económicas e sociais muito sérias, até porque aí laboram vários casais. Algumas enfrentarão, inevitavelmente,
situações de pobreza.

Desta forma, pergunto à Comissão o seguinte:

1. Que ajudas financeiras comunitárias recebeu até à data a multinacional Hydro Building Systems?

2. Tem conhecimento do encerramento de mais unidades de produção desta empresa em outros países da União
Europeia? Tem conhecimento da abertura recente de unidades de produção desta empresa?

3. Que apoios comunitários podem ser utilizados para criação de emprego neste distrito e restituição de postos de
trabalho para estes trabalhadores?

4. Que fundos do recentemente aprovado Pacto para o Crescimento e o Emprego poderão ser mobilizados para o
apoio a estes trabalhadores e para a criação de emprego com direitos no concelho de Pombal?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de agosto de 2012)_

O Fundo Europeu de Ajustamento à Globalização (FEG) e o Fundo Social Europeu (FSE) nunca concederam qualquer
contribuição financeira à Hydro Builing Systems em Portugal.

A Comissão não possui os recursos para recolher as informações necessárias sobre o encerramento ou a
reestruturação de instalações em todos os Estados-Membros. A Comissão remete a Senhora Deputada para o
_European Restructuring Monitor_ (ERM), que comporta uma base de dados para a pesquisa de casos de reestruturação.
Estão disponíveis informações detalhadas no seguinte endereço:
(http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emcc/erm/index.htm).

O Pacote Emprego, lançado pela Comissão em abril de 2012, põe a tónica na mobilização dos fundos da UE para a
criação de emprego. Os fundos da Política de Coesão, bem como do Feader e do FEAMP, são fontes importantes de
investimento, que visam estimular o crescimento sustentável e o emprego. O FSE e o FEDER podem ser utilizados
para apoiar políticas ativas do mercado de trabalho e ações de requalificação e para financiar mecanismos de apoio às
PME com vista à manutenção e à criação de emprego. O Programa-Quadro para a Competitividade e a Inovação (PCI),
em vigor desde 2007, presta serviços de apoio empresarial nas regiões, dirigidos sobretudo a pequenas e médias
empresas (http://ec.europa.eu/cip/).

As autoridades nacionais, regionais e locais devem utilizar plenamente os recursos disponíveis para desenvolver e
concretizar o seu potencial económico e aumentar o emprego.

C 219 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006961/12**

**to the Commission**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Closure of the Hydro Building Systems Pombal plant

The Hydro Building Systems plant in Pombal, Leiria district, is to be closed down in August, and, as has already been
announced, the 79 workers employed there will be made redundant. The management of the company, which
produces aluminium building systems, maintains that the closure is due to the falling sales and loss of customers
brought about by the current crisis in the building industry. However, the Austrian Hydro Building Systems group is
known to be one of the world’s leading suppliers of aluminium building systems and has plants in over 40 countries.
The redundancy of the Pombal workers will cause very serious economic and social difficulties for many families in
Leiria district, not least because there are several couples working at the plant. Some families will inevitably be
reduced to poverty.

1. What EU financial aid has been granted to date to Hydro Building Systems?

2. Does the Commission know whether other Hydro Building Systems plants have been closed down in other
Member States? Has the company recently set up any new plants?

3. What EU support could be used to create jobs in Leiria district and find new employment for the workers
affected?

4. What funds could be mobilised under the newly approved Compact for Growth and Jobs in order to support
these workers and create jobs with rights in the municipality of Pombal?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) have never granted any
financial contribution to Hydro Building Systems in Portugal.

The Commission does not have the resources to gather the necessary information about the closure or restructuring
of plants across the Member States. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the European
Restructuring Monitor (ERM) that offers a searchable database of restructuring events. Detailed information is
available on: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emcc/erm/index.htm

The Employment Package launched by the Commission in April 2012 emphasises mobilisation of the EU funds for
job creation. The funds of the Cohesion Policy as well as EAFRD and EMFF are important sources of investment
stimulating sustainable growth and employment. ESF and ERDF can be used to support active labour market policy,
re-skilling and to fund SME support mechanisms aiming at maintaining and creating jobs. The Competitiveness and
Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) in place since 2007 delivers business support services in the regions,
targeting mainly small and medium-sized companies (http://ec.europa.eu/cip/).

National, regional and local authorities should use the available resources fully to develop and realise their economic
potential and to increase employment.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 117

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006962/12**

**à Comissão**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) e João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Despedimentos e situação social no distrito de Castelo Branco

Os trabalhadores do distrito de Castelo Branco têm sido profundamente afetados pelo desemprego. O encerramento
de empresas e os despedimentos sucedem-se a um ritmo alarmante. São muitas as famílias deste distrito em
dificuldades económicas e sociais muito sérias. No _call center_ da Segurança Social de Castelo Branco foram despedidos
há alguns meses 176 trabalhadores com vínculos precários; mais recentemente, os restantes 240 trabalhadores desta
empresa foram igualmente despedidos.

A somar-se a esta dramática situação está em risco o encerramento de uma linha de produção da empresa Delphi —
multinacional de cablagens sediada na cidade de Castelo Branco — o que levará, previsivelmente, ao despedimento de
300 trabalhadores. A empresa Delphi é a maior empregadora do distrito de Castelo Branco, sendo que aqui trabalham
vários casais. Este despedimento massivo terá um enorme impacto na deterioração económica desta região — já de si
prejudicada pela interioridade — e agravará as condições de vida de muitos trabalhadores, para os quais as soluções
são parcas ou mesmo inexistentes. Alguns enfrentarão, inevitavelmente, situações de pobreza.

Desta forma, perguntamos à Comissão o seguinte:

1. Tem conhecimento das ajudas financeiras comunitárias recebidas até à data pela empresa Delphi?

2. Que apoios comunitários podem ser utilizados para criação de emprego neste distrito e restituição de postos de
trabalho para estes trabalhadores?

3. Que fundos do recentemente aprovado Pacto para o Crescimento e o Emprego poderão ser mobilizados para o
apoio a estes trabalhadores e para a criação de emprego com direitos no distrito de Castelo Branco?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de agosto de 2012)_

De acordo com as informações recebidas das autoridades portuguesas, a Delphi Automotive Systems — Portugal SA
beneficiou de apoio financeiro no valor de 2 907 769,53 euros do Fundo Social Europeu (FSE) durante o atual e o
anterior períodos de programação. O Fundo Europeu de Ajustamento à Globalização (FEG) nunca concedeu qualquer
contribuição financeira à Delphi Portugal.

O Pacote Emprego, lançado pela Comissão em abril de 2012, põe a tónica na mobilização dos fundos da UE para a
criação de emprego. Os fundos da Política de Coesão, bem como do Feader e do FEAMP, são fontes importantes de
investimento, que visam estimular o crescimento sustentável e o emprego. O FSE e o FEDER podem ser utilizados
para apoiar políticas ativas do mercado de trabalho e ações de requalificação e para financiar mecanismos de apoio às
PME com vista à manutenção e à criação de emprego.

As autoridades nacionais, regionais e locais devem utilizar plenamente os recursos disponíveis para desenvolver e
concretizar o seu potencial económico e aumentar o emprego.

A pedido de Portugal, o FEG pode ajudar os trabalhadores despedidos na zona de Castelo Branco a encontrar outro
posto de trabalho o mais rapidamente possível, de acordo com as condições estabelecidas no Regulamento FEG ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento (CE) n.° 1927/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 20 de dezembro de 2006, que institui o Fundo Europeu de
Ajustamento à Globalização, JO L 406 de 30.12.2006.

C 219 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006962/12**

**to the Commission**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) and João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Lay-offs and social situation in the Castelo Branco district

Workers in the Castelo Branco area have been badly hit by unemployment. Businesses are closing and employees
losing their jobs at an alarming rate. Many families in this district are undergoing extremely serious economic and
social difficulties. A few months ago, some 176 precariously employed workers were laid off at the Castelo Branco
social security services’ call centre, and the company recently dismissed its remaining 240 employees.

To add to this dramatic situation, there is a danger that a production line may close at the plant operated by Delphi —
a multinational cable manufacturer located in the town of Castelo Branco — which is likely to result in 300 workers
being dismissed. Delphi is the biggest employer in the Castelo Branco area, and there are many couples who are both
employed by the company. This mass lay-off will have a huge impact on the economic decline of the region, which is
already at a disadvantage due to being in the interior, and will affect the living standards of many workers whose
alternatives are limited or nonexistent. Some of them will inevitably face poverty.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Does it have any information about EU financial aid received to date by Delphi?

2. What Community support can be used to create employment in this area and provide new jobs for these
workers?

3. What funds can be mobilised under the recently approved Growth and Jobs Pact to support these workers and
create decent jobs in the Castelo Branco area?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

According to information received from the Portuguese authorities the Delphi Automotive Systems — Portugal SA
has received financial support totalling EUR 2.907.769,53 from the European Social Fund (ESF) during the current
and previous programming periods. The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) has never granted any
financial contribution to DELPHI Portugal itself.

The Employment Package launched by the Commission in April 2012 emphasises mobilisation of the EU funds for
job creation. The funds of the Cohesion Policy as well as EAFRD and EMFF are important sources of investment
stimulating sustainable growth and employment. ESF and ERDF can be used to support active labour market policy,
re-skilling and to fund SME support mechanisms aiming at maintaining and creating jobs.

National, regional and local authorities should use the available resources fully to develop and realise their economic
potential and to increase employment.

Upon request from Portugal, the EGF could help the workers made redundant in the Castelo Branco area find another
job as quickly as possible, under the conditions laid down in the EGF Regulation ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation
Adjustment Fund, OJ L 406, 30.12.2006.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 119

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-006963/12**

**до Комисията**
**Ивайло Калфин (S&D)**

_(12 юли 2012 г.)_

_Относно:_ Равно третиране на български граждани на пазара на труда в Обединеното Кралство

Получавам редица сигнали, че от началото на 2012 г. български граждани във Великобритания изпитват сериозни
затруднения при издаване на регистрационни сертификати, позволяващи им достъп до пазара на труда. Информиран
съм за забавяне на сроковете за разглеждане на кандидатурите, за ненавременно подаване на сведения за разгледаните
молби и за решенията по тях, за фактическа невъзможност за подаване на документи за издаване на регистрационни
сертификати.

Във връзка с това искам да запитам:

1. Разполага ли Комисията за данни за неравно третиране на българските граждани във Великобритания и ако „не“,
възнамерява ли да поиска допълнителна информация и да насърчи британските власти да се отнасят по един и
същи начин към всички европейски граждани?

2. Забелязала ли е Комисията забавяне на темпа на наемане на работници от България и Румъния във
Великобритания и разполага ли с анализи на какво се дължи това? И по-специално дали не се ограничава
изкуствено достъпът на работници от Централна и Източна Европа в резултат на кризата и рекордната
безработица в ЕС?

3. Комисията обяви, че до средата на май очаква да получи допълнителни анализи и мотиви от 9-те държави,
които решиха да се възползват от всички преходни периоди за ограничаване на достъпа на български и румънски
граждани до своите пазари на труда. Отговориха ли всички държави на допълнителните въпроси от Комисията?
Намира ли ЕК всички отговори за задоволителни и ако „не“, с кои мотиви на кои държави членки не е съгласна?

4. Разполага ли Комисията с актуална информация за движението на миграционните потоци в ЕС от началото на
кризата и може ли да ги предостави?

5. Разполага ли Комисията с информация каква част от младежите, завършили висше образование в друга държава
членка, остават на работа в нея и каква се връщат в родината? Би ли предоставила Комисията данни за граждани
от България?

**Отговор, даден от г-н Андор от името на Комисията**

_(4 септември 2012 г.)_

1. Достъпът на български и румънски работници до пазара на труда на Обединеното кралство все още е предмет на
националното законодателство. Това не представлява дискриминация, която е в противоречие със законодателството
на ЕС, тъй като се основава на Договора за присъединяване. Освен това трудностите, изпитани във връзка с процедурите
и забавянето на сроковете за издаване на разрешителни за работа, са въпроси, които трябва да бъдат разгледани от

националните съдилища.

2. Процентът на заетост на работниците от България и Румъния на възраст между 15 и 64 години в Обединеното
кралство е бил 71,6 % през първото тримесечие на 2012 г. — последният период, за който са налични сведения.
Данните са от проучването на работната сила в ЕС. Миналата година, т.е. през първото тримесечие на 2011 г.,
процентът на заетост на тази група от населението е бил 79,1 %, т.e. 7,5 процентни пункта по-висок. Тази низходяща
тенденция се наблюдава и за други лица, които не са граждани на Обединеното кралство, но живеят и работят там;
процентът на заетост на тези работници на възраст между 15 и 64 години се е променил от 66,7 % през първото
тримесечие на 2011 г. на 65,8 % през първото тримесечие на 2012 г.

3. Съгласно Договора за присъединяване държавите членки трябва да съобщят за сериозни затруднения на пазара
на труда (или за наличие на заплаха от такива), за да могат да удължат прилагането на ограниченията по отношение на
достъпа до пазара на труда, но въпреки това Комисията не трябва да одобрява това удължаване. По искане на
Комисията четири държави членки бяха приканени да предоставят допълнителна информация и изпълниха искането.
Тази информация допълва вече съобщената от тях информация, като подкрепя първоначалните им аргументи и данни
и представя по-ясна картина на становището им за наличие на сериозни затруднения на пазара на труда (или за
наличие на заплаха от такива).

C 219 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

4. Актуален анализ на моделите на мобилност в рамките на ЕС може да се намери в раздел „Специален акцент“ на
тримесечния преглед на трудовата заетост и социалното положение в ЕС ( [1] ) от юни 2012 г.

5. Комисията (Евростат) не разполага с информация каква част от младите хора се връщат в родината си, след като
са завършили висше образование в чужбина.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1389&furtherNews=yes.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 121

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006963/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ivailo Kalfin (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Equal treatment of Bulgarian citizens on the UK labour market

I have been receiving various alerts about the fact that, since the beginning of 2012, Bulgarian citizens in the UK have
been experiencing serious difficulties in being issued with registration certificates giving them access to the labour
market. I have been told that it is taking longer for applications to be considered, that people are not being informed
in a timely manner about applications that have been considered and the decisions taken on them, and that it is
effectively impossible to submit the documents required for the issue of registration certificates.

1. Does the Commission have any information about unequal treatment of Bulgarian citizens in the UK and, if not,
does it intend to seek additional information and to encourage the UK authorities to accord equal treatment to all EU
citizens?

2. Has the Commission observed a falling-off in the rate of employment of workers from Bulgaria and Romania in
the UK, and does it have any explanations for this? More particularly, could it be that access for workers from Central
and Eastern Europe is being artificially restricted because of the crisis and the record unemployment rate in the
European Union?

3. The Commission stated that it expected to receive, by mid‐May, additional analyses and explanations from the
nine Member States which had decided to use in full the transitional periods for limiting Bulgarian and Romanian
citizens’ access to their labour markets. Have all the Member States concerned replied to the Commission’s additional
questions? Does the Commission find all the responses satisfactory and, if not, which explanations from which
Member States do not meet its approval?

4. Does the Commission have up-to-date information on the movement of migratory flows in the EU since the
beginning of the crisis and can it make such information available?

5. Does the Commission have information as to what proportion of young people who complete their third-level
education in another Member State remain there to work, and what proportion return to their country of origin?
Could the Commission supply such figures in respect of Bulgarian citizens?

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

_(4 September 2012)_

1. Access of Bulgarian and Romanian workers to the UK labour market is still subject to national law. This does
not constitute discrimination contrary to EC law because it is based on the Accession Treaty. Moreover, the difficulties
described as regards the procedures and delays for issuing work permits are matters for the national courts.

2. The employment rate for workers aged 15-64 from Bulgaria and Romania in the United Kingdom was 71.6% in
2012Q1, the most recent period for which data are available. These figures come from the EU Labour Force Survey.
One year before, i.e. in 2011Q1 the employment rate for that group was 79.1%, i.e. 7.5 percentage points higher.
This downward trend is also observed for other non-UK citizens working and living in the UK, whose employment
rate for workers aged 15-64 changed from 66.7% in 2011Q1 to 65.8% in 2012Q1.

3. According to the Accession Treaty, extending restrictions on labour market access requires notification by
Member States of serious labour market disturbances (or threat thereof) However, the Commission does not have to
approve the extension. Following a request by the Commission, four Member States had been asked to provide
additional information which they did. This information reinforces their notifications by further substantiating their
initial arguments and data and clarifying their view of serious labour market disturbances (or threat thereof).

C 219 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

4. A recent analysis of the patterns of intra-EU mobility can be found in a special focus section of the June 2012
EU Employment and Social Situation quarterly review ( [1] ).

5. The Commission (Eurostat) does not have information as to the proportion of young people returning to their
country of origin after completion of a third-level education abroad.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1389&furtherNews=yes.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 123

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-006964/12**

**do Komisji**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(12 lipca 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zgodność z prawem wycofywania uprawnień do emisji w ramach systemu handlu uprawnieniami do
emisji gazów cieplarnianych w UE (ETS)

W ostatnim czasie dyskutuje się o tym, iż obecna cena uprawnień do emisji przyznawanych w ramach systemu
handlu uprawnieniami do emisji (EU ETS) jest zbyt niska, aby stanowić sygnał cenowy dotyczący emisji dwutlenku
węgla. Jedno z proponowanych rozwiązań polega na takiej modyfikacji systemu handlu uprawnieniami do emisji,
aby podwyższyć cenę emisji dwutlenku węgla, na przykład poprzez wycofanie pewnej liczby uprawnień do emisji
z możliwością późniejszego ich anulowania.

Jednak zgodnie z art. 9 oraz 9a dyrektywy o handlu emisjami, Komisja Europejska nie ma prawa ograniczać liczby
uprawnień do emisji. Zgodnie z powyższą dyrektywą wszystkie uprawnienia do emisji nieprzydzielone jako
bezpłatne muszą zostać wystawione od 2013 r. do końca okresu handlu uprawnieniami w 2020 r. na aukcji,
niezależnie od sygnału cenowego dotyczącego emisji dwutlenku węgla.

W tym kontekście należy zwrócić uwagę, iż celem rozporządzenia o sprzedaży na aukcji ( [1] ) nie jest wpłynięcie na
rynek emisji związków węgla lub na cenę uprawnień do emisji. Co więcej, państwa członkowskie nie mogą na mocy
powyższego rozporządzenia wstrzymywać bądź anulować uprawnień nieprzydzielonych jako bezpłatne zamiast
sprzedawać je na aukcji (punkt 2 preambuły).

Zgodnie z art. 10 ust. 4 dyrektywy o handlu emisjami Komisja Europejska nie jest uprawniona do wprowadzania do
rozporządzenia o sprzedaży na aukcji zmian, które miałyby wpływ na cenę, zmian harmonogramu lub wolumenu
uprawnień, które mają być sprzedane na aukcji. Wszelkie zmiany tego typu podlegają szczególnym warunkom
(art. 10a ust. 19 omawianej dyrektywy), a zmian ceny emisji dwutlenku węgla nie wymieniono w tych przepisach.

1. Czy zdaniem Komisji wycofanie pewnej liczby uprawnień do emisji jest zgodne z prawem UE?

2. Jeżeli tak, to za pomocą jakich środków prawnych innych niż zmiana dyrektywy o handlu emisjami Komisja
mogłaby tego dokonać?

3. Czy Komisja zamierza na mocy art. 29 dyrektywy o handlu emisjami przedłożyć sprawozdanie w sprawie
nieprawidłowego funkcjonowania rynku uprawnień do emisji dwutlenku węgla?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Connie Hedegaard w imieniu Komisji**

_(23 sierpnia 2012 r.)_

Dzięki systemowi handlu uprawnieniami do emisji (ETS) powstały pierwszy na świecie duży rynek uprawnień do
emisji dwutlenku węgla oraz wspólna dla całej UE cena emisji dwutlenku węgla. Powszechnie uznaje się, że rynek ten
opiera się na dobrze funkcjonującej infrastrukturze. Pewien element tej infrastruktury dotyczy zasad sprzedaży na
aukcji uprawnień do emisji, a dyrektywa w sprawie ETS ( [2] ) przyznaje już Komisji uprawnienia wykonawcze,
w szczególności do przyjęcia rozporządzenia „w sprawie harmonogramu, kwestii administracyjnych oraz
pozostałych aspektów sprzedaży na aukcji, aby zapewnić przeprowadzanie tej sprzedaży w sposób otwarty,
przejrzysty, zharmonizowany i niedyskryminujący”. Dyrektywa powinna zostać uściślona, tak aby umożliwić
Komisji, z zagwarantowaniem pewności prawa, przyjęcie środków, których pilnie wymaga rynek uprawnień do
emisji dwutlenku węgla.

Należy wprowadzić rozróżnienie między dwoma sprawozdaniami. Zgodnie z art. 10 ust. 5 Komisja co roku
przedstawia Parlamentowi Europejskiemu i Radzie sprawozdanie dotyczące funkcjonowania rynku uprawnień do
emisji dwutlenku węgla. Jeżeli w oparciu o te regularne sprawozdania Komisja posiada dowody na to, że rynek nie
działa prawidłowo, przedstawia inne sprawozdanie, o którym mowa w art. 29. Sprawozdanie, o którym mowa
w art. 10 ust. 5, ma zostać przygotowane jeszcze w tym roku.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 1031/2010 z dnia 12 listopada 2010 r. w sprawie harmonogramu, kwestii administracyjnych oraz pozostałych

aspektów sprzedaży na aukcji uprawnień do emisji gazów cieplarnianych na mocy dyrektywy 2003/87/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady
ustanawiającej system handlu przydziałami emisji gazów cieplarnianych we Wspólnocie (Dz.U. L 302 z 18.11.2010, s. 2).

( ⋅2∙ ) Dz.U. L 275 z 25.10.2003.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 219 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006964/12**

**to the Commission**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Legality of emissions allowances set aside under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

It has recently been mooted that the current price for emissions allowances (EUAs) under the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (EU ETS) is too low to provide a carbon-price signal. One of the solutions offered is to re-calibrate the EU ETS
in order to drive up the carbon price, for example by setting aside an amount of emissions allowances and keeping the
option open to cancel them later on.

However, under Articles 9 and 9a of the ETS Directive, the EC is not entitled to reduce the cap on EUAs. Under the EU
ETS Directive, every EUA that is not to be allocated free of charge is to be auctioned from 2013 until the trading
period ends in 2020, regardless of the carbon-price signal.

It should be noted in this context that the Auctioning Regulation ( [1] ) is not designed to influence the carbon market or
the EUA price. Furthermore, the Member States are not entitled under the regulation to withhold or cancel EUAs not
allocated for free instead of auctioning them (Recital 2).

According to Article 10 (4) of the EU ETS Directive, the EC does not have the power to amend the Auctioning
Regulation in a way to influence the price, nor can it amend the timeline or the volumes of EUAs to be auctioned. Any
amendments of this kind are subject to specific conditions (Article 10a (19) of the EU ETS Directive), and the
development of the carbon price is not mentioned in these provisions.

1. According to the Commission, is it in line with EC law to set aside a specific amount of emissions allowances?

2. If so, by which legal means, other than the revision of the ETS Directive, would the Commission undertake to do
so?

3. Has the Commission considered submitting a report on the malfunctioning of the carbon market under
Article 29 of the EU ETS Directive?

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

_(23 August 2012)_

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has created the world's first major carbon market and an EU‐wide carbon price.
The market is generally considered to be based on well-functioning infrastructure. Part of this infrastructure relates to
the modalities for auctioning of emission allowances, and the ETS Directive ( [2] ) already confers implementing powers
to the Commission, notably to adopt Regulation on ‘the timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning to
ensure that it is conducted in an open, transparent, harmonised and non-discriminatory manner.’ The directive
should be clarified to allow the Commission to adopt measures urgently required by the carbon market with legal
certainty.

A distinction needs to be made between two reports. According to Article 10(5), the Commission shall each year
submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the functioning of the carbon market. If on the
basis of such regular reports, the Commission has evidence that the market is not functioning properly, it shall submit
another report referred to in Article 29. The report referred to in Article 10(5) is expected to be finalised later this

year.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1031/2010 of 12 November 2010 on the timing, administration and other aspects of auctioning of greenhouse

gas emission allowances pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowances trading within the Community, Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 302, 18.11.2010), Recital 2.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 125

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-006965/12**

**do Komisji**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**

_(12 lipca 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Rozliczalność wydatków UE na rzecz rozwoju

Biorąc pod uwagę fakt, iż UE przekazuje pomoc rozwojową sekretariatowi Południowoafrykańskiej Wspólnoty
Rozwoju (SADC), oraz to, że nie istnieje Parlament Regionalny SADC, który zapewniłby nadzór nad wydatkami UE
na rzecz rozwoju oraz ich kontrolę, jakie alternatywne rozwiązania mogą zapewnić rozliczalność tych wydatków na
poziomie regionalnym? Czy rozwiązania te są wystarczającą gwarancją, iż pomoc rozwojowa UE będzie
kontynuowana bez nadużyć i marnowania zasobów?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Andrisa Piebalgsa w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 sierpnia 2012 r.)_

Komisja dysponuje wieloma środkami mającymi na celu zapewnienie rozliczalności wydatków ze strony
Południowoafrykańskiej Wspólnoty Rozwoju (SADC).

Zgodnie z umową z Kotonu wdrażanie wszelkich projektów według zasad zarządzania częściowo
zdecentralizowanego podlega kontroli _ex ante_ wszystkich procedur wynikających z umowy oraz transakcji
finansowych wykonywanych przez Komisję. Dodatkowo Komisja przeprowadziła ponad 60 niezależnych kontroli
w odniesieniu do projektów wdrażanych przez Sekretariat SADC od 2005 r. Ogólna wysokość wydatków
niekwalifikowalnych została oszacowana na 1,2 %, przy czym zauważono znaczny spadek w odniesieniu do
projektów wdrażanych w ciągu ostatnich trzech lat. Wydatki niekwalifikowalne są odzyskiwane bezpośrednio
z Sekretariatu SADC.

Komisja wspiera pracę doradcy finansowego w biurze Regionalnego Urzędnika Zatwierdzającego SADC, proponuje
regularne szkolenia dla jego personelu oraz przekazuje istotne wskazówki zarówno online jak i w formie papierowej
odnośnie należytego zarządzania finansami oraz kwestii dotyczących przestrzegania zasad.

W kwietniu 2012 r. SADC zostało poddane instytucjonalnej ocenie zgodności dotyczącej warunków kwalifikowania
się do otrzymywania funduszy na podstawie porozumienia o wkładzie finansowym, objętego wspólnym
zarządzaniem. Ta niezależna ocena procedur międzynarodowej instytucji zweryfikowała cztery obszary pod kątem
najwyższych międzynarodowych standardów: rachunkowość, kontrolę ksiąg rachunkowych, procedury kontroli
wewnętrznej i udzielanie zamówień. W toku kontroli dwa z tych obszarów oceniono jako „zadowalające”
(rachunkowość i kontrola wewnętrzna), a dwa kolejne zostały określone jako „skuteczne”, co jest najwyższą możliwą
oceną (kontrola ksiąg rachunkowych oraz udzielanie zamówień), a to oznacza, że kontrola dała wynik pozytywny
i SADC kwalifikuje się do zarządzania wspólnego.

Komisja jest zdania, że te środki dają wystarczającą podstawę do stwierdzenia, że pomoc rozwojowa UE jest
realizowana bez marnowania czy niewłaściwego użytkowania zasobów.

C 219 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006965/12**

**to the Commission**
**Filip Kaczmarek (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Accountability for EU expenditures on development resources

Given that the EU provides development assistance to the Southern African Development Community Secretariat,
and that there is no SADC Regional Parliament to provide oversight and scrutiny of these EU expenditures on
development resources, what alternative measures are in place to ensure accountability for expenditures at the
regional level, and are these measures sufficient to guarantee that EU development assistance can continue without
wastage or misuse of resources?

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

_(21 August 2012)_

The Commission has in place a number of measures to ensure accountability for expenditure via the Southern African
Development Community (SADC).

Under the Cotonou Agreement, the implementation of all projects under partially decentralised management is
subject to _ex-ante_ control of all contractual procedures and financial transactions by the Commission. In addition, the
Commission has conducted more than 60 independent audits on projects implemented by the SADC Secretariat since
2005. The overall ineligible expenditure was found to be 1.2%, with marked reductions on projects implemented in
the last three years. Ineligible expenditure is recovered directly from the SADC Secretariat.

The Commission supports a financial adviser in the office of the SADC Regional Authorising Officer, offers regular
training possibilities to his staff and provides substantial guidance both online and in paper format in relation to
sound financial management and compliance issues.

In April 2012 SADC underwent an institutional compliance assessment of its eligibility to receive funds through a
Contribution Agreement under joint management. This independent assessment of the procedures of an
international institution addressed four areas against the highest international standards: accounting, audit, internal
control and procurement. The conclusion was positive and SADC is thus eligible for joint management with two
areas graded ‘satisfactory’ (accounting and internal control) and two with the highest grade of ‘effective’ (audit and
procurement).

The Commission believes these measures to be sufficient to obtain reasonable assurance that EU development
assistance is implemented without wastage or misuse of resources.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 127

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-006966/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE), Konrad Szymański (ECR), Herbert Reul (PPE) y Giles Chichester (ECR)**

_(12 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Programa Indicativo Nuclear

Según el artículo 40 del Tratado Euratom, «la Comisión publicará periódicamente programas de carácter indicativo,
que se referirán, en especial, a los objetivos de producción de energía nuclear y a las inversiones de todo orden
necesarias para la consecución de tales objetivos». El último documento de esa naturaleza se publicó en 2008.

— En vista del debate en curso sobre la Hoja de Ruta de la Energía para 2050 y sobre el importante papel que la
energía nuclear desempeñará para ayudar a alcanzar los objetivos de descarbonización, ¿está de acuerdo la Comisión
en que sería oportuno publicar un nuevo Programa indicativo nuclear (PINC)?

— ¿Puede la Comisión asegurar que el próximo PINC se centrará en cuestiones relacionadas con la inversión, así
como con el empleo y el crecimiento económico, sin quedar subsumido en el otro paralelo sobre normas de
seguridad?

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

_(23 de agosto de 2012)_

Teniendo en cuenta la evolución y los retos de la política energética de la UE (inclusive la Hoja de ruta energética de
la UE para 2050 y su seguimiento), la Comisión ha empezado a trabajar en un nuevo Programa indicativo nuclear
(PINC). De conformidad con el artículo 40 del Tratado Euratom, incluirá elementos de inversión y se abordarán, entre
otros temas, las prioridades de la UE relacionadas con «Europa 2020» ( [1] ). La Comisión espera que el nuevo PINC se
haga público en 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

C 219 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006966/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE), Konrad Szymański (ECR), Herbert Reul (PPE) und Giles Chichester (ECR)**

_(12. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Hinweisendes Nuklearprogramm

Artikel 40 des Euratom-Vertrags zufolge „veröffentlicht die Kommission in regelmäßigen Abständen hinweisende
Programme, insbesondere hinsichtlich der Ziele für die Erzeugung von Kernenergie und der im Hinblick hierauf
erforderlichen Investitionen aller Art“. Das letzte Dokument dieser Art wurde 2008 veröffentlicht.

— Stimmt die Kommission vor dem Hintergrund der anhaltenden Debatte über den Energiefahrplan 2050 und über
die bedeutende Rolle der Kernenergie für die Umsetzung der Emissionsreduktionsziele der EU der Auffassung zu, dass
es an der Zeit ist, ein neues Hinweisendes Nuklearprogramm (PINC) zu veröffentlichen?

— Kann die Kommission zusichern, dass der Schwerpunkt des nächsten Hinweisenden Nuklearprogramms auf
Investitionen sowie auf Beschäftigung und Wachstum liegen und dass es sich nicht in die getrennte Debatte über
Sicherheitsstandards einreihen wird?

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

_(23. August 2012)_

Angesichts der Weiterentwicklung und der Herausforderungen der EU-Energiepolitik (einschließlich des
Energiefahrplans 2050 und seiner Weiterverfolgung) hat die Kommission die Vorbereitungsarbeiten für ein neues
Hinweisendes Nuklearprogramm (PINC) aufgenommen. Gemäß Artikel 40 Euratom-Vertrag werden darin
Investitionsaspekte sowie, unter anderem, die Prioritäten der EU in Zusammenhang mit „Europa 2020“ ( [1] ) behandelt.
Die Kommission geht davon aus, dass das neue PINC im Laufe des Jahres 2013 aufgelegt wird.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_de.htm

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 129

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-006966/12**

**do Komisji**
**Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE), Konrad Szymański (ECR), Herbert Reul (PPE) oraz Giles Chichester (ECR)**

_(12 lipca 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Przykładowy program energetyki jądrowej

Zgodnie z art. 40 Traktatu Euratom Komisja Europejska „okresowo publikuje informacje na temat przykładowych
programów, wskazując określone cele produkcyjne energetyki jądrowej oraz wszelkie typy inwestycji niezbędne do
ich osiągnięcia”. Ostatni taki dokument został opublikowany w 2008 r.

— W związku z aktualną dyskusją dotyczącą planu działania w dziedzinie energii na rok 2050, przy uwzględnieniu
ważnej roli, jaką energia jądrowa będzie odgrywać w osiągnięciu celów UE w zakresie obniżenia emisyjności, czy
Komisja Europejska zgadza się, iż nadszedł czas, aby opublikować nowy przykładowy program energetyki jądrowej
(PPEJ)?

— Czy Komisja Europejska może nas zapewnić, iż następny przykładowy program energetyki jądrowej skupi się na
kwestiach związanych z inwestycjami, zatrudnieniem oraz wzrostem gospodarczym, a nie zostanie włączony do
odrębnej debaty na temat standardów bezpieczeństwa?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Günthera Oettingera w imieniu Komisji**

_(23 sierpnia 2012 r.)_

Mając na uwadze rozwój i wyzwania unijnej polityki energetycznej (w tym plan działania w dziedzinie energii na rok
2050 oraz jego uzupełnienie), Komisja rozpoczęła prace przygotowawcze nad nowym przykładowym programem
energetyki jądrowej (PPEJ). Zgodnie z wymogami artykułu 40 traktatu EURATOM, będzie on dotyczył aspektów
inwestycyjnych i określone w nim zostaną między innymi priorytety UE związane ze strategią „Europa 2020” ( [1] ) [. ]

Komisja przewiduje wydanie nowego PPEJ w 2013 r.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_pl.htm

C 219 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006966/12**

**to the Commission**
**Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE), Konrad Szymański (ECR), Herbert Reul (PPE) and Giles Chichester (ECR)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Illustrative nuclear programme

Under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, ‘the Commission shall periodically publish illustrative programmes
indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets and all the types of investment required for their
attainment’. The last such document was published in 2008.

— In view of the ongoing discussion on the Energy Roadmap 2050, including on the important role nuclear energy
will play in helping to achieve EU decarbonisation targets, does the Commission agree that it would be timely to
publish a new Illustrative Programme for Nuclear Energy (PINC)?

— Can the Commission reassure us that the next PINC will be focused on investment issues, as well as on jobs and
growth, and not subsumed into the separate debate about safety standards?

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

_(23 August 2012)_

Considering the evolution and challenges of the EU Energy Policy (including the EU Energy Roadmap 2050 and its
follow-up), the Commission has commenced preparatory work on a new Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC). As
required under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, it will include investment aspects and will address, amongst other
issues, EU priorities related to ‘Europe 2020’ ( [1] ). The Commission expects that the new PINC will be issued during
2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 131

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006967/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), Alf Svensson (PPE), Olle Schmidt (ALDE), Ana Gomes (S&D), Ivo Vajgl**

**(ALDE) und Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE)**

_(12. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Europäischer Entwicklungsfonds (EEF) für Eritrea

Die EU hat im Zeitraum 2008-2013 für Eritrea Fördermittel in Höhe von 122 Millionen EUR aus dem
10. Europäischen Entwicklungsfonds (EEF) bereitgestellt. Im November 2011 hat die Regierung Eritreas beschlossen,
alle im Rahmen des 10. EEF laufenden Programme zu beenden ( [1] ).

1. Kann die Kommission versichern, dass seit November 2011 keine Mittel an Eritrea übertragen oder im Land
ausgegeben wurden?

2. Kann die Kommission detailliert darlegen, welche Mittel bereitgestellt beziehungsweise ausgegeben wurden?

3. Was meint die Kommission mit der Aussage „Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass mithilfe neuer, mit dem nationalen
Entwicklungsplan in Einklang stehender Programme diese nutzbringenden Ziele zu gegebener Zeit verwirklicht
werden“ ( [2] )? Bedeutet dies, dass die Kommission mit der Vereinbarung von Hilfsprogrammen beginnen wird, sobald
die Regierung Eritreas diesbezüglich ihr Interesse bekundet? Hat die Regierung Eritreas angedeutet, erneut Hilfe in
Anspruch nehmen zu wollen? Falls ja: Wie hat die Kommission reagiert? Welche neuen Programme finanziert die
Kommission derzeit? Welche Programme plant sie, in Zukunft zu finanzieren?

4. Die Kommission wird gebeten, transparent Auskunft über den politischen Dialog zwischen der EU und der
Regierung Eritreas zu geben. Welchen Zeitpunkt hält die Kommission im Hinblick auf die Aufnahme neuer
Programme für möglich?

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

_(21. August 2012)_

Nach November 2011 wurden Zahlungen im Rahmen von Projekten des 10. Europäischen Entwicklungsfonds (EEF)
nur für Tätigkeiten geleistet, die vor der Aussetzung der Projekte durchgeführt wurden; die einzige Ausnahme hiervon
betrifft einen Vertrag mit einem nichtstaatlichen Akteur (National Confederation of Eritrean Workers), dessen
Mittelverwaltung direkt von der EU-Delegation geleistet wird, und dessen Durchführung wie ursprünglich geplant im
August 2012 endet. Für dieses Projekt wurden 150 000 EUR ausgegeben.

Nach dem offiziellen Ersuchen des Nationalen Anweisungsbefugten (Ministry of National Development) vom 15. Juni
hat die EU-Delegation einen Dialog eingeleitet, um die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und Eritrea,
wie auch die Zusammenarbeit mit anderen internationalen Entwicklungspartnern, insbesondere den Vereinten
Nationen (UN), wieder in Gang zu bringen. Die UN und die EU haben auf das erneuerte Engagement Eritreas positiv
reagiert. Derzeit wartet die Delegation auf einen Vorschlag der eritreischen Regierung zu den Prioritäten der
Zusammenarbeit, bevor sie Gespräche über die Wiederaufnahme bzw. die Auflage konkreter Programme einleitet. Bei
einer Wiederaufnahme des Programms im Rahmen des 10. EEF dürften Ernährungssicherheit und Landwirtschaft eine
wichtige Rolle spielen.

Darüber hinaus wird der politische Dialog mit der Regierung Eritreas nach Artikel 8 des Abkommens von Cotonou
fortgesetzt; in diesem Rahmen fanden 2012 bislang zwei offizielle Sitzungen statt, weitere Sitzungen sind im Laufe
des Jahres vorgesehen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/eritrea/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/20111115_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ebenda.

C 219 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-006967/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), Alf Svensson (PPE), Olle Schmidt (ALDE), Ana Gomes (S&D), Ivo Vajgl**

**(ALDE) en Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE)**

_(12 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds (EOF) voor Eritrea

De EU heeft 122 miljoen euro ontwikkelingshulp toegewezen aan Eritrea in het kader van het tiende Europees
Ontwikkelingsfonds (EOF) 2008-2013. In november 2011 heeft de regering van Eritrea besloten de huidige
programma's in het kader van het tiende Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds te beëindigen ( [1] ).

1. Kan de Commissie bevestigen dat er sinds november 2011 geen fondsen zijn overgedragen aan of zijn
uitgegeven in Eritrea?

2. Kan de Commissie in detail aangeven hoeveel fondsen er zijn toegewezen of uitgegeven?

3. Wat bedoelt de Commissie met „het is te hopen dat nieuwe programma's die in overeenstemming zijn met het
Nationale Ontwikkelingsplan op termijn hun vruchten zullen afwerpen” ( [2] )? Wordt hiermee geïmpliceerd dat de
Commissie zich contractueel zal verplichten tot steunprogramma's zodra de Eritrese regering interesse toont? Heeft
de Eritrese regering aangegeven opnieuw steun te willen ontvangen? Zo ja, wat is de reactie van de Commissie daarop
geweest? Welke nieuwe programma's financiert de Commissie nu? Welke programma's verwacht ze in de toekomst te
zullen financieren?

4. Kan de Commissie duidelijkheid verschaffen over de politieke dialoog tussen de EU en de Eritrese regering?
Wanneer denkt de Commissie aan te kunnen vangen met nieuwe programma's?

**Antwoord van de heer Piebalgs namens de Commissie**

_(21 augustus 2012)_

Na november 2011 werden er met betrekking tot projecten in het kader van het tiende Europees Ontwikkelingsfonds
(EOF) alleen betalingen gedaan voor activiteiten die vóór de opschorting van de projecten hadden plaatsgehad, met als
enige uitzondering een contract met een niet-overheidsactor (de nationale confederatie van Eritrese werknemers), dat
rechtstreeks door de EU-delegatie wordt beheerd en waarvan de activiteiten ten einde lopen in augustus 2012, zoals
initieel gepland. Voor dit project werden 150 000 euro uitgegeven.

Na het officiële verzoek van de nationale ordonnateur (de minister van nationale ontwikkeling) van 15 juni, is de EUdelegatie een dialoog aangegaan om de ontwikkelingssamenwerking tussen de EU en Eritrea nieuw leven in te blazen,
alsook de samenwerking met andere internationale ontwikkelingspartners, met name de Verenigde Naties (VN).
De VN en de EU hebben positief gereageerd op het nieuwe engagement van Eritrea. In dit stadium wacht de delegatie
op een voorstel van de regering inzake de prioriteiten voor samenwerking alvorens gesprekken te beginnen over het
aanvatten of hervatten van concrete programma’s. Voedselzekerheid en landbouw zullen naar verwachting
prominent aanwezig zijn in een opnieuw opgestart tiende EOF-programma.

Daarnaast loopt de politieke dialoog met de regering van Eritrea door, in het kader van artikel 8 van de Overeenkomst
van Cotonou. In 2012 vonden twee formele zittingen plaats en in de rest van 2012 zijn nog verdere zittingen
gepland.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/eritrea/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/20111115_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ibid.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 133

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006967/12**

**à Comissão**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), Alf Svensson (PPE), Olle Schmidt (ALDE), Ana Gomes (S&D), Ivo Vajgl**

**(ALDE) e Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento (FED) destinado à Eritreia

A UE atribuiu à Eritreia 122 milhões de euros em fundos de desenvolvimento ao abrigo do 10.° Fundo Europeu de
Desenvolvimento (FED) 2008/2013. Em novembro de 2011, o governo da Eritreia decidiu cessar todos os programas
em curso ao abrigo do 10.° FED ( [1] ).

1. Pode a Comissão garantir que nenhum financiamento foi transferido ou gasto na Eritreia desde novembro de
2011?

2. Pode a Comissão especificar o que foi atribuído ou gasto?

3. O que entende a Comissão por «espera-se que novos programas que estejam em conformidade com o Plano
Nacional de Desenvolvimento produzam, na devida altura, estes benefícios» ( [2] )? Significa isto que a Comissão
começará a concluir programas de ajuda logo que o governo da Eritreia assim o requeira? O governo da Eritreia
manifestou interesse em restituir a ajuda? Se sim, qual foi a resposta da Comissão? Que novos programas está a
Comissão a financiar atualmente? O que prevê a Comissão financiar no futuro?

4. Pode a Comissão ser transparente no que diz respeito ao diálogo político entre a UE e o governo da Eritreia?
Quando considera a Comissão que será possível a abertura de novos programas?

**Resposta dada por Andris Piebalgs em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2012)_

Após novembro de 2011, só foram efetuados pagamentos relativos a projetos do 10.° Fundo Europeu de
Desenvolvimento (FED) para as atividades que tiveram lugar antes da suspensão dos projetos, com a única exceção de
um contrato com um interveniente não estatal (Confederação nacional dos trabalhadores eritreus) relativamente ao
qual a gestão é efetuada diretamente pela delegação da UE e cujas atividades cessam em agosto de 2012 como
previsto inicialmente. Neste projeto foram gastos 150 000 euros.

Na sequência do pedido oficial do gestor orçamental nacional (Ministério do Desenvolvimento Nacional) de 15 de
junho, a delegação da UE iniciou um diálogo para restabelecer a cooperação ao desenvolvimento Eritreia-UE, bem
como a cooperação com outros parceiros internacionais na área do desenvolvimento, em especial as Nações Unidas.
As Nações Unidas e a UE responderam positivamente ao empenhamento renovado da Eritreia. Atualmente, a
delegação aguarda uma proposta do governo sobre prioridades de cooperação, antes de iniciar conversações sobre a
(re)abertura de programas concretos. Prevê‐se que a segurança alimentar e a agricultura figurem de forma destacada
num recomeço do 10.° programa do FED.

Além disso, prossegue o diálogo político com o governo da Eritreia ao abrigo do artigo 8.° do Acordo de Cotonu,
tendo sido realizadas em 2012 duas sessões formais no âmbito desse diálogo, sendo previstas mais sessões até ao final
de 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/eritrea/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/20111115_en.htm).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ibid.

C 219 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Slovenska različica)_

**Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-006967/12**

**za Komisijo**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), Alf Svensson (PPE), Olle Schmidt (ALDE), Ana Gomes (S&D), Ivo Vajgl**

**(ALDE) in Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE)**

_(12. julij 2012)_

_Zadeva:_ Evropski razvojni sklad (ERS) za Eritrejo

Evropska unija je v okviru desetega Evropskega razvojnega sklada (ERS) za obdobje 2008‐2013 Eritreji namenila
razvojna sredstva v višini 122 milijonov EUR. Eritrejska vlada je novembra 2011 sprejela sklep o prekinitvi vseh
tekočih programov v okviru desetega Evropskega razvojnega sklada ( [1] ).

1. Ali lahko Komisija potrdi, da novembra 2011 Eritreji niso bila nakazana nobena sredstva?

2. Lahko podrobno navede dodeljene ali porabljene zneske?

3. Kaj Komisija misli z izjavo, da lahko upamo, da bo novi program v skladu z nacionalnim razvojnim načrtom
pravočasno obrodil sadove ( [2] )? Ali to pomeni, da bo začela sklepati dogovore o programih pomoči, kakor hitro bo
eritrejska vlada pokazala zanimanje? Je eritrejska vlada nakazala, da ponovno želi pomoč? Če je temu tako, kako se je
Komisija odzvala? Katere nove programe trenutno financira? Katere programe namerava financirati v prihodnje?

4. Ali se lahko Komisija glede političnega dialoga med EU in eritrejsko vlado pregledno izrazi? Kdaj bo mogoče po
njenem mnenju začeti nove programe?

**Odgovor g. Piebalgsa v imenu Komisije**

_(21. avgust 2012)_

Od novembra 2011 naprej so bila za projekte desetega Evropskega razvojnega sklada izplačila opravljena samo za
tiste dejavnosti, ki so bile izvedene pred opustitvijo projektov. Edina izjema je pogodba z nedržavnim akterjem
(Nacionalna konfederacija eritrejskih delavcev), v okviru katere upravljanje neposredno izvaja delegacija Evropske
unije in se bodo dejavnosti zaključile avgusta 2012, kot je bilo sprva načrtovano. Za navedeni projekt je bilo
porabljenih 150 000 EUR.

Po uradni prošnji nacionalnega odredbodajalca (Ministrstvo za državni razvoj) z dne 15. junija je delegacija EU začela
dialog za oživitev sodelovanja med Eritrejo in EU ter sodelovanja z drugimi mednarodnimi partnerji za razvoj, zlasti
Združenimi narodi. Združeni narodi in EU so se pozitivno odzvali na obnovljeno sodelovanje Eritreje. Delegacija
trenutno čaka na predlog vlade o prednostnih nalogah sodelovanja in bo šele po njegovem prejetju začela pogovore o
(ponovnem) izvajanju konkretnih programov. Po pričakovanjih naj bi v okviru desetega Evropskega razvojnega
sklada imela velik pomen zanesljivost oskrbe s hrano in kmetijstvo.

Poleg tega se nadaljuje politični dialog z vlado Eritreje v skladu s členom 8 Sporazuma iz Cotonouja. V letu 2012 sta
bila do zdaj dva uradna sestanka, do konca leta 2012 pa je predvidenih še več sestankov.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/eritrea/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/20111115_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ibid.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 135

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-006967/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), Alf Svensson (PPE), Olle Schmidt (ALDE), Ana Gomes (S&D), Ivo Vajgl**

**(ALDE) och Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE)**

_(12 juli 2012)_

_Angående:_ Europeiska utvecklingsfonden (EUF) för Eritrea

EU anslog 122 miljoner euro i utvecklingsanslag till Eritrea inom den tionde Europeiska utvecklingsfonden (EUF)
2008‐2013. I november 2011 beslutade Eritreas regering att avsluta alla pågående program inom den tionde EUF. ( [1] )

1. Kan kommissionen bekräfta att inga medel har överförts till eller spenderats i Eritrea sedan november 2011?

2. Kan kommissionen uppge vilka medel som har anslagits eller spenderats?

3. Vad menar kommissionen med att den hoppas att nya program i linje med den nationella utvecklingsplanen i
sinom tid kommer att leda till att utnyttjandet kan ske (”it is to be hoped that new programmes in line with the
National Development Plan will in due course bring such benefits to fruition”) ( [2] )? Innebär detta att kommissionen
kommer att börja ingå avtal om biståndsprogram så fort Eritreas regering anmäler sitt intresse? Har Eritreas regering
uppgett att den på nytt önskar inleda biståndsprogrammet? Om ja, vad har kommissionen svarat? Vilka nya program
finansierar kommissionen för närvarande? Vilka program förväntar sig kommissionen att man ska finansiera i
framtiden?

4. Kan kommissionen vara transparent med den politiska dialogen mellan EU och Eritreas regering? När tror
kommissionen att nya program kan inledas?

**Svar från Andris Piebalgs på kommissionens vägnar**

_(21 augusti 2012)_

Efter november 2011 har betalningar till projekt inom ramen för tionde Europeiska utvecklingsfonden (EUF) endast
gjorts för de verksamheter som ägde rum innan projekten ställdes in. Det enda undantaget är ett avtal med en ickestatlig aktör (National Confederation of Eritrean Workers) där förvaltningen ligger direkt hos EU:s delegation och där
verksamheten avslutas i augusti 2012, såsom ursprungligen planerats. 150 000 euro har spenderats i detta projekt.

Efter den officiella begäran som den nationelle utanordnaren (ministern för nationell utveckling) framförde
den 15 juni, har EU:s delegation inlett en dialog för att blåsa nytt liv i utvecklingssamarbetet mellan Eritrea och EU,
såväl som i samarbetet med andra internationella utvecklingspartner, särskilt Förenta nationerna (FN). FN och EU har
reagerat positivt på Eritreas förnyade engagemang. I detta skede väntar delegationen på ett regeringsförslag om
prioriteringar för samarbetet, innan man inleder diskussioner om (åter)upptagandet av konkreta program.
Livsmedelstrygghet och jordbruk förväntas få en framträdande plats inom ramen för ett nystartat program inom
tionde EUF.

Dessutom fortsätter den politiska dialogen med Eritreas regering i enlighet med artikel 8 i Cotonouavtalet: två
formella möten har redan ägt rum under 2012 och fler möten planeras under återstoden av året.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/eritrea/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/20111115_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/eritrea/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/20111115_en.htm

C 219 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006967/12**

**to the Commission**
**Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), Alf Svensson (PPE), Olle Schmidt (ALDE), Ana Gomes (S&D), Ivo Vajgl**

**(ALDE) and Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Development Fund (EDF) for Eritrea

The EU allocated EUR 122 million of development funds for Eritrea under the 10th European Development Fund
(EDF) 2008-2013. In November 2011 the Government of Eritrea decided to terminate all ongoing programmes
under the 10th EDF ( [1] ).

1. Can the Commission state that no funding has been transferred to or spent in Eritrea since November 2011?

2. Can the Commission specify what has been allocated or spent?

3. What does the Commission mean by ‘it is to be hoped that new programmes in line with the National
Development Plan will in due course bring such benefits to fruition’ ( [2] )? Does this imply that the Commission will
start to contract aid programmes as soon as the Eritrean Government expresses interest? Has the Eritrean
Government indicated it wants to restart aid? If so, what has been the response of the Commission? What new
programmes is the Commission currently funding? What programmes does it expect to fund in the future?

4. Can the Commission be transparent with regard to the political dialogue between the EU and the Eritrean
Government? When does the Commission think it will be possible to open new programmes?

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

_(21 August 2012)_

After November 2011, payments on projects of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) have only been made
for those activities that took place before the suspension of the projects, with the single exception of a contract with a
Non State Actor (National Confederation of Eritrean Workers) where the management is done directly by the EU
Delegation and where activities are ending in August 2012, as originally planned. For this project, EUR 150 000 have
been spent.

Following the official request by the National Authorising Officer (Minister of National Development) of 15 June,
the EU Delegation has started a dialogue to revive Eritrean‐EU development cooperation, as well as cooperation with
other international development partners, particularly the United Nations (UN). The UN and the EU have responded
positively to the renewed engagement of Eritrea. At this stage, the Delegation is awaiting a government proposal on
cooperation priorities, before starting talks on (re)opening of concrete programs. Food security and agriculture are
expected to feature prominently under a restarted 10th EDF programme.

Furthermore, political dialogue with the Government of Eritrea continues, under Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement,
two formal sessions of which took place in 2012 and more sessions are foreseen during the remainder of 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/eritrea/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/20111115_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ibid.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 137

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-006968/12**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(12 juillet 2012)_

_Objet:_ Méthode d'inspection des viandes de volaille

L'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) a publié, le 29 juin 2012, un avis scientifique concernant
l'inspection des viandes de volaille dans l'Union européenne.

Cet avis fait état de l'insuffisance des systèmes traditionnels d'inspection de viandes de volaille afin de faire
efficacement face aux dangers biologiques les plus importants en matière de santé publique (notamment concernant
les bactéries _Campylobacter spp._ et _Salmonella spp._ ).

L'EFSA souligne que «les méthodes actuelles d'inspection ne permettent pas de détecter ces dangers». De plus, elles «ne
permettent pas de différencier les problèmes relatifs à la sécurité des aliments des considérations liées à la qualité de la
viande, à la prévention des maladies animales ou aux dangers professionnels».

L'inspection des viandes est essentielle afin de détecter et de prévenir les dangers que représente la présence d'agents
pathogènes ou de contaminants chimiques dans les denrées alimentaires d'origine animale, et cela en vue d'assurer
efficacement la protection de la santé publique des citoyens européens, mais également la santé et le bien-être des
animaux.

L'Autorité de sécurité des aliments a fourni une «base scientifique pour la modernisation du système d'inspection des
viandes de volaille». Elle propose également des «interventions fondées sur les risques» qui devront se combiner avec
une amélioration de la communication des informations partagées entre les exploitations et les abattoirs.

À la lecture de cet avis scientifique, la Commission pourrait-elle indiquer si elle envisage une réforme du système
d'inspection des viandes de volaille telle qu'elle est proposée par l'EFSA?

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

_(29 août 2012)_

La Commission est en train d'étudier les propositions de réforme de l'inspection des viandes de volaille formulées par
l'EFSA et a l'intention de présenter des propositions législatives visant à améliorer le système actuel au cours du
premier trimestre de 2013.

C 219 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006968/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Method of poultry meat inspection

On 29 June 2012 the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) published a scientific opinion on the inspection of
poultry meat in the European Union.

This opinion states that traditional systems for inspecting meat and poultry may not suffice to properly address major
biological risks to public heath (particularly the bacteria _Campylobacter spp._ and _Salmonella spp._ ).

EFSA confirms that ‘current inspection methods do not enable the detection of these hazards’ and that they ‘do not
differentiate food safety concerns from considerations related to meat quality, prevention of animal diseases or
occupational hazards’.

It is crucial for meat to be inspected so as to detect and warn against hazards caused by the presence of pathogens or
chemical contamination in foodstuffs of animal origin and thereby to provide effective protection to the European
public and ensure animal health and well-being.

EFSA’s opinion provides a ‘scientific basis for the modernisation of poultry meat inspection’. It also proposes that
‘risk-based interventions’ coupled with the improved use of information shared between farms and abattoirs be
carried out.

Could the Commission say whether, in the light of this scientific opinion, it intends to implement the reform to the
poultry meat inspection system that EFSA recommends?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

At present the Commission is studying EFSA's proposals for the review of poultry meat inspection and intends to
present legislative proposals for possible amendments in the first trimester of 2013.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 139

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-006969/12**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(12 juillet 2012)_

_Objet:_ Rejet de l'ACTA et échec de la politique de communication de la Commission

Le 4 juillet 2012, le Parlement européen décidait de ne pas approuver l'Accord commercial anti-contrefaçon (ACTA).

Compte tenu de l'attachement réaffirmé par l'ensemble des eurodéputés à la défense des droits de propriété
intellectuelle (DPI), le vote exprimé par la majorité d'entre eux, combiné à une forte abstention et à un nombre
anormalement faible de voix favorables, est ainsi venu mettre en lumière autant les inquiétudes sur le contenu même
de l'accord, que les dysfonctionnements qui ont marqué le déroulement de la procédure d'approbation.

Ce texte, destiné à protéger les marques commerciales et à lutter contre la contrefaçon et le piratage en ligne, avait en
effet suscité de vifs débats dans les médias et l'opinion publique. Il mobilisait notamment contre lui une minorité
active de la blogosphère, à l'origine d'un envoi massif de courriels aux députés et aux citoyens européens.

Si l'on pourrait se féliciter de l'implication des citoyens et de la société civile sur un tel sujet qui touche à l'équilibre
entre droits de propriété intellectuelle et libertés civiles, il s'avère toutefois regrettable que la campagne de
désinformation organisée par les adversaires du projet ait pris le pas sur une campagne d'information qui aurait dû
pointer les avantages de ce texte, sans occulter les inquiétudes légitimes sur certains points précis de l'accord.

1. Quels enseignements la Commission européenne tire-t-elle à propos du traitement médiatique d'ACTA, après
son rejet par le Parlement européen?

2. Estime-t-elle en particulier que les citoyens et les députés européens ont été équitablement informés sur les
avantages et les inconvénients de l'accord?

3. Quel bilan fait-elle de sa propre campagne de communication, dont les moyens financiers et matériels sont
pourtant sans commune mesure avec ceux utilisés par les adversaires du projet?

4. Enfin, quelles mesures et réformes compte-t-elle prendre à l'avenir pour pallier ces problèmes de
communication?

**Réponse donnée par M. De Gucht au nom de la Commission**

_(27 août 2012)_

La Commission se félicite du grand intérêt suscité par l'ACAC. Pour justifier sa position, elle s'est fondée sur les faits et
sur la substance du texte. Elle reconnaît aussi qu'il est important de donner des informations claires et faciles à
partager par de nouveaux publics dans les médias sociaux.

La Commission a travaillé activement à fournir des informations objectives. Des fonctionnaires désignés en son sein
se sont réunis 13 fois avec des députés du Parlement européen à propos de l'ACAC (y compris lors de trois débats en
séance plénière) et ont partagé sept différents projets de texte et 17 rapports sur l'ACAC avec la commission du
commerce international (INTA) du Parlement européen. La Commission a organisé quatre réunions avec la société
civile et en a publié les comptes rendus en ligne. Des fonctionnaires de la Commission ont participé à des auditions au
Parlement et dans les États membres, à des débats universitaires et ont accordé des interviews à différentes chaînes de
télévision et différents médias de la presse écrite. Les États membres de l'UE, qui ont négocié une partie de l'ACAC, ont
été encouragés à faire de même.

La Commission a également présenté le projet d'accord à la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne pour connaître son
avis sur la compatibilité du texte avec les droits fondamentaux inscrits dans le droit primaire de l'Union.

Elle a fourni des informations détaillées, dans la limite des contraintes internationales et interinstitutionnelles qui lui
étaient imposées et du budget disponible.

C 219 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

Elle s'est également engagée à fournir un maximum d'informations dès que possible dans les limites posées par tout
processus international de négociation. Elle entend aussi recourir plus fréquemment aux médias interactifs pour
toucher un public plus large et bien informé et coopérera davantage avec les États membres en matière de
communication.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 141

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006969/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Rejection of ACTA and failure of the Commission's communication policy

On 4 July 2012 Parliament decided not to approve the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

The mismatch between the reaffirmed commitment to protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) made by all
Members and the fact that a majority voted against the agreement, coupled with the high rate of abstention and
abnormally small number of votes in favour highlights the degree of concern about the content of the agreement and
the mistakes made during the approval procedure.

The agreement, whose purpose was to protect trademarks and combat counterfeiting and piracy, was hotly debated
in the media and proved highly controversial with the public. It was opposed by a vociferous minority from the
‘blogosphere’, which inundated MEPs and the European public with e-mails.

Although we can be pleased to see such a large-scale involvement of the public and civil society on this issue that
affects the balance between IPR and civil liberties, it is regrettable that a disinformation campaign run by the project’s
opponents was able to drown out the information campaign which should have stressed the advantages of the text
without concealing legitimate concerns regarding certain points of the agreement.

1. What lessons will the Commission draw from the media coverage of ACTA following its rejection by
Parliament?

2. Does it consider that the public and MEPs were informed of the agreement’s advantages and drawbacks in a fair
manner?

3. What is the Commission’s assessment of its information campaign, which could count on financial and material
resources that cannot be compared with those of the project’s detractors?

4. What action and reforms does it intend to take to resolve these communication problems?

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

_(27 August 2012)_

The Commission welcomes the wide interest in ACTA. In making its case, it based itself on the facts and substance of
the text. The Commission also recognises the importance of providing clear and easy to share information for new
audiences on social media.

The Commission worked actively to provide fair information. Commission officials met 13 times with MEPs on
ACTA (including 3 plenary debates), and shared seven successive draft texts and 17 reports on ACTA with the
Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA). The Commission held four meetings with civil society, and
published the minutes online. Commission officials participated in hearings in the Parliament and Member States,
academic discussions and gave interviews in various TV and print media. EU Member States, who negotiated part of
the ACTA agreement, were encouraged to do the same.

The Commission also submitted the draft agreement to the European Court of Justice to receive the Court's opinion
on the compatibility of the text with the fundamental rights enshrined in primary Union law.

The Commission provided detailed information within the limits of its international and interinstitutional constraints
and its available budget.

The Commission is committed to providing a maximum of information as early as possible within the constraints of
an international negotiating process. It will also make greater use of interactive media to reach a wider and wellinformed audience and will reinforce links with Member States' communication efforts.

C 219 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-006970/12**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(12 juillet 2012)_

_Objet:_ Procédure d'approbation, saisine de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne et rejet de l'ACTA

Le 4 juillet 2012, le Parlement européen décidait de ne pas approuver l'Accord Commercial Anti-Contrefaçon
(ACTA), après avoir refusé une demande de report soutenue par le groupe PPE.

Compte tenu de l'attachement réaffirmé par l'ensemble des eurodéputés à la défense des droits de propriété
intellectuelle (DPI), le vote exprimé par la majorité d'entre eux, combiné à une forte abstention et à un nombre
anormalement faible de voix favorables, est ainsi venu mettre en lumière autant les inquiétudes sur le contenu même
de l'accord que les dysfonctionnements qui ont marqué le déroulement de la procédure d'approbation.

Ce texte, destiné à protéger les marques commerciales et à lutter contre la contrefaçon et le piratage en ligne, avait en
effet suscité de vifs débats et mobilisé une minorité active de la blogosphère en sa défaveur.

Afin de prendre en compte les inquiétudes exprimées par une partie de la société civile, la Commission avait alors
décidé en février 2012 de saisir la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne (CJUE) pour vérifier la compatibilité de
l'accord avec le droit européen. Elle avait pourtant déjà engagé la procédure d'approbation devant le Parlement
européen, qui a donc décidé jeudi de statuer sans attendre l'expertise juridique de la CJUE.

L'hésitation et l'incertitude entretenues par la Commission, et poursuivies à l'issue du vote (avec le maintien de la
requête devant la CJUE), pourraient ainsi expliquer en partie la position des députés lors du vote, le 4 juillet dernier.

1. Quels enseignements la Commission européenne tire-t-elle de l'échec de la procédure d'approbation d'ACTA?

2. Envisage-t-elle, en particulier, de clarifier dans un accord interinstitutionnel ou tout autre acte la situation qui
doit prévaloir lorsqu'elle décide de saisir la CJUE sur un texte en cours d'examen?

3. Quelles conclusions peut-on tirer du rejet d'ACTA pour le processus d'élaboration et de négociation de cet
accord international?

4. Enfin, quelles conséquences ce vote (précipité?) peut-il avoir sur la crédibilité de l'Union européenne vis-à-vis de
ses partenaires et sur son implication dans la protection des DPI au niveau international?

**Réponse donnée par Monsieur De Gucht au nom de la Commission**

_(22 août 2012)_

La Commission respecte pleinement le vote du Parlement concernant l'ACTA et ses conséquences qui en découlent
pour les négociations commerciales en cours et à venir. Les citoyens et le Parlement se sont dit préoccupés par
l'impact potentiel des droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) sur d'autres droits fondamentaux. La Commission
attendra l'avis de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne et l'étudiera soigneusement. La Commission discutera de
l'issue de la saisine de la Cour non seulement avec le Parlement mais aussi avec d'autres signataires de l'ACTA afin
d'envisager les étapes suivantes.

Sans exclure cette mesure, la Commission n'entend pas, pour l'instant, proposer un accord interinstitutionnel de la
nature mentionnée par l'Honorable Parlementaire. Le Parlement a soutenu devant la Cour que son vote défavorable
avait rendu caduque la saisine par la Commission. La Commission attendra que la Cour se prononce d'abord sur cette
question procédurale.

Le rejet de l'ACTA par le Parlement risque d'être perçu par les pays tiers comme un recul de l'UE dans la protection et
la mise en œuvre des DPI de son industrie et de ses artistes au niveau mondial. Ces pays pourraient également être
temporairement tentés de considérer que l'UE est moins en mesure de tenir les engagements qu'elle a négociés et
signés. La Commission demeure néanmoins fermement attachée à un niveau élevé de protection des DPI et va
communiquer avec ses partenaires commerciaux afin de les rassurer à cet égard.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 143

Qui plus est, la Commission restera en contact avec le Parlement et toutes les parties concernées afin de souligner la
contribution qu'apportent les DPI au progrès scientifique, à la création d'emplois, à la compétitivité de nos entreprises
et à la protection des consommateurs.

C 219 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006970/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Approval procedure, referral to the Court of Justice and rejection of ACTA

On 4 July 2012 Parliament decided not to approve the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), after refusing
to a request to postpone the vote supported by the EPP Group.

The mismatch between the reaffirmed commitment to protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) made by all
Members and the fact that a majority voted against the agreement, coupled with the high rate of abstention and
abnormally small number of votes in favour highlights the degree of concern about the content of the agreement and
the mistakes made during the approval procedure.

The agreement, whose purpose was to protect trademarks and combat counterfeiting and piracy, proved highly
controversial and was opposed by a vociferous minority from the ‘blogosphere’.

So as to pay due account to concerns expressed by a part of civil society, in February 2012 the Commission decided
to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to determine whether it was compatible with EC law. The
Commission, had, however, already begun the approval procedure at Parliament, which made its deciding vote last
Thursday without waiting for the ECJ’s ruling.

The hesitancy and uncertainty displayed by the Commission, and which it also maintained after the vote (since it has
not withdrawn its request for a referral to the ECJ) could help explain the position taken by Members at the vote on
4 July 2012.

1. What lessons will the Commission draw from the failed approval procedure regarding ACTA?

2. Does it intend to set out, in an interinstitutional agreement or any other text, the course of action to be followed
when it refers a text to the ECJ that is already under examination?

3. What can the rejection of ACTA tell us about the procedure followed for its drafting and negotiation?

4. What consequences could this (premature?) vote have for the EU’s credibility in the eyes of it partners and its
commitment to protecting IPR at global level?

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

_(22 August 2012)_

The Commission fully respects the vote of the Parliament on ACTA and its consequences for ongoing and future trade
negotiations. Citizens and the Parliament have raised concerns over the potential impact of intellectual property
rights (IPR) on other fundamental rights. The Commission will await the opinion by the European Court of Justice
and study it closely. Besides the Parliament, the Commission will also discuss the outcome of the Court referral with
other signatories of ACTA to consider further steps.

Without excluding such step, the Commission does not intend at this stage to propose an interinstitutional agreement
of the nature mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Parliament has argued before the Court that the
Commission referral has become moot due to the Parliament's vote to withhold consent. The Commission will await
the Court's decision on this procedural question first.

The negative vote by the Parliament on ACTA may be understood by third countries as a reduced commitment by
the EU to protect and enforce the IPR of its industries and artists around the world. They may also be temporarily
tempted to consider the EU as less capable of living up to the commitments it negotiated and signed. Nevertheless, the
Commission remains firmly committed to a high level of IPR protection and will reach out to its trade partners to
reassure them to this effect.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 145

Most importantly, the Commission will continue its outreach to the Parliament and all interested stakeholders to
underline the contribution of IPR to scientific progress, job creation, the competitiveness of our companies and
consumer protection.

C 219 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006971/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Traffico illecito di «gomme» usate

Negli ultimi anni il traffico illecito di rifiuti ha riguardato 19 regioni italiane e 23 paesi esteri tra cui Cina, Malaysia e
India. Secondo le inchieste svolte negli ultimi dieci anni, tra i materiali più «gettonati» dalla criminalità ci sono i
pneumatici usati; tale traffico si svolge su rotte oceaniche e spesso si realizza con la falsificazione dei formulari. La
destinazione negli ultimi anni è stata prevalentemente l'Oriente e il materiale viene spesso sottratto a utilizzi legali
come la realizzazione di superfici sportive, la produzione di presidi per la sicurezza stradale, elementi di arredo
urbano, polverino di gomma per il conglomerato bituminoso.

Considerato il crescente aumento dei traffici illeciti di rifiuti, intende la Commissione implementare sistemi di
controllo e di monitoraggio delle merci che transitano in Europa, in modo da tutelare le imprese e il consumatore
dall'uso improprio di materiali al fine di combattere il commercio illegale di tali prodotti?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(17 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione ritiene che la prevenzione delle spedizioni illegali di rifiuti rientri tra le priorità fondamentali della
politica dell’UE in materia di ambiente e interviene in modo deciso per conseguire tale obiettivo. Il regolamento (CE)
n. 1013/2006 relativo alle spedizioni di rifiuti ( [1] ) stabilisce gli obblighi per gli Stati membri in relazione alle ispezioni.
Al fine di prevenire il traffico illegale di rifiuti è fondamentale che gli Stati membri aumentino la frequenza e
migliorino la qualità dei controlli e delle ispezioni delle spedizioni di rifiuti. La Commissione sta valutando
l’eventualità di rendere più stringenti gli obblighi di ispezione di cui al regolamento (CE) n. 1013/2006.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 190 del 12.7.2006, pag. 1.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 147

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006971/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Illegal trafficking in used tyres

In recent years, illegal waste trafficking has concerned 19 Italian regions and 23 foreign countries, including China,
Malaysia and India. According to surveys conducted over the past 10 years, among the most popular materials for
criminals are used tyres. This trafficking takes place across oceans and is often done by falsifying forms. In recent
years the trafficking has mostly been to the Far East and the material is therefore often removed from legal uses such
as the construction of sports facilities, the production of road safety devices, street furniture, rubber powder for
asphalt, etc.

Given the growing increase in illegal waste trafficking, will the Commission implement systems to control and
monitor goods in transit in Europe, in order to protect businesses and consumers from the improper use of materials
and combat the illegal trade in such products?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

The Commission considers that the prevention of illegal shipments of waste is one of the main priorities of EU
environment policy and takes strong actions to achieve this objective. Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 on the
shipment of wastes ( [1] ) lays down obligations for Member States on inspections of waste shipments. To prevent illegal
trafficking of waste, it is essential for Member States to increase the frequency and improve the quality of controls and
inspections of waste shipments. Currently the Commission is assessing the feasibility of strengthening the inspection
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 190, 12.7.2006, p. 1.

C 219 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006972/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Apprendimento permanente — sfide future

Nel ventunesimo secolo le università europee sono chiamate a confrontarsi in modo sempre più impellente con
grandi aspettative e nuove richieste, mentre lo sviluppo socio-economico ruota intorno al concetto di un'Europa della
conoscenza. I cittadini europei hanno bisogno di università forti, autonome, dinamiche e inclusive, che forniscano
una formazione e un apprendimento basati sulla ricerca per far fronte alle molte sfide che si prospettano. Tali sfide
sociali ed economiche sono generate in particolare:

—
dalla crescente velocità della globalizzazione;

—
dall'invecchiamento demografico in Europa;

—
dal rapido ritmo del cambiamento tecnologico.

Attualmente il termine «apprendimento permanente» comprende molte accezioni, dall'istruzione primaria per gruppi
svantaggiati all'istruzione e alla formazione continua per laureati altamente qualificati fino ad arrivare alle possibilità
di arricchimento culturale per i pensionati, con considerevoli margini di interpretazione a livello locale, regionale e
nazionale.

Considerando che le università sono attori chiave nel processo di adattamento in esame, sono a chiedere alla
Commissione se intende attuare i programmi dedicati all'apprendimento permanente promuovendo il dialogo
sociale, rispettando la strategia Europa 2020 e garantendo le pari opportunità nell'accesso agli atenei.

**Risposta di Androulla Vassiliou a nome della Commissione**

_(24 agosto 2012)_

L'Europa deve incrementare il numero di cittadini altamente qualificati: le qualifiche costituiscono un fattore di
crescita e aumentano notevolmente le opportunità che si offrono ad ogni individuo. I paesi europei hanno
concordato di aumentare il livello formativo di almeno il 40 % per i cittadini di età compresa tra i 30 e i 34 anni di età;
troppo spesso però l'accesso all'istruzione superiore rimane al di fuori della portata di molti e la quota di laureati non
rispecchia adeguatamente la diversità della popolazione europea. L'andamento demografico contribuisce ad
aumentare la necessità di attirare verso l'istruzione superiore una fascia trasversale più ampia e meno giovane della
popolazione.

Come indicato nella strategia dell'UE per la modernizzazione dell'istruzione superiore ( [1] ), le università europee
devono potersi aprire maggiormente agli studenti non tradizionali, ad esempio attraverso percorsi chiari che
consentano di accedere all'istruzione superiore dopo una formazione professionale, un migliore riconoscimento degli
insegnamenti e dell'esperienza acquisiti in altri contesti nonché mediante soluzioni su misura, che permettano di
conciliare l'apprendimento con altre attività. Per favorire nuovi modelli di accesso all'istruzione, i governi dovrebbero
definire quadri decisionali e di finanziamento che combinino flessibilità e specializzazione.

Nella sua proposta «Erasmus per tutti», che subentra al programma di apprendimento permanente, la Commissione
prevede una quota maggiore di finanziamenti UE destinati all'istruzione, in totale coerenza con le priorità di Europa
2020 e con la strategia di modernizzazione dell'istruzione superiore. Basandosi sul successo di Erasmus, il suddetto
programma si concentrerà su iniziative strategiche che contribuiranno al cambiamento strutturale del settore e
consentiranno alle università di accogliere un maggior numero di studenti provenienti dagli ambienti più diversi.
Attraverso collaborazioni strategiche con le imprese e la società civile le università potranno inoltre avviare più
agevolmente un dialogo strutturato che le aiuterà a realizzare iniziative comuni e promuovere lo scambio di
esperienze e di conoscenze.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)567.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 149

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006972/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Lifelong learning — future challenges

In the 21st century European universities are being required to face, with increasing urgency, great expectations and
new demands, while socioeconomic development revolves around the concept of a Europe of knowledge. The
citizens of Europe need strong, independent, dynamic and inclusive universities, which provide research-based
training and learning to meet the many challenges that lie ahead. These social and economic challenges are caused in
particular by:

—
the increasing pace of globalisation;

—
the ageing population in Europe;

—
the rapid pace of technological change.

At present, the term ‘lifelong learning’ means many things, from primary education for disadvantaged groups to
education and ongoing training for highly qualified graduates and even cultural enrichment opportunities for
pensioners. There is considerable scope for interpretation locally, regionally and nationally.

Considering that universities are key players in this adjustment process, does the Commission intend to implement its
lifelong learning programmes by promoting social dialogue, complying with the Europe 2020 strategy and ensuring
equal opportunities in access to universities?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

Europe must expand the number of people with high level qualifications: as a motor of growth and for their powerful
effect in enhancing individual life-chances. At European level, countries have agreed to raise attainment to at least
40% of all 30-34yr-olds; yet too often a university education remains beyond reach for many and graduates do not
adequately reflect the diversity of Europe's population. Demographic patterns also increase the need to attract a wider,
and older, cross-section of people into higher education.

As set out in the EU strategy for the modernisation of higher education ( [1] ), Europe's universities must be more adept
at opening to non-traditional learners eg. via clear progression routes from vocational studies, better recognition of
learning and experience gained in other contexts, and student-centred approaches which allow the combination of
learning and other activity. To facilitate new paradigms in access to education, governments should set up
governance and funding frameworks which allow for flexibility and specialisation.

In its ‘Erasmus for All’ proposal, the successor to the Lifelong Learning Programme, the Commission envisages a
higher share of EU funding for education, closely aligned to Europe 2020 priorities and the strategy for the
modernisation of higher education. Building upon the success of Erasmus, the programme will concentrate on
strategic initiatives to help structure change in the sector and empower universities to respond to the challenge of
increasing and broadening access. Universities will also be helped to engage in structured dialogue via ‘strategic
partnerships’ with business and civil society to implement joint initiatives and promote exchange of experience and
know-how.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 567.

C 219 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006973/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Campagna Paper Dolls

La campagna _Paper Dolls_ vede protagonista Zawadi, una bambola di carta il cui nome significa «dono» in Swahili, e i
suoi tre amici, Juan, Aurora e Sookjay, che stanno viaggiando in tutto il mondo, e ora anche in Italia, per comunicare
l'importanza del preservativo femminile. Le persone possono scrivere il proprio messaggio sulla bambola di carta
spiegando perché c'è bisogno di condom femminili.

Il condom femminile esiste da oltre quindici anni, ma è poco noto e di non facile reperibilità. Eppure la sua efficacia è
garantita. Il preservativo infatti fornisce una doppia protezione, contro gravidanze indesiderate e contro le malattie
sessualmente trasmissibili. Ma il vantaggio più importante è il controllo che le donne possono avere sul proprio corpo
e la propria sessualità. Rendendosi autonome da ogni negoziazione sull'uso della contraccezione le donne sono meno
vulnerabili.

Considerato che si tratta di una campagna che non dispone di mezzi finanziari e che le prime 6000 bambole saranno
presentate durante la prossima Conferenza internazionale sull'AIDS, può la Commissione far sapere se intende
impegnarsi a sostenere tale iniziativa, attraverso una campagna di sensibilizzazione, ripristinando i finanziamenti per
i programmi per la salute sessuale riproduttiva e per l'accesso universale al family planning, con particolare attenzione
al preservativo femminile?

**Risposta di John Dalli a nome della Commissione**

_(24 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione sostiene progetti ed iniziative nel campo della Sanità pubblica mediante diversi strumenti di
finanziamento, compreso il programma di sanità pubblica. Non si prevede comunque di sostenere l'iniziativa
menzionata nell'interrogazione mediante il lancio di una campagna di sensibilizzazione del pubblico. Le opportunità
di finanziamento nell'ambito del programma di sanità pubblica sono definite e pubblicate ogni anno in un piano di
lavoro; negli anni precedenti sono stati altresì cofinanziati progetti nel campo della salute riproduttiva e sessuale. Il
prossimo piano di lavoro del programma di sanità pubblica sarà pubblicato a fine 2012 e comprenderà informazioni
sui nuovi obiettivi prioritari.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 151

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006973/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Paper Dolls campaign

The Paper Dolls campaign stars Zawadi, a paper doll whose name means ‘gift’ in Swahili, and her three friends, Juan,
Aurora and Sookjay, who are travelling all over the world, and now to Italy too, to communicate the importance of
female condoms. People can write their own messages on the paper dolls explaining why female condoms are

necessary.

Female condoms have existed for over fifteen years but are little known and not readily available. However, their
effectiveness is guaranteed. The condom, in fact, provides dual protection against unwanted pregnancies and sexually
transmitted diseases. But the greatest advantage is the control they give women over their own bodies and sexuality.
Freeing themselves from all negotiations over the use of contraception, women become less vulnerable.

Given that this is a campaign which has no financial resources and that the first 6 000 dolls are to be presented at the
next international AIDS conference, can the Commission say whether it will commit to supporting this initiative, by
launching a public awareness campaign and restoring funding for reproductive and sexual health programmes and
universal access to family planning, with a special focus on female condoms?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The Commission supports projects and actions on Public Health through several financing instruments including the
Health Programme. However, it is not foreseen to support this specific initiative by launching a public awareness
campaign. Funding opportunities under the Health Programme are defined and published each year in a workplan
and projects on reproductive and sexual health have received co-funding in the past years. The next workplan on the
Health Programme will be published towards the end of 2012 and will include information on new priorities.

C 219 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006974/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Campo Jamam, tassi di mortalità oltre la soglia d'emergenza

Uno dei campi di rifugiati dell'Upper Nile State (Sud Sudan), accoglie un quarto dei circa 120 000 rifugiati fuggiti dal
Blue Nile State in Sudan a partire dallo scorso anno. Se già prima le condizioni di vita nel campo di Jamam, nella
contea di Maban, erano al limite, ora, con l'inizio della stagione delle piogge, la situazione è drammatica. I trasporti
sono quasi impossibili in quanto tutte le strade sono allagate, le latrine straripano contaminando l'acqua stagnante e
provocando scarsità di acqua potabile.

Le persone, soprattutto i bambini, muoiono per malattie che potrebbero essere facilmente curate, portando il tasso di
mortalità a cifre elevatissime, oltre la soglia di emergenza. I dati medici raccolti da Medici Senza Frontiere (MSF)
rivelano che prima della stagione delle piogge nel campo di Jamam il tasso di mortalità tra i bambini era di 2,8 morti
ogni 10 000 al giorno. Ciò significa che muoiono ogni giorno circa 9 bambini, il 65 % dei quali a causa di diarrea

acuta.

Grazie all'impegno di MSF a Jamam vengono effettuate circa 6 000 visite mediche a settimana, vengono distribuiti kit
igienico-sanitari, coperte, acqua potabile.

Considerato che l'emergenza umanitaria in Sud Sudan è ancora lontana dall'essere risolta, è la Commissione al
corrente della situazione e cosa intende fare per assistere questi rifugiati?

**Risposta di Kristalina Georgieva a nome della Commissione**

_(4 settembre 2012)_

La Commissione è profondamente preoccupata per la situazione umanitaria nel Sud Sudan, che è gravemente
peggiorata nel corso del 2012 in seguito al conflitto alle frontiere con il Sudan e ai livelli crescenti di insicurezza
alimentare. Circa 162 000 rifugiati sudanesi sono confluiti nel Sud Sudan per sfuggire alle battaglie negli Stati
sudanesi del Kordofan meridionale e del Nilo Azzurro. L'afflusso di rifugiati ha accresciuto l'insicurezza alimentare e
causato una carenza di acqua potabile e servizi igienici fondamentali. La situazione è molto critica: molte persone
arrivano ai campi malnutrite e molto indebolite e sono in aumento le malattie di origine idrica.

L'Unione europea, uno dei principali donatori di aiuti umanitari nel Sud Sudan, insiste affinché le organizzazioni
indipendenti ottengano un accesso umanitario incondizionato e senza restrizioni al Kordofan meridionale e al Nilo
Azzurro. La Commissione ha recentemente aumentato i suoi stanziamenti di aiuti umanitari a favore del Sudan e del
Sud Sudan (complessivamente) da 87 a 127 milioni di euro, e fornisce sul terreno servizi fondamentali di emergenza
sotto forma di cibo, assistenza sanitaria, acqua potabile e reti fognarie, servizi igienici, rifugio e protezione, tramite il
supporto finanziario a una serie di agenzie specializzate delle Nazioni Uniti e di ONG internazionali (tra cui Medici
senza frontiere). Gli esperti della Commissione (DG ECHO) nel Sud Sudan stanno controllando attentamente la
situazione in collegamento con le organizzazioni che si occupano dei soccorsi. La Commissione insiste inoltre per
una strategia chiara sull'ubicazione dei campi, poiché se questi sono situati in luoghi isolati risulta molto più difficile e
dispendioso raggiungere i profughi.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 153

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006974/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Mortality rates in South Sudan's Jamam refugee camp above the level which constitutes an emergency

One of the refugee camps in South Sudan’s Upper Nile State houses one-quarter of the roughly 120 000 refugees who
have fled Blue Nile State in Sudan since last year. Living conditions for the inhabitants of Jamam camp, in Maban
county, were already close to unbearable, and now, with the start of the rainy season, the situation has become utterly
disastrous. All the roads in the area are flooded and therefore impassable, and the latrines are overflowing,
contaminating areas of standing water and creating a shortage of drinking water.

People, and in particular children, are dying from easily treatable diseases, raising the mortality rate to alarming levels
which are above that deemed to constitute an emergency. Medical data gathered by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)
show that prior to the rainy season the daily child mortality rate in camp Jamam was 2.8 per 10 000. In other words,
as many as nine children are dying every day, 65% of them as a result of acute diarrhoea.

Thanks to MSF’s work in Jamam, some 6000 medical examinations are carried out every week and health and
sanitation kits, blankets and drinking water are distributed.

Is the Commission aware of the humanitarian emergency in South Sudan, which is nowhere near to being resolved,
and what does it intend to do to assist the refugees involved?

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

_(4 September 2012)_

The Commission is deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in South Sudan, which has seriously
worsened during 2012, as a result of the border conflict with Sudan and the growing levels of food insecurity. Some
162 000 Sudanese refugees have fled to South Sudan from the conflict in the Sudanese states of South Kordofan and
Blue Nile. This refugee influx has boosted food insecurity and caused a shortage of clean water and basic health
services. Sanitation is very poor, many people are malnourished and very weak upon arrival in the camps and waterborne diseases are on the increase.

The EU is one of the largest humanitarian donors in South Sudan, and is urging for unconditional and unhindered
humanitarian access to Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile by independent organisations. The Commission has
recently increased its 2012 humanitarian allocation for Sudan and South Sudan (combined) from EUR 87 million to
EUR 127 million. On the ground it is providing emergency basic services in the form of food, healthcare, clean water
and sanitation, hygiene, shelter and protection through financial support to a number of specialised UN agencies and
international NGOs (including MSF). Commission (DG ECHO) experts based in South Sudan are closely monitoring
the situation and liaising with relief organisations. The Commission is also pressing for a clear strategy on the location
of the camps, since remote locations make it much more difficult and expensive to reach people.

C 219 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006975/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Carestia in Somalia

La carestia iniziata nel 2011 in Somalia non è ancora finita. Eppure i media non ne parlano più. Secondo
l'organizzazione _Save the Children_ vi sarebbero centinaia di migliaia di bambini a rischio di morte per denutrizione
nell'immediato futuro. La violenza diffusa e la siccità contribuiscono infatti alla crisi alimentare in Somalia e in tutto il
Corno d'Africa. Al momento, oltre 1,3 milioni di persone in Somalia sono ancora sfollate a seguito dell'esodo biblico
dell'anno passato, quando centinaia di migliaia di somali hanno attraversato le frontiere rifugiandosi in Kenya ed
Etiopia per sfuggire alla grave carestia in corso.

Considerando che _Save the Children_ ha sottolineato che l'emergenza non è finita, chiedo alla Commissione quale sia la
sua posizione in merito e che cosa pensa delle dichiarazioni della Banca Centrale secondo cui la situazione attuale non
sarebbe seria.

**Risposta di Kristalina Georgieva a nome della Commissione**

_(4 settembre 2012)_

Dopo la siccità devastante del 2011, la disponibilità di prodotti alimentari è generalmente migliorata grazie
all'aumento delle piogge, a un buon raccolto e alla continua assistenza umanitaria. Tuttavia, la lunga stagione delle
piogge non è stata uniforme nelle diverse parti della Somalia: varie zone agropastorali nel Sud del paese hanno
registrato precipitazioni inferiori alla media, che renderanno inevitabilmente scarso il prossimo raccolto. A tutt'oggi
quasi un quarto della popolazione totale (2,5 milioni di persone) ha bisogno di assistenza umanitaria e rimane il
rischio di un rapido peggioramento della situazione.

La Commissione sta attualmente provvedendo a mettere a disposizione finanziamenti aggiuntivi per la Somalia che
faranno crescere il contributo dell'UE nel 2012 a circa 50 milioni di euro, e sta analizzando l'opportunità di adottare
ulteriori decisioni di finanziamento per il secondo semestre dell'anno.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 155

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006975/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Famine in Somalia

The famine which began in 2011 in Somalia is not yet over. However, the media are no longer covering it. According
to Save the Children, hundreds of thousands of children are at risk of starving to death in the immediate future. The
widespread violence and the drought are aggravating the food crisis in Somalia and throughout the Horn of Africa. At
present more than 1.3 m people in Somalia are still displaced because of last year’s Biblical exodus, when hundreds of
thousands of Somalis fled across the border to Kenya and Ethiopia to escape the severe famine.

As Save the Children has said that the emergency is not yet over, what is the Commission’s position on the matter and
what view does it take of the statements by the Central Bank, which has said that the current situation is not serious?

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

_(4 September 2012)_

After the devastating drought in 2011 the availability of food has generally improved due to better rain, a good
harvest and sustained humanitarian assistance. However, the long rain season has been uneven across Somalia and
various agro pastoral areas in the South have suffered below average rainfall anticipating an inevitable shortfall of the
next harvest. Presently, almost one quarter of the total population (2.5 million people) is still in need of humanitarian
assistance, and there remains potential for further rapid deterioration.

The Commission is presently in the process of making available additional funding for Somalia, bringing the EU 2012
contribution to some EUR 50 million, and is analysing the opportunity for additional funding decisions for the
second half of the year.

C 219 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006976/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Esecuzioni capitali incrementano il traffico di organi e il loro «commercio» in Cina

Negli ultimi anni in Cina c'è stato un aumento esponenziale delle esecuzioni dei condannati a morte. Questa mesta
situazione ha comportato anche un incremento del numero dei trapianti di organi nelle cliniche specializzate cinesi.
Infatti, gli ospedali specializzati nel ricevere gli organi per effettuare i trapianti sono più di 600. Un fenomeno in
espansione poiché gli organi prelevati e trapiantati provengono proprio dai prigionieri uccisi. Sebbene i funzionari
governativi sostengano che gli organi siano stati prelevati previo consenso del condannato, molti dubitano che un
individuo in quei concitati istanti sia in grado di pensare ragionevolmente e soprattutto di prendere una tale decisione;
i cinesi infatti sono culturalmente restii a donare parti del proprio corpo dopo la morte. Alcuni medici cinesi
raccontano le fasi immediatamente successive all'esecuzione e i momenti dell'espianto all'interno delle ambulanze,
poiché gli organi devono essere rimossi entro 15 minuti dalla morte, altrimenti sono inutilizzabili.

In Cina quasi il 100 % degli organi trapiantati proviene da corpi di condannati a morte; per avere dei dati più precisi in
merito al «commercio» degli organi basti pensare che ogni anno vengono uccise tra le ottomila e le diecimila persone.
La crescente richiesta di organi sembra causare un aumento della domanda di esecuzioni capitali. A volte le esecuzioni
vengono pilotate dai medici in base alle esigenze del momento, ovvero in base al gruppo sanguigno del paziente. I
pazienti, pertanto, vengono convocati in ospedale in una data precisa, e gli organi arrivano sempre in orario.

Tutto ciò è allarmante, ma drammaticamente realistico, e, a questo punto non è da escludere che l'esecuzione possa
essere stabilita sulla base della compatibilità tra il prigioniero e chi riceverà l'organo. Che si sfrutti in questo modo la
pena capitale in Cina è assolutamente inaccettabile ed è una grave violazione dei diritti umani. Per occultare questi
«crimini» e i corpi martoriati, lo Stato cinese impone la cremazione immediata, in modo che vengano cancellate le
orribili prove dei trapianti.

Considerando che la violazione dei diritti umani e il traffico di organi sono dei crimini, può la Commissione far sapere
se intende adottare particolari misure, sia a livello internazionale che diplomatico, per fermare questo macabro
fenomeno?

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

_(17 agosto 2012)_

L’Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente condivide la preoccupazione dell’onorevole parlamentare in merito all’espianto
e al traffico di organi.

In sede di contatti con la Cina l’UE ribadisce costantemente la propria opposizione alla pena di morte ed esorta la Cina
ad assicurare, fino a quando sarà legittima la pena di morte, il pieno godimento dei diritti processuali nei processi in
cui possono essere comminate pene capitali. L’UE vede con preoccupazione la segretezza che avvolge sia la pena di
morte sia le statistiche sui trapianti di organi e che rende impossibile ottenere un quadro accurato della provenienza
degli organi trapiantati; essa ha espresso le proprie preoccupazioni alla Cina in merito alla menzionata pratica di
espiantare organi ai prigionieri condannati a morte, segnatamente in quanto l’obbligo legale di ottenere l’assenso
scritto del donatore non costituisce una risposta adeguata al problema del consenso rilasciato da chi stia per subire
un’esecuzione capitale. L’UE ha preso atto della dichiarazione del Viceministro cinese della Salute a marzo 2012 in cui
si affermava l’intenzione della Cina di abolire la donazione di organi da prigionieri condannati a morte nei prossimi
cinque anni; l’Unione favorirà qualsiasi intervento della Cina per la promozione della donazione di organi su base
volontaria.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 157

In merito alla lotta internazionale contro il traffico di organi, la direttiva 2011/36/UE ( [1] ) concernente la prevenzione
della tratta di esseri umani dispone che la tratta di esseri umani ai fini dell’espianto di organi costituisce un reato
penale. Nell’intento di prevenire il traffico di organi mediante l’aumento del numero di organi disponibile, la direttiva
2010/53/UE ( [2] ) relativa alle norme di qualità e sicurezza degli organi umani destinati ai trapianti apporta un
contributo al contrasto di tale traffico mediante l’istituzione del controllo dei trapianti di organi. Tramite il Piano
d’azione per la donazione di organi e i trapianti la Commissione esorta gli Stati membri a stipulare accordi di livello
europeo per il monitoraggio della dimensione del traffico di organi in Europa.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:101:0001:0011:IT:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:207:0014:0029:IT:PDF.

C 219 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006976/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Executions boost trafficking and ‘trade’ in organs in China

In recent years in China the number of executions has increased exponentially. This appalling state of affairs has gone
hand in hand with an increase in the number of organ transplants carried out in specialist clinics in China, which
number more than 600. The two increases are linked because the organs which are removed and transplanted come
from executed prisoners. Although government officials claim that in each case organs are removed with the consent
of the condemned person, many doubt whether an individual in such a hugely stressful situation is capable of
thinking rationally and, above all, of taking such a decision; what is more, Chinese cultural traditions mean that
people are reluctant to donate organs after death. Some Chinese doctors have given accounts of the moments
immediately before and after executions and the process of removing organs in the specially provided ambulances,
which must be done within 15 minutes following death, after which the organs become unusable.

In China, virtually all transplanted organs come from the bodies of executed persons. The fact that between 8 000 and
10 000 persons are executed in the country every year gives some idea of the scale of this ‘trade’. The rising demand
for organs seems to be leading to an increase in the number of executions, and in some cases executions are even
‘ordered’ by doctors in the light of current needs, for example on the basis of a patient’s blood type. Patients are asked
to come to hospital on a given date and, strangely enough, the organs required always arrive on time.

The situation outlined above is alarming, but entirely believable, and it is perfectly possible that executions may be
arranged for medical reasons on the basis of compatibility between the prisoner and the organ recipient. The use of
capital punishment in China for this purpose is completely unacceptable and represents a serious breach of human
rights. In order to hide these ‘crimes’ and the disfigured corpses, the Chinese State orders the immediate cremation of
the bodies of executed persons in order to do away with the evidence that a transplant has taken place under such
dreadful circumstances.

Given that human rights violations and trafficking in organs are crimes, does the Commission intend to take
diplomatic steps internationally to halt this barbarous practice?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

The HR/VP shares the Honourable Member's concern regarding organ harvesting and trafficking.

In contacts with China, the EU stresses its opposition to the death penalty and urges China, so long as the death
penalty remains in force, to ensure full due process rights in capital cases. The EU is concerned at the secrecy that
surrounds both death penalty and organ transplant statistics, which makes it impossible to gain an accurate picture of
the source of transplanted organs; it has expressed its concerns to China about its reported practice of harvesting
organs from executed prisoners, especially as the legal requirement to obtain the written agreement of the donor does
not adequately address the issue of donor consent by persons facing execution. The EU has taken note of a statement
by the Chinese Vice-Minister of Health in March 2012 that China intends to abolish organ donation from prisoners
condemned to death within the next five years; the EU will encourage any efforts by China to promote voluntary
organ donation.

Concerning the international fight against organ trafficking, Directive 2011/36/EU ( [1] ) on preventing trafficking in
human beings provides that trafficking in persons for the purpose of the removal of organs shall be a criminal
offence. With a view to fighting organ trafficking through increasing the number of available organs,
Directive 2010/53/EU ( [2] ) on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation contributes
to combating trafficking through the establishment of oversight of organ transplant activities. Through an Action
Plan on Organ Donation and Transplantation, the Commission encourages Member States to establish EU‐wide
agreements on monitoring the extent of organ trafficking in Europe.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:101:0001:0011:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:207:0014:0029:EN:PDF.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 159

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006977/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Politica del figlio unico: violazione dei diritti umani in Cina

Sembra assurdo che ancora oggi, nel 2012, in Cina si attui la politica del figlio unico, che costringe molte donne ad
abortire e ad essere sterilizzate. Dopo il caso choc dello scorso giugno, quando la signora Feng Jianmei fu stata
trascinata con violenza dai funzionari del Family Planning in un veicolo per essere trasportata in ospedale e subire
l'aborto forzato di suo figlio al settimo mese di gravidanza, casi come questo ne sono avvenuti ancora molti,
nonostante le denunce di attivisti di varie associazioni a difesa dei diritti umani.

Secondo l'OMS, in Cina avvengono ogni anno 14 milioni di aborti forzati, il 25 % di tutti gli aborti che vi sono nel
mondo.

Da anni ormai i demografi mettono in guardia il governo cinese che la legge del figlio unico, se non verrà abolita o
emendata, provocherà molti problemi economici, dato che già oggi il paese deve affrontare il rapido invecchiamento
della popolazione e la carenza di forza lavoro a livello nazionale.

La legge del figlio unico è obsoleta, risale a 30 anni fa ed è un oltraggio definito dalla dissidente Chai Ling come un
crimine contro l'umanità, il massacro di Tienanmen che si ripete ogni ora e un olocausto infinito.

Dal momento che il diritto alla vita è un diritto fondamentale dell'essere umano che va tutelato e difeso anche in paesi
dove avvengono continue violazioni dei diritti umani, può la Commissione far sapere se intende adoperarsi per
difendere la volontà di milioni di donne cinesi e il loro diritto alla procreazione e fermare questa strage di bambini
dettata da una legge obsoleta?

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

_(28 agosto 2012)_

Gli aborti forzati, le sterilizzazioni forzate e altri tipi di violenza e coercizione nei confronti delle donne sono illegali
in Cina, ma nella pratica far rispettare la legge è ancora problematico. Durante l'ultima sessione del dialogo UE-Cina
sui diritti umani, il 29 maggio 2012, l'UE ha fatto presente la sua preoccupazione riguardo alle segnalazioni di abusi
nell'applicazione della politica di pianificazione familiare in Cina. Ha inoltre esortato le autorità cinesi a prendere
misure per garantire che la politica di pianificazione familiare sia attuata conformemente alla legge e agli obblighi
internazionali della Cina in materia di diritti umani.

L'UE ha inoltre espresso preoccupazione per il fatto che attivisti, avvocati e altri cittadini che criticano pubblicamente
i metodi coercitivi sono oggetto di misure repressive. Ha poi contestato le disposizioni giuridiche invocate per vessare
e intimidire, prima che partisse per gli Stati Uniti, il difensore dei diritti umani cieco Chen Guangcheng, il quale aveva
cercato di aiutare le vittime di pratiche illegali da parte delle autorità responsabili della pianificazione familiare nella
provincia di Shandong.

L'UE ha sollevato anche il caso di Mao Hengfeng, che difende i diritti umani in Cina ed è nota per la sua lotta contro gli
aborti forzati, ed ha esortato le autorità cinesi a prendere misure per evitare vessazioni e violenze nei suoi confronti da
parte della polizia.

L'UE è a conoscenza di recenti casi di aborti forzati in Cina, compreso quello della signora Feng Jianmei nella
provincia di Shaanxi, la quale sarebbe stata obbligata ad abortire al settimo mese di gravidanza mediante un'iniezione
letale all'inizio di giugno. Il 5 luglio la commissaria Hedegaard ha espresso la preoccupazione dell'UE in merito a
questo caso durante un dibattito urgente al Parlamento europeo.

L'UE continuerà a seguire la questione e a esprimere le proprie preoccupazioni alle autorità cinesi.

C 219 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006977/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ One-child policy: violation of human rights in China

It seems absurd that today, in 2012, China should still be implementing its one-child policy, which forces many
women to have abortions and be sterilised. Following the hugely controversial incident in June 2012 when a Chinese
woman named Feng Jianmei was forcibly bundled into a vehicle by officials from the Family Planning Department
and taken to hospital, where she underwent a forced abortion in her seventh month of pregnancy, many similar cases
have occurred, despite the repeated condemnations by activists from various human rights groups.

According to the WHO, 14 million forced abortions, one-quarter of the total number of abortions performed
worldwide, are carried out in China every year. For years now population experts have been warning the Chinese
Government that if it is not repealed or revised the one-child law will cause serious economic problems, given that the
country is already having to deal with a rapidly ageing population and a national labour shortage.

The one-child law is obsolete, dating back 30 years, and is an outrage defined by the Chinese dissident Chai Ling as a
crime against humanity, the equivalent of a Tiananmen Square massacre every hour and a never-ending Holocaust.

Given that the right to life is a fundamental right which must be protected even in countries where other human
rights are routinely violated, does the Commission intend to take action to safeguard the wishes of millions of Chinese
women and their right to procreate and to halt this massacre of children in the name of an obsolete law?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

Forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other instances of violence and coercion against women are illegal in
China, but implementation of the law remains an entrenched problem on the ground. The EU has raised its concern
about reports of abuses in the enforcement of the family planning policy in China at the last session of the EU-China
Human Rights dialogue on 29 May 2012. The EU urged the Chinese authorities to take measures to ensure that the
implementation of the family planning policy conforms with Chinese laws and China's international human rights
obligations.

The EU also expressed its concern about the fact that individuals, activists and lawyers who publicly criticize punitive
enforcement tactics face repressive measures. The EU questioned the legal basis for the harassment and intimidation
of the blind human rights defender Chen Guangcheng before he left for the United States, who had tried to help
victims of illegal practices by local authorities in charge of family planning in Shandong province.

The EU also raised the case of the Chinese human rights defender Mao Hengfeng, well known for her fight against
forced abortions; the EU urged the Chinese authorities to take measures to avoid harassment and violence by the
police against her.

The EU is aware of recent examples of forced abortion in China, including the case of Mrs Feng Jianmei from Shaanxi
province who was reportedly forced to abort her child by lethal injection in early June when she was seven months
pregnant. On 5 July, Commissioner Hedegaard expressed the EU's concern regarding this case in a European
Parliament urgency debate.

The EU will continue to follow this issue and to raise its concerns with the Chinese authorities.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 161

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006978/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Droghe sintetiche, un fenomeno in aumento

Nel mondo di oggi esiste un numero elevato di droghe, alcune di esse anche totalmente nuove e a un passo
dall'illegalità. Una di queste porta alla morte anche in un anno, eppure viene usata in mancanza dell'eroina che viene
dirottata su mercati diversi da quelli europei. L'uso di droghe sintetiche sta avendo un'ampia diffusione sul mercato,
ne nascono continuamente di nuove e i centri di controllo faticano a individuarle e a metterle fuori legge.

In Russia è apparsa la «Kokodril», ovvero «Coccodrillo», basata sulla desomorfina, un oppiaceo sintetico. È una
sostanza micidiale che somministrata con frequenza regolare porta alla perdita della vita nel giro di un anno. La
desomorfina ha effetti analgesici quasi dieci volte più forti della morfina. Essa inoltre ha anche una sua relativa
semplicità di sintesi a partire dalla codeina. Le compresse di codeina sono disponibili nelle farmacie senza
impegnativa medica. È diventata una droga di strada prodotta in casa e fortemente impura e contaminata da varie
sostanze tossiche e corrosive. Una volta «cucinato», questo mix di farmaci viene immediatamente iniettato in
endovena, provocando gravissimi danni ai tessuti, addirittura in alcuni casi è stato necessario l'amputazione degli arti.

L'iniezione avviene immediatamente dopo la «cottura» con poca o nessuna ulteriore purificazione. Attenuare questo
fenomeno è pressoché impossibile perché queste droghe «low cost» sono facilmente reperibili e soprattutto
ricomponibili con l'ausilio di altri prodotti chimici, creando così delle sostanze micidiali per la salute di chi ne fa uso
frequente.

Considerando che la diffusione delle droghe sintetiche si sta ampliando a livello europeo, può la Commissione far
sapere se intende esaminare la tematica in merito a queste droghe sintetiche e contrastarne l'utilizzo?

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

_(22 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione invita l’onorevole parlamentare a consultare la risposta fornita all'interrogazione scritta E010409/2011 ( [1] ), nella quale si illustra come la Commissione intende affrontare la sfida rappresentata dalle nuove
sostanze psicoattive.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-010409&language=IT.

C 219 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006978/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Increasing availability of synthetic drugs

A wide range of drugs are available on the streets, some of which are completely new and have yet to come within the
reach of the law. One such drug, despite having been shown to be capable of killing regular users within the space of a
year, is being used in place of heroin, supplies of which are being diverted to markets outside Europe. The use of
synthetic drugs is becoming increasingly common, and, owing to the steady steam of new drugs appearing on the
market, drug monitoring agencies are finding it difficult to identify and outlaw them.

A drug known as ‘krokodil’, which is based on the synthetic opiate desomorphine, has appeared on the streets in
Russia. This is a drug that is so deadly that it can kill regular users within the space of a year. Desomorphine has an
analgesic effect that is 10 times more potent than that of morphine. It is also relatively easy to synthesise from
codeine, and codeine tablets are available over-the-counter in pharmacies. This home-made street drug is highly
impure and contaminated with various toxic and corrosive by-products. As soon as it has been ‘cooked up’, this toxic
mix of substances is injected intravenously with little or no further purification, and can cause severe tissue damage,
sometimes requiring limb amputation in long-term users.

It is extremely difficult to combat the spread of these ‘low-cost’ drugs, as they are easy to obtain and, above all, easy to
make, using various chemicals to create cocktails which can have devastating effects on the health of regular users.

Given that synthetic drugs are becoming increasingly common in Europe, does the Commission intend to look into
the matter and to take steps to stem the use of such drugs?

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

_(22 August 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐010409/2011 ( [1] ), which
explained the response that the Commission is planning to give to the challenge posed by new psychoactive
substances.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E‐2011-010409&language=EN.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 163

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006979/12**

**alla Commissione (Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante)**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Orfanotrofi e strutture di cura senza controlli

La Cina è ancora sotto i riflettori per un nuovo scandalo che lede i diritti umani. Questa volta si tratta di minorenni
maltrattati in un orfanotrofio della contea di Cangnan, nella provincia orientale di Zhejiang. L'orfanotrofio ospita 21
bambini di cui 19 hanno delle disabilità. In rete, tramite i social network, si sono diffuse alcune foto che ritraevano
due bambini di 6 e 9 anni ammanettati, incatenati e costretti a mangiare legati a una panca. Le donne che gestivano la
struttura hanno ammesso di incatenare i bambini che hanno disturbi mentali per evitare reazioni violente.

Il caso è stato denunciato alle autorità cinesi. Purtroppo, da quando il governo ha deciso di affidare gli istituti di cura a
privati, il controllo è diminuito notevolmente facendo moltiplicare i casi come quello appena menzionato. Lo Stato
cinese ha quindi fallito nel suo ruolo nel settore dell'assistenza e ciò che preoccupa è il proliferare di casi di malasanità
e maltrattamenti delle persone più deboli come i minori, i disabili e gli anziani.

Considerato che i diritti umani in Cina vengono regolarmente violati scatenando l'indignazione dell'opinione
pubblica e della comunità internazionale, può il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante far sapere se intende
approfondire il caso delle strutture di cura in Cina, tra cui gli orfanotrofi, e promuovere un maggiore controllo per
evitare ulteriori maltrattamenti?

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

_(3 settembre 2012)_

L'UE segue con la massima attenzione la situazione dei diritti umani in Cina e, nei suoi contatti con la controparte
cinese, ha sottolineato l'importanza dello Stato di diritto e le responsabilità delle autorità cinesi al riguardo. L'UE, che
rivolge particolare attenzione alla situazione delle persone vulnerabili, ha promosso attivamente i diritti dei minori in
Cina attraverso dialoghi e progetti di cooperazione in loco. Il SEAE, e in particolare la delegazione dell'UE,
continueranno a seguire attentamente la situazione e ne discuteranno opportunamente con la controparte cinese.

C 219 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006979/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Orphanages and care homes without any form of supervision

China is once again in the spotlight due to a new scandal that undermines human rights. This time, children are being
abused in an orphanage in Cangnan County, in the eastern province of Zhejiang. The orphanage houses 21 children,
19 of whom have disabilities. Photos have been circulated through online social networks, showing two children
aged six and nine who were handcuffed, shackled and forced to eat tied to a bench. The women who ran the
orphanage admitted that they chained up children with mental disorders in order to avoid violent reactions.

The case was reported to Chinese authorities. Unfortunately, since the government decided to hand these orphanages
over to the private sector, supervision has been greatly reduced, which means that cases like this are multiplying. The
Chinese Government has thus failed in its duty of care. Of great concern is also the proliferation of cases of medical
malpractice and mistreatment of society's more vulnerable people, such as children, the disabled and the elderly.

Given that human rights in China are regularly violated, sparking the outrage of the public and the international
community, can the VP/HR say whether it will look into the case of care homes in China, including orphanages, and
encourage greater supervision in order to prevent further abuse?

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

_(3 September 2012)_

The EU is following the human rights situation in China very closely. In its contacts with the Chinese side the EU has
been emphasising the importance of the rule of law and the responsibilities of the Chinese authorities in this respect.
The EU pays particularly close attention to the situation of vulnerable people. As a result, the EU has been actively
promoting the rights of the child in China through dialogues and cooperation projects on the ground. The EEAS, and
in particular the EU Delegation, will continue to follow the situation attentively and will address it as appropriate with
the Chinese side.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 165

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006980/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Prigione verde per ridurre gli impatti ambientali e psicologici

Sostenibilità e sistema carcerario, un binomio che spesso non va di pari passo. In Islanda invece, si sta cercando di
coniugare questa dicotomia. Una metamorfosi che si concretizza nel progetto di un penitenziario femminile, per
rendere il carcere più vivibile e adeguato. Efficienza energetica, illuminazione naturale, un edificio a basse emissioni
isolato grazie a uno strato di torba, materiale locale per proteggere gli ambienti dalle temperature rigide. L'erba cresce
spontaneamente sulla struttura creando delle facciate verdi naturali e isolanti. Il contatto con la natura rende più facile
ai detenuti il processo di riabilitazione. E sono state proprio le prigioniere, interpellate dagli architetti, a suggerire la
struttura dell'edificio, lamentando, più di ogni altra cosa, oltre alla mancanza di libertà, l'assenza di un ambiente
naturale e dinamico.

La struttura è assemblata con pannelli prefabbricati permettendo un grande potenziale di adattamento dell'edificio a
seconda delle esigenze. La qualità dell'aria indoor migliora notevolmente e diminuiscono i consumi di energia per il
riscaldamento. Le detenute si occupano della coltivazione di piante locali, in modo tale da rendere la vita in carcere
meno monotona e sentirsi utili.

Considerando che oggi si sta facendo molto a livello europeo in merito alle strutture a basso impatto ambientale, può
la Commissione far sapere se intende incentivare gli Stati membri ad adottare carceri ecosostenibili a beneficio
dell'ambiente e della riabilitazione dei/delle detenuti/e?

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

_(6 settembre 2012)_

La Commissione è certamente interessata alla questione della reclusione, data l’importanza cruciale del principio del
riconoscimento reciproco delle decisioni giudiziarie in materia di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia. Benché le questioni
relative alle condizioni di detenzione in generale e alla sostenibilità (ambientale) delle carceri in particolare siano di
competenza degli Stati membri, nondimeno la Commissione sostiene il miglioramento del rendimento ambientale
degli edifici di qualunque tipo finalizzato ad un uso più efficiente delle risorse. In questo contesto, e come annunciato
nella Tabella di marcia verso un’Europa efficiente nell'impiego delle risorse ( [1] ), la Commissione predisporrà una
comunicazione sugli edifici sostenibili che sarà adottata nel 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)571 final.

C 219 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006980/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Green prison to reduce environmental and psychological impacts

Sustainability and the prison system are two things that do not often go together. In Iceland, however, attempts are
being made to overcome the dichotomy. The change is finding expression in a women’s prison project aimed at
making prison more liveable and more fit for purpose through energy efficiency, natural lighting, and a low-emission
building insulated by a layer of peat, a local material, to protect the surroundings from the bitterly cold weather. Grass
grows spontaneously on the building, creating natural insulating green façades. Contact with nature makes
rehabilitation easier for prisoners. The design of the building was suggested by the prisoners themselves, who were
consulted by the architects; in addition to the lack of freedom, their main complaint was that they were deprived of a
dynamic natural environment.

The building is assembled from prefabricated panels and can thus be readily adapted as and when required. The
indoor air quality is much better, and energy consumption for heating is lower. The fact that the prisoners grow their
own local plants makes prison life less tedious and helps them to feel useful.

Given that a great deal of attention is being focused at European level on buildings of low environmental impact, will
the Commission encourage Member States to opt for environmentally sustainable prisons in order to protect the
environment and facilitate the rehabilitation of prisoners?

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

_(6 September 2012)_

The Commission is indeed interested in the matter of detention, given the central importance of the principle of
mutual recognition of judicial decisions for the field of freedom, security and justice. While issues related to detention
conditions in general and the (environmental) sustainability of prisons in particular are part of the responsibilities
incumbent on Member States, the Commission nevertheless supports improving the environmental performance of
buildings of any kind as a way to use resources more efficiently. In this context, and as announced in the Roadmap to
a Resource Efficient Europe ( [1] ), the Commission will prepare a communication on Sustainable Buildings to be
adopted in 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 571 final.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 167

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006981/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Revisione della direttiva europea 95/46/CE sulla protezione dei dati personali sensibili

I registri di patologia sono uno strumento indispensabile per il controllo delle malattie e del loro impatto sulla
popolazione. Al fine di rendere queste fonti utili alla ricerca e alle informazioni sulle patologie, occorre identificare
accuratamente i casi di malattia e raccogliere correttamente tutti i dati dei pazienti per avere un quadro completo della
patologia e del suo impatto sulla popolazione. Ovviamente, per fare ciò, è necessario accedere ai dati personali
sensibili.

Dal momento che la revisione in atto della direttiva europea 95/46/CE prevede la necessità del consenso informato
per la registrazione dei dati di tutti i pazienti e la possibilità di ciascuno di negare l'accesso ai propri dati, la sanità
pubblica avrebbe enormi difficoltà, oltre a gravi distorsioni dei dati e all'impossibilità di chiedere il consenso ai
deceduti.

Considerando che, da un lato, è necessario tutelare la privacy dei cittadini ma che, dall'altro, è di fondamentale
importanza raccogliere dati sulle patologie come, ad esempio, i tumori, può la Commissione far sapere quale sia il suo
punto di vista in merito alla revisione della suddetta direttiva?

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

_(3 settembre 2012)_

Il 25 gennaio 2012 la Commissione ha adottato un pacchetto di riforma della protezione dei dati che comprende, tra
l’altro, una proposta di regolamento concernente la tutela delle persone fisiche con riguardo al trattamento dei dati
personali e la libera circolazione di tali dati ( [1] ) mirante a riformare le norme europee di protezione dei dati del
1995 ( [2] ).

Tale proposta tiene conto dei problemi connessi alla sorveglianza e alla ricerca in materia di salute. Mentre
nell’ambito della vigente direttiva 95/46/CE sulla protezione dei dati le disposizioni applicabili al trattamento dei dati
personali sono attuate dagli Stati membri in modo piuttosto disomogeneo, la proposta di regolamento armonizza
specificamente le condizioni e le garanzie per il trattamento dei dati personali relativi alla salute e per finalità di
ricerca.

La proposta fissa, in particolare, le condizioni e le garanzie per il trattamento dei dati personali a fini sanitari (articolo
81) e per finalità storiche, statistiche e di ricerca scientifica (articolo 83), comprese le condizioni e le garanzie per il
trattamento dei dati personali relativi alla salute che risulti necessario per finalità di ricerca, come la creazione di
registri dei pazienti per migliorare le diagnosi, distinguere tra tipi simili di malattie e condurre studi sulle terapie. Nel
rispetto di tali condizioni e garanzie specifiche, non è necessario il consenso dell’interessato per trattare i dati
personali relativi alla salute. Il regolamento proposto agevolerà quindi la creazione e il funzionamento di registri di
patologia e la ricerca connessa.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio concernente la tutela delle persone fisiche con riguardo al trattamento dei dati

personali e la libera circolazione di tali dati (regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati) (COM/2012/011 final).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Direttiva 95/46/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 24 ottobre 1995, relativa alla tutela delle persone fisiche con riguardo al

trattamento dei dati personali, nonché alla libera circolazione di tali dati (GU L 281 del 23.11.1995, pag. 31).

( **|**

C 219 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006981/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Revision of Directive 95/46/EC on protection of sensitive personal data

Disease registries are an essential means of monitoring diseases and their public health impact. To ensure that they
can assist research and provide useful information about diseases, cases have to be identified accurately and all patient
data gathered correctly so as to give a complete picture of the diseases concerned and their impact on the population.
Obviously, none of this can be achieved without access to sensitive personal data.

According to the proposals being put forward in connection with the current revision of Directive 95/46/EC,
informed consent would invariably be needed for the registration of patient data, and every patient could refuse to
allow access to his or her data. This would create enormous difficulties for public health services, apart from the fact
that data would be grossly distorted and consent could not be obtained from patients who had died.

While citizens’ privacy has to be protected, it is vitally important to collect data on tumours and other diseases. That
being the case, what attitude is the Commission taking to the revision of the above directive?

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

_(3 September 2012)_

On 25 January 2012, the Commission adopted a data protection reform package which contains a proposal for a
regulation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of
such data ( [1] ) aiming at reforming the EU's 1995 Data Protection Rules ( [2] ).

This proposal takes into account the problems in relation to health monitoring and research on health issues. While
under the current Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC the relevant provisions for processing personal data relating
have been implemented by the Member States in a rather divergent manner, the proposal for the regulation
harmonises specifically the conditions and safeguards for processing personal data concerning health and for research

purposes.

The proposal lays down specifically conditions and safeguards for processing personal data for health purposes
(Article 81) and on historical, statistical and scientific research purposes (Article 83), including conditions and
safeguards for processing of personal data concerning health which is necessary for research purposes, such as patient
registries set up for improving diagnoses and differentiating between similar types of diseases and preparing studies
for therapies. Under these specific conditions and safeguards, the consent of the data subject is not required for
processing of personal data concerning health. This will facilitate the setting up and operation of disease registries and
related research.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 011 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24.10.1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of

personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 169

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-006983/12**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Tracce di alcol in bibite gassate

Già da tempo c'era il sospetto che alcune bevande gassate contenessero una percentuale troppo alta di alcool e si è
sempre sostenuto che ne andasse limitato il consumo. Addirittura, con proposte alquanto discutibili, si è arrivati a
proporre di eliminarle del tutto, a causa del consumo troppo elevato da parte della popolazione. A seguito di alcuni
test commissionati dall'Istituto nazionale del consumo francese, risulta che circa la metà delle bibite gassate
ufficialmente testate contengono dosi di alcol fino a 10 milligrammi per litro (0,001 % di alcol).

Si torna a parlare della percentuale di alcol presente in specifiche bibite gassate. Stiamo parlando della Coca Cola e
della Pepsi, prodotti di largo consumo a cui la popolazione difficilmente rinuncia. Si tratta di prodotti che fanno
incassare ingenti somme di danaro.

Considerando che il consumo di queste bevande è in continua crescita a livello europeo, soprattutto tra i ragazzi in età
adolescenziale, può la Commissione far sapere se intende monitorare il consumo delle stesse, analizzando gli
eventuali rischi per la salute e tutelando il consumatore?

**Risposta di John Dalli a nome della Commissione**

_(24 agosto 2012)_

In merito all'alcol nelle bevande analcoliche come componente aggiunto o residuo di sostanza usata nel processo
produttivo la Commissione europea rimanda l'onorevole parlamentare alla propria risposta all'interrogazione scritta
E-4806/2011 presentata dal deputato Mölzer ( [1] ) in cui essa fornisce informazioni sulla normativa concernente gli
ingredienti dei prodotti alimentari.

La Commissione non ha in progetto di monitorare continuativamente il livello del consumo di bibite analcoliche.
Informazioni sul consumo delle bevande analcoliche tra la popolazione in genere figurano comunque in un'indagine
Eurobarometro sulla salute orale ( [2] ). Il consumo di bevande analcoliche da parte dei quindicenni è stato analizzato
anche dallo studio «Health Behaviour in School-aged Children» (Comportamenti rilevanti per la salute nei ragazzi in
età scolare) svolto dall'Organizzazione mondiale della sanità nel 2010 ( [3] ).

L'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare (EFSA) ha svolto diverse rassegne sistematiche per appurare la
sicurezza degli ingredienti contenuti nelle bevande analcoliche quali dolcificanti, coloranti o aromi. Basandosi su
elementi che provano come un'elevata assunzione di zuccheri sotto forma di bevande dolcificate, quali le bevande
analcoliche gassate, possa contribuire all'aumento di peso, l'EFSA ha raccomandato che gli organi responsabili per la
salute pubblica in Europa tengano presente tale elemento nella redazione delle linee guida o nel formulare consigli
destinati ai consumatori ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/it/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Salute orale. Speciale Eurobarometro 330/2010. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_330_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.hbsc.org/.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Domande frequenti relative al lavoro svolto dall'EFSA sui valori dietetici di riferimento (DRV) per lo zucchero e gli altri carboidrati.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/it/faqs/faqdrv.htm

C 219 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006983/12**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Traces of alcohol in soft drinks

For some time there have been suspicions that some carbonated soft drinks contain too high a percentage of alcohol
and it has always been said that consumption should be limited. Now, some highly questionable proposals have been
put forward with a view to banning such drinks entirely because of excessively high consumption by some members
of the population. A number of tests commissioned by the French National Consumer Institute have revealed that
around half of all the carbonated soft drinks that were officially tested contain doses of alcohol of up to 10
milligrammes per litre (0.001% alcohol).

A fresh debate is now, therefore, under way about the percentage of alcohol in specific soft drinks, namely Coca Cola
and Pepsi, consumer products which people do not want to give up and which make huge amounts of money.

Given that consumption of these drinks is constantly rising in Europe, especially among teenagers, can the
Commission say whether it intends to monitor their consumption and study the possible health risks, in order to
protect consumers?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

Regarding alcohol in soft drinks as an added component or as residue of a substance used in manufacture, the
European Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐4806/2011 by
Mr Mölzer ( [1] ) giving information on regulations on the indication of the ingredients of foodstuffs.

The Commission does not have plans to monitor on an ongoing regular basis the level of consumption of soft drinks.
However, information on the consumption of soft drinks by the general population can be found in a Eurobarometer
survey on oral health ( [2] ). Consumption of soft drinks by 15 year olds was also examined in the ‘Health Behaviour in
School-aged Children’ study organised by the World Health Organisation In 2010 ( [3] ).

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has carried out a number of reviews to ascertain the safety of ingredients
in soft drinks, such as sweeteners, food colours or flavourings. Based on evidence that high intake of sugars in the
form of sugar-sweetened beverages, such as carbonated soft drinks, might contribute to weight gain, EFSA has
advised that public health bodies in Europe take this into account when formulating guidelines or giving advice to
consumers ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Oral health. Special Eurobarometer 330/2010: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_330_en.pdf.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.hbsc.org/.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) FAQ on EFSA’s work on DRVs for sugar and other carbohydrates: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqdrv.htm.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 171

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-006984/12**

**à Comissão**
**José Manuel Fernandes (PPE) e Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Ações de manutenção e desassoreamento de portos de modo a permitir a atividade piscatória

Os portos portugueses que permitem a atividade piscatória, e em especial a pesca artesanal, estão na sua grande
maioria assoreados, o que coloca em risco a atividade deste importante setor e põe em perigo as vidas dos pescadores.

Tal obriga a uma urgente intervenção em termos de investimento público que permita garantir a manutenção das
necessárias condições de segurança.

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Permite o Fundo Europeu das Pescas (FEP) 2007/2013 apoiar ações de manutenção e desassoreamento de
portos de modo a permitir a atividade piscatória, nomeadamente a pesca artesanal, e a garantir a segurança dos
pescadores?

2. Será que o Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) para 2007/2013, em Portugal, o programa
«Valorização do Território» e os programas regionais, poderão abranger ações no domínio da manutenção e
dragagem dos portos, de forma a permitir a atividade piscatória, nomeadamente a pesca artesanal, e a garantir a
segurança dos pescadores?

3. Poderão as verbas não utilizadas no FEP ou no FEDER ser reprogramadas para a criação de um programa
específico que sirva para o combate à erosão, a proteção da orla costeira e o financiamento de atividades de
dragagem e desassoreamento na entrada dos portos, tendo em vista a atividade piscatória?

4. O que preconiza a Comissão para fazer face a este problema? Que fundos poderão ser utilizados a partir do
próximo QFP 2014/2020, a fim de resolver esta situação?

**Resposta dada por Maria Damanaki em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de setembro de 2012)_

1. O FEP pode apoiar investimentos para a reestruturação de locais de desembarque existentes. Tais investimentos
podem contemplar a melhoria da segurança e das condições de trabalho. No entanto, esta assistência não inclui apoio
a operações de manutenção, como a dragagem.

2. No que respeita ao Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER), a dragagem em si, enquanto
operação de manutenção dos portos, não seria considerada elegível, visto tratar-se de um custo de funcionamento.
Contudo, a dragagem de portos no contexto de projetos de infraestruturas (por exemplo, ampliação ou modernização
do porto para o tornar acessível a navios de maiores dimensões) poderá ser considerada elegível.

3. Quanto à utilização de verbas do FEP para outros fins, parece improvável que existam dotações não utilizadas.
Em relação ao FEDER, as autoridades portuguesas, no âmbito do exercício em curso de reprogramação dos
programas financiados pelo FEDER, não requereram qualquer programa específico, nos termos a que se referem os
Senhores Deputados.

4. A proposta da Comissão para o Fundo Europeu dos Assuntos Marítimos e da Pesca (FEAMP) ( [1] ) contém
disposições tendentes a melhorar as condições de trabalho dos pescadores. Todavia, o FEAMP não se destina a tratar
questões como a erosão, a dragagem ou o desassoreamento na entrada dos portos. Já o FEDER, poderia apoiar
investimentos em infraestruturas, mas não está previsto que apoie custos de funcionamento/manutenção, conforme
acima referimos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)425 — Proposta de Regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativo à política comum das pescas.

C 219 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006984/12**

**to the Commission**
**José Manuel Fernandes (PPE) and Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Port maintenance and dredging work to allow fishing activities

Most of the Portuguese ports from which it is possible to carry out fishing activities, particularly small-scale fishing,
are silted up, placing the activities of this important sector at risk and endangering the lives of fishermen.

Public funding is urgently required with which to guarantee that proper safety standards are maintained.

Can the Commission provide answers to the following:

1. Does the 2007/2013 European Fisheries Fund (EFF) allow support for the maintenance and dredging of ports
to enable fishing activity, and particularly small-scale fishing, to be carried out and to guarantee the safety of
fishermen?

2. Will it be possible for the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for 2007/2013, in Portugal, the
‘Territorial Development’ programme and regional programmes to cover activities to maintain and dredge
ports, to enable fishing activity, and particularly small-scale fishing, to be carried out and to guarantee the safety
of fishermen?

3. Would it be possible for unused EFF and ERDF funds to be reprogrammed towards the creation of a specific
programme to combat erosion, protect the coastline and finance the dredging and desilting of harbour
entrances, to support fishing activities?

4. What does the Commission intend to do about this problem? What funds could be used, under the next
multiannual financial framework, to remedy this situation?

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

_(24 September 2012)_

1. The EFF may support investments to restructure existing landing sites. Such investments may include the
improvement of safety and working conditions. However, this assistance does not include support to maintenance
operations such as dredging.

2. With regards to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), dredging in itself as a type of harbour
maintenance would not be considered eligible as it is a running cost. However, dredging a harbour in the context of
an infrastructure project, e.g. extending the harbour, modernising it to make the port accessible to larger vessels, etc.
could be considered eligible.

3. Regarding the use of EFF funds for other purposes, it seems unlikely that there will be unused appropriations. In
what regards ERDF, the Portuguese authorities have not requested any specific programme as mentioned by the
Honourable Member as part of the ongoing re-programming exercise for ERDF funded programmes.

4. The Commission's proposal for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) ( [1] ) contains provisions to
improve working conditions of fishermen. The EMFF is however not designed to address questions such as erosion,
dredging and desilting of harbour entrances. As for ERDF, it could support infrastructure investments but is not
foreseen to support running/maintenance costs as mentioned before.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 425 — Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common fisheries policy.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 173

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-006985/12**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(12 iulie 2012)_

_Subiect:_ Pensiile speciale ale magistraților acuzați de corupție

În cadrul Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii din România și în jurul acestei instituții există o dezbatere referitoare la
pensia specială a magistraților condamnați pentru acte de corupție.

Astfel, se dorește modificarea legislației românești, în așa fel încât judecătorii și procurorii care primesc condamnări
pentru săvârșirea unor fapte de corupție să rămână doar cu pensiile pentru care au cotizat prin contribuția la Casa de
Asigurări Sociale, iar pensia specială la care au dreptul conform statutului magistraților să le fie retrasă.

În contextul unei strategii comunitare de integritate/anticorupție, există o poziție a Comisiei față de această dispută,
având în vedere că este o problemă regăsită și în alte țări membre ale Uniunii Europene?

**Răspuns dat de dna Reding în numele Comisiei**

_(5 septembrie 2012)_

Comisia monitorizează progresele înregistrate de România în realizarea reformelor necesare ale sistemului judiciar și
în intensificarea luptei împotriva corupției, prezentând rapoarte periodice cu privire la aceste progrese. Mandatul
Comisiei de a monitoriza acest proces a fost instituit prin Decizia Comisiei de stabilire a mecanismului de cooperare și
de verificare (MCV) ( [1] ), în momentul aderării României la UE.

Ultima evaluare a Comisiei referitoare la progresele realizate de România în ceea ce privește îndeplinirea obiectivelor
stabilite în cadrul mecanismului de cooperare și de verificare a fost prezentată în raportul său COM(2012) 410,
publicat la 18 iulie 2012. Raportul conține recomandări cu privire la modul de soluționare a deficiențelor existente,
inclusiv în domeniul corupției. Raportul poate fi consultat la următoarea adresă de internet:
http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm#eleventh.

Comisia este angajată în lupta împotriva corupției și sprijină măsurile eficace în această direcție.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Decizia 2006/928/CE a Comisiei din 13 decembrie 2006 de stabilire a unui mecanism de cooperare și de verificare a progresului realizat de

România în vederea atingerii anumitor obiective de referință specifice în domeniul reformei sistemului judiciar și al luptei împotriva corupției
(JO L 354, 14.12.2006).

C 219 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006985/12**

**to the Commission**
**Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Special pensions for judges indicted on corruption charges

The special pension awarded to judges found guilty of corruption is a topic of discussion both inside and outside
Romania’s Superior Council of Magistracy.

An amendment to Romanian law is being sought so that judges and prosecutors who are convicted of having
committed acts of corruption only receive pensions for which they have paid contributions to the social insurance
fund, and are no longer eligible for the special pensions to which they were entitled under the statute applicable to
them.

Against the backdrop of a Community strategy on integrity/against corruption, has the Commission adopted a
position with regard to this debate, considering that this matter is also an issue in other EU Member States?

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

_(5 September 2012)_

The Commission monitors and regularly reports on Romania's progress in carrying out the necessary reforms of the
judicial system and in stepping up the fight against corruption. The Commission's mandate to monitor this process
was set out in the Commission's Decision establishing the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) at the time
of Romania's accession to the EU ( [1] ).

The Commission's last assessment of Romania's progress in achieving the objectives established by the Cooperation
and Verification Mechanism was presented in its report COM(2012) 410 published on 18 July 2012. The report
provides recommendations on how to address the existing shortcomings including in the field of corruption. The
report can be consulted at the following website:
http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/progress_reports_en.htm#eleventh.

The Commission is committed to the fight against corruption and supports effective measures for its implementation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Decision 2006/928/EC of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to
address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006).

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 175

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-006986/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Britta Thomsen (S&D)**

_(12. juli 2012)_

_Om:_ Afklaring af fremtiden for ILUC

Den manglende afklaring af ILUC skaber usikkerhed for investorer i avancerede biobrændstoffer, og bremser derved
en udvikling mod mere bæredygtige biobrændstoffer, ligesom Europa går glip af mulige nye jobs og vækst i
landdistrikterne.

Jeg vil derfor gerne have oplyst følgende:

—
Hvornår vil Kommissionen udsende sit forslag til håndtering af ILUC for biobrændstoffer?

—
Hvordan vil Kommissionen sikre, at forslaget bidrager til at fremme anvendelsen af avancerede, ILUC-neutrale
biobrændstoffer?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Günther Oettinger**

_(30. august 2012)_

Efter en orienterede debat om dette emne i kommissærkollegiet for nylig er Kommissionen nu ved at lægge sidste
hånd på et lovforslag om ændring af direktivet om vedvarende energi og direktivet om brændstofkvalitet ( [1] ) med det
formål at minimere de indirekte ændringer i arealanvendelsen som følge af brugen af biobrændstoffer. Forslaget er
baseret på en konsekvensanalyse af de politiske valgmuligheder og den bedste tilgængelige videnskab. En af
anbefalingerne fra den orienterende debat var, at brugen af avancerede biobrændstoffer bør fremmes yderligere.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direktiv 2009/28/EF og direktiv 2009/30/EF.

C 219 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006986/12**

**to the Commission**
**Britta Thomsen (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Clarification of the future of ILUC

The lack of clarity concerning indirect land-use change (ILUC) is creating uncertainty among investors in advanced
biofuels and thus inhibiting development towards more sustainable biofuels, and Europe is missing out on potential
new jobs and growth in rural areas.

I should therefore like to ask:

—
When will the Commission submit its proposal for dealing with ILUC in respect of biofuels?

—
How will the Commission ensure that the proposal contributes to promoting the use of advanced, ILUCneutral biofuels?

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

_(30 August 2012)_

Following a recent College orientation debate on this topic, the Commission is now finalising a legislative proposal
for amending the Renewable Energy and Fuel Quality Directives ( [1] ), with the goal to minimise the indirect land-use
change impacts of biofuels. The proposal will be based on an impact assessment of the policy options and will include
the best available science. The need to further accelerate the deployment of advanced biofuels was one of the
recommendations of the orientation debate.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2009/28/EC and 2009/30/EC.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 177

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-006987/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ανησυχητικά στοιχεία για την απασχόληση στην ευρωζώνη, με βάση σχετική έρευνα της ΔΟΕ

Πρόσφατα δημοσιεύθηκε μελέτη της Διεθνούς Οργάνωσης Εργασίας που καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι αν δεν υπάρξει μια
αλλαγή πολιτικής των χωρών της ευρωζώνης προς την κατεύθυνση της ανάπτυξης και της ενίσχυσης της απασχόλησης, τότε
στα επόμενα τέσσερα χρόνια μπορεί να χαθούν ως και 4,5 εκατομμύρια θέσεις εργασίας, με τον αριθμό των ανέργων να
αγγίζει το 2016 τα 22 εκατομμύρια στην Ευρωζώνη. Είναι πλέον σαφές, δεδομένων και των αποτελεσμάτων στον τομέα της
απασχόλησης σε χώρες που καλούνται να υλοποιήσουν προγράμματα δημοσιονομικής εξυγίανσης χωρίς τη συνοδεία των
απαραίτητων αναπτυξιακών πρωτοβουλιών, ότι η ακραία λιτότητα δεν αποτελεί διέξοδο από την οικονομική και κοινωνική
κρίση. Αντίθετα, όπως εφαρμόζεται εντείνει την ύφεση, πολλαπλασιάζει την ανεργία και αποσυνθέτει τον κοινωνικό ιστό.

Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο και με βάση το γενικό διακηρυγμένο στόχο της Στρατηγικής «Ευρώπη 2020» για 75 % απασχόληση
ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Έχει λάβει γνώση της εν λόγω μελέτης; Διαθέτει αντίστοιχες μελέτες αναφορικά με τις επιπτώσεις της λιτότητας στην
απασχόληση για την ευρωζώνη; Ποιά τα προγνωστικά για την απασχόληση στην Ελλάδα;

2. Ποιές συγκεκριμένες δράσεις πρόκειται να αναλάβει προς την κατεύθυνση της ενίσχυσης της ανάπτυξης και της
απασχόλησης, δεδομένων των προσπαθειών αποκατάστασης της ισορροπίας της δημοσίων οικονομικών;

3. Επεξεργάζεται ως μέρος της τρόικα, επανεξέταση των δημοσιονομικών μέτρων ή της διάρκειάς εφαρμογής τους για τις
χώρες που βρίσκονται στο μηχανισμό στήριξης, προς την κατεύθυνση της ενίσχυσης της απασχόλησης;

4. Έχει αποδώσει τα αναμενόμενα η πολιτική της εσωτερικής υποτίμησης που εφαρμόζεται στις χώρες που εντάσσονται
στο μηχανισμό στήριξης, δηλαδή, προστασία των θέσεων απασχόλησης και καταπολέμηση της ανεργίας; Πώς έχουν
επηρεαστεί οι εργασιακές σχέσεις και τα μοντέλα απασχόλησης;

5. Κρίνει σκόπιμο πέραν από το σύμφωνο δημοσιονομικής πειθαρχίας, να υπάρξει και ένα σύμφωνο απασχόλησης στο
πλαίσιο του ευρωπαϊκού εξαμήνου, προκειμένου να υπάρχει πιο πλήρης παρακολούθηση των στόχων της στρατηγικής
ΕΕ 2020;

**Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(6 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή συμμερίζεται τις θέσεις της ΔΟΕ σχετικά με την κατάσταση στην αγορά εργασίας της Ευρωζώνης ( [1] ). Η Επιτροπή
εκτιμά ότι, εάν δεν συντελεστεί αλλαγή πολιτικής κατά το διάστημα 2012-2020, το ποσοστό απασχόλησης στην Ελλάδα το
2020 θα ανέλθει σε 68,4 %.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινωνικό Ταμείο είναι ένα νευραλγικό μέσο για την προώθηση της απασχόλησης και της κοινωνικής συνοχής.
Όσο για την Ελλάδα, η συνδρομή του Ταμείου, που ανέρχεται σε 4,364 δισ. ευρώ, στοχεύει στην προώθηση της κοινωνικής
ενσωμάτωσης των πιο ευάλωτων ομάδων, στην αύξηση των ευκαιριών τους για απασχόληση και στη στήριξη της
προσαρμοστικότητας των εργαζομένων και των επιχειρήσεων.

Στις χώρες του προγράμματος, η Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει τις ισορροπημένες φορολογικές προσαρμογές, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη
τις επιπτώσεις της φορολογικής ενοποίησης στην ανάπτυξη. Για μια φορολογική ενοποίηση φιλική προς την απασχόληση
απαιτούνται μεταρρυθμίσεις που να συναρτούν τους μισθούς με την παραγωγικότητα και να προωθούν επενδύσεις στην
προσαρμοστικότητα των εργαζομένων.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Όσον αφορά τον κοινωνικό αντίκτυπο της κρίσης και των μέτρων λιτότητας στην απασχόληση στην Ευρωζώνη και στην ΕΕ-27, η ίδια η Επιτροπή δίνει

ιδιαίτερη προσοχή στο συγκεκριμένο θέμα στην τριμηνιαία επισκόπηση της εργασιακής και κοινωνικής κατάστασης στην ΕΕ, που δημοσιεύτηκε τον
Δεκέμβριο του 2011.
(http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1157&furtherNews=yes).

C 219 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

Επειδή στην ΟΝΕ δεν υπάρχει βιώσιμος μηχανισμός για την αντιμετώπιση κρίσεων ή συντονισμός ως προς τον καθορισμό των
μισθολογίων, οι πολικές εσωτερικής υποτίμησης έχουν συμβάλει στην αποφυγή μιας ακόμα μεγαλύτερης ανεργίας. Οι χώρες
που εφαρμόζουν ταχύτερες μισθολογικές προσαρμογές αντιμετωπίζουν μικρότερες απώλειες θέσεων εργασίας. Αντιθέτως, η
Ελλάδα πέτυχε προσαρμογές μέσω της ραγδαίας μείωσης των θέσεων εργασίας, καθώς οι μισθοί προσαρμόζονται με
βραδύτερους ρυθμούς. Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση έχει προωθήσει τον διάλογο μεταξύ των κοινωνικών εταίρων, με στόχο την
αποκατάσταση της ανταγωνιστικότητας, της ανάπτυξης και της απασχόλησης, ενώ η Επιτροπή έχει τονίσει επανειλημμένως τη
σημασία του κοινωνικού διαλόγου.

Η έκκληση της ΔΟΕ για την υιοθέτηση προσέγγισης για την οικονομική ανάκαμψη με γνώμονα τις θέσεις εργασίας
επιβεβαιώνει την προσέγγιση της ίδιας της Επιτροπής, όπως αποτυπώνεται στη δέσμη μέτρων για την απασχόληση ( [2] ), που
εκδόθηκε τον Απρίλιο του 2012. Επιπλέον, στις 29 Ιουνίου 2012 το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο συμφώνησε ένα «Σύμφωνο για
την ανάπτυξη και την απασχόληση» ( [3] ), χάρη στο οποίο θα χορηγηθούν 120 δισ. ευρώ για την τόνωση της ανάπτυξη, των
επενδύσεων και της απασχόλησης.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/andor/headlines/news/2012/04/20120418_en.htm.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 179

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006987/12**

**to the Commission**
**Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ ILO research provides alarming data on employment in the eurozone

A recent International Labour Organisation study has concluded that, unless there is a change of policy in the
eurozone countries towards growth and boosting employment, up to 4.5 million jobs may be lost over the next four
years, with number of unemployed in the eurozone rising to 22 million by 2016. It is now clear, given the results in
the field of employment in those countries that are required to implement fiscal consolidation programmes without
simultaneously pursuing the necessary development initiatives, that extreme austerity does not offer a way out of the
economic and social crisis. On the contrary, this course of action intensifies the recession, increases unemployment
and destroys the social fabric.

In this context and given that a 75% employment rate is one of the overall objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, will
the Commission say:

1. Is it aware of this study? Does it have at its disposal any similar studies about the effects of austerity on
employment for the eurozone? What are the forecasts for employment in Greece?

2. What practical measures will it take to boost growth and employment, given the efforts to restore the
equilibrium of public finances?

3. In its capacity as part of the ‘Troika’, is it drawing up a review of fiscal measures or the length of time during
which they will be implemented for the countries included in the support mechanism so as to boost
employment?

4. Has the internal devaluation policy being implemented in the countries included in the support mechanism
yielded the expected results, i.e. has it protected jobs and combated unemployment? How have labour relations
and patterns of employment been affected?

5. Does it consider it appropriate, in addition to the fiscal discipline pact, to create an employment pact within the
European Semester so that there can be a more complete monitoring of EU 2020 strategy objectives?

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

_(6 September 2012)_

The Commission shares ILO's views on the labour market situation in the Eurozone ( [1] ). The Commission projects
employment rate in Greece to be 68.4% in 2020 under a ‘no policy change’ scenario between 2012 and 2020.

The European Social Fund (ESF) is a key instrument promoting employment and social cohesion. As for Greece, the
ESF assistance of EUR 4 364 billion aims to promote social inclusion of vulnerable groups, increase their employment
opportunities and support the adaptability of workers and enterprises.

In programme countries, the Commission supports balanced fiscal adjustments considering the effects of fiscal
consolidation on growth. Reforms enhancing responsiveness of wages to productivity developments and investments
in workers' adaptability are necessary for employment-friendly fiscal consolidation.

In the absence of a sustained anti-crisis stimulus or wage-setting coordination across the EMU, internal devaluation
policies have helped avoid even higher unemployment. Countries going through faster wage adjustments experienced
lower employment losses. Conversely, Greece has seen adjustment through sharp employment losses as wages have
been slower to adjust. The Greek Government has promoted dialogue between social partners with a view to restore
competitiveness, growth and employment, and the Commission has emphasised the importance of social dialogue on
many occasions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) As regards the social impact of the crisis and austerity measures for the employment in the Eurozone and in the EU‐27, the Commission itself

prepared a special focus on the issue in the EU Employment and Social Situation Quarterly Review published in December 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=1157&furtherNews=yes.

C 219 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

The ILO's call for a jobs-centred approach to economic recovery confirms the Commission's own approach, as
reflected in the Employment Package ( [2] ) adopted in April 2012. In addition the European Council agreed on
29 June 2012 a Compact for Growth and Jobs ( [3] ) which will mobilise EUR 120 billion to stimulate growth,
investment and employment.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/andor/headlines/news/2012/04/20120418_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 181

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006989/12**

**to the Commission**
**Sir Graham Watson (ALDE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ European Chemicals Agency and lead shot

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) was established under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 as the EU’s
regulatory authority on chemicals. The ECHA has commissioned a study on the use of lead shot as it wants to evaluate
the costs and benefits of restrictions on the use of lead shot for hunting across the EU. I understand the ECHA has
asked for data on the manufacture, cost and use of lead shot and its alternatives.

Lead shot is already prohibited for use over wetlands in parts of the UK (Scotland and Northern Ireland), whilst in
England and Wales this kind of shot is prohibited for the shooting of wildfowl and may not be used on the foreshore
or at certain designated wetland sites (under the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement).

1. When does the Commission expect the ECHA to complete its study on the use of lead shot?

2. What Union-wide limits on lead shot are already in place?

3. Does the Commission currently have any plans or proposals under way to limit the future use of lead shot by
EU citizens?

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

_(30 August 2012)_

There are no limits for the use of lead in shot adopted at EU level. As concerns the other questions, the Commission
would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question P‐006712/2012 by Ms Vicky Ford ( [1] ).

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

C 219 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-006991/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Ethische beginselen voor EU-ambtenaren

Op 19 juni 2012 heeft de Europese ombudsman een reeks „beginselen voor de overheidsdienst” gepubliceerd. Daarin
zijn fundamentele ethische normen opgenomen, die als zodanig een essentieel onderdeel zouden moeten vormen van
de cultuur van bestuurlijk dienstbetoon waarop de EU-instellingen zich richten. Tot dusverre is er geen officiële
reactie van de Commissie gepubliceerd.

Onderschrijft de Commissie de vijf ethische beginselen voor EU-ambtenaren, te weten engagement voor de Europese
Unie en haar burgers, integriteit, objectiviteit, respect voor anderen en transparantie?

Zo niet, kan de Commissie toelichten waarom niet? Als zij deze beginselen wel onderschrijft, kan zij dan uiteenzetten
welke concrete maatregelen er zullen worden genomen om er invulling aan te geven en zo een cultuur van bestuurlijk
dienstbetoon te stimuleren?

Zal bijvoorbeeld het Statuut van de ambtenaren worden aangepast, omdat in het huidige artikel 11, waarin het om
deze kwestie gaat, niet specifiek wordt ingegaan op integriteit, objectiviteit, respect voor anderen en transparantie?

Zullen deze beginselen worden behandeld in opleidingscursussen voor het personeel, met name in het kader van het
beleid inzake aanbestedingen en belangenconflicten?

**Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič namens de Commissie**

_(10 september 2012)_

De Commissie steunt het initiatief van de ombudsman en gelooft dat dit zal helpen het personeel nog beter bewust te
maken van de noodzaak om te voldoen aan de hoogst mogelijke beroepsnormen.

Zoals de ombudsman in zijn inleiding op de beginselen voor de openbare dienst evenwel heeft benadrukt, zijn deze
beginselen niet nieuw en „(…) zitten ze al impliciet en expliciet vervat in het Statuut van de ambtenaren en in ander
documenten (…)” ( [1] ).

De Commissie meent dat de EU-ambtenaren reeds aan sterke regels gebonden zijn die vervat zijn in het Statuut van de
ambtenaren. Deze regels omvatten fundamentele waarden als objectiviteit, onpartijdigheid en loyauteit, waaraan
ambtenaren en de andere personeelsleden zich moeten houden. Daarenboven is het personeel van de Commissie
gebonden aan de Code van Goed Administratief Gedrag. Dat sluit natuurlijk niet uit dat in dit verband aanvullende
voorschriften worden opgesteld om de algemene beginselen verder uit te werken en zo de burgers een nog betere
dienstverlening te bieden.

De Commissie heeft de voorbije jaren maatregelen genomen om haar personeelsleden nog beter bewust te maken van
de regels en beginselen inzake beroepsethiek en verbindt zich ertoe daarmee verder te gaan via een speciaal daarvoor
bestemde website, opleiding, masterclasses en andere bewustmakingsacties.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Beginselen voor de openbare dienst voor EU-ambtenaren, blz. 1, www.ombudsman.europa.eu/nl/resources/publicserviceprinciples.faces.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 183

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006991/12**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Ethical principles for EU officials

On 19 June 2012 the European Ombudsman published a set of ‘public service principles’. They contain fundamental
ethical standards and as such should form a vital component of the administrative culture of service to which the EU
institutions adhere. Up to now no official reaction from the Commission has been published.

Does the Commission endorse the five public ethical principles for EU officials: Commitment to the European Union
and its Citizens, Integrity, Objectivity, Respect for Others and Transparency?

If not, can the Commission explain why not? If it does, can it explain what concrete measures will be taken to give
effect to these principles so as to stimulate an administrative culture of service?

For example, will the Staff Regulations be adapted, as the current Article 11 dealing with this issue does not
specifically include integrity, objectivity, respect for others and transparency?

Will these principles be covered in staff training courses, specifically in the field of public procurement and conflict of
interest policy?

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

_(10 September 2012)_

The Commission supports the Ombudsman's initiative and believes that this will help to further strengthen the staff's
understanding of the need to live up to the highest standards of professional ethics.

Nevertheless, as stressed by the Ombudsman in his introduction to the Public Service Principles, these principles are
not new and ‘(…) they are already embodied, both explicitly and implicitly, in the Staff Regulations and other
documents (…)’ ( [1] ).

The Commission considers that European Union civil servants are already bound by strong rules laid down in the
Staff Regulations. Those rules enshrine fundamental values such as objectivity, impartiality and loyalty which are
required from officials and other servants. In addition, the Commission's staff is bound by the Code of Good
Administrative Behaviour. This of course does not preclude proposing additional guidance in this respect in order to
further promote the general principles and thus ensure an even better service to citizens.

The Commission has taken action over the past years to raise the awareness of its staff about rules and principles in
the domain of professional ethics and is committed to continuing this with a dedicated website, training, master
classes and other awareness raising actions.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Public service principles for the EU public service, p. 1, www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/publicserviceprinciples.faces.

C 219 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-006993/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI) en Lucas Hartong (NI)**

_(12 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ CO 2 -taks schaadt handelsrelaties en Europese luchtvaart (vervolgvragen)

Naar aanleiding van het antwoord op eerdere vragen (E-004832/2012) m.b.t. tot schade veroorzaakt door de CO 2        taks voor de luchtvaart (ETS) hebben wij de onderstaande vervolgvragen:

1. Als ETS inderdaad geen taks of heffing zou zijn — zoals de Commissie claimt — is de Commissie het dan met
de PVV eens dat geen enkele luchtvaartmaatschappij ook maar een cent aan ETS hoeft af te dragen? Zo neen,
waarom niet?

2. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat ETS in de praktijk als belasting zal uitwerken, en dat eufemistische
terminologie die de EU voor deze belasting gebruikt, niets af doet aan de extra kosten die ETS in de praktijk
voor luchtvaartmaatschappijen en passagiers met zich meebrengt? Zo neen, waarom niet?

3. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat een verwijzing naar de procedure dat „EU-ETS-wetgeving met
overweldigende steun in het Europees Parlement en van de lidstaten is goedgekeurd” geen geldig inhoudelijk
argument is ter voortzetting van failliet beleid? Zo neen, waarom niet?

4. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat het enige rationele alsmede verstandige besluit is om eerdere fouten
onder ogen te zien en de invoering van ETS te staken voordat nog meer schade wordt aangericht? Zo neen,
waarom niet?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Hedegaard namens de Commissie**

_(23 augustus 2012)_

1 en 2. De Commissie verwijst de geachte Parlementsleden naar haar antwoord op hun vorige schriftelijke
vraag E-4832/2012 en naar het antwoord op schriftelijke vraag E-817/2012 van de heer Aylward ( [1] ).

3. Met deze verwijzing beschreef de Commissie gewoon de omstandigheden ten tijde van de goedkeuring van de
wetgeving.

4. De Commissie verwijst de geachte Parlementsleden naar haar antwoord op de vorige schriftelijke vragen
E-9211/2012 en E-3805/2012 van mevrouw Stassen en naar het antwoord op schriftelijke vraag E-958/2012 van
mevrouw Benova ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/nl/parliamentary-questions.html

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 185

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006993/12**

**to the Commission**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI) and Lucas Hartong (NI)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ CO 2 tax damaging to trade and to European aviation (follow-up question)

Further to the answer to a previous question (E‐004832/2012) concerning the damage caused to aviation by the CO 2
tax (ETS), we wish to put further questions:

1. If it is true that the ETS is not a tax or charge, as the Commission claims, does the Commission agree with the
PVV that no airline need pay a single cent to the ETS? If not, why not?

2. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that in practice the ETS will function as a tax and that the
euphemistic terminology which the EU uses to describe it does nothing to reduce the extra costs which airlines
and passengers will in practice incur on account of the ETS? If not, why not?

3. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that a procedural reference to the effect that ‘the EU ETS legislation
was adopted with overwhelming support in the European Parliament and from the Member States’ is not a valid
substantive argument in favour of continuing a bankrupt policy? If not, why not?

4. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that the only rational and sensible decision is to admit previous
mistakes and halt the introduction of the ETS before even more damage is caused? If not, why not?

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

_(23 August 2012)_

1 and 2. The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to his previous Written Question
E-4832/2012 and the reply to Written Question E-817/2012 by Mr Aylward ( [1] ).

3. The Commission was simply stating the circumstances at the adoption of the legislation with this reference.

4. The Commission would refer the Honourable Members to its answer to previous written questions
E-9211/2011 and E-3805/2012 by Mr Stassen and the reply to Written Question E-958/2012 by Mrs Benova ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 219 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-006994/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI)**

_(12 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Emancipatiebeleid is een nationale aangelegenheid

Naar aanleiding van antwoorden op eerdere vragen E-004241/2012 m.b.t. tot nationaal emancipatiebeleid heb ik
onderstaande vervolgvragen:

1. De Commissie stelt in haar antwoord subsidiariteit in acht te nemen. Kan de Commissie in dat geval
uiteenzetten welke afwegingen hebben geleid tot het besluit om emancipatiebeleid vanuit de EU te dirigeren en
dit niet aan de lidstaten over te laten?

2. Is de Commissie soms van mening dat lidstaten zelf niet in staat zijn om emancipatiebeleid te maken —
en zo ja, op welke gronden komt de Commissie tot die conclusie? Graag een specifieke uiteenzettingen van de
overwegingen en argumenten.

3. Kan de Commissie uiteenzetten welke uitzonderlijke meerwaarde de EU heeft (wetgeving, beleidsinstrumenten
etc.) voor de ontwikkeling van emancipatiebeleid — die lidstaten niet tot hun beschikking zouden hebben en
daarom Europees ingrijpen wenselijk maken?

4. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat emancipatiebeleid de subsidiariteitstoets niet doorstaat, aangezien
lidstaten wel degelijk zelf de mogelijkheden en instrumenten bezitten voor een adequaat emancipatiebeleid?
Zo neen waarom niet?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Reding namens de Commissie**

_(24 augustus 2012)_

De analyse van de subsidiariteit, evenredigheid en toegevoegde waarde van EU-wetgevingsmaatregelen inzake
emancipatiebeleid wordt van geval tot geval verricht in de effectbeoordeling bij elk wetgevingsvoorstel en daarnaar
wordt in de overwegingen van elk rechtsinstrument verwezen.

Meer informatie over het effectbeoordelingsproces van de Europese Commissie kan het geachte Parlementslid vinden
op de volgende website: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm

Wat de bevoegdheid van de Europese Unie inzake emancipatiebeleid betreft, wordt het geachte Parlementslid
verwezen naar de punten 1 en 2 van het antwoord van de Europese Commissie op haar vorige
vraag E-004241/2012 ( [1] ).

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 187

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006994/12**

**to the Commission**
**Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Policy on gender equality — a national matter

In response to the answer to a previous question (E‐004241/2012) concerning national policy on equality between
women and men, I wish to put further questions:

1. The Commission states in its reply that it acts in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. In that case, can the
Commission explain what considerations led to the decision to direct policy on gender equality from the EU
rather than leaving it to the Member States?

2. Does the Commission perhaps consider that the Member States are not themselves capable of adopting policies
on gender equality, and if so, on what grounds has the Commission reached this conclusion? Please specify the
considerations and arguments.

3. Can the Commission indicate what particular added value the EU has (legislation, policy instruments, etc.) for
the development of a gender equality policy which Member States would not have and which thus makes
European action desirable?

4. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that gender equality policy does not withstand the subsidiarity test,
as Member States are perfectly able, and possess the requisite instruments, to pursue an adequate gender
equality policy? If not, why not?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The analyses of subsidiarity, proportionality and added value of EU legislative measures concerning gender equality
are carried out on a case-by-case basis in the impact assessments accompanying each legislative proposal and are
referred to in the preambles to each legal instrument.

For more information on the European Commission's impact assessment process the Honourable Member is referred
to the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm.

Regarding the competence of the European Union on gender equality, the Honourable Member is referred to
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the answer of the European Commission to her previous Question E‐004241/2012 ( [1] ).

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

C 219 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(České znění)_

**Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-006995/12**

**Komisi**
**Jan Březina (PPE)**
_(12. července 2012)_

_Předmět:_ Diskriminace při nákupu u výhradního dovozce

Obrátila se na mě česká společnost, která je prodejcem nových automobilů od německého výrobce. Tyto nové
automobily je však nucena kupovat u výhradního dovozce za jím stanovených podmínek, které považuje za
nevýhodné a diskriminující. V Německu ani jiném státě EU nemůže tyto automobily koupit a dovézt do ČR, neboť
výrobce zakázal prodejcům v Německu a ostatních státech EU prodávat automobily do ČR, takže je může kupovat
pouze u výhradního dovozce za nevýhodných podmínek.

— Může Komise sdělit, zda se v tomto případě jedná nebo může jednat o porušení soutěžního práva EU, ať už zákazu
vertikálních dohod, nebo zneužití dominantního postavení?

— Pokud by se jednalo nebo mohlo jednat o porušení soutěžního práva EU, jak má podle Komise daná česká
společnost postupovat, aby se účinně domohla práva?

**Odpověď Joaquína Almunii jménem Komise**

_(31. srpna 2012)_

Za prvé, podniky, které nemají dominantní postavení, se mohou svobodně rozhodnout, komu budou prodávat.
Pokud rozhodnutí německých prodejců neprodávat českým podnikům není výsledkem dohody s jejich dodavatelem,
neexistuje důvod přijímat opatření na základě pravidel hospodářské soutěže.

Za druhé, Komise by ráda zdůraznila, že téměř všichni výrobci automobilů v Evropské unii distribuují své produkty
prostřednictvím selektivních distribučních sítí, jejichž členové nesmí prodávat podnikům mimo tuto síť. To by
znamenalo, že pokud český podnik není oprávněn prodávat značky výrobce vozidel, němečtí prodejci mu odmítnou
automobily prodat. Na selektivní distribuční systémy se vztahuje nařízení o blokových výjimkách č. 1400/2002 ( [1] ).

Za třetí, Komise by naopak chtěla zdůraznit, že pokud daný výrobce využívá selektivní distribuční systém, nesmí
členům tohoto systému zakazovat prodej autorizovaným prodejcům z jiných členských států. Tento zákaz by byl
v rozporu s čl. 4 odst. 1 písm. b) nařízení č. 1400/2002 a pravděpodobně by rovněž nebylo možné využít výjimku
stanovenou v čl. 101 odst. 3 Smlouvy ( [2] ). Pokud český podnik získal od výrobce oprávnění prodávat jeho vozidla
a výrobce poté dal německým prodejcům pokyn, aby mu neprodávali, jednalo by se pravděpodobně o porušení
pravidel hospodářské soutěže EU.

Komise není schopna panu poskytnout konečnou odpověď, zejména protože není jasné, zda je český podnik
autorizovaným prodejcem.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Nařízení Komise (ES) č. 1400/2002 ze dne 31. července 2002 o použití čl. 81 odst. 3 Smlouvy na kategorie vertikálních dohod a jednání ve

vzájemné shodě v odvětví motorových vozidel, Úř. věst. L 203, 1.8.2002, s. 30.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Smlouva o fungování Evropské unie.

( **|**

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 189

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006995/12**

**to the Commission**

**Jan Březina (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Discrimination when purchasing vehicles via an exclusive importer

I have received a complaint from a Czech firm that sells new cars of German manufacture. It is obliged to buy its cars
from an exclusive importer on terms imposed by that importer, which it considers are unfavourable and
discriminatory. It cannot buy these vehicles directly from Germany or in any other Member State and import them
itself into the Czech Republic since the manufacturer has prohibited car sellers in Germany and in other EU countries
from selling cars for export to the Czech Republic, so it has no alternative but to buy from the sole importer on
unfavourable terms.

Can the Commission say whether this case constitutes or might constitute a breach of EU competition law, whether it
be the ban on vertical agreements or the abuse of a dominant position?

If this case constitutes or might constitute a breach of EU competition law, how does the Commission consider that
the Czech firm in question should proceed in order to seek effective redress?

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

_(31 August 2012)_

Firstly, firms that are not in a dominant position are generally free to decide to whom they sell. So long as the German
dealers' decision not to sell to the Czech firm does not result from any agreement with their supplier, there are no
grounds to take action under the competition rules.

Secondly, the Commission would point out that almost all carmakers in the European Union distribute their products
through selective distribution networks, the members of which may not sell to firms outside the network. This would
imply that if the Czech firm is not authorised to sell the vehicle manufacturer's brands, the German dealers will refuse
to sell to it. Selective distribution systems benefit from Block Exemption Regulation 1400/2002 ( [1] ).

Thirdly, and in contrast, the Commission would underline that if the manufacturer in question is operating a selective
distribution system, it may not prohibit the members of that system from selling to authorised dealers from other
Member States. Such a restriction would violate Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1400/2002, and would also be unlikely
to benefit from the exception set out in Article 101(3) of the Treaty ( [2] ). If the Czech firm has received the
manufacturer's authorisation to sell its vehicles, and the manufacturer then instructs German dealers not to sell to it,
this is therefore likely to be contrary to EU competition rules.

The Commission is not in a position to give the Honourable Member a definitive response, in particular because it is
not clear if the Czech firm is an authorised dealer.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements

and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector, OJ L 203/30 of 1.8.2002.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

( **|**

C 219 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-006996/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(12. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Umgang der Türkei mit nichtmuslimischen Minderheiten

Das syrisch-orthodoxe Kloster Mor Gabriel wurde im Jahre 397 gegründet und ist eines der ältesten christlichen
Klöster überhaupt. Es liegt im Südosten der Türkei, nahe der syrischen Grenze in der türkischen Provinz Mardin.

Das Kloster spielt eine entscheidende Rolle bei der Erhaltung der syrisch-orthodoxen Kirchen‐ und Alltagssprache
und sichert als Institution darüber hinaus das kulturelle Erbe der syrisch-orthodoxen Bevölkerung.

In einem jahrelangen Rechtsstreit zwischen dem Kloster Mor Gabriel und dem türkischen Schatzamt hat das
Kassationsgericht in Ankara in seinem Urteil vom 13. Juni 2012 gegen das Kloster entschieden. Gegenstand des
Verfahrens waren Eigentumsrechte an Ländereien in der Umgebung des Klosters. In erster Instanz hatte ein Gericht
zugunsten Mor Gabriels entschieden. Das Kloster hatte seine Ansprüche auf das Land nachweisen können, da es seit
den dreißiger Jahren Steuern darauf zahlt. Das Berufungsgericht jedoch berücksichtigte die Steuerbelege nicht mehr,
so dass nun rund 28 Hektar Land dem türkischen Staat zugesprochen wurden. Man geht davon aus, dass das Urteil
politisch motiviert ist, und das Kloster ist nun aufgefordert, sich auch international gegen den in einem
Enteignungsverfahren drohenden Landverlust zu wehren.

Die derzeitige Situation durch den Landverlust bedeutet eine massive Gefährdung des Fortbestands der Kultur der
syrisch-orthodoxen Christen in der Türkei, und es stellt sich die Frage, ob die Situation mit der Einhaltung von
internationalen Vereinbarungen über Religionsfreiheit und über Menschen‐ und Minderheitenrechte vereinbar ist.

1. Ist der Kommission dieser Sachverhalt bekannt?

2. Wenn ja, beobachtet sie die Entwicklung dieses Umgangs mit nichtmuslimischen Minderheiten in der Türkei
im Hinblick auf ihre Vereinbarkeit mit den Standards der EU, insbesondere den Menschenrechten und den
Kopenhagener Kriterien?

3. Welche Konsequenzen wird die Kommission aus der immer noch stark eingeschränkten Religionsfreiheit in
Bezug auf die Beitrittsverhandlungen mit der Türkei ziehen?

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

_(14. September 2012)_

Der Kommission ist die in der Anfrage des Herrn Abgeordneten geschilderte Lage bekannt. Sie ist darüber besorgt und
verfolgt die Entwicklungen aufmerksam. Die Frage wird auf allen geeigneten Ebenen gegenüber den türkischen
Behörden angesprochen, und die neuesten Entwicklungen werden im nächsten Fortschrittsbericht über die Türkei
festgehalten werden.

Im Fortschrittsbericht 2011 der Kommission heißt es: „Die syrisch-aramäische Gemeinschaft (Suryoye) hatte weiter
mit Schwierigkeiten bei der Immobilien‐ und Grundstückeintragung zu kämpfen. Eine Reihe von Gerichtsverfahren
in Bezug auf Einzelpersonen sowie religiöse Institutionen wurde fortgesetzt. Die Gerichtsverhandlungen um die
Grundstückeigentumsrechte am syrisch-orthodoxen Kloster Mor Gabriel liefen während des gesamten
Berichtszeitraums weiter. Die von staatlichen Einrichtungen und Nachbardörfern parallel dazu angestrengten
Prozesse gaben Anlass zu Sorge. Unter anderem zog das türkische Forstamt nach positiven Entscheidungen der
örtlichen Gerichte bis vor den Kassationshof und erreichte ein Urteil gegen das Kloster unter Aufhebung der
erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Die gerichtlichen Verfahren laufen weiter“.

Die Türkei muss als Land, das mit der EU in Beitrittsverhandlungen steht, in der Praxis die Achtung der
Menschenrechte aller Bürger im Einklang mit der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention und der Rechtsprechung
des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte gewährleisten.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 191

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006996/12**

**to the Commission**
**Werner Langen (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Turkey's treatment of non-Muslim minorities

The Syriac Orthodox monastery of Mor Gabriel was founded in 397 and is one of the most ancient of all Christian
monasteries. It lies in Mardin Province in south-eastern Turkey, not far from the Syrian border.

The monastery plays a crucial role in preserving the Syriac Orthodox liturgical and everyday language and as an
institution also represents the cultural heritage of the Syriac Orthodox population.

On 13 June 2012, after a year-long legal battle between the Mor Gabriel monastery and the Turkish Treasury
concerning ownership of land around the monastery, the Court of Cassation in Ankara ruled against the monastery.
At first instance, a court had found in favour of Mor Gabriel, which had been able to substantiate its claims to the land
by showing that it had paid taxes on it since the 1930s. The Court of Appeal, however, took no account of the proof
of tax payments, with the result that around 28 hectares of land were awarded to the Turkish State. It can be assumed
that this ruling was politically motivated, and the monastery is now obliged to enlist international aid in its fight to
hold on to the land it is threatened with losing under the expropriation proceedings.

Loss of this land will pose a major threat to the continued existence of Syriac Orthodox Christian culture in Turkey.
This raises the issue of whether this situation is compatible with respect for international agreements on freedom of
religion and on human rights and minority rights.

1. Is the Commission aware of the current situation in this case?

2. If so, is it monitoring developments in Turkey's treatment of non-Muslim minorities to ensure that they remain
compatible with EU standards, in particular on human rights and the Copenhagen Criteria?

3. What conclusions will the Commission draw from the continuing stringent restrictions on religious freedom in
Turkey for the accession talks with that country?

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

_(14 September 2012)_

The Commission is aware of and concerned about the situation outlined in the question of the Honourable member
and follows it closely. The issue is also raised at all appropriate levels with the Turkish authorities and the latest
developments will be duly reflected in our forthcoming progress report on Turkey.

In 2011 Commission's Progress Report was mentioned that ‘The Syriac community continued to face difficulties with
property and land registration. A number of court cases continued concerning both individuals and religious
institutions. The Mor Gabriel Syriac Orthodox monastery court cases regarding land ownership continued
throughout the reporting period. Litigation launched in parallel by State institutions and neighbouring villages raised
concerns. Among other cases, following positive rulings by the local courts, the Turkish Forestry Department
appealed to the Court of Cassation, which decided against the monastery and reversed the decision of the firstinstance court. Judicial proceedings are continuing’.

Turkey, as a country negotiating its accession to the EU needs to guarantee in practice for all its citizens human rights
according to the European Convention of Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

C 219 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006997/12**

**to the Commission**
**Stephen Hughes (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Asbestos mining and shipping

Is the Commission aware of the recent decision by the Quebec Federal Government to approve a subsidy of
USD 58 million in state funding to reopen the Jefferies Mine?

Will the Commission agree to raise the issue with the World Trade Organisation in order to establish whether such a
subsidy, using taxpayers’ money with no matching of funds by the private sector, is illegal?

Will the Commission, in line with the EU ban on the importation of asbestos and asbestos goods, ensure that EU‐
controlled ports are not used for berthing by ships transporting asbestos for export en route to India?

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

_(21 September 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the reported loan measure involving the Jeffrey Mine and the Province of Quebec. Any
such measure will be subject to the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on subsidies, under the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, should it be shown to be a ‘specific subsidy’ under Articles 1 and 2 of the
Agreement and to be either prohibited or causing adverse effects to the interests of another WTO Member. At this
stage, the nature and effects of the Quebec measure would require further investigation.

The EU ban on asbestos fibres is governed by the REACH Regulation which does not apply to goods that are under
customs supervision, provided that they do not undergo any treatment or processing, and are in temporary storage,
in a free zone or warehouse with a view to be re-exported or in transit. Shipments of asbestos in vessels moored in
European harbours on their way to ports outside the EU would thus not be considered to be imported into the EU and
would not be subject to the ban.

The Commission will continue rigorous implementation of existing EU legislation related to trade in asbestos and
asbestos goods.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 193

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-006998/12**

**à la Commission**
**Dominique Vlasto (PPE)**

_(12 juillet 2012)_

_Objet:_ Achats hors taxes

La Commission a été interpellée à de nombreuses reprises sur les divers problèmes liés à une application stricte de la
politique du bagage à main unique par certaines compagnies aériennes: régression pour les droits des passagers et
conditions de concurrence déloyale entre les ventes hors taxes au sol et à bord des avions.

La Commission déclarait rechercher, dans sa réponse à la question écrite E-002362/2012, par quel moyen il serait
possible de mieux informer les passagers sur cette pratique commerciale disproportionnée.

À la suite de cette réponse, il a été observé, dans l'aéroport de Charleroi, un panneau positionné avant le point de
contrôle des documents d'identité, qui s'apparente à un message officiel de l'Union, précisant en anglais que les achats
effectués hors taxes doivent pouvoir être emmenés à bord: «Duty free items, purchased at airports within the EU or on
board an EU-airline may continue to be carried on board» (les articles hors taxes, achetés dans les aéroports de l'Union
européenne ou à bord des avions des compagnies de l'Union européenne, peuvent continuer à être transportés
à bord).

1. La Commission peut-elle indiquer si des messages similaires sont présents dans d'autres aéroports européens?

2. La Commission peut-elle préciser la portée juridique de ce message? Est-il juridiquement contraignant pour les
compagnies aériennes de l'aéroport?

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

_(29 août 2012)_

1. Le transport en cabine d'articles achetés hors-taxes et l'application de la politique du bagage à main unique
relèvent d'arrangements commerciaux entre les compagnies aériennes et les aéroports. Ainsi, la Commission a été
informée que des panneaux d'information semblables à celui de Charleroi ont été installés dans plusieurs aéroports,
mais elle n'en a approuvé aucun.

2. Cette question relevant d'arrangements commerciaux entre les différentes parties, la Commission ne peut se
prononcer ni sur la portée juridique des messages affichés dans les aéroports en ce qui concerne le transport en cabine
des articles achetés hors-taxes, ni sur le caractère contraignant de ces messages pour les compagnies aériennes
présentes dans les aéroports concernés.

Comme elle l'a souligné dans sa réponse à la question E-002362/2012 ( [1] ), la Commission examine actuellement la
nécessité d'introduire des mesures visant à améliorer l'information des passagers sur les bagages autorisés et sur le
transport des articles achetés hors-taxes. Ce point est actuellement traité dans l'analyse d'impact portant sur la
révision du règlement relatif aux droits des passagers aériens, qui doit être livrée avant fin 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Disponible à l'adresse http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

C 219 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006998/12**

**to the Commission**
**Dominique Vlasto (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Duty-free purchases

The Commission has been asked a number of questions on issues relating to the strict application by certain airlines
of the one bag rule for hand luggage, which may deprive passengers of established rights and impose unfair
conditions of competition between duty-free sales in airports and on board.

In its answer to question for Written Answer E‐002362/2012, the Commission said it was seeking a means of
providing passengers with better information on this disproportionate commercial practice.

Since this answer was given, it has been observed at Charleroi airport that a notice, which appears to be an official EU
message, has been put up in the area in front of the ID check point saying, in English, that ‘Duty-free items purchased
at airports within the EU or on board an EU airline may continue to be carried on board’.

1. Can the Commission say whether similar messages are also to be found in other European airports?

2. Can the Commission define the exact legal scope of this message? Is it legally binding for the airlines operating
at the airport in question?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

1. The carriage of duty-free goods and the application of the ‘one bag’ rule in relation to hand luggage is a
commercial matter between airlines and airports. Consequently, whilst the Commission is aware that a number of
airports have erected similar notices to that observed at Charleroi, this is not a notice approved by the Commission.

2. As a commercial matter between the parties involved, the Commission cannot comment on the legal scope of
the notices displayed by airports in relation to the carriage of duty-free goods or whether the requirements of that
notice are binding on the airlines at the airports in question.

As outlined in its written answer to Question E‐002362/2012 ( [1] ), the Commission is considering whether measures
are needed to clarify the information provided to passengers on luggage allowances and the carriage of duty free
goods. This issue is being addressed in the impact assessment on the revision of the air passenger rights Regulation
due before end 2012.

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 195

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-006999/12**

**à la Commission**
**Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE)**

_(12 juillet 2012)_

_Objet:_ Rio + 20: stratégie environnementale de l'Union européenne

De l'avis général, le sommet de Rio + 20 sonne le glas de pratiques internationales qui prévalent depuis plusieurs
décennies dans le domaine environnemental. Les grands-messes surmédiatisées, lors desquelles l'ensemble de la
communauté internationale s'accorde sur un minimum, ont prouvé leurs limites. Si les débats à l'ordre du jour, que ce
soit sur l'économie verte ou la protection marine, étaient pertinents, l'impasse sur des avancées concrètes et l'absence
remarquée des leaders politiques nationaux nous invitent naturellement à tirer un bilan mitigé de ce sommet et à
repenser notre action.

En ce sens, mes questions à la Commission sont les suivantes:

1. La notion de capital naturel n'a pas trouvé de définition à Rio. Comment la Commission souhaite-t-elle lui
donner du contenu à l'échelle européenne?

2. L'économie verte est une des clés pour sortir du contexte de crise qui n'en finit plus de malmener notre équilibre
économique. Malgré des premières décisions encourageantes (paquet énergie/climat), la Commission entendelle donner une nouvelle impulsion à sa politique environnementale à court terme?

3. Enfin, alors que nous nous imposons au sein de l'Union, à juste titre, des normes environnementales de plus en
plus élevées, les Européens ont souvent le sentiment, selon moi légitime, de souffrir d'une distorsion de
concurrence du fait d'un dumping environnemental de plus en plus sévère de la part des pays tiers. Les faibles
contrôles, voire l'absence de contrôle aux frontières de l'Union européenne, du respect des normes
environnementales par les pays extérieurs à l'Union posent la question de la réciprocité des échanges. Quelle est
l'ambition de la Commission pour assurer davantage de réciprocité dans les échanges internationaux?

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

_(27 août 2012)_

Même si un certain nombre des positions de l'UE n'ont pas été pleinement prises en compte dans le document final du
sommet de Rio, l'UE estime que ce dernier constitue une avancée positive dans la bonne direction. L'UE aurait certes
souhaité que le document final de la conférence soit plus ambitieux, mais le texte adopté offre néanmoins diverses
possibilités pour entreprendre de nouvelles actions importantes à l'échelle internationale.

Pour répondre aux questions de l'Honorable Parlementaire:

1. L'UE tient déjà compte du concept de capital naturel à travers les politiques relatives à l'utilisation efficace des
ressources et à la biodiversité, qui ont trait au capital naturel et aux services écosystémiques.

2. Le document final du sommet de Rio évoque la possibilité, pour les pays qui le souhaitent, d'élaborer en
commun des mesures en faveur d'une économie verte. L'Union européenne soutien activement l'économie
verte inclusive et poursuivra ses actions dans ce domaine sur la scène internationale, conformément à la
stratégie Europe 2020.

3. Dans ses accords commerciaux bilatéraux et régionaux, l'UE propose d'intégrer des engagements en faveur des
normes minimales internationalement reconnues en matière d'environnement, de rechercher des niveaux
élevés de protection de l'environnement, et de maintenir ces niveaux de protection à travers l'application
effective de la législation européenne pertinente, de manière à éviter que certains pays, par une application peu
rigoureuse de la réglementation et un large recours aux dérogations, ne retirent des avantages concurrentiels
dans les échanges internationaux. Sur le plan multilatéral, l'UE soutien les travaux de l'Organisation mondiale
du commerce visant à renforcer la complémentarité des politiques commerciales et environnementales.

C 219 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-006999/12**

**to the Commission**
**Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Rio+20: EU environmental strategy

There is general consensus that Rio+20 has marked the end of international practices that have predominated for
several decades in the field of the environment. These media jamborees, at which the entire international community
agrees on a minimum, have shown their limitations. While the topics on the agenda, whether on the green economy
or marine protection, were relevant, the deadlock on concrete progress and the noted absence of national political
leaders leave us with mixed feelings about the summit outcome and invite us to rethink our approach.

In the light of the above, the Commission is asked to answer the following questions.

1. The concept of natural capital could not be defined in Rio. How does the Commission wish to give content to
this concept at EU level?

2. The green economy is one of the keys to hauling ourselves out of the crisis that continues to batter our
economic equilibrium. Despite the first encouraging decisions (the energy/climate package), does the Commission
intend to give renewed impetus to its environmental policy in the short term?

3. Lastly, when we in the European Union are binding ourselves, correctly, to ever higher environmental
standards, Europeans often feel — quite rightly, in my view — that they are suffering from distortions of competition
due to ever increasing environmental dumping by third countries. The weakness, or indeed the complete absence, of
controls at the EU's external borders on compliance with environmental standards by third countries raises the issue
of reciprocity in trade. What is the Commission's goal as far as securing greater reciprocity in international trade?

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

_(27 August 2012)_

From the perspective of the EU, although a number of its positions were not fully achieved in the Rio outcome
document, it can consider this a positive step in the right direction. Even if the EU would have liked to see more
ambition, the Rio outcome document offers a number of opportunities for undertaking further substantive work at
international level.

To answer the Honourable Member specific questions:

1. The concept of natural capital is already being pursued at EU level through the Resource Efficiency and
Biodiversity policies which address natural capital and ecosystem services.

2. The Rio outcome document outlines the opportunity — for those countries who want — to develop green
economy policies as a common undertaking. The European Union is an active supporter of an inclusive green
economy and will continue work in this area at international level, this being fully consistent with the Europe
2020 strategy.

3. In its bilateral and regional trade agreements the EU proposes to incorporate commitments to internationally
recognised minimum environmental standards, to pursue high levels of environmental protection, and to
uphold these levels of protection through the effective enforcement of relevant domestic laws in order to
prevent using lax enforcement or derogations as a means to gain a competitive advantage in international trade.
At the multilateral level, the EU is supportive of the World Trade Organisation work aiming at enhancing the
mutual supportiveness of trade and environment.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 197

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007000/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) en Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(12 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Pro-palestijnse Propaganda

Is de Commissie bekend met de propagandacampagne van de UNRWA waar zij in kranten zoals de „European Voice”,
„New Europe” en andere bladen, advertenties ten toon spreidt met de volgende tekst:

„Before you woke up this morning you already helped the poorest palestine refugees”

De advertenties laten het logo van de EU en de UNRWA zien.

In dat kader de volgende vragen:

1. Kan de Commissie aangeven uit welke begrotingslijn dergelijk propagandamateriaal wordt gefinancierd.

2. Kan de Commissie aangeven wanneer deze propaganda-actie is begonnen en tot wanneer deze loopt?

3. Wat zijn de totale kosten van deze propagandacampagne?

De EU schenkt jaarlijks ruim EUR 200 miljoen aan de palestijnse gebieden.

4. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat het een goed idee zou zijn om burgers in de EU via een soortgelijke
campagne duidelijk te maken dat een groot gedeelte van deze EUR 200 miljoen die jaarlijks van de EU naar de
palestijnse gebieden vloeit, terecht komt bij terreurorganisatie Hamas (door dhr. Barroso afgelopen week nog
genoemd als partner in een regering van nationale eenheid) en door hen wordt gebruikt voor de financiering van
raketaanvallen op Israël? Zo nee, waarom niet?

5. Is de Commissie in de toekomst van plan om een propagandacampagne op te zetten met bijvoorbeeld de
volgende tekst: „Before you woke up this morning your money already bought Hamas rockets, mortars and Gradmissiles which killed over 1 200 innocent women, children and old people since beginning of 2000 ( [1] ).”

**Antwoord van de heer Füle namens de Commissie**

_(6 september 2012)_

1. De EU-steun voor de UNRWA wordt gefinancierd uit het begrotingsonderdeel „ENPI Palestine-19.080102”.

2. De EU-steun voor de UNRWA is in 1971 begonnen. In 2011 heeft de Commissie overeenkomstig het EU-beleid
de gezamenlijke verklaring betreffende EU-steun voor de UNRWA voor de periode 2011-2013 hernieuwd. Alle
begunstigden van EU-subsidies zijn verplicht informatie over de gefinancierde activiteiten te verspreiden en er
zichtbaarheid aan te geven. Bij elke subsidieovereenkomst wordt een bepaald bedrag uitgetrokken voor
zichtbaarheids‐ en informatiecampagnes om ervoor te zorgen dat alle belanghebbenden voldoende zijn ingelicht over
de in het kader van dit partnerschap gefinancierde acties. Zolang de UNRWA EU-subsidies ontvangt, moet de
organisatie aan deze verplichting voldoen.

3. Voor de in 2011 aan de UNRWA toegekende subsidies werd voor alle belanghebbenden samen 179 000 EUR
uitgetrokken voor zichtbaarheid en communicatie, een bedrag dat zowel de werkterreinen van Europa als van
de UNRWA betreft.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+s
inc.htm

C 219 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

4.-5. Neen, want zoals het geachte Parlementslid zich herinnert, ontvangt Hamas geen EU-steun. Wat het bezoek
van voorzitter Barroso aan de regio betreft, waarnaar wordt verwezen in vraag 4, heeft de voorzitter tegenover zijn
gesprekspartners het duidelijke EU-standpunt herhaald (zie de conclusies van de Raad Buitenlandse Zaken van
14 mei 2012) dat de Unie het als essentieel beschouwt dat de Palestijnen zich eensgezind achter president Abbas
scharen, in overeenstemming met de beginselen uit diens toespraak van 4 mei 2011, ter bevordering van eenheid in
een toekomstige Palestijnse staat en van een tweestatenoplossing.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 199

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007000/12**

**to the Commission**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) and Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Pro-Palestinian propaganda

Is the Commission aware of UNRWA’s propaganda campaign under which it is publishing advertisements in such
newspapers as the European Voice and New Europe, among others, with the following text:

‘Before you woke up this morning you already helped the poorest Palestine refugees’?

The advertisements display the logos of the EU and UNRWA.

1. Can the Commission indicate the budget heading from which such propaganda material is funded?

2. Can the Commission indicate when this propaganda campaign began and when it will end?

3. What are the total costs of this propaganda campaign?

Each year the EU gives more than EUR 200 million to the Palestinian territories.

4. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that it would be a good idea to make it clear to the public in the EU by
means of a similar campaign that much of this EUR 200 million which the EU gives to the Palestinian territories each
year finds its way to the terrorist organisation Hamas (which Mr Barroso last week named as a partner in a
government of national unity) and is used by Hamas to pay for rocket attacks on Israel? If not, why not?

5. Does the Commission plan in future to organise a propaganda campaign with, for example, the following text:
‘Before you woke up this morning your money already bought Hamas rockets, mortars and Grad-missiles which
killed over 1 200 innocent women, children and old people since beginning of 2000’? ( [1] )

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

_(6 September 2012)_

1. EU funding for UNRWA is provided from Budget Line ‘ENPI Palestine-19.080102’.

2. EU funding to UNRWA began in 1971. In 2011, in line with established EU policy, the Commission renewed
the Joint Declaration on EU support to UNRWA for the period 2011-2013. Providing information and visibility on
the activities funded is an obligation for all beneficiaries of EU grant assistance. In each grant agreement a specific
amount is dedicated to visibility and information campaigns to ensure all stakeholders are duly informed of the
actions funded under this partnership. For as long as UNRWA receives EU grants, the organisation will be subject to
this obligation.

3. For the grants allocated to UNRWA in 2011, the amount allocated for visibility and communication to all
stakeholders, covering both Europe and UNWRA's fields of operations, amounted to EUR 179 900.

4-5. No, because as the Honourable Members will recall, Hamas does not receive any EU funds. As regards President
Barroso's visit to the region to which reference is made in question 4, the President reiterated to his interlocutors the
clear EU position (cf. FAC conclusions of 14 May 2012) that the Union considers intra-Palestinian reconciliation
behind President Abbas, in line with the principles set out in his speech of 4 May 2011, as an important factor
contributing to the unity of a future Palestinian state and to reaching a two-state solution.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+s
inc.htm

C 219 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007001/12**

**ao Conselho**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Apoio ao Chipre na Presidência do Conselho

Tendo em conta que:

—
O Chipre tem uma população de 800 mil habitantes, encontra-se localizado a sul da Turquia e é considerada a
maior ilha do Mediterrâneo Oriental. Foi considerada uma zona de passagem entre a Europa, a Ásia e África,
existindo ainda hoje inúmeros vestígios de sucessivas civilizações (vilas e teatros romanos, igrejas e mosteiros
bizantinos, castelos do tempo dos cruzados e testemunhos de habitats pré-históricos);

—
Desde 2004, o Chipre é membro da União Europeia, não pertence ao espaço Schengen e decidiu adotar a
moeda única — EURO;

—
Recentemente, o Chipre decidiu pedir assistência financeira, no sentido de resolver a grave crise bancária que o
sistema enfrenta devido à grande exposição à dívida grega. Segundo o ministro das Finanças do Chipre, Vassos
Shiarly, «Será um pedido mais abrangente, que resolva não apenas as circunstâncias presentes e a
recapitalização dos bancos, mas também as necessidades futuras»;

—
O Chipre assumiu a Presidência do Conselho para o segundo semestre de 2012, tendo de concentrar a sua
atividade nas inúmeras negociações que estão a decorrer relativamente ao Quadro Financeiro Plurianual
2014/2020 e respetivas políticas setoriais, como o Horizonte 2020, Política Agrícola Comum, Política das
Pescas ou Fundos Estruturais;

—
Na reunião do Conselho de 29 de maio, os representantes dos Ministros dos Negócios Estrangeiros dos 27
Estados‐Membros acordaram em que as negociações referentes ao Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014/2020
tinham de estar concluídas até ao final do ano;

—
O Chipre terá de dispersar a sua atividade entre as reformas estruturais que o país deverá realizar na sequência
do pedido de ajuda externo concedido e as importantes negociações sobre o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Tem consciência das difíceis tarefas que o Chipre tem para cumprir no segundo semestre de 2012?

2. Considera a possibilidade de destacar uma equipa específica para apoiar o Chipre nas atividades que tem de
realizar?

3. Sabendo que a Irlanda assume a Presidência do Conselho no primeiro semestre de 2013, pondera a
possibilidade de aumentar o envolvimento das autoridades irlandesas nas negociações relativas ao Quadro
Financeiro Plurianual?

**Resposta**
_(8 de outubro de 2012)_

O Conselho está plenamente consciente das tarefas difíceis que Chipre terá de realizar durante a sua Presidência. A
prioridade principal das negociações sobre o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual (QFP) 2014/2020, assim como outros
desafios, encontram-se mencionados no programa do Conselho para 18 meses que cobre o período da Presidência
Cipriota (doc. 11447/11). A própria Presidência Cipriota coloca a tónica nesta tarefa no seu programa da Presidência
«Rumo a uma Europa melhor». A Presidência Cipriota apresentou ao Conselho (Assuntos Gerais) de 24 de julho de 2012
(doc. 12076/12) um plano de trabalho abrangente para as negociações do QFP, tendo em vista realizar o objetivo de
alcançar um acordo até final deste ano. Na sequência de um debate sobre este assunto na reunião do Conselho
(Assuntos Gerais) (CAG) de 24 de julho, teve lugar outro debate na reunião informal do CAG de 30 de agosto, com
base num documento de trabalho apresentado pela Presidência Cipriota. A Presidência Cipriota tenciona inscrever
este ponto na ordem do dia de todas as reuniões do Conselho (Assuntos Gerais) até que seja alcançado um acordo, e
convocou para 22-23 de novembro uma reunião do Conselho Europeu dedicada a este assunto.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 201

Como qualquer Presidência do Conselho e em conformidade com o artigo 23.° do Regulamento Interno do Conselho,
Chipre beneficia do inteiro apoio do Secretário-Geral do Conselho e do Secretariado-Geral. Esse apoio tem sido dado
a Chipre desde o início dos preparativos para a Presidência, incluindo sob a forma de programas de formação, e
continuará durante a Presidência Cipriota.

A cooperação entre a Presidência em exercício e a sua sucessora, prevista nomeadamente no artigo 20.° do
Regulamento Interno do Conselho, é uma prática bem estabelecida em todas as áreas de política e a todos os níveis.
Em conformidade com o mandato do Conselho Europeu, a Presidência Cipriota continuará a trabalhar no sentido de
preparar o acordo sobre o QFP, que deverá ser alcançado até final de 2012, e de adotar o mais rapidamente possível,
em cooperação com a próxima Presidência Irlandesa, propostas legislativas setoriais para permitir uma
implementação com êxito do novo QFP a partir de 1 de janeiro de 2014.

C 219 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007001/12**

**to the Council**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Support for Cyprus during its Council presidency

Cyprus, which has a population of 800 000, lies to the south of Turkey and is regarded as the largest island in the
eastern Mediterranean. It has been considered to stand at the crossroads between Europe, Asia, and Africa, and there
are still, to this day, countless traces to be found of the civilisations to which it has been home through the ages
(Roman villas and theatres, Byzantine churches and monasteries, castles from the time of the Crusades, and evidence
of prehistoric dwellings).

Cyprus has been a member of the EU since 2004. It is not part of the Schengen area, but it has chosen to adopt the
single currency, the euro.

Cyprus has recently decided to seek a bailout to enable it to resolve the serious banking crisis caused by large exposure
to Greek debt. According to its Finance Minister, Vassos Shiarly, its request is wider ranging, that is to say, aimed at
tackling not just the present, in order to recapitalise the banks, but also future needs.

Having taken over the Council presidency for the second half of 2012, Cyprus will have to focus primarily on the
many rounds of ongoing negotiations concerning the 2014-2020 multi-annual financial framework and individual
policies such as Horizon 2000, the common agricultural policy, fisheries policy, and the Structural Funds.

At the Council meeting on 29 May the Foreign Ministry representatives of the 27 Member States agreed that the
negotiations on the 2014-2020 multi-annual financial framework would have to be concluded by the end of this

year.

Cyprus will have to divide its time between, on the one hand, the structural reforms that it will have to implement
now that it has asked for, and been granted, external assistance and, secondly, the crucial negotiations on the multiannual financial framework.

1. Is the Council aware of the difficult tasks that Cyprus will have to accomplish in the second half of 2012?

2. Does it think that a team could be seconded specifically to assist Cyprus in the activities that it will have to carry
out?

3. Bearing in mind that Ireland will take over the Council presidency in the first half of 2013, does it think that the
Irish authorities should be involved to a greater extent in the negotiations on the multi-annual financial framework?

**Reply**
_(8 October 2012)_

The Council is fully aware of the difficult tasks that Cyprus will have to accomplish during its Presidency. The key
priority of the negotiations on the Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-20, as well as a number of other
challenges, are referred to in the 18-month programme of the Council for the period covering the Cyprus Presidency
(doc. 11447/11). The Cyprus Presidency itself puts emphasis on this task in its Presidency programme ‘Towards a
Better Europe’. A comprehensive work plan for MFF negotiations was presented by the Cyprus Presidency to the
General Affairs Council on 24 July 2012 (doc. 12076/12), with the aim of meeting the objective of reaching an
agreement by the end of this year. Following a debate on this issue at the General Affairs Council (GAC) session on
24 July, a further debate took place at the informal GAC session on 30 August, based on an issues paper tabled by the
Cyprus Presidency. The Cyprus Presidency intends to put this item on the agenda of every session of the General
Affairs Council until an agreement is reached, and a meeting of the European Council dedicated to this issue has been
convened for 22-23 November.

Like any Council Presidency and in accordance with the article 23 of the Council's Rules of Procedure, Cyprus enjoys
the full support of the Council Secretary-General and the General Secretariat. This support has been extended to
Cyprus since the beginning of its Presidency preparations, including in the form of training programmes, and will
continue throughout the Cyprus Presidency.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 203

Cooperation between the Presidency-in-office and its successor, provided for notably in the article 20 of the Council's
Rules of Procedure, is a well-established practice in all policy areas and at all levels. In accordance with the mandate
from the European Council, the Cyprus Presidency will continue work aimed both at preparing the agreement on the
MFF to be reached by the end of 2012 and, in cooperation with the incoming Irish Presidency, at the adoption of the
sectoral legislative proposals as soon as possible to allow for successful implementation of the new MFF from
1 January 2014.

C 219 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007002/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Uniformização dos critérios utilizados na elaboração das taxas de desemprego

Tendo em conta que:

—
Segundo o Eurostat, em abril de 2012, a taxa de desemprego na zona Euro era de 11 % e, nos 27 Estados‐
Membros, alcançava os 10,3 %, valor este claramente superado pela taxa de desemprego jovem, que era de
36,6 %;

—
O Eurostat, a OCDE e os Institutos de Emprego de cada Estado-Membro apresentam valores diferentes para os
níveis de desemprego, originando enormes dispersões que podem provocar a incompreensão da sociedade e
dos agentes económicos e políticos. Isso sucede devido ao facto de serem utilizados diferentes critérios na
elaboração das taxas de desemprego, provocando uma confusão relativamente ao número real de
desempregados que existem em cada país;

—
A uniformização dos critérios a utilizar provocaria uma estabilização dos números de desemprego e
possibilitaria que os cidadãos realmente compreendessem a situação social que a Europa e os seus Estados‐
Membros enfrentam;

—
Atualmente, existem cerca de 24,6 milhões de desempregados no conjunto da União Europeia, dos quais, 17,4
milhões na zona Euro;

—
Os Serviços Europeus de Emprego — EURES disponibilizam, a nível europeu, quase 1,3 milhões de postos de
trabalho, com especial destaque para a Alemanha com 423 mil oportunidades de trabalho;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Considera a possibilidade de uniformizar a nível europeu ou mundial os critérios adotados para calcular a taxa
de desemprego?

2. Não considera que esta uniformização de critérios permitiria obter uma maior clarificação sobre o real número
de desempregados e definir políticas ativas de emprego mais concretas?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de agosto de 2012)_

1. Definições internacionais de desemprego já existem. A presente definição estatística foi adotada pela
Conferência Internacional de Estaticistas do Trabalho, num resolução em 1982 ( [1] ) em que se define desemprego
como a situação de pessoas de uma idade específica que, durante o período de referência, estavam: a) sem trabalho (ou
seja, não estavam empregadas); b) disponíveis para trabalhar e c) à procura de trabalho. A definição operacional de
desemprego utilizada na UE foi estabelecida pelo Regulamento (CE) n.° 1897/2000 da Comissão, de 7 de setembro de
2000 ( [2] ). Esta definição é inteiramente coerente com a definição internacional e, na verdade, é ainda mais precisa. O
mesmo se aplica à definição da taxa de desemprego.

Assim, as estimativas de desemprego com base no Inquérito às Forças de Trabalho (IFT) têm por base a mesma
definição em toda a Europa e cumprem as normas mundiais. Diferenças entre fontes de dados só podem ser atribuídas
aos parâmetros de disseminação, como sejam: o período de referência dos dados (os dados são publicados a um ritmo
mensal, trimestral e anual); o grupo etário considerado; ou as transformações estatísticas antes da publicação de
dados, em especial o ajustamento sazonal.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) (http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/standards-and-guidelines/resolutions-adopted-by-international-conferences-of-labour
statisticians/WCMS_087481/lang--en/index.htm).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulamento (CE) n.° 1897/2000 da Comissão, de 7 de setembro de 2000, de aplicação do Regulamento (CE) n.° 577/98 do Conselho, relativo à

organização de um inquérito por amostragem às forças de trabalho na Comunidade no que respeita à definição operacional de desemprego, JO L
228 de 8.9.2000.

( **|**

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 205

Para além das estatísticas harmonizadas do desemprego com base no IFT, existem outras fontes, mormente as do
desemprego registado, recolhidas por fontes administrativas, por exemplo, os serviços de emprego dos EstadosMembros. Estas baseiam-se em definições administrativas que variam de país para país e, por conseguinte, não são
harmonizadas.

2. As taxas de emprego/desemprego harmonizadas e as estatísticas de ofertas de emprego publicadas pelo Eurostat
são utilizadas para a definição e o acompanhamento das políticas de emprego na União Europeia.

C 219 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007002/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Standardisation of the criteria used to establish unemployment levels

According to Eurostat, in April 2012 the unemployment rate was 11% in the eurozone and 10.3% in the 27 Member
States. These levels are clearly exceeded by youth unemployment, given as 36.6%.

Eurostat, the OECD and the individual Member States all give different figures for unemployment, causing huge
discrepancies which may lead to misunderstanding on the part of society or political and economic agents. This is
because different criteria are used to determine unemployment levels, causing confusion as to the actual numbers of
unemployed in each country.

Standardisation of the criteria used would give a more stable idea of the numbers of unemployed and enable members
of the public to really understand the social situation faced by Europe and its Member States.

At present, there are around 24.6 million unemployed people in the EU as a whole, out of which 17.4 million are
within the eurozone.

The European Employment Service (EURES) offers almost 1.3 million available jobs Europe-wide, with particular
emphasis on Germany, where 423 000 job opportunities are offered.

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether it considers it possible to create standardised European or worldwide criteria with which to calculate
unemployment levels?

2. Whether such a standardisation of criteria would make it possible to gain a clearer idea of the real number of
unemployed and to define active and more targeted employment policies?

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

_(22 August 2012)_

1. International definitions of unemployment already exist. The present statistical definition was adopted by the
International Conference of Labour Statisticians in a resolution in 1982 ( [1] ). It defines unemployment as persons
above a specified age who during the reference period were: (a) without work (i.e. were not employed); (b) currently
available for work and (c) seeking work. The operational definition of unemployment used in the EU was established
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 of 7 September 2000 ( [2] ). It is fully consistent with the international
definition and, in fact, even more precise. The same applies also to the definition of the unemployment rate.

Thus, unemployment estimates based on the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are based on the same definition across
Europe and comply with worldwide standards. Differences between data sources can only be attributed to
dissemination parameters, such as: reference period of the data (monthly, quarterly and annual figures are published);
age group considered; or statistical transformations prior to publication of data, in particular seasonal adjustment.

In addition to the harmonised unemployment statistics based on LFS, other sources exist in particular the registered
unemployment collected through administrative sources by e.g. the labour departments of the Member States. Those
rely on administrative definitions varying from country to country and are therefore not harmonised.

2. Harmonised employment/unemployment rates and job vacancy statistics published by Eurostat are used for the
design and monitoring of employment policies in the European Union.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/standards-and-guidelines/resolutions-adopted-by-international-conferences-of-labour
statisticians/WCMS_087481/lang--en/index.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1897/2000 of 7 September 2000 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 577/98 on the organisation of a

labour force sample survey in the Community concerning the operational definition of unemployment, OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

( **|**

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 207

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-007005/12**

**an die Kommission**
**Ismail Ertug (S&D)**

_(12. Juli 2012)_

_Betrifft:_ Illegale Vogeljagd auf Zypern

Jedes Jahr sterben fast drei Millionen Zugvögel auf Zypern, weil bestimmte Vogelarten in zyprischen Restaurants als
Delikatesse angeboten werden. Für den Fang werden im Mittelmeer sowohl Leimruten als auch engmaschige,
sogenannte „Japannetze“ zur Jagd eingesetzt, die nach EU-Recht (Vogelschutzrichtlinie 2009/147/EG) und
zyprischem Recht (N. 152(I)/2003) verboten sind.

Zypern hat sich mit dem Beitritt zur Europäischen Union im Jahr 2004 dazu verpflichtet, die EUVogelschutzrichtlinie umzusetzen.

Die Umweltorganisation BirdLife Cyprus führt seit 2002 ein Monitoring des illegalen Vogelfangs durch. Demnach
wurden allein im Jahr 2011 bis zu 2,8 Millionen Vögel auf der Insel getötet. Obwohl die Jagd eigentlich nur auf einige
Dutzend Arten abzielt, werden regelmäßig mehr als 150 Vogelarten — darunter 78 gefährdete — gefangen. So
sterben in großer Zahl Mönchsgrasmücken, Rotkehlchen und Nachtigallen, aber auch seltene Vögel wie Wiedehopfe
oder Bienenfresser. Denn in den zur Jagd eingesetzten, nach EU-Vogelschutzrichtlinie verbotenen, Netzen und
Leimruten verfangen sich sämtliche kleinere Vogelarten.

Welche Maßnahmen regt die Kommission an, um die illegale Vogeljagd in Zypern zu beenden?

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

_(16. August 2012)_

Die Kommission verweist den Herrn Abgeordneten auf ihre Antwort auf die Schriftliche Anfrage E-006059/2012
von Herrn Obermayr ( [1] ) zum selben Thema.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/de/parlamentarische-Anfragen.html

C 219 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007005/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ismail Ertug (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Illegal bird-hunting in Cyprus

Each year, nearly three million migratory birds are killed in Cyprus because certain species of bird are served as
delicacies in restaurants in that country. In the Mediterranean, these birds are caught using both lime sticks and finelymeshed nets (mist nets), which are banned under both European law (Wild Birds Directive, 2009/147/EC) and
Cypriot law (No 152(I)/2003).

When Cyprus acceded to the European Union in 2004, it undertook to transpose the EU Wild Birds Directive.

Since 2002, the environmental organisation BirdLife Cyprus has been monitoring illegal bird-hunting. It reports that
in 2011 alone, up to 2.8 million birds were killed on the island. Although only a few dozen species are hunted, more
than 150 — including 78 which are endangered — are regularly captured. Large numbers of blackcaps, robins and
nightingales die, for example, but so do such rare birds as hoopoes and bee-eaters. This is logical, as the nets and lime
sticks used for the hunt, which are banned under the Wild Birds Directive, catch birds belonging to all the smaller
species.

What measures does the Commission propose in order to put an end to illegal bird-hunting in Cyprus?

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

_(16 August 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member is its answer to Written Question E‐006059/2012 by
Mr Obermayr ( [1] ) on the same issue.

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 209

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007006/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρόοδος που έχει επιτευχθεί στο θέμα της προώθησης των γυναικών σε θέσεις ευθύνης στις επιχειρήσεις

Σύμφωνα με έρευνα της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής που δημοσιεύθηκε στις 5.3.2012, έναν χρόνο αφού η Επίτροπος κ. Viviane
Reding, κάλεσε τις επιχειρήσεις να λάβουν αξιόπιστα εθελοντικά μέτρα, η πρόοδος που επιτεύχθηκε όσον αφορά την αύξηση
του αριθμού των γυναικών στα διοικητικά συμβούλια των επιχειρήσεων, είναι περιορισμένη.

Μόνο ένα από τα επτά μέλη των διοικητικών συμβουλίων στις σημαντικότερες επιχειρήσεις της Ευρώπης είναι γυναίκα
(13,7 %). Το ποσοστό αυτό είναι ελαφρά καλύτερο από το 11,8 % το 2010.

Επίσης, ο αριθμός γυναικών που προεδρεύουν των διοικητικών συμβουλίων σημαντικών εταιρειών έχει ελαττωθεί, με
αποτέλεσμα από 3,4 % το 2010 να μειωθεί σε 3,2 % τον Ιανουάριο του 2012.

Η Επιτροπή, προκειμένου να προσδιορίσει τα κατάλληλα μέτρα για την αντιμετώπιση του ελλείμματος ισορροπίας ως προς το
φύλο στα διοικητικά συμβούλια των εισηγμένων εταιρειών στην Ευρώπη, δρομολόγησε δημόσια διαβούλευση, όπου με βάση
τα αποτελέσματα της διαβούλευσης, η Επιτροπή θα αποφασίσει αργότερα για την περαιτέρω δράση της.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο πριν από ένα χρόνο, κατήρτισε έκθεση σχετικά με τις γυναίκες και τη διοίκηση των επιχειρήσεων,
η οποία ψηφίστηκε του Ιούλιο του 2011 όπου ζητούσε από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να αναλάβει συγκεκριμένες δεσμεύσεις
(παράγραφοι 16α, 16β, 17, 18 της έκθεσης Κράτσα) μετά την πάροδο χρονικού διαστήματος που συμπίπτει με την παρούσα
χρονική στιγμή.

Σε αυτό το πλαίσιο ερωτάται η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή.

— Ποια είναι τα μέτρα τα οποία θα λάβει για να ανταποκριθεί στις παραινέσεις και εκκλήσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου
για την αύξηση του αριθμού των γυναικών που συμμετέχουν στα Δ.Σ. των επιχειρήσεων;

**Απάντηση της κας Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(4 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

Όπως αναφέρεται στην έκθεση προόδου «Γυναίκες στη λήψη οικονομικών αποφάσεων στην ΕΕ», της 5ης Μαρτίου 2012 ( [1] ), η
Επιτροπή επί του παρόντος εξετάζει επιλογές πολιτικής αναφορικά με στοχοθετημένα μέτρα για την ενίσχυση της
συμμετοχής των γυναικών στη λήψη οικονομικών αποφάσεων στο ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο. Η Επιτροπή θα λάβει απόφαση σχετικά
με πιθανά μέτρα, συμπεριλαμβανομένων του χαρακτήρα και της εμβέλειάς τους, αργότερα εφέτος, μετά την πλήρη εκτίμηση
των επιπτώσεων.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/women-on-boards_en.pdf

C 219 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007006/12**

**to the Commission**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Progress made in promoting women to positions of responsibility in businesses

According to a Commission survey published on 5.3.2012, a year after Commissioner Viviane Reding called on
companies to take credible voluntary measures, progress in increasing the number of women sitting on company
boards has been limited.

Only one out of seven board members in leading companies in Europe is a woman (13.7%). This percentage is slightly
better than in 2010 when it was 11.8% .

Furthermore, the number of women chairing the boards of major companies has declined, namely from 3.4% in
2010 to 3.2% in January 2012.

In order to determine appropriate measures to address the gender imbalance on the boards of listed companies in
Europe, the Commission launched a public consultation: in the light of the results of this consultation, the
Commission will then decide on further action.

A year ago, the European Parliament drew up a report on women and business leadership, which was adopted in
July 2011. It called on the Commission to make specific commitments (paragraphs 16a, 16b, 17 and 18 of the Kratsa
report) by a deadline that has now fallen due.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
What measures will it take to respond to the appeals and exhortations of the European Parliament to increase
the number of women sitting on company boards?

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

_(4 September 2012)_

As set out in the progress report ‘Women in economic decision-making in the EU’, of 5 March 2012 ( [1] ), the
Commission is currently exploring policy options for targeted measures to enhance female participation in economic
decision-making at the European level. A decision on possible measures, including on their nature and scope, will be
taken by the Commission later this year, after a full impact assessment.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/women-on-boards_en.pdf

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 211

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007007/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Δημογραφικές αλλαγές και επιπτώσεις στην αγορά εργασίας

Στα συμπεράσματα του το Συμβούλιο πρόσφατα προέκρινε την ενισχυμένη συνεργασία σε ζητήματα που αφορούν το
δημογραφικό πρόβλημα και τις επιπτώσεις του στην αγορά εργασίας. Οι προτεραιότητες κλειδιά, μεταξύ άλλων σύμφωνα με
τα συμπεράσματα αυτά, είναι η επένδυση στην εκπαίδευση και την κατάρτιση για την ενίσχυση της νεανικής απασχόλησης, η
αντιμετώπιση του διαγενεακού προβλήματος της φτώχειας και του κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού και η ανάπτυξη πολιτικών για
την ενίσχυση των οικογενειών και των παιδιών.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Διαπιστώνει ανακατατάξεις στην αγορά εργασίας των κρατών μελών εξαιτίας του δημογραφικού προβλήματος;
Διαθέτει συγκεκριμένα στοιχεία που να το αποδεικνύουν; Ποια είναι τα κύρια χαρακτηριστικά των μεταβολών αυτών;

2. Έχει αναλάβει ή σκοπεύει να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία σχετικά με την αντιμετώπιση των συνεπειών του δημογραφικού
προβλήματος στην αγορά εργασίας;

**Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(28 Αυγούστου 2012)_

1. Το μεγαλύτερο προσδόκιμο ζωής, το επίπεδο γονιμότητας που είναι κάτω του επιπέδου αναπλήρωσης και τα αυξημένα
ποσοστά οικονομικής εξάρτησης θα απασχολήσουν στο μέλλον πολύ τις κοινωνίες μας: μετά το 2020 θα είναι σχεδόν
αναπόφευκτη η μείωση του εργατικού δυναμικού που θα έχει γεννηθεί στην ΕΕ. Το μερίδιο του πληθυσμού της Ευρώπης
ηλικίας 65+ αναμένεται να αυξηθεί σε 23,6 % και ο πληθυσμός ηλικίας 20-64 ετών αναμένεται να μειωθεί κατά 12,5 εκατ.
(-4 %) τα προσεχή 20 χρόνια. Οι υπηρεσίες της Επιτροπής παρουσιάζουν κάθε δύο χρόνια μια δημογραφική έκθεση ( [1] ) στην
οποία εκτίθενται τα κυριότερα γεγονότα και αριθμητικά στοιχεία που αφορούν δημογραφικές μεταβολές και συζητιούνται οι
κατάλληλες απαντήσεις πολιτικής.

2. Η Επιτροπή αναγνώρισε, στη δέσμη μέτρων για την απασχόληση και στις ειδικές ανά χώρα συστάσεις για την περίοδο
2011-2012, ότι η εκπαίδευση και η κατάρτιση έχουν πολύ μεγάλη σημασία για τη βελτίωση της συμμετοχής του εργατικού
δυναμικού και της παραγωγικής ικανότητας. Οι υπηρεσίες απασχόλησης όπως ο επαγγελματικός προσανατολισμός, τα
εξατομικευμένα σχέδια δράσης, η εξεύρεση θέσεων για ασκούμενους και η προτιμησιακή μεταχείριση για άτομα μεγαλύτερης
ηλικίας και νέους που θέλουν να εργαστούν είναι μέτρα που εφαρμόζονται σε όλες τις χώρες και η Επιτροπή τα επικροτεί. Η
Επιτροπή θα προτείνει επίσης, έως το τέλος του 2012, συστάσεις του Συμβουλίου για εγγυήσεις για τη νεολαία και για ένα
ποιοτικό πλαίσιο για τις θέσεις πρακτικής άσκησης. Οι πρωτοβουλίες αυτές θα συντελέσουν ώστε να εξασφαλιστεί ότι οι νέοι
είτε έχουν απασχόληση, είτε σπουδάζουν ή καταρτίζονται εντός τεσσάρων μηνών αφότου τελειώσουν το σχολείο και ότι μια
θέση ασκουμένου προσφέρει στους νέους πραγματικές ευκαιρίες για την απόκτηση δεξιοτήτων και πείρας που θα τους είναι
χρήσιμες στην εξεύρεση εργασίας.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/documents/Tab/report.pdf

C 219 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007007/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Demographic changes and their impact on the labour market

In its conclusions, the Council recently opted for closer cooperation on issues relating to the demographic problem
and its impact on the labour market. Some of the key priorities, according to these conclusions, are to invest in
education and training in order to enhance youth employment, to address the intergenerational problem of poverty
and social exclusion and to develop policies to help families and children.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Has it noted any upheavals in the labour market of the Member States because of the demographic problem?
Does it have any concrete evidence to prove this? What are the main features of these changes?

2. Has it taken, or does it intend to take, an initiative to address the consequences of the demographic problem for
the labour market?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

1. Longer life expectancy, below-replacement fertility and increased economic dependency ratios will challenge
our societies for long: after 2020, a decline of EU born workforce will be almost inevitable. Europe’s 65+ population
share is expected to rise to 23.6% and the population aged 20-64 is projected to shrink by 12.5 million people (-4%)
in the next 20 years. The Commission services present a biennial European Demography Report ( [1] ) setting out the
main facts and figures concerning demographic change and discussing appropriate policy responses.

2. The Commission recognised in its Employment Package and through the 2011-2012 country specific
recommendations, that education and training are extremely important to improve labour force participation and
productive capacity. Employment services such as career counselling, individualised action plans, job placements and
preferential treatment for older and young workers accessing jobs are measures implemented across countries and
strongly recommended by the Commission. The Commission will also propose by end 2012 Council
Recommendations on Youth Guarantees and on a Quality Framework for traineeships. These initiatives will help
ensure that young people are either in employment, education or training within four months of leaving school and
that traineeships offer young people genuine opportunities to acquire skills and experience relevant to finding a job.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/documents/Tab/report.pdf

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 213

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007008/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Εξελίξεις όσον αφορά την παιδική εργασία στην ΕΕ

Σύμφωνα με την οδηγία 94/33/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου για την προστασία των νέων κατά την εργασία, κύριος στόχος είναι η
απαγόρευση της εργασίας των παιδιών και η προστασία των νέων από την οικονομική εκμετάλλευση και από κάθε είδος
εργασίας που ενδέχεται να βλάψει την ασφάλεια, την υγεία ή τη φυσική, την ψυχολογική, την ηθική ή την κοινωνική τους
ανάπτυξη ή να θέσει σε κίνδυνο την εκπαίδευσή τους. Η οδηγία εφαρμόζεται σε κάθε πρόσωπο ηλικίας κάτω των 18 ετών που
έχει σύμβαση εργασίας ή σχέση εργασίας.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Διαθέτει στοιχεία σχετικά με την έκταση του φαινομένου της παράνομης παιδικής εργασίας στα κράτη μέλη;
Δεδομένης της αύξησης της μαύρης εργασίας ως αποτέλεσμα της οικονομικής κρίσης εκτιμά ότι υπάρχει κίνδυνος
επιδείνωσης του φαινομένου;

2. Συλλέγει καλές πρακτικές των κρατών μελών για την αντιμετώπιση του φαινομένου; Είναι σε θέση να προσδιορίσει τις
πλέον αποτελεσματικές από αυτές;

**Απάντηση του κ. Andor εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(17 Αυγούστου 2012)_

1. Σύμφωνα με μία μελέτη του 2009 για την παιδική εργασία και την προστασία των νέων εργαζομένων στην Ευρωπαϊκή
Ένωση ( [1] ) εκτιμάται ότι υπάρχουν τριάμισι έως τέσσερα εκατομμύρια ενεργοί οικονομικά νέοι — ηλικίας από 15 έως 17 ετών
— στην ευρωπαϊκή αγορά εργασίας. Σε ό,τι αφορά την παράνομη παιδική εργασία, η μελέτη καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι,
αν και υπάρχουν ενδείξεις ότι πρόκειται για επίμονο φαινόμενο σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη, δεν μπορεί να επιβεβαιωθεί από
αξιόπιστα στατιστικά στοιχεία επειδή η φύση της εργασίας, που είναι ανεπίσημη, δεν το επιτρέπει. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει λόγο
να πιστεύει ότι η παράνομη παιδική εργασία θα αυξηθεί λόγω της οικονομικής κρίσης.

2. Σε έγγραφο εργασίας των υπηρεσιών της Επιτροπής του 2010 ( [2] ) σχετικά με την εφαρμογή της οδηγίας 94/33/EΚ του
Συμβουλίου ( [3] ) διατυπώνεται το συμπέρασμα ότι, σε σύγκριση με την κατάσταση που επικρατούσε πριν από την έκδοση της
οδηγίας, η οδηγία συνέβαλε στη βελτίωση της έννομης προστασίας των νέων. Το έγγραφο αναφέρει επίσης ότι έχει γίνει
πρόοδος σε αρκετά κράτη μέλη στον τομέα της καταπολέμησης της παράνομης παιδικής εργασίας και σε ό,τι αφορά τη
θέσπιση αυστηρότερης νομοθεσίας για τη νόμιμη εργασία.

3. Η στρατηγική που χάραξε πρόσφατα η ΕΕ για την εξάλειψη της εμπορίας ανθρώπων ( [4] ) προσδιορίζει τη φτώχεια και την
παιδική εργασία ως βασικές αιτίες. Σύμφωνα με προκαταρκτικά στοιχεία της Eurostat, το 2010 το 14 % των
καταγεγραμμένων θυμάτων εξαναγκάστηκαν να εργαστούν. Από τα ίδια στατιστικά στοιχεία φαίνεται ότι το 79 % ήταν
θηλυκού γένους (και από αυτά το 12 % ήταν ανήλικα κορίτσια) ενώ το 21 % ήταν αρσενικού γένους (το 3 % ήταν ανήλικα
αγόρια) για την περίοδο 2008-2010. Στη στρατηγική τονίζεται, όπως και στην οδηγία 2011/3/ΕΕ ( [5] ), πόσο ευάλωτα είναι τα
παιδιά. Προτείνεται η διαμόρφωση υποδείγματος βέλτιστης πρακτικής για τον ρόλο των κηδεμόνων και/ή νόμιμων
εκπροσώπων του παιδιού, παρέχονται οδηγίες για συστήματα προστασίας των παιδιών και καλούνται τα κράτη μέλη να
ενισχύσουν τα συστήματα αυτά.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Βλέπε http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4200&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Έγγραφο εργασίας των υπηρεσιών της Επιτροπής για την εφαρμογή της οδηγίας 94/33/EΚ του Συμβουλίου, της 22ας Ιουνίου 1994, για την προστασία

των νέων κατά την εργασία, SEC(2010)1339 τελικό της 27ης Οκτωβρίου 2010.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Οδηγία 94/33/ΕΚ, της 22ας Ιουνίου 1994, για την προστασία των νέων κατά την εργασία, ΕΕ L 216 της 20.8.1994 σ. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/trafficking_in_human_beings_eradication-2012_2016_en.pdf.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Οδηγία 2011/36/ΕΕ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου, της 5ης Απριλίου 2011, για την πρόληψη και την καταπολέμηση της εμπορίας

ανθρώπων και για την προστασία των θυμάτων της.

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

C 219 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007008/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Developments regarding child labour in the EU

According to Council Directive 94/33/EC on the protection of young people at work, the main objective is to
prohibit child labour and protect young people from economic exploitation and any work likely to harm their safety,
health or physical, mental, moral or social development or to jeopardise their education. The directive applies to any
person under the age of 18 who has an employment contract or an employment relationship.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it have any information on the extent of the phenomenon of illegal child labour in the Member States?
Given the increase in illegal labour as a result of the economic crisis, does it consider that there is a risk that the
problem will become more acute?

2. Is it noting the good practices of Member States in addressing the problem? Can it identify the most effective of
them?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

1. A 2009 study on Child Labour and Protection of Young Workers in the European Union ( [1] ) estimated that there
are three and a half to four million young persons — aged between 15 and 17 — active on the European labour
market. With regard to illegal child labour, the study concludes that, although there are indications that it persists in
some Member States, it cannot be confirmed by reliable statistics since the nature of informal work itself prevents it.
The Commission has no reason to believe that illegal child labour will increase as a result of the economic crisis.

2. A 2010 Commission staff working document ( [2] ) on the application of Council Directive 94/33/EC ( [3] ) concludes
that, compared with the situation prior to its adoption, the directive has played a positive role in improving the legal
protection of young people. It also refers to progress which has been made in several Member States regarding the
fight against illegal child labour and the adoption of stricter legislation on legal work.

3. The recently adopted EU Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings ( [4] ) identifies poverty
and child labour as root causes. According to preliminary data of Eurostat, in 2010 14% of registered victims were
forced into labour. In terms of gender, the same data show that female victims accounted for 79% (of whom 12%
were girls) and men for 21% (of which 3% were boys) of victims for 2008‐10. The strategy stresses, just as the
directive 2011/3/EU, ( [5] ) the vulnerability of children. It proposes developing a best practice model for the role of
guardians and/or legal representation of the child victims and guidelines on child protection systems, and calls on
Member States to strengthen such systems.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=4200&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Staff Working Document on the application of Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at

work, SEC(2010)1339 final of 27 October 2010.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 1.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/doc_centre/crime/docs/trafficking_in_human_beings_eradication-2012_2016_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings

and protecting its victims.

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 215

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007009/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ευρωπαϊκή εσωτερική στρατηγική ασφαλείας

Τον Νοέμβριο του 2010, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή έθεσε σε εφαρμογή την έκθεση σχετικά με την ευρωπαϊκή εσωτερική
στρατηγική ασφαλείας. Σε αυτή συμπεριλαμβάνονταν 41 δράσεις, στοχεύοντας να αντιμετωπίσουν τις πλέον επείγουσες
προκλήσεις ασφαλείας που αντιμετωπίζει η Ευρώπη.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Ποια είναι η πορεία εκτέλεσης και υλοποίησης των 41 αυτών δράσεων;

—
Τα κράτη μέλη έχουν πλήρως υιοθετήσει τις δράσεις αυτές; Πως αξιολογεί την αποτελεσματικότητά τους;

**Απάντηση της κας Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(20 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

Το έγγραφο «Η στρατηγική εσωτερικής ασφάλειας της ΕΕ στην πράξη», που εκδόθηκε τον Νοέμβριο του 2010 ( [1] ), περιγράφει
τις προτεραιότητες στις οποίες πρέπει να επικεντρωθεί η ΕΕ για τα επόμενα τέσσερα έτη. Τον Νοέμβριο του 2011, η
Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή εξέδωσε την πρώτη έκθεση εφαρμογής σχετικά με τη στρατηγική εσωτερικής ασφάλειας (ΣΕΑ) ( [2] ). Στην
έκθεση αυτή, η Επιτροπή παρείχε πλήρη επισκόπηση της κατάστασης όσον αφορά τις δράσεις που εμπίπτουν σε καθέναν από
τους πέντε στρατηγικούς στόχους της ΣΕΑ. Αξιολόγησε επίσης τα σημαντικά μέτρα που υλοποιήθηκαν το 2011 και
απηύθυνε συστάσεις για περαιτέρω δράσεις.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο επικρότησε τον Μάιο του 2012 τις εξελίξεις που σημειώθηκαν στο πλαίσιο της στρατηγικής
εσωτερικής ασφάλειας, εγκρίνοντας με μεγάλη πλειοψηφία τη σχετική έκθεση πρωτοβουλίας της κας Borsellino (S&D/IT).

Τα κράτη μέλη μετέχουν στο έργο αυτό και εξακολουθούν να δραστηριοποιούνται, λόγου χάρη, με προσπάθειες για την
καταπολέμηση της τρομοκρατίας, μέτρα κατά της διαφθοράς, την καταπολέμηση της εγκληματικότητας στα σύνορα της ΕΕ,
καθώς και τη δημιουργία ικανοτήτων για τη διερεύνηση και τη δίωξη του εγκλήματος στον κυβερνοχώρο. Από τον Ιανουάριο
του 2012, τα κράτη μέλη εφαρμόζουν συγκεκριμένα σχέδια στο πλαίσιο του κύκλου πολιτικής της ΕΕ για το σοβαρό και
οργανωμένο έγκλημα.

Η Επιτροπή καταρτίζει επί του παρόντος τη δεύτερη έκθεση εφαρμογής, η οποία θα ανακοινωθεί στο Κοινοβούλιο στις αρχές
του επόμενου έτους. Για περισσότερες πληροφορίες μπορείτε να συμβουλευτείτε τον δικτυακό τόπο της Γενικής Διεύθυνσης
Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων (ΓΔ HOME) σχετικά με τη στρατηγική εσωτερικής ασφάλειας ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010)673.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)790.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/internal-security/internal-security-strategy/index_en.htm

C 219 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007009/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Europe's Internal Security Strategy

In November 2010, the European Commission put into effect its report on the European Internal Security Strategy.
This included 41 actions, aiming to address the most urgent security challenges facing Europe.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
What progress has been made in implementing these 41 actions?

—
Have Member States fully adopted these actions? How does it evaluate their effectiveness?

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

_(20 September 2012)_

The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action adopted in November 2010 ( [1] ) outlined priorities for the EU for the four
years to come. In November 2011, the European Commission issued the first implementation report on the Internal
Security Strategy ( [2] ). In this report, the Commission gave a comprehensive overview of the state of play of actions
under each of the five ISS strategic objectives. It also evaluated the key measures implemented in 2011 and provided
recommendations for further actions.

The European Parliament welcomed in May 2012 the developments under the Internal Security Strategy, endorsing
by a large majority the own-initiative report of Ms Borsellino (S&D/IT) on the issue.

The Member States are involved in this process and they continue to be active, for instance, in efforts to counter
terrorism, anti-corruption measures, fighting crime at the EU borders as well as the development of capacities for
investigation and prosecution of cybercrime. Since January 2012, Member States implement concrete plans within
the EU policy cycle on serious and organised crime.

The Commission is currently working on the second implementation report that will be communicated to the
Parliament at the beginning of next year. Further information can be found on the website of Directorate-General for
Home Affairs on the Internal Security Strategy ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2010)673.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)790.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/internal-security/internal-security-strategy/index_en.htm

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 217

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007010/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Περιορισμός της έκθεσης των ανηλίκων σε προϊόντα καπνού

Τον Νοέμβριο του 2009, η Επιτροπή ενέκρινε έκθεση για την εφαρμογή της σύστασης του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με τον
περιορισμό της έκθεσης των ανηλίκων σε προϊόντα καπνού. Από την έκθεση προκύπτει ότι, γενικά, η σύσταση εφαρμόζεται
στα κράτη μέλη όσον αφορά την πρόληψη των πωλήσεων καπνού σε παιδιά και εφήβους. Ωστόσο, η Επιτροπή μελετούσε την
επανεξέταση της οδηγίας για τα εμπορεύματα καπνού (2001/37/ΕΚ), συμπεριλαμβανομένων των μέτρων περιορισμού της
έκθεσης των ανηλίκων σε προϊόντα καπνού.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Ποια νέα μέτρα έχει λάβει ή σκοπεύει να υιοθετήσει προκειμένου να περιορίσει την έκθεση των ανηλίκων σε προϊόντα
καπνού;

2. Διαπιστώνει πρόοδο των κρατών μελών προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση; Ποια είναι η περίπτωση της Ελλάδας;

3. Διαθέτει στοιχεία σχετικά με το ποσοστό των ανηλίκων στα κράτη μέλη που δηλώνουν καπνιστές;

**Απάντηση του κ. Dalli εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(24 Αυγούστου 2012)_

Στο πλαίσιο της επικείμενης αναθεώρησης της οδηγίας για τα προϊόντα 2001/37/ΕΚ ( [1] ), η υπό εξέλιξη αξιολόγηση
αντικτύπου εξετάζει διάφορες εναλλακτικές επιλογές όσον αφορά την πρόσβαση σε προϊόντα καπνού. Οι επιλογές πολιτικής
στον εν λόγω τομέα περιλαμβάνουν την επιβολή περιορισμών στις μηχανές πώλησης καπνού και στις διαδικτυακές πωλήσεις
καθώς και την επιβολή περιορισμών όσον αφορά την παρουσίαση των προϊόντων καπνού στα σημεία πώλησης. Η Επιτροπή
δεν έχει ακόμα λάβει οριστική θέση σχετικά με την προτιμότερη επιλογή πολιτικής.

Όσον αφορά την εφαρμογή της σύστασης 2003/54/ΕΚ ( [2] ) του Συμβουλίου στα κράτη μέλη, η Επιτροπή παραπέμπτει τον
κύριο βουλευτή στην απάντησή της στη γραπτή ερώτηση E-005564/2011 ( [3] ).

Όσον αφορά τα στοιχεία για τον αριθμό των καπνιστών στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η Επιτροπή παραπέμπει το κ. βουλευτή στην
έρευνα του Ευρωβαρομέτρου για τον καπνό που δημοσιεύθηκε στις 30 Μαΐου 2012 ( [4] ) και στην έρευνα του ESPAD για το
2011 ( [5] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Οδηγία 2001/37/EΚ του Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου της 5ης Ιουνίου 2001 για την προσέγγιση των νομοθετικών, κανονιστικών και διοικητικών

διατάξεων των κρατών μελών σχετικά με την παραγωγή, την παρουσίαση και την πώληση των προϊόντων καπνού — Δήλωση της Επιτροπής, ΕΕ L 194 της
18.7.2001.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Η σύσταση 2003/54/EK του Συμβουλίου της 2ας Δεκεμβρίου 2002 σχετικά με την πρόληψη του καπνίσματος και με πρωτοβουλίες για την ενίσχυση της

καταπολέμησής, ΕΕ L 22 της 25.1.2003.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-002441&language=EN.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/eurobarometers/index_en.htm.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.espad.org/Uploads/ESPAD_reports/2011/The_2011_ESPAD_Report_FULL_2012_06-08.pdf.

( **|**

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

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

C 219 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007010/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Limiting the exposure of minors to tobacco products

In November 2009 the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of the Council recommendation on
limiting the exposure of minors to tobacco products. The report shows that, in general, the recommendation is being
implemented in Member States as regards the prevention of sales of tobacco to children and adolescents. However,
the Commission was considering a review of the Tobacco Products Directive (2001/37/EC), including measures to
limit the exposure of minors to tobacco products.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. What new measures it has taken or does it intend to take to limit the exposure of minors to tobacco products?

2. Has it noted any progress by Member States in this direction? What is the position of Greece?

3. Does it have any information on the percentage of minors in Member States who say that they are smokers?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

In the context of the forthcoming review of the Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC ( [1] ), several options regarding
access to tobacco products are currently being analysed in the ongoing impact assessment. Policy options within this
area include restrictions on tobacco vending machines, and Internet sales of tobacco as well as restrictions on displays
of tobacco at points of sale. The Commission has not, at this stage, taken a final position on the preferred policy
option.

With regard to the implementation of Council Recommendation 2003/54/EC ( [2] ) in Member States, the Commission
would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E‐005564/2011 ( [3] ).

Concerning data on smoking prevalence in the European Union, the Commission would refer the Honourable
Member to the Eurobarometer Survey on Tobacco published on 30 May 2012 ( [4] ) and to the 2011 ESPAD survey ( [5] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/37/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative

provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Commission statement, OJ L 194,
18.7.2001.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Recommendation 2003/54/EC of 2 December 2002 on the prevention of smoking and on initiatives to improve tobacco control,

OJ L 22, 25.1.2003.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E‐2012-002441&language=EN.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/eurobarometers/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://www.espad.org/Uploads/ESPAD_reports/2011/The_2011_ESPAD_Report_FULL_2012_06-08.pdf

( **|**

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

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 219

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007011/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρόοδος στη προσπάθεια καταπολέμησης των στημένων αγώνων

Μετά την εγγραφή στον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ για το 2012, μιας νέας προπαρασκευαστικής δράσης για ευρωπαϊκές
συμπράξεις στον αθλητισμό, η Επιτροπή προετοιμάζει την εξέταση των σχεδίων που αποβλέπουν στην ενίσχυση της
συνεργασίας μεταξύ του ιδιωτικού και του δημόσιου τομέα, μεταξύ άλλων πιθανότατα και στην καταπολέμηση των στημένων
αγώνων.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Είναι σε θέση να δώσει περισσότερες πληροφορίες για την πρωτοβουλία αυτή;

2. Τα σχέδια αυτά αναμένεται να πλαισιωθούν επίσης και από τις εθνικές ομοσπονδίες αθλητισμού;

3. Έχει μέχρι σήμερα καταβάλει προσπάθειες ώστε οι εθνικές ομοσπονδίες αθλητισμού να εντατικοποιήσουν την
συνεργασία τους στον τομέα καταπολέμησης της διαφθοράς στον αθλητισμό; Ποια είναι τα αποτελέσματα;

**Απάντηση της κας Βασιλείου εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(27 Αυγούστου 2012)_

Στις 29 Μαρτίου 2012 η Επιτροπή εξέδωσε το ετήσιο πρόγραμμα εργασίας του 2012 για τις επιχορηγήσεις και τις
συμβάσεις που αφορούν την προπαρασκευαστική δράση «Ευρωπαϊκή σύμπραξη στον αθλητισμό» και το πιλοτικό έργο
«Συμπράξεις γνώσης». Στις 17 Απριλίου 2012 η πρόσκληση υποβολής προτάσεων σχετικά με την προπαρασκευαστική
δράση «Ευρωπαϊκή σύμπραξη στον αθλητισμό» δημοσιεύθηκε στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της ΕΕ. Στόχος της πρόσκλησης
υποβολής προτάσεων, που συνοδεύεται από ενδεικτικό προϋπολογισμό 3,5 εκατ. ευρώ, είναι η στήριξη, μεταξύ άλλων,
διακρατικών έργων που αποβλέπουν στην πρόληψη στημένων αγώνων μέσα από την εκπαίδευση και την ενημέρωση των
σχετικών ενδιαφερομένων, ιδίως των αθλητών, των διαιτητών, των υπευθύνων των αγώνων και των διοικητικών στελεχών
αθλητικών εγκαταστάσεων. Οι δράσεις που θα λάβουν αυτή τη στήριξη θα περιλαμβάνουν κυρίως μέτρα ευαισθητοποίησης
σχετικά με την απειλή που συνιστά το στήσιμο αγώνων για τον αθλητισμό, με τη δικτύωση, την ανταλλαγή ορθών πρακτικών
και στοχοθετημένες εκστρατείες. Η προθεσμία υποβολής των αιτήσεων λήγει στις 31 Ιουλίου 2012. Τα έργα πρέπει να
ξεκινήσουν μεταξύ 1ης Ιανουαρίου και 31 Μαρτίου 2013 και να ολοκληρωθούν το αργότερο στις 30 Ιουνίου 2014. Οι
εθνικές αθλητικές ομοσπονδίες θα μπορούσαν να υποβάλουν αιτήσεις στο πλαίσιο αυτής της πρόσκλησης· τα δίκτυα που θα
υποβάλουν αίτηση θα πρέπει να περιλαμβάνουν εταίρους από τουλάχιστον πέντε κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ.

Η Επιτροπή βρίσκεται σε τακτική επαφή με το αθλητικό κίνημα, καθώς και με τις εθνικές αθλητικές ομοσπονδίες που
εκπροσωπούνται μέσω των ευρωπαϊκών και διεθνών οργανώσεών τους, προκειμένου να εξετάζουν τρόπους για την ενίσχυση
της συνεργασίας μεταξύ δημόσιων αρχών, αθλητικών οργανώσεων και άλλων ενδιαφερομένων, με σκοπό την καταπολέμηση
των στημένων αγώνων στον χώρο του αθλητισμού.

C 219 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007011/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Progress in the fight against match-fixing

Following the entry in the EU's budget for 2012 of a new preparatory action for European partnerships in sport, the
Commission is preparing to consider projects aimed at strengthening cooperation between the private and public
sectors, including very likely measures to combat match-fixing.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Can it provide more information about this initiative?

2. Are these projects also expected to be backed by national sports federations?

3. Has it so far endeavoured to ensure that national sports federations intensify their cooperation in fighting
corruption in sport? What results have been achieved?

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

_(27 August 2012)_

On 29 March 2012 the Commission adopted the 2012 Annual Work Programme on grants and contracts for the
Preparatory Action — European Partnership on Sports and for the Pilot Project — Knowledge Partnerships. On
17 April 2012, the call for proposals related to the Preparatory Action — European Partnership on Sports was
published in the Official Journal of the EU. The call for proposals, endowed with an indicative budget of
EUR 3.5 million, is aimed at supporting, _inter alia_, transnational projects focusing on the prevention of match-fixing
episodes through the education and information of relevant stakeholders, notably athletes, referees, match officials
and sports administrators. Supported actions will include notably measures aimed at raising awareness about the
threats that match-fixing represents for sport through networking, exchange of good practices and targeted
campaigns. The final date for submitting applications was 31 July 2012. Projects must start between 1 January and
31 March 2013 and end no later than 30 June 2014. National sport federations could submit applications in the
framework of this call; applicant networks should include partners from at least five EU Member States.

The Commission is in regular contact with the sport movement, including with national sports federations
represented through their European and international organisations, to discuss ways of reinforcing cooperation
between public authorities, sport organisations and other interested stakeholders in view of combating match-fixing
in sport.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 221

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007012/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Ρόλος τους ευρωπαϊκού μηχανισμού σταθερότητας στην ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των τραπεζών

Από δημοσιεύματα στο Reuters, που επικαλούνται ανώνυμες επίσημες πηγές στην Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή προκύπτει ότι ο
ευρωπαϊκός μηχανισμός σταθερότητας (ESM) δεν πρόκειται να εγγυάται τα χρήματα που θα παρέχονται από αυτόν για την
ανακεφαλαιοποίηση όσων ευρωπαϊκών τραπεζών αντιμετωπίζουν πρόβλημα και τα κράτη μέλη εξακολουθούν να παραμένουν
μόνοι εγγυητές των κεφαλαίων αυτών. Αυτό, παρά την τεχνική του σημασία, ισοδυναμεί με την διατήρηση του ρίσκου σε
εθνικό επίπεδο, κάτι που, όπως διαφάνηκε από το Συμβούλιο Κορυφής στις 28 Ιουνίου, κατεβλήθη προσπάθεια να
αποφευχθεί.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Επιβεβαιώνει πως ο ESM δεν πρόκειται να αναλάβει σε κανένα βαθμό «ενέσεις κεφαλαίου» προς τις ευρωπαϊκές
τράπεζες;

—
Ποια είναι η θέση της;

**Απάντηση του κ. Rehn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(29 Αυγούστου 2012)_

Η δήλωση της συνόδου κορυφής της ευρωζώνης της 29ης Ιουνίου 2012 καταλήγει στο συμπέρασμα ότι _«αφ’ ότου_
_θεσπισθεί αποτελεσματικός ενιαίος εποπτικός μηχανισμός για τις τράπεζες στην ευρωζώνη, στον οποίον θα συμμετέχει και_
_η ΕΚΤ, ο ΕΜΣ θα μπορούσε, κατόπιν αποφάσεως, να έχει τη δυνατότητα άμεσης ανακεφαλαιοποίησης των τραπεζών»_ . Οι
ακριβείς λεπτομέρειες της εν λόγω άμεσης ανακεφαλαιοποίησης θα εγκριθούν από τα μέλη του ΕΜΣ, σε εύθετο χρόνο,
λαμβάνοντας υπόψη ότι η δήλωση αναφέρει επίσης ότι « _είναι επιτακτική ανάγκη να σπάσει ο φαύλος κύκλος τραπεζών και_
_δημοσίου χρέους»_ . Κατά την άποψη της Επιτροπής αυτό αποκλείει να εξακολουθήσουν τα κράτη μέλη να ευθύνονται πλήρως
ή να παραμείνουν εγγυητές για τα χρήματα που επενδύθηκαν ως κεφάλαια σε τράπεζες από τον ΕΜΣ. Πρώτον, οι έννοιες της
ευθύνης ή της εγγύησης συνδέονται συνήθως με δανεισμό και αντιφάσκουν εγγενώς με τις αρχές των κεφαλαιουχικών
επενδύσεων, οι οποίες δεν δημιουργούν καθορισμένες απαιτήσεις και ενέχουν εγγενώς κίνδυνο. Δεύτερον, όπως ορθώς
επισήμανε το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του Κοινοβουλίου, η διατήρηση ευθύνης ή εγγύησης από τα κράτη μέλη για την
ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των τραπεζών τους από τον ΕΜΣ θα υπονόμευε ακριβώς το σκοπό του εγχειρήματος, ο οποίος
συνίσταται στο να σπάσει ο φαύλος κύκλος μεταξύ τραπεζών και δημοσίου χρέους, όπως αναφέρεται στην ίδια τη δήλωση.
Παρ’ όλα αυτά, αυτό δεν θα πρέπει να εμποδίζει τα κράτη μέλη να συμμετάσχουν στις ανακεφαλαιοποιήσεις, ώστε να έχουν
συμφέρον να επιτύχει η προσπάθεια («να μη βγάλουν την ουρά τους απ’ έξω») και να διασφαλιστούν κοινά συμφέροντα με τον
ΕΜΣ. Κατευθυντήριες γραμμές σχετικά με το πώς ακριβώς θα πρέπει να πραγματοποιηθούν οι άμεσες ανακεφαλαιοποιήσεις
θα εκπονηθούν σε εύθετο χρόνο.

C 219 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007012/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Role of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in recapitalising banks

Reuters news agency, invoking anonymous official sources in the Commission, has published material indicating that
the ESM will not guarantee the money it will be providing to recapitalise European banks in difficulties and that
Member States remain the only a guarantors of these funds. Despite its technical importance, this is equivalent to the
maintaining the risk at national level; and as the Council Summit of 28 June showed, efforts had been made to avoid
such an outcome.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Can it confirm that the ESM will not make ‘capital injections’ of whatever size to European banks?

—
What is its position?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

The Euro Area Summit Statement of 29 June 2012 concludes that ‘ _when an effective single supervisory mechanism is_
_established, involving the ECB, for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to_
_recapitalize banks directly_ ’. The precise modalities of such direct recapitalisations will be adopted by the ESM Members
in due course, taking into account that the Statement also indicates that ‘ _it is imperative to break the vicious circle between_
_banks and sovereigns_ ’. The Commission understands this as precluding that Member States remain fully liable for, or the
guarantors of, the money invested as capital in banks by the ESM. First, the concepts of liability or guarantee are
typically associated with lending and are inherently in contradiction with the principles of capital investments, which
do not create determined claims and carry intrinsically a risk. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the Honourable
Member, maintaining a liability or guarantee upon the Member States for the recapitalisation of its banks by the ESM
would precisely defeat the purpose of the operation, which is to break the vicious circle between the banks and
sovereigns as mentioned in the Statement itself. Nevertheless, this should not preclude that Member States also
participate in the recapitalisations in order to keep ‘skin in the game’ and ensure common interests with the ESM.
Guidelines on how exactly direct recapitalisations should take place will be elaborated in due course.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 223

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007013/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Τήρηση της πολυγλωσσίας στα κοινοτικά δελτία Τύπου

Πρόσφατα, στις 30 Μαΐου 2012, η γαλλική εφημερίδα Lib _ération κατηγόρησε την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για μη σεβασμό_
_της πολυγλωσσίας, αναφέροντας ότι η πλειονότητα των δελτίων Τύπου της Επιτροπής δημοσιεύεται στα αγγλικά ή σε_
_πολύ περιορισμένο αριθμό γλωσσών με αποτέλεσμα να παρεμποδίζεται το δικαίωμα των ευρωπαίων πολιτών στην_
_ενημέρωση._

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. _Είναι σε θέση να προσδιορίσει τα κριτήρια με βάση τα οποία αποφασίζεται η μετάφραση ή μη των δελτίων Τύπου_
_που καθημερινά εκδίδει σε όλες τις γλώσσες;_

2. _Διαθέτει στοιχεία σχετικά με το ποσοστό των δελτίων τύπου της που μεταφράζεται στο σύνολο των κρατών μελών;_

3. _Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει για το ποσοστό αυτών που μεταφράζεται στην ελληνική γλώσσα;_

4. _Καταβάλλει προσπάθειες ώστε να βελτιωθεί ο όγκος των εγγράφων που μεταφράζονται στο σύνολο των επίσημων_
_γλωσσών της ΕΕ;_

_**Απάντηση της κας Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**_

_(28 Αυγούστου 2012)_

Στην περίοδο μεταξύ 1ης Ιανουαρίου και 25ης Ιουλίου 2012, η Επιτροπή δημοσίευσε 2 951 δελτία Τύπου, εκ των οποίων
τα 2 626 ( [1] ) ήταν στα αγγλικά, γαλλικά και γερμανικά, και τα 325 σε 22 ή περισσότερες γλώσσες ( [2] ).

Στα ελληνικά ( [3] ) δημοσιεύτηκαν 478 δελτία Τύπου στην περίοδο μεταξύ 1ης Ιανουαρίου και 25ης Ιουλίου 2012.

Η Επιτροπή, όταν αποφασίζει για τη μετάφραση ενός συγκεκριμένου δελτίου Τύπου, λαμβάνει υπόψη τη σημασία που έχει
για τις διάφορες χώρες καθώς και τα έξοδα μετάφρασης. Το δελτίο Τύπου μεταφράζεται τότε σε βάση ad hoc ανάλογα με τα
κριτήρια αυτά.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Αντιστοιχεί στο 89 % του συνολικού αριθμού των δελτίων τύπου.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Αντιστοιχεί στο 11 % του συνολικού αριθμού των δελτίων τύπου.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Αντιστοιχεί στο 16 % του συνολικού αριθμού των δελτίων τύπου.

C 219 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007013/12**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Respect for the principle of multilingualism in EU press releases

Recently, on 30 May 2012, the French newspaper _Libération_ criticised the European Commission for failing to respect
multilingualism, indicating that most of the Commission's press releases were published in English or in a very limited
number of languages, thereby impeding the right of EU citizens to information.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Can it identify the criteria which determine whether or not the daily press releases it issues are translated into all
languages?

2. Does it have any data on the percentage of its press releases that are translated in all Member States?

3. Can it state the percentage of them translated into Greek?

4. Is it endeavouring to increase the volume of documents translated into all official EU languages?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

Between 1 January and 25 July 2012, the Commission published 2 951 press releases, of which 2 626 ( [1] ) in English,
French and German, and 325 in 22 or more languages ( [2] ).

In Greek ( [3] ), 478 press releases were published between 1 January and 25 July 2012.

When deciding on the translation of a given press release, the Commission considers its relevance for particular
countries and the translation costs. The press release is then translated on an ad hoc basis according to it.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Corresponds to 89% of the total number of press releases.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Corresponds to 11% of the total number of press releases.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Corresponds to 16% of the total number of press releases.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 225

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007014/12**

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

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Per capita contributions of Norway and the UK

Could the Commission indicate the per capita contributions of Norway (through its membership of the European
Economic Area) and the UK to the budget for the most recent five-year period for which statistics are available?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The Commission calculates contributions per capita neither for Member States nor for EFTA countries. However, the
contributions by the Member States to the EU budget are published every year in the financial report. The latest
version of the financial report can be found under the following link:
[http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2010/fin_report/fin_report_10_en.pdf](http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2010/fin_report/fin_report_10_en.pdf)
and detailed data per Member State for the period 2000‐10 under:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2010/fin_report/fin_report_10_data_en.pdf

The attached annex, sent directly to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat of Parliament, presents summary
figures on the United Kingdom's and Norway's contributions to the EU budget from 2005 to 2010.

C 219 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007015/12**

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

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fire safety directive

Following the recent consultations, will the Commission now consider proposing a directive on fire safety?

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

_(27 August 2012)_

The recent workshop on hotel fire safety sought the input of interested stakeholders on the suitability of the industrydeveloped MBS Methodology as a basis for the possible revision of Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC on Hotel
Fire Safety. The question of whether a directive would be appropriate option not considered as such during the
Workshop.

As a follow-up to the Workshop, stakeholders are now being consulted on further specific issues which arose during
the Workshop. Feedback is not expected before the autumn.

The Commission will consider at a later stage how best to improve hotel fire safety.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 227

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007016/12**

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

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU audit

The UK Foreign Secretary has announced he will conduct an ‘EU audit’ on how EU membership affects the UK. Will
the Commission consider carrying out a parallel study so that the UK public can compare and contrast the two
reports?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the decision of the Government of the United Kingdom to undertake a comprehensive
review of what the EU does and how it affects the United Kingdom. The Commission has indicated its willingness to
provide factual material to the UK Government in this exercise. The Commission does not intend to carry out a
similar audit.

C 219 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(České znění)_

**Otázka k písemnému zodpovězení E-007019/12**

**Komisi**
**Pavel Poc (S&D), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE) a Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(12. července 2012)_

_Předmět:_ Dobré životní podmínky dojnic

Strategie Evropské unie pro ochranu a dobré životní podmínky zvířat pro období 2012‐2015 si klade za cíl rozvoj
celostního přístupu, který by umožnil řešit společné příčiny špatných životních podmínek zvířat v EU.

Mnoho závažných problémů týkajících se životních podmínek zvířat (např. vady končetin či zhoršená pohyblivost,
dlouhodobá genetická selekce za účelem vysoké produkce mléka, nedostupnost pastvy atd.) je nicméně typických pro
odvětví mléka, a proto je při jejich řešení vhodné zvolit individuální přístup. To jasně vyplývá z vědeckých stanovisek
a zprávy Evropského úřadu pro bezpečnost potravin z roku 2009 o životních podmínkách zvířat v mléčném
průmyslu.

Směrnice zaměřená na určité druhy by byla nejvhodnějším způsobem řešení otázky životních podmínek dojnic.
V hodnocení politiky EU v oblasti dobrých životních podmínek zvířat připraveném Komisi v roce 2010 se jasně
doporučuje, aby EU v rámci priorit své budoucí politiky zvážila i možnost zařadit právní úpravu týkající se životních
podmínek dojnic s cílem „řešit řadu problémů ovlivňujících životní podmínky miliónů dojnic v Evropě“.

Přístup zaměřený na určité druhy by proto měl být ve středu nových právních předpisů EU v oblasti životních
podmínek zvířat. Závažné problémy týkající se životních podmínek zvířat v odvětví mléka však dále dokazují,
že přístup zaměřený na určité odvětví je velmi důležitý a měl by být zohledněn.

S ohledem na článek 13 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie, který stanoví, že „při stanovování a provádění politik
zohledňují Unie a členské státy plně požadavky na dobré životní podmínky zvířat jako vnímajících bytostí“, by
Komise měla urychleně řešit vážné problémy životních podmínek zvířat v odvětví mléka.

Z toho vyplývá následující otázka Evropské komisi:

—
Hodlá Komise navrhnout, aby do nového plánovaného obecného právního rámce pro dobré životní podmínky
zvířat („právní předpisy v oblasti dobrých životních podmínek zvířat“) byly začleněny nejen právní předpisy
zaměřené na určité druhy, ale i předpisy podle odvětví zaměřené na dobré životní podmínky dojnic?

**Odpověď Johna Dalliho jménem Komise**

_(27. srpna 2012)_

Ve strategii EU v oblasti ochrany a dobrých životních podmínek zvířat pro období 2012‐2015 ( [1] ), jež byla přijata,
zvažuje Komise možnost navrhnout obecný právní rámec pro dobré životní podmínky zvířat („právní předpisy
v oblasti dobrých životních podmínek zvířat“). Cílem tohoto nového přístupu by bylo zejména zvýšit povědomí
chovatelů o dobrých životních podmínkách zvířat a poskytnout jim nástroje, jako jsou opatření týkající se zvířat, jež
jim mají pomoci zjistit, jaká je situace v této oblasti v jejich hospodářstvích (včetně mléčných farem), a tuto situaci
zlepšit. V současné době se však neuvažuje o doplnění obecného právního rámce o specifické odvětvové požadavky
týkající se dojnic.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_cs.pdf

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 229

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007019/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Pavel Poc (S&D), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE) και Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Καλή διαβίωση των αγελάδων γαλακτοπαραγωγής

Η στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την προστασία και την καλή μεταχείριση των ζώων 2012-2015 στοχεύει στην
ανάπτυξη μιας ολιστικής προσέγγισης, έτσι ώστε οι κοινοί παράγοντες που υπεισέρχονται στις κακές συνθήκες διαβίωσης
στην ΕΕ να αντιμετωπιστούν αποτελεσματικά.

Ωστόσο, μια σειρά από σοβαρά προβλήματα στη διαβίωση (π.χ. διαταραχές στα πόδια και το βάδισμα, μακροπρόθεσμη
γενετική επιλογή για υψηλές αποδόσεις σε γάλα, απουσία πρόσβασης σε βοσκοτόπους, κ.λπ.) είναι ειδικά για τον τομέα των
γαλακτοκομικών προϊόντων και μπορούν να αντιμετωπιστούν καλύτερα με μια ειδική για τον τομέα προσέγγιση. Αυτό
προκύπτει από τις επιστημονικές γνώμες και την έκθεση για την καλή λειτουργία του τομέα των γαλακτοκομικών προϊόντων
που δημοσιεύθηκε το 2009 από την Ευρωπαϊκή Αρχή Ασφάλειας Τροφίμων (ΕΑΑΤ).

Επιπλέον, μία ειδική για το κάθε είδος οδηγία θα ήταν ο πιο εστιασμένος τρόπος αντιμετώπισης των συνθηκών διαβίωσης των
αγελάδων γαλακτοπαραγωγής. Πράγματι, η αξιολόγηση της πολιτικής της ΕΕ για την καλή μεταχείριση των ζώων που
εκπονήθηκε για την Επιτροπή το 2010 συνέστησε ότι οι προτεραιότητες για τη μελλοντική πολιτική θα πρέπει να
περιλαμβάνουν το ενδεχόμενο της θέσπισης νομοθεσίας της ΕΕ για την καλή διαβίωση των αγελάδων γαλακτοπαραγωγής για
να αντιμετωπιστεί το φάσμα των θεμάτων που επηρεάζουν την καλή διαβίωση των εκατομμυρίων αγελάδων
γαλακτοπαραγωγής στην Ευρώπη.

Μια εξειδικευμένη ανά είδος προσέγγιση θα πρέπει, ως εκ τούτου, να είναι ο πυρήνας του νέου ευρωπαϊκού νόμου για την
προστασία των ζώων. Ωστόσο, τα σοβαρά προβλήματα που αφορούν τον γαλακτοκομικό τομέα καταδεικνύουν ότι η
τομεακή προσέγγιση είναι επίσης πολύ σημαντική και θα πρέπει να ληφθεί υπόψη.

Έχοντας υπόψη το άρθρο 13 της Συνθήκης για τη Λειτουργία της ΕΕ, το οποίο προβλέπει ότι κατά τη διαμόρφωση και
υλοποίηση της γεωργικής πολιτικής της Ένωσης, η Ένωση και τα κράτη μέλη πρέπει, εφόσον τα ζώα είναι όντα που
αισθάνονται, να λαμβάνουν πλήρως υπόψη τους τις απαιτήσεις καλής διαβίωσης των ζώων, η Επιτροπή θα πρέπει να
αντιμετωπίσει αυτά τα σοβαρά ζητήματα πρόνοιας στον γαλακτοπαραγωγικό τομέα ως θέμα επείγοντος χαρακτήρα.

Υπό το πρίσμα των ανωτέρω:

—
Σκοπεύει η Επιτροπή να προτείνει στο προβλεπόμενο νέο γενικό νομοθετικό πλαίσιο για την καλή διαβίωση των ζώων
(«νόμος για την προστασία των ζώων»), όχι μόνο συγκεκριμένη για κάθε είδος νομοθεσία, αλλά και ειδική τομεακή
νομοθεσία για την καλή διαβίωση των αγελάδων γαλακτοπαραγωγής;

**Απάντηση του κ. Dalli εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(27 Αυγούστου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή εξετάζει, στη στρατηγική της ΕΕ που ενέκρινε για την προστασία και την καλή διαβίωση των ζώων για την περίοδο
2012-2015 ( [1] ), το ενδεχόμενο να προτείνει ένα γενικό νομοθετικό πλαίσιο για την καλή μεταχείριση των ζώων («νομοθεσία
για την καλή μεταχείριση των ζώων»). Αυτή η νέα προσέγγιση θα έχει σκοπό ειδικότερα τη βελτίωση της εκπαίδευσης των
αγροτών σχετικά με την καλή μεταχείριση των ζώων και τη χρησιμοποίηση μεθόδων, όπως κριτηρίων ειδικών για κάθε ζώο
ώστε να προσδιορίζεται και να βελτιώνεται η κατάσταση της καλής μεταχείρισης των ζώων στις εκμεταλλεύσεις τους,
συμπεριλαμβανομένων και των εκμεταλλεύσεων γαλακτοπαραγωγής. Ωστόσο, δεν υπάρχουν επί του παρόντος σχέδια για την
προσθήκη στο γενικό νομοθετικό πλαίσιο ειδικών τομεακών απαιτήσεων για τις αγελάδες γαλακτοπαραγωγής.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_en.pdf

C 219 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007019/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Pavel Poc (S&D), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE) e Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Benessere delle vacche da latte

La strategia dell'Unione europea per la protezione e il benessere degli animali 2012-2015 intende sviluppare un
approccio olistico, che consenta di affrontare efficacemente i fattori comuni che pregiudicano il benessere nell'UE.

Tuttavia, in relazione ad alcuni gravi problemi che affliggono specificamente il comparto lattiero-caseario (ad
esempio le malattie degli arti e i disturbi della locomozione, gli effetti della lunga selezione genetica finalizzata ad
un'elevata resa lattiera, l'impossibilità di accedere ai pascoli, ecc.), è preferibile adottare un approccio settoriale.
Questo emerge chiaramente dai pareri scientifici e dalla relazione sul benessere delle vacche da latte pubblicata
dall'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare (EFSA) nel 2009.

Inoltre, una direttiva specifica per specie rappresenterebbe il modo migliore per affrontare le questioni relative al
benessere delle vacche da latte. La valutazione della politica dell'UE in materia di benessere degli animali, preparata
per la Commissione nel 2010, raccomandava in effetti di includere tra le priorità della futura politica europea anche
una legislazione sul benessere delle vacche da latte, per affrontare le diverse problematiche riguardanti il benessere
degli animali che interessano milioni di vacche da latte in Europa.

Pertanto la nuova normativa dell'Unione europea sul benessere degli animali dovrebbe basarsi su un approccio
specifico per specie. I gravi problemi in materia di benessere che interessano il settore lattiero-caseario forniscono
un'ulteriore prova della notevole importanza di un approccio per specie, che dovrebbe pertanto essere preso in
considerazione.

Tenuto conto che l'articolo 13 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea stabilisce che «nella formulazione e
nell'attuazione delle politiche dell'Unione nei settori dell’agricoltura, della pesca, dei trasporti, del mercato interno,
della ricerca e sviluppo tecnologico e dello spazio, l'Unione e gli Stati membri tengono pienamente conto delle
esigenze in materia di benessere degli animali in quanto esseri senzienti», la Commissione dovrebbe affrontare con
una certa urgenza questi gravi problemi inerenti al benessere delle vacche da latte.

Alla luce di quanto precede, intende la Commissione proporre l'introduzione di una normativa in materia di
benessere delle vacche da latte, specifica non solo per specie, ma anche per settore, nel nuovo quadro legislativo
generale sul benessere degli animali (normativa in materia di benessere degli animali)?

**Risposta di John Dalli a nome della Commissione**

_(27 agosto 2012)_

Nell'ambito della strategia dell'UE per la protezione e il benessere degli animali 2012-2015 ( [1] ) la Commissione
prevede la possibilità di proporre un quadro legislativo generale in materia di benessere degli animali («legge sulla
salute e il benessere degli animali»). Questa nuova impostazione mira in particolare a migliorare la formazione degli
allevatori riguardo al benessere degli animali e all'utilizzo di strumenti quali le misure basate sugli animali per valutare
e migliorare il benessere degli animali nelle proprie aziende, comprese quelle lattiero-casearie. Tuttavia nel quadro
legislativo generale non è al momento prevista l'introduzione di prescrizioni settoriali riguardanti le vacche da latte.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_it.pdf

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 231

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007019/12**

**to the Commission**
**Pavel Poc (S&D), Andrea Zanoni (ALDE) and Kriton Arsenis (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Welfare of dairy cows

The European Union strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2012-2015 aims at developing a holistic
approach so that common underlying drivers for poor welfare in the EU will be addressed in an effective way.

However, a number of serious welfare problems (e.g. leg and locomotion disorders, the effects of long-term genetic
selection for high milk yields, the absence of access to pasture, etc.) are specific to the dairy sector, and can best be
tackled by a sector-specific approach. This is clear from the scientific opinions, and the report, on dairy welfare
published in 2009 by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Furthermore, a species-specific directive would be the most focused way of addressing the welfare of dairy cows.
Indeed, the evaluation of EU policy on animal welfare, prepared for the Commission in 2010, recommended that
among its priorities for future policy, the EU should consider including legislation on dairy cow welfare ‘to address
the range of welfare issues that affect the millions of dairy cows in Europe’.

A species-specific approach should therefore be the core of a new EU animal welfare law. The serious welfare
problems of the dairy sector provide further proof that a sector-specific approach is highly important, and should be
taken into consideration.

Having regard to Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which provides that ‘in formulating and
implementing the Union’s agriculture policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient
beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals’, the Commission should address these serious dairy
welfare issues as a matter of some urgency.

In light of the above:

—
does the Commission plan to propose that not only species-specific legislation, but also sector-specific
legislation on the welfare of dairy cows, be introduced in the intended new general legislative framework on
animal welfare (‘animal welfare law’)?

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

_(27 August 2012)_

The Commission in the adopted EU strategy for protection and welfare of animals 2012-2015 ( [1] ) envisages the
possibility of proposing a general legislative framework on animal welfare (‘animal welfare law’). This new approach
would aim in particular at improving education of farmers on animal welfare and at using tools such as animal-based
measures to identify and improve the welfare situation on their farms, including dairy farms. However, there are
currently no plans to introduce sector-specific requirements for dairy cows in the general legislative framework.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_en.pdf

C 219 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007021/12**

**to the Commission**

**Vicky Ford (ECR)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU state aid rules and tax incentives for infrastructure investment

Investment in infrastructure is essential for growth and the achievement of Europe 2020, which is Europe’s growth
strategy for the next decade. A recent vote in Parliament’s Industry and Research Committee on the attractiveness of
investing in Europe recommended that Member States consider whether their tax regimes adequately incentivise
long-term investment, whilst respecting subsidiarity with respect to tax matters.

1. What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that EU state aid rules do not deter or prevent Member States
from taking tax policy measures to incentivise long-term infrastructure investment, such as increasing capital
allowances for infrastructure investment?

2. Infrastructure projects must not be subject to unnecessary delays. What steps is the Commission taking to
ensure that Member States receive prompt answers to queries about the compatibility of tax incentive structures for
infrastructure with EU state aid rules?

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

_(6 September 2012)_

Support for investment in infrastructure — be it through tax incentives or otherwise — only comes within the scope
of state aid rules if the infrastructure is used for economic activities (and provided the other conditions of
Article 107(1) TFEU are met). For example, roads which are managed by the State administration and which are not
subject to a toll or user charge are generally non-economic. It means that only a sub-set of public support for
infrastructure is subject to state aid rules.

Where support for investments in infrastructure qualifies as state aid, in the form of tax incentives or other measures,
it will be assessed under the normal compatibility rules of Articles 93, 106 and 107 TFEU and the applicable
secondary law. For example, the Commission has recently approved under EU State aid rules (Article 107(3)(c) TFEU)
a proposal by Hungary to finance through tax advantages the renovation and upgrade of existing sports infrastructure
in Hungary (case SA.31722).

As for any other type of state aid, Member States are obliged to notify the aid before putting it into effect pursuant to
Article 108 TFEU, unless it is block exempted by the applicable secondary law. They can also get informal feedback
from the Commission about the compatibility of the measure in the context of a pre-notification ( [1] ). Once it receives a
complete formal notification, the Commission must decide on the compatibility within two months.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Cf. Commission Notice on a Best Practices Code on the conduct of state aid control proceedings, OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 13.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 233

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007022/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Análise das medidas europeias de combate à crise

Tendo em conta que:

—
O Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI) divulgou recentemente o seu novo relatório «World Economic
Outlook», em que aponta para um aumento global de 3,5 % do Produto Interno Bruto (PIB), mais 0,2 pontos
percentuais do que a instituição previa em janeiro;

—
Segundo o mesmo relatório, a zona euro terá uma recessão mais leve do que a inicialmente prevista, dado que,
em vez de contrair 0,5 %, o PIB dos 17 países da moeda única vai recuar 0,3 % durante 2012. Já no próximo
ano, estima-se que volte a crescer 0,9 %, mais 0,1 pontos percentuais do que o previsto em janeiro, devido ao
forte impulso dado pela Alemanha, França e Itália;

—
O FMI defende ainda que, se as autoridades europeias não tomarem mais medidas, os problemas podem voltar
rapidamente a despontar na zona euro;

—
Durante os últimos meses, a Comissão Europeia tem apresentado uma série de medidas que visam solucionar
definitivamente a atual crise financeira, tal como o Semestre Europeu, a Taxa Tobin, os Eurobonds e o reforço
do Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade;

—
As medidas apresentadas demoram meses a serem implementadas, correndo o risco de já serem desadequadas
quando entrarem em vigor e não constituírem assim uma verdadeira mais-valia para a resolução da crise;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Quais os principais obstáculos que tem vindo a encontrar ao nível da implementação das medidas apresentadas
para solucionar a crise?

2. Entende que será necessário adotar novas medidas europeias de combate à crise ou reforçar financeiramente as
atualmente existentes?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de agosto de 2012)_

A Comissão Europeia defende, desde há muito, que a crise de confiança que vivemos na área do euro só pode ser
ultrapassada com medidas firmes que contrariem os efeitos cíclicos negativos entre balanços dos bancos, dívidas
soberanas e perspetivas de crescimento. Foram tomadas decisões para aumentar a capacidade de reação dos
mecanismos de proteção financeira (FEEF/MEE) e torná-los mais flexíveis. Mais recentemente, a Comissão apresentou
várias propostas de medidas com vista a uma união bancária, que poderão ajudar a romper a ligação entre os bancos e
as dívidas soberanas. Também apresentou propostas para promover o crescimento, nomeadamente através da
exploração de todo potencial oferecido pelo mercado único, graças a instrumentos de financiamento inovadores, tais
como as obrigações para financiar projetos, o recurso aos fundos estruturais e um aumento do capital do BEI. A
última Cimeira da área do euro apoiou expressamente os objetivos da Comissão, designadamente no que respeita aos
passos na via da união bancária e os trabalhos para a elaboração de um roteiro com vista a aprofundar a União
Económica e Monetária. O Conselho Europeu de Junho, adotou igualmente importantes decisões para apoiar o
crescimento. Tanto a Cimeira como o Conselho Europeu aprovaram muitas das principais propostas e ideias da
Comissão. Embora a resolução da crise da dívida soberana na área do euro não seja uma tarefa fácil, que irá colocar
importantes desafios nos próximos tempos, as recentes decisões demonstram uma determinação firme e credível para
superar a crise atual. Neste momento, a UE está a pôr em prática uma proteção financeira, prossegue a revisão da sua
política de supervisão económica e adota medidas concretas na via da união bancária e para promover o crescimento.
Na atual conjuntura, a execução das medidas acordadas é fundamental.

C 219 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007022/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Analysis of European measures to control the crisis

In its latest World Economic Outlook report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified a 3.5% worldwide
increase in GDP, 0.2 percentage points above its January 2012 forecast.

According to the same report, the recession in the eurozone will be less severe than initially forecast: the GDP of the
17 countries using the single currency will only contract by 0.3% during 2012 instead of the predicted 0.5%. In the
following year it is estimated that GDP will grow by 0.9%, 0.1 percentage points more than was forecast in January,
due to the strong impulse of Germany, France and Italy.

The IMF also warns that if the European authorities do not take action, there may easily be a further outbreak of
problems in the eurozone.

In recent months the Commission has presented a series of measures aimed at definitively solving the current
financial crisis, such as the European Semester, the Tobin Tax, Eurobonds and reinforcement of the European Stability
Mechanism.

The proposed measures will take months to be implemented, with the risk that they may no longer be appropriate by
the time they come into force and therefore be of no added value in resolving the crisis.

1. What are the main obstacles encountered by the Commission when it comes to implementing the measures
presented as a means of solving the crisis?

2. Does the Commission see a need to adopt new European measures to combat the crisis or to financially
strengthen the existing ones?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The European Commission has long been arguing that the crisis of confidence we are seeing in the Euro area can only
be overcome through decisive steps that sever the negative feedback loops between banks’ balance sheets, sovereign
debt, and growth prospects. Decisions have been taken to enlarge financial firewalls (EFSF/ESM) and to make them
more flexible. More recently, the Commission has made proposals on steps towards a banking union that could help
sever the link between sovereigns and banks. It has also put forward proposals on how growth could be boosted
through unlocking the full potential of the single market, through innovative financing instruments such as project
bonds, the use of structural funds, and an increase in the EIB’s capital. The most recent Euro Area Summit has
expressly supported the Commission’s objectives, in particular regarding steps towards a banking union and work on
a roadmap towards a deeper economic and monetary union. The June European Council has also taken important
decisions to bolster growth. Both have endorsed many of the Commission’s central proposals and views. While
tackling the euro area sovereign debt crisis is not easy and will pose significant challenges for a considerable time to
come, the recent decisions therefore demonstrate the strong and credible determination to overcome this crisis. At
this stage, the EU is putting in place the enhanced financial firewalls, it continues the overhaul of its economic policy
surveillance, is taking concrete steps towards banking union and on bolstering growth. At the current juncture, the
implementation of the agreed actions is key.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 235

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007023/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(12 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ MAT Isona-Peñalba

En su respuesta a las preguntas E-008394/11, E-008437/11, E-008396/11 la Comisión afirmaba ( [1] ): «Como se
anunció en la respuesta de la Comisión a la pregunta P-002275/2011, se puso en marcha una investigación EU PILOT
para comprobar si el proyecto cumplía la legislación de la UE ( [2] ) pertinente. En el marco de esta investigación, la
Comisión ha solicitado recientemente las observaciones de las autoridades españolas. Una vez que sean recibidas, la
Comisión las valorará y, si fuera necesario, adoptará las medidas necesarias para garantizar el cumplimiento de la
legislación de la UE».

Pese a que el Real Decreto-ley 13/2012 de acompañamiento a los Presupuestos Generales del Estado, y de
transposición de directivas de la UE sobre energía y corrección de desajustes entre costes e ingresos del sistema
eléctrico y gasista, tendría que suponer el fin del proyecto de Autopista Eléctrica, Red Eléctrica está realizando
estudios geotécnicos para la subestación de Isona, término final de la línea proyectada, en Figuerola d'Orcau, donde
conectaría con la línea de 400 kV. Sentmenat-Sallente ( [3] ).

A la luz de lo anterior:

1. ¿Tiene conocimiento la Comisión de estos hechos en su investigación?

2. ¿Piensa la Comisión emprender medidas para garantizar el cumplimiento de la legislación de la UE tal y como
declaraba en su respuesta anteriormente citada?

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

_(11 de octubre de 2012)_

La Comisión remite a Su Señoría a la respuesta dada a la pregunta escrita E-000689/2012. En el marco de esta
investigación, las autoridades informaron a la Comisión de que estaba en curso una evaluación del impacto ambiental del
proyecto. Este procedimiento, llevado a cabo de conformidad con las disposiciones de la Directiva de evaluación del
impacto ambiental ( [4] ), abarcaría también los efectos probables del proyecto en los hábitats naturales y la fauna y la flora
silvestres, tal como se establece en las Directivas de hábitats ( [5] ) y de aves ( [6] ).

Como se estaba siguiendo el oportuno procedimiento ambiental, se archivó la investigación al no detectar la
Comisión ninguna infracción del Derecho de la UE en materia de medio ambiente.

Su Señoría hace referencia en su pregunta al Real Decreto-ley 13/2012 de acompañamiento a los Presupuestos
Generales del Estado y de transposición de directivas de la UE sobre energía y corrección de desajustes entre costes e
ingresos del sistema eléctrico y gasista. En efecto, esto parece indicar el final del proyecto de «autopista eléctrica».

El hecho de que el promotor del proyecto esté realizando estudios geotécnicos con miras a construir la subestación de
Isona, término final de la línea proyectada y su punto de conexión con la red eléctrica Sentmenat-Sallente 400-kV, es
irrelevante desde el punto de vista del cumplimiento del Derecho de la UE y no reclama ninguna nueva intervención
de la Comisión.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-008437&language=ES#def1#def1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 85/337/CEE relativa a la evaluación de las repercusiones de determinados proyectos públicos y privados sobre el medio ambiente,

modificada, DO L 175 de 5.7.1985; Directiva 2009/147/CE relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres, DO L 20 de 26.1.2010, y Directiva
92/43/CEE, relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres, DO L 206 de 22.7.1992.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://autopistaelectricano.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/victoria-de-la-oposicion-vecinal-al.html
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) DO L 26 de 28.1.2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) DO L 206 de 22.7.1992.
( ⋅6∙ ) DO L 20 de 26.1.2010.

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

C 219 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007023/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Peñalba-Isona high voltage power line

It its reply to Written Questions E‐008394/11, E‐008437/11 and E‐008396/11 the Commission stated ( [1] ): ‘[a]s
announced in the answer of the Commission to Question P‐002275/2011, an EU PILOT investigation to verify
compliance of the project with relevant EU legislation ( [2] ) was launched. In the context of this investigation, the
Commission has recently requested the observations of the Spanish authorities. Once received, the Commission will
assess them and if necessary, take steps to ensure that EU legislation is complied with’.

Although Royal Decree-law 13/2012, accompanying the general national budgets and transposing EU Directives on
energy and correcting imbalances between income and costs in the electricity and gas industries would appear to
signal the end of the ‘electricity highway’ project, the company Red Eléctrica is conducting geotechnical investigations
with a view to building the Isona substation, which would mark the end of the planned line and its point of
connection with the 400-kV Sentmenat-Sallente power line ( [3] ).

1. Did the Commission’s assessment take account of the aforementioned facts?

2. Does the Commission’s intend to take measures to ensure compliance with EU legislation, in line with the above
statement?

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

_(11 October 2012)_

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the reply given to WQ E‐000689/2012. In the framework of this
investigation the authorities informed the Commission that an environmental impact assessment of the project was
underway. This procedure, carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Directive ( [4] ), would also cover the likely effects of the project on natural habitats and wild fauna and flora, as provided by
the Habitats ( [5] ) and Birds ( [6] ) Directives.

Since the appropriate environmental procedure was being followed the enquiry was closed as the Commission did
not identify a breach of EU environmental legislation.

The Honourable Member refers in his question to the Royal Decree-law 13/2012, accompanying the general national
budget and transposing EU Directives on energy and correcting imbalances between income and costs in the
electricity and gas industries. It would indeed appear to signal the end of the ‘electricity highway’ project.

The fact that the project developer is conducting geotechnical investigations with a view to building the Isona
substation, which would mark the end of the planned line and its point of connection with the 400-kV SentmenatSallente power line, is irrelevant from the point of view of compliance with EC law, and does not require any further
intervention on the side of the Commission.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E‐2011-008437&language=EN#def1#def1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment,

OJ L 175, 5.7.1985; Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild
birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010; 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.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://autopistaelectricano.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/victoria-de-la-oposicion-vecinal-al.html
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 26, 28.1.2012.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) OJ L 20, 26.1.2010.

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 237

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007024/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(12 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ La obesidad infantil en Europa

En el año 2010, el 15 % de los adolescentes españoles era obeso, lo que convertía al Estado español en el país de
Europa con mayor prevalencia ( [1] ).

La obesidad conlleva un aumento de incidencia de diabetes tipo 2, con las consiguientes enfermedades asociadas,
como las cardiovasculares, insuficiencia renal, amputaciones, ceguera, etc. Estos gastos suponen entre el 10 %
y el 15 % de los costes sanitarios.

Según un reciente estudio, el Estado español se ha situado por delante de Estados Unidos en obesidad infantil, con
un 19 % de niños obesos, frente al 16 % de los estadounidenses, un porcentaje que triplica el de hace 30 años ( [2] ).

Parece ser que el 80 % de niños con obesidad, continuarán con este problema en la edad adulta.

1. ¿Qué opinión tiene la Comisión sobre este problema de salud creciente?

2. ¿Qué medidas tomará la Comisión para reducir esta cifra de obesidad infantil en Europa?

3. Parece ser que los genes, el papel de la flora bacteriana del colon y el medio ambiente intrauterino son líneas en
investigación que parecen estar detrás de esta enfermedad. Pero también hay expertos que aseguran que el secreto
para combatir la obesidad es hacer ejercicio físico regularmente y tener una alimentación sana. ¿Tiene pensado la
Comisión hacer alguna campaña para promover el ejercicio físico y una alimentación saludable entre los jóvenes
europeos?

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

_(29 de agosto de 2012)_

1. La Comisión es consciente de los problemas de salud que conllevan una dieta insana y la falta de actividad física
de los niños. Los niños son una prioridad clave de la Estrategia europea sobre problemas de salud relacionados con la
alimentación, el sobrepeso y la obesidad ( [3] ), en la que se define la actuación de la UE en cooperación con los Estados
miembros y las partes interesadas. Las acciones emprendidas se presentan en el informe sobre la aplicación de la
estrategia de diciembre de 2010 ( [4] ).

2. Estas acciones se coordinan con los Estados miembros en el Grupo de Alto Nivel sobre Alimentación y
Actividad Física ( [5] ) y con las partes interesadas en la Plataforma Europea de Acción sobre Alimentación, Actividad
Física y Salud ( [6] ). La Comisión ha puesto en marcha una evaluación de la Estrategia en 2012, que concluirá en la
primavera de 2013.

La actividad física es una prioridad del Plan de Trabajo Europeo para el Deporte para 2011-2014. Además, la
Comisión promueve la actividad física saludable ( [7] ) mediante, por ejemplo, una iniciativa prevista de la UE para
realizar un seguimiento de las Directrices de actividad física de la UE, de 2008 ( [8] ). Además, la Estrategia de la UE para
la juventud ( [9] ) apoya la actividad física y los estilos de vida sanos, un mayor conocimiento y sensibilización acerca de
la salud entre los jóvenes trabajadores y la educación entre iguales.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europapress.es/salud/noticia-espana-encabeza-obesidad-infantil-europa-20100510182745.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/salud/20111216/54241173369/espana-ya-supera-estados-unidos-en-obesidad-infantil.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 279 final de 30.5.2007.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/implementation_report_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_es.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_es.htm
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 12 final de 18.1.2011.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/c1/eu-physical-activity-guidelines-2008_es.pdf
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/youth.

C 219 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

3. El Programa de salud ( [10] )proporciona apoyo a iniciativas destinadas a fomentar una dieta sana y la actividad
física. Un ejemplo de ello es el proyecto «Boys and Girls» ( [11],) una serie interactiva basada en la web que promueve
estilos de visa sanos. En cuanto a las campañas para fomentar la actividad física, la Comisión ha publicado una
convocatoria de propuestas en el marco de la «Acción preparatoria: Asociaciones europeas en el ámbito del deporte»
de 2012, que tiene como objetivo ensayar proyectos transnacionales a fin de incrementar la sensibilización sobre
maneras efectivas de promover el deporte a nivel municipal.

( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:301:0003:0013:es:PDF.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) http://www.boysandgirlslabs.eu/.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 239

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007024/12**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Child obesity in Europe

In 2010, 15% of Spanish adolescents were obese, the highest rate of any country in Europe ( [1] ).

Obesity increases the risk of contracting type-2 diabetes, which can cause further conditions such as cardiovascular
problems, kidney failure and can lead to amputations and blindness. The cost of treating such conditions is estimated
at between 10% and 15% of healthcare expenditure.

According to a recent study, Spain has a higher percentage of child obesity that the USA; 19% as opposed to 16%, a
rate that has tripled in 30 years ( [2] ).

It is said that 80% of obese children continue to suffer from this problem into adulthood.

1. What is the Commission’s view of this growing health problem?

2. What measures will the Commission take to reduce the prevalence of child obesity in Europe?

3. It would appear that genes, intestinal bacteria and the intrauterine environment are factors which may cause
this condition. There are also experts who maintain that the secret to fighting obesity is regular exercise and a healthy
diet. Does the Commission intend to launch any campaigns to encourage young people in Europe to take exercise and
adopt a healthy diet?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware of the health problems associated with unhealthy diet and lack of physical activity
amongst children. Children are a key priority within the strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesityrelated health issues ( [3] ), which defines EU action in cooperation with the Member States and stakeholders. Actions
undertaken are presented in the strategy Implementation Report of December 2010 ( [4] ).

2. Such actions are coordinated with the Member States in the High Level Group on Nutrition and Physical
Activity ( [5] ) and with stakeholders in the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health ( [6] ). The
Commission has launched an evaluation of the strategy in 2012, which will conclude in spring 2013.

Physical activity is a priority in the EU Work Plan for Sport 2011-2014. The Commission further promotes healthenhancing physical activity ( [7] ) through e.g. a planned EU initiative to follow up on the 2008 EU Physical Activity
Guidelines ( [8] ). In addition, the EU Youth Strategy ( [9] ) supports physical activity and healthy lifestyles, increased
knowledge and awareness of health issues among youth workers and peer-to-peer education.

3. The Health Programme ( [10] )is providing support to initiatives aimed at encouraging healthy diet and physical
activity. One example is the project ‘Boys and Girls’ ( [11],) an interactive web-based series promoting healthy lifestyles.
Regarding campaigns to encourage physical activity, the Commission has launched a call for proposals under the
2012 Preparatory Action European Partnership on Sports aimed at testing transnational projects to raise awareness
about effective ways of promoting sport at municipal level.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europapress.es/salud/noticia-espana-encabeza-obesidad-infantil-europa-20100510182745.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.lavanguardia.com/salud/20111216/54241173369/espana-ya-supera-estados-unidos-en-obesidad-infantil.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 279 final, 30.5.2007.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/implementation_report_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/platform/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 12 final, 18.1.2011.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/c1/eu-physical-activity-guidelines-2008_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/youth.
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:301:0003:0013:en:PDF.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) http://www.boysandgirlslabs.eu/.

C 219 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007025/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(12. juli 2012)_

_Om:_ Anvendelse af funktionel adskillelse på en dominerende teleudbyder (SMP)

Telepakken fra 2009 indeholder tiltag, som skal fremme konkurrencen på bredbåndsmarkedet til gavn for forbrugere
og virksomheder, herunder også et nyt regulatorisk værktøj — funktionel adskillelse — der særligt retter sig mod
medlemsstater, hvor den nationale telemyndighed konstaterer væsentlige og vedvarende konkurrenceproblemer på
bredbåndsmarkedet.

Mener Kommissionen, at medlemsstaterne har taget behørigt hensyn til det nye regulatoriske værktøj — funktionel
adskillelse — i forbindelse med de trufne markedsafgørelser om bredbånd?

Agter Kommissionen at henstille til de medlemsstater, hvor den nationale telemyndighed har konstateret væsentlige
og vedvarende konkurrenceproblemer i forbindelse med bredbånd, at overveje muligheden for at stile krav om
funktionel adskillelse over for den tidligere telemonopoludbyder for at fremme konkurrencen på bredbåndsmarkedet
og stimulere udbredelsen af næste generation af accessnet (NGA)?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Neelie Kroes**

_(19. september 2012)_

Kommissionen konstaterer, at det ærede medlems spørgsmål vedrører løsning af konkurrenceproblemer ved hjælp af
funktionel adskillelse, som de nationale tilsynsmyndigheder kan pålægge operatører af elektroniske
kommunikationsnet i overensstemmelse med adgangsdirektivet, artikel 13, litra a). Hvad angår det første spørgsmål,
har nogle tilsynsmyndigheder vurderet muligheden for at stille krav om funktionel adskillelse for at afhjælpe vigtige
og vedvarende konkurrenceproblemer på bredbåndsmarkederne, selv inden regelsættet for elektronisk
kommunikation trådte i kraft i 2009. I Det Forenede Kongerige har man f.eks. pålagt funktionel adskillelse i 2005. I
Polen igangsatte man den administrative procedure vedrørende pålæggelse af funktionel adskillelse i 2008, men den
blev senere suspenderet, da den operatør, der havde en stærk markedsposition, besluttede sig til at samarbejde med
tilsynsmyndigheden og andre operatører. I Italien findes der bestemmelser, der rummer elementer, som har lighed
med funktionel adskillelse. Indtil videre er Kommissionen ikke blevet gjort bekendt med yderligere planer om at
pålægge funktionel adskillelse i medlemsstaterne. Hvad angår det andet spørgsmål, fremgår det af bestemmelsen om
funktionel adskillelse, hvilken dokumentation og yderligere information der er nødvendig for Kommissionens
godkendelse, men der findes ingen bestemmelse i den relevante artikel, der direkte pålægger de nationale
tilsynsmyndigheder at stille krav om funktionel adskillelse, når visse betingelser er opfyldt. Kommissionen kan dog
give yderligere vejledning om, hvornår det kan være nødvendigt at anvende denne løsning som en sidste udvej, i
forbindelse med høringsproceduren i medfør af artikel 7 i rammedirektivet. Denne EU‐høringsordning har til formål
at sikre en konsekvent lovgivningsmæssig tilgang i EU.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 241

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007025/12**

**to the Commission**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Application of functional unbundling to a dominant TV service provider (SMP)

The 2009 TV package contains measures to promote competition on the broadband market in the interests of
consumers and undertakings, including a new regulatory tool known as functional unbundling, which is directed in
particular at Member States where the national TV authority has identified significant and permanent competition
problems on the broadband market.

Does the Commission consider that Member States have taken due account of this new regulatory tool of functional
unbundling in connection with the market agreements that have been concluded on broadband?

Does the Commission propose to recommend to those Member States where the national TV authority has identified
significant and permanent competition problems on the broadband market that they consider the possibility of
requiring the former TV monopoly provider to carry out functional unbundling so as to promote competition in the
broadband market and stimulate the expansion of next-generation access (NGA)

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

_(19 September 2012)_

The Commission understands that the Honourable Member's question concerns the remedy of functional separation,
which can be imposed on electronic communications network operators by national regulatory authorities (NRAs) in
accordance with Article 13a of the Access Directive. As regards the first question, some NRAs, even before the entry
into force of the 2009 regulatory package for electronic communications, assessed the possibility of imposing
functional separation in order to remedy persisting and important competition problems in broadband markets. In
the United Kingdom, for example, functional separation was imposed in 2005. In Poland the administrative
proceeding to impose functional separation was launched in 2008, but later suspended as the operator with
significant market power decided to cooperate with the regulator and other operators. In Italy, there is a regulation in
place which includes elements akin to functional separation. So far the Commission has not been informed about any
further plans to impose functional separation in Member States. As regards the second question, while the provision
on functional separation sets out the evidence and specifications required for the Commission approval, there is no
provision in the relevant article which would explicitly require the NRA to impose functional separation once certain
conditions are met. The Commission can, however, give further guidance, as to when the imposition of this remedy
of last resort may be appropriate in the context of the consultation procedure under Article 7 of the framework
Directive. This EU consultation mechanism aims at ensuring a consistent regulatory approach within the EU.

C 219 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007026/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(12 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Λαθρομετανάστευση στη Ζώνη Σένγκεν

Στην πρώτη έκθεση της Επιτροπής για την ορθή λειτουργία της Συνθήκης Σένγκεν που δημοσιοποίησε η Ευρωπαϊκή
Επιτροπή, τον Μάιο του 2012, αναφέρεται ότι το 75 % των παράνομων μεταναστών που συνελήφθησαν στη Ζώνη Σένγκεν
εισήλθαν σε αυτήν μέσω της ελληνοτουρκικής μεθορίου.

Δεδομένου ότι το θέμα της λαθρομετανάστευσης θα πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί συνολικά σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο και είναι
απαραίτητο να ληφθούν ιδιαίτερα μέτρα για τα κράτη μέλη που αποτελούν τα εξωτερικά σύνορα της ΕΕ, καθώς αυτά
δέχονται και την μεγαλύτερη πίεση σε μια δύσκολη περίοδο οικονομικής κρίσης,

ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Πως προτίθεται να αντιμετωπίσει την εξαιρετικά μεγάλη πίεση που δέχονται τα εξωτερικά σύνορα της Ζώνης Σένγκεν
στην ελληνοτουρκική μεθόριο;

2. Η επαναφορά των ελέγχων στα εσωτερικά σύνορα της Ζώνης που προτείνουν η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο
Δικαιοσύνης και Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων της ΕΕ, με ποιον τρόπο αντιμετωπίζει το πρόβλημα και πώς πιστεύει η
Επιτροπή ότι προστατεύονται τα κράτη μέλη από την πολιτική απομόνωση που θα επιφέρει αυτό το μέτρο;

3. Προτίθεται να εξετάσει και να προτείνει την αναθεώρηση της Συνθήκης Δουβλίνο ΙΙ, που επιβαρύνει δυσανάλογα, ως
προς το θέμα της διαχείρισης της λαθρομετανάστευσης, τις χώρες εισόδου των λαθρομεταναστών;

**Απάντηση της κας Malmström εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(28 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

Η Επιτροπή ανησυχεί για τις ροές λαθρομεταναστών μέσω των ελληνοτουρκικών συνόρων και έχει θέσει σε εφαρμογή μια
ολοκληρωμένη στρατηγική για την αντιμετώπιση του προβλήματος αυτού. Είναι σημαντικό να διατηρηθεί το υψηλό επίπεδο
εκτέλεσης των δράσεων του Frontex, και να συνεχιστεί η παροχή οικονομικής και επιχειρησιακής στήριξης της Ελλάδας για
τη δημιουργία αποτελεσματικού συστήματος διαχείρισης των συνόρων, μεταξύ άλλων και όσον αφορά ενέργειες σχετικά με
την επιστροφή των παράνομων μεταναστών. Η ταχεία σύναψη και εφαρμογή της συμφωνίας επανεισδοχής μεταξύ ΕΕ και
Τουρκίας που μονογραφήθηκε πρόσφατα θα συμβάλει επίσης σημαντικά στη βελτίωση της κατάστασης.

Η Επιτροπή έχει προτείνει νομοθετικές αλλαγές που στοχεύουν στην ενίσχυση της διακυβέρνησης του χώρου Σένγκεν, ιδίως
για να εξασφαλιστεί η αποτελεσματικότητα των ελέγχων στα εξωτερικά σύνορα. Οι προταθείσες αλλαγές περιλαμβάνουν
ρήτρα διασφάλισης η οποία, σε εξαιρετικές περιστάσεις, επιτρέπει την επανεισαγωγή ελέγχων στα εσωτερικά σύνορα, με
συντονισμένο τρόπο, σε επίπεδο ΕΕ. Αυτό θα επέτρεπε στην ΕΕ να αντιμετωπίσει αποτελεσματικά κρίσιμες καταστάσεις όπου
υπάρχουν συνεχιζόμενες σοβαρές ανεπάρκειες που συνδέονται με τον έλεγχο των εξωτερικών συνόρων, χωρίς όμως να έχει ως
αποτέλεσμα τον αποκλεισμό ή την αναστολή κάποιου κράτους μέλους από τη ζώνη Σένγκεν. Η πρόταση αυτή ευρίσκεται υπό
συζήτηση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο

Η αναθεώρηση του κανονισμού του Δουβλίνου που προτάθηκε το 2008 από την Επιτροπή ευρίσκεται επί του παρόντος στο
στάδιο των διαπραγματεύσεων μεταξύ των συν-νομοθετών. Η πρόταση διατηρεί τις αρχές που διέπουν τα κριτήρια
αρμοδιότητας και συμπληρώνεται με μηχανισμό για την αντιμετώπιση καταστάσεων ιδιαίτερης πίεσης που εμφανίζονται σε
κράτος μέλος. Ο κανονισμός του Δουβλίνου εφαρμόζεται μόνο στους αιτούντες άσυλο και δεν αφορά τις περιπτώσεις
παράνομης μετανάστευσης.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 243

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007026/12**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Illegal immigration into the Schengen area

The first report on the functioning of the Schengen Agreement published by the European Commission in May 2012
found that 75% of illegal immigrants arrested in the Schengen area had entered it via the Greek-Turkish border.

Since the issue of illegal immigration should be dealt with comprehensively at EU level and special measures must be
taken in respect of those Member States that constitute the EU's external borders, as they are subject to the greatest
pressure in this difficult period of economic crisis, will the Commissions say:

1. How does it intend to address the extreme pressure on the external borders of the Schengen area at the GreekTurkish border?

2. How will the reintroduction of controls at internal borders of the Schengen area proposed by the Commission
and the EU's Justice and Home Affairs Council address the problem and how does it believe that Member States
will be protected from the political isolation that this action would entail?

3. Does it intend to examine and propose a revision of the Dublin II Treaty which places a disproportionate
burden on the countries of entry of illegal immigrants as regards tackling illegal immigration?

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

_(28 September 2012)_

The Commission is concerned about the flow of irregular migrants at the Greek/Turkish border and has put in place a
comprehensive strategy to tackle this problem. It is important to maintain the high intensity of Frontex operations,
and to continue to provide financial and operational assistance to Greece in building an effective border management
system, including as regards the return of irregular migrants. The rapid conclusion and implementation of the EU‐
Turkey readmission agreement which has recently been initialled will also make an important contribution to
improving the situation.

The Commission has proposed legislative changes to strengthen the governance of the Schengen area, in particular to
ensure the effectiveness of the control of its external borders. The proposed changes would include a safeguard clause
enabling in exceptional circumstances to temporarily reintroduce internal border controls, in a coordinated way at
the EU level. This would allow the EU to deal effectively with critical situations involving persistent serious
deficiencies related to external border control, but would not result in the exclusion or suspension of any Member
State from the Schengen area. This proposal is currently negotiated in the European Parliament and Council.

A revision of the Dublin Regulation put forward by the Commission in 2008 is currently under negotiation between
the co-legislators. The proposal preserves the principles governing the responsibility criteria, and complements it
with a mechanism for addressing situations of particular pressure in a Member State. The Dublin Regulation only
applies to asylum‐seekers, and not to tackling irregular immigration.

C 219 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007027/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Rita Borsellino (S&D)**

_(12 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Insegnanti di yoga in Romania

Amnesty International e altre organizzazioni per i diritti umani hanno ripetutamente attirato l'attenzione sugli abusi
che sarebbero stati commessi contro gli insegnanti di yoga in Romania. Gli osservatori ritengono che alcune
organizzazioni che promuovono lo yoga siano discriminate da vari settori delle autorità rumene. A tal proposito, la
Svezia ha concesso asilo politico a un attivista di un movimento yoga rumeno, attualmente sotto processo in
Romania.

Visto che la libertà di pensiero costituisce un importante valore europeo, che deve essere garantito da tutti gli Stati
membri, come previsto dagli articoli 10 e 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, può la
Commissione far sapere:

Come valuta la situazione della libertà di religione in Romania e cosa farà per garantire la promozione e la tutela del
diritto alla libertà di religione per gli insegnanti di yoga in Romania?

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

_(17 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione condanna qualsiasi maltrattamento o discriminazione per motivi di religione o convinzioni
personali. La libertà di pensiero, di coscienza e di religione è parte integrante dei valori e delle tradizioni dell’Unione e
degli Stati membri ed è statuita dall’articolo 10 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea.

In base alle informazioni fornite dall’onorevole parlamentare non risulta che nella fattispecie lo Stato membro
interessato abbia agito in sede di attuazione del diritto dell’Unione. Pertanto spetta unicamente allo Stato membro
interessato garantire che vengano rispettati i propri obblighi in materia di diritti fondamentali derivanti da accordi
internazionali e dalla legislazione nazionale. La Commissione non è quindi in grado di commentare ulteriormente le
questioni relative ai diritti fondamentali sollevate dall’onorevole parlamentare.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 245

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007027/12**

**to the Commission**
**Rita Borsellino (S&D)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Yoga practitioners in Romania

Amnesty International and other human rights organisations have on several occasions focused on abuses allegedly
committed against yoga practitioners in Romania. Observers argue that some organisations supporting yoga are
discriminated by segments of the Romanian authorities. In this regard, Sweden has granted political asylum to a
Romanian yoga activist currently on trial in Romania.

Given that freedom of belief is an important European value to be ensured by all Member States as recognised by
Articles 10 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union:

How does the Commission consider the state of religious freedom in Romania and what will it do to ensure the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion for yoga practitioners in Romania?

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

_(17 August 2012)_

The Commission condemns any abuse or discrimination on the basis of religion or belief. Freedom of thought,
conscience and religion is part of the values and traditions of the Union and its Member States, enshrined in Article 10
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it does not appear that in the matter referred to
the Member State concerned did act in the course of implementation of EC law. In that matter it is thus for Member
States alone to ensure that their obligations regarding fundamental rights — as resulting from international
agreements and from their internal legislation — are respected. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to
comment further on the fundamental rights issues raised by the Honourable Member.

C 219 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-007028/12**

**à la Commission**
**Franck Proust (PPE)**

_(12 juillet 2012)_

_Objet:_ Lutter contre la concurrence déloyale au sein de l'UE

Certaines filières économiques (automobile, textile, métallurgie, etc.) des pays d'Europe occidentale subissent de plein
fouet la concurrence déloyale d'autres pays membres. Le coût de la main-d'œuvre, élément déterminant pour
l'installation d'une production, y est très souvent beaucoup moins élevé et les avantages fiscaux réels (impôts sur les
sociétés très faibles, suppression des cotisations salariales à l'installation).

Dans nos relations avec les pays tiers, nous avons établi un grand nombre de principes de lutte contre le dumping
social et fiscal. Sans en arriver à des exemples extrêmes, il n'en reste pas moins que bon nombre d'entreprises se
retrouvent dans des situations délicates, voire intenables. Les conséquences sur la destruction d'emplois sont
inéluctables. Malgré tout, les règles du marché commun (libre circulation des marchandises et travailleurs, nondiscrimination d'un produit communautaire) rendent plus difficile encore la lutte contre de telles situations. Nous
souhaitons préserver notre modèle d'intégration, seul à même de garantir la paix et la croissance. Mais il s'agit d'une
question primordiale.

1. La Commission fait-elle le même constat?

2. L'harmonisation sociale et fiscale par le haut est l'une des clés pour réussir. La Commission a-t-elle fait, ou va-telle faire, des propositions en ce sens?

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

_(12 septembre 2012)_

1. Le Marché unique est une réalisation essentielle de l'intégration européenne. La libre circulation des
marchandises et des travailleurs entre les États membres de l'UE est impérative pour l'Europe, car elle améliore la
compétitivité de nos entreprises et renforce la productivité, la croissance et la création d'emploi.

Le coût du travail n'est que l'un des facteurs déterminants. D'autres facteurs semblent aussi importants, si ce n'est plus,
comme le suggère l'attractivité en tant que destination des investissements directs étrangers de nombreux pays où les
salaires sont relativement élevés. Les disparités salariales ne constituent pas en tant que telles une concurrence
déloyale.

La concurrence des pays tiers s'accroît. Si le dumping de pays tiers est établi, la Commission utilise régulièrement des
instruments de défense commerciale.

La manière durable de conserver des entreprises compétitives et des emplois est d'instaurer des conditions générales
favorables, de créer des infrastructures et de garantir une concurrence efficace et loyale. C'est l'un des objectifs de
notre politique industrielle, qui sera fixé dans une nouvelle communication dont l'adoption est prévue pour octobre.
Elle sera axée notamment sur la facilitation des investissements et l'amélioration de l'accès aux marchés et au

financement.

2. Les États membres sont libres de concevoir leurs propres systèmes fiscaux et sociaux, y compris les incitations
fiscales pour les investissements étrangers, pourvu qu'ils se conforment à la législation de l'UE. En ce qui concerne la
fiscalité, cela signifie en particulier que les États membres doivent respecter les libertés garanties par le traité, les
dispositions de l'UE en matière d'aide d'État et le code de conduite dans le domaine de la fiscalité, qui a été approuvé
par le Conseil Ecofin en 1997 et contient des critères pour identifier les mesures fiscales dommageables et les
distinguer d'une concurrence fiscale loyale et transparente. La Commission soutient activement les travaux du groupe
«code de conduite», qui a examiné plus de 400 régimes fiscaux au cours des douze dernières années, ce qui a abouti à
la suppression de plus d'une centaine d'entre eux considérés comme dommageables. En ce qui concerne les systèmes
sociaux, les États membres doivent se conformer aux articles 45 et 48 du TFUE, mis en œuvre par des règlements ( [1] )
qui coordonnent les systèmes sociaux des États membres, mais ne les harmonisent pas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Règlements 492/2011, 883/2004 et 987/2009.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 247

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007028/12**

**to the Commission**
**Franck Proust (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Fighting unfair competition within the EU

Certain sectors of the economy (such as motor vehicle production, textiles, and the iron and steel industry) of
Western European countries are feeling the full force of unfair competition from other Member States. Labour costs
— a decisive factor in determining where to locate production — are very often much lower outside Western Europe,
and there can be genuine tax benefits (very low corporation tax, no tax contributions on wages in the setting‐up
phase).

In our dealings with third countries, we have established a great number of principles with a view to combating social
and fiscal dumping. Without taking any extreme examples, there are nonetheless a great many companies faced with
such a difficult — even unbearable — situation. The consequences in terms of job losses are inescapable. In spite of
this, the rules of the common market (free movement of goods and labour, non‐discrimination against a Community
product) make it even more difficult to combat such a state of affairs. We wish to preserve our model of integration,
which is the only one able to guarantee peace and growth. The issue is of the utmost importance.

1. Does the Commission share this view?

2. Upwards social and fiscal harmonisation is vital for success. Has the Commission made, or will it make, any
proposals towards such an end?

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

_(12 September 2012)_

1. The Single Market is a main achievement of European integration. Free movement of goods and labour is
imperative for Europe, as it makes our enterprises more competitive and increases productivity, growth and job
creation.

Labour costs represent only one determining factor. Others seem as crucial, or more so, as the attractiveness as
foreign direct invest destinations of many relatively high wage countries suggests. Differences in wages do not
constitute _per se_ unfair competition.

Competition from third countries is rising. When dumping from third countries is proven, the Commission regularly
applies trade defence instruments.

The sustainable way to keep competitive enterprises and jobs is to establish favourable framework conditions,
infrastructure, and fair and effective competition. This is an aim of our industrial policy, with a new Communication
planned for October. It will focus on facilitating investment, and improving access to markets and finance.

2. Member States (MS) are free to design their tax and social systems, including inward investment tax incentives,
provided that they comply with EC law. For taxation, this means that MS must comply with the treaty freedoms, EU
state aid provisions and the Code of Conduct on business taxation, which was agreed by the Ecofin Council in1997
and contains criteria to identify harmful tax measures and distinguish them from fair and transparent tax
competition. The Commission supports the work of the Code of Conduct group, which has reviewed over 400 tax
regimes in the last 12 years leading to the abolishment of over 100 harmful regimes. As to social systems, MS must
comply with Articles 45 and 48 TFEU, which are implemented by Regulations ( [1] ) that coordinate but do not
harmonise MS social systems.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulations 492/2011, 883/2004 and 987/2009.

C 219 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007030/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(12 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Commissie weert één specifieke partij uit debat over gemeenteraadsverkiezingen

De Europese Commissie organiseerde in het licht van de komende gemeenteraadsverkiezingen samen met het
„Brussels-Europe Liaison Office” een debat met vertegenwoordigers van alle politieke partijen die in Brussel (zowel in
parlementen als gemeenteraden) vertegenwoordigd zijn, behalve één partij: het Vlaams Belang.

— Waarom werd het Vlaams Belang niet uitgenodigd?

— Welke criteria werden hiervoor gehanteerd?

— Wie nam de beslissing om alle representatieve partijen uit te nodigen, behalve één?

**Antwoord van de heer Hahn namens de Commissie**

_(28 augustus 2012)_

De Commissie dankt het geachte Parlementslid voor zijn belangstelling voor het debat over de komende
gemeenteraadsverkiezingen in Brussel, dat begin juli door de Commissie en het Brussels-Europe Liaison Office werd
georganiseerd ten behoeve van het personeel van de Europese instellingen. De uitgenodigde partijen werden in
samenspraak met het Brussels-Europe Liaison Office geselecteerd op basis van een aantal informele indicatoren: de
aanwezigheid van de partij in gemeenten met een hoog percentage niet-Belgische Europeanen; het bestaan van
partijstandpunten over zaken die voor niet-Belgische Europeanen relevant zijn; en de vraag of de partij zich openstelt
voor kiezers die geen Frans of Nederlands spreken.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 249

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007030/12**

**to the Commission**

**Philip Claeys (NI)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Commission excludes one particular party from debate on municipal elections

In the run-up to the forthcoming municipal elections the Commission, in conjunction with the Brussels-Europe
Liaison Office, held a debate with representatives of all political parties represented in Brussels, whether in a
parliament or on a local council, except one: the Vlaams Belang.

— Why was Vlaams Belang not invited?

— On what criteria was the party excluded?

— Who took the decision to invite all representative parties except one?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his interest in the debate on the upcoming municipal elections
in Brussels organised by the Commission together with the Brussels-Europe Liaison Office for the staff working for
the European institutions in early July. Together with the Brussels-Europe Liaison Office, the invited parties were
selected taking into account a number of informal indicators. These included the presence of the party in communes
with a high share of non-Belgian Europeans; the existence of a party position on issues relevant to non-Belgian
Europeans and whether the party reaches out to voters who do not speak French or Dutch.

C 219 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007031/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Regiões Ultraperiféricas e eligibilidade nos programas de cooperação transfronteiriça

Considerando que:

As Regiões Ultraperiféricas são regiões da União Europeia que, entre outros fatores, veem a sua situação económica e
social agravada por fatores como o grande afastamento e insularidade, o que dificulta a mobilidade de bens e pessoas,
em virtude do baixo nível de acessibilidade;

A estas Regiões é aplicável o direito da União Europeia, podendo, todavia, ser adotadas medidas específicas, nos
termos do artigo 349.° do TFUE, que tenham em conta as características e os condicionalismos especiais das Regiões
Ultraperiféricas, de acordo com um tratamento diferenciado e de conjunto;

A proposta da Comissão Europeia relativa ao futuro regulamento da cooperação territorial para o período financeiro
de 2014 a 2020 exclui dos programas de cooperação transfronteiriça as Regiões Ultraperiféricas insulares cujas
fronteiras marítimas distem mais de 150 km, uma vez que estas, em razão da aplicação deste critério, não são
elegíveis;

Porém, na recente Comunicação sobre uma parceria para as Regiões Ultraperiféricas, de 20 de junho de 2012, a
Comissão Europeia afirma estar _«aberta a facilitar a cooperação transfronteiras das RUP caso as suas fronteiras marítimas_
_distem mais de 150km»_ .

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Está disposta a, no contexto do trílogo para a negociação do regulamento relativo à cooperação territorial,
avançar com uma proposta concreta de alteração da proposta de regulamento que traduza esta abertura para
facilitar a cooperação transfronteiras das RUP?

2. Em caso negativo, em que medidas específicas, de acordo com o artigo 349.° TFUE, se traduzirá essa facilitação
da cooperação transfronteiras das RUP, no próximo período de 2014 a 2020?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de agosto de 2012)_

1. Na sua comunicação ( [1] ), a Comissão reitera a importância da integração regional das regiões ultraperiféricas
(RUP) nas respetivas zonas geográficas. A Comissão destaca as oportunidades oferecidas pelos instrumentos da UE
em matéria de cooperação transnacional e incentiva as RUP a tirar pleno partido dessas oportunidades. A Comissão
estaria aberta a facilitar a cooperação transfronteiras das RUP em matéria de fronteiras marítimas, quando estas
distem mais de 150 km, no contexto do trílogo, mas não vê a necessidade de uma proposta de alteração.

2. As propostas legislativas da Comissão preveem diversos elementos destinados a facilitar a cooperação das
regiões ultraperiféricas. As RUP beneficiariam de um aumento garantido das suas dotações financeiras. Seriam
reservados 50 milhões de euros, destinados à sua cooperação, provenientes da verba consagrada à cooperação inter‐
regional, existindo uma flexibilidade crescente para executar operações em países terceiros. Além disso, a Comissão
propôs o estabelecimento de planos de vizinhança regional (PVR), a fim de reforçar a complementaridade das ações,
especialmente através de uma coordenação e de uma sinergia mais eficazes entre programas de cooperação e outros
programas e instrumentos da UE. A Comissão tenciona promover e facilitar as atividades conjuntas entre as RUP e os
países terceiros seus vizinhos mediante, nomeadamente, a organização de um seminário de informação a realizar em
Bruxelas antes do final de 2012.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunicação da Comissão, «As regiões ultraperiféricas da União Europeia: Parceria para um crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo»,
COM(2012)287.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 251

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007031/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Outermost regions and eligibility for cross-border cooperation programmes

The EU’s outermost regions find their economic and social situation compounded by, among other factors, their
remoteness and insularity, which hinder the movement of goods and people because of the difficulty of access.

These regions are covered by EC law, with the possibility of specific measures being adopted under the terms of
Article 349 TFEU, taking into account the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions and
affording them differentiated and holistic treatment.

The Commission’s proposal concerning the future regulation of territorial cooperation for the 2014 to 2020 financial
period excludes outermost island regions whose maritime borders are at a distance of over 150 km from cross-border
cooperation programmes, as the application of this criterion renders them ineligible.

However, in its recent communication on partnership with the outermost regions, of 20 June 2012, the Commission
says that it is ‘open to facilitate OR cross border cooperation on maritime borders across distances greater than
150 km’.

1. Is the Commission prepared, within the context of the trilogue to negotiate the regulation on territorial
cooperation, to put forward a specific proposal amending the proposed regulation translating this opening which
facilitates cross-border cooperation with the outermost regions?

2. If not, what specific measures, as defined under Article 349 TFEU, will be used to facilitate cross-border
cooperation with the outermost regions during the forthcoming period from 2014 to 2020?

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

_(14 August 2012)_

1. In its communication ( [1] ) the Commission reiterates the importance of the regional integration of the outermost
regions (OR) in their geographical areas. The Commission underlines the opportunities offered by EU instruments for
transnational cooperation and encourages the OR to take fully advantage of them. The Commission would be open to
facilitate OR cross-border cooperation on maritime borders, across distances greater than 150 km in the context of
the trilogue, but does not see the need for an amended proposal.

2. The Commission's legislative proposals provide for a number of elements to facilitate cooperation by the
outermost regions. The OR would benefit from a guaranteed increase in their financial allocations. EUR 50 million
would be set aside for their cooperation from the envelope for interregional cooperation and there is increased
flexibility to implement operations in third countries. Furthermore, the Commission proposed to establish Regional
neighbourhood plans (RNP) to improve complementarity of actions, particularly through better coordination and
synergy between cooperation programmes and other EU programmes and instruments. The Commission intends to
promote and facilitate joint activities between the OR and their neighbouring third countries through, _inter alia_, the
organisation of an information seminar to be held before the end of 2012 in Brussels.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission ‘The outermost regions of the European Union: towards a partnership for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth’, COM(2012) 287.

C 219 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007032/12**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Apoio dos fundos estruturais e de coesão ao desenvolvimento das energias renováveis e da eficiência
energética nas RUP

Considerando que:

O Parlamento Europeu, na sua resolução sobre o papel da política de coesão nas Regiões Ultraperiféricas da União
Europeia no contexto da UE2020, de 29 de março de 2012, defende a criação de _«um programa específico no domínio da_
_energia para reduzir o custo do afastamento, das infraestruturas e dos serviços prestados, a fim de encorajar as políticas ambiciosas_
_que as RUP acionaram em matéria de desenvolvimento de energias renováveis»_ ;

Na sua Comunicação sobre As Regiões Ultraperiféricas da União Europeia: Parceria para um crescimento inteligente,
sustentável e inclusivo, de 20 de junho de 2012, a Comissão afirma que _«analisará com as RUP e os respetivos Estados-_
_Membros a melhor maneira de desenvolver o financiamento das energias renováveis e da eficiência energética, no âmbito dos_
_fundos da política de coesão, para responder às necessidades específicas»_ ;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Qual o prazo que estabeleceu para proceder a esta análise ao financiamento das energias renováveis nas Regiões
Ultraperiféricas da União Europeia, no âmbito dos fundos da política de coesão?

2. Pretende, no contexto do trílogo para a negociação dos regulamentos sobre os fundos estruturais e de coesão,
avançar com uma proposta concreta de alteração que traduza o financiamento das energias renováveis e da
eficiência energética nas RUP para responder às suas necessidades específicas?

**Resposta dada por Johannes Hahn em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de agosto de 2012)_

1. O calendário de financiamento das energias renováveis é similar ao calendário global de financiamento no
contexto da futura política de coesão. A adoção dos regulamentos depende da finalização dos trílogos, que está
prevista para 2013. No entanto, os Estados-Membros e as regiões, incluindo as regiões ultraperiféricas (RUP),
começaram já os trabalhos preparatórios com vista a futuros programas, de modo a permitir que as consultas
informais entre os Estados-Membros e a Comissão tenham início o mais rapidamente possível.

2. Os objetivos temáticos baseados na estratégia Europa 2020 incluem o objetivo de apoiar a transição para a
economia de baixo carbono. Na proposta de regulamento do Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER)
prevê-se que, em cada categoria de região, uma parte mínima do financiamento tenha de ser atribuída a este objetivo.
No caso do FEDER e do Fundo de Coesão, os investimentos em energias renováveis e eficiência energética estão
explicitamente previstos enquanto prioridades de financiamento ao abrigo deste objetivo. Os programas operacionais
deverão estabelecer objetivos específicos que correspondam às necessidades de desenvolvimento para cada prioridade
de investimento selecionada. No seguimento das sugestões avançadas pelo Parlamento em matéria de energia, a
Comissão analisará, no contexto da negociação dos programas com as RUP, qual a forma ideal de aplicar os fundos da
política de coesão, de modo a corresponder às necessidades específicas destas regiões. Por conseguinte, a Comissão
não vê necessidade de uma proposta de alteração específica.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 253

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007032/12**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(12 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Support from the structural and cohesion funds for the development of renewable energy and energy
efficiency in the outermost regions

In its resolution on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions (OR) of the European Union in the context of
EU 2020, of 29 March 2012, Parliament supported the creation of ‘a specific programme in the field of energy to
reduce the costs due to remoteness, infrastructure and provision of services, in order to promote the ambitious
policies the ORs have committed to on the development of renewable energy’.

In its communication ‘The outermost regions of the European Union: towards a partnership for smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth’, of 20 June 2012, the Commission stated that it ‘will examine with the OR and their Member
States how funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency under the cohesion policy funds can best be deployed
to meet the specific needs’ of these regions.

1. What timescale has the Commission established for this examination of funding for renewable energy in the
outermost regions of the EU within the context of cohesion policy?

2. Does the Commission intend, as part of the trilogue to negotiate the rules governing structural and cohesion
funds, to put forward a specific amending proposal to adapt the funding of renewable energy and energy efficiency in
the outermost regions to meet their specific needs?

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

_(14 August 2012)_

1. The timescale for renewable energy funding is similar to the overall timescale for funding within the context of
the future cohesion policy. The adoption of the regulations depends on the finalisation of the trilogues and is
expected for 2013. Nevertheless, Member States and regions, including the outermost regions (OR), have already
started to work on the preparation of future programmes, to allow for informal consultations between Member States
and the Commission to start as soon as possible.

2. The thematic objectives derived from the Europe 2020 strategy include the objective of supporting the shift
towards a low-carbon economy. The proposed European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) regulation foresees
that a minimum share of funding in each category of region has to be dedicated to this objective. For the ERDF and
the Cohesion Fund, investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency are explicitly foreseen as investment
priorities under this objective. Operational programmes should set specific objectives corresponding to development
needs for each selected investment priority. Following suggestions made by the Parliament in the field of energy, the
Commission will examine in the context of the negotiation of the programmes with the OR how cohesion policy
funds can best be deployed to meet the specific needs of these regions. The Commission therefore does not see the
need for a specific amending proposal.

C 219 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007034/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Carmen Romero López (S&D)**

_(13 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Justicia gratuita

En el plan de trabajo para reforzar los derechos procesales de los sospechosos o acusados en los procesos penales
adoptado por el Consejo de Ministros de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior el 30 de noviembre de 2009, se pedía la
adopción, con arreglo a un planteamiento gradual, de una serie de medidas relativas a los derechos procesales más
básicos, y se solicitaba a la Comisión que presentase las propuestas necesarias con este fin.

Hasta la fecha, la Comisión y/o el Consejo han presentado las medidas relativas al derecho a traducción e
interpretación (medida A), información sobre los derechos e información sobre los cargos (medida B), asesoramiento
jurídico y comunicación con los familiares, el empleador y las autoridades consulares (medidas C y D).

La medida C, relativa a la asistencia letrada, debía contemplar también la cuestión de la justicia gratuita como garantía
del ejercicio efectivo de dicho derecho. La Comisión decidió, sin embargo, no tratar la justicia gratuita en esta medida,
lo que deja el derecho de asesoramiento jurídico desprovisto de eficacia en determinadas situaciones.

¿Qué medidas va a adoptar la Comisión para subsanar esta falta?

¿Con qué calendario?

Habida cuenta de que la asistencia letrada ha sido objeto de una directiva, ¿piensa la Comisión utilizar este mismo
instrumento para la justicia gratuita?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(24 de agosto de 2012)_

La Comisión está de acuerdo en que la justicia gratuita constituye un elemento esencial de un sistema judicial que
funcione, y es reconocida como un derecho fundamental en el artículo 47 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales y
en el artículo 6 del CEDH. Es necesario garantizar que todo el mundo tiene derecho a un proceso justo con
independencia de su situación financiera.

La propuesta de Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo relativa al derecho de asistencia de un abogado en los
procesos penales y el derecho de comunicación en el momento de la detención siempre se ha entendido como
referida al derecho de acceso a un abogado. Era necesario abordar el derecho de acceso a un abogado sin retraso con el
fin de evitar una aplicación divergente por los Estados miembros a raíz de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de
Derechos Humanos tras la sentencia en el asunto Salduz. Era conveniente, pues, un enfoque común y más claro.

Dada la naturaleza técnica y compleja de la justicia gratuita, y, más específicamente, las diferencias importantes entre
los sistemas de los Estados miembros, así como las posibles repercusiones de las medidas, se decidió examinar y
evaluar este tema por separado.

La Comisión se propone presentar una propuesta de instrumento jurídico sobre justicia gratuita en el curso de 2013,
como así lo estableció la Comisión en una declaración para el acta del Consejo de 8 de junio de 2012. Se está llevando
a cabo un trabajo preparatorio y una evaluación del impacto de este proyecto.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 255

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007034/12**

**to the Commission**
**Carmen Romero López (S&D)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Legal aid

The Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, adopted
by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 30 November 2009, called for the adoption of measures
covering the most basic procedural rights, based on a ‘step-by-step’ approach, and urged the Commission to present
proposals to this end.

To date, the Commission and/or Council have proposed measures regarding the right to translation and
interpretation (measure A), the right to information on rights and information about the charges (measure B) and the
right to legal advice and to communicate with relatives, employers and consular authorities (measures C and D).

Measure C, concerning the right to professional legal assistance should also include legal aid, since it ensures effective
access to the aforementioned right to legal advice. The Commission, however, has decided to exclude legal aid from
the scope of this measure, which means that, in certain circumstances, the right to legal advice is not of a great deal of

use.

What measures will the Commission take to rectify this state of affairs?

What is the timeline for implementing these measures?

Given that a draft directive has been proposed on the right of access to a lawyer, is the Commission considering using
this directive as a basis for the provision of legal aid?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The Commission agrees that legal aid is an essential element of a functioning justice system, and it is recognised as a
fundamental right in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 6 ECHR. It is necessary to ensure
that everyone enjoys fair proceedings, irrespective of their financial situation.

The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of access to a lawyer in
criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest was always intended to address specifically the
right of access to a lawyer. There was a need to address the right of access to a lawyer without delay, due to avoid a
diverging implementation by the Member States of the ECtHR jurisprudence following the Salduz ruling. A common
and clearer approach was therefore appropriate.

Given the more technical and complex nature of legal aid, and specifically the important differences between the
systems of Member States as well as the potential impacts of a measure, it was decided to consider and assess this
topic separately.

The Commission intends to present a proposal for a legal instrument regarding legal aid in the course of 2013, as
stated by the Commission in a declaration for the minutes of the Council of 8 June 2012. Preparatory work and an
impact assessment on this project are underway.

C 219 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007035/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Carmen Romero López (S&D)**

_(13 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Condiciones de detención

En el plan de trabajo para reforzar los derechos procesales de los sospechosos o acusados en los procesos penales
adoptado por el Consejo de Justicia el 30 de noviembre de 2009, se pedía la adopción, con arreglo a un planteamiento
gradual, de una serie de medidas relativas a los derechos procesales más básicos, y se solicitaba a la Comisión que
presentase las propuestas necesarias con este fin.

Dentro de este plan de trabajo, figuraba como medida F la publicación de un Libro Verde sobre la detención
provisional. La Comisión publicó el Libro Verde el 14 de junio de 2011. Con este Libro Verde, la Comisión lanzó una
consulta pública y solicitó a la sociedad civil información acerca del impacto que las diferencias en las legislaciones
nacionales sobre las condiciones de detención pueden tener en el reconocimiento mutuo y en la cooperación judicial
en esta materia.

¿Qué medidas va a adoptar la Comisión para dar respuesta a la consulta pública lanzada con la publicación de este
Libro Verde?

¿Con qué calendario?

**Respuesta de la señora Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(22 de agosto de 2012)_

La Comisión está muy interesada en este asunto, dada la importancia fundamental del principio de reconocimiento
mutuo de las decisiones judiciales en el ámbito de la libertad, la seguridad y la justicia. Sin embargo, las cuestiones
relacionadas con las condiciones de detención, la detención provisional, las soluciones alternativas a la detención y la
rehabilitación y reintegración social de los antiguos reclusos son principalmente responsabilidades que incumben a
los Estados miembros.

En respuesta al Libro Verde publicado por la Comisión el 14 de junio de 2011, al que hace referencia Su Señoría, la
Comisión ha recibido más de 200 respuestas de los Estados miembros, las autoridades públicas y otras partes
interesadas. Tal como declaró la Comisión en el Parlamento Europeo el 14 de diciembre de 2011, esta está
analizando cuidadosamente las respuestas antes de decidir si sería posible llevar a cabo una acción específica a nivel
europeo en vista de los resultados del citado proceso de consulta. La Comisión no puede comprometerse tan pronto.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 257

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007035/12**

**to the Commission**
**Carmen Romero López (S&D)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Conditions of detention

The ‘Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings’, endorsed
by the Justice Council on 30 November 2009, provided for a series of measures concerning fundamental procedural
rights to be adopted in a step-by-step approach; and the Commission was called upon to submit the necessary
proposals.

Measure F of the Roadmap took the form of a Green Paper on pre-trial detention. The Commission published the
Green Paper on 14 June 2011, thus launching a public consultation, in which civil society was asked for information
serving to gauge the extent to which differences in national laws on conditions of detention can make themselves felt
in terms of mutual recognition and judicial cooperation.

What measures will the Commission take in response to the public consultation that began with the publication of
the Green Paper?

Within what time-frame does it intend to act?

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

_(22 August 2012)_

The Commission is indeed interested in this matter, given the central importance of the principle of mutual
recognition of judicial decisions for the field of freedom, security and justice. Issues related to detention conditions,
pre-trial detention, alternatives to detention and the rehabilitation or social reintegration of ex-prisoners are,
however, primarily responsibilities incumbent upon Member States.

In reply to the Green Paper published by the Commission on 14 June 2011 and to which the Honourable Member
refers, the Commission has received over 200 replies from Member States, public authorities and other stakeholders.
As the Commission stated at the European Parliament on 14 December 2011, it is carefully analysing the replies
before deciding whether any specific action at the European level might be considered in the light of the outcome of
this consultation process. The Commission cannot commit itself at this early stage.

C 219 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007037/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(13. juli 2012)_

_Om:_ Tvangstilslutning til antenneforeninger

Kommissionen har flere gange før i henhold til direktiv 2002/77/EF behandlet spørgsmålet om, at der i Danmark
eksisterer tvunget medlemskab af og betaling til lokale antenneforeninger.

I et svar af 30. januar 2011 (E‐010292/2010) opfordrede Kommissionen til, at Danmark hurtigt vedtager den
nødvendige lovgivning med henblik på at fjerne obligatorisk medlemskab af lokale antenneforeninger, så adgangen til
markedet eller indførelsen af bredbåndsnet (fiberbredbånd eller anden teknologi) ikke hindres.

Kommissionen tilkendegav i et svar af 10. januar 2012 (E‐011157/2011), at der kan indledes en formel
overtrædelsesprocedure, såfremt Danmark ikke gør fremskridt, eller hvis ændringerne viser sig at være
utilstrækkelige.

Senest har Kommissionen i et svar af 9. marts 2012 (P‐001688/2012) udtalt, at den er ved at analysere den seneste
udvikling, herunder timingen af lovgivningsprocessen og den overgangsperiode, som den vil indebære. Der henvises
til et forslag, som den danske miljøminister godkendte den 16. januar 2012, hvor der lægges op til at fastholde
muligheden for tvunget medlemskab af og betaling til lokale antenneforeninger frem til 1. januar 2016 — uden
mulighed for førtidig udtrædelse. Et lovforslag forventes fremsat i oktober 2012, dvs. inden for få måneder.

— Vil Kommissionen give en status over den iværksatte analyse af den seneste udvikling, herunder, om muligt, give
en foreløbig vurdering af, om den foreslåede overgangsperiode for ophævelse af antennetvang findes at være forenelig
med EU‐lovgivningen?

— Agter Kommissionen, hvis den vurderer, at den foreslåede overgangsperiode for ophævelse af antennetvang ikke er
forenelig med EU‐lovgivningen, at indlede dialog med den danske regering for at sikre, at det planlagte lovforslag
bringes i fuld overensstemmelse med EU‐lovgivningen?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Joaquín Almunia**

_(30. august 2012)_

Som anført i tidligere svar ændrede Danmark den 14. april og 14. juli 2011 loven og ophævede derved pligten til
medlemskab af lokale kabel-TV-foreninger i nye boligbyggerier. Ændringen trådte i kraft 1. september 2011.

Siden da har Kommissionen bedt Danmark oplyse, hvordan man planlægger at håndtere boligbyggerier opført før
1. september 2011. Den 27. januar 2012 oplyste Danmark Kommissionen om et forslag om ændring af loven for at
håndtere dette spørgsmål. Forslaget, som har karakter af en ændring, forventes at blive forelagt Folketinget i oktober
2012 og træde i kraft i januar 2013. Efter en overgangsperiode på tre år bortfalder pligten til medlemskab ifølge
ændringen for de boligbyggerier, der stadig er underlagt den.

Det ærede medlem spørger Kommissionen, hvilket stadium analysen af den seneste udvikling har nået, og beder om
muligt Kommissionen om at give en foreløbig vurdering af, hvorvidt den foreslåede overgangsperiode for
ophævelsen af tvunget medlemskab er forenelig med EU‐lovgivningen.

Kommissionen overvåger fortsat situation og er i kontakt med de danske myndigheder. Hvad angår
overgangsperioden og det danske forslag generelt, vil Kommissionen være i stand til at give en vurdering, når de
danske myndigheder meddeler Kommissionens tjenestegrene ordlyden af det pågældende forslag. Kommissionen vil
tage yderligere skridt, hvis det skønnes nødvendigt.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 259

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007037/12**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Compulsory affiliation to local cable distribution networks

The Commission has on several occasions, with reference to Directive 2002/77/EC, addressed the existence in
Denmark of compulsory affiliation and payment to local cable distribution networks.

In its answer of 30 January 2011 to my Question E‐010292/2010, the Commission called for the speedy adoption of
the necessary legislation in Denmark to remove compulsory membership of local cable TV associations so that
market entry or the deployment of broadband networks (fibre and other new technologies) may not be hindered.

In its answer of 10 January 2012 to my Question E‐011157/2011, the Commission announced that a formal
infringement procedure may be initiated against Denmark should it fail to make progress, or the amendments prove
insufficient.

Most recently, in its answer of 9 March 2012 to my Question P‐001688/2012, the Commission stated that it is in the
process of analysing the most recent developments, including the timing of the legislative process and the transition
period that it would involve.

The Commission’s attention is drawn to a proposal approved by the Danish Environment Minister on
16 January 2012, under which compulsory affiliation and payment to local cable distribution networks would
continue to be allowed until 1 January 2016, with no possibility of early withdrawal. A draft law is expected to be
tabled within a few months, in October 2012.

— Can the Commission state what stage has been reached in the process of analysing the most recent developments,
and give if possible a provisional assessment of whether, in its opinion, the proposed transitional period for the
abolition of compulsory affiliation is compatible with EC law?

— If the Commission considers that the proposed transitional period for the abolition of compulsory affiliation is not
compatible with EC law, does it propose to launch a dialogue with the Danish Government to ensure that the planned
draft law is brought fully into line with EC law?

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

_(30 August 2012)_

As mentioned in previous replies on 14 April and 14 July 2011 Denmark removed the obligation of membership of
local cable TV associations in new housing developments. The amendment came into force on 1 September 2011.

Since then the Commission has asked Denmark how it plans to deal with housing developments built before
1 September 2011. On 27 January 2012, Denmark informed the Commission of a proposal to amend the law in
order to address this issue. The proposal, which takes the form of an amendment, is expected to be put before the
parliament in October 2012 and enter into force in January 2013. After a transition period of three years, this new
amendment would repeal the obligation for the housing developments that are still subject to it.

In this regard the Honourable Member asks the Commission what stage has been reached in the process of analysing
these developments, and to give if possible a provisional assessment of whether the proposed transitional period for
the abolition of compulsory affiliation is compatible with EC law.

The Commission continues to monitor the situation and is in contact with the Danish authorities. As to the
transitional period, and more generally concerning the Danish proposal on the way forward, the Commission will be
in a position to give an assessment once the Danish authorities communicate to the Commission services the text of
the amendment in question. The Commission will take further action if that is deemed necessary.

C 219 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007038/12**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Bearder (ALDE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Directive 2006/126/EC and exemptions for Ministry of Defence driving examiners

Annex IV of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and Council states that ‘competences required by a
driving examiner’ include the general condition that examiners ‘may not be active as a commercial driving instructor
in a driving school simultaneously’.

I have been contacted by a UK driving examiner who works for the Crown (i.e. the Ministry of Defence, the police and
the fire brigade) and explains that although Crown examiners have previously been exempt from the rule that civilian
driving examiners are not allowed to run driving schools, it now looks as if they may be included under the
2006/126/EC rules that will come into effect in January 2013.

However, Part 5 of Annex IV states that ‘Member States may allow persons authorised to conduct driving tests
immediately before these provisions come into force to continue to conduct driving tests, notwithstanding that they
were not authorised in accordance with the general conditions in point 2 or the initial qualification process set out in
point 3’. This could allow persons who previously ran driving schools while being Crown driving examiners to
continue to do so.

In light of this, can an exemption allowing Ministry of Defence Driving Examiners to continue to run commercial
driving schools be confirmed or included?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

Part 5 of Annex IV of Directive 2006/126/EC indeed allows that driving examiners, who are currently already
working simultaneously as a commercial driving instructor in a driving school, need not meet the minimum
standards of Annex IV when the directive becomes fully applicable on 19 January 2013. It stipulates therefore that
such examiners may be exempted by Member States from the application of point 2 (general conditions) and 3 (initial
qualification).

However, the Commission cannot asses the specific situation in the UK which the Honourable Member describes. In
fact, Annex IV only sets minimum standards and thus allows Member States to apply stricter national requirements
for such exemptions related for instance to potential conflicts of interest.

All such exemptions are decided in the first place by the Member State concerned.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 261

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-007039/12**

**til Kommissionen**
**Anna Rosbach (ECR)**

_(13. juli 2012)_

_Om:_ Import af ferskvandspilrokker til EU

Ferskvandspilrokker fra Potamotrygonidae‐familien importeres til mange medlemsstater. Der er flere forskellige
årsager til denne import, nogle importeres som fødevarer, andre anvendes i akvarier.

Mange bestande af ferskvandspilrokker er under stigende pres, bl.a. som følge af tab af levesteder.

Kommissionen anmodes i denne forbindelse om at besvare følgende spørgsmål:

1. Hvor mange ferskvandspilrokker (potamotrygonidae) importeres der årligt til EU? Vil Kommissionen venligst
oplyse tallene for den samlede import og import pr. importland og om muligt for hver enkel underart?

2. Hvordan har importen af ferskvandspilrokker til EU udviklet sig i løbet af de seneste ti år?

3. Hvilke konsekvenser mener Kommissionen, at importen af ferskvandspilrokker til EU har for bestandene af
potamotrygonidae i naturen?

4. I hvilket omfang mener Kommissionen, at ferskvandspilrokker importeres ulovligt tilEU?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Maria Damanaki**

_(4. oktober 2012)_

Kommissionen ligger ikke inde med tallene for import af ferskvandspilrokker for indeværende eller tidligere år. De
eneste data, der findes vedrørende akvariefisk, er de samlede oplysninger om saltvands‐ og ferskvandsarter.

Kommissionen er ikke bekendt med, at der foregår illegal import af ferskvandspilrokker til EU.

For øjeblikket findes der hverken internationalt eller på EU‐plan instrumenter, som gør det muligt for EU at vurdere,
hvorvidt importen af ferskvandspilrokker af _Potamotrygonidae‐familien_ til EU er bæredygtig eller ej. På den seneste
konference for parterne i CITES-konventionen i marts 2010 blev der dog truffet beslutning om at opfordre de berørte
stater til at forbedre indsamlingen af data, iværksætte eller styrke forvaltningen og handelsforanstaltningerne
vedrørende _Potamotrygonidae‐arterne_ samt at overveje at inkludere disse arter i CITES-konventionens liste III for at
forbedre overvågningen af handelen. EU følger gennemførelsen af denne beslutning på de kommende CITES-møder.

C 219 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007039/12**

**to the Commission**
**Anna Rosbach (ECR)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ EU imports of freshwater stingrays

Freshwater stingrays of the potamotrygonidae family are imported into many of the Member States. The reasons for
such imports vary: some are imported for food, while others are used in aquariums.

Many freshwater stingray populations are coming under increasing pressure, including from habitat loss.

In this connection, can the Commission please answer the following questions:

1. how many freshwater stingrays (potamotrygonidae) are imported annually into the EU? Can the Commission
please give figures for total imports and imports per importing country, and if possible for each sub-species?

2. how has the import of freshwater stingrays into the EU developed over the past 10 years?

3. to what extent does the Commission think that EU imports of freshwater stingrays affect potamotrygonidae
populations in the wild?

4. to what extent does the Commission think that freshwater stingrays are imported illegally into the EU?

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

_(4 October 2012)_

The Commission does not have import data for freshwater stingrays for current or previous years. The only data
available for ornamental fish is cumulative data for saltwater species and for freshwater species.

The Commission is not aware that freshwater stingrays are imported illegally into the EU.

There are currently no international or EU instruments which would allow the EU to assess the sustainability of
import into the EU of freshwater stingrays of the Potamotrygonidae family. A decision was however taken in 2010 at
the last Conference of the Parties of the CITES Convention calling on the range States concerned to improve data
collection, put in place or reinforce management and trade measures species for the Potamotrygonidae family and
consider their inclusion into CITES Appendix III in order to improve trade monitoring. The EU will follow the
implementation of this decision at the upcoming CITES meetings.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 263

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007040/12**

**aan de Commissie**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(13 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Nederland overspoeld met valse paspoorten (vervolgvraag)

Op 11 juli 2012 heeft commissaris Malmström namens de Commissie antwoord gegeven op schriftelijke vraag
E-005666/2012. Daarin schrijft zij onder andere: „De Commissie is niet geïnformeerd over het genoemde rapport
noch over een uitzonderlijke stijging van het aantal valse documenten dat in Nederland wordt ontdekt.”

1. De stijging van het aantal valse documenten dat in Nederland, en elders ( [1] ) in de EU, wordt ontdekt, is een feit.
Kan de Commissie verklaren hoe het mogelijk is dat zij hiervan (nog) niet op de hoogte is? Is de Commissie ertoe
bereid (alsnog) een onderzoek naar valse paspoorten in de EU in te stellen en de resultaten daarvan te verstrekken?
Zo neen, waarom niet? Vindt de Commissie het geen probleem dat er valse paspoorten in de EU in omloop zijn?

Voorts schrijft commissaris Malmström: „Volgens de risicoanalyse van Frontex, die was gebaseerd op uitgewisselde
gegevens van 21 lidstaten en geassocieerde Schengenlanden, was er een toename in het aantal valse documenten dat
werd ontdekt bij binnenkomst in de EU vanuit derde landen van 20 % (van 7 841 ontdekte documenten in
2010 tot 9 334 in 2011).”

2. Klaarblijkelijk erkent de Commissie dat er een toename van het aantal valse documenten bij binnenkomst in
de EU vanuit derde landen is. Vindt de Commissie het niet logisch te veronderstellen dat dergelijke valse documenten
zich (intussen) ook in Nederland bevinden? Kan de Commissie dit verklaren?

Voorts schrijft commissaris Malmström: „Het hogere aantal ontdekte valse documenten zou het gevolg kunnen zijn
van de veiligheidsmaatregelen die de EU heeft ingevoerd om de vervalsing van paspoorten te bemoeilijken en om
door middel van de invoering van biometrie een betrouwbare koppeling tot stand te brengen tussen het document en
de houder daarvan.”

3. Deelt de Commissie de mening dat het merkwaardig is dat het aantal (ontdekte) valse documenten toeneemt als
de ingevoerde veiligheidsmaatregelen de vervalsing van documenten juist dienen te bemoeilijken? Is de Commissie
van mening dat deze veiligheidsmaatregelen niet, of zelfs averechts, werken? Wat is de Commissie thans voornemens
(daaraan) te doen?

**Antwoord van mevrouw Malmström namens de Commissie**

_(25 september 2012)_

Wat betreft de vragen onder de punten 1 en 2 heeft de Commissie niets toe te voegen aan het antwoord op
vraag E-005666/2012 ( [2] ), die eerder werd gesteld door het geachte Parlementslid.

Met betrekking tot vraag 3 gaat de Commissie ervan uit dat het invoeren van krachtiger beveiligingsmaatregelen en
het tot stand brengen van een betrouwbaar verband tussen een document en de rechtmatige houder daarvan er over
het algemeen toe zullen leiden dat er meer valse documenten worden ontdekt: fraude komt sneller aan het licht
dankzij beveiligingskenmerken die het werk vereenvoudigen van degenen die verantwoordelijk zijn voor de controle
van de echtheid.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://euobserver.com/1016/116955.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 219 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007040/12**

**to the Commission**

**Auke Zijlstra (NI)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ The Netherlands inundated with false passports (follow-up question)

On 11 July 2012, Commissioner Malmström replied on behalf of the Commission to Written Question
E-005666/2012. She wrote, _inter alia_ : ‘The Commission has neither been informed of the report mentioned nor of an
unusual rise in the detection of false documents in the Netherlands.’

1. There is no question about the fact that the number of false documents detected in the Netherlands and
elsewhere ( [1] ) in the EU has risen. Can the Commission explain how it is possible that it is not yet aware of this? Will
the Commission (belatedly) investigate false passports in the EU and communicate its findings? If not, why not? Does
the Commission consider it a problem that false passports are in circulation in the EU?

Commissioner Malmström also wrote: ‘According to the Frontex risk analysis, based on data exchanged by
21 Member States and Schengen Associated Countries, there was a 20% increase in the detections of fraudulent
documents on entry into the EU from third countries (from 7 841 detections in 2010 to 9 334 detections in 2011).’

2. The Commission clearly acknowledges that there has been an increase in the number of fraudulent documents
being presented on entry into the EU from third countries. Does the Commission not consider it logical to assume
that such fraudulent documents are also by now to be found in the Netherlands? Can the Commission explain this?

Commissioner Malmström also wrote: ‘The higher number of false documents detected could be a result of the
security measures introduced by the EU to render the falsification of passports more difficult and to establish a
reliable link between the document and its holder through the introduction of biometrics.’

3. Does the Commission agree that it is strange that the number of fraudulent documents (detected) should
increase when the security measures which have been introduced were intended precisely to make it more difficult to
forge documents? Does not the Commission consider that these security measures are either not working or are even
having the opposite of the intended effect? What does the Commission now plan to do about this?

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

_(25 September 2012)_

For the questions grouped under points 1 and 2, the Commission has nothing to add to the answer given to
Honourable Member's previous Question E‐005666/2012 ( [2] ).

Regarding question 3, the Commission's view is that the introduction of stronger security measures and the
establishment of a reliable link between a document and its legitimate holder will generally result in the detection of
higher numbers of false documents: fraud is more easily discovered thanks to security features which assist those
responsible for checking the authenticity of documents.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://euobserver.com/1016/116955.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 265

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita P-007042/12**

**à Comissão**
**Regina Bastos (PPE)**

_(13 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Normas nacionais obrigatórias dentro do espaço europeu no que se refere à circulação automóvel

No início do mês de julho de 2012, entrou em vigor, em França, legislação que obriga os condutores a possuírem no
seu veículo testes de controlo de alcoolemia. Pela presente legislação, todo o turista que alugue um carro,
independentemente do país em que o fizer, ou que se desloque no seu próprio veículo em território francês, será
obrigado a transportar consigo um aparelho medidor do nível de álcool no sangue. A violação desta obrigação
implicará o pagamento de uma multa por parte do condutor em causa.

Tendo em conta que as questões relacionadas com a utilização de sinais, a prescrição relativa ao transporte a bordo de
lâmpadas sobressalentes, estojos de primeiros socorros, entre outras, não estão regulamentadas ao nível da UE,
solicitamos à Comissão Europeia os seguintes esclarecimentos:

1. Pode um Estado-Membro exigir que um veículo matriculado noutro Estado-Membro disponha de equipamento
não obrigatório no Estado-Membro em que se encontra matriculado?

2. Pode o Estado francês exigir que um carro matriculado noutro Estado-Membro da União Europeia disponha de
um aparelho medidor do nível de álcool no sangue e aplicar uma multa a esse condutor caso este não disponha
desse aparelho?

3. Em caso negativo, que medidas adotará a Comissão para que o Estado francês ponha fim a essa prática e que
medidas deverão tomar os condutores no sentido de não serem autuados, por não cumprimento de uma norma
à qual não estão obrigados?

**Resposta dada por Siim Kallas em nome da Comissão**

_(24 de agosto de 2012)_

A Comissão remete a Senhora Deputada para as respostas dadas às perguntas escritas E‐4284/2012, P-6627/2012 e
E-6721/2012 ( [1] ).

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

C 219 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-007042/12**

**to the Commission**
**Regina Bastos (PPE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Car traffic: mandatory national rules within the European area

Legislation requiring drivers to carry a breathalyser in their vehicle entered into force in France at the beginning of
July 2012. Under that legislation, tourists travelling in France in a hired car, no matter where they might have rented
it, or in their own vehicle have to take a breathalyser with them. The penalty for non-compliance is a fine.

The use of signs and the requirement to carry spare lamp bulbs or first-aid kits, to name just some examples, are not
regulated at EU level. That being the case:

1. Can a Member State require given equipment to be carried in a vehicle registered in another Member State
when that equipment is not compulsory in the country of registration?

2. Is France allowed to insist that breathalysers be carried in vehicles registered in other Member States and to fine
drivers who do not have them?

3. If the answer is no, what steps will the Commission take to make France end the above practice, and what
should drivers do to escape a fine for breaking a rule that they do not have to observe?

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

_(24 August 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written Questions E‐4284/2012,
E-6627/2012 and E‐6721/2012 ( [1] ).

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 267

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande P-007043/12**

**till kommissionen**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)**

_(13 juli 2012)_

_Angående:_ Mjölkkors välbefinnande

Av de svar som kommissionen nyligen gett framgår det tydligt att kommissionen inte vill lägga fram förslag till
artspecifik lagstiftning om mjölkkors välbefinnande. Kommissionen hänvisar till det skydd av mjölkkor som ges
enligt direktiv 98/58/EG, som innehåller allmänna bestämmelser om sådant skydd.

— Har kommissionen genomfört en analys av hur pass effektivt direktiv 98/58/EG är när det gäller att skydda
mjölkkor från de centrala djurhälsoproblem som Europeiska myndigheten för livsmedelssäkerhet fastställde 2009?

— Anser kommissionen att man behöver utarbeta en strategi för att vända den ökande industrialiseringen av EU:s
mjölkproducerande gårdar, särskilt den mycket höga mjölkproduktionen och stallutfodringen på sommaren?

— Kommissionen hänvisar till möjligheten att lägga fram ny allmän lagstiftning om djurs välbefinnande. Hur tror
kommissionen att detta kommer att lösa de artspecifika djurhälsoproblemen inom EU:s mejerisektor?

**Svar från John Dalli på kommissionens vägnar**

_(6 augusti 2012)_

Kommissionen har inte gjort någon heltäckande analys av hur effektivt direktiv 98/58/EG ( [1] ) har varit för att skydda
mjölkkor från de centrala djurskyddsproblem (t.ex. avel för hög mjölkproduktion) som Europeiska myndigheten för
livsmedelssäkerhet (Efsa) nämnt i sitt vetenskapliga yttrande om jordbrukssystemens allmänna effekter för mjölkkors
välbefinnande och hälsotillstånd ( [2] ). Kommissionen planerar dock att närmare granska hur de allmänna
djurskyddskraven i direktiv 98/58/EG och Europarådets rekommendation om nötkreatur ( [3] ) tillämpas i
medlemsstaterna.

Europeiska myndigheten för livsmedelssäkerhet antog i december 2011 ett vetenskapligt yttrande om användning av
djurbaserade åtgärder för bedömning av mjölkkors välbefinnande ( [4] ).

Kommissionen har antagit en EU-strategi för djurskydd och djurs välbefinnande 2012‐2015 ( [5] ), där man nämner
möjligheten att föreslå en allmän rättslig ram för djurskydd. Detta nya upplägg är särskilt tänkt att inriktas på bättre
utbildning för jordbrukare i djurskydd och användning av djurbaserade verktyg för att kartlägga och förbättra
djurskyddet på deras gårdar, vilket också omfattar gårdar med mjölkkor. Hänsyn måste också tas till det praktiska
genomförandet av sådana åtgärder.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EGT L 221, 8.8.1998, s. 23.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1143.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://wayback.archive-it.org/1365/20090215072811/http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_co-operation/biological_safety

%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20cattle%20E.asp.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2554.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_sv.pdf

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

C 219 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-007043/12**

**to the Commission**
**Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Welfare of dairy cows

Recent answers from the Commission make it clear that it does not wish to propose species-specific legislation on the
welfare of dairy cows. The Commission has referred to the protection given to dairy cows by Directive 98/58/EC,
which contains general provisions on such protection.

— Has the Commission carried out an analysis of the effectiveness of Directive 98/58/EC in protecting dairy cows
from the key welfare problems identified by the European Food Safety Authority in 2009?

— Does the Commission recognise the need to develop a strategy to reverse the increasing industrialisation — in
particular the very high milk yields and zero grazing — of EU dairy farming?

— The Commission has referred to the possibility of proposing a new general legislative framework on animal
welfare. In what way does it believe that this will address the species-specific welfare problems of the EU dairy sector?

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

_(6 August 2012)_

The Commission has not carried out a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of Directive 98/58/EC ( [1] ) in
protecting dairy cows from the key welfare problems identified (e.g. genetic selection for high milk yields) by the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in its scientific opinion on the overall effects of farming systems on dairy cow
welfare and disease ( [2] ). However, the Commission plans to look how the general welfare requirements of
Directive 98/58/EC and those of the recommendation of the Council of Europe concerning cattle ( [3] ), are applied
within Member States.

EFSA on the issue of the welfare of dairy cows adopted in December 2011 a scientific opinion on the use of animalbased measures to assess the welfare of dairy cows ( [4] ).

The Commission has adopted an EU strategy for protection and welfare of animals 2012-2015 ( [5] ) which envisages
the possibility of proposing a general legislative framework on animal welfare (‘animal welfare law’). This new
approach would aim in particular at improving education of farmers on animal welfare and at using tools such as
animal-based measures to identify and improve the welfare situation in their farms, including dairy farms. The
practicalities of the implementation of such measures also need to be taken into account.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1143.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://wayback.archive-it.org/1365/20090215072811/http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/legal_cooperation/biological_safety

%2C_use_of_animals/farming/Rec%20cattle%20E.asp.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2554.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_en.pdf

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

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 269

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-007044/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Gianluca Susta (S&D)**

_(13 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Indiscrezioni sul possibile stop da parte del governo francese alla Torino-Lione

Avendo appreso le dichiarazioni del Ministro del bilancio francese, Cahuzac, riportate dal quotidiano francese «Le
Figaro» in data 12 luglio 2012, subito riprese da numerosi organi di stampa italiana e le relative ulteriori indiscrezioni
su un possibile ripensamento da parte del governo francese quanto ad alcuni progetti di linee ad alta velocità, tra cui
figurerebbe anche la tratta Torino— Lione,

può la Commissione esecutiva far sapere:

—
se le dichiarazioni del Ministro francese e le successive indiscrezioni corrispondano al vero;

—
se la Commissione abbia notizia di tali ripensamenti da parte del governo francese;

—
cosa intende essa fare per assicurare il rispetto degli impegni assunti e il proseguimento della realizzazione di
un progetto prioritario per l'UE?

**Risposta di Siim Kallas a nome della Commissione**

_(10 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza della recente decisione del governo francese di rivedere il proprio portafoglio dei
progetti infrastrutturali nel quadro di restrizioni di bilancio. Il progetto di un nuovo collegamento ferroviario TorinoLione rientra in questo contesto, alla stessa stregua degli altri progetti attualmente presenti nel portafoglio.

La decisione finale di portare avanti la realizzazione del progetto spetta ai due Stati membri interessati. La
Commissione, da parte sua, collaborerà con la Francia e con l’Italia per garantire che il sostegno dell'UE a questo
importante progetto transfrontaliero contribuisca a proseguirne la realizzazione.

Negli ultimi anni il progetto ha conseguito buoni progressi. Il 30 gennaio 2012 la Francia e l’Italia hanno firmato un
nuovo accordo bilaterale, impegnandosi a realizzare il progetto. Sul territorio francese è già stata realizzata buona
parte dei cunicoli esplorativi, mentre l’Italia ha iniziato più recentemente questi lavori sul suo territorio. Trattandosi di
uno dei collegamenti del progetto prioritario n. 6 degli attuali orientamenti per la rete transeuropea dei trasporti, per
il periodo 2007-2013 sono stati stanziati finanziamenti UE per 671 milioni di euro. Alla luce dei recenti progressi e
dell'accordo bilaterale, la Commissione assicurerà l’ottimizzazione del sostegno dell'UE a questo importante progetto
transfrontaliero, al fine di portarne avanti la realizzazione.

C 219 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-007044/12**

**to the Commission**
**Gianluca Susta (S&D)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Rumours about the possible halting by the French Government of the Turin-Lyon high speed railway project

On 12 July 2012 the French newspaper _Le Figaro_ reported statements by the French Budget Minister, Mr Cahuzac —
immediately taken up by various Italian newspapers — to the effect that the French Government might reconsider
some of its high-speed railway projects, including the Turin-Lyon line; there have also been further rumours along the
same lines.

Can the Commission say:

—
whether the statements by the French Minister and subsequent rumours are true;

—
whether it has been informed of any such second thoughts on the part of the French Government;

—
what it will do to ensure that the commitments are met and that a priority project for the EU will be completed?

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

_(10 August 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the new French Government's decision to look at reviewing its infrastructure project
portfolio in the context of budgetary constraints. The project of a new railway link Lyon-Torino is part of that
exercise, just as the other projects in the current portfolio.

While the ultimate decision to go ahead with the project lies with the two Member States, the Commission will be
working with France and Italy to ensure that the EU support for this key cross border project will be helpful to move
ahead with its implementation.

This railway project has been making good progress in the recent years. On 30 January 2012, France and Italy signed
a new bilateral agreement, thereby committing themselves to realise the project. The exploratory tunnels have been
realised to a great extent on the French territory, whereas Italy has started more recently such works on its territory.
Being part of Priority Project 6 of the current guidelines for the trans-European network for transport,
EUR 671 million of EU funding have been allocated for the period 2007-2013. In view of the recent progress and the
bilateral agreement, the Commission will ensure that the EU support for this key cross border project is optimised to
move ahead with its implementation.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 271

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-007045/12**

**a la Comisión**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(13 de julio de 2012)_

_Asunto:_ Delegación comercial europea a Colombia

Los pasados 16 y 17 de junio, el Comisario Antonio Tajani realizó una visita comercial a Colombia. Este país ofrece
en estos momentos oportunidades para las PYME y para el sector industrial. En la referida delegación participaron
representantes de distintas empresas del ámbito europeo.

1. ¿Qué objetivos tenía la visita y cuáles han sido los resultados de la misma?

2. ¿Qué sectores industriales estaban representados en la delegación oficial y a qué países correspondían?

3. ¿Cómo se realizó la selección de las empresas que integraron esta delegación comercial?

4. ¿Contaron las empresas participantes con algún tipo de ayuda para sufragar el viaje?

5. ¿Tiene previsto realizar otras misiones comerciales en los próximos meses a otros países de la misma región?

6. Si la respuesta es afirmativa, ¿de qué manera procederán a la selección de las empresas que conformarán las
futuras delegaciones comerciales?

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

_(31 de agosto de 2012)_

1. La visita a Colombia ha sido una de las «misiones para el crecimiento» programadas por el Vicepresidente Tajani
en 2012 tras el éxito de sus visitas a otros países de América Latina en 2011.

Estos eran los objetivos:

—
apoyar a las empresas europeas, incluidas las PYME, a la hora de embarcarse en actividades de
internacionalización en los mercados colombianos;

—
reforzar la cooperación industrial en ámbitos tales como las PYME, la innovación industrial, el acceso a las
materias primas y el turismo.

La visita consistió en reuniones políticas de alto nivel, en contactos entre empresas y en actos destinados a la
búsqueda de socios.

2. La delegación estaba compuesta por doce empresas, una asociación industrial y una asociación empresarial
europeas. Aunque muchas de las empresas participantes están presentes tanto a nivel nacional como europeo, los
altos dirigentes y demás representantes de la industria procedían de cinco Estados miembros (Francia, Italia, Portugal,
Eslovenia y España).

Los sectores industriales representados eran los de los productos farmacéuticos, la electricidad, las energías
renovables, el aeroespacial, la defensa, la seguridad, el transporte, la ingeniería civi,l las tecnologías de la información,
la construcción, la sanidad, los productos de lujo, los cosméticos y los productos financieros.

3. Se enviaron invitaciones a través de Business Europe, las Eurocámaras, la Ueapme ( [1] ), las federaciones de los
sectores industriales europeos pertinentes y la red Enterprise Europe.

4. Las empresas corrieron con sus gastos de viaje y de alojamiento.

5. Las próximas misiones serán a Túnez y Marruecos en noviembre de 2012, y a China, India, Vietnam y Rusia
en 2013.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Asociación Europea del Artesanado y de la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa.

C 219 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

6. La selección de las empresas se realizará también por medio de invitaciones a Business Europe, las Eurocámaras,
la Ueapme, las federaciones de los sectores industriales europeos pertinentes y la red Enterprise Europe.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 273

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007045/12**

**to the Commission**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ European trade delegation to Colombia

From 16 to 17 June 2012, Commissioner Tajani made a commercial visit to Colombia. This country currently offers
opportunities to small and medium-scale enterprises (SMEs) and the industrial sector. The delegation included
representatives of a number of different companies from around Europe.

1. What were the aims of the visit and what were its results?

2. Which industrial sectors were represented in the official delegation and from which countries?

3. How were the companies included in this trade delegation selected?

4. Did the participating firms receive any type of assistance to cover their travelling expenses?

5. Are any other trade missions planned over the coming months to other countries in the region?

6. If so, how will firms be selected for inclusion in future trade delegations?

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

_(31 August 2012)_

1. The mission to Colombia was one of the ‘Missions for Growth’ scheduled by Vice-President Tajani in 2012
following his successful missions to other Latin American countries in 2011.

The following objectives were pursued:

—
support European companies, including SMEs, in engaging in internationalisation activities to the Colombian
markets;

—
reinforce industrial cooperation in areas such as SMEs, industrial innovation, access to raw materials and
tourism.

The visit focused on high-level political meetings, business-to-business contacts and match-making events.

2. The delegation was composed of 12 European companies, 1 European industrial association and 1 European
business association. While many of the participating companies are active both at national and European level, the
CEO and industry representatives came from 5 Member States (France, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain).

Industrial sectors were pharmaceuticals, power, renewable energy, aerospace, defence, security, transport, civil
engineering, IT, construction, healthcare, luxury, cosmetics and financial products.

3. Invitations were sent via Business Europe, Eurochambres and UEAPME ( [1] ), the relevant European sectoral
industrial federations and the Enterprise Europe network.

4. Companies covered their travelling and accommodation expenses.

5. Next missions: Tunisia and Morocco in November 2012; China, India, Vietnam, and Russia in 2013.

6. Selection of companies will be done via invitations to Business Europe, Eurochambres and UEAPME, the
relevant European sectoral industrial federations and the Enterprise Europe Network.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) The European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.

C 219 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007046/12**

**to the Commission**

**Vicky Ford (ECR)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Competition issues in relation to petrol and diesel prices

Decreases in international oil prices are not always being reflected in the prices of petrol and diesel in some Member
States. In some cases, oil price decreases have taken weeks to be passed on to consumers buying petrol or diesel.

In the UK, national MPs are calling for an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading into whether oil companies have
acted in an anti-competitive manner with regard to the time taken for decreases in the price of oil to be reflected in the
prices of petrol and diesel. In Germany, the Federal Cartel Office investigated five petrol companies in April 2012
concerning their pricing practices when selling to independent petrol stations.

— Given that this problem appears to be affecting more than one Member State, what steps is the Commission taking
to investigate oil companies at a European level to ensure that anti-competitive behaviour is not permitted with
regard to pricing of petrol and diesel?

— Is the Commission investigating the need for action at an EU level to combat this problem?

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

_(22 August 2012)_

In its competition enforcement efforts, the Commission regularly monitors competition on the European oil and
refined oil product markets, in particular by scrutinising merger notifications and examining antitrust complaints. If
the Commission were to discover or obtain _prima facie_ evidence of a price cartel or other forms of anticompetitive
behaviour in the oil sector affecting the European markets, it would not hesitate to take action. So far, no such
evidence has been seen by the relevant services of the Commission. Prevailing price levels and their evolution cannot,
_per se_, be considered as sufficient indicators of anticompetitive practices.

The recent increases in oil prices have led to some complaints by citizens and consumer associations, and several
National Competition Authorities (NCAs) have carried out inquiries in the oil sector, notably in the UK and Germany,
but also in Austria, Lithuania, Spain and Portugal. The NCA inquiries mainly focused on alleged price fixing practices
at retail level; the German and Portuguese investigations, for instance, concluded that no evidence of price fixing
could be found.

At European level, the Commission will continue to follow closely market evolutions in the oil sector, and to apply
antitrust and merger instruments where relevant.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 275

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-007047/12**

**aan de Commissie**
**Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE)**

_(13 juli 2012)_

_Betreft:_ Afvalverwerkingsinstallatie in de buurt van Rijeka in Kroatië

De oude afvalverwerkingsinstallatie in Viševac in de buurt van Rijeka in Kroatië wordt gesloten, terwijl de nieuwe
installatie in Mariščina — waar het afval nu naartoe wordt gebracht — klaarblijkelijk niet over de noodzakelijke
vergunningen beschikt. Deze nieuwe afvalverwerkingsinstallatie, met een capaciteit van 450 000 m [3] (die het afval van
306 000 mensen verwerkt) is gedeeltelijk gefinancierd met middelen van de EU (ongeveer 30 miljoen EUR).

Het afval is bezig te ontbinden, hetgeen een enorme invloed op de kwaliteit van leven heeft. De stank verpest de lucht
en toxinen verontreinigen de waterbronnen.

1. Is de Commissie op de hoogte van deze situatie en van de problemen met de regionale
afvalverwerkingsinstallatie?

2. Heeft de Commissie weet van onregelmatigheden bij de besteding van de financiering voor dit project en, zo ja,
gaat zij daarnaar een onderzoek instellen? Zullen er, indien onregelmatigheden worden ontdekt, op zo kort
mogelijke termijn maatregelen worden genomen?

3. Weet de Commissie of alle door de EU ter beschikking gestelde financiering is gebruikt en of de installatie is
voltooid? Kan de Commissie ons het budget en de rekeningen van het project meedelen?

4. Normaal leven is onmogelijk binnen een straal met een radius van zes kilometer rond de
afvalverwerkingsinstallatie. Wat kan en gaat de EU aan deze situatie doen?

**Antwoord van de heer Hahn namens de Commissie**

_(31 augustus 2012)_

1. De Commissie is ervan op de hoogte dat de oude stortplaats in Viševac geen capaciteit meer heeft om nog afval
aan te nemen en dat het afval van Rijeka sinds juli 2012 wordt opgeslagen in een tijdelijke opslagfaciliteit die onlangs
in Mariščina is gebouwd. De bouw van deze tijdelijke opslagfaciliteit is gefinancierd door de Kroatische overheid. Alle
vergunningen voor de opslag van afval in deze tijdelijke faciliteit zijn afgeleverd.

De EU verstrekt medefinanciering voor de bouw van een permanente afval‐verwerkings‐installatie in Mariščina en is
niet betrokken bij het bovengenoemde tijdelijke project, dat bedoeld is om de twee jaar durende overgangsperiode
(juli 2012‐ juli 2014) tussen de sluiting van Viševac en de opening van de door de EU medegefinancierde nieuwe
installatie in Mariščina te overbruggen.

2. De Commissie heeft geen weet van onregelmatigheden. Indien onregelmatigheden worden ontdekt, zullen deze
volgens de vastgestelde procedures worden onderzocht.

3. De Commissie steunt de bouw van een provinciale afvalverwerkingsinstallatie in Mariščina met een bedrag van
8 604 900 EUR uit het instrument voor pretoetredingssteun. Met de bouw wordt naar verwachting begin 2013
gestart en de oplevering is gepland in de tweede helft van 2014. De aannemingssom van het project bedraagt
29 855 171,69 EUR. Tot dusver is aan de aannemer een voorschot van 4 094 346 EUR betaald.

4. De stortplaats in Viševac wordt op dit ogenblik gesaneerd om de tijdelijke slechte leefomstandigheden in de
omgeving te verbeteren; dit wordt gefinancierd met Kroatische overheidsmiddelen.

De volledige sanering van de stortplaats van Viševac zal naar verwachting in 2016 afgerond zijn. Hiermee wordt
begonnen zodra de nieuwe stortplaats in Mariščina gebouwd en volledig operationeel is, aangezien het teveel aan
afval van Viševac moet worden overgebracht naar de faciliteit in Mariščina, waar het zal worden verwerkt en naar
behoren zal worden gestort.

C 219 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007047/12**

**to the Commission**
**Frieda Brepoels (Verts/ALE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Refuse disposal facility in the Rijeka region of Croatia

The old refuse disposal facility at Viševac in the Rijeka region of Croatia is closing down, while the new one at
Mariščina — where the refuse is now being taken — apparently does not have the necessary permits. This new
regional refuse disposal site, with a capacity of 450 000 m [3] (serving a population of 306 000) is partly financed (to
the tune of approximately EUR 30 million) from EU funds.

The refuse is dissolving and having a huge impact on quality of life. The smell is contaminating the air and toxins are
polluting water wells.

1. Is the Commission aware of the above situation and the problems with the regional refuse disposal site?

2. Does the Commission have any information on funding for this project being spent irregularly, and, if so, will it
investigate these irregularities? If any irregularities are discovered, will urgent measures be taken?

3. Does the Commission have any information on whether all the EU funding has been used and whether the
facility has been completed? Can it disclose the budget and accounts for the project? If not, why not?

4. Normal life is impossible within a six-kilometre radius of the disposal facility. What can and will the EU do to
remedy this situation?

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

_(31 August 2012)_

1. The Commission is aware that the old Viševac landfill has no more capacity to accept waste and as of July 2012
the waste from Rijeka is deposited in a temporary storage facility built recently in Mariščina. The construction of this
temporary storing facility was financed by the Croatian authorities. All permits for storing waste at this temporary
facility have been obtained.

The EU is co-funding the construction of a permanent waste management centre in Mariščina and has not been
involved with the temporary project mentioned above, which is meant to tide over the two year period (July 2012‐
July 2014) between the closure of Viševac and opening of the EU co-funded new site at Mariščina.

2. The Commission is not aware of any irregularities. Should irregularities be discovered, they will be investigated
according to established procedures.

3. The Commission supports the construction of a County Waste Management Centre in Mariščina with
EUR 8 604 900 from the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. The construction is expected to start in early 2013
and finish in the second half of 2014. The contracted project amount is EUR 29 855 171.69. So far, an advance
payment of EUR 4 094 346 has been paid to the contractor.

4. The rehabilitation of Viševac, aimed at mitigating the temporary adverse living conditions of the surrounding
area, is ongoing and is funded by Croatian national resources.

The full scale rehabilitation of the Viševac landfill is scheduled to finish in 2016. It will start as soon as the new landfill
in Mariščina is constructed and is fully operational, as the excess waste from Viševac needs to be transferred to the
Mariščina site, processed and properly deposited.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 277

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-007048/12**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(13 luglio 2012)_

_Oggetto:_ Rischi dei social network sui minori

L'intensificarsi dell'utilizzo dei social network fa riflettere sulla loro influenza psicologica ed i rischi connessi
all'esperienza on-line da parte dei minori.

In particolare, si richiama l'attenzione della Commissione su Chatroulette, un sito web che in maniera del tutto
causale mette in contatto persone di tutto il mondo attraverso una chat on— line supportata anche da audio e video.
Il meccanismo su cui si basa è quello della roulette russa ovvero un incontro con una persona sconosciuta. In qualsiasi
momento l'utente può lasciare la chat corrente avviando un'altra connessione causale cliccando semplicemente sul
tasto NEXT della chat. Non occorre nessun tipo di registrazione, neanche la scelta del nick name, per cui possono
accedere al servizio anche i minorenni.

I pericoli di questa chat sono molti. In primo luogo all'utente non è dato sapere in nessuna maniera chi si troverà di
fronte, quindi potrebbe ritrovarsi all'improvviso qualcosa di non gradito come adescatori (soprattutto nel caso di
minori), scherzi di cattivo gusto, veri e propri casi di pornografia e l'impossibilità di tutelare la privacy dovuta al
pericolo di programmi come HyperCam, in grado di catturare immagini anche in movimento.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può la Commissione far sapere se considera di imporre un maggiore controllo o una
soglia di età restrittiva per i social network altamente pericolosi quali Chatroulette?

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(28 agosto 2012)_

La Commissione rimanda l’onorevole parlamentare all'interrogazione scritta E-006285/2012. È importante che la
responsabilizzazione e l'educazione si accompagnino alla protezione. Le misure proposte dalla Commissione
nell'ambito della coalizione per fare di internet un luogo migliore e più sicuro per i bambini offrono una
combinazione di approcci diversi che comprende la classificazione e la codifica dei contenuti nonché disponibilità e
utilizzo più adeguati degli strumenti di controllo genitoriale, al fine di fornire ai genitori mezzi di tutela trasparenti e
coerenti per aiutare i bambini a sfruttare al meglio il mondo in linea.

C 219 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007048/12**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Risks posed by social networks to children

The increasing use of social networks is raising questions as to their psychological impact and the risks related to the
online experiences of minors.

More specifically, the Commission should be made aware of _Chatroulette_, a website which connects people at random
from around the world through an online chat room including audio and video. It is based on Russian roulette, i.e. an
encounter with a stranger. At any time users can leave their current chat and start another casual connection simply
by clicking on the chat button NEXT. It is not necessary to register at all, or even to choose a screen name, which
means that even minors are able to access the service.

There are many dangers inherent in this kind of chat room. Firstly, users cannot know in any way who they are
chatting to, so they might suddenly find themselves faced with something unpleasant, such as predators (especially in
the case of children), jokes in bad taste, genuine pornography and the inability to protect privacy due to the dangers
of programmes such as HyperCam, which has a motion detection feature.

Does the Commission therefore not think it should impose greater control over highly dangerous chat rooms such as
_Chatroulette_, or a restrictive age limit?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐006285/2012. It is
important that empowerment and education go hand in hand with protection. The measures promoted by the
Commission through the Coalition to make a better and safer Internet for children provide for a combination of
different approaches including content classification and rating and better availability and use of parental control
tools, in order to provide parents with transparent and consistent protection tools so they can support their children
in making the most of the online world.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 279

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-007050/12**

**do Komisji**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(13 lipca 2012 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Działania chroniące przemysł kamieniarski w UE

Sygnały pochodzące od polskich producentów wyrobów budowlanych z kamieni naturalnych wskazują, że coraz
większym problemem dla tej gałęzi przemysłu jest import tanich materiałów kamiennych z Chin o niskich
parametrach fizykochemicznych.

Kryterium ceny, często przesądzające przy zamówieniach publicznych, sprawia, że wygrywający przetargi
sprowadzają wyroby z Chin pozbawiając możliwości produkcji rodzimych przedsiębiorców.

Jest to szczególnie odczuwalne przy dużej skali inwestycji infrastrukturalnych prowadzonych przez Polskę
w ostatnich latach, wspieranych w znacznej mierze ze środków unijnych.

W związku z tym pragnę zapytać:

1. Czy Komisja prowadzi bieżącą analizę konkurencyjności przemysłu kamieniarskiego w krajach członkowskich
UE, i czy potwierdza ona wspomniane powyżej zagrożenia?

2. Czy nie byłoby zasadnym wprowadzenie zasady ograniczającej wydatkowanie środków unijnych na zakupy
w krajach pozaunijnych tych wyrobów, które można wyprodukować w krajach członkowskich,
w szczególności w odniesieniu do branż zagrożonych dumpingiem cenowym?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Antonio Tajaniego w imieniu Komisji**

_(3 września 2012 r.)_

1. Wprowadzanie do obrotu wyrobów budowlanych w UE reguluje dyrektywa w sprawie wyrobów
budowlanych ( [1] ), którą stopniowo zastępuje przyjęte niedawno rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady
(UE) nr 305/2011.

Komisja jest w pełni świadoma zagrożeń, o których wspomina Pan Poseł. Dlatego też przed przyjęciem
wspomnianego rozporządzenia miały miejsce szeroko zakrojone konsultacje z zainteresowanymi stronami oraz
przeprowadzono pełną ocenę skutków, obejmującą wszystkie wyroby budowlane.

Aby nie dopuścić do używania do prac budowlanych wyrobów niskiej jakości, władze państw członkowskich oraz
projektant mogą – w uzasadnionych przypadkach i zgodnie z ogólnymi zasadami Traktatu UE – zażądać, by wyroby
używane do prac budowlanych spełniały określone kryteria.

Za kontrolę spełniania powyższych wymogów odpowiedzialne są organy nadzorujące rynek w państwach
członkowskich oraz inżynier nadzorujący prawidłowe wykonanie prac budowlanych.

2. Państwa członkowskie, które prowadząc inwestycje infrastrukturalne często są beneficjentami końcowymi
Europejskiego Funduszu Rozwoju Regionalnego i Europejskiego Funduszu Spójności, muszą upewnić się, że
przestrzegają unijnych zasad udzielania zamówień publicznych i przyjmują oferty najkorzystniejsze ekonomicznie
zgodnie z różnymi kryteriami związanymi z przedmiotem danego zamówienia publicznego, między innymi
z wymaganiami jakościowymi. Wspomniane zasady udzielania zamówień obowiązują w przypadku zamówień
powyżej pewnego progu, niezależnie od źródła finansowania i niezależnie od sektora, z którego podmiot chce
zakupić jakiekolwiek towary. Przy pomocy tych zasad Komisja wspiera konkurencyjność na poziomie europejskim,
a nawet globalnym.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 89/106/EWG.

C 219 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007050/12**

**to the Commission**
**Konrad Szymański (ECR)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Actions to protect the stonemasonry industry in the EU

Polish producers of building materials made using natural stone are drawing attention to the growing problem that
their industry is facing as a result of the importation from China of cheap stone materials with low physicochemical
properties.

The issue of price, which is often the determining factor in public procurement procedures, ensures that the winning
bids have to import material from China, thereby denying production opportunities to local enterprises.

This is particularly noticeable in the context of the large‐scale investments in infrastructure — supported to a large
extent by EU funds — that have been carried out in Poland in recent years.

In light of the above:

1. Is the Commission carrying out an up‐to‐date analysis of the competitiveness of the stonemasonry industry in
EU Member States, and does it acknowledge the aforementioned threats?

2. Would it not make sense to introduce a principle restricting the spending of EU funds to purchase goods from
non‐EU countries that can be produced in Member States, with particular reference to those sectors threatened
by price dumping?

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

_(3 September 2012)_

1. The marketing of construction products in the EU is regulated by the Construction Products Directive ( [1] ) which
is gradually replaced by the recently adopted Regulation (EU) 305/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council.

The Commission is fully aware of the risks mentioned by the Honourable Member. Therefore, before the adoption of
the said Regulation an extensive stakeholders' consultation took place and a full impact assessment study was made
covering all construction products.

In order to avoid having underperforming products in construction works, Member States authorities and the design
engineer may request, if this is justified and not contravening general principles of the EU Treaty, that products to be
used for a construction work should have a specific performance.

Control of compliance to the above requirements is in the hands of Member States' market surveillance authorities
and of the engineer supervising the correct execution of the construction works.

2. Member States, often the final beneficiaries of the European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds when
investing in infrastructure, have to make sure that they follow EU public procurement rules and choose the tender
most economically advantageous in line with the various criteria linked to the subject-matter of the public contract in
question, _inter alia_ the quality requirements. These procurement rules are relevant for all contracts above a certain
threshold, regardless of the funding source and regardless of the industry from which an entity wants to purchase any
goods. With these rules, the Commission stimulates competition on a European and even a global level.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 89/106/EEC.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 281

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007053/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(13 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Guiné-Bissau: resolução do Parlamento Europeu — consequências

O Parlamento Europeu aprovou, no passado dia 13 de junho, uma resolução que contou com o apoio de cinco dos
principais grupos políticos, da qual fui primeiro subscritor e da qual constavam, nomeadamente, os seguintes
parágrafos: «22. Apela ao Conselho a que proporcione aconselhamento e assistência em apoio à urgente reforma dos
setores da defesa e da segurança na Guiné-Bissau e a que pondere apoiar efetivamente o recurso a uma nova operação
de estabilização internacional no âmbito da PESD; 23. Incentiva a União Europeia, a ONU, a União Africana, a
CEDEAO e a CPLP a coordenarem em conjunto as diversas forças militares dos países vizinhos que já se encontram
no terreno, incluindo as de Angola, da Nigéria, do Senegal e do Burquina Faso; 24. Insta a União Europeia a que
solicite às autoridades dos países que enviaram forças militares e de segurança, todos eles parceiros ACP, a garantia de
que essas forças não serão utilizadas para apoiar a ordem ilegítima instaurada pelos autores do golpe nem as
autoproclamadas autoridades de transição, nem tão-pouco para cometer abusos dos Direitos Humanos contra o povo
da Guiné-Bissau; 25. Lamenta o termo da missão SSR na Guiné-Bissau em 2010; 26. Convida a VP/AR e o Conselho a
estudarem a possibilidade de enviar uma nova missão SSR à Guiné-Bissau, com um mandato reforçado para ajudar a
reforma dos setores da segurança e da defesa, promover o reforço das capacidades, a reforma da administração
pública e o apoio do Estado de direito, assim que as autoridades legítimas recuperem o pleno exercício da governação
na Guiné-Bissau e solicitem essa missão; 27. Exorta mais uma vez o Conselho e a VP/AR a ponderarem novas formas
de ajudar o legítimo governo da Guiné-Bissau a combater o tráfico de droga e a criminalidade organizada, evitando
que este país se transforme em mais um malogrado Estado de narcotráfico»;

Assim, pergunto à Vice-presidente/Alta Representante:

—
De que modo pretende ter em conta a resolução aprovada, em particular os parágrafos acima transcritos?

—
Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar no sentido de procurar pôr em prática os termos da resolução?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de agosto de 2012)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente apoia ativamente, em todas as instâncias internacionais, os esforços em curso
que visam o regresso à ordem constitucional na Guiné-Bissau. A resolução 2048/2012 do CSNU e a resolução do PE
de 13 de junho de 2012 constituem o quadro e os objetivos da ação diplomática em curso. É essencial promover um
consenso na comunidade internacional com o objetivo de estabelecer um roteiro inclusivo, com parâmetros e
calendário acordados, para o regresso à ordem constitucional, a execução da tão necessária reforma do setor da
segurança, o afastamento da tutela militar sobre o poder político, a luta contra a impunidade e o tráfico de drogas
ilegais.

C 219 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007053/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: consequences of European Parliament resolution

On 13 June 2012, Parliament adopted a resolution supported by five of the main political groups, of which I was the
first signatory and which notably included the following paragraphs: ‘22. Calls on the Council to provide advice and
assistance in support of the urgent defence and security sectors reform in Guinea-Bissau and to consider effectively
supporting the deployment of an international stabilisation operation within the framework of the CSDP; 23.
Encourages the EU, the UN, the AU, Ecowas and the CPLP to jointly coordinate the various military forces of
neighbouring countries that are already in place, including those of Angola, Nigeria, Senegal and Burkina Faso; 24.
Calls on the EU to request the authorities of those countries providing military and security forces — all ACP partners
— to ensure that they will not be used to support the illegitimate order sought by the authors of the coup and the selfstyled transitional authorities or to perpetrate abuses of human rights against the people of Guinea-Bissau; 25.
Regrets the termination of the SSR mission in Guinea-Bissau in 2010; 26. Invites the HR/VP and the Council to study
the possibility of sending a new SSR mission to Guinea-Bissau, with a strengthened mandate to help reform the
security and defence sectors, promote capacity-building, reform public administration and support the rule of law, as
soon as the legitimate authorities recover the full exercise of governance in Guinea-Bissau and request such a mission;
27. Urges once more the Council and the VP/HR to consider new ways to help the legitimate government of GuineaBissau to fight drug trafficking and organised crime, thereby preventing that country from becoming another failed
narco-state;’

— How does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to take this resolution into consideration, in particular
the above-quoted paragraphs?

— What steps has she taken or does she intend to take to put the content of this resolution into practice?

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

_(28 August 2012)_

The HR/VP actively supports in all international fora current efforts aiming at the return of constitutional order in
Guinea-Bissau. UNSC Resolution 2048/2012 and the Resolution by the EP of 13.6.2012 provide the framework and
the objectives of the current diplomatic action. It is essential to promote a consensus within the international
community with the objective of agreeing an inclusive roadmap, with agreed benchmark and calendar, for the return
to constitutional order, the implementation of the much needed security sector reform and removal of the military
grip on power, the fight against impunity and illegal drugs trafficking.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 283

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007054/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(13 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Proposta do Grupo Euro-nomics: European Safe Bonds (obrigações europeias seguras)

Em setembro de 2011, um grupo de economistas Europeus apresentou uma proposta de abordagem à crise na zona
Euro. Nesta proposta, o grupo propõe a criação de um novo título, que aglomera os vários títulos de dívida soberana
da zona Euro e não pressupõe garantias _joint and several._ Os autores da proposta sugerem que na eventualidade de a
proposta ser adotada, não são necessárias alterações aos Tratados.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Conhece esta proposta?

2. Se sim, qual a sua posição em relação à mesma?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(11 de setembro de 2012)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento da proposta das chamadas «obrigações europeias seguras», apresentada a 26 de
setembro de 2011 pelo _Grupo Euro-nomics_ . Tal como muitas outras, essa proposta contribuiu para o Livro Verde da
Comissão, de 26 de novembro de 2011, sobre a viabilidade da introdução de obrigações de estabilidade.

Conforme diz o Livro Verde, cada proposta ou categoria genérica de propostas tem o seu conjunto específico de
vantagens e desvantagens, em termos de contributo para a estabilidade e a eficiência do mercado e de viabilidade
política. O mesmo se aplica à proposta em questão, que constitui uma forma especial do que o Livro Verde designa
como Abordagem 3.

C 219 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007054/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Proposal by the euro-nomics group: European Safe Bonds

In September 2011 a group of European economists put forward a proposal for dealing with the Eurozone crisis. In
this proposal, the group proposed the creation of a new bond that would bring together the various sovereign debt
bonds in the Eurozone and would not involve joint and several liability guarantees. The authors of the proposal
suggested that no amendments to the Treaty would be necessary in the event of its being adopted.

1. Is the Commission aware of this proposal?

2. If so, what is its position on the proposal?

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

_(11 September 2012)_

The Commission is aware of the proposal of so-called ‘European Safe Bonds’, as presented on 26 September 2011 by
the so-called Euro-nomics group. This proposal, as many others has fed into the Commission's Green paper on the
feasibility of the introducing Stability Bonds of 26 November 2011.

As outlined in the Green Paper, each proposal, or broad categories of proposals, has its specific set of advantages or
disadvantages, in terms of contributions to market stability and efficiency and political feasibility. This equally applies
to the proposal in question that forms a special form of what the Green paper referred to as Approach 3.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 285

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007055/12**

**à Comissão**
**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(13 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ Alteração da taxa legal de IVA em vigor em Espanha

O Primeiro-Ministro espanhol, Mariano Rajoy, anunciou hoje, 11.7.2012, um novo pacote de ajustamento
orçamental, onde incluiu uma medida de aumento do IVA, de 18 % para 21 %. Para além disto, haverá também cortes
do subsídio de natal aos funcionários públicos. Estima-se que o impacto destas medidas nas contas públicas durante
os próximos dois anos e meio ascenda a uma taxa aproximada de 6,5 % do PIB.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que impacto acredita que esta alteração do IVA terá nas exportações espanholas?

**Resposta dada por Algirdas Šemeta em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de agosto de 2012)_

De acordo com o artigo 146.° da Diretiva IVA (Diretiva 2006/112/CE do Conselho, de 28 de novembro de 2006, e
suas alterações), os Estados-Membros devem isentar as entregas de bens expedidos ou transportados, pelo vendedor
ou por conta deste — ou, se for caso disso, pelo adquirente não estabelecido no respetivo território, ou por conta
deste —, para fora da UE.

As regras do IVA aplicáveis às entregas intra-UE de bens garantem geralmente que estes estão isentos de IVA no
Estado-Membro de partida e são tributados no Estado-Membro de destino.

Em aplicação destas disposições, não é cobrado nenhum IVA em Espanha aos bens destinados a exportação imediata,
independentemente da taxa aplicável às entregas no próprio Estado-Membro.

Com base nestas regras, a Comissão é de opinião que o aumento da taxa do IVA em Espanha não deverá ter efeitos
diretos nas exportações espanholas.

C 219 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007055/12**

**to the Commission**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Change in the legal rate of VAT in Spain

Today, 11 July 2012, the Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy announced a new package of budgetary adjustment
measures which include a rise in VAT from 18% to 21%. There will also be cuts to the Christmas bonus paid to public
sector workers. Over the next two and a half years these measures are expected to have an impact on public accounts
amounting to approximately 6.5% of GDP.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

—
What impact does it expect this VAT rise to have on Spanish exports?

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

_(30 August 2012)_

According to Article 146 of the VAT Directive (Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 — as
amended) Member States shall exempt the supply of goods dispatched or transported to a destination outside the EU
by or on behalf of the vendor or, as the case may be, by or on behalf of a customer not established within their
respective territory.

The VAT rules applicable to intra-EU supplies of goods generally ensure that the goods are exempt from VAT in the
Member State of departure and taxed in the Member State of their destination.

Following those provisions, no VAT is charged in Spain on goods for immediate exportation, irrespective of the rate
applicable to the domestic supply.

Based on those rules, the Commission believes that the increase of the VAT rate in Spain should have no direct effect
on the export flows in that country.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 287

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-007056/12**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**
_(13 de julho de 2012)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Guiné-Bissau: aumento do narcotráfico

Órgãos noticiosos portugueses dão conta de que, após o golpe de Estado de abril de 2012, as atividades das redes de
narcotráfico estão mais ativas na Guiné-Bissau.

Estes órgãos noticiosos apontam como fonte desta informação Said Djinnit, o representante do Secretário-Geral da
ONU para a África Ocidental, que — em reunião com os quinze membros do Conselho de Segurança das Nações
Unidas — terá apelado aos atores regionais para redobrarem os seus esforços no combate a este flagelo.

As mesmas fontes citam ainda o diretor do Gabinete da ONU para a Droga e a Criminalidade (UNODC), Yuri Fedotov,
que terá advertido para o crescimento desta atividade criminosa na região, para as «ligações entre elementos das forças
militares e o narcotráfico» e para a «impunidade» de que gozam os traficantes.

Assim, pergunto à Vice-presidente/Alta Representante:

—
Tem conhecimento do aumento do recrudescimento do narcotráfico na África Ocidental, em particular na
Guiné-Bissau?

—
De que informações dispõe a este respeito? Que medidas tomou ou prevê tomar neste tocante?

—
Partilha a opinião dos altos dignitários das Nações Unidas quando estes estabelecem uma relação estreita entre
os militares no poder e as redes de tráfico de droga e denunciam a impunidade destes últimos?

—
Considera que a restauração da democracia, da ordem constitucional e do Estado de direito na Guiné-Bissau
poderiam contribuir para minorar este problema?

**Resposta dada pela Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente Catherine Ashton em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de agosto de 2012)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente está preocupada com o aumento do tráfico de droga na região da África
Ocidental. A natureza regional do problema exige uma resposta coordenada liderada pela região. Por conseguinte, a
União Europeia está empenhada em conceder um apoio financeiro e político, inclusivamente através do 10.° Fundo
Europeu de Desenvolvimento (FED), para a execução do Plano de ação regional contra a droga (Plano da Praia) da
Comunidade Económica dos Estados da África Ocidental (Cedeao).

A UE financia igualmente projetos, incluindo ao abrigo do FED e do Instrumento de Estabilidade (IE), em apoio dos
esforços da região para combater o tráfico de droga. Este aspeto inclui importantes dotações ao abrigo do 10.° FED
(2008/2013), bem como ao abrigo do programa do IE «Apoio à luta contra a criminalidade organizada na rota da
cocaína». Estes projetos visam apoiar os diferentes capítulos do Plano contra a droga da Cedeao, bem como reforçar as
capacidades de luta contra a droga em aeroportos e portos marítimos escolhidos.

A nível político, a UE está a promover a intensificação da luta contra o tráfico de droga, na Guiné-Bissau e na região da
África Ocidental. A reforma do setor da segurança na Guiné-Bissau, cuja preparação foi apoiada e financiada pela UE,
deve igualmente ter um impacto positivo significativo no que respeita à luta contra o tráfico de droga.

C 219 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007056/12**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Diogo Feio (PPE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Guinea-Bissau: increase in drug trafficking

According to Portuguese news reports, drug rings in Guinea-Bissau have stepped up their activities since the coup in
April 2012.

The source of these reports is Said Djinnit, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for West Africa, who, at
a meeting with the 15 members of the Security Council, called on regional actors to redouble their efforts to fight the
drugs scourge.

The reports also quote the words of the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Yury Fedotov, who
has warned of rising crime in West Africa and pointed to the ‘connections between elements of the military forces and
illicit drug trafficking’ and to the ‘impunity’ that traffickers enjoy.

— Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware that there has been an upsurge in drug trafficking in West Africa
and in Guinea-Bissau in particular?

— What information does she have on this matter? What has she done about it or what does she intend to do?

— Does she think that the senior UN officials are right to believe that military rulers and drug rings are closely linked
and to speak out against the impunity which the drug rings enjoy?

— Does she consider that the restoration of democracy, the constitutional order, and the rule of law in Guinea-Bissau
could help to reduce the problem?

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

_(29 August 2012)_

The HR/VP is concerned about the increase in drug trafficking in the West African region. The regional nature of the
problem requires a coordinated response led by the region. As a result, the EU is committed to providing political and
financial support including via the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) for the implementation of the Economic
Community of West African States' (Ecowas) regional Action Plan against drugs (Praia Plan).

The EU also funds projects including under the EDF and the Instrument for Stability (IfS) in support of the region's
efforts to fight drug trafficking. This includes substantial allocations under the 10th EDF 2008-2013 as well as under
the IfS programme ‘Supporting the fight against organised crime on the Cocaine Route’. These projects aim at
supporting the different chapters of the Ecowas Plan against drugs as well as strengthening the anti-drugs capacities at
selected airports and seaports.

At the political level, the EU is promoting the intensification of the fight against drug trafficking, in Guinea-Bissau and
in the West African Region. The Security Sector Reform in Guinea-Bissau, the preparation of which has been
supported and funded by the EU should also have a significant positive impact in respect of the fight against illicit
drugs trafficking.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 289

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007058/12**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(13 Ιουλίου 2012)_

_Θέμα:_ Πληροφόρηση και αξιολόγηση πολιτικών για την υποστήριξη της απασχόλησης των ατόμων με αναπηρία στην Ελλάδα

Η πλήρης οικονομική και κοινωνική συμμετοχή των ατόμων με αναπηρία ή με ειδικές ικανότητες αποτελεί σημαντική
παράμετρο για την επιτυχία της στρατηγικής Ευρώπη 2020 της ΕΕ. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, η ευρωπαϊκή στρατηγική για την
αναπηρία 2010-2020 επισημαίνει οκτώ βασικούς τομείς δράσης, μεταξύ των οποίων βρίσκεται και η απασχόληση ( [1] ),
δηλώνοντας παράλληλα πως θα παράσχει καθοδήγηση και υποστήριξη στα κράτη μέλη. Στην Ελλάδα, για το ζήτημα
στήριξης της απασχόλησης των ατόμων με αναπηρία, η πιο σημαντική νομοθετική παρέμβαση είναι ο νόμος για τη «Μέριμνα
για την απασχόληση προσώπων ειδικών κατηγοριών και άλλες διατάξεις» ( [2] ), βάσει του οποίου επιχειρήσεις με προσωπικό
άνω των 50 εργαζομένων οφείλουν να απασχολούν εν λόγω άτομα σε ποσοστό 2 % στον ιδιωτικό τομέα και 3 % στο δημόσιο
τομέα. Ωστόσο, σύμφωνα με τα επίσημα στατιστικά στοιχεία ( [3] ) που αφορούν το β' τρίμηνο του έτους 2002 για «τα άτομα με
προβλήματα υγείας ή αναπηρία» προκύπτει ότι «το 18,2 % του πληθυσμού της χώρας αντιμετωπίζει κάποιο πρόβλημα υγείας
ή κάποια αναπηρία και το 84 % των ατόμων αυτών είναι οικονομικά μη ενεργά, έναντι 58 % του γενικού πληθυσμού».
Παράλληλα, η έκθεση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής για την υποστηριζόμενη απασχόληση ( [4] ) αναφέρει πως υφίσταται έλλειψη
πολιτικών στην Ελλάδα που στοχεύουν στην απασχολησιμότητα ευπαθών ομάδων, μεταξύ των οποίων και τα άτομα με
αναπηρία. Για το λόγο αυτό, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Διαθέτει νεότερα στοιχεία για το ποσοστό των ατόμων με αναπηρία που απασχολούνται βάσει του νόμου 2643/98;
Πώς κρίνει την αποτελεσματικότητα του;

2. Διαθέτει νεότερα στοιχεία για τον αριθμό των ατόμων που είναι μη ενεργά;

3. Πώς κρίνει τη συλλογή και παρακολούθηση των σχετικών στατιστικών στοιχείων, δεδομένης της κεντρικής θέσης που
κατέχουν οι διαδικασίες αυτές στο πλαίσιο των συστάσεων που δίνονται τόσο στην ΕΕ όσο και στα κράτη μέλη βάσει
της έκθεσης για την υποστηριζόμενη απασχόληση; Κυριότερα, πώς κρίνει τις εφαρμοζόμενες πολιτικές;

4. Ποιες οι κατευθύνσεις και οι πρωτοβουλίες προκειμένου να τονωθεί η απασχόληση των ατόμων με αναπηρίες,
λαμβάνοντας υπόψιν την ιδιαίτερα δυσμενή οικονομική και κοινωνική συγκυρία στην Ελλάδα;

**Απάντηση της κας Reding εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(19 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012)_

Στη «στρατηγική της ΕΕ για την αναπηρία» ( [5] ), η Επιτροπή δεσμεύεται να αντιμετωπιστεί η ανεργία των ατόμων με αναπηρία
μέσω και της στρατηγικής «Ευρώπη 2020». Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, το Συμβούλιο εκδίδει ειδικές ανά χώρα συστάσεις.

H έκθεση στην οποία αναφέρεται το Αξιότιμο Μέλος εκπονήθηκε για την Επιτροπή, αλλά οι συστάσεις προέρχονται από τους
συντάκτες της έκθεσης.

Η οδηγία 2000/78/ΕΚ ( [6] ) παρέχει προστασία από τις διακρίσεις στην απασχόληση. Η Ελλάδα έχει μεταφέρει στο εσωτερικό
της δίκαιο την εν λόγω οδηγία με τον νόμο αριθ. 3304/2005, και οι αρχές και τα δικαστήρια της πρέπει να διασφαλίσουν την
ορθή εφαρμογή της. Η Επιτροπή καταρτίζει έκθεση για το ζήτημα αυτό. Ο νόμος αριθ. 2643/1998 για την απασχόληση
προσωπικού ειδικών κατηγοριών συνιστά μέτρο θετικής δράσης υπέρ των ευάλωτων ομάδων, όπως τα άτομα με αναπηρία,
όπως προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 7 της οδηγίας.

Σύμφωνα με τα τελευταία στοιχεία της Eurostat ( [7] ), το 2011 το ποσοστό απασχόλησης των ατόμων ηλικίας 20-64 ετών στην
Ελλάδα ήταν 59,9 %. Δεν διαθέτουμε πρόσφατα παρεμφερή δεδομένα σχετικά με τα ποσοστά απασχόλησης των ατόμων με
αναπηρία, αλλά είναι πιθανό να κυμαίνονται στο ήμισυ μόνο του ποσοστού αυτού.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:EL:HTML.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Ν.2643/98.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0102/PressReleases/A0102_SJO12_DT_AH_00_2002_01_F_GR.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/cowi.final_study_report_may_2011_final_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:EL:NOT.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Oδηγία 2000/78/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου, της 27ης Νοεμβρίου 2000, για τη διαμόρφωση γενικού πλαισίου για την ίση μεταχείριση στην απασχόληση και την

εργασία, ΕΕ L 303 της 2.12.2000, σ. 16.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database.

( **|**

C 219 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

Στο πλαίσιο της στρατηγικής «Ευρώπη 2020», στις 10 Ιουλίου 2012 το Συμβούλιο απηύθυνε σύσταση στην Ελλάδα να
«εφαρμόσει τα μέτρα που θεσπίζονται στην απόφαση 2011/734/ΕΕ … και το μνημόνιο συνεννόησης (ΜΣ) για τις
συγκεκριμένες προϋποθέσεις οικονομικής πολιτικής, το οποίο υπεγράφη στις 14 Μαρτίου 2012». Το ΜΣ αποσκοπεί στην
οικονομική και δημοσιονομική σταθερότητα, αλλά και στην αντιμετώπιση των κοινωνικών συνεπειών των
πραγματοποιούμενων αναγκαίων προσαρμογών.

Οι παρεμβάσεις που αποσκοπούν στην προώθηση της κοινωνικής και εργασιακής ένταξης των ατόμων με αναπηρία
καλύπτονται επίσης από το επιχειρησιακό πρόγραμμα «Ανάπτυξη των ανθρώπινων πόρων» (ΕΠ ΑΑΔ), το οποίο
συγχρηματοδοτείται από το ΕΚΤ. Η ελληνική αρχή διαχείρισης του ΕΠ ΑΑΔ θα μπορούσε να παράσχει περισσότερες
πληροφορίες σχετικά με τις συγκεκριμένες δράσεις που χρηματοδοτούνται.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 291

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007058/12**

**to the Commission**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Information about and evaluation of policies to support the employment of people with disabilities in Greece

The full economic and social participation of persons with disabilities or special needs is an important criterion for
the success of the Europe 2020 strategy. Within this framework, the Commission in the European Disability Strategy
2010-2020 identifies eight main areas for action, including employment ( [1] ), while stating that it will provide
guidance and support to Member States. In Greece, as regards the question of support for the employment of persons
with disabilities, the most significant legislative intervention is the law on ‘Ensuring the employment of special
categories of person and other provisions’ ( [2] ) under which companies with more than 50 workers must employ
persons with disabilities — 2% of the workforce in the private sector and 3% in the public sector. However, according
to official statistics ( [3] ) regarding the second quarter of 2002 for ‘individuals with health problems or a disability’ it
emerges that ‘18.2% of the population of Greece has a health problem or disability and 84% these people are not in
gainful employment, compared to 58% of the general population’. At the same time, the Commission report on
supported employment ( [4] ) states that Greece lacks policies aimed at promoting the employability of vulnerable
groups, including persons with disabilities. In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Does it have more recent data on the percentage of persons with disabilities employed under the Law 2643/98?
How does it judge the effectiveness of this law?

2. Does it have any more recent data on the number of people who are not in gainful employment?

3. How does it view the collection and monitoring of the relevant statistics, given the central place occupied by
these processes in the recommendations given both in the EU and in Member States on the basis of the report
on supported employment? In particular, how does it view current policies?

4. What guidelines have been drawn up and initiatives launched to boost the employment of people with
disabilities, taking into account the particularly difficult economic and social situation in Greece?

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

_(19 September 2012)_

In the EU Disability Strategy ( [5] ) the Commission undertakes to tackle unemployment of disabled people also through
the Europe 2020 strategy. Within this frame, the Council adopts Country Specific Recommendations.

The report referred to by the Honourable Member was made for the Commission, but the recommendations are from
its authors.

Directive 2000/78/EC ( [6] ) protects against discrimination in employment. Greece has transposed this directive
through Act No 3304/2005, and its authorities and courts need to ensure proper implementation. The Commission
prepares a report on this issue. Act No 2643/1998 on the employment of persons of special categories constitutes a
positive action measure for vulnerable groups, like disabled persons, as allowed under Art. 7 of the directive.

According to the latest Eurostat figures ( [7] ), the 2011 Greek employment rate for those aged 20-64 is 59.9%. A recent
comparable employment rate of people with disabilities is not available, but is likely to be around only half of that
figure.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0636:FIN:EL:HTML
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Law 2643/98.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/A0102/PressReleases/A0102_SJO12_DT_AH_00_2002_01_F_GR.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/cowi.final_study_report_may_2011_final_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:EN:NOT
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation,

OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database

( **|**

C 219 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

Under the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, the Council issued a recommendation to Greece on 10 July 2012 to ‘implement the
measures laid down in Decision 2011/734/EU…and the memorandum of understanding (MoU) on Specific
Economic Policy Conditionality, signed on 14 March 2012’. The MoU aims at economic and budgetary stability, but
also at addressing the social consequences of the ongoing necessary adjustment.

Interventions dedicated to promote the social and employment integration of persons with disabilities are also
covered under the ESF co-financed operational programme ‘Human Resources Development’ (OP HRD). The Greek
Managing Authority of the OP HRD could provide more information on the specific actions financed.

31.7.2013 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 219 E / 293

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007059/12**

**to the Council**
**Andrew Henry William Brons (NI)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Asylum and Migration Fund

In the proposed regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration
Fund, the following words appear:

‘The Stockholm programme recognises both the opportunities and challenges posed by increased mobility of
persons, and underlines that well-managed migration can be beneficial to all stakeholders. The European Council
equally recognised that, in the context of the important demographic challenges that the Union will face in the future
with an increased demand for labour, flexible migration policies will make an important contribution to the Union’s
economic development and performance in the longer term.’

In the proposed regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Internal Security
Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa, the following words appear:

‘Such Union actions include studies and pilot projects to further the policy and its application, measures or
arrangements in third countries addressing migratory pressures from those countries in the interest of an optimal
management of migration flows into the Union and an efficient organisation of the related tasks at external borders
and consulates.’

1. How many migrants does the Council envisage the Union will require in the years to 2020, 2020-2030 and
2030-2050, and how has it arrived at these numbers?

2. What working papers has the Council produced with respect to migratory flows into the Union?

3. Given the oppressive regimes that operate in Africa and the Middle and Far East, is the Council encouraging
migration from any particular region(s) as part of its strategy?

4. If the Council has not calculated the inflows it envisages into the Union in the aforementioned periods, will it
kindly explain this omission?

**Reply**
_(1 October 2012)_

The Council instances are currently examining the respective proposals for a regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund ( [1] ) and for a regulation establishing, as part of the
Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa ( [2] ).

The Council has not addressed questions 1 and 4. However, a number of studies have been undertaken on the broader
question of the issue of the need for labour migration. In this context, the attention of the Honourable Member is
drawn to the Commission's Communication of 30 May 2012 to the European Parliament and the Council concerning
the Third Annual Report on Immigration and Asylum ( [3] ).

With regard to question 2, statistics on migration flows are compiled by Eurostat.

With regard to question 3, the Council does not encourage migration from any particular region.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 751 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 750 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) SWD(2012) 139 final.

C 219 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 31.7.2013

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007061/12**

**to the Council**
**Andrew Henry William Brons (NI)**

_(13 July 2012)_

_Subject:_ Expansion of the EU

Paragraph 105 of the 18-month programme of the Council of 17 June 2011 ( [1] ), prepared by the future Polish, Danish
and Cypriot Presidencies, refers to ‘financing customs cooperation between the European Commission, Member
States, candidate countries and potential candidate countries’.

Will the Council kindly list the candidate countries and potential candidate countries it envisages might join the EU
within the next 20 years should they fulfil the relevant requirements?

**Reply**
_(1 October 2012)_

It is not Council policy to answer hypothetical questions. A description of the fundamental principles on which the
enlargement policy of the Union continues to be based, as well as an outline of the state of play in the enlargement
process, are to be found in the conclusions adopted by the Council on 5 December 2011.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council document 11447/11.

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