Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

ISSN 1725-2431
## C 65 E
# Official Journal
#### of the European Union

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

_Notice to reader_

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

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

### **EN**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 1

IV

_(Notices)_

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES

AND AGENCIES

###### EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

**WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER**

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

**by a European Union institution**

(2014/C 65 E/01)

**Contents** **Page**

**E-007997/13** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unequal treatment of depositors

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 27
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 28

**E-007998/13** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Irish economy

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 29
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 30

**E-008000/13** by Slavi Binev to the Commission
_Subject:_ Absence of democratic free elections in Bulgaria

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 31
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 32

**E-008001/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Motherhood and women with disabilities

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 33
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 34

**E-008002/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Raising awareness about women with disabilities

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 35
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 36

**E-008003/13** by Francisco Sosa Wagner to the Commission
_Subject:_ Your Voice in Europe

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 38

C 65 E / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008004/13** by Gabriel Mato Adrover and Esther Herranz García to the Commission
_Subject:_ Imports of tomatoes from Morocco

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 39
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 40

**E-008005/13** by Kyriacos Triantaphyllides to the Council
_Subject:_ Bank bail-in in Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 41
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 42

**E-008006/13** by Kyriacos Triantaphyllides to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bank bail-in in Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 43
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 44

**E-008007/13** by Jürgen Klute and Catherine Grèze to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights violations relating to the Conga mining project in Peru

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 45
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 47
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 49

**P-008278/13** by Evelyn Regner to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) opinion to the Commission for new rules to limit pilots' hours
of duty (flight time limitations)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 50
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

**E-008008/13** by Judith A. Merkies to the Commission
_Subject:_ European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) opinion to the Commission on new rules to limit the hours of
duty for pilots (flight time limitations (FTL))

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 51
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 52

**E-008009/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — New president elected in Iran

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 54
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 55

**E-008010/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ New mining law in Ecuador

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

**E-008305/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Women allegedly raped in Cairo's Tahrir Square

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 58
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 60

**E-008011/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Sexual harassment of women in Egypt

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 59
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 60

**E-008012/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU competitiveness in technology

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

**E-008014/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ Public social spending in France accounts for 32% of GDP

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 64
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 65

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 3

**E-008015/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Demonstrations in Brazil

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 66
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 67

**E-008016/13** by Michał Tomasz Kamiński to the Commission
_Subject:_ Violation of young girls' rights

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 68
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 69

**E-008017/13** by Gaston Franco to the Commission
_Subject:_ Training of beekeepers and veterinarians in the European Union

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 70
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 71

**E-008018/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Black list kept illegally by insurers

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 72
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 73

**E-008019/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Council
_Subject:_ Evo Morales and Edward Snowden

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 74
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 75

**E-008020/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Evo Morales and Edward Snowden

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 76
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 77

**E-008021/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rape by police officers in Ukraine

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 78
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 79

**E-008022/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Equal legal and financial treatment of non-medical trainee specialists with regard to the professional
category of biologists

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 80
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 81

**E-008023/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Health quality certification and the REAPT project

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 82
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 83

**E-008024/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Renewable energy: European energy policy in crisis

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 85
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 87

**E-008025/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ TNT Express Italy: 300 workers in the Veneto region at risk of losing their jobs

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 88
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 89

**E-008026/13** by Susy De Martini and Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cuban humanitarian trade

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 90
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 91

**E-008027/13** by Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska to the Commission
_Subject:_ Macro-regional strategy for the Carpathian region

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 92
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 93

C 65 E / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008028/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-008029/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-008030/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-008031/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-008032/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 94

**E-008033/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 95

**E-008034/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 95

**E-008035/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Missions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 96

**E-008036/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Missions

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

**E-008037/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU missions

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

**E-008038/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Missions

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

**E-008039/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU missions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 100

**E-008040/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Missions

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 101

**E-008041/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU Mission to the UN

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 102

**E-008049/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-008065/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 5

**E-008066/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-008067/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-008068/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-008069/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 103

**E-008070/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

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

**E-008708/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (rural development)

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

**E-008709/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (human resource development)

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

**E-008710/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Regional Development)

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

**E-008711/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Cross-Border Cooperation)

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

**E-008712/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Transition Assistance and Institution Building)

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

**E-008725/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Turkey)

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

**E-008071/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda, Ana Miranda, Ulrike Lunacek, Franziska Keller, Catherine Grèze, Jürgen
Klute, Willy Meyer, Helmut Scholz, Alda Sousa and Marisa Matias to the Council
_Subject:_ Detention of Bolivian President, Evo Morales, in Europe

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 106
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 107
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 108
Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 109
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 110

**E-008072/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda, Ana Miranda, Ulrike Lunacek, Franziska Keller, Catherine Grèze, Jürgen
Klute, Willy Meyer, Helmut Scholz, Alda Sousa and Marisa Matias to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Detention of Bolivian President, Evo Morales, in Europe

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 111
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 112
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 114
Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 115
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 117

C 65 E / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008175/13** by Inês Cristina Zuber and João Ferreira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Overflying ban imposed on President Evo Morales by Member States

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 115
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 118

**E-008095/13** by Takis Hadjigeorgiou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Forced landing of President Morales' presidential plane

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 113
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 117

**E-008073/13** by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investigation into shipbuilding aid in the Netherlands

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

**E-008074/13** by Izaskun Bilbao Barandica to the Commission
_Subject:_ Loss of shipbuilding contracts in the Basque Country

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

**E-008076/13** by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unsuitable programme financed under the Life+ programme to restore Epanomi Lagoon (GR1220011
and GR 12200112)

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 123
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 125

**E-008077/13** by Nikos Chrysogelos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sale of conservation areas/wetlands in the Cyclades/Natura areas

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 127
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 129

**E-008078/13** by Theodoros Skylakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Early retirement and its impact on the general government deficit

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 130
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 131

**E-008080/13** by Lorenzo Fontana to the Commission
_Subject:_ Initiative by mayors from the Verona area due to the heavy tax burden in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 132
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 134

**P-008081/13** by Esther Herranz García to the Commission
_Subject:_ New system of tolls in Gipuzkoa

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 136
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 137

**P-008082/13** by Elena Băsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Implementing enhanced cooperation in the field of the financial transaction tax

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 138
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 139

**E-008084/13** by Mariya Gabriel to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cuts in rural development funding for 2014-2020

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 140
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 141

**E-008085/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Letter to the Government of Andalusia's Department of Public Works

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 142
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 144

**E-008086/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Murder of 17 Pakistani civilians by a US drone

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 145
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 146

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 7

**E-008088/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sale of the Almoraima estate in Cádiz

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 147
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 148

**E-008089/13** by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission
_Subject:_ Labelling of clothes

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 149
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 150

**E-008090/13** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Test panels in the proposal for a new Tobacco Directive

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 151
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 152

**E-008091/13** by Morten Messerschmidt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for the Ma'an News Agency

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 153
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 154

**E-008092/13** by Daniel Caspary, Ingeborg Gräßle and Markus Pieper to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 155
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 156

**E-008093/13** by Martin Kastler to the Commission
_Subject:_ The EU family strategy and the European Year 2014

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 157
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 158

**E-008094/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ New study on the negative effects of genetically modified food and animal feed on human health

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 159
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 161

**E-008692/13** by Franz Obermayr to the Commission
_Subject:_ New study on the negative human-health impact of genetically modified food and feed

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 160
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 161

**E-008096/13** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Energy intake reference values for children

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 163
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 164

**E-008097/13** by Georgios Stavrakakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Level of payments as of 30 June 2013

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 165
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 166

**E-008098/13** by Glenis Willmott to the Commission
_Subject:_ Alcohol and nutrition

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 167

**E-008099/13** by Sirpa Pietikäinen and Alojz Peterle to the Commission
_Subject:_ Improving the health claim application procedure

Slovenska različica ............................................................................................................................................................ 168

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 169
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 170

**E-008101/13** by Antonio Cancian to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unfair commercial practices regarding the sale of medicines

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

C 65 E / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008102/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ State of Italian rivers

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 173
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 175

**E-008103/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ The role of placebo treatment in trials: medico-legal and ethical issues

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 176
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 177

**E-008104/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ New ‘reverse vaccine’ for patients with type 1 or insulin-dependent diabetes

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 178
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 180

**E-008105/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food safety and labelling: prospects of a possible revision of standards and control systems

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

**E-008106/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Elections in Iran: progress towards democratic Iranian institutions

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 183
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 184

**E-008107/13** by Oreste Rossi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cancer drugs and the right to treatment

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 185
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 186

**E-008108/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Two sisters killed for dancing in the rain in Pakistan

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 187
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 188

**E-008109/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Situation of the internship system in Italy and Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 189
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 190

**E-008110/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Worrying figures for several municipalities in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano as regards uranium
concentrations in drinking water

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 191
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 193

**E-008111/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Excessive hydroelectric exploitation of the Piave river basin due to serious violations of the Water
Framework, EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) and Habitats
Directives

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 195
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 196

**P-008112/13** by Lambert van Nistelrooij to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statements concerning subsidies for energy from renewable and fossil sources

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 197
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 198

**E-008113/13** by Paweł Robert Kowal to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU-Azerbaijan relations

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 199
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 200

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 9

**E-008114/13** by Zbigniew Ziobro and Tadeusz Cymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mass redundancies at the Częstochowa steelworks

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 201
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 203

**E-008115/13** by Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă to the Commission
_Subject:_ Agri-food industry

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 204
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 205

**E-008116/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trade bans imposed by the Russian Federation

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 206
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 207

**E-008117/13** by Rareş-Lucian Niculescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Change in public tender procedures in Romania

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 208
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 209

**E-008118/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Arms exports to third countries

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 210
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 211

**E-008119/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Killing of elephants in Africa

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 212
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 213

**E-008120/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Homeless people in the European Union

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 214
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 215

**E-008121/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compulsory tachographs

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 216
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 217

**E-008122/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Media literacy

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 218
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 219

**E-008123/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ The right to quality long-term care and satisfaction of the needs of the elderly population

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 220
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 221

**E-008124/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Hatred and discrimination in the LGBT community

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 222
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 223

**E-008125/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ More transparent clinical trials of medicines

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 224
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 225

**E-008126/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Better protection for victims of violence in the EU

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 226
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 227

C 65 E / 10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008127/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Combating youth unemployment

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 228
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 229

**E-008128/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fire in Bangladesh

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 230
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 231

**E-008129/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ The issue of shale gas

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 232
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 233

**E-008130/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ The new constitution of the European Union

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 234
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 235

**E-008132/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Revision of the Tobacco Products Directive

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 236
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 237

**E-008133/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Threat to the system of sales of legal cigarettes

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 238
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 239

**E-008134/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on
nutrition and health claims made on foods

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 240
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 241

**E-008135/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restriction of regulations at EU level

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 242
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 243

**E-008136/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Relationship between the environment and human health

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 244
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 245

**E-008137/13** by Monika Flašíková Beňová to the Commission
_Subject:_ Innovative green spaces

Slovenské znenie ............................................................................................................................................................... 246
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 247

**P-008138/13** by Saïd El Khadraoui to the Commission
_Subject:_ Vertical market demarcation

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

**E-008139/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Total funds available in the European Financial Stability Facility for recapitalising European banks

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 250
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 251

**E-008140/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Efficacy of Task Force in re-starting priority projects in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 252
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 253

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 11

**E-008141/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statements by Irish Minister for Finance on bail-in of banks and Commission position

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 254
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 255

**E-008142/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Broadband networks in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 256
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 257

**E-008143/13** by Georgios Papanikolaou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Provisional allocation of funds to Greece for managing migration flows in 2014

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 258
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 259

**E-008144/13** by Emer Costello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Shale gas and shale oil extraction activities

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

**E-008145/13** by Chris Davies to the Commission
_Subject:_ Norway and the EU

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

**E-008146/13** by Chris Davies to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cross-border coroner assistance

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

**E-008147/13** by Margrete Auken, Satu Hassi, Isabella Lövin, Carl Schlyter, Indrek Tarand and Helga Trüpel to the
Commission
_Subject:_ Phosphorus discharge from fertiliser plants into the Baltic Sea

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 263
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 264
Eestikeelne versioon ......................................................................................................................................................... 265

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 266

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

**E-008148/13** by Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris to the Council
_Subject:_ ESM fund: new allocation of EUR 60 billion

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

**E-008149/13** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mother of a Belarusian political prisoner dismissed from her job at a Belarusian university on the
grounds of ‘loyalty’ to her son

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 271
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 272

**E-008150/13** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ Sentencing of a Belarusian oppositionist

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 273
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 274

**E-008151/13** by Inês Cristina Zuber to the Commission
_Subject:_ Collective redundancy at Asibel Construções S.A.

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 275
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 276

**P-008152/13** by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Violence against women during demonstrations in Egypt

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 277
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 278

C 65 E / 12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008154/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restructuring plans at HP in Zaragoza

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 279
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 280

**E-008155/13** by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU-wide ban on asbestos: worker safety

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 281
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 282

**E-008156/13** by Jutta Steinruck to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU-wide ban on asbestos: potential risks

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 283
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 284

**E-008157/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cottage tobacco industry in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 285
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 287

**E-008158/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Directive on the resolution of banks and guaranteed deposits in the EU

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 289
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 290

**E-008159/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of the crisis on forest protection in Greece

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

**E-008160/13** by Nikolaos Chountis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) transit fees

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

**E-008161/13** by Kyriacos Triantaphyllides to the Commission
_Subject:_ Infringement of standardisation of geographical names in Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 295
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 296

**E-008283/13** by Antigoni Papadopoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Place names in occupied areas of Cyprus

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 295
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 296

**E-008162/13** by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou to the Commission
_Subject:_ Lack of financing for real economy in Greece

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 297
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 299

**E-008163/13** by Catherine Stihler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Construction industry blacklisting and exclusion from procurement procedures

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 300

**E-008164/13** by Françoise Castex and Antonio Masip Hidalgo to the Commission
_Subject:_ New payment system for private copying in Spain

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 301
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 302
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 303

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 13

**E-008165/13** by Paolo De Castro, Herbert Dorfmann, Esther Herranz García, Eric Andrieu, Giancarlo Scottà,
Iratxe García Pérez, Michel Dantin and Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos to the Commission
_Subject:_ Court of Justice judgment on Regulation (EU) No 543/2011

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 304
Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 305
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 306
Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 307

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 308
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 309

**E-008166/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Regulation of the functioning of the food chain

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 310
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 311

**E-008167/13** by Patrick Le Hyaric to the Commission
_Subject:_ Social dumping in the agri-food industry

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 312
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 313

**E-008168/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding to build a sports centre in Latina

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 314
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 315

**E-008169/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding to create a centre for family law studies in the municipality of Orvieto

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 316
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 318

**E-008170/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Municipality of Palestrina: possible funding to build a complex for elderly people and young couples

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 319
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 321

**E-008171/13** by Andrea Zanoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Irregularities in the approval procedure for the ‘Valdastico A 31 Nord’ motorway project in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 322
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 323

**E-008172/13** by Aldo Patriciello to the Commission
_Subject:_ Shale gas in Europe

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 324
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 325

**E-008173/13** by Paweł Robert Kowal to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU action to prevent workers from being exploited

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 326
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 327

**E-008174/13** by Inês Cristina Zuber and João Ferreira to the Council
_Subject:_ Overflying ban imposed on President Evo Morales by Member States

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 328
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 329

**E-008176/13** by Anneli Jäätteenmäki to the Commission
_Subject:_ Transparency register: making registration mandatory

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 330
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 331

**P-008177/13** by Linda McAvan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Hague Convention on Child Abduction

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 332

C 65 E / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**P-008178/13** by Martin Callanan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ability of Member States to regulate or ban propane gas guns (bird scarers)

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

**E-008179/13** by Raül Romeva i Rueda to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fish stocks and small-scale fisheries

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 335
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 336

**E-008180/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Permanent pasture rules encouraging land grabbing in Europe

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 337
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 338

**E-008181/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Cross-border workers in Ceuta and Melilla

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 339
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 341

**E-008182/13** by Edward McMillan-Scott to the Commission
_Subject:_ Unfair restrictive practices between mortgage lenders and the Property Care Association

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 343

**E-008183/13** by Paul Murphy to the Commission
_Subject:_ Land grabbing in Sri Lanka

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 344

**E-008184/13** by Roberta Angelilli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible funding for the Gragnano pasta festival

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

**E-008185/13** by Matteo Salvini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Need for an EU strategy to control ragweed, the cause of very severe allergies

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 347
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 348

**E-008186/13** by Franco Bonanini and Mario Pirillo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exclusion of transactions relating to vessels used for coastal navigation from Directive 2006/112/EC

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 349
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 350

**E-008187/13** by Philippe De Backer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Response to US communications surveillance practices

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 351
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 352

**P-008188/13** by Gaston Franco to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increase in energy prices in Europe

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 353
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 354

**E-008189/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tunisian Criminal Code

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 355
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 356

**E-008190/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Criticism of the abolition of roaming charges

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 357
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 358

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 15

**E-008191/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ban on the use of fluorinated gases in refrigerators

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 359
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 360

**E-008192/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Council
_Subject:_ Ban on the use of fluorinated gases in refrigerators

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 361
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 362

**E-008193/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reduction in Eurotunnel charges

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 363
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 364

**E-008195/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Talking cigarettes

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 365
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 366

**E-008196/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tetrazepam victims: who is responsible?

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 367
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 368

**E-008197/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Aid for airports

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 369
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 370

**E-008198/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ European register of nanomaterials

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 371
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 372

**E-008200/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Use of EU aid to Libya for illegal purposes

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 373
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 374

**E-008201/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Camp Liberty

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 375
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 376

**E-008203/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — North Korea threatens its people

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 377
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 378

**E-008204/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Danger of antiparasitic collars

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 379
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 380

**E-008205/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tobacco advertising converts one in three adolescents

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 381
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 382

**P-008208/13** by Ioan Enciu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible breach of the Schengen acquis

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 383
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 384

C 65 E / 16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**P-008209/13** by Martina Anderson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Spanish coastal law

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 385

**P-008210/13** by Magdi Cristiano Allam to the Council
_Subject:_ Ban on the Syrian Islamic terrorist organisation Jabhat Al-Nusra (Victory Front)

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 386
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 388

**E-008211/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ VisitEurope portal

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 390
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 391

**E-008212/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tourism and economic activity

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 392
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 393

**E-008213/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Clean tourism

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 394
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 395

**E-008214/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ethically responsible tourism

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 396
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 397

**E-008215/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Marine and coastal tourism

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 398
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 399

**E-008216/13** by Rosa Estaràs Ferragut to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accommodation

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 400
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 401

**E-008217/13** by Christel Schaldemose to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tomatoes on the European market

Dansk udgave .................................................................................................................................................................... 402
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 403

**E-008218/13** by Hermann Winkler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Exemptions and deadline extensions in the Stability and Growth Pact

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 404
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 406

**E-008472/13** by Elena Băsescu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Letter from Commissioner Olli Rehn on the investment clause

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 405
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 406

**E-008219/13** by Hermann Winkler to the Commission
_Subject:_ Compliance with Maastricht criteria by the Republic of Croatia

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 408
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 410

**E-008381/13** by Lara Comi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Croatia's public finances

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 409
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 410

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 17

**E-008220/13** by Jürgen Creutzmann to the Commission
_Subject:_ Company audits in connection with EU research funding

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 411
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 413

**E-008222/13** by Georgios Koumoutsakos to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Action to combat piracy

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 414
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 415

**E-008224/13** by Jörg Leichtfried to the Commission
_Subject:_ Update of the test methods regulation and REACH annexes

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 416
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 417

**E-008225/13** by Jill Evans to the Commission
_Subject:_ Welsh flags on vessels and Welsh car stickers

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 418

**E-008226/13** by Daniël van der Stoep to the Commission
_Subject:_ Commissioner Šefčovič's answers concerning the salaries of EU officials

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

**E-008228/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attack on storeroom in Mozambique generates instability

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 421
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 422

**E-008255/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Attack on an arms depot in Mozambique causes instability

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 421
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 422

**E-008230/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Conflict in Lebanon

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 423
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 424

**E-008231/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria: new death toll

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 425
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 426

**E-008232/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Possible second bailout for Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 427
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 428

**E-008233/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reduction in lending to companies

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 429
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 430

**E-008234/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ireland falls back into recession

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

**E-008235/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Plan to combat youth unemployment

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 433
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 434

C 65 E / 18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008236/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Youth unemployment

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 435
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 436

**E-008237/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Further wage cuts in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 437
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 438

**E-008238/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Impact of derivative contracts on Italy's accounts

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 439
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 440

**E-008239/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restructuring of Portuguese banks

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 441
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 442

**E-008240/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Tax cuts in Portugal

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 443
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 444

**E-008241/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ The IMF's place in the Troika

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 445
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 446

**E-008242/13** by Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg to the Commission
_Subject:_ Corporate social responsibility of EU retailers

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 447
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 448

**E-008243/13** by Cornelis de Jong to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rules, standards and regulations vis-à-vis commercial crowdsourcing in international trade agreements

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 449
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 450

**E-008244/13** by Daciana Octavia Sârbu to the Commission
_Subject:_ Alcohol consumption during pregnancy

Versiunea în limba română .............................................................................................................................................. 451
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 452

**E-008245/13** by Joseph Cuschieri to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal immigration in the Maltese Islands

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 453
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 454

**E-008246/13** by Glenis Willmott to the Commission
_Subject:_ UK Work Capability Assessments for people with autism

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

**E-008247/13** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ Endangered species in the Midi-Pyrenees

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 456
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 457

**E-008248/13** by Christine De Veyrac to the Commission
_Subject:_ Support for EU-wide inter-club amateur rugby exchanges

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 19

**E-008249/13** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Use of retinoic acid in cancer treatment

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 460
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 462

**E-008250/13** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Conflict of interest at EFSA

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 463
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 464

**E-008251/13** by Kathleen Van Brempt to the Commission
_Subject:_ Allergenic chemical preservatives in cosmetics

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 465
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 466

**E-008252/13** by Lucas Hartong and Patricia van der Kammen to the Commission
_Subject:_ Special Report No 7/2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 467
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 469

**E-008253/13** by Paweł Robert Kowal to the Commission
_Subject:_ Natural disaster prevention and response capabilities

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 471
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 472

**E-008254/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bailout in Italy

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 473
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 474

**E-008256/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Drought in southern Angola

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 475
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 476

**E-008257/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Portuguese scientists uncover reasons for immune ‘decline’

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 477
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 478

**E-008258/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ United States — national climate action plan

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 479
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 480

**E-008259/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ H7N9 virus — new threat

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 481
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 482

**E-008260/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Digital dementia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 483
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 484

**E-008261/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Anti-dumping tariffs imposed on the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 485
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 486

**E-008262/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Investment in renewable energy

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 487
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 488

C 65 E / 20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008263/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dengue outbreak in Angola

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 489
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 490

**E-008264/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Greek bailout package

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 491
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 492

**E-008265/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Increased online advertising of high-calorie foods for children

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 493
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 494

**E-008266/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Portuguese scientists discover a tectonic fault forming along the Portuguese coast

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 495
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 496

**E-008267/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Preventive treatment for breast cancer

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 497
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 498

**E-008268/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Floods in India

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 499
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 500

**E-008269/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fires in Indonesia

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 501
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 502

**E-008270/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ The effect of aerosols on the atmosphere

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 503
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 504

**E-008271/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ European stocks are the only way

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 505
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 506

**E-008272/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Bazedoxifene — breast cancer treatment

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 507
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 508

**E-008274/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Brussels investigates oil companies

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 509
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 510

**E-008275/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food safety plans

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 511
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 512

**E-008276/13** by Nuno Melo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Firearms in the EU

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 513
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 514

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 21

**E-008277/13** by Mitro Repo to the Commission
_Subject:_ Fairway dues levied by Finland on maritime traffic

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 515
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 516

**P-008279/13** by Niki Tzavela to the Commission
_Subject:_ Turkey and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 517
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 518

**P-008280/13** by David-Maria Sassoli to the Commission
_Subject:_ Facilitating integration and the acquisition of citizenship for immigrant children born or brought up in
EU Member States

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 519
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 520

**P-008281/13** by Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Proposal for a new regulation on fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 521
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 523

**E-008282/13** by Slavi Binev to the Commission
_Subject:_ Physical and psychological attack on journalists

българска версия ............................................................................................................................................................... 524
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 525

**E-008284/13** by Brian Crowley to the Commission
_Subject:_ Addressing the issues of ownership of data with regard to cloud computing

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 526

**E-008285/13** by Brian Crowley to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protecting consumer rights

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 527

**E-008286/13** by Brian Crowley to the Commission
_Subject:_ Protecting vulnerable consumers from initial price fluctuation

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 528

**E-008287/13** by Brian Crowley to the Commission
_Subject:_ SME frontier research and innovation support and international cooperation

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 529

**E-008288/13** by Jill Evans to the Commission
_Subject:_ Treatment of dogs in Serbia

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 530

**E-008289/13** by Jill Evans to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Burma

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 531

**E-008290/13** by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Annual Action Programme 2012 on accompanying measures on sugar

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 532

**E-008291/13** by Fiona Hall and Maria Da Graça Carvalho to the Commission
_Subject:_ Galicia Iberian Renewable Energy Export (GIBREX) project

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 533
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 534

**E-008292/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Need for a rapid and effective EU response in the event of flows of illegal immigrants arriving from Egypt

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 535
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 536

C 65 E / 22 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008293/13** by Mario Borghezio to the Commission
_Subject:_ Monitoring of EU aid to Egypt

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 537
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 538

**E-008294/13** by Andrea Cozzolino to the Commission
_Subject:_ European health area

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 539
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 541

**E-008295/13** by Salvatore Iacolino, Magdi Cristiano Allam, Alfredo Antoniozzi, Pino Arlacchi, Paolo Bartolozzi,
Fabrizio Bertot, Mara Bizzotto, Lara Comi, Carlo Fidanza, Franco Frigo, Giuseppe Gargani, Vincenzo Iovine,
Clemente Mastella, Erminia Mazzoni, Guido Milana, Claudio Morganti, Cristiana Muscardini, Alfredo Pallone,
Niccolò Rinaldi, Giancarlo Scottà, Giommaria Uggias, Salvatore Tatarella, Antonio Cancian, Tiziano Motti,
Roberta Angelilli, Barbara Matera and Elisabetta Gardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Reduction of TNT Express workforce in Italy

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 543
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 545

**E-008296/13** by Bas Eickhout to the Commission
_Subject:_ Statements by Moody's credit rating agency concerning taxation of banks in the Netherlands

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 546
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 547

**E-008297/13** by Bart Staes to the Commission
_Subject:_ Application of the Papismedov judgment and the preliminary judicial ruling on Articles 202-204 of the
Community Customs Code

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 548
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 549

**E-008298/13** by Ivo Belet to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rights of workers in subcontracting firms

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 550
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 551

**E-008299/13** by Konrad Szymański to the Commission
_Subject:_ Findings of public consultation on shale gas

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 552
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 553

**P-008301/13** by Struan Stevenson to the Commission
_Subject:_ Excessive cost of challenging decisions in the UK

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 554

**P-008302/13** by William (The Earl of) Dartmouth to the Commission
_Subject:_ Participants in the High Level Group on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 555

**E-008303/13** by Ramon Tremosa i Balcells to the Commission
_Subject:_ Follow-up to Question E-003405/2013

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 556
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 557

**E-008304/13** by Derek Vaughan to the Commission
_Subject:_ Food Supplements Directive

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 558

**E-008306/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Pakistani sisters reportedly murdered for dancing in the rain

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 559
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 560

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 23

**E-008307/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ Turkish Deputy Prime Minister allegedly blames Jewish diaspora for Gezi Park protests

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 561
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 562

**E-008308/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Islamist leader calls for attacks on the Winter Olympics

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

**E-008309/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attacks in the Sinai and Suez

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

**E-008310/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Future of EU aid to Egypt

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 567
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 568

**E-008311/13** by Fiorello Provera and Charles Tannock to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Re-emergence of insurgency in Iraq

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 569
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 570

**E-008313/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Council
_Subject:_ Underreported car CO 2 emissions

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 571
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 572

**E-008314/13** by Cristiana Muscardini to the Commission
_Subject:_ European businesses and Chinese forced labour

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 573
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 574

**E-008315/13** by Giuseppe Gargani, Paolo Bartolozzi, Antonio Cancian, Carlo Casini, Lara Comi, Giovanni La
Via, Clemente Mastella, Alfredo Pallone, Aldo Patriciello, Gino Trematerra and Potito Salatto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Concessions for the management of the gas distribution service

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 575
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 576

**E-008316/13** by Giuseppe Gargani, Sonia Alfano, Paolo Bartolozzi, Vito Bonsignore, Antonio Cancian, Carlo
Casini, Lara Comi, Lorenzo Fontana, Vincenzo Iovine, Giovanni La Via, Clemente Mastella, Alfredo Pallone, Aldo
Patriciello, Oreste Rossi, Potito Salatto, Marco Scurria, Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris, Salvatore Tatarella and
Giommaria Uggias to the Council
_Subject:_ Alarming situation in Lebanon

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 577
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 578

**E-008317/13** by Marek Henryk Migalski to the Commission
_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arrests on the 50th birthday of Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Wersja polska .................................................................................................................................................................... 579
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 580

**E-008318/13** by Marc Tarabella to the Commission
_Subject:_ Towards greater transparency in clinical trials

Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 581
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 582

**E-008319/13** by Josef Weidenholzer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Outsourcing of data storage in third countries

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 583
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 584

C 65 E / 24 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**E-008321/13** by Norbert Neuser to the Commission
_Subject:_ Disposal of animal carcases in Rhineland Palatinate by the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung (specialpurpose association for animal carcase disposal)

Deutsche Fassung .............................................................................................................................................................. 585
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 586

**E-008322/13** by Petri Sarvamaa to the Commission
_Subject:_ Restrictions on passenger numbers in high-speed train carriages

Suomenkielinen versio ..................................................................................................................................................... 587
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 588

**E-008323/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Rising number of victims of defamation on social networks

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 589
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 591

**E-008324/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Ceramic district in the Veneto region, combating dumping and counterfeiting, and support for Italianmade products

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 593
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 594

**E-008325/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Accommodation for deprived persons occupied by wealthy Roma

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 595
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 596

**E-008326/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Italian drivers paying the price for third-party motor insurance policies

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 597
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 598

**E-008327/13** by Mara Bizzotto to the Commission
_Subject:_ Illegal Roma camps and begging: social emergency, support for municipalities in the Veneto region and
funds currently allocated by the EU for integration of Roma

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 599
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 600

**E-008328/13** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Current state of play of negotiations between the EU and the US — I

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 601
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 603

**E-008329/13** by Nuno Teixeira to the Commission
_Subject:_ Current state of play of negotiations between the EU and the US — II

Versão portuguesa ............................................................................................................................................................ 601
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 603

**P-008330/13** by Claudette Abela Baldacchino to the Commission
_Subject:_ Mediterranean immigration crisis

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 605
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 606

**P-008331/13** by Marlene Mizzi to the Commission
_Subject:_ Eurema pilot project

Verżjoni Maltija ................................................................................................................................................................. 607
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 608

**P-008332/13** by Franco Bonanini to the Commission
_Subject:_ Instigation by China of an anti-dumping investigation into European wines

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 609
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 610

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 25

**P-008333/13** by Willy Meyer to the Commission
_Subject:_ Alleged embezzlement of SERVEF (Valencian Community employment offices) funding

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 611
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 612

**P-008334/13** by Erminia Mazzoni to the Commission
_Subject:_ Infringement proceedings in respect of the ‘Citadella della Giustizia’ in Bari

Versione italiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 613
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 614

**P-008335/13** by Bart Staes to the Commission
_Subject:_ Dalligate and the involvement of the Commission's Secretariat-General in the TPD

Nederlandse versie ............................................................................................................................................................ 615
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 617

**P-008336/13** by María Muñiz De Urquiza to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU funding of research activities carried out in illegal Israeli settlements

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 619
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 620

**E-008337/13** by Véronique De Keyser, Teresa Riera Madurell, Keith Taylor, Willy Meyer, Kyriacos
Triantaphyllides and Emer Costello to the Commission
_Subject:_ EU funding of research activities carried out in illegal Israeli settlements

Versión española ............................................................................................................................................................... 621
Ελληνική έκδοση ................................................................................................................................................................. 623
Version française ............................................................................................................................................................... 625
English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 627

**E-008338/13** by Marina Yannakoudakis to the Commission
_Subject:_ Modern lighting

English version .................................................................................................................................................................. 628

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 27

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007997/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(4 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Άνιση μεταχείριση των καταθετών

Σύμφωνα με την προσωρινή έκθεση μιας επιτροπής τεσσάρων διεθνούς φήμης εμπειρογνωμόνων σε τραπεζικά και
χρηματοοικονομικά θέματα, στους οποίους η Κεντρική Τράπεζα της Κύπρου ανέθεσε να εξετάσουν τις διάφορες πτυχές του
τραπεζικού τομέα της Κύπρου, υπάρχουν σοβαρές ανησυχίες σχετικά με μια σειρά ζητημάτων που σχετίζονται με διατάξεις
του Μνημονίου Συνεννόησης μεταξύ της Κύπρου και της Τρόικας. Στην έκθεση των εμπειρογνωμόνων αναφέρονται, μεταξύ
άλλων, τα εξής:

«Ο επιλεκτικός τρόπος με τον οποίο εφαρμόστηκε το κούρεμα δημιουργεί ζητήματα ισοτιμίας, αφού οι καταθέτες στα
υποκαταστήματα του εξωτερικού προστατεύθηκαν, ενώ άλλα πιστωτικά ιδρύματα στην Κύπρο, τα οποία δέχονταν δημόσια
χρηματοδότηση, δεν υποχρεώθηκαν να ζητήσουν τη συνδρομή των καταθετών ή των μελών τους».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Συμφωνεί ότι ο τρόπος με τον οποίο εφαρμόστηκε το κούρεμα δημιουργεί ζητήματα ίσης μεταχείρισης μεταξύ των
καταθετών στα διάφορα κράτη μέλη και μεταξύ εκείνων στα διάφορα χρηματοπιστωτικά ιδρύματα μέσα στην Κύπρο;

2. Είναι η απόφαση για το κούρεμα, καθώς και ο τρόπος με τον οποίο αυτό εφαρμόστηκε, συμβατά με τις πολιτικές και
τις αρχές της ΕΕ όσον αφορά την ίση μεταχείριση των πολιτών της;

3. Τι προτίθεται να πράξει η Επιτροπή για να εξασφαλίσει ότι οι πολίτες που θίγονται από το κούρεμα θα
αντιμετωπιστούν τελικά κατά τρόπο ισότιμο;

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

_(5 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Οι προβληματισμοί σχετικά με την ίση μεταχείριση πολιτών σε σχέση με δράσεις των κυπριακών αρχών πρέπει να
απευθύνονται στις αρμόδιες αρχές στην Κύπρο οι οποίες ανέλαβαν τις εν λόγω δράσεις.

C 65 E / 28 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007997/13**

**to the Commission**
**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Unequal treatment of depositors

According to the interim report of a committee of four internationally-renowned experts on banking and finance,
who have been commissioned by the Central Bank of Cyprus to research into various aspects of Cyprus’s banking
sector, there are strong concerns about a number of issues regarding the provisions of the memorandum of
understanding between Cyprus and the Troika. Among other things, the report by the committee of experts states
that:

‘The selective way in which the haircut was applied raises questions of equity when depositors in foreign branches
were spared, and other credit institutions in Cyprus receiving public money were not required to call on their
depositors or members’.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Does it agree that the way the haircut was implemented raises questions of equal treatment of depositors
among Member States and also among various credit institutions within Cyprus?

2. Is the decision for the haircut and the way it has been implemented compatible with EU policies and principles
concerning the equal treatment of citizens?

3. What does the Commission intend to do in order to ensure that the citizens affected by the haircut eventually
receive equal treatment?

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

_(5 August 2013)_

Concerns regarding the equal treatment of citizens in relation to the actions taken by the Cypriot authorities should
be addressed to the respective authorities within Cyprus that have taken the said actions.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 29

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-007998/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(4 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ιρλανδική οικονομία

Σύμφωνα με τις επίσημες αναθεωρημένες στατιστικές που δόθηκαν στη δημοσιότητα από το Ιρλανδικό Κεντρικό Γραφείο
Στατιστικών (CSO), η ιρλανδική οικονομία συρρικνώθηκε το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2013 κατά 0,6%. Έτσι, η χώρα περιήλθε και
πάλι σε ύφεση, καθώς κατέγραψε τρία διαδοχικά τρίμηνα συρρίκνωσης της οικονομίας της, ανατρέποντας το σκηνικό που
ήθελε την χώρα να έχει επιστρέψει σε μία περιορισμένη οικονομική ανάπτυξη παρά τις μεγάλες περικοπές στις δημόσιες
δαπάνες και τις αυξήσεις φόρων.

Υπενθυμίζεται ότι η χώρα θα λάβει μέσα στο 2013 την τελευταία δόση του δανείου που διαπραγματεύθηκε με την Τρόικα
περί τα τέλη του 2010. Στη συνέχεια, θα πρέπει να βασιστεί στον δανεισμό της από τις αγορές ομολόγων για να καλύψει το
ακόμη υψηλό δημοσιονομικό της έλλειμμα.

Ερωτάται λοιπόν η Επιτροπή:

—
Πώς ερμηνεύει αυτή την εξέλιξη; Εξακολουθεί να θεωρεί ακόμη την Ιρλανδία ως σπάνιο παράδειγμα επιτυχίας των
μέτρων αυστηρής λιτότητας και ως μοντέλο για επιβολή παρόμοιων μέτρων και σε άλλες χώρες;

—
Πώς θα επηρεαστούν οι προσπάθειες της ιρλανδικής κυβέρνησης για μία ομαλή έξοδο από το πρόγραμμα οικονομικής
βοήθειας, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις πιθανές νέες αμφιβολίες που θα προκληθούν στους επενδυτές ομολόγων σχετικά με
την ικανότητα της χώρας να αποπληρώσει το υψηλό της χρέος;

—
Πόσο ορατό είναι το ενδεχόμενο η Ιρλανδία να χρειαστεί ένα νέο πακέτο διάσωσης;

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

_(20 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Παρά την πολύ μεγάλη αστάθεια και αβεβαιότητα που περιβάλλει τα στοιχεία των εθνικών λογαριασμών στην Ιρλανδία, τα
δεδομένα για το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2013 καθώς και οι αναθεωρημένες σειρές στοιχείων όσον αφορά την ιστορική πορεία
εξέλιξης τονίζουν τον ευπαθή χαρακτήρα της οικονομικής ανάκαμψης κατά τους τελευταίους δεκαοκτώ μήνες, για
παράδειγμα όσον αφορά τη ζήτηση από την πλευρά των εμπορικών εταίρων. Η ιδιωτική κατανάλωση αποδείχθηκε όμως πιο
ανθεκτική από τις αρχικές εκτιμήσεις, ενώ έκαναν την εμφάνισή τους και έκτακτοι παράγοντες οι οποίοι επηρέασαν
καθοριστικά την αξιολόγηση των στοιχείων κατά το πρώτο τρίμηνο του 2013. Οι δείκτες, αλλά και η πτώση της ανεργίας
υποδεικνύουν ότι οι επιδόσεις της ιρλανδικής οικονομίας θα είναι ολοένα και πιο δυναμικές στις επόμενες φάσεις. Κατά το
τρέχον έτος αναμένεται ευρύτατα ότι θα εξακολουθήσει η θετική (αλλά εντούτοις χαμηλή) αύξηση του ΑΕΠ.

Η Ιρλανδία άρχισε να ανακτά εκ νέου πρόσβαση στην αγορά το 2012, ενώ για τις εκδόσεις νέων ομολόγων στην πρωτογενή
αγορά υπήρξε έντονη ζήτηση από διεθνείς και εγχώριους επενδυτές. Οι αποδόσεις ήταν ισοπεδωμένες κατά τις ημέρες
διαπραγμάτευσης που περιέβαλαν την έκδοση των στοιχείων για τους εθνικούς λογαριασμούς. Τα ιρλανδικά ομόλογα
αντιστάθηκαν με επιτυχία στη γενική διεθνή ενίσχυση των ευμετάβλητων οικονομικών συνθηκών στην αγορά κατά τους
τελευταίους μήνες και οι αποδόσεις είναι σήμερα κάτω από τα επίπεδα πριν από την κρίση. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή αναμένει
ότι η Ιρλανδία θα ολοκληρώσει με επιτυχία το πρόγραμμα οικονομικής προσαρμογής της έως το τέλος του 2013. Τα άφθονα
ταμειακά αποθέματα ασφαλείας αποτελούν χρήσιμο μηχανισμό άμυνας για την αντιμετώπιση πιθανών μελλοντικών δυσμενών
εξελίξεων στην αγορά. Ωστόσο, το χρέος και το έλλειμμα στην Ιρλανδία εξακολουθούν να είναι υψηλά, με συνέπεια τη
διατήρηση της δημοσιονομικής εξυγίανσης, σύμφωνα με τις δεσμεύσεις της, όπως ακριβώς έγινε στην πράξη. Η πρακτική
αυτή αποτελεί τον καλύτερο τρόπο για την Ιρλανδία να αποδείξει την αποφασιστικότητά της να διατηρήσει την οικονομία και
τα δημόσια οικονομικά σε διατηρήσιμη πορεία και να διασφαλίσει τα στοιχεία βελτίωσης αναζητώντας όρους που έχουν
ζωτική σημασία για τη διαιώνιση της οικονομικής ανάκαμψης.

C 65 E / 30 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-007998/13**

**to the Commission**
**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Irish economy

According to official revised statistics published by the Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO), the Irish economy shrank
by 0.6% in the first quarter of 2013. Thus the country is again in recession, as its economy has shrunk for three
successive quarters, thereby gainsaying rumours that the country had returned to limited economic growth despite
massive cuts to public spending and tax rises.

It should be remembered that, in 2013, Ireland will receive the final tranche of the loan negotiated with the Troika in
late 2010. It will then need to rely on borrowing on the bond markets in order to cover its still very large budgetary
deficit.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
What is its interpretation of this development? Does it still consider Ireland to be a rare example of the success
of strict austerity measures and a model for the imposition of similar measures in other countries?

—
How will this affect efforts by the Irish government to achieve a smooth exit from the financial aid programme,
bearing in mind the new doubts that bond investors will possibly entertain as to Ireland’s ability to repay its
large debt?

—
How likely is it that Ireland will need a new bailout?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

Notwithstanding the very large volatility and uncertainty surrounding national accounts data in Ireland, the data for
Q1 2013 as well as the revised historical series point to the fragility of the economic recovery over the last eighteen
months, for example from trading partner demand. But private consumption has been more resilient than first
estimated, while one off factors influenced the reading in Q1 2013. Indicators as well as falling unemployment point
to a more robust performance of the Irish economy going forward. Positive (but low) GDP growth is still widely
expected this year.

Ireland started to regain market access in 2012 and primary market issuances have met with strong demand from
international and domestic investors. Yields were flat on the trading days surrounding the national accounts release.
Irish bonds have withstood well the general international increase in financial market volatility over the last months
and yields are currently below pre-crisis levels. The European Commission expect Ireland to successfully complete its
economic adjustment programme by end-2013. The ample cash buffers are a useful defence against possible future
adverse market developments. Yet, the debt and deficit in Ireland are still high. Maintaining fiscal consolidation in line
with its commitments, as it has been the case. Is the best way for Ireland to show its determination to keep the
economy and its public finances on a sustainable path and safeguard the improvement in finding conditions that is
essential for a lasting recovery.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 31

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-008000/13**

**до Комисията**
**Slavi Binev (EFD)**

_(4 юли 2013 г.)_

_Относно:_ Липса на демократични,свободни избори в България

В България се проведоха най-нечестните, най-необективните и най-манипулираните избори. Това е породено от
пълната липса на равнопоставеност между партиите пред медиите, в Централната избирателна комисия, във връзка с
финансирането и т.н. Повечето медии и социологически агенции са в услуга на няколко големи партии, които
инвестираха огромни средства в тях. Международните наблюдатели констатираха купуване на гласове и
фалшифициране на бюлетини, в навечерието на изборите бяха открити 350 000 бюлетини, които да фалшифицират
изборите. По сигнал на ПП НФСБ, особено драстични са установените нарушения в избирателните секции в Република
Турция, където под строй се гласува за етническата партия ДПС. Само 50% от избирателите гласуваха, а от тези
гласуващи 25% (между които големи граждански обединения) нямат представителство в новия Парламент. Фалшивите
избори генерират фалшив Парламент и фалшиво правителство, които водят след себе си глад, мизерия и отчаяние.
Препоръките на Венецианската комисия не се спазват.

Поради всичко това Европейският парламент трябва да подкрепи ощетените от изборните фалшификации български
партии, в противен случай се посяга на фундамента на демокрацията в Република България. В момента хората
в България отново са на улицата с искане за нов Изборен кодекс и ново Правителство.

1. Наясно ли е Комисията с тези проблеми в държавата-членка на ЕС България, подкопаващи фундаменталните
демократични принципи?

2. Какво смята да предприеме Комисията?

**Отговор, даден от г-жа Рединг от името на Комисията**

_(30 август 2013 г.)_

Свободните избори са основен израз на демокрацията и изборите в ЕС трябва да отговарят на най-високите
демократични стандарти. Важна е силна ангажираност от страна на държавите членки, за да се гарантират тези
демократични стандарти, в съответствие с международните норми, с които те са обвързани.

Като подчертава, че е важно правото на свободни избори да се спазва във всички държави членки, Комисията
отбелязва, че е задължение на държавите членки да определят условията за провеждането на националните
парламентарни избори и на компетентните национални административни и съдебни органи да осигурят съответствие с
приложимите международни стандарти. Комисията няма общи правомощия по отношение на организацията на
националните избори в ЕС и не разполага с правомощия да осъществява наблюдение върху тяхното провеждане.

В по-общ план Комисията съзнава предизвикателствата, пред които понастоящем е изправен демократичния процес
в България, и отблизо следи развитието на ситуацията. Комисията е поела ангажимент да помага на България в борбата
срещу корупцията и организираната престъпност, както и в прилагането на реформите в съдебната система. Тези
стъпки са всъщност от съществено значение, за да се гарантира съществуването на обективни, балансирани и
независими институции и се възстанови доверието и стабилността в страната.

C 65 E / 32 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008000/13**

**to the Commission**

**Slavi Binev (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Absence of democratic free elections in Bulgaria

The recent elections in Bulgaria were exceptionally corrupt, biased and manipulated. The root of the problem is the
complete absence of a level playing field for the political parties, _inter alia_ in the media, in the Central Electoral
Commission and in relation to financing. Most media outlets and opinion poll agencies are in the service of a few
large parties, which invested huge sums of money in them. International election observers reported that votes had
been bought and ballot papers had been falsified; on the eve of the poll, 350 000 ballot papers were discovered that
had been intended to distort the result. According to the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria party, abuses
were particularly flagrant in constituencies in Turkey where the electorate was marched out to support the ethnic
Movement for Rights and Freedoms party (DPS). Only 50% of those entitled to vote did so, and a quarter of those
voters (among them, members of large civic associations) are unrepresented in the new parliament. Fraudulent
elections produce a fraudulent parliament and a fraudulent government, and the end result is hunger, poverty and
desperation. The recommendations of the Venice Commission have not been followed.

In the light of all this, the European Parliament ought to extend support to those political parties that suffered as a
result of the electoral fraud; otherwise the foundations of democracy in Bulgaria will be undermined. The Bulgarian
people are currently out on the street again calling for a new electoral code and a new government.

1. Is the Commission aware of these problems in Bulgaria — a Member State of the EU — which are eroding the
basic principles of democracy?

2. How does the Commission intend to react?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

Free elections are a basic expression of democracy and elections in the EU must follow the highest democratic
standards. A strong commitment by Member States is important to guarantee these democratic standards, in line with
the international norms by which they are bound.

While stressing the importance that the right to free elections is upheld in all Member States, the Commission notes
that it is up to Member States to determine the conditions for the conduct of national parliamentary elections and to
the competent national administrative and judicial authorities to ensure compliance with relevant international
standards. The Commission has no general power as regards the organisation of national elections in the EU nor does
it have power to monitor their conduct.

More generally, the Commission is aware of the challenges currently affecting the democratic process in Bulgaria and
is closely following developments. The Commission is committed to helping Bulgaria fight corruption and organised
crime and to assisting in implementing judicial reforms. These steps are in fact essential to ensure the existence of
honest, balanced and independent institutions and rebuild trust and stability in the country.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 33

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008001/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(4 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Mujeres con discapacidad y maternidad

Las mujeres con discapacidad se enfrentan a desafíos adicionales y muy complejos cuando experimentan la
maternidad.

¿Cree la Comisión que las mujeres con discapacidad deben tener derecho a un permiso de maternidad ampliado, a fin
de adaptarse a su nueva situación y poder desarrollar correctamente su vida familiar?

¿Considera, asimismo, la Comisión que el permiso debe ampliarse en caso de que el menor presente una discapacidad,
equiparándolo al permiso por parto múltiple?

¿Considera la Comisión alguna medida para garantizar la estabilidad laboral de aquellas mujeres con discapacidad que
quieran ejercer su derecho a ser madres para evitar el despido por motivo de embarazo y reivindicar el derecho a la
baja maternal pagada?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

Ya en virtud del artículo 8 de la Directiva 92/85/CEE ( [1] ), las madres trabajadoras (con discapacidad o no) tenían
derecho a un mínimo de catorce semanas de permiso de maternidad. Además, los empresarios tienen prohibido
despedir a las mujeres durante el período comprendido entre el comienzo de su embarazo y el final del permiso de
maternidad.

La Comisión propuso en 2008 modificar la Directiva 95/85/CEE ( [2] ) ampliando el permiso de maternidad hasta
dieciocho semanas, lo que también afectaría naturalmente a las madres con discapacidad.

Además, la Comisión propuso introducir una disposición que obliga a los Estados miembros a conceder un permiso
de maternidad suplementario en caso de parto múltiple o de bebé nacido con discapacidad.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0085:es:html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase el documento COM/2008/637.

C 65 E / 34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008001/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Motherhood and women with disabilities

Women with disabilities face additional and very complex challenges when they become mothers.

Does the Commission think that women with disabilities should have the right to a longer period of maternity leave
so that they can adapt to their new situation and build a good family life?

Does it think that the leave period should be extended in the event that the baby has a disability, giving the mother the
same leave entitlement as multiple‐birth mothers?

Does it intend to take measures to ensure that women with disabilities who wish to exercise their right to have
children may do so without losing their jobs and are given paid maternity leave?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

Already pursuant to Art 8 of Directive 92/85/EEC ( [1] ), working mothers (disabled and non-disabled) are entitled to at
least 14 weeks of maternity. Furthermore, employers are prohibited from dismissing women during the period from
the beginning of their pregnancy until the end of maternity leave.

In 2008, the Commission has proposed to amend Directive 95/85/EEC ( [2] ) by extending maternity leave to 18 weeks
which would of course also cover mothers with disabilities.

Furthermore, the Commission proposed to introduce a provision obliging Member States to grant additional
maternity leave in case of multiple births and/or a child born with disabilities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0085:en:html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See document COM(2008) 637.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 35

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008002/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(4 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Visibilización de mujeres con discapacidad

Teniendo en cuenta que la Unión Europea cuenta con 46 millones de mujeres y niñas con discapacidad, esto es, el
58 % de las personas con discapacidad y el 16 % de las mujeres de la Unión Europea;

Considerando que las mujeres y niñas con discapacidad se encuentran en situación de máxima vulnerabilidad;

Teniendo en cuenta que la mayor barrera a que se enfrentan las mujeres con discapacidad es que la sociedad en su
conjunto las invisibiliza, favoreciendo la exclusión y la falta de concienciación;

¿Tiene previsto la Comisión elaborar alguna campaña de concienciación para que las mujeres con discapacidad sean
más visibles para el conjunto de la sociedad?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Reding en nombre de la Comisión**

_(20 de agosto de 2013)_

La no discriminación y la igualdad entre hombres y mujeres son principios rectores generales de la Estrategia Europea
sobre Discapacidad 2010-2020 ( [1] ), que se refiere explícitamente a los «hombres, mujeres y niños con discapacidad».
En primer lugar, la igualdad entre sexos se tiene en cuenta en todas las acciones de la Estrategia. Además, la
discapacidad se integra en las medidas de la Estrategia de la UE para la igualdad entre mujeres y hombres 2010-2015
que, al abordar por ejemplo la igualdad en materia de independencia económica, menciona expresamente a las
mujeres con discapacidad ( [2] ).

La importancia de la igualdad entre sexos se abordará también en el informe de la Comisión relativo a los primeros
años de aplicación de la Estrategia Europea sobre Discapacidad 2010-2020, que está en preparación para su
publicación a finales de año.

Las mujeres con discapacidad son citadas explícitamente como un objetivo posible en el caso de la convocatoria
restringida de propuestas lanzada en marzo de 2013 para la cofinanciación de actividades de los Estados miembros
relativas a la sensibilización sobre la violencia contra las mujeres. Una convocatoria de propuestas en el marco del
Programa Daphne está abierta hasta el final de octubre de 2013 y otorga una prioridad específica a la violencia contra
los grupos de mujeres más vulnerables, por ejemplo, las mujeres con discapacidad. A través de dicha convocatoria, las
organizaciones de la sociedad civil tendrán la oportunidad de fomentar actividades de concienciación.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/lexuriserv/lexuriserv.do?uri=celex:52010dc0636:ES:not
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/blobservlet?docid=6568&langid=en p. 12.

C 65 E / 36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008002/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Raising awareness about women with disabilities

Forty-six million women and girls suffer from a disability in the European Union, a figure representing 58% of the
total number of persons with a disability and 16% of all women in the EU.

Women and girls with disabilities are extremely vulnerable.

The main barrier facing women with disabilities is the fact that society as a whole sweeps their problems under the
carpet, thus ignoring their needs and marginalising them.

Does the Commission intend to launch an awareness-raising campaign about women with disabilities?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

Non-discrimination and equality between men and women are general guiding principles of the European Disability
Strategy 2010-2020 ( [1] ) that explicitly addresses ‘men, women and children with disabilities’. First of all, gender is
mainstreamed into all actions of the strategy. In addition, disability is mainstreamed into actions of the EU Strategy
for equality between women and men 2010-2015, which, when addressing for instance equal economic
independence, expressly mentions women with disability ( [2] ).

The importance of the gender aspect will also be dealt with in the Commission’s report on the first years of the
implementation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 that is under preparation for publication later this

year.

Women with disabilities were specifically mentioned as a possible target group in a restricted call for proposals
launched in March 2013 to co-fund Member States' awareness-raising activities on violence against women. An open
call for proposals under the Daphne program is open until the end of October 2013, with a specific priority on
violence against the most vulnerable groups of women, for example women with disabilities. Through this call, civil
society organisations will also have the opportunity to develop awareness-raising activities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:EN:NOT](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0636:EN:NOT)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) [http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6568&langId=en, p. 12.](http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=6568&langId=en)

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 37

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008003/13**

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

_(4 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Tu voz en Europa

En el marco de la elaboración interactiva de políticas, la Comisión Europea puso en marcha en 2001 el portal «Tu voz
en Europa», programa que ha permitido realizar más de 370 consultas públicas.

Este diputado entiende los criterios que se establecen en la traducción de cierta información proporcionada por las
distintas instituciones europeas. En concreto, en la página www.europa.eu, se especifica que «Por motivos de gestión
del dinero público, en las páginas muy especializadas, que consultan relativamente pocas personas, la idea es que la
mayoría de esas personas comprenda lo esencial de la información, aunque algunas de ellas deban consultar los
documentos oficiales en una lengua que no es la suya».

Debido a estos criterios, las consultas públicas no se encuentran traducidas a las veintitrés lenguas oficiales de la UE.
Siendo «Tu voz en Europa» el punto de acceso único que tienen los ciudadanos europeos para participar activamente
en el proceso de toma de decisiones de la UE, ¿cree la Comisión que, para poder recoger todas las voces de Europa,
estos documentos deben estar disponibles en todas las lenguas oficiales?

¿Cree la Comisión que si los documentos estuviesen traducidos a las veintitrés lenguas oficiales serían consultados
con mayor asiduidad?

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

_(23 de agosto de 2013)_

La Comisión considera de la máxima importancia la contribución de las partes interesadas a la elaboración de las
políticas de la UE. No obstante, los recursos disponibles para la traducción son limitados y se utilizan en primer lugar
para satisfacer las obligaciones jurídicas de traducción de la Comisión. Además, la Comisión intenta poner a
disposición de la ciudadanía la traducción de tantos documentos como sea posible, en particular para las consultas
públicas: los Libros Verdes se publican en todas las lenguas oficiales y, en relación con otros documentos de consulta,
los servicios responsables de la Comisión evalúan qué versiones lingüísticas son necesarias para llegar a las partes
interesadas de la manera más eficaz y eficiente. A partir de agosto de 2013, los servicios de traducción de la Comisión
se encargarán de traducir, a todas las lenguas que soliciten los servicios responsables, los resúmenes y los documentos
de consulta pública de extensión máxima de 10 páginas. Las partes interesadas pueden enviar sus contribuciones en
cualquiera de las lenguas oficiales de la UE.

Por otro lado, desde enero de 2012 las partes interesadas pueden hacer oír mejor su voz después de que la Comisión
ampliara, de ocho a doce semanas, la duración mínima de los períodos de consulta pública. Además, la Comisión se
ha comprometido ( [1] ) a ampliar el alcance de las consultas mediante la publicación de un calendario rotatorio de
consultas previstas en el sitio web de «Tu voz en Europa». A mediados de 2014 concluirá la revisión de las normas
mínimas de consulta. Las normas revisadas proporcionarán orientaciones prácticas y operativas adicionales con vistas
a mejorar la calidad de los documentos de consulta y, por tanto, mejorar la información de las partes interesadas y
fomentar su participación.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Comunicación sobre la adecuación de la normativa de la UE; COM(2012) 746 final.

C 65 E / 38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008003/13**

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

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Your Voice in Europe

With a view to encouraging an interactive approach to policy-making, the Commission created the ‘Your Voice in
Europe’ portal in 2001. There have been more than 370 public consultations under this programme to date.

I am aware of the criteria which govern the translation of certain types of information made available by the European
[institutions. It is stated on www.europa.eu that ‘to save taxpayers' money, for highly-specialised sites consulted only](http://www.europa.eu/)
by relatively small numbers of people, the concern is to ensure most can understand the essence of the information,
even if some will have to read official documents in a foreign language’.

As a result public consultations are not translated into the 23 official languages of the Union. Given that ‘Your Voice
in Europe’ is the single access point through which European citizens can play an active part in EU decision-making,
does the Commission think that the documents contained therein should be available in all the official languages so
that anyone in Europe can have a say?

Does it think that the documents would be consulted more regularly if they were available in all the official EU
languages?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission considers stakeholders' contribution to the EU policy making process to be of utmost importance.
Resources for translation are however limited and primarily used to meet the Commission's legal translation
obligations. Beyond this, the Commission seeks to make available the translations of as many other documents as
possible, including for public consultations: Green Papers are published in all the official languages, while for other
consultation documents Commission lead services assess which language versions are needed to reach stakeholders
in the most effective and efficient way. From August 2013, Commission translation services will ensure the
translation of up to 10-page open public consultation documents and consultation summaries into all languages
requested by lead services. Stakeholders' contributions can be submitted in any of the EU official languages.

From a broader perspective, the Commission has strengthened the voice of stakeholders by extending, since
January 2012, the minimum period for public consultation from eight to twelve weeks. Furthermore, the
Commission has committed ( [1] ) to extend the reach of consultations by publishing a rolling calendar of planned
consultations on the ‘Your Voice in Europe’ website. A revision of the minimum consultation standards will be
completed mid-2014. The revised standards will provide more practical and operational guidance with a view to
enhance the quality of consultation documents and thus, facilitate stakeholders' understanding and encourage their
replies.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Communication on EU Regulatory Fitness; COM(2012) 746 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 39

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008004/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE) y Esther Herranz García (PPE)**

_(4 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Importaciones de tomates procedentes de Marruecos

En campañas pasadas, las importaciones de tomates procedentes de Marruecos generaron tensiones en el mercado
comunitario, según los testimonios aportados por las organizaciones profesionales comunitarias. En la última
campaña, ese país ha vuelto a exportar cantidades fuera de los contingentes preferenciales fijados en el acuerdo que
mantiene con la Unión Europea. La Comisión ya ha reforzado el control sobre el respeto de los precios de entrada de
frutas y hortalizas procedentes de países terceros para evitar irregularidades detectadas en años pasados, en particular
en la importación de tomates marroquíes. Y en la reforma de la PAC se prevé una nueva modificación del régimen de
importación en vigor.

¿Puede informar la Comisión de los datos definitivos de importación de tomates marroquíes en la campaña
2012/2013?

¿Tiene constancia el ejecutivo comunitario de que los importadores hayan respetado los precios de entrada
establecidos para el contingente preferencial y pagado los derechos correspondientes tanto dentro como fuera del
cupo establecido para esa última campaña?

¿Cómo piensa la Comisión que influirán los cambios aportados en el régimen de precios de entrada sobre el
funcionamiento de las importaciones de tomates procedentes de ese país?

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

_(5 de agosto de 2013)_

Los servicios de la Comisión vigilan estrechamente las cantidades de tomates importados de Marruecos mediante un
sistema de doble control basado en la declaración de las cantidades exportadas a la UE por los operadores marroquíes,
así como en el registro diario de las importaciones por los servicios aduaneros nacionales de los Estados miembros
(publicado diariamente en la página web de la Dirección General de Fiscalidad y Unión Aduanera). Para ayudar a las
autoridades aduaneras a reforzar el control de la importación de productos sujetos al precio de entrada, mediante el
Reglamento de Ejecución de la Comisión (UE) n° 701/2012 ( [1] ) se creó un sistema de rastreabilidad.

Sobre la base de las notificaciones de los Estados miembros, los servicios de la Comisión calculan el valor de
importación a tanto alzado (con arreglo al artículo 140 bis del Reglamento n° 1234/2007 del Consejo). Este
indicador de los precios de los tomares importados de Marruecos puede fluctuar por encima y por debajo del precio
de entrada convenido, en la medida en que se pagan los aranceles correspondientes.

Atendiendo a los últimos datos provisionales (sujetos a revisión), Marruecos exportó a la UE 335 523 toneladas
de tomates durante la temporada 2012-2013 (fuente: Vigilancia TAXUD, código 780014), de las cuales
242 035 toneladas entran dentro del contingente (establecido en 233 000 + 28 000 toneladas).

Conviene señalar que la correcta aplicación del sistema de precios de entrada, incluido el posible cobro de los
aranceles de importación correspondientes, sigue siendo responsabilidad de los Estados miembros.

La reforma de la CAP y las normas de ejecución de la Comisión tienen por objeto dar las garantías necesarias a todas
las partes interesadas de que el Acuerdo con Marruecos sea plenamente respetado en lo que se refiere al sistema de
precios de entrada.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DO L 203 de 31.7.2012.

C 65 E / 40 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008004/13**

**to the Commission**
**Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE) and Esther Herranz García (PPE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Imports of tomatoes from Morocco

According to professional bodies in the EU, imports of tomatoes from Morocco have been a source of tension in the
Community market in recent years. Last year Morocco again exceeded the preferential import quotas enshrined in its
agreement with the EU. The Commission has tightened compliance checks on the entry prices of fruit and vegetables
from third countries in an effort to prevent the kinds of irregularities detected in previous years, particularly as
regards imports of Moroccan tomatoes. The CAP reform also provides for additional changes to the current import
arrangements.

Can the Commission put a precise figure on the volume of imports of tomatoes from Morocco in the 2012‐2013
season?

Can it say whether the imports have been priced according to the entry prices laid down for the preferential quota and
whether the duties applicable to imports covered under and falling outside the quota for last year have been paid?

How does it think the changes to the entry price arrangements will affect imports of tomatoes from Morocco?

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

_(5 August 2013)_

The Commission services closely monitor the amount of tomatoes imported from Morocco, with a double-checking
system which is based on the declaration of the quantities exported to the EU by the Moroccan operators as well as
the daily registration of imports by the national Customs Services of the Member States (published daily on the
webpage of Directorate General of Taxation and Customs Union). To help customs authorities to reinforce the
control of imports of products subject to the Entry Price, a traceability system was put in place through Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 701/2012 ( [1] ).

Based on the notifications of the Member States, the Commission services calculate the Standard Import Value
(pursuant to Article 140a Council Regulation 1234/2007). This proxy of tomato prices imported from Morocco can
fluctuate above and below the agreed entry price, to the extent that the corresponding duties are paid.

Based on the latest provisional data (which are subject to revision), Morocco exported to the EU 335 523 tonnes of
tomatoes during the season 2012-13 (source Surveillance TAXUD, code 780014), of which 242 035 tonnes within
the quota (set at 233 000+28 000 tonnes).

It has to be noted that the correct application of the entry price system, including the possible collection of linked
import duties, remains under the responsibility of the Member States.

The CAP 2020 reform and the Commission implementing rules aim at giving the necessary guarantees to all
stakeholders that the Agreement with Morocco is fully respected in regard of the entry price system.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 203, 31.7.2012.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 41

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008005/13**

**προς το Συμβούλιο**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(4 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Διάσωση με ίδια μέσα των τραπεζών στην Κύπρο

Λαμβάνοντας την απόφαση για διάσωση με ίδια μέσα της Λαϊκής Τράπεζας Κύπρου, έλαβε υπόψη του το Συμβούλιο το
γεγονός ότι πολλές επιχειρήσεις δεν ήταν καταθέτες αλλά είχαν λογαριασμούς στην τράπεζα για την διεξαγωγή των
καθημερινών τους επιχειρηματικών δραστηριοτήτων, και ότι, εξανεμίζοντας το κεφάλαιο κίνησής τους, οι ενέργειες του
Συμβουλίου ανάγκασαν τις περισσότερες από αυτές τις επιχειρήσεις να κηρύξουν πτώχευση, με οδυνηρές συνέπειες για τους
ιδιοκτήτες και τους υπαλλήλους τους;

**Απάντηση**
_(16 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Στις 25 Μαρτίου 2013, η Ευρωομάδα επέτυχε συμφωνία με τις κυπριακές αρχές ως προς τα βασικά στοιχεία που
απαιτούνται για ένα μελλοντικό μακροοικονομικό πρόγραμμα προσαρμογής που υποστηρίζεται από όλα τα κράτη μέλη της
Ευρωζώνης καθώς και τα τρία θεσμικά όργανα. Η Ευρωομάδα εξέφρασε την μεγάλη της ικανοποίηση για τα σχέδια πολιτικής
που παρουσίασαν οι κυπριακές αρχές και συμφώνησε ως προς τα μέτρα αναδιάρθρωσης του χρηματοοικονομικού τομέα
όπως προσδιορίζεται στο παράρτημα της δήλωσής της με ημερομηνία 25 Μαρτίου 2013 που συνιστά την βάση για την
αποκατάσταση της βιωσιμότητας του χρηματοπιστωτικού τομέα.

Επιπλέον, όπως αναφέρεται στο παράρτημα της δήλωσης της 25ης Μαρτίου 2013, συμφωνήθηκε ότι η Λαϊκή Τράπεζα της
Κύπρου (Λαϊκή) θα διαλυθεί αμέσως — με πλήρη συμβολή των μετόχων, των ομολογιούχων και των ανασφάλιστων
καταθετών — βάσει απόφασης της Κεντρικής Τράπεζας της Κύπρου (ΚΤΚ), μέσω του προσφάτως εγκριθέντος πλαισίου για
την εξυγίανση των τραπεζών. Η τράπεζα θα διαχωρισθεί σε μία καλή τράπεζα και μία κακή τράπεζα. Η κακή τράπεζα θα τεθεί
εκτός λειτουργίας συν τω χρόνω. Η καλή τράπεζα θα ενσωματωθεί στην Τράπεζα Κύπρου (ΤΚ), χρησιμοποιώντας το πλαίσιο
για την εξυγίανση των τραπεζών, αφού εκφράσουν τις απόψεις τους τα διοικητικά συμβούλια της ΤΚ και της Λαϊκής. Θα
λάβει 9 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ επείγουσας ενίσχυσης υπό μορφή ρευστότητας. Μόνο οι ανασφάλιστες καταθέσεις της ΤΚ θα
παραμείνουν δεσμευμένες μέχρι την πραγματοποίηση της ανακεφαλαιοποίησης και στη συνέχεια μπορούν να υπόκεινται σε
κατάλληλους όρους.

C 65 E / 42 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008005/13**

**to the Council**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bank bail-in in Cyprus

In taking the decision to bail in the Cyprus Popular Bank, did the Council consider the fact that many firms were not
depositors, but held accounts at this bank in order to carry out their day-to-day business and, that by wiping out their
working capital, your actions forced most of these firms into bankruptcy with dire consequences for their owners and
employees?

**Reply**
_(16 September 2013)_

On 25 March 2013, the Eurogroup reached an agreement with the Cyprus authorities on the key elements necessary
for a future macroeconomic adjustment programme supported by all euro area Member States as well as the three
institutions. It broadly welcomed the policy plans presented by the Cyprus authorities and agreed to the measures for
restructuring the financial sector as specified in the annex to its statement of 25 March 2013 which forms the basis
for restoring the viability of the financial sector.

Moreover, as stated in the annex to the statement of 25 March 2013, it was agreed that the Cyprus Popular Bank
(Laiki) will be resolved immediately — with a full contribution from equity shareholders, bond holders and uninsured
depositors — based on a decision by the Central Bank of Cyprus (CBC), using the newly adopted Bank Resolution
Framework. The bank will be split into a good bank and a bad bank. The bad bank will be run down over time. The
good bank will be folded into Bank of Cyprus (BoC), using the Bank Resolution Framework, after having heard the
Boards of Directors of BoC and Laiki. It will take EUR 9 billion of Emergency Liquidity Assistance with it. Only
uninsured deposits in BoC will remain frozen until recapitalization has been effected, and may subsequently be
subject to appropriate conditions.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 43

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008006/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(4 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Διάσωση με ίδια μέσα των τραπεζών στην Κύπρο

Λαμβάνοντας την απόφαση για διάσωση με ίδια μέσα της Λαϊκής Τράπεζας Κύπρου, έλαβε υπόψη της η Επιτροπή το γεγονός
ότι πολλές εταιρείες δεν ήταν καταθέτες αλλά είχαν λογαριασμούς στην τράπεζα για την διεξαγωγή των καθημερινών τους
επιχειρηματικών δραστηριοτήτων, και ότι εξανεμίζοντας το κεφάλαιο κίνησής τους, οι ενέργειες της Επιτροπής ανάγκασαν τις
περισσότερες από αυτές τις εταιρείες να κηρύξουν πτώχευση, με οδυνηρές συνέπειες για τους ιδιοκτήτες και τους
υπαλλήλους τους;

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

_(5 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Η απόφαση για την διενέργεια τραπεζικών πράξεων σε σχέση με τη Λαϊκή Τράπεζα Κύπρου υπήρξε μονομερής απόφαση των
κυπριακών αρχών. Όλα τα ερωτήματα απευθύνονται ουσιαστικά στην αρμόδια κυπριακή αρχή.

C 65 E / 44 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008006/13**

**to the Commission**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bank bail-in in Cyprus

In taking the decision to bail in the Cyprus Popular Bank, did the Commission consider the fact that many companies
were not depositors but held accounts at the bank in order to carry out their day-to-day business, and that by wiping
out their working capital, the Commission’s actions forced most of these companies into bankruptcy, with dire
consequences for their owners and employees?

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

_(5 August 2013)_

The decision to conduct bank resolution actions in relation to Cyprus Popular Bank was a unilateral decision of the
Cypriot authorities. All questions should be referred to the relevant authority within Cyprus.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 45

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008007/13**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**
**Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL) und Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE)**

_(4. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Zusammenhang mit dem Bergbauvorhaben Conga in Peru

Seit November 2011 wird in Cajamarca, Peru, der friedliche Widerstand vor Ort gegen das Bergbauvorhaben Conga
der Bergbaugesellschaft „Newmont“ durch die peruanische Regierung gewaltsam unterdrückt. Durch dieses Vorhaben
werden die lebensnotwendigen landwirtschaftlich genutzten Flächen und die lebensnotwendige
Trinkwasserversorgung der Gemeinschaften vor Ort bedroht. Selbst Umfragen zufolge lehnen 78 % der Bevölkerung
in Cajamarca das Bergbauvorhaben ab. Am 3. Juli 2012 wurden erstmals Demonstranten Opfer des Konflikts: Vier
Menschen kamen ums Leben, als Polizisten in die Menge schossen. Ein Jahr nach dem tragischen Ereignis wurde noch
niemand zur Rechenschaft gezogen, und die Morde sind immer noch nicht ernsthaft untersucht worden. Bislang
haben mehrere internationale Organisationen, darunter Amnesty International und Human Rights Watch, das
gewaltsame Vorgehen gegen und die Unterdrückung der Bevölkerung von Cajamarca seitens der peruanischen
Regierung verurteilt.

— Auch die EU trägt eine Mitverantwortung für diesen Konflikt. Zunächst sind die Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas,
HSBC Bank und Société General — alles europäische Unternehmen — entweder Anteilseigner der
Bergbaugesellschaft „Newmont“, oder sie haben der Gesellschaft Geld geliehen oder treten als deren Konsortialführer
auf. Ist die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin nicht der Ansicht, dass es vor dem Hintergrund der Mitteilung der
Kommission über die soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen aus dem Jahr 2011 angemessen wäre, die Beteiligung
der genannten Unternehmen an der Bergbaugesellschaft „Newmont“ zu untersuchen?

— Darüber hinaus enthielt das jüngste Freihandelsübereinkommen zwischen der EU, Peru und Kolumbien einen
Fahrplan. Kann die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin vor dem Hintergrund der vorstehend genannten
Menschenrechtsverletzungen und der Tatsache, dass dieser Fahrplan zwar von der Kommission unterstützt, allerdings
von den parlamentarischen Fraktionen GUE/NGL und Verts/ALE sowie von Nichtregierungsorganisationen und
Gewerkschaften aufgrund seines unverbindlichen Mechanismus zum Schutz und zur Stärkung der Arbeits‐ und
Bürgerrechte kritisiert wurde, skizzieren, wie die EU und die peruanische Regierung beabsichtigen, diesen Fahrplan
mit Blick auf dessen erklärte Ziele umzusetzen?

— Hält es die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin vor dem Hintergrund der gewaltsamen Unterdrückung der
bürgerlichen Freiheiten, der Verfolgung von Aktivisten, die sich gegen das Bergbauvorhaben Conga engagieren, und
der rigorosen Durchsetzung des Bergbauvorhabens seitens der peruanischen Behörden — Umstände, die
ausnahmslos einen klaren Verstoß gegen internationale Menschenrechtsübereinkommen und die Rechtsstaatlichkeit
in Peru darstellen — nicht für angemessen, die peruanischen Behörden zu ihrem Umgang mit dem Conga-Projekt zu
befragen? Wie beurteilt die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin diese Ereignisse?

**Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(26. August 2013)_

Die EU ist sich der mit diesem umstrittenen Projekt verbundenen Problematik durchaus bewusst. Vertreter der
EU-Delegation sind im Juni 2013 in die Region gereist und haben dort die verschiedenen Interessenträger getroffen.

Die EU hat gegenüber Peru auf höchster Ebene das Thema soziale Konflikte im Zusammenhang mit Bergbauvorhaben
wie dem Conga-Projekt aufgeworfen. Während der letzten jährlich stattfindenden bilateralen Konsultationen mit Peru
wurde vereinbart, Informationen und bewährte Methoden für die Prävention und Lösung von sozialen Konflikten
und für die nachhaltige, transparente und partizipatorische Bewirtschaftung natürlicher Ressourcen auszutauschen.

Die EU begrüßt die Einrichtung eines Büros für Dialog und nachhaltige Entwicklung im Amt des Ministerpräsidenten
sowie die Ernennung eines Vertreters der Zentralregierung, die mit der lokalen Bevölkerung in Cajamarca
zusammenarbeiten und den Dialog zwischen den gegnerischen Parteien vertiefen sollen.

C 65 E / 46 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Die Kommission verfügt weder über ein Mandat noch über Mittel zur Untersuchung von Beschwerden über
mangelndes Verantwortungsbewusstsein seitens EU-Unternehmen, hat jedoch in ihrer Mitteilung von 2011 über die
soziale Verantwortung der Unternehmen ( [1] ) (Corporate Social Responsibility — CSR) ihre Erwartungen hinsichtlich
des verantwortungsvollen Verhaltens aller Unternehmen dargelegt; dazu zählt auch die Einhaltung der international
anerkannten CSR-Grundsätze und ‐Leitlinien. Die Kommission hat außerdem sektorspezifische Leitlinien
veröffentlicht, darunter für den Öl‐ und Gassektor, die den Unternehmen helfen sollen, im Rahmen ihrer
Geschäftstätigkeit Risiken für Menschen sowie sonstige negative Auswirkungen zu ermitteln, zu reduzieren oder zu
vermeiden.

Bei den „Fahrplänen“, auf die sich die Frau Abgeordnete und der Herr Abgeordnete beziehen, handelt es sich um
unilaterale Reaktionen Perus und Kolumbiens auf die Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments zum
Handelsübereinkommen zwischen der EU, Kolumbien und Peru ( [2] ). Die EU-Dienststellen stehen bereit, die
Umsetzung dieser Fahrpläne zu unterstützen.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2011)681 endg.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) P7_TA(2012)0249.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 47

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008007/13**
**à la Commission (Vice-Présidente/Haute Représentante)**
**Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL) et Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE)**

_(4 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Violations des Droits de l'homme liées au projet minier Conga au Pérou

Depuis le mois de novembre 2011, à Cajamarca (Pérou), le gouvernement péruvien a fait usage de la force contre le
mouvement d'opposition pacifique au projet minier Conga financé par l'entreprise Newmont. Le projet Conga
menace les principales terres agricoles et ressources en eau des communautés locales: même les sondages montrent
que 78 % des habitants de Cajamarca rejettent le projet minier. Le 3 juillet 2012, les premiers manifestants ont été
victimes du conflit, quatre personnes ont été tuées lorsque la police a ouvert le feu sur la foule. Un an après ce tragique
évènement, personne n'a été tenu responsable des faits et il faut, dès maintenant, enquêter sérieusement sur les
meurtriers. Jusqu'à présent, plusieurs organisations internationales parmi lesquelles Amnesty International et Human
Rights Watch ont condamné la brutalité et la répression démontrée par le gouvernement péruvien à l'encontre des
populations de Cajamarca.

— L'Union européenne a une part de responsabilité dans ce conflit. D'une part, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, HSBC
Bank et Société Générale — toutes des entreprises européennes — soit possèdent des parts dans le groupe Newmont
Mining, soit lui ont consenti des prêts, soit agissent en tant chefs de file d'un consortium. Vu la communication de la
Commission de 2011 sur la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, la vice-présidente/haute représentante ne juge-t-elle
pas nécessaire d'enquêter sur la participation de ces entreprises au projet minier du groupe Newmont?

— D'autre part, le dernier accord de libre-échange entre l'Union européenne, le Pérou et la Colombie présentait une
feuille de route. À la lumière des violations des Droits de l'homme mentionnées plus haut, rappelant que cette feuille
de route avait été soutenue par la Commission mais critiquée par le groupe parlementaire GUE/NGL et Les Verts/ALE,
les organisations non gouvernementales et les syndicats en raison de sa valeur non contraignante à l'égard de la
protection et de l'amélioration des droits civils et du travail dans les pays impliqués, la vice-présidente/haute
représentante pourrait-elle définir la manière dont l'Union et le gouvernement péruvien comptent mettre en œuvre
cette feuille de route dans le but de réaliser les objectifs visés?

— Étant donné la répression violente des libertés civiles, le harcèlement des activistes anti-Conga et la poursuite
acharnée du projet minier par les autorités péruviennes, portant tous atteinte aux conventions internationales
des Droits de l'homme et aux règles de droit au Pérou, la vice-présidente/haute représentante ne juge-t-elle pas
opportun d'interroger les autorités péruviennes sur leur comportement dans l'affaire Conga? Que pense-t-elle de
ces évènements?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(26 août 2013)_

L'Union européenne est bien consciente des difficultés qui entourent ce projet contesté. Des représentants de la
délégation de l'UE au Pérou se sont rendus dans la région en juin 2013 et ont rencontré les différentes parties
intéressées.

L'UE a abordé avec le Pérou, au plus haut niveau, la question des conflits sociaux liés aux entreprises minières, tel que
le projet Conga. Il a été convenu, lors des dernières consultations bilatérales annuelles UE-Pérou, d'échanger des
informations et les meilleures pratiques concernant la prévention et la résolution des conflits sociaux, ainsi que la
gestion durable, transparente et participative des ressources naturelles.

L'UE se félicite de la création d'un bureau spécial pour «le dialogue et le développement durable» au sein du cabinet du
premier ministre, ainsi que de la nomination d'un représentant du gouvernement central pour dialoguer avec la
population locale de Cajamarca et renforcer le dialogue entre les protagonistes.

Bien que la Commission ne dispose ni d'un mandat ni des ressources nécessaires pour enquêter sur un prétendu
manque de responsabilité d'entreprises de l'UE, la communication sur la responsabilité sociale des entreprises ( [1] ) (RSE)
de 2011 précise ce qu'elle attend des entreprises en matière de conduite responsable, et notamment le respect des
principes et lignes directrices approuvés au niveau international en matière de RSE. La Commission a également
publié des notes d'orientation à l'attention de secteurs spécifiques, dont l'industrie pétrolière et gazière, qui aident les
entreprises à identifier, à limiter et à éviter les risques dans le domaine des Droits de l'homme et autres incidences
négatives dans le cadre de leurs activités commerciales.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)681 final.

C 65 E / 48 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Les «feuilles de route» mentionnées par les Honorables Parlementaires constituent les réponses unilatérales apportées
par le Pérou et la Colombie à la résolution du Parlement européen sur l'accord commercial entre l'Union européenne,
d'une part, et la Colombie et le Pérou, d'autre part ( [2] ). Les services de l'UE sont prêts à soutenir leur mise en œuvre.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) P7 TA(2012)0249.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 49

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008007/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL) and Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Human rights violations relating to the Conga mining project in Peru

Since November 2011, peaceful local opposition in Cajamarca, Peru, to Newmont Mining Corporation’s Conga
project has been met with violent repression by the Peruvian government. Conga is threatening the essential land and
water supplies of local communities. Even polls show that 78% of the Cajamarcan people reject the mining project.
On 3 July 2012 the first demonstrators fell victim to this conflict, with four people being killed when police opened
fire on the public. A year after that tragic event, no one has been held accountable, and the murders have yet to be
seriously investigated. So far, several international organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights
Watch, have condemned the brutality and repression employed by the Peruvian government against the population
of Cajamarca.

— The EU has its share of responsibility in this conflict. Firstly, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, HSBC Bank and Société
General — all European companies — either own shares in Newmont Mining, have lent it money, or act as their
bookrunners. Considering the Commission’s 2011 communication on Corporate Social Responsibility, does the
Vice-President/High Representative not think it appropriate to investigate these companies’ participation in
Newmont Mining?

— Secondly, the last EU-Peru-Columbia Free Trade Agreement contained a roadmap. In the light of the
abovementioned human right violations and recalling that this roadmap was supported by the Commission, but
criticised by the GUE/NGL Parliamentary Group, the Greens/EFA, NGOs, and trade unions for its non-binding
mechanism regarding the protection and improvement of labour and civil rights in the countries involved, could the
Vice-President/High Representative outline how the EU and the Peruvian government plan to implement this
roadmap in pursuit of its declared objectives?

— Considering the violent repression of civil liberties, the harassment of anti-Conga activists and the forceful pursuit
of the mining project by the Peruvian authorities, all in clear violation of international human rights conventions and
the rule of law in Peru, does the Vice-President/High Representative not think it appropriate to question the Peruvian
authorities on their handling of the Conga affair? How does the Vice‐President / High Representative view these
events?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The EU is well aware of the challenges surrounding this contested project. Representatives of the EU Delegation in
Peru visited the region in June 2013, meeting with the different stakeholders.

The EU has raised with Peru, at the highest level, the topic of social conflicts linked to mining ventures, such as the
Conga project. It was agreed at the latest annual EU-Peru Bilateral Consultations to exchange information and best
practices for the prevention and resolution of social conflicts and the sustainable, transparent and participatory
management of natural resources.

The EU welcomes the establishment of a special ‘Office for Dialogue and Sustainable Development’ within the Prime
Minster's offices, as well as the appointment of a central government representative to engage with the local
population in Cajamarca and strengthen the dialogue between the opposed actors.

While the Commission does not have the mandate or the resources to investigate allegations of lack of responsibility
on the part of EU companies, the 2011 Communication on Corporate Social Responsibility ( [1] ) (CSR) sets out the
Commission's expectations on responsible conduct by all companies, including adherence to internationally agreed
CSR principles and guidelines. The Commission has also issued sector-specific guidance notes, including for the oil
and gas industry, which are meant to help companies identify, mitigate and avoid human rights risks and other
negative impacts in their business operations.

The ‘road maps’ to which the Honourable Members refer constitute unilateral responses by Peru and Colombia to the
Parliament resolution on the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru ( [2] ). The EU services stand ready to assist
with their implementation.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)681 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) P7_TA(2012)0249.

C 65 E / 50 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung P-008278/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Evelyn Regner (S&D)**

_(10. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Stellungnahme der Europäischen Agentur für Flugsicherheit (EASA) für die Kommission zu den neuen Regeln
bezüglich der Dienstzeiten von Piloten (Flugzeitbeschränkungen)

Die Kommission arbeitet derzeit an einem Vorschlag für eine neue Regelung der Dienstzeiten von Piloten
(Flugzeitbeschränkungen). Diesbezüglich legte die EASA im Oktober 2012 eine Stellungnahme vor. Die
Koordinatoren des Ausschusses für Beschäftigung und soziale Angelegenheiten des Parlaments haben sich im
Rahmen einer offenen Sitzung am 19. März 2013 mit der Thematik befasst.

Werden durch die EU-Bestimmungen Mindestsicherheitsanforderungen festgelegt? Werden die Mitgliedstaaten dazu
befugt sein, auf nationaler Ebene strengere Bestimmungen beizubehalten oder einzuführen?

Warum hat die Kommission nicht das Vorsorgeprinzip angewandt und datengestützte Forschung vorgeschlagen, die
aufzeigen kann, ob durch die neuen Regelungen Ermüdung wirksam verhindert werden kann — zumal es bereits auf
wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse und Empfehlungen von Experten gestützte Hinweise darauf gibt, dass die neuen
Regelungen wahrscheinlich nicht wirksam sind.

Wurde die Bewertung der medizinischen Studien von einem Experten in diesem Bereich durchgeführt? Kann die
Kommission nachweisen, dass die Stellungnahme der EASA im Hinblick auf die Betriebshygiene und ‐sicherheit
bewertet wurde?

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

_(21. August 2013)_

Mit den in Kürze vorliegenden überarbeiteten EU-Vorschriften zur Beschränkung der Flugdienstzeit (FTL) werden
Mindestsicherheitsgrenzwerte für Fluggesellschaften festgelegt. Abweichungen von diesen Vorschriften werden, wie
in der Antwort der Kommission auf die schriftliche Anfrage P-0011515/2012 ( [1] ) erläutert, gestattet.

Die Kommission hat bei der Überarbeitung der EU-FTL-Vorschriften nach dem Vorsorgeprinzip gehandelt, indem sie
strengere Schutzbestimmungen vorgeschlagen hat, wenn genügend Nachweise dafür vorlagen, dass eine
Verbesserung der Sicherheitsvorkehrungen gerechtfertigt ist. Außerdem hat die Kommission vorgeschlagen, im
Nachhinein anhand empirischer Daten ständig zu überprüfen, ob die Vorschriften eine Übermüdung wirksam
verhindern können.

Die EU-FTL-Sicherheitsvorschriften haben nicht zum Ziel, soziale Fragen im Zusammenhang mit der Arbeitszeit bzw.
der Gesundheit oder Sicherheit am Arbeitsplatz zu regeln. Sie lassen aber die diesbezüglichen EU‐ und
innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften sowie die entsprechenden Tarifvereinbarungen unberührt. Der Zusammenhang
zwischen den FTL-Sicherheitsvorschriften und den Vorschriften zur Gesundheit und Sicherheit besteht darin, dass die
Vorschrift mit der stärksten Schutzwirkung Vorrang hat. Außerdem sei darauf hingewiesen, dass die vorgeschlagenen
überarbeiteten FTL-Vorschriften einen größeren Schutz bieten als die derzeitigen Vorschriften.

In den Antworten auf die schriftlichen Anfragen P-007959/2013 ( [2] ) und E-009003/2012 ( [3] ) hat die Kommission
weitere Informationen zur Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Daten gegeben

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 51

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008008/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(4 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Advies van het Europees Agentschap voor de veiligheid van de luchtvaart (EASA) aan de Commissie over
nieuwe voorschriften ter beperking van de werkuren van piloten (vliegtijdbeperkingen)

De Commissie werkt momenteel aan een voorstel voor nieuwe voorschriften ter beperking van de werkuren van
piloten. In oktober 2012 heeft het EASA een advies hierover gepubliceerd en de coördinatoren van de Commissie
werkgelegenheid en sociale zaken hebben het onderwerp tijdens een open coördinatorenbijeenkomst op
19 maart 2013 besproken.

Zullen de EU-voorschriften voor een minimumveiligheidsniveau zorgen? Zullen de EU-landen op nationaal niveau
strengere regels kunnen handhaven of invoeren?

Waarom heeft de Commissie nagelaten het voorzorgsbeginsel toe te passen, met name door een op feiten gebaseerd
onderzoek achteraf te voorzien, met als doel te evalueren of de nieuwe voorschriften doeltreffend zijn om
vermoeidheid te voorkomen, temeer aangezien het beschikbare wetenschappelijke bewijsmateriaal en
deskundigenadvies nu al op de waarschijnlijke ondoeltreffendheid van de voorschriften wijzen?

Is de raadpleging van medische studies gebeurd door een medisch deskundige? Kan de Commissie bewijzen dat ze het
advies van het EASA vanuit het oogpunt van gezondheid en veiligheid op het werk heeft bestudeerd?

**Antwoord van de heer Kallas namens de Commissie**

_(21 augustus 2013)_

In de herziening van de EU-regels inzake vliegtijdbeperkingen zal een minimumveiligheidsniveau voor
luchtvaartmaatschappijen worden vastgesteld. Afwijkingen van deze regels zullen worden toegestaan, zoals uitgelegd
in het antwoord van de Commissie op schriftelijke vraag P-0011515/2012 ( [1] ).

De Commissie heeft het voorzorgsbeginsel gevolgd bij de herziening van de EU-regels inzake vliegtijdbeperkingen
door strengere regels voor te stellen als er voldoende gedocumenteerde aanwijzingen waren dat dit voor een
verbetering van de veiligheid zou zorgen. De Commissie heeft ook permanent ex-postonderzoek op basis van reële
gegevens voorgesteld, om na te gaan of de regels doeltreffend zijn voor het voorkomen van vermoeidheid.

De EU-regels inzake vliegtijdbeperkingen hebben niet tot doel sociale kwesties als arbeidstijden en veiligheid en
gezondheid op het werk te regelen. Ze laten de toepasselijke EU‐ en nationale wetgeving en collectieve
arbeidsovereenkomsten inzake werktijden en veiligheid en gezondheid op het werk onverlet. De relatie tussen de
regels inzake vliegtijdbeperkingen en de regels inzake veiligheid en gezondheid op het werk is gebaseerd op het
beginsel dat de strengste regels voorrang hebben. Bovendien is het belangrijk er op te wijzen dat de voorgestelde
herziene regels inzake vliegtuigbeperkingen meer bescherming bieden dan de huidige regels.

De Commissie heeft nadere informatie over de beoordeling van het wetenschappelijk advies verstrekt in haar
antwoord op schriftelijke vragen P-007959/2013 ( [1] ) en E-009003/2012 ( [1] ).

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

C 65 E / 52 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008008/13**

**to the Commission**
**Judith A. Merkies (S&D)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) opinion to the Commission on new rules to limit the hours of duty
for pilots (flight time limitations (FTL))

The Commission is currently working on a proposal for new rules to limit the hours of duty for pilots (FTL). In
October 2012 the EASA published an opinion on the proposal and the Employment and Social Affairs Committee
(EMPL) coordinators looked into the matter during an open coordinators’ meeting on 19 March 2013.

Will the EU rules establish a minimum level of safety? Will Member States be allowed to keep or introduce stricter
rules at national level?

Why has the Commission not applied the precautionary principle, by means of _ex-post_ data‐based research, to assess
whether or not the new rules will be effective in preventing fatigue, bearing in mind that available scientific evidence
and expert advice already indicate that the rules are unlikely to be effective?

Has the task of consulting medical studies been carried out by a medical specialist? What evidence can the
Commission provide of any assessment of the EASA opinion from an occupational health and safety perspective?

**Question for written answer P-008278/13**

**to the Commission**
**Evelyn Regner (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) opinion to the Commission for new rules to limit pilots' hours of
duty (flight time limitations)

The Commission is currently working on a proposal for new rules to limit pilots’ hours of duty (flight time
limitations). In October 2012 the EASA published an opinion in this connection. The coordinators in Parliament’s
Committee on Employment and Social Affairs looked into the matter during an open coordinators’ meeting on
19 March 2013.

Will EU rules set a minimum safety level? Will Member States be allowed to keep or introduce stricter rules at national
level?

Why did the Commission not apply the precautionary principle, by proposing _ex-post_ data‐based research to assess
whether the new rules are effective in preventing fatigue, considering that available scientific evidence and expert
advice already indicate that the rules are unlikely to be effective?

Has the task of assessing medical studies been carried out by a medical specialist? What evidence can the Commission
provide of any assessment of the EASA opinion from an occupational health and safety perspective?

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 53

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The forthcoming revised EU rules on Flight Time Limitations (FTL) will set a minimum safety level for airlines.
Deviations from these rules will be allowed as explained under the Commission's answer to Written Question P0011515/2012 ( [1] ).

The Commission has followed the precautionary principle in the revision of EU FTL rules, by proposing more
protective rules when sufficient documented evidence was produced justifying a safety improvement. The
Commission has also proposed a continuous _ex-post_ real-data-based research to assess whether the rules are effective
in preventing fatigue.

EU FTL safety rules are not aimed at regulating social issues concerning working time and occupational health and
safety. However, they are without prejudice to the applicable EU, national legislation and collective labour agreements
concerning working time and occupational health and safety. The relationship between safety FTL and health and
safety rules is based on the principle that the most protective rule prevails. Furthermore, it is important to note that
the proposed revised FTL rules will provide more protection than the current rules.

Further information concerning the assessment of scientific evidence has been provided by the Commission in its
answers to written questions P-007959/2013 ( [1] ) and E-009003/2012 ( [1] ).

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

C 65 E / 54 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008009/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Nowo wybrany prezydent w Iranie

Hassan Rowhani został wybrany na prezydenta Iranu przy blisko 51 % głosów. Określa się go jako obdarzonego
zmysłem praktycznym głównego negocjatora w kwestiach jądrowych oraz wieloletniego członka establishmentu.
H. Rowhani obiecał nawiązać kontakty z Zachodem i złagodzić ograniczenia w Iranie.

Jakie skutki dla relacji pomiędzy UE a Iranem może pociągać za sobą wybór nowego prezydenta Iranu?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(28 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

Mamy nadzieję, że wybór Hassana Rohaniego na prezydenta Iranu przyniesie pewne pozytywne zmiany w polityce
zagranicznej kraju, w szczególności biorąc pod uwagę zapowiadaną przez niego poprawę stosunków Iranu ze
światem zewnętrznym. Zdajemy sobie jednak sprawę, że prawdopodobnie będzie musiał stawić czoła wielu
przeszkodom w swoim kraju, dlatego wstrzymujemy się z oceną prezydenta, aż będzie możliwe poddanie ocenie
jego rzeczywistych działań, a nie obietnic.

W dniu 15 czerwca Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca Komisji wydała oświadczenie na temat wyborów
w Iranie, w którym życzyła Rohaniemu sukcesów w tworzeniu nowego rządu i w wypełnianiu swoich obowiązków.
Wyraziła również swoje zaangażowanie we współpracę z nowym przywództwem Iranu, ukierunkowaną na szybkie
rozwiązanie kwestii jądrowej.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 55

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008009/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — New president elected in Iran

Hassan Rowhani has been elected president of Iran with almost 51% of the vote. He is described as a practical chief
nuclear negotiator and a long-standing establishment figure. Mr Rowhani has promised to engage with the West and
to ease restrictions in Iran.

What effects can the election of this new president have on the relationship between the EU and Iran?

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

_(28 August 2013)_

We hope that Mr Rohani's election could provide some positive momentum in particular considering his announced
intentions to try to improve Iran's relations with the outside world. However, we are aware that he might face
important domestic constraints, and we wait to assess him on real facts rather than promises.

The HR/VP issued a statement on 15 June on the Iranian elections, in which she wished Mr Rohani well in forming a
new government and in taking up his reponsibility. She also expressed her commitment to work with the new Iranian
leadership towards a swift solution of the nuclear issue.

C 65 E / 56 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008010/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Nowe prawo górnicze w Ekwadorze

Prezydent Ekwadoru zamierza zwiększyć wydobycie złota, srebra, miedzi i innych metali. Dowodem na wspieranie
górnictwa jest także nowe prawo górnicze uchwalone 13 czerwca 2013 r. Ten rodzaj górnictwa wymaga udziału
inwestorów zagranicznych. Prezydent oświadczył, że zamierza podpisać umowę o wolnym handlu z Unią
Europejską.

— Jakie informacje mogłaby przedstawić Komisja na temat efektów gospodarczych tej umowy o wolnym handlu?

— Jakie jest stanowisko Komisji w sprawie inwestycji w Ekwadorze?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Karela De Guchta w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

Komisja prowadzi wewnętrzne konsultacje dotyczące możliwości wznowienia negocjacji z Ekwadorem. Nie
przesądzając o wyniku negocjacji, jeśli zostaną one wznowione i zakończą się sukcesem, podpisanie i późniejsze
zastosowanie porozumienia wymagać będzie czasu.

Z oceny wpływu handlu na zrównoważony rozwój poprzez ewentualną umowę handlową między UE a Wspólnotą
Andyjską (przeprowadzona w październiku 2009 r.) wynika, że pomyślne zakończenie negocjacji doprowadziłoby
do wzrostu ekwadorskiego PKB o od 1,2 % (w krótkim czasie) do 1,9 % (w perspektywie długofalowej).

Z niedawnego badania FEDEXPOR (Federación Ecuatoriana de Exportadores) wynika, że dzięki umowie z UE,
Ekwador mógłby zwiększyć eksport do UE o ponad 300 mln USD tylko w przeciągu pierwszych trzech lat. Analiza ta
wykazała także, że w przypadku braku takiej umowy Ekwador mógłby ponieść koszty w wysokości nawet do 2,5 mld
USD w przeciągu pierwszych trzech lat, co związane jest z wahaniami rynków i względnym wzrostem wysokości
stawek celnych w porównaniu do konkurencji.

Inwestycje europejskie w Ekwadorze są wciąż stosunkowo niewielkie w porównaniu do inwestycji w innych krajach
Ameryki Łacińskiej. Ekwador jest ważnym miejscem na potencjalne inwestycje europejskie, rozwijanie technologii
i zdobywanie wiedzy. Ambitna umowa handlowa, jeśli doszłoby do jej podpisania, pozwoliłaby utworzyć stabilne
i przewidywalne ramy prawne.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 57

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008010/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ New mining law in Ecuador

The President of Ecuador intends to increase mining for gold, silver, copper and other metals. This support for mining
is also evidenced by a new mining law that was passed on 13 June 2013. This type of mining requires foreign
investors, and the President has announced that he intends to sign a Free Trade Agreement with the EU.

— What information could the Commission provide on the economic outcomes that would result from this Free
Trade Agreement?

— What is the Commission’s position on investment in Ecuador?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The Commission is carrying out internal consultations regarding the potential re-launch of negotiations with
Ecuador. Without prejudice to their final outcome, if negotiations were to be re-launched and concluded successfully,
signature and subsequent application of the Agreement will take some time.

The Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment of the potential EU-Andean Trade Agreement (carried out in
October 2009) estimated that a successful conclusion of the negotiations would increase Ecuador’s GDP by between
1.2% (in the short term) and 1.9% (in the long term).

A recent study done by FEDEXPOR (Federación Ecuatoriana de Exportadores) estimates that by having an agreement
with the EU, Ecuador could increase exports to the EU by more than USD 300 million within the first three years
alone. The study also estimates that without an agreement the overall costs for Ecuador could reach USD 2.5 billion
within the first three years due to trade deviation and relative increase of tariffs as compared to its main competitors.

European investments in Ecuador are still relatively limited when compared with other Latin American countries.
Ecuador represents an important potential destination for European investment, technology and know-how. An
ambitious trade agreement, if concluded, could significantly contribute by putting in place a stable and predictable
legal framework.

C 65 E / 58 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008305/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Donne presunte vittime di stupro in piazza Tahrir al Cairo

Secondo Human Rights Watch, durante i quattro giorni di protesta iniziati il 30 giugno 2013 almeno 91 donne
sarebbero state violentate nella piazza Tahrir del Cairo.

L'organizzazione egiziana Operazione anti molestie sessuali e anti aggressione (Operation Anti-Sexual
Harassment/Assault) ha dichiarato che durante le proteste sarebbero avvenuti 91 stupri, comprese aggressioni nei
confronti di quattro donne che hanno necessitato di cure mediche urgenti. Una donna ha dovuto sottoporsi a
chirurgia dopo essere stata violentata con un oggetto «affilato» e un'altra donna è stata picchiata con catene e bastoni
di metallo e aggredita con coltelli.

Human Rights Watch ha dichiarato che, dal novembre 2011, il governo egiziano ha prestato poca attenzione al grave
e persistente problema della violenza sessuale. La polizia non ha interferito nelle proteste e le donne sono state
lasciate prive di protezione, esposte ad aggressioni e stupri. Inoltre, il partito Libertà e giustizia, legato ai Fratelli
Musulmani, ha rivelato l'identità e la nazionalità di una delle vittime di stupro.

Il vicedirettore per il Medio Oriente di Human Rights Watch, Joe Stork, ha dichiarato: «Le aggressioni sessuali
dilaganti durante le proteste di piazza Tahrir mettono in evidenza il fallimento del governo e di tutti i partiti politici
nella lotta alle violenze a cui sono esposte quotidianamente le donne in Egitto negli spazi pubblici. Si tratta di reati
gravi che stanno impedendo alle donne di partecipare alla vita pubblica in Egitto durante un momento cruciale dello
sviluppo del paese».

1. È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a conoscenza delle violenze sessuali commesse quotidianamente
contro le donne in Egitto e durante le recenti proteste di piazza Tahrir, cominciate il 30 giugno?

2. Quali eventuali misure ha adottato il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante al fine di affrontare il problema delle
violenze commesse contro le donne egiziane che partecipano alla vita pubblica?

3. Quali misure ha adottato il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante durante il mandato del presidente Morsi al fine
di affrontare il problema delle violenze sessuali contro le donne, comprese disposizioni che prevedano pene adeguate
per gli stupratori?

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

_(3 settembre 2013)_

L'UE è perfettamente consapevole della situazione delle donne in Egitto e la sua delegazione al Cairo è regolarmente in
contatto con le organizzazioni locali della società civile, oltre a seguire attentamente i presunti casi di violenza e
molestie sessuali contro le donne.

L'UE condanna fermamente tutte le forme di violenza sessuale contro le donne e altri gruppi vulnerabili e l'AR/VP ha
regolarmente sollevato la questione con le autorità egiziane. Promuovere la parità tra uomini e donne rappresenta da
tempo una priorità nell'ambito dell'accordo di associazione UE-Egitto.

Questo intende favorire l'uguaglianza di genere nel paese sostenendo l'impegno delle autorità egiziane nella
promozione dei diritti delle donne, integrando la questione di genere nel dialogo politico con le autorità egiziane e
appoggiando in modo attivo le iniziative della società civile in tal senso. A tale riguardo, nel 2012 la delegazione
dell'UE ha organizzato un seminario presieduto dall'AR/VP sul tema «Le donne egiziane — prospettive», durante il
quale è stato firmato un contratto da 4 milioni di euro a sostegno dell'azione di UN Women volta a fornire una carta
d'identità alle donne egiziane.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 59

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008011/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Molestowanie seksualne kobiet w Egipcie

Molestowanie seksualne kobiet w Egipcie przybrało postać epidemii, a mężczyźni za brutalny kontakt fizyczny
z kobietami dostają niewielkie kary. Według doniesień 99,3 % kobiet w Egipcie, które wzięły udział w ankiecie,
twierdzi że doświadczyły one pewnych form molestowania seksualnego. Według sprawozdania ONZ
przeprowadzone badanie potwierdziło, że molestowanie seksualne w Egipcie osiągnęło niespotykanie wysoki
poziom.

Czy ESDZ jest świadoma szerzenia się molestowania seksualnego kobiet w Egipcie? Jak dzięki istniejącym
programom ESDZ może pomóc tym kobietom?

**Wspólna odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Komisji Catherine**

**Ashton w imieniu Komisji**

_(3 września 2013 r.)_

Unia Europejska jest w pełni świadoma sytuacji kobiet w Egipcie, a delegatura UE w Kairze pozostaje w stałym
kontakcie z lokalnymi organizacjami społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i uważnie śledzi zgłoszone przypadki przemocy
oraz molestowania seksualnego kobiet.

UE zdecydowanie potępia wszelkie formy molestowania seksualnego kobiet i innych szczególnie narażonych grup
ludności, a Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca regularnie porusza tę kwestię w kontaktach z władzami
egipskimi. Promowanie równouprawnienia płci od dawna jest priorytetem w ramach układu o stowarzyszeniu
między UE a Egiptem.

UE dąży do promowania równouprawnienia płci w Egipcie poprzez wspieranie wysiłków władz egipskich na rzecz
propagowania praw kobiet, poprzez uwzględnianie kwestii równości płci w dialogu politycznym z władzami
egipskimi oraz poprzez aktywne wspieranie inicjatyw społeczeństwa obywatelskiego propagujących prawa kobiet.
W związku z tym w 2013 r. delegatura UE zorganizowała seminarium „Egipskie kobiety – droga naprzód”, któremu
przewodniczyła Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca. W jego trakcie podpisano kontrakt w wysokości
4 mln EUR na wsparcie działań ONZ mających na celu zapewnienie wszystkim Egipcjankom dokumentów
tożsamości.

C 65 E / 60 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008011/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Sexual harassment of women in Egypt

Sexual harassment of women is an epidemic in Egypt, where men receive trivial punishments for making violent
physical contact with women. It has been reported that 99.3% of Egyptian women surveyed claim to have
experienced some form of sexual harassment. According to a UN report, a study has confirmed that sexual
harassment in Egypt has reached unprecedented levels.

Is the EEAS aware of the increase in sexual harassment of women in Egypt? How can the EEAS assist these women
through existing programmes?

**Question for written answer E-008305/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Women allegedly raped in Cairo's Tahrir Square

According to Human Rights Watch, during the four-day protest which started on 30 June 2013, at least 91 women
were reportedly raped in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

The Egyptian Operation Anti-Sexual Harassment/Assault group reported that 91 rapes were recorded during the
protests, including attacks on four women who required urgent medical attention. One woman had to undergo
surgery after being violated with a ‘sharp’ object. Another woman was beaten with metal chains and sticks and
attacked with knives.

Human Rights Watch has reported that, since November 2011, the Egyptian Government has paid little attention to
the serious ongoing problem of sexual violence. Police have not interfered in protests and women have been left
unprotected, vulnerable to being attacked and raped. Furthermore, the Muslim-Brotherhood-linked Freedom and
Justice Party revealed the identity and nationality of one of the rape victims.

Human Rights Watch’s deputy Middle East director Joe Stork said: ‘The rampant sexual attacks during the Tahrir
Square protests highlight the failure of the government and all political parties to face up to the violence that women
in Egypt experience on a daily basis in public spaces. These are serious crimes that are holding women back from
participating fully in the public life of Egypt at a critical point in the country’s development’.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the sexual violence committed against women on a daily
basis in Egypt and during the recent protests in Tahrir Square that began on 30 June?

2. What measures, if any, has the Vice-President/High Representative undertaken in order to address the problem
of violence committed against Egyptian women participating in public life?

3. What measures did the Vice-President/High Representative adopt during President Morsi’s time in office in
order to address the problem of sexual violence against women, including provision for the adequate punishment of
rapists?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The EU is well aware of the situation of women in Egypt and the EU Delegation in Cairo is in regular contact with
local Civil Society Organisations and closely monitors reported cases of violence and sexual harassment against

women.

The EU strongly condemns all forms of sexual harassment against women and other vulnerable groups and the
HR/VP raises the issue regularly with the Egyptian authorities. Promoting gender equality has been a longstanding
priority within the EU-Egypt Association agreement.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 61

The EU seeks to promote gender equality in Egypt by supporting Egyptian authorities' efforts to promote women's
rights, by mainstreaming gender equality in its political dialogue with the Egyptian authorities and by proactively
supporting civil society initiatives that promote women's rights. In this respect, in 2013 the EU Delegation organised
a women’s seminar chaired by the HR/VP on ‘Egyptian Women — the Way Forward’ during which a EUR 4 million
contract in support of UN Women’s action to provide Egyptian women with ID cards was signed.

C 65 E / 62 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008012/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Konkurencyjność UE w dziedzinie technologii

W Chinach skonstruowano niedawno najszybszy komputer na świecie. Jest on w stanie stale dokonywać 33 860
biliardów obliczeń na sekundę. Tego rodzaju superkomputery przeznaczone są do modelowania systemów
pogodowych, stymulacji wybuchów jądrowych oraz projektowania samolotów odrzutowych.

— Jak wypada UE w stosunku do Chin pod względem nauki i technologii?

— Jaki jest plan działania Komisji gwarantujący konkurencyjną pozycję UE i niepozostawanie w tyle pod względem
nauki i technologii?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Máire Geoghegan-Quinn w imieniu Komisji**

_(9 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

Chiny opublikowały swój średnio- i długoterminowy plan w zakresie nauki, technologii i innowacji (2006-2020),
który skupia się na szeregu dziedzin rozwoju gospodarczego i społecznego oraz priorytetowo traktuje innowacje.
Chiny opublikowały również dwunasty plan pięcioletni w zakresie rozwoju krajowego, gospodarczego i społecznego
(2011-2015), który kładzie nacisk na znaczenie badań naukowych i rozwoju dla rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego.
Unijna strategia „Europa 2020” również ma na celu, między innymi, zwiększenie inwestycji i ułatwienie badań
naukowych i innowacji, w szczególności poprzez inicjatywę przewodnią „Unia innowacji”.

W ramach strategii „Europa 2020” UE zwiększa nacisk na innowacyjność, co ma doprowadzić do wzrostu
gospodarczego i tworzenia miejsc pracy. W szczególności nowy program ramowy w zakresie badań naukowych
i innowacji „Horyzont 2020” został zaprojektowany, mając na względzie zachowanie konkurencyjności UE oraz
utworzenie społeczeństwa i wiodącej w skali światowej gospodarki opartych na wiedzy i innowacji. Program stworzy
możliwość prowadzenia dalszych działań wspierających infrastrukturę, technologię i zastosowania komputerowe.
W odniesieniu do systemów obliczeniowych wysokiej wydajności (HPC) Komisja opublikowała ambitną strategię
zatytułowaną „Wysokowydajne systemy obliczeniowe: miejsce Europy w globalnym wyścigu”( [1] ), w której
zaproponowano szereg działań mających na celu zachowanie konkurencyjności UE w tej dziedzinie. UE i Chiny
prowadzą dialog dotyczący współpracy w dziedzinie innowacji w celu wspierania i zachęcania do współpracy
w zakresie badań naukowych i innowacji. Współpraca międzynarodowa w zakresie badań i innowacji, o której mowa
w komunikacie Komisji „Rozwój i koncentracja unijnej współpracy międzynarodowej w dziedzinie badań
naukowych i innowacji: podejście strategiczne” [2] ), ma również na celu wspieranie doskonałości badawczej UE i jej
konkurencyjności gospodarczej.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM (2012) 45.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM (2012) 497.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 63

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008012/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU competitiveness in technology

China has recently built the world’s fastest computer. The computer is capable of the sustained computing of 33 860
trillion calculations per second. These supercomputers work best for modelling weather systems, stimulating nuclear
explosions and designing jetliners.

— How do the EU and China compare with regards to science and technology?

— What is the Commission’s plan of action to stay competitive and not fall behind in science and technology?

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

_(9 August 2013)_

China has published its National Medium‐ and Long-term Plan for Science, Technology and Innovation (2006-2020),
which focuses on a number of areas for economic and social development and prioritises innovation. It has also
published its twelfth Five-Year Plan for National and Economic and Social Development (2011-2015), which
emphasises the importance of research and development for socioeconomic development. Similarly, the EU’s
Europe 2020 strategy aims, _inter alia_, to increase investment and facilitate research and innovation, in particular
through the Innovation Union flagship initiative.

As part of Europe 2020, the EU is increasing its emphasis on innovation to deliver growth and jobs. In particular, the
upcoming Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation is designed to keep the EU
competitive and to build a society and world-leading economy based on knowledge and innovation and it will
provide the opportunity for further actions in support of computing infrastructures, technology and applications. For
High Performance Computing (HPC) the Commission has published an ambitious strategy, HPC: Europe's place in a
global race ( [1] ), proposing a number of actions to maintain Europe’s competitiveness in HPC. The EU and China have
also established together an Innovation Cooperation Dialogue to support and encourage cooperation on research and
innovation activities. International cooperation in research and innovation, as defined in the Commission
Communication on ‘Focusing and Enhancing EU International Cooperation’ ( [2] ), is also aimed at supporting the EU’s
research excellence and economic competitiveness.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 45.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 497.

C 65 E / 64 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008014/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Środki publiczne na cele społeczne we Francji stanowią 32 % PKB

W ciągu minionych 60 lat system francuskiego zabezpieczenia społecznego powiększył niemal trzykrotnie swoje
rozmiary. Francuskie państwo opiekuńcze miało na celu uwolnienie pracowników od strachu wywołanego
niepewnością jutra. Ten sposób wydawania środków finansowych spowodował zwiększenie francuskiego deficytu
budżetowego.

Zgodnie z informacjami zawartymi w magazynie the _Economist_ deficyt sektora emerytalnego systemu zabezpieczenia
społecznego zwiększy się z 15 mld EUR do 20,9 mld EUR do 2020 r.

Deficyt świadczeń rodzinnych osiągnie w tym roku wysokość 2,6 mld EUR, a wysokość deficytu zasiłków dla
bezrobotnych wyniesie 4,8 mld EUR. Rząd francuski unikał podejmowania decyzji dotyczących wydatków
fiskalnych. Polegał w zamian na podwyżkach podatków na rzecz konsolidacji. Mogło to wywołać negatywne skutki,
takie jak zmniejszenie konkurencyjności francuskich spółek.

— Jakie są zalecenia Komisji dla Francji w sprawie zmniejszenia francuskiego deficytu budżetowego oraz środków
publicznych na cele społeczne?

— Jaka jest opinia Komisji w sprawie konkurencyjności francuskich spółek, jeżeli Francja będzie nadal podwyższać
podatki?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Olliego Rehna w imieniu Komisji**

_(3 września 2013 r.)_

Francja powinna obniżyć swój deficyt budżetowy do wartości poniżej 3 % PKB do 2015 r. ( [1] ) W celu zwiększenia
skuteczności wydatków publicznych i zapewnienia konsolidacji budżetowej sprzyjającej wzrostowi gospodarczemu
Rada zaleciła, aby w ramach tegorocznego europejskiego semestru w odniesieniu do koordynacji polityki
gospodarczej i w oparciu o zalecenie Komisji Francja postępowała jak zaplanowano i dokonała przeglądu wszystkich
pozycji wydatków administracji publicznej. Ponadto Francji zalecono, aby do końca 2013 r. podjęła działania mające
na celu zrównoważenie systemu emerytalnego do 2020 r., i przedstawiono jej szereg możliwych rozwiązań. Decyzja
o przeprowadzeniu reform należy jednak do samego kraju. Przewidywany wzrost wydatków na służbę zdrowia
również budzi obawy, Rada zaleciła więc, aby zwiększyć gospodarność tego systemu.

W szczegółowej ocenie sytuacji Francji przeprowadzonej w 2013 r. w ramach procedury dotyczącej zakłóceń
równowagi makroekonomicznej Komisja stwierdziła, że występujące w tym kraju zakłócenia równowagi
makroekonomicznej są spowodowane obniżeniem konkurencyjności francuskich przedsiębiorstw. Komisja jest
zdania, że należy między innymi jeszcze bardziej obniżyć koszty pracy. Znalazło to wyraz w zaleceniach dla
poszczególnych krajów przygotowanych w ramach europejskiego semestru ( [2] ). Mając powyższe na uwadze, Rada
zaleciła Francji, aby w ramach zbliżającej się reformy systemu emerytalnego nie dopuściła do zwiększenia składek na
ubezpieczenia społeczne płaconych przez pracodawców.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Zalecenie Rady z dnia 21 czerwca 2013 r. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/137562.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 65

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008014/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Public social spending in France accounts for 32% of GDP

Over the past 60 years, France’s social security system has nearly tripled in size. The French welfare state was intended
to ‘free workers from the uncertainty of tomorrow’. This type of spending has created an increase in France’s budget
deficit. According to the Economist, the deficit of the pension branch of the social security system will swell from
EUR 15 billion to EUR 20.9 billion by 2020. The deficit for family benefits will reach EUR 2.6 billion this year and for
unemployment the deficit is expected to reach EUR 4.8 billion. The French Government has avoided making any
decisions on its fiscal spending. Instead, it has been relying on tax increases for consolidation. This could lead to
damaging effects, such as a decrease in the competitiveness of French companies.

— What recommendations does the Commission have for France with regard to the reduction of its budget deficit
and social spending?

— What is the Commission’s opinion regarding the competitiveness of French companies, if France continues to
increase taxes?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

France needs to bring its public deficit below 3% of GDP by 2015 ( [1] ). In order to increase the efficiency of public
expenditure and to ensure a growth friendly fiscal consolidation, the Council recommended, as part of this year's
European Semester for economic policy coordination, and based on a recommendation by the Commission, that
France proceeds as planned with a review of all spending items across general government. In addition, France was
recommended to take measures by the end of 2013 to bring the pension system into balance by 2020, and a number
of options were suggested. But it is up to the country to decide on the reforms to be implemented. The projected
increase in healthcare expenditure is also a matter of concern and the Council recommended that the cost
effectiveness of the system should improve.

In its 2013 in-depth review for France under the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure, the Commission found that
the country is experiencing macroeconomic imbalances due in particular to the deteriorating competitiveness of
French firms. Among other factors, the Commission considers that the cost of labour should be further reduced. This
was fully reflected in the country-specific recommendations under the European Semester ( [2] ). In that respect, the
Council recommended to France that any increase in employers social contributions, as part of the upcoming pension
reform, should be avoided.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council recommendation of 21 June 2013 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/137562.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/

C 65 E / 66 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008015/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Demonstracje w Brazylii

W brazylijskim Sao Paulo w dniu 6 czerwca 2013 r. rozpoczęły się protesty z powodu podwyżki o dziewięć centów
opłat za bilety autobusowe. Początkowo protesty miały charakter pokojowy, jednak w wyniku brutalnych działań
policji nabrały bardziej gwałtownego przebiegu. Według doniesień funkcjonariusze policji z oderwanymi
tabliczkami z imieniem i nazwiskiem użyli granatów ogłuszających i gumowej amunicji, ścigając po ulicach osoby
protestujące. Od tego momentu demonstracje rozprzestrzeniły się na 12 stolic stanów oraz stolicę federalną. Według
szacunków w protestach udział wzięło 250 000 osób. Protestujący domagali się ustąpienia z urzędu prezydenta, co
następnie przerodziło się w żądania związane z korupcją, rosnącymi cenami, biedą w szkołach i nadchodzącymi
mistrzostwami świata w piłce nożnej.

— Czy ESDZ zbadała incydenty z udziałem brazylijskiej policji?

— Jakie informacje ESDZ może przedstawić odnośnie do korupcji politycznej w Brazylii?

— Czy UE porusza tę kwestię w rozmowach z władzami Brazylii?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(18 września 2013 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca na bieżąco monitoruje przebieg ostatnich masowych protestów
w Brazylii. Z wyjątkiem nielicznych i odosobnionych przypadków reakcja władz była co do zasady proporcjonalna
i powściągliwa. Prezydent Rousseff wielokrotnie podkreślała, że demonstracje stanowią potwierdzenie
dynamicznego charakteru brazylijskiej demokracji i potwierdziła gotowość rządu do zajęcia się żądaniami
demonstrantów. Intensywność protestów uległa osłabieniu po zakończeniu turnieju „Puchar Konfederacji” na
początku lipca.

Reforma systemu politycznego, w tym dotycząca zwalczania korupcji, to jedno ze zobowiązań podjętych przez
prezydent Rousseff.

W ramach regularnych kontaktów z rządem Brazylii Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca omawia także
kwestie związane z sytuacją w tym kraju.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 67

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008015/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Demonstrations in Brazil

On 6 June 2013, protests began in Sao Paulo, Brazil, over a nine cent rise in bus fares. The protests were peaceful in
the beginning, but have since turned violent owing to the brutal actions of the police. It has been reported that officers
with their nametags removed fired stun grenades and rubber bullets, and pursued stragglers through the streets. The
demonstrations have since spread to a dozen state capitals, as well as to the federal capital; an estimated 250 000
people are thought to have been involved. The demonstrators have called for the impeachment of the president, and
this has grown to include demands relating to corruption, rising prices, poor schools and the upcoming World Cup.

— Has the EEAS investigated the incidents involving the Brazilian police?

— What information can the EEAS provide on political corruption in Brazil?

— Is the EU addressing this issue in its discussions with the Brazilian authorities?

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

_(18 September 2013)_

The HR/VP has constantly monitored the unfolding of the recent mass demonstrations in Brazil. With the exception
of limited and isolated instances, the response of the authorities has been generally proportionate and contained.
President Rousseff has repeatedly highlighted that the demonstrations proved the buoyant nature of the Brazilian
democracy and expressed the readiness of the government to address the grievances of the demonstrators. The
protests have lost intensity after the end of the Confederations Cup at the beginning of July.

The reform of the political system, including with respect to fighting corruption, is one of the commitments made by
the President.

The HR/VP, in its regular contacts with the Brazilian government, also discusses the domestic situation.

C 65 E / 68 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008016/13**

**do Komisji**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Łamanie praw dziewczynek

Corocznie na świecie wychodzi za mąż 14 milionów dziewcząt. Co siódma dziewczynka w krajach rozwijających
wydawana jest za mąż przed ukończeniem 15. roku życia; zdarzają się przypadki wydawania za mąż ośmio- czy
dziewięciolatek. W ponad 40 krajach wskaźnik ślubów dzieci osiąga lub przekracza 30 %. Małżeństwa te prowadzą
do szeregu przypadków łamania praw człowieka: zmuszanie dziewczynek do małżeństwa niejednokrotnie odbija się
negatywnie na ich zdrowiu z uwagi na ich niedojrzałość, a bardzo często zmusza je do zakończenia edukacji.
Ponadto odnotowuje się wiele przypadków przemocy domowej.

Jak wygląda strategia Komisji zmierzająca do zajęcia się kwestią małżeństw zawieranych pod przymusem w krajach,
które otrzymują od UE środki na rozwój lub inne wsparcie finansowe?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Andrisa Piebalgsa w imieniu Komisji**

_(21 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

UE przyjęła całościowe podejście do propagowania zaniechania szkodliwych tradycyjnych praktyk, takich jak
wczesne zawieranie małżeństw. Co za tym idzie Unia promuje przyjęcie odpowiednich przepisów prawnych
i zachęca tradycyjnych, religijnych i politycznych przywódców do dialogu na temat tradycyjnych praktyk na
poziomie narodowym i lokalnym.

Ponadto wspiera ona projekty angażujące społeczeństwo obywatelskie oraz tradycyjnych i lokalnych przywódców,
którzy są prawdziwym źródłem zmian. Na przykład dzięki projektowi finansowanemu przez UE w Indiach
opracowano cztery krajowe plany działania dotyczące zapobiegania małżeństw dzieci, których realizacja
doprowadziła do wzrostu świadomości w społeczeństwie i mobilizacji na rzecz zakończenia procederu małżeństw
dzieci.

UE wspiera także regionalny projekt we współpracy z Instytutem Zdrowia Matki i Dziecka MAMTA (z siedzibą
w Indiach) zatytułowany „Poprawa zdrowia reprodukcyjnego i seksualnego młodych ludzi poprzez podniesienie
wieku małżeńskiego w Indiach, Nepalu i Bangladeszu”.

W Afryce sfinansowano duży projekt obejmujący 6 krajów (Mozambik, Nigeria, Republika Południowej Afryki,
Uganda, Zambia i Zimbabwe), którego celem jest lepsze informowanie dziewczynek i kobiet o ich prawach, i walka
o zmniejszenie liczby wczesnych małżeństw i ciąż, które są jednym z najczęstszych powodów śmiertelności
okołoporodowej matek.

W walce ze szkodliwymi praktykami podstawowe znaczenie ma edukacja: nie ma wątpliwości, iż kontynuacja nauki
szkolnej przez dziewczynki jest korzystna zarówno dla nich samych, jak i dla ich rodzin. W związku z tym
szczególną uwagę w programach krajowych przykłada się do zapewnienia wszystkim dziewczynkom dostępu do
wykształcenia średniego: w Indiach przykładowo UE przekazuje w latach 2011-2013 kwotę 80 mln EUR na
programy dostępu do edukacji na poziomie podstawowym i średnim, które obejmują m.in. dziewczynki.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 69

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008016/13**

**to the Commission**
**Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Violation of young girls' rights

Every year 14 million girls get married worldwide. One in seven girls in the developing world is married before her
15th birthday; some marry as young as eight or nine. There are over 40 countries that have a child marriage rate of
30% or higher. These cases involve a number of human rights violations: When girls are forced to marry, they often
suffer health consequences due to their physical immaturity and very frequently the marriage forces them to abandon
their education. In addition, there have been many reported cases of domestic violence.

What is the Commission’s strategy for addressing the issue of forced marriage in countries which receive EU funds for
development or other financial support?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The EU has adopted a holistic approach to promoting the abandonment of harmful traditional practices, like early
marriage. It therefore promotes the adoption of appropriate legislation and engages traditional, religious and
government leaders in dialogues on traditional practices at national and community levels.

Furthermore it supports projects which involve the civil society and local or traditional leaders who are the source of
real change. For instance, thanks to a project funded by the EU in India, four state-wide action plans on child marriage
have been established, leading to large-scale community-led awareness raising and mobilisation in favour of ending
child marriage.

The EU is also supporting a regional project with MAMTA Health Institute for Mother and Child (based in India) on
‘Improving Reproductive and Sexual Health of Young People by Increasing the Age at Marriage in India, Nepal, and
Bangladesh’.

Again, in Africa, a large project involving 6 countries (Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and
Zimbabwe) has been funded to better inform girls and women about the rights, to fight against early marriage and
early pregnancies, identified among the major causes of maternal mortality.

Education is essential in fighting harmful practices, and it is recognised that keeping girls at school would bring
positive effects to their and their families’ lives. Special attention is given therefore in country programmes to ensure
access for all girls to secondary education: in India, for instance, the EU is contributing EUR 80 million to the
programmes for universal access, including for girls, to quality primary and secondary education for the period 20112013.

C 65 E / 70 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008017/13**

**à la Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(4 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Formation des apiculteurs et des vétérinaires au sein de l'Union

Selon l'audit économique de la filière apicole française de FranceAgriMer, les amateurs représentent 96 % de
l'ensemble de la filière apicole en France. Au niveau de l'Union, ce chiffre s'élèverait à 97 % (environ
580 000 amateurs sur 600 000 apiculteurs).

Or, certains apiculteurs mettent en avant des mauvaises pratiques, relevant de l'amateurisme, comme une des causes
de surmortalité des abeilles. Ainsi, sur une même zone, certaines ruches seraient régulièrement atteintes de pertes
allant jusqu'à 50 % alors que d'autres exploitations ne le seraient que dans des proportions acceptables. Cela
s'expliquerait par des pratiques apicoles différentes en termes d'hivernage, de traitement des parasites, de
nutrition, etc.

À titre d'exemple, le varroa, qui est une des plus importantes causes de surmortalité des abeilles, doit faire l'objet d'un
traitement spécifique. Des traitements préventifs doivent également être mis en place. Or, ces traitements sont très
délicats à appliquer. Dans la plupart des cas, sans formation adéquate, l'apiculteur, ou le vétérinaire, ne parviendrait
donc pas à traiter correctement ses ruches. Les ruches contaminées seraient alors susceptibles de contaminer les
ruches adjacentes.

Une des manières les plus efficaces d'enrayer le phénomène de surmortalité des abeilles serait donc de promouvoir des
bonnes pratiques et de mieux former les apiculteurs européens, et en particulier les apiculteurs amateurs, ainsi que les
vétérinaires. Ces formations permettraient également de faciliter l'installation de jeunes apiculteurs.

Quel est le point de vue de la Commission sur les liens entre formation, bonnes pratiques apicoles et surmortalité
des abeilles?

Des programmes de formation ou des financements destinés à la formation et à la création de guides de bonnes
pratiques existent-ils ou seront-ils mis en place pour les apiculteurs européens et les vétérinaires?

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

_(7 août 2013)_

Dans la communication au Parlement européen et au Conseil sur la santé des abeilles ( [1] ), la Commission soulignait
que la surmortalité des abeilles est due à un certain nombre de facteurs, parmi lesquels la mauvaise gestion des ruches.
Elle recommandait aux États membres et aux organisations d'apiculteurs de remédier à ce problème et, en particulier,
d'assurer la formation des apiculteurs.

Les États membres peuvent élaborer des programmes apicoles nationaux incluant des mesures d'assistance technique,
la formation des apiculteurs et la conception et la diffusion de bonnes pratiques en matière d'apiculture. Ces
programmes peuvent être cofinancés par l'UE conformément à l'article 108 du règlement (CE) du Conseil
n° 1234/2007 ( [2] ). 27 États membres ont inclus des mesures d'assistance technique dans leur programme apicole
national pour la période 2014-2016.

La Commission fournit également des formations sur la santé des abeilles aux vétérinaires officiels dans le cadre de
l'initiative «Une meilleure formation pour des denrées alimentaires plus sûres». Entre 2010 et 2012 ont été organisés
cinq ateliers au total, qui ont rassemblé environ 160 participants. Deux autres ateliers sont prévus en 2013 et trois en
2014-15.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/docs/honeybee_health_communication_fr.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Règlement (CE) n° 1234/2007 du Conseil du 22 octobre 2007 portant organisation commune des marchés dans le secteur agricole et dispositions

spécifiques en ce qui concerne certains produits de ce secteur (règlement OCM unique) (JO L 299 du 16.11.2007, p. 1).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 71

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008017/13**

**to the Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Training of beekeepers and veterinarians in the European Union

According to the economic audit of the French beekeeping sector carried out by FranceAgriMer, amateurs account for
96% of all beekeepers in France. At EU level the figure is 97% (some 580 000 amateurs out of 600 000 beekeepers).

However, some beekeepers are claiming that poor practices related to amateurism are among the causes of high bee
mortality. Thus, within the same area some hives regularly suffer losses as high as 50%, while the losses of other
beekeepers remain within acceptable proportions. This is allegedly caused by differing practices in terms of overwintering, parasite treatment, feeding, etc.

By way of example, the Varroa mite, which is one of the most significant causes of bee mortality, has to be dealt with
using a specific treatment. Preventive treatments also need to be applied. However, these treatments are very tricky to
use. In most cases, without proper training, a beekeeper — or a veterinarian — is unable to treat his hives correctly.
Contaminated hives then risk contaminating their neighbours.

One of the most effective ways of eliminating high bee mortality would therefore be to promote good practice and to
improve the training of European beekeepers, particularly amateur beekeepers, and of vets. Such training would also
make it easier for young beekeepers to become established.

What is the Commission’s view on the links between training, good beekeeping practice and high bee mortality?

Do training programmes, or funding for training and for the creation of guides to good practice, exist, or will they be
put in place for European beekeepers and vets?

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

_(7 August 2013)_

In the communication to the European Parliament and the Council on honeybee health ( [1] ), the Commission stressed
that bee mortalities are caused by a number of factors, including the improper management of the hives. The
Commission recommended Member States and beekeepers' organisations to take action on this issue and, in
particular, to ensure training.

Member States may draw up national apiculture programmes that may include under technical assistance measures,
training of beekeepers, and development and propagation of good beekeeping practices. The programmes can be cofinanced by the EU in accordance with Article 108 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 ( [2] ). 27 Member
States included technical assistance measures in their national apiculture programmes for the period 2014-2016.

The Commission also provides trainings on bee health to official veterinarians in the framework of the ‘Better
Training for Safer Food’ initiative. Between 2010 and 2012, a total of five workshops were organised gathering
approximately 160 participants. Two further workshops are scheduled in 2013 and three in 2014-15.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/docs/honeybee_health_communication_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific

provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1).

C 65 E / 72 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008018/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Liste noire tenue illégalement par les assureurs

Les assureurs ont inscrit l'an dernier 77 000 Belges en plus sur leur liste noire, révélait la presse mardi matin.

1. Selon la Commission, un tel fichier ne revêt-il pas un caractère illégal, non transparent et non pertinent?

2. Que pense la Commission du fait que les compagnies se réservent le droit d'inscrire dans leur fichier tout assuré
qu'elles considèrent elles-mêmes comme un risque et qui se démarque trop fortement de la moyenne de risque
statistiquement calculée par elles-mêmes?

3. Avec de telles dispositions, les assureurs s'arrogent le droit de ficher pratiquement n'importe qui, sur base de
leurs propres critères, sans contrôle extérieur. Cela ne va-t-il pas à l'encontre des règles européennes en vigueur?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Reding au nom de la Commission**

_(2 septembre 2013)_

Les listes noires, qui consistent à collecter et à diffuser certaines informations concernant un groupe donné
de personnes, constituent un traitement de données à caractère personnel relevant de la directive 95/46/CE ( [1] ) et
peuvent entraîner des effets préjudiciables pour les personnes qui y figurent (en leur interdisant l'accès à un service
déterminé — contrats d'assurance dans le cas présent — ou en nuisant à leur réputation) ( [2] ). Ces activités de traitement
de données doivent respecter la législation européenne relative à la protection des données, notamment l'article 6 de
la directive, qui dispose que le traitement ne peut être effectué que si les données sont adéquates, pertinentes et non
excessives au regard des finalités pour lesquelles elles sont collectées et qu'elles ne sont pas conservées plus longtemps
que nécessaire. De plus, le traitement n'est légitime que s'il intervient dans l'un des cas énumérés à l'article 7 de la
directive. En outre, l'article 15 de la directive prévoit des règles spécifiques en ce qui concerne les décisions
automatisées produisant des effets juridiques à l'égard d'une personne ou l'affectant de manière significative.

Sans préjudice des compétences de la Commission en tant que gardienne des traités, le contrôle et la mise en œuvre de
la législation relative à la protection des données relèvent de la compétence des autorités nationales, en particulier des
autorités de contrôle chargées de la protection des données ainsi que des tribunaux (article 28).

L'autorité de contrôle belge chargée de la protection des données a fait part, à plusieurs reprises, de ses inquiétudes
concernant les listes noires. En ce qui concerne la liste noire dans le secteur des assurances, il a été recommandé de
l'interdire ou de déterminer par voie législative les conditions de son établissement. Les autorités belges ont consulté
ladite autorité de contrôle pour l'élaboration des dispositions législatives sur les listes noires ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 95/46/CE relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre

circulation de ces données, JO L 281 du 23.11.1995, p. 31.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Voir le document de travail sur les listes noires, WP 65 du 03.10.2002 du groupe de travail «article 29» sur la protection des données.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission de la protection de la vie privée: avis no 21/2000 relatif au fichier RSR géré par le Groupement d'intérêt économique «Datassur»

(listes noires dans le secteur des assurances); avis no 09/2005; avis n [o] 23/2007; avis n [o] 34/2008.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 73

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008018/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Black list kept illegally by insurers

According to press reports on Tuesday morning, insurers placed another 77 000 Belgian citizens on their black list
last year.

1. In the Commission’s view, is not such a list illegal, lacking transparency, and inappropriate?

2. What does the Commission think of the fact that insurance companies reserve the right to place on their list any
insured person they themselves consider to be a risk and who diverges too far from the statistical risk average they
themselves have calculated?

3. By means of these rules, insurers assume the right to place practically anyone on a black list on the basis of their
own criteria, and with no external checks. Does this not contravene European law?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

Blacklists, as collection and dissemination of information about a specific group of persons, constitute processing of
personal data subject to Directive 95/46/EC ( [1] ) and may imply prejudicial effects for the individuals concerned
(barring access to a specific service — here insurance contracts — or harming their reputation) ( [2] ). Such processing
activities have to comply with EU data protection law. In particular, in accordance with Article 6 of the directive,
processing may only occur if it is adequate, relevant, and not excessive in relation to the purpose of the collection and
the data are not kept longer than necessary. Moreover, processing will only be legitimate if it occurs in one of the
situations enumerated in Article 7 of the directive. In addition, Article 15 of the directive provides for specific rules on
automated decisions producing significant legal effects for the individual.

Without prejudice to the powers of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties the supervision and enforcement of
data protection legislation falls within the competence of national authorities, in particular data protection
supervisory authorities and courts (Article 28).

The Belgian data protection supervisory authority has several times expressed its concerns about blacklists. In relation
to the insurance sector blacklist it was recommended to either forbid it or to determine by legislation the conditions
for setting it up. It has been advising the Belgian authorities in the preparation of legal provisions on blacklists ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 95/46/EC 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.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See Working Document on Blacklists, WP 65 of 03.10.2002 of Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission de la Protection de la Vie Privée : e.g. Avis No 21/2000 relatif au fichier RSR géré par le Groupement d’intérêt économique

« Datassur » (black list of insurance sector); Avis No 09/2005; Avis No 23/2007; Avis No 34/2008.

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

C 65 E / 74 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008019/13**

**au Conseil**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Morales/Snowden

Mardi 2 juillet, l'avion d'Evo Morales, de retour d'une réunion des pays producteurs de gaz naturel à Moscou, a été
bloqué à Vienne, en Autriche. La France, l'Espagne, l'Italie et le Portugal, sur le point d'être survolés par son avion,
ferment leur espace aérien. Motif: l'avion présidentiel est soupçonné de transporter Edward Snowden. L'arrêt
s'éternise; Evo Morales s'oppose à la fouille de l'appareil. Après plusieurs imbroglios diplomatiques, le président
bolivien pourra finalement décoller en fin de matinée, et survoler les pays qui s'y étaient auparavant opposés.

L'épisode, pour le moins confus, a provoqué l'ire des dirigeants politiques latino-américains. Une colère que certains
ont exprimée sur Twitter. À l'image du président vénézuélien, Nicolas Maduro, également présent à Moscou lundi, qui
a dénoncé une «violation de toutes les règles d'immunité qui protègent les chefs d'États» au nom de «l'obsession
impérialiste».

1. Comment réagit le Conseil?

2. Ne s'agit-il pas effectivement d'une violation des règles d'immunité?

3. Cela ne donne-t-il pas, une fois encore, une déplorable image de l'Union européenne entière?

4. Ne serait-il pas temps d'avoir une position commune vis-à-vis de ce dossier?

**Réponse**
_(30 septembre 2013)_

Les incidents auxquels fait référence l'Honorable Parlementaire ont été le résultat de décisions prises par les différents
États membres concernés. Le Conseil n'est pas partie prenante et n'a pas non plus examiné les questions soulevées par
l'Honorable Parlementaire.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 75

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008019/13**

**to the Council**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Evo Morales and Edward Snowden

On 2 July 2013, a plane carrying Evo Morales home from a meeting of natural-gas exporting nations in Moscow was
diverted to Vienna. The flight was rerouted to Austria after France, Spain, Italy and Portugal closed their airspace on
suspicion that Edward Snowden was on board. The forced stopover continued after Mr Morales refused to let his
plane be searched. After a number of diplomatic altercations, the Bolivian President was finally able to take off late the
following morning and resume his flight over the countries that had previously denied him access to their airspace.

This somewhat bewildering episode angered a number of Latin American leaders, some of whom took to Twitter to
express their fury. Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan President, who was also in Moscow on Monday, condemned the
way in which the international immunity protecting Heads of State had been violated in an act of imperial obsession.

1. What position does the Council take on the incident?

2. Does it not in fact constitute a breach of international immunity?

3. Does it not, once again, portray the entire European Union in a terrible light?

4. Is it not time to adopt a common position on this entire issue?

**Reply**
_(30 September 2013)_

The incidents to which the Honourable Member refers were the result of decisions taken by the individual Member
States concerned. The Council was not involved, nor has it discussed the issues raised by the Honourable Member.

C 65 E / 76 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008020/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Morales/Snowden

Mardi 2 juillet, l'avion d'Evo Morales, de retour d'une réunion des pays producteurs de gaz naturel à Moscou, a été
bloqué à Vienne, en Autriche. La France, l'Espagne, l'Italie et le Portugal, sur le point d'être survolés par son avion,
ferment leur espace aérien. Motif: l'avion présidentiel est soupçonné de transporter Edward Snowden. L'arrêt
s'éternise; Evo Morales s'oppose à la fouille de l'appareil. Après plusieurs imbroglios diplomatiques, le président
bolivien pourra finalement décoller en fin de matinée et survoler les pays qui s'y étaient auparavant opposés.

L'épisode, pour le moins confus, a provoqué l'ire des dirigeants politiques latino-américains. Une colère que certains
ont exprimée sur Twitter. À l'image du président vénézuélien Nicolas Maduro, également présent à Moscou lundi, qui
a dénoncé une «violation de toutes les règles d'immunité qui protègent les chefs d'État» au nom de «l'obsession
impérialiste».

1. Comment réagit la Commission?

2. Ne s'agit-il effectivement pas d'une violation des règles d'immunité?

3. Cela ne donne-t-il pas, une fois encore, une image déplorable de l'ensemble de l'Unioneuropéenne?

4. Ne serait-il pas temps d'avoir une position commune sur ce dossier?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(21 août 2013)_

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante déplore l'incident concernant l'avion présidentiel. À sa connaissance, les États
membres concernés ont donné des explications et, le cas échéant, présenté leurs excuses.

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante tient à souligner que cette affaire ne relève pas de la compétence de l'Union
européenne mais de la souveraineté nationale des États membres.

Dans ce contexte, la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante estime qu'il n'est pas opportun d'adopter une position ou
une déclaration commune.

Au cours de ces dernières années, l'Union européenne n'a pas ménagé ses efforts pour renforcer les relations tant entre
la Bolivie et les États membres, qu'avec l'UE dans son ensemble. L'UE demeure résolue à maintenir de bonnes relations
avec la Bolivie.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 77

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008020/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Evo Morales and Edward Snowden

On 2 July 2013, a plane carrying Evo Morales home from a meeting of natural-gas exporting nations in Moscow was
diverted to Vienna. The flight was rerouted to Austria after France, Spain, Italy and Portugal closed their airspace on
suspicion that Edward Snowden was on board. The forced stopover continued after Mr Morales refused to let his
plane be searched. After a number of diplomatic altercations, the Bolivian President was finally able to take off late the
following morning and resume his flight over the countries that had previously denied him access to their airspace.

This somewhat bewildering episode angered a number of Latin American leaders, some of whom took to Twitter to
express their fury. Nicolas Maduro, the Venezuelan President, who was also in Moscow on Monday, condemned the
way in which the international immunity protecting Heads of State had been violated in an act of imperial obsession.

1. What position does the Commission take on the incident?

2. Does it not in fact constitute a breach of international immunity?

3. Does it not, once again, portray the entire European Union in a terrible light?

4. Is it not time to adopt a common position on this entire issue?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The HR/VP regrets the incident involving the presidential plane. The HR/VP understands that the Member States
concerned have given their explanations and where appropriate, apologised.

The HR/VP would like to underline that this is not a matter of EU competence but under the national sovereignty of
Member States.

In this context the HR/VP does not consider it appropriate to adopt a common position or statement.

During the last few years, the EU has worked hard to strengthen the relationship both between Bolivia and individual
member states and with the EU as a whole. The EU is committed to maintain its good relations with Bolivia.

C 65 E / 78 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008021/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Viol par des policiers en Ukraine

Irina Krashkova, 29 ans, qui a dénoncé ses agresseurs, est désormais sous protection. Toujours hospitalisée une
semaine après les faits, elle se remet doucement de ses blessures.

Le ministre de l'intérieur a été appelé à venir s'expliquer devant le parlement. «Elle marche à peine, déclare le frère de la
victime, elle donne des preuves, répète la même chose aux reporters. Elle se sent bien sûr mal, on espère que demain
ça ira mieux».

Si les deux suspects sont maintenant en garde à vue, le refus des autorités d'interpeller un des policiers a provoqué la
colère des habitants de Vradiyivka, dans le sud du pays.

«Nous avons gardé le silence, mais maintenant ils abusent de leur pouvoir autant qu'ils peuvent, déclare une femme
devant le poste de police. La victime a donné des preuves qui montrent que c'est le policier Dryzhak qui l'a violée en
premier. Les gens d'ici veulent la soutenir».

Le poste de police en question a été attaqué deux fois par des dizaines de personnes, et il a presque été incendié lundi
soir. Les policiers qui étaient à l'intérieur ont défendu leur commissariat à coups de gaz lacrymogènes, et plusieurs
personnes ont été blessées.

La Commission compte-t-elle mettre tout en œuvre pour que les Droits de l'homme soient respectés dans un pays que
la Commission s'évertue à garder comme partenaire économique?

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

_(26 août 2013)_

Le respect et la promotion des Droits de l'homme sont d'une importance fondamentale pour les relations entre
l'Union européenne et l'Ukraine. Les questions touchant aux Droits de l'homme sont examinées régulièrement avec
l'Ukraine, à plusieurs niveaux et selon différentes configurations. Cela permet d'aborder avec les autorités
ukrainiennes des cas concrets qui sont sources de préoccupation .

Dans ses conclusions du 10 décembre 2012 sur l'Ukraine, qui énoncent les critères de référence auxquels seraient
subordonnées la signature éventuelle de l'accord d'association et la zone de libre-échange approfondi et complet, le
Conseil «Affaires étrangères» a insisté, entre autres, sur l'importance de la réforme de la police. Conformément au
décret 127/2013 adopté par le président ukrainien, les projets de loi sur la réforme du fonctionnement des
organismes chargés d'appliquer la loi doivent être parachevés d'ici au 1 [er] octobre 2013, en tenant compte des normes
européennes.

Le cas regrettable auquel se réfère l'Honorable Parlementaire illustre la nécessité d'accélérer les travaux portant
sur cette réforme, dans le cadre d'un processus plus vaste de réorganisation du système judiciaire, qui engloberait la
mise en œuvre effective de la nouvelle législation sur le code de procédure pénale et le barreau, adoptée l'année passée,
de même qu'un examen approfondi — mené en concertation étroite avec le Conseil de l'Europe (Commission de
Venise) — de la loi sur le fonctionnement du ministère public, du code pénal, du rôle du conseil supérieur de la justice
et de la loi sur le système judiciaire et le statut des magistrats. Ces questions font l'objet d'un suivi dans le cadre du
dialogue engagé entre l'Union européenne et les autorités ukrainiennes, au cours duquel l'UE continue à appeler
instamment ces dernières à opérer des réformes.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 79

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008021/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Rape by police officers in Ukraine

Irina Krashkova, 29, who denounced her attackers, is now under protection. She is still in hospital a week after the
events, and is gradually recovering from her injuries.

The Minister of the Interior has been called to explain himself before the Ukrainian Parliament. ‘She can hardly walk,’
says her brother. ‘She is giving evidence, and is repeating the same to reporters. Of course she is not feeling well, but
we hope she will be better tomorrow.’

While the two suspects are now in custody, the refusal by the authorities to question one of the police officers has
provoked anger among the people of Vradiyivka, in southern Ukraine.

‘We have kept quiet, but now they are abusing their power as much as they can,’ says a woman outside the police
station. ‘The victim has provided evidence to show that police officer Dryzhak raped her first. The people here want to
support her.’

The police station in question has been attacked twice by dozens of people, and was almost set on fire on Monday
evening. The police officers inside defended their station with tear gas, and several people were injured.

Will the Commission do its utmost to ensure that human rights are respected in a country which it is doing its utmost
to keep as an economic partner?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

Respect and promotion of human rights are essential in EU-Ukraine relations. Human Rights issues are discussed
regularly with Ukraine, at a number of levels and in a number of formats. This provides the opportunity to raise
concrete cases of concern with the Ukrainian authorities.

The 10 December 2012 Foreign Affairs Council's conclusions on Ukraine, setting out the benchmarks for the
possible signing of the Association Agreement and its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, _inter alia_
emphasised the importance of Police reform. According to Ukraine's Presidential Decree 127/2013 the draft laws on
reforming the system of law enforcement agencies are to be finalised by 1 October 2013, taking into account the
European standards.

The unfortunate case to which the Honourable Member refers illustrates the need to speed up work on such a reform
as part of a wider judiciary reform process which would include the effective implementation of last year's adopted
new legislation on the Criminal Procedure Code and the Bar as well as a comprehensive review in close consultation
with the Council of Europe/Venice Commission of the law on the functioning of the Prosecutor’s Office, of the
Criminal Code, of the role of the High Council of Justice, of the laws on the Judicial System and the Status of Judges.
These matters are followed up in the EU's dialogue with the Ukrainian authorities, with the EU continuing to press for
reforms.

C 65 E / 80 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008022/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(4 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Equiparazione giuridica ed economica degli specializzandi non medici per quanto riguarda la categoria
professionale dei biologi

In Italia i dirigenti dell'area medica e non medica (biologi, chimici, psicologi) per accedere ai concorsi nella sanità
pubblica o ai laboratori di analisi accreditati devono essere in possesso di un diploma di specializzazione postlaurea,
come previsto dal Decreto Ministeriale del 1998 e successive modifiche.

I medici che superano il concorso di specializzazione hanno diritto al trattamento giuridico, contrattuale ed
economico previsto dal decreto del MIUR dell'1.8.2005 (G.U. n. 258 del 5.11.2005) e dal Decreto Legislativo n. 368
del 17.8.1999, articolo 37 e successive modificazioni in applicazione delle direttive europee che hanno imposto allo
Stato di dare adeguata remunerazione ai medici specializzati a differenza dei biologi che superano il medesimo
concorso di specializzazione, ma non hanno diritto a nessuna retribuzione pur svolgendo la stessa attività didattica e
di laboratorio e lo stesso impegno di ore.

Lo Stato italiano pretende dai biologi per l'accesso alle strutture pubbliche il possesso di una specializzazione, ma non
consente di poter accedere alle borse di studio che invece i medici percepiscono regolarmente e da anni, il che obbliga
il biologo che riesce ad accedere a una specializzazione a sopportare onerose spese di iscrizione, nonché a provvedere
alla propria sussistenza.

A causa di tale discriminazione a lungo andare il numero dei biologi presenti nei laboratori di analisi pubblici e privati
si andrà ad assottigliare fino a determinare l'estinzione di una categoria imprescindibile nell'ambito sanitario,
soprattutto per le sue specifiche peculiarità nell'ambito della ricerca e delle analisi di laboratorio.

Tale diverso trattamento giuridico ed economico degli specializzandi non medici costituisce un atto di
discriminazione e di violazione tanto della Costituzione italiana che sancisce che tutti i cittadini sono uguali nei diritti
e nei doveri quanto dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'UE.

Ritiene la Commissione necessario intervenire imponendo all'Italia un intervento riparatore nei confronti di una
categoria, quella dei biologi, che ha dimostrato negli anni di essere indispensabile in ambito scientifico contribuendo
in maniera determinante alla salute dell'uomo?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(2 settembre 2013)_

L'interrogazione dell'onorevole deputato riguarda il trattamento giuridico ed economico degli specialisti paramedici
che lavorano per laboratori di analisi accreditati in Italia, paese in cui si applicano ai medici che si sono specializzati
per lavorare presso tali laboratori e ai biologi specializzati nello stesso campo un trattamento differenziato per quanto
riguarda la formazione e la remunerazione.

L'interrogazione dell'onorevole deputato riguarda l'organizzazione dei servizi nazionali di assistenza sanitaria e dei
sistemi di istruzione, materie su cui ciascuno Stato membro decide individualmente.

Inoltre, la direttiva dell'Unione europea sulla parità di trattamento ( [1] ) vieta le discriminazioni fondate sul genere, sulla
religione o le convinzioni personali, gli handicap, l'età o le tendenze sessuali in materia di occupazione e di condizioni
di lavoro.

La normativa dell'UE in materia di parità di trattamento non disciplina, tuttavia, altre forme di discriminazione.
Pertanto, la questione relativa alla legittimità di un trattamento differenziato tra i medici e i biologi specializzati che
operano nello stesso settore deve essere affrontata nell'ambito del diritto nazionale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2006/54/CE, del 5 luglio 2006, riguardante l'attuazione del principio delle pari opportunità e della parità di trattamento tra gli uomini e

le donne in materia di occupazione e impiego (rifusione) (GU L 204 del 26.7.2006, pag. 23); direttiva 2000/78/CE del Consiglio, del 27 novembre
2000, che stabilisce un quadro generale per la parità di trattamento in materia di occupazione e di condizioni di lavoro (GU L 303 del 2.12.2000,
pag. 16).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 81

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008022/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Equal legal and financial treatment of non-medical trainee specialists with regard to the professional category
of biologists

In Italy, in order to take State healthcare examinations or to work for accredited analytical laboratories, executives
from the medical and non-medical sectors (biologists, chemists, psychologists) must hold a diploma of postgraduate
specialisation, as required by the Ministerial Decree of 1998, as subsequently amended.

Doctors who pass the specialisation examination are entitled to the legal, contractual and financial treatment as
provided for by the Decree of the Ministry of Education of 1 August 2005 (Official Gazette of the Italian Republic
No 258 of 5 November 2005) and Article 37 of Legislative Decree No 368 of 17 August 1999, as amended,
transposing EU directives requiring the State to provide adequate remuneration to specialist doctors. This is in
contrast to the conditions for biologists passing the same specialisation examination, who are not entitled to any
remuneration even though they perform the same teaching and laboratory activities and work the same number of
hours.

The Italian State requires any biologists wishing to work for public facilities to have a specialisation, but does not
allow them access to the scholarships that, by contrast, doctors have been receiving regularly for years, which forces
biologists who get a place on a specialisation course to pay costly fees, as well as to provide for their own subsistence.

In the long run, this discrimination will reduce the number of biologists in public and private analytical laboratories,
perhaps even leading to the disappearance of a category of such vital importance for the healthcare sector, especially
in view of their specific qualities in areas such as research and laboratory analysis.

This unequal legal and financial treatment of non-medical trainee specialists is an act of discrimination as well as a
violation both of the Italian Constitution, which stipulates that all citizens have equal rights and responsibilities, and
of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Does the Commission think that it should require Italy to take remedial action in favour of a category, namely
biologists, that over the years has proven to be vital to the scientific sector, while making a significant contribution to
human health?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

The question of the Honourable Member concerns the legal and financial treatment of non-medical specialists
working for accredited analytical laboratories in Italy. Different regimes are applicable in Italy as regards the training
conditions and the remuneration for medical doctors specialised to work for accredited analytical laboratories and for
biologists specialised in the same domain.

The Honourable Member's question concerns the organisation of the national healthcare and educational systems and
is a subject-matter to be decided by each Member State individually.

Moreover, EU anti-discrimination law ( [1] ) prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, religion or belief, disability, age,
or sexual orientation in employment and occupation.

Nevertheless, EU equal treatment legislation does not cover other grounds of discrimination. Therefore, the question
whether a differential treatment between medical doctors and biologists which are specialised and are working in the
same domain is legitimate or not has to be solved under national law.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/54/EC of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in

matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ L 204 of 26 July 2006, p. 23); 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.

C 65 E / 82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008023/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(4 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Progetto marchio di qualità sanitaria e progetto REAPT

Il settore bufalino costituisce uno dei pilastri economici portanti della Campania, in particolare della Provincia di
Caserta, e a causa delle problematiche ambientali verificatesi nel 2003 e nel 2008 risente di una crisi occupazionale
senza precedenti che non accenna a diminuire nonostante le procedure nazionali attuate al fine di arginarne gli effetti.

Per ripristinare la fiducia dei consumatori nelle produzioni agro-zootecniche-alimentari, in primis della filiera
bufalina, uno specifico protocollo di intesa è stato sottoscritto e sostenuto da Aziende sanitarie locali (ASL),
università, imprese, enti locali e sindacati dei lavoratori, teso a definire una produzione in cui sarà facilmente
riconoscibile l'area geografica, l'azienda che produce la materia prima e l'opificio che etichetta con conseguenze
benefiche tanto dal punto di vista occupazionale quanto produttivo. La stessa Regione Campania ha adottato uno
specifico provvedimento normativo per tale iniziativa (Art.1, comma 56, LR n.5/2013 — BURC 24/2013).

Le stesse autorità locali (ASL Caserta, università, enti locali e Confartigianato) hanno integrato al sopramenzionato
marchio di qualità sanitaria il progetto di Rinaturalizzazione delle Aree a Rischio Ambientale (REAPT) che si basa
sulla preventiva caratterizzazione e successivi interventi di decontaminazione e messa in sicurezza dei suoli da
rinaturalizzare attraverso la piantagione di colture, quali piante erbacee perenni (canna gentile, felce) o annuali (mais,
sorgo), non destinate al consumo alimentare, che «accumulino» gli inquinanti organici e inorganici da utilizzare per la
produzione di energie da fonti rinnovabili;

È evidente l'alto valore delle sopramenzionate progettualità e del risultato etico ottenibile attraverso la combinazione
sinergica di attività aventi come obiettivo primario la ricaduta sul territorio e la garanzia di tutela della salute e del
lavoro attraverso la rinaturalizzazione dei suoli e la messa in sicurezza delle aree a rischio ambientale della Regione
Campania, favorendo il rilancio delle produzioni agroalimentari di eccellenza della zona Terra di lavoro.

Tutto ciò premesso, reputa la Commissione che azioni come il «marchio di qualità sanitaria» e di «Progetto REAPT»
possano ricevere finanziamenti europei nell'ambito delle iniziative a tutela delle produzioni agro-alimentari ed
energetiche lanciate dall'UE?

Reputa che azioni di questo tipo possano costituire un'utile migliore pratica da riprodurre in altre aree dell'UE
contaminate dal punto di vista ambientale?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(22 agosto 2013)_

Per quanto riguarda la prima questione relativa alla possibilità di finanziare progetti di sviluppo di zone aventi
problematiche ambientali, talune azioni sovvenzionate dal programma di sviluppo rurale della regione Campania nel
periodo 2007-2013 intendono promuovere la protezione dell'ambiente e lo sviluppo sostenibile del territorio rurale;
questi interventi continueranno a essere previsti dal FEADER anche nella programmazione futura. Tuttavia essi
possono essere sovvenzionati solo se rispondono alle norme vigenti in materia di protezione dell'ambiente o di
condizionalità.

Il caso di specie, relativo a terreni agricoli inquinati, non sembra essere coerente con le norme ambientali cui devono
rispondere gli interventi di sviluppo rurale, compreso il rispetto del principio «chi inquina paga», ai sensi
dell'articolo 191 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea (TFUE). Pertanto le azioni proposte non
appaiono compatibili con il quadro normativo dello sviluppo rurale.

Per quanto riguarda la trasferibilità dell'azione proposta, definita come «buona pratica», la sua efficacia dovrebbe
essere verificata in via preliminare, in particolare relativamente all'utilizzo finale delle piante cresciute su questi terreni
agricoli inquinati. Infatti queste piante avranno assorbito delle sostanze contaminanti, e quindi il loro utilizzo finale
dovrà evitare la dispersione di queste sostanze nell'ambiente e i loro effetti nocivi per la salute umana.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 83

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008023/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Health quality certification and the REAPT project

The buffalo industry is one of the mainstays of the economy in the Campania region, particularly for the province of
Caserta. Due to environmental problems in 2003 and in 2008, the industry was hit by an unprecedented
employment crisis that continues unabated, despite national policies to reduce its impact.

In order to restore consumer confidence in agri-food and livestock production, primarily the buffalo industry, a
specific memorandum of understanding has been signed and supported by local public health authorities,
universities, enterprises, local authorities and trade unions, aiming to define a production system in which the
geographic area, the company producing the raw materials and the production plant where labelling is performed,
will all be clearly visible, leading to benefits both for employment and for production. The Campania Regional
Administration has adopted a specific legislative measure for this initiative (Article 1(56), Regional Law No 5/2013 —
Campania Official Regional Gazette 24/2013).

The local authorities (Caserta local health authority, universities, local authorities and Confartigianato, the Italian
organisation for crafts and micro and small enterprises) have integrated the aforementioned health quality
certification into a project for the Renaturalisation of Environmental Risk Areas (REAPT) which is based on prior
characterisation and subsequent decontamination and safeguarding of soils for renaturalisation. This is achieved by
planting herbaceous plants, both perennials (giant cane, fern) and annuals (maize, sorghum) not intended for human
consumption, in order to ‘accumulate’ organic and inorganic pollutants for use in energy production from renewable

sources.

The great value of the abovementioned projects is clear to see, as is the ethical result earned through a synergistic
combination of a series of activities whose primary objective is to benefit the region on the one hand and to guarantee
protection of health and employment through renaturalisation of soils and safeguarding of environmental risk areas
in the Campania Region on the other, in order to encourage the revival of quality agri-food products in the Terra di
Lavoro area.

Does the Commission think that actions such as health quality certification and the REAPT project could receive EU
funding under initiatives launched by the EU for the protection of agri-food and energy production?

Does it believe that such actions may constitute a useful best practice for other areas in the EU affected by
environmental contamination?

_(Version française)_

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

_(22 août 2013)_

En ce qui concerne la première question, relative à la possibilité de financer des projets d'aménagement des zones avec
problèmes environnementaux, certaines actions subventionnées par le programme de développement rural de la
Région Campania pendant la période 2007-2013 visent à promouvoir la protection de l'environnement et le
développement durable du territoire rural; ces interventions continueront à être prévues par le Feader également dans
la programmation future. Toutefois, de telles interventions peuvent être subventionnées seulement si elles répondent
aux normes en vigueur en matière de protection de l'environnement ou d'éco-conditionnalité.

Le cas présenté, concernant des sols agricoles pollués, ne semble pas être en cohérence avec les normes
environnementales auxquelles les interventions du développement rural doivent répondre, y inclus le respect du
principe du «pollueur-payeur» selon l'article 191 du Traité sur le Fonctionnement de l'Union Européenne (TFUE). Par
conséquent, les actions proposées n'apparaissent pas comme compatibles avec le cadre réglementaire du
développement rural.

C 65 E / 84 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

En ce qui concerne la transférabilité de l'action proposée, définie comme « bonne pratique », son efficacité devrait être
préalablement vérifiée, notamment en ce qui concerne l'utilisation finale des plantes qui auront poussé sur ces sols
agricoles pollués. En effet, ces plantes auront absorbé des contaminants, donc leur utilisation finale devra éviter que
ces contaminants soient dispersés dans l'environnement et portent atteinte à la santé humaine.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 85

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008024/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(4 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Energie rinnovabili: crisi della politica energetica europea

Il Pacchetto 2020 approvato dal Parlamento europeo nel 2009 impone agli Stati membri una riduzione dei gas serra
del 20 % rispetto al 1990 e un aumento della quota delle energie rinnovabili pari al 20 % della produzione totale di
energia entro il 2020 attraverso un maggiore impiego delle fonti rinnovabili. Tuttavia, la crisi economica ha colpito
anche il settore delle energie rinnovabili. Secondo uno studio condotto dal Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) i
nuovi investimenti nel settore delle energie rinnovabili hanno subito un calo dell'11 % nel 2012 e in alcuni Stati
membri il crollo degli investimenti è stato ancora più grave: —51 % in Italia e —68 % in Spagna.

La crisi economica sfiducia gli investitori a finanziare progetti in paesi ad alto rischio come Spagna, Grecia o
Portogallo che sono però i più competitivi nel settore dell'energia pulita. Il settore energetico europeo è ulteriormente
penalizzato dalla competizione con gli Stati Uniti che, grazie allo sfruttamento del gas di scisto, hanno accentuato il
differenziale dei prezzi energetici tra l'industria europea e quella americana, già alto a causa delle tasse e dei sussidi alle
energie rinnovabili. A soffrire dello svantaggio competitivo sono soprattutto le industrie europee dell'acciaio,
dell'alluminio e dei prodotti petrolchimici e tutto l'indotto.

— Alla luce dei fatti e con riferimento al Consiglio europeo del 22 maggio scorso sulle politiche energetiche
dell'Unione, come intende la Commissione sostenere i governi europei nel supportare le fonti di energia alternativa
per raggiungere gli obiettivi previsti dal pacchetto minacciati non solo dalla crisi, ma anche dal prezzo vantaggioso
del carbone e del gas di scisto, onde rendere le energie rinnovabili più attraenti per gli investitori?

— Considerato che Stati Uniti e Cina non intendono tagliare i loro consumi e rinunciare alle energie fossili, ritiene
essa necessaria una revisione del Pacchetto 2020, che riduce le emissioni sul continente, ma non prevede alcuna
azione contro l'inarrestabile ascesa dei gas serra a livello globale?

— Con riferimento alla dichiarazione del 28 maggio scorso da parte del Presidente Barroso sull'impegno della
Commissione a proporre entro fine anno una bozza di regolamentazione per l'estrazione del gas di scisto affinché
l'Unione europea possa competere in materia energetica con gli Stati Uniti, ritiene che l'estrazione del gas di scisto
possa rappresentare una soluzione attuabile ed efficace stante che il territorio europeo non permette di trivellare con
la stessa intensità di quello americano?

— Nel caso in cui lo sfruttamento del gas di scisto diventasse effettivo, come intende tutelare i cittadini e l'ambiente
dai rischi del fracking?

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

_(22 agosto 2013)_

1) La Commissione intende emanare orientamenti sui regimi di sostegno delle energie rinnovabili per assicurare
che il sostegno fornito a tale settore dagli Stati membri sia efficace sotto il profilo dei costi e contribuisca a integrare la
produzione di energia rinnovabile nel mercato energetico. Grazie al sostegno che prevede per l'energia rinnovabile e
le nuove tecnologie e infrastrutture energetiche, il nuovo quadro pluriennale di bilancio dell'UE dovrebbe inoltre
concorrere alla crescita costante del settore in Europa.

2) La Commissione ha avviato la discussione su un quadro per clima ed energia nel periodo successivo al 2020, ( [1] )
nella quale uno dei temi fondamentali è l'impatto di tale quadro sulla competitività dell'Europa. La Commissione è
consapevole del fatto che occorre intensificare l'interazione con i paesi terzi e raggiungere entro il 2015, nell'ambito
della piattaforma di Durban, un accordo sul periodo successivo al 2020.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Libro verde della Commissione «Un quadro per le politiche dell'energia e del clima all'orizzonte 2030», COM(2013)169 def.

C 65 E / 86 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

3-4) La Commissione sta esaminando in profondità i possibili vantaggi e i rischi delle nuove fonti di gas naturale,
specificamente il gas di scisto. Nel programma di lavoro 2013 ha inserito una proposta inerente a un quadro di
valutazione ambientale climatica ed energetica ai fini dell'estrazione sicura di idrocarburi non convenzionali, il cui
scopo è vagliare le possibilità di diversificazione dell'approvvigionamento energetico e di miglioramento della
competitività assicurando nel contempo che lo sfruttamento delle fonti energetiche costituite da idrocarburi non
convenzionali presenti adeguate garanzie climatiche e ambientali. La Commissione intende garantire la certezza del
diritto e la prevedibilità delle norme ai cittadini, alle autorità e agli operatori.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 87

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008024/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Renewable energy: European energy policy in crisis

The 2020 package adopted by Parliament in 2009 requires the Member States to make greater use of renewable
energy sources in order reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% compared with 1990 levels and to make renewable
energy account for 20% of total energy production by 2020. However, the economic crisis has also affected the
renewable energy sector. According to a study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), new investments in the
renewable energy sector fell by 11% in 2012 and in some Member States the drop in investment was even worse: ‐
51% in Italy and ‐68% in Spain.

The economic crisis is discouraging investors from funding projects in high-risk countries like Spain, Greece and
Portugal, which are, however, the most competitive in the clean energy sector. The European energy sector is being
further damaged by competition with the United States, whose use of shale gas has heightened the energy price
differential — already high due to taxes and subsidies for renewable energy — between the European industry and
the US industry. The European steel, aluminium and petrochemical industries and all ancillary industries are bearing
the brunt of the competitive disadvantage.

— In view of the above and with regard to the European Council of 22 May 2013 on EU energy policies, how does
the Commission plan to support European governments in supporting alternative energy sources in order to achieve
the targets set by the 2020 package, which are threatened not only by the crisis, but also by the favourable price of
coal and shale gas, in order to make renewable energy more attractive to investors?

— Given that the United States and China have no intention of cutting their energy consumption and giving up fossil
fuels, does the Commission think that the 2020 package, which reduces emissions in Europe but does not provide for
any action to tackle the unstoppable rise in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, should be revised?

— With regard to President Barroso’s statement of 28 May 2013 regarding the Commission’s commitment to table a
draft regulation for shale gas extraction by the end of the year so that the European Union can compete with the
United States in terms of energy, does the Commission think that shale gas extraction could be a feasible and effective
solution considering that it is not possible to drill as intensively in Europe as it is in the United States?

— Were the use of shale gas to become a reality, how does the Commission plan to safeguard the public and the
environment against the risks of fracking?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

1. The Commission plans to issue guidance on renewables' support schemes to ensure that Member States'
support for renewable energy is cost-effective and helps to integrate renewable energy production in the energy
market. In addition, the new EU multi-annual budget framework provides support for renewable energy, new energy
technologies and infrastructure and should help to ensure continued growth of the renewable energy sector in
Europe.

2. The Commission has launched a discussion on a climate and energy framework for the time after 2020 ( [1] ). One
of the key issues in that discussion is the impact of such a framework on Europe's competitiveness. The Commission
acknowledges the need to engage further with third countries, and for the Durban Platform to deliver an agreement
by 2015 on post 2020.

3, 4. The Commission is carefully analysing the possible benefits and risks of new sources of natural gas such as
shale gas. In its 2013 Work Programme, the Commission included a proposal for ‘Environmental, Climate and Energy
Assessment Framework to Enable Safe and Secure Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction’. The aim is to investigate
possibilities to diversify energy supply and improve competitiveness while ensuring that unconventional
hydrocarbon sources are exploited with proper climate and environmental safeguards. The Commission wants to
ensure legal clarity and predictability for citizens, authorities and operators.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Commission Green Paper: A 2030 framework for climate and energy policies, COM(2013) 169 final.

C 65 E / 88 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008025/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(4 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ TNT Express Italia: 300 lavoratori veneti rischiano di perdere il posto di lavoro

Lo scorso 10 giugno TNT Express Italia, multinazionale del settore spedizioni che occupa oltre 3.000 lavoratori in
tutta Italia, ha annunciato un piano di riorganizzazione industriale che prevede 850 esuberi, 300 dei quali nella sola
filiale di Padova. L'azienda, che ha già aperto la procedura di mobilità per i dipendenti, ha giustificato la decisione con
la necessità di adeguare la struttura operativa italiana al rallentamento dell'economia e di fare fronte all'aumento dei
prezzi di benzina, pedaggi autostradali e tasse. Il piano prevede di far confluire le attività operative delle filiali più
piccole in strutture di dimensioni maggiori, collocate in posizioni strategiche sul territorio nazionale. Il Veneto è la
regione più colpita dai tagli in quanto 7 delle 20 filiali si trovano in tale territorio, e le ricadute sulle attività
dell'indotto potrebbero far salire il numero degli esuberi a 3.000.

La Commissione:

—
è a conoscenza di questo problema?

—
Ritiene che i lavoratori licenziati potranno godere del sostegno del Fondo sociale europeo nel quadro del
programma operativo Regione Veneto (2007-2013), volto a fornire ai lavoratori un'assistenza alla formazione
per consentire loro di riqualificarsi e di adeguare le loro abilità professionali al fine di poter mantenere i propri
posti di lavoro o trovarne di nuovi?

—
Quali misure ritiene opportuno debbano essere adottate da parte delle imprese e delle autorità locali per
attenuare le conseguenze sociali di questa ristrutturazione nel territorio del Veneto?

—
Ritiene possibile ipotizzare l'attivazione del Fondo europeo di adeguamento alla globalizzazione (FEG) a favore
degli 850 lavoratori coinvolti nella vicenda?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(5 settembre 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza della situazione dei lavoratori della TNT in Italia.

Per quanto concerne i punti 2 e 4 dell'interrogazione la Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputata alla propria risposta
all'interrogazione E-008295/2013 ( [1] ) che riguarda anch'essa i lavoratori della TNT in Italia.

La Commissione non ha poteri per interferire nelle decisioni individuali delle imprese. Essa esorta tuttavia le imprese
ad attenersi alle buone pratiche di gestione proattiva e socialmente responsabile delle ristrutturazioni. A seguito del
suo Libro verde del gennaio 2012 ( [2] ) e dell'adozione ad opera del Parlamento europeo, il 15 gennaio 2013, della
relazione Cercas, la Commissione proporrà una comunicazione finalizzata ad istituire un quadro di qualità
contenente la legislazione e le iniziative pertinenti in merito alle ristrutturazioni e presenterà le pratiche ottimali che
tutti gli stakeholder dovrebbero seguire. La Commissione ribadisce inoltre che, nel caso di chiusura di imprese, il
datore di lavoro deve rispettare gli obblighi che gli incombono in tema di informazione e consultazione dei lavoratori
conformemente alla legislazione dell'UE ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Cfr. le risposte e una sintesi all'indirizzo http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) In particolare la direttiva 2002/14/CE che istituisce un quadro generale relativo all'informazione e alla consultazione dei lavoratori, GU L 80 del

23.3.2002, pag. 29; la direttiva 98/59/CE concernente il ravvicinamento delle legislazioni degli Stati membri in materia di licenziamenti collettivi,
GU L 225 del 12.8.1998, pag. 16; la direttiva 2009/38/CE riguardante l'istituzione di un comitato aziendale europeo o di una procedura per
l'informazione e la consultazione dei lavoratori nelle imprese e nei gruppi di imprese di dimensioni comunitarie, GU L 122 del 16.5.2009.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 89

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008025/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ TNT Express Italy: 300 workers in the Veneto region at risk of losing their jobs

On 10 June 2013, TNT Express Italy, a multinational courier company that employs more than 3 000 people across
Italy, announced a business reorganisation plan providing for 850 redundancies, including 300 at its Padua branch
alone. The company, which has already initiated the redundancy process, justified its decision by saying that it needed
to adjust its operations in Italy in response to the economic slowdown and higher fuel prices, motorway tolls and
taxes. Under the plan, the operations at the smaller branches would be taken over by larger branches at strategic
locations across Italy. Given that seven of the company’s 20 branches are in the region, Veneto is the part of Italy
worst affected by the cuts, while the knock‐on effect on related sectors could see the number of redundancies rise to
3 000.

— Is the Commission aware of this problem?

— Will the laid‐off workers be eligible for ESF support under the Veneto Operational Programme (2007‐2013) to
help them retrain and reskill, so that they may hold on to their current jobs or find others?

— What ought to be done by companies and local authorities to mitigate the social impact of restructuring in the
Veneto region?

— Would it be possible to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) for the 850 workers affected?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the situation of the TNT workers in Italy.

Regarding points 2 and 4 of this question, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to
Question E-008295/2013 ( [1] ), also concerning the TNT workers in Italy.

The Commission has no powers to interfere in individual company decisions. It urges them, however, to follow good
practices in anticipation and socially responsible management of restructuring. Following its January 2012 Green
Paper ( [2] ) and the adoption by the European Parliament on 15 January 2013 of the Cercas report, the Commission will
propose a communication establishing a Quality Framework that will contain the relevant EU legislation and
initiatives with regard to restructuring and will present the best practices to be implemented by all stakeholders. In
addition, the Commission reiterates that, in case of closure of undertakings, the employer has to respect his/her
obligations relating to the information and consultation of workers in accordance with EC law ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See the replies and a summary under http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) In particular, Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community,

OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29; Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies,
OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16; Directive 2009/38/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale
undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees, OJ L 122 of 16.5.2009.

C 65 E / 90 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008026/13**

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

**Susy De Martini (ECR) e Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(4 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Business umanitario cubano

Tra il 1993 e il 2003, la Commissione ha finanziato quasi EUR 145 milioni per misure di assistenza, per lo più nel
settore dell'aiuto umanitario (EUR 90 m). A tale importo, è stato aggiunto nel 2009 una somma di EUR 36 milioni
per progetti di cooperazione nell'ambito della ricostruzione post-uragano, riabilitazione professionale, sicurezza
alimentare e cultura. Il 12 maggio 2010, la Commissione ha adottato il primo documento di strategia nazionale per la
Repubblica di Cuba destinando una somma indicativa di EUR 20 milioni per il periodo 2011-2013 nel quadro dello
strumento di cooperazione allo sviluppo.

Già dagli anni '60 del secolo scorso, Cuba ha però iniziato la sua politica di cosiddetta «diplomazia umanitaria»
esportando lavoratori nei paesi in via di sviluppo. La categoria più utilizzata era quella dei medici che, a quei tempi,
scarseggiavano nelle zone colpite da disastri naturali. Il business è pero aumentato: in seguito all'aumento dei rapporti
commerciali bilaterali con alcuni partner strategici del continente sud-americano, il governo cubano è riuscito ad
instaurare un vero e proprio «business sanitario» con un tornaconto pari a 5000 dollari americani per ogni dottore
formato a Cuba, ma «esportato» nei paesi vicini, continuando il baratto degli stessi con petrolio venezuelano.

— È il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante a conoscenza della situazione?

— Può riferire se ci sono stati programmi di monitoraggio dei fondi stanziati dall'Unione europea per Cuba nel
settore umanitario?

— È a conoscenza dei progetti realizzati dal governo cubano per lo sviluppo e la formazione professionale? Sa quanti
di questi dottori sono poi stati «esportati» nei paesi vicini?

— È a conoscenza che negli ospedali cubani la maggioranza dei pazienti ricoverati è assistita da studenti di medicina
perche i medici sono stati inviati all'estero e che questi ultimi sono pagati 25 dollari al mese (nonostante i 5000
ricevuti per ogni dottore espatriato), tenendo i loro famigliari in ostaggio?

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

_(10 settembre 2013)_

Attraverso la sua delegazione a L’Avana, l’UE segue da vicino la situazione di Cuba, anche per quanto riguarda le sue
relazioni esterne con i paesi terzi e gli sviluppi in settori specifici.

Inoltre, la delegazione dell’UE, l’AR/VP e i servizi della Commissione monitorano attentamente l’attuazione di tutti i
progetti di cooperazione allo sviluppo e di assistenza umanitaria finanziati dall’UE a Cuba. Questo vale anche per tutti
i progetti umanitari finanziati dalla Commissione europea.

Sebbene il monitoraggio del settore sanitario nazionale abbia evidenziato un certo numero di difficoltà, le lamentele
riguardanti la qualità dei medici sono relativamente poche. I principali problemi riguardano le forniture e l’assistenza
infermieristica. Alla base, la rete medica (ospedali e cliniche locali) è ancora pienamente operativa. In certe cliniche
locali si ricorre effettivamente agli studenti di medicina, che operano tuttavia sotto la supervisione di medici
qualificati.

Ora come ora la priorità di Cuba è formare i medici dei paesi in via di sviluppo partner attraverso la Scuola
panamericana di medicina, che ha sede a L’Avana.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 91

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008026/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Susy De Martini (ECR) and Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Cuban humanitarian trade

Between 1993 and 2003, the Commission provided funding of almost EUR 145 million for assistance measures,
mostly in the area of humanitarian aid (EUR 90 million). There was a further EUR 36 million in 2009 for cooperation
projects covering post-hurricane reconstruction, vocational rehabilitation, food security and culture. On
12 May 2010, the Commission adopted the first Country Strategy Paper for the Republic of Cuba, allocating an
indicative figure of EUR 20 million for the period 2011-2013 under the Development Cooperation Instrument.

Back in the 1960s, Cuba also started up its policy of so-called ‘humanitarian diplomacy’, exporting workers to
countries in the developing world. The biggest group they used was doctors who, at the time, were in short supply in
areas affected by natural disasters. Trade has grown, however: following an increase in bilateral trade relations with
some strategic partners on the South American continent, the Cuban Government managed to set up a true
‘healthcare trade’, earning USD 5 000 per doctor trained in Cuba, and ‘exported’ to neighbouring countries, in
exchange for Venezuelan oil.

— Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the situation?

— Can she say whether there were any programmes to monitor the funds allocated by the European Union to Cuba in
the humanitarian sector?

— Is she aware of the projects implemented by the Cuban Government for professional development and training?
Does she know how many of these doctors were then ‘exported’ to neighbouring countries?

— Is she aware that in Cuban hospitals, the majority of patients admitted are looked after by medical students because
the doctors have been sent abroad, and that the students are paid USD 25 a month (despite the USD 5 000 received
for each expatriate doctor), thus holding their family members hostage?

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

_(10 September 2013)_

The EU, through its Delegation in Havanna, monitors the situation in Cuba closely, including with respect to Cuba's
external relations with third countries or the developments in specific sectors.

The EU Delegation, the HR/VP and the Commission services also follow very closely the implementation of all
development cooperation projects funded by the EU in Cuba. All the humanitarian projects financed by the European
Commission are also monitored in details.

Monitoring of the national health sector reveals that there are some difficulties; however, relatively few complaints are
heard about the quality of the doctors. The main challenges are supplies and nursing. At the grassroots level, the
medical network (hospitals and local clinics) is still fully operational. In certain local consulting clinics, medical
trainees are indeed employed but under qualified supervision.

Cuba's present priority is to train doctors from partnering developing countries via the Panamerican School of
Medicine located in Havana.

C 65 E / 92 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008027/13**

**do Komisji**
**Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE)**

_(4 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Strategia makroregionalna dla regionu Karpat

W dniu 1 lipca 2013 r. Komisja Europejska opublikowała pierwsze badanie dotyczące dwóch unijnych strategii
makroregionalnych dla regionów Dunaju i Morza Bałtyckiego. Wynika z niego jasno, iż okazały się one dużym
sukcesem, przyczyniając się do powstania wielu nowych projektów i sieci międzyregionalnych. Podkreślone zostało
także znaczne udoskonalenie współpracy między państwami członkowskimi, a państwami sąsiedzkimi UE oraz
lepsze wykorzystanie przez nie dostępnych zasobów.

Biorąc pod uwagę zgłaszaną już wielokrotnie przez różne podmioty potrzebę utworzenia strategii makroregionalnej
dla Karpat oraz fakt, iż region ten posiada już doświadczenie we współpracy transgranicznej w ramach Euroregionu
Karpackiego, a utworzenie oddzielnej strategii stanowiłoby kolejny krok w jego rozwoju, zwracam się do Komisji
Europejskiej z następującymi pytaniami:

—
Czy Komisja zamierza przedstawić w najbliższym czasie badania dotyczące potencjalnych nowych strategii
makroregionalnych UE? Czy wśród nich znajdzie się informacja dotycząca strategii dla regionu Karpat?

—
Jakie działania Komisja planuje podjąć w celu ułatwienia powstawania nowych propozycji strategii
makroregionalnych UE?

—
Jak zdaniem Komisji obecny okres przygotowania programów w ramach kolejnych Wieloletnich Ram
Finansowych wpłynie na możliwość powstania nowych strategii makroregionalnych UE w latach 2014-2020?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Johannesa Hahna w imieniu Komisji**

_(7 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

W najbliższej przyszłości Komisja nie planuje przeprowadzenia i opublikowania badań dotyczących potencjalnych
nowych strategii makroregionalnych UE.

Strategie makroregionalne opierają się na podejściu oddolnym i są inicjowane przez państwa członkowskie i regiony.
Państwa członkowskie (za pośrednictwem Rady) zwracały się już wcześniej z wnioskami do Komisji o przygotowanie
strategii UE dla następujących regionów: regionu Morza Bałtyckiego, regionu Dunaju oraz regionu adriatyckojońskiego. Jako że te strategie uruchamiane są z inicjatywy państw członkowskich, Komisja nie jest w stanie
przyspieszyć przedłożenia wniosków w sprawie nowych strategii makroregionalnych UE.

Obecnie Komisja jest upoważniona do przygotowania strategii UE dla regionu adriatycko-jońskiego (do końca
2014 r.). Pozostałe regiony UE wyraziły zainteresowanie takim podejściem. W przypadku tych regionów nie podjęto
jednak decyzji o przygotowaniu nowej strategii UE. Komisja pragnie odesłać Szanowną Panią Poseł do sprawozdania
dotyczącego wartości dodanej strategii makroregionalnych przyjętego przez Komisję w dniu 27 czerwca 2013 r., na
podstawie upoważnienia udzielonego przez Radę. W sprawozdaniu tym określono warunki, jakie należy spełnić, aby
nowe strategie przyniosły pożądane skutki. Oparto się w nim na doświadczeniach z realizacji strategii w regionie
Morza Bałtyckiego i Dunaju.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 93

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008027/13**

**to the Commission**
**Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Macro-regional strategy for the Carpathian region

On 1 July 2013 the Commission published the findings of the first study conducted into the Union’s two macroregional strategies (for the Danube and Baltic regions) The study clearly shows that the two strategies have been a
great success, acting as the catalyst for the setting up of numerous projects and interregional networks. It also states
that cooperation between the participating Member States and neighbouring non-EU countries has been significantly
stepped up and that better use has been made of the resources available.

Given the repeated calls from a variety of quarters for a macro-regional strategy for the Carpathian region, the
experience the region has already gained in the field of cross-border cooperation under the Carpathian Euroregion
initiative and the fact that a macro-regional strategy would take that process one step further, can the Commission

say:

—
whether it will be publishing studies on potential new EU macro-regional strategies in the near future, and if so,
whether any of them will focus on a strategy for the Carpathian region?

—
how it intends to speed up the submission of new proposals for EU macro-regional strategies?

—
what, in its view, is the likelihood of new EU macro-regional strategies being introduced during the next
multiannual financial framework period (2014-2020)?

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

_(7 August 2013)_

In the near future the Commission does not plan to conduct and publish studies on potential new EU macro-regional
strategies.

Macro-regional strategies are based on a bottom-up approach and are initiated by Member States and regions.
Member States (via the Council) have previously asked the Commission to prepare EU strategies for specific regions:
the Baltic Sea Region, the Danube Region, and the Adriatic-Ionian Region. As such strategies are at the initiative of the
Member States concerned, the Commission is not in a position to speed up the submission of proposals for new EU
macro-regional strategies.

For the time being, the Commission has a mandate to prepare an EU Strategy for the Adriatic-Ionian Region (before
the end of 2014). Other EU regions are interested in this approach. However, no decision to prepare new EU
strategies for other regions has been taken. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the report on
the added value on macro-regional strategies adopted by the Commission on 27 June 2013 following a mandate from
the Council. In this report, success conditions for new strategies have been identified, based on the experience of the
Baltic and Danube strategies.

C 65 E / 94 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008028/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

Is any change anticipated in the Commission’s current arrangements for the provision of pre‐accession funds to
Serbia for cross-border cooperation?

**Question for written answer E-008029/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Is any change anticipated in the Commission’s current arrangements for the provision of pre‐accession funds to
Turkey for Cross-Border Cooperation?

**Question for written answer E-008030/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Is any change anticipated in the Commission’s current arrangements for the provision of pre‐accession funds to
Macedonia for Regional Development?

**Question for written answer E-008031/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Is any change anticipated in the Commission’s current arrangements for the provision of pre‐accession funds to
Montenegro for Regional Development?

**Question for written answer E-008032/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Is any change anticipated in the Commission’s current arrangements for the provision of pre‐accession funds to
Turkey for Regional Development?

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 95

**Question for written answer E-008033/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Is any change anticipated in the Commission’s current arrangements for the provision of pre‐accession funds to
Macedonia for Human Resource Development?

**Question for written answer E-008034/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

Is any change anticipated in the Commission’s current arrangements for the provision of pre‐accession funds to
Montenegro for Human Resource Development?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

Pre-accession assistance will continue to support the beneficiary countries in the period 2014-2020 in implementing
the reforms required to align to EU rules, standards, policies and practices and to come closer to European Union
values in the perspective of membership. Coherence between the financial assistance and the overall progress made in
the implementation of the pre-accession strategy will be strengthened. The delivery of pre-accession assistance will be
more strategic, _inter alia_ by moving towards a sector approach, and more flexible and tailored to address needs and
focusing on performance and results.

Different from the current modalities, all five policy areas will be available for all enlargement countries, making
support in the policy areas of regional development and employment, social policies and human resources
development also available to potential candidate countries. As regards cross-border cooperation, the rules will
pursue further simplification, amongst other by further aligning programming and implementation modalities with
the Structural Funds approach.

Priorities for assistance and detailed funding arrangements, as appropriate, will be outlined in the strategic planning
documents and, in particular, in the (Multi) Country Strategy Papers covering the entire 2014-2020 period. These
documents are currently under preparation, in partnership with beneficiary countries and in coordination with
Member States, other donors and Civil Society Organisations. They are planned to be finalised in the middle of 2014,
subject to agreement of the co-legislators on the basic legislative act and other related acts.

C 65 E / 96 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008035/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU Missions

Does the Commission intend to expand the personnel of the EU mission to China?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

As a result of the resource allocation reviews carried out in the Commission and the European External Action Service
(EEAS) respectively, the Delegation to China will be reinforced in the months to come with three Commission
AD posts (mixed posts to deal with internal policy issues, on top of the two recently allocated by the EEAS), five local
agents (one to support political functions, three for different policy areas in the Delegation and another one to
strengthen the administration section). The Trade section in the Delegation was also recently reinforced (with as many
as five posts). These reinforcements will partly offset the gradual reduction of staff dealing with bilateral cooperation
programmes, as the latter are being downsized in line with the country's economic development.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 97

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008036/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU Missions

Does the Commission intend to expand the personnel of the EU mission to India?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

The Commission is reducing the personnel of the EU Delegation to India. As India develops to become a middleincome country, the EU is putting an end to bilateral development aid to India with no new financial commitments
for the 2014-2020 period.

On 18 July 2013, the organisation chart of the EU Delegation to India includes the following staff:

|Col1|EEAS|COM|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|AD (1)|6|10|16|
|AST|2|3|5|
|Contract Agents|4|12|16|
|Local Agents|13|36|49|
|Totals|25|61|86|
|(1) Including Officials + Temporary Agents.|(1) Including Officials + Temporary Agents.|(1) Including Officials + Temporary Agents.|(1) Including Officials + Temporary Agents.|

On 1st January 2011, 2 AD posts were allocated to the EU Delegation to India to handle political work following
entry into force of Lisbon Treaty.

In the context of the Commission's Workload Assessment of resources in Delegations, the number of Commission
staff in India will be reduced to 43 posts. The difference (18 posts) will be redeployed to other Delegations on the
basis of objective needs.

C 65 E / 98 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008037/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU missions

Does the Commission intend to expand the personnel of the EU mission to the United States?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The current organisation chart of the EU Delegation to the United States (Washington) includes the following staff:

|Col1|EEAS (1)|COM (2)|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|AD (3) (*)|10|16|26|
|AST (4)|4|-|4|
|Contract Agents|4|-|4|
|Local Agents|37|18|53|
|Totals|55|34|89|
|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.<br>(3)<br>Administrator.<br>(4)<br>Assistant.<br>(*)<br>including Officials + Temporary Agents|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.<br>(3)<br>Administrator.<br>(4)<br>Assistant.<br>(*)<br>including Officials + Temporary Agents|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.<br>(3)<br>Administrator.<br>(4)<br>Assistant.<br>(*)<br>including Officials + Temporary Agents|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.<br>(3)<br>Administrator.<br>(4)<br>Assistant.<br>(*)<br>including Officials + Temporary Agents|

Remark: SNE ( [1] ): 1 Directorate-General for Trade

2 EEAS

In 2011, one new EEAS post was allocated to the Delegation to the US to handle political work following entry into
force of the Lisbon Treaty.

There are no present plans for further significant changes in staffing levels.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Seconded National Expert.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 99

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008038/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU Missions

How many staff are employed at the EU mission to Japan, and in what grades?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

The current organisation chart of the EU Delegation to Japan includes the following staff:

|Col1|EEAS|COM|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|AD|6|6|12|
|AST|3|0|3|
|Contract Agents|3|-|3|
|Local Agents|24|11|35|
|Total|36|11|53|

On 1 January 2011, the EU Delegation to Japan was reinforced with 2 EEAS AD posts to handle political work
following entry into force of Lisbon Treaty.

A new Commission post was allocated in the context of the 2012 Commission's Workload Assessment in
Delegations, which will be placed in the Trade section. In addition, the Trade section also hosts a Junior Professional
from FPI.

There are no present plans for further significant changes in staffing levels.

C 65 E / 100 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008039/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU missions

How many staff are employed at the EU mission to Australia, and in what grades?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The current (17-7-2013) organisation chart of the EU Delegation to Australia includes the following staff:

|Col1|EEAS (1)|COM (2)|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|AD|2|1|3|
|AST|1|-|1|
|Contract Agents|3|-|3|
|Local Agents|11|3|14|
|Totals|17|3|14|
|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.|(1)<br>European External Action Service.<br>(2)<br>Commission.|

On 1 January 2011, the EU Delegation to Australia was reinforced with 1 EEAS Local Agent post. In 2012 it received
also an AD post.

There are no present plans for further significant changes in staffing levels.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 101

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008040/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU Missions

Does the Commission intend to expand the personnel of the EU mission to Saudi Arabia?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The current organisation chart of the EU Delegation to Saudi Arabia includes the following staff:

|Col1|EEAS|COM|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|AD (*)|3|1|4|
|AST|1|-|1|
|Contract Agents|2|-|2|
|Local Agents|9|-|9|
|Total|15|1|16|
|(*) including Officials + Temporary Agents.|(*) including Officials + Temporary Agents.|(*) including Officials + Temporary Agents.|(*) including Officials + Temporary Agents.|

In 2011, 1 new EEAS AD post and 2 Local Agent posts were allocated to the Delegation to Saudi Arabia to handle
political work following entry into force of Lisbon Treaty.

There are no present plans for further significant changes in staffing levels.

C 65 E / 102 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008041/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU Mission to the UN

Does the Commission intend to expand its personnel on the EU mission to the UN?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The current organisation chart of the EU Delegation to the UN (New York) includes the following staff:

|Col1|EEAS|COM|Total|
|---|---|---|---|
|AD (1)|16|4|20|
|AST (2)|6|-|6|
|Contract Agents|-|-|-|
|Local Agents|21|1|22|
|Totals|43|5|48|
|(1) Administrator.<br>(2) Assistant.||||

On 1st January 2011, the former Council Liaison Office and the Commission Delegation to the US were merged into
what is today the EU Delegation to the United Nations in New York. That same year, the Delegation was reinforced
with 4 AD posts and 5 Local Agent posts for the new political tasks following the entry into force of the Lisbon
Treaty.

There are no present plans for further significant changes in staffing levels.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 103

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008049/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

How will the Commission ensure that pre-accession funds allocated to Turkey for Transition Assistance and
Institution Building are properly spent?

**Question for written answer E-008065/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

What specific forms of protection does the Commission have in place to ensure that pre‐accession funds to Albania
for Transition Assistance and Institution Building are not diverted to anything else?

**Question for written answer E-008066/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

What specific forms of protection does the Commission have in place to ensure that pre‐accession funds to Bosnia
and Herzegovina for transition assistance and institution building are not diverted to anything else?

**Question for written answer E-008067/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

What specific forms of protection does the Commission have in place to ensure that pre‐accession funds to
Macedonia for transition assistance and institution building are not diverted to anything else?

**Question for written answer E-008068/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

What specific forms of protection does the Commission have in place to ensure that pre‐accession funds to Kosovo
for transition assistance and institution building are not diverted to anything else?

**Question for written answer E-008069/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession assistance

What specific forms of protection does the Commission have in place to ensure that pre‐accession funds to
Montenegro for transition assistance and institution building are not diverted to anything else?

C 65 E / 104 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**Question for written answer E-008070/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(4 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance

What specific forms of protection does the Commission have in place to ensure that pre‐accession funds to Serbia for
Transition Assistance and Institution Building are not diverted to anything else?

**Question for written answer E-008708/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(16 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (rural development)

How will the Commission ensure that pre-accession funds allocated to each of the following countries for rural
development are properly spent?

List of countries:

Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey.

**Question for written answer E-008709/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(16 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (human resource development)

How will the Commission ensure that pre-accession funds allocated to each of the following countries for human
resource development are properly spent?

List of countries:

Macedonia, Montenegro, and Turkey.

**Question for written answer E-008710/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(16 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Regional Development)

How will the Commission ensure that pre-accession funds allocated to each of the following countries for Regional
Development are properly spent?

List of countries:

Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey

**Question for written answer E-008711/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(16 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Cross-Border Cooperation)

How will the Commission ensure that pre-accession funds allocated to each of the following countries for CrossBorder Cooperation are properly spent?

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 105

List of countries:

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey

**Question for written answer E-008712/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(16 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Transition Assistance and Institution Building)

How will the Commission ensure that pre-accession funds allocated to each of the following countries for Transition
Assistance and Institution Building are properly spent?

List of countries:

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Iceland, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey

**Question for written answer E-008725/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(16 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (Turkey)

What specific protection does the Commission have in place to ensure that pre-accession funds to Turkey for
transition assistance and institution building are not diverted to anything else?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

During the programming phase of the pre-accession assistance, the Commission ensures that only actions which
produce tangible and measurable results in favour of the people, the public administration and the businesses in the
beneficiary countries will be supported. In countries such as Turkey and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
which have fulfilled the rigourous assessment for the conferral of management, the national authorities are directly
responsible for the procurement procedures and management of the contracts, while the Commission ensures the
necessary level of supervision.

The Commission procedures involve a coherent and efficient control system including monitoring, _ex-ante_ and _ex-_
_post_ control of transactions, inspections, systems audits and evaluations for actions implemented with Commission
funding. Such controls allow to adopt corrective measures if required, including financial corrections, to ensure the
successful implementation of financial assistance. In all cases procurement procedures will be carried out in
compliance with the Commission's Financial Regulation and related Practical Guidelines for the management of
external actions.

C 65 E / 106 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008071/13**

**al Consejo**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) y Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Retención del Presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, en Europa

Las autoridades aeronáuticas de Francia, España, Italia y Portugal prohibieron el sobrevuelo del avión de Evo Morales,
Presidente de Bolivia, que fue forzado a aterrizar en Viena, donde fue retenido y, según fuentes austríacas, requisado.
El avión de Morales había partido de Moscú con un plan de vuelo de retorno hacia Bolivia y debía sobrevolar el
espacio aéreo de Francia y hacer una parada técnica en Lisboa, pero el periplo fue denegado presuntamente ante la
sospecha de que el ex analista estadounidense Edward Snowden se encontraba a bordo de la nave presidencial, luego
de solicitar a varios países asilo político sin tener éxito.

Al retener al Presidente Evo Morales y al requisar su aeronave se atentó claramente contra la inmunidad conforme al
Convenio Internacional sobre el derecho de las inmunidades jurisdiccionales de los Estados y de sus bienes. A su vez,
se puso en riesgo la integridad física del Presidente.

Los países europeos mencionados y la UE en su conjunto cedieron nuevamente a las presiones de su socio preferido,
Estados Unidos, quien tenía sospechas que el Sr. Snowden estuviese en el vuelo, poniendo así en duda la palabra del
Presidente de Bolivia.

Los vuelos de la CIA, el escándalo del sistema de espionaje PRISM y ahora este hecho demuestra que Estados de la UE
están dispuestos a violar derechos fundamentales y el Derecho internacional a fin de complacer las demandas de
Estados Unidos, en vez de cooperar de forma legal, transparente e imparcial.

¿Qué opinión tiene el Consejo sobre este escándalo? ¿Considera que se ha violado el Convenio de Viena en el caso
mencionado? ¿Aclarará si las decisiones de Francia, España, Portugal e Italia fueron debidas a presiones por parte de
Estados Unidos?

¿Qué consecuencias tendrá este hecho sobre las relaciones bilaterales con Bolivia y con los países miembros de
Unasur, quienes ya han mostrado su apoyo a Evo Morales y denunciado su retención? ¿Pedirá disculpas públicas por
parte de la UE al Presidente Evo Morales por los incidentes causados?

**Respuesta**
_(16 de septiembre de 2013)_

Dado que se trata de una pregunta para la Alta Representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de
Seguridad, el Consejo ruega a Su Señoría que dirija dicha pregunta directamente a la Alta Representante, según lo
dispuesto en el artículo 117. apartado 1, del Reglamento interno del Parlamento Europeo.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 107

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008071/13**

**an den Rat**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) und Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Festhaltung des bolivianischen Präsidenten, Evo Morales, in Europa

Die Luftfahrtbehörden von Frankreich, Spanien, Italien und Portugal haben für das Flugzeug des bolivianischen
Präsidenten, Evo Morales, die Überflugrechte verwehrt, und die Maschine wurde daraufhin zur Landung in Wien
gezwungen, wo sie festgehalten und österreichischen Quellen zufolge kontrolliert wurde. Das Flugzeug von Morales
war in Moskau zum Rückflug nach Bolivien gestartet, wobei der Luftraum Frankreichs überflogen und ein technischer
Zwischenstopp in Lissabon eingelegt werden sollte; die Genehmigungen dafür wurden jedoch vermutlich wegen des
Verdachts, der ehemalige amerikanische Geheimdienstanalyst Edward Snowden könnte sich an Bord der
Präsidentenmaschine befinden, nachdem er in mehreren Ländern erfolglos politisches Asyl beantragt hatte,
verweigert.

Mit der Festhaltung des Präsidenten Evo Morales und der Kontrolle seines Flugzeugs wurde eindeutig gegen die im
Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über die Immunität der Staaten und ihres Vermögens verankerte Immunität
verstoßen. Außerdem wurde die körperliche Unversehrtheit des Präsidenten gefährdet.

Die genannten europäischen Länder und die EU insgesamt gaben dabei erneut dem Druck ihres bevorzugten Partners,
den Vereinigten Staaten, nach, die Snowden im Flugzeug vermuteten, und zogen somit das Wort des bolivianischen
Präsidenten in Zweifel.

Die CIA-Flüge, der Skandal um das Spionageprogramm PRISM und nun dieser Vorfall machen deutlich, dass
EU-Staaten bereit sind, gegen Grundrechte und das Völkerrecht zu verstoßen, wenn es darum geht, den Forderungen
der Vereinigten Staaten nachzukommen, anstatt auf legale, transparente und unparteiische Weise zu kooperieren.

Welche Auffassung vertritt der Rat in Bezug auf diesen Skandal? Ist er der Ansicht, dass im geschilderten Fall gegen
das Wiener Übereinkommen verstoßen wurde? Wird er klären, ob Frankreich, Spanien, Portugal und Italien ihre
Entscheidungen unter dem Druck der Vereinigten Staaten getroffen haben?

Wie wird sich der Vorfall auf die bilateralen Beziehungen zu Bolivien und zu den Mitgliedstaaten der UNASUR
auswirken, die bereits ihre Unterstützung für Evo Morales zum Ausdruck gebracht und seine Festhaltung verurteilt
haben? Wird sich der Rat im Namen der EU öffentlich beim Präsidenten Evo Morales für den Zwischenfall
entschuldigen?

**Antwort**
_(16. September 2013)_

Da diese Anfrage in die Zuständigkeit der Hohen Vertreterin der Europäischen Union für Außen‐ und
Sicherheitspolitik fällt, werden die Damen und Herren Abgeordneten gebeten, sich gemäß Artikel 117 Absatz 1 der
Geschäftsordnung des Europäischen Parlaments direkt an die Hohe Vertreterin zu wenden.

C 65 E / 108 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008071/13**

**au Conseil**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE),**

**Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL),**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) et Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Escale forcée en Europe pour Evo Morales, président de la Bolivie

Les autorités aéronautiques françaises, espagnoles, italiennes et portugaises ont interdit le survol de l'espace aérien à
Evo Morales, Président de la Bolivie, qui a été contraint d'atterrir à Vienne, où son avion a été retenu au sol et, selon
des sources autrichiennes, où il a été fouillé. L'avion avait décollé de Moscou en vue de retourner en Bolivie et il devait
survoler l'espace aérien français puis effectuer un arrêt technique à Lisbonne, mais son plan de vol a été refusé avant
même que des soupçons ne se fassent jour quant à l'éventuelle présence à bord de l'avion présidentiel de l'ex-analyste
américain Edward Snowden, qui avait demandé l'asile politique à nombre de pays, en vain.

Le fait de retenir le Président et de fouiller son avion constitue une violation de son immunité en vertu de la
convention internationale sur le droit des immunités juridictionnelles des États et de leurs biens. De fait, l'intégrité du
Président a été mise en péril.

Les pays européens susmentionnés et l'Union européenne dans son ensemble ont à nouveau cédé aux pressions de
leur partenaire préféré, à savoir les États-Unis, qui soupçonnaient Edward Snowden d'être à bord de l'avion, mettant
ainsi en doute la parole du Président bolivien.

Les vols de la CIA, le scandale du système d'espionnage PRISM et cette dernière affaire montrent que certains États
européens sont prêts à violer les droits fondamentaux et le droit international pour complaire à Washington, au lieu
de coopérer en toute légalité, transparence et impartialité.

Que pense la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante de ce scandale? N'estime-t-elle pas que la convention de Vienne a
été violée? Pourra-t-elle préciser si les décisions prises par la France, l'Espagne, le Portugal et l'Italie sont le résultat de
pressions exercées par les États-Unis?

Quelles seront les conséquences de cette affaire sur les relations bilatérales avec la Bolivie et avec les pays membres de
l'Union des nations sud-américaines, qui ont déjà manifesté leur soutien au Président bolivien et ont dénoncé son
escale forcée? Présentera-t-elle des excuses publiques au nom de l'Union européenne au Président Evo Morales pour
les incidents provoqués?

**Réponse**
_(16 septembre 2013)_

Cette question étant du ressort du Haut Représentant de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité,
le Conseil invite les Honorables Parlementaires à s'adresser directement à la Haute Représentante, ainsi que le prévoit
l'article 117, paragraphe 1, du règlement intérieur du Parlement européen.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 109

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008071/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) e Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Retenção do Presidente da Bolívia, Evo Morales, na Europa

As autoridades aeronáuticas de França, Espanha, Itália e Portugal proibiram o sobrevoo do avião de Evo Morales,
Presidente da Bolívia, que foi forçado a aterrar em Viena, onde foi retido e, segundo fontes austríacas, apreendido. O
avião de Evo Morales tinha partido de Moscovo com um plano de voo de regresso à Bolívia e deveria sobrevoar o
espaço aéreo francês e efetuar uma paragem técnica em Lisboa, mas o plano foi recusado, presumidamente, devido à
suspeita de que o ex-analista norte-americano Edward Snowden se encontrava a bordo do avião presidencial, depois
de solicitar asilo político a diversos países sem êxito.

A retenção do Presidente Evo Morales e a apreensão da sua aeronave constituem um claro atentado contra a
imunidade nos termos da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre as Imunidades Jurisdicionais dos Estados e dos seus
Bens. Por seu lado, colocou-se em risco a integridade física do Presidente.

Os países europeus mencionados e a UE, no seu conjunto, cederam novamente a pressões do seu aliado preferido, os
Estados Unidos, que suspeitava que Edward Snowden se encontrasse no avião, pondo assim em dúvida a palavra do
Presidente da Bolívia.

Os voos da CIA, o escândalo do sistema de espionagem PRISM e agora este acontecimento demonstram que os
Estados da UE estão dispostos a violar direitos fundamentais e o direito internacional a fim de satisfazer os pedidos
dos Estados Unidos, em vez de cooperar de forma legal, transparente e imparcial.

Que opinião tem o Conselho sobre este escândalo? Considera que a Convenção de Viena foi violada no caso em
questão? Informará se as decisões de França, Espanha, Portugal e Itália se deveram a pressões por parte dos Estados
Unidos?

Que consequências terá este acontecimento nas relações bilaterais com a Bolívia e com os países membros da Unasur,
que têm manifestado o seu apoio a Evo Morales e denunciado a sua retenção? Apresentará um pedido de desculpas
público por parte da UE ao Presidente Evo Morales pelos incidentes causados?

**Resposta**
_(16 de setembro de 2013)_

Uma vez que a questão é da competência do Alto Representante da União para os Negócios Estrangeiros e a Política
de Segurança, o Conselho convida os Senhores Deputados a dirigir-se diretamente à Alta Representante, como de
resto prevê o artigo 117.°, n.° 1, do Regimento do Parlamento Europeu.

C 65 E / 110 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008071/13**

**to the Council**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) and Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Detention of Bolivian President, Evo Morales, in Europe

The aviation authorities of France, Spain, Italy and Portugal closed their airspace to a plane carrying Bolivian
President, Evo Morales. His jet was forced to land in Vienna, where it was grounded and, according to Austrian
sources, searched. The presidential plane had left Moscow to return to Bolivia and was due to fly through French
airspace before making a technical stop in Lisbon, but permission to continue was refused, allegedly because of
suspicion that former US intelligence agent Edward Snowden was on board. Snowden had requested political asylum
from a number of countries with no success.

The detention of President Morales and the search of his plane both constitute a clear violation of presidential
immunity guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and their Property.
Furthermore, the physical integrity of the President was put at risk.

The European countries listed above, and the EU in general, have once again given in to pressure from their preferred
partner, the United States of America, which suspected that Mr Snowden was on board and questioned the word of
the Bolivian President.

This latest incident, together with CIA flights and the PRISM surveillance scandal, show that EU Member States are
prepared to violate fundamental rights and international law in order to please the USA, rather than cooperating in a
legal, transparent and impartial manner.

What is the opinion of the Council with regard to this scandal? Does the Council believe that the case described above
constitutes an infringement of the Vienna Convention? Were the decisions taken by France, Spain, Portugal and Italy a
result of pressure exerted by the USA?

What impact will this incident have on bilateral relations with Bolivia and other Unasur members that have already
expressed support for Evo Morales and condemned his detention? Will the Council make a public apology to
President Morales on behalf of the EU?

**Reply**
_(16 September 2013)_

Since this is a question for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council
invites the Honourable Member to address the question directly to the High Representative as provided for in Rule
117(1) of the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 111

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008072/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) y Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Retención del Presidente de Bolivia, Evo Morales, en Europa

Las autoridades aeronáuticas de Francia, España, Italia y Portugal prohibieron el sobrevuelo del avión de Evo Morales,
Presidente de Bolivia, que fue forzado a aterrizar en Viena, donde fue retenido y, según fuentes austríacas, requisado.
El avión de Morales había partido de Moscú con un plan de vuelo de retorno hacia Bolivia y debía sobrevolar el
espacio aéreo de Francia y hacer una parada técnica en Lisboa, pero el periplo fue denegado presuntamente ante la
sospecha de que el ex analista estadounidense Edward Snowden se encontraba a bordo de la nave presidencial, luego
de solicitar a varios países asilo político sin tener éxito.

Al retener al Presidente Evo Morales y al requisar su aeronave se atentó claramente contra la inmunidad conforme al
Convenio Internacional sobre el derecho de las inmunidades jurisdiccionales de los Estados y de sus bienes. A su vez,
se puso en riesgo la integridad física del Presidente.

Los países europeos mencionados y la UE en su conjunto cedieron nuevamente a las presiones de su socio preferido,
Estados Unidos, quien tenía sospechas que el Sr. Snowden estuviese en el vuelo, poniendo así en duda la palabra del
Presidente de Bolivia.

Los vuelos de la CIA, el escándalo del sistema de espionaje PRISM y ahora este hecho demuestra que Estados de la UE
están dispuestos a violar derechos fundamentales y el derecho internacional a fin de complacer las demandas de
Estados Unidos, en vez de cooperar de forma legal, transparente e imparcial.

¿Qué opinión tiene la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante sobre este escándalo? ¿Considera que se ha violado el
Convenio de Viena en el caso mencionado? ¿Aclarará si las decisiones de Francia, España, Portugal e Italia fueron
debidas a presiones por parte de Estados Unidos?

¿Qué consecuencias tendrá este hecho sobre las relaciones bilaterales con Bolivia y con los países miembros de
Unasur, quienes ya han mostrado su apoyo a Evo Morales y denunciado su retención? ¿Pedirá disculpas públicas por
parte de la UE al Presidente Evo Morales por los incidentes causados?

**Respuesta conjunta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

La Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta lamenta el incidente con el avión presidencial y sabe que los Estados
miembros interesados han dado explicaciones y, en caso necesario, han pedido disculpas.

También desea subrayar que no se trata de un asunto de la competencia de la UE, sino de la soberanía nacional de los
Estados miembros. Con arreglo al Convenio de Chicago (1944) de la OACI, cualquier país tiene derecho a denegar el
acceso a su espacio aéreo soberano y esta competencia la tiene cada uno de los Estados miembros. Además, la
legislación sobre el Cielo Único Europeo reconoce la responsabilidad nacional de los derechos de sobrevuelo en virtud
de los acuerdos internacionales en este ámbito.

Durante los últimos años, la UE ha trabajado mucho por reforzar la relación entre Bolivia y cada uno de los Estados
miembros y la UE en su conjunto. La UE mantiene su compromiso de mantener sus buenas relaciones con Bolivia.

La Unión Europea espera que se mantengan la atmósfera de cooperación constructiva y el clima cordial que
caracterizan las relaciones generales entre la UE y los países de la región.

C 65 E / 112 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008072/13**
**an die Kommission (Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) und Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ VP/HR — Festhaltung des bolivianischen Präsidenten, Evo Morales, in Europa

Die Luftfahrtbehörden von Frankreich, Spanien, Italien und Portugal haben für das Flugzeug des bolivianischen
Präsidenten, Evo Morales, die Überflugrechte verwehrt, und die Maschine wurde daraufhin zur Landung in Wien
gezwungen, wo es festgehalten und österreichischen Quellen zufolge kontrolliert wurde. Das Flugzeug von Morales
war in Moskau zum Rückflug nach Bolivien gestartet, wobei der Luftraum Frankreichs überflogen und ein technischer
Zwischenstopp in Lissabon eingelegt werden sollte; die Genehmigungen dafür wurden jedoch vermutlich wegen des
Verdachts, der ehemalige amerikanische Geheimdienstanalyst Edward Snowden könnte sich an Bord der
Präsidentenmaschine befinden, nachdem er in mehreren Ländern erfolglos politisches Asyl beantragt hatte,
verweigert.

Mit der Festhaltung des Präsidenten Evo Morales und der Kontrolle seines Flugzeugs wurde eindeutig gegen die im
Übereinkommen der Vereinten Nationen über die Immunität der Staaten und ihres Vermögens verankerte Immunität
verstoßen. Außerdem wurde die körperliche Unversehrtheit des Präsidenten gefährdet.

Die genannten europäischen Länder und die EU insgesamt gaben dabei erneut dem Druck ihres bevorzugten Partners,
den Vereinigten Staaten, nach, die Snowden im Flugzeug vermuteten, und zogen somit das Wort des bolivianischen
Präsidenten in Zweifel.

Die CIA-Flüge, der Skandal um das Spionageprogramm PRISM und nun dieser Vorfall machen deutlich, dass
EU-Staaten bereit sind, gegen Grundrechte und das Völkerrecht zu verstoßen, wenn es darum geht, den Forderungen
der Vereinigten Staaten nachzukommen, anstatt auf legale, transparente und unparteiische Weise zu kooperieren.

Welche Auffassung vertritt die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin in Bezug auf diesen Skandal? Ist sie der Ansicht, dass
im geschilderten Fall gegen das Wiener Übereinkommen verstoßen wurde? Wird sie klären, ob Frankreich, Spanien,
Portugal und Italien ihre Entscheidungen unter dem Druck der Vereinigten Staaten getroffen haben?

Wie wird sich der Vorfall auf die bilateralen Beziehungen zu Bolivien und zu den Mitgliedstaaten der UNASUR
auswirken, die bereits ihre Unterstützung für Evo Morales zum Ausdruck gebracht und seine Festhaltung verurteilt
haben? Wird sich die Vizepräsidentin/Hohe Vertreterin im Namen der EU öffentlich beim Präsidenten Evo Morales für
den Zwischenfall entschuldigen?

**Gemeinsame Antwort von Frau Ashton — Hohe Vertreterin/Vizepräsidentin im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. August 2013)_

Die HV/VP bedauert den Zwischenfall im Zusammenhang mit dem Flugzeug von Präsident Morales. Nach Kenntnis
der HV/VP haben die betreffenden Mitgliedstaaten Erklärungen hierzu abgegeben und um Entschuldigung gebeten,
soweit dies angebracht war.

Die HV/VP möchte darauf hinweisen, dass diese Angelegenheit nicht in die Zuständigkeit der EU fällt, sondern unter
die nationale Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten. Im Rahmen des Chicagoer Abkommens von 1944 über die
internationale Zivilluftfahrt hat jedes Land das Recht, den Zugang zu seinem souveränen Luftraum zu verweigern; die
entsprechende Zuständigkeit liegt bei den einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten. Die einzelstaatliche Verantwortung für
Überflugrechte nach den internationalen Übereinkommen in diesem Bereich wird ferner in den Rechtsvorschriften
zum einheitlichen europäischen Luftraum anerkannt.

In den letzten Jahren hat die EU sich intensiv für die Stärkung der Beziehungen Boliviens zu den einzelnen
Mitgliedstaaten sowie zur EU als Ganzes eingesetzt. Die EU ist auch weiterhin fest entschlossen, ihr gutes Verhältnis
zu Bolivien fortzuführen.

Die EU hofft, dass die konstruktive Zusammenarbeit und die freundliche Atmosphäre, die die Beziehungen zwischen
der EU und den Ländern der Region insgesamt prägen, erhalten bleiben.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 113

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008095/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Καταναγκαστική προσγείωση του προεδρικού αεροπλάνου στο οποίο επέβαινε ο πρόεδρος Μοράλες

Ο πρόεδρος Μοράλες προσγειώθηκε χθες (4 Ιουλίου) στην Λα Πας έπειτα από την αναγκαστική παραμονή του στο
αεροδρόμιο της Βιέννης για 13 ώρες (και 17 ώρες πτήσης) λόγω υποψιών ότι, επιστρέφοντας από το ταξίδι του στη Μόσχα,
μετέφερε μαζί του στο προεδρικό αεροπλάνο τον Έντουαρντ Σνόουντεν. Ωστόσο αργότερα, τόσο η Γαλλία όσο και η Ισπανία
διέψευσαν ότι προέβησαν σε οποιαδήποτε απαγόρευση, ενώ η Πορτογαλία δήλωσε ότι έδωσε άδεια για τον εναέριο χώρο, όχι
όμως και για ανεφοδιασμό στη Λισαβόνα.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

Είναι εις γνώσιν της ΕΕ τα πιο πάνω γεγονότα; Για ποιο λόγο δεν επιτράπηκε στον πρόεδρο της Βολιβίας να ολοκληρώσει το
ταξίδι του όπως είχε προγραμματίσει και υποχρεώθηκε να προβεί σε καταναγκαστική προσγείωση; Δεν συνιστά παραβίαση
του διεθνούς δικαίου, καταπάτηση της κυριαρχίας των κρατών αλλά και των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων, ο τρόπος με τον οποίο
αντιμετωπίστηκε ο πρόεδρος της Βολιβίας από τα κράτη μέλη; O Έντουαρντ Σνόουντεν δεν βρισκόταν στον αεροπλάνο του
προέδρου Μοράλες. Εάν όμως οι υποψήφιες των Αμερικάνων ήταν σωστές, δεν θα έπρεπε τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ να
βοηθήσουν τον Βολιβιανό πρόεδρο να προστατεύσει έναν άνθρωπο, ο οποίος είχε το θάρρος να αποκαλύψει μια τόσο
οργανωμένη και συστηματική παραβίαση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων;

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

_(21 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Η Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος/Αντιπρόεδρος λυπάται βαθύτατα για το επεισόδιο με το προεδρικό αεροσκάφος και γνωρίζει ότι τα
ενδιαφερόμενα κράτη μέλη έδωσαν εξηγήσεις επ’ αυτού και ζήτησαν συγνώμη κατά περίπτωση.

Η ΥΕ/ΑΠ θα ήθελε να υπογραμμίσει ότι το ζήτημα αυτό δεν εμπίπτει στην αρμοδιότητα της ΕΕ, αλλά στην εθνική κυριαρχία
των κρατών μελών. Δυνάμει της Σύμβασης του Σικάγου (1944) της Διεθνούς Οργάνωσης Πολιτικής Αεροπορίας ICAO,
κάθε χώρα έχει το δικαίωμα να αρνηθεί την είσοδο στον κυρίαρχο εναέριο χώρο της, πράγμα που εμπίπτει στην αρμοδιότητα
κάθε κράτους μέλους. Επιπλέον, η νομοθεσία για τον Ενιαίο Ευρωπαϊκό Ουρανό αναγνωρίζει την εθνική αρμοδιότητα για τα
δικαιώματα υπερπτήσεων που απορρέουν από τις διεθνείς συμφωνίες στον τομέα αυτό.

Κατά τα τελευταία έτη, η ΕΕ έχει εργαστεί σκληρά για να ενισχύσει τις σχέσεις μεταξύ της Βολιβίας και των επιμέρους κρατών
μελών καθώς και της ΕΕ στο σύνολό της. Η ΕΕ εμμένει στη δέσμευσή της να διατηρήσει καλές σχέσεις με τη Βολιβία.

Η ΕΕ ελπίζει ότι η εποικοδομητική συνεργασία και η εγκάρδια ατμόσφαιρα που χαρακτηρίζουν τις γενικότερες σχέσεις της ΕΕ
και των χωρών της περιοχής θα διατηρηθούν.

C 65 E / 114 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008072/13**
**à la Commission (Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE),**

**Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL),**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) et Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Escale forcée en Europe pour Evo Morales, Président de la Bolivie

Les autorités aéronautiques françaises, espagnoles, italiennes et portugaises ont interdit le survol de l'espace aérien à
Evo Morales, Président de la Bolivie, qui a été contraint d'atterrir à Vienne, où son avion a été retenu au sol et, selon
des sources autrichiennes, où il a été fouillé. L'avion avait décollé de Moscou en vue de retourner en Bolivie et il devait
survoler l'espace aérien français puis effectuer un arrêt technique à Lisbonne, mais son plan de vol a été refusé avant
même que des soupçons ne se fassent jour quant à l'éventuelle présence à bord de l'avion présidentiel de l'ex-analyste
américain Edward Snowden, qui avait demandé l'asile politique à nombre de pays, en vain.

Le fait de retenir le Président et de fouiller son avion constitue une violation de son immunité en vertu de la
convention internationale sur le droit des immunités juridictionnelles des États et de leurs biens. De fait, l'intégrité du
Président a été mise en péril.

Les pays européens susmentionnés et l'Union européenne dans son ensemble ont à nouveau cédé aux pressions de
leur partenaire préféré, à savoir les États-Unis, qui soupçonnaient Edward Snowden d'être à bord de l'avion, mettant
ainsi en doute la parole du Président bolivien.

Les vols de la CIA, le scandale du système d'espionnage PRISM et cette dernière affaire montrent que certains États
européens sont prêts à violer les droits fondamentaux et le droit international pour complaire à Washington, au lieu
de coopérer en toute légalité, transparence et impartialité.

Que pense la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante de ce scandale? N'estime-t-elle que la convention de Vienne a été
violée? Pourra-t-elle préciser si les décisions prises par la France, l'Espagne, le Portugal et l'Italie sont le résultat de
pressions exercées par les États-Unis?

Quelles seront les conséquences de cette affaire sur les relations bilatérales avec la Bolivie et avec les pays membres de
l'Union des nations sud-américaines, qui ont déjà manifesté leur soutien au Président bolivien et ont dénoncé son
escale forcée? Présentera-t-elle des excuses publiques au nom de l'Europe au Président Evo Morales pour les incidents
provoqués?

**Réponse commune donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présisente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(21 août 2013)_

La Vice-présisente/Haute Représentante regrette l'incident dans lequel l'avion présidentiel a été impliqué. La Viceprésisente/Haute Représentante croit savoir que les États membres concernés se sont expliqués à ce sujet et, le cas
échéant, ont présenté leurs excuses.

La Vice-présisente/Haute Représentante tient à souligner que cet incident ne relève pas de la compétence de l'Union
européenne mais de la souveraineté nationale des États membres. En vertu de la convention relative à l'aviation civile
internationale, signée à Chicago en 1944, tout pays a le droit de refuser l'accès à son espace aérien souverain,
compétence qui revient à chaque État membre. En outre, la législation relative au ciel unique européen reconnaît la
responsabilité nationale relative aux droits de survol découlant des accords internationaux dans ce domaine.

Au cours de ces dernières années, l'Union n'a pas ménagé ses efforts pour renforcer les relations entre la Bolivie et tant
les différents États membres que l'Union dans son ensemble. L'Union reste déterminée à conserver de bonnes relations
avec la Bolivie.

L'Union européenne espère que la coopération constructive et la cordialité qui caractérisent l'ensemble de ses
relations avec les pays de la région se maintiendront.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 115

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008072/13**

**à Comissão (Vice-Presidente / Alta Representante)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) e Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Detenção do Presidente da Bolívia, Evo Morales, na Europa

As autoridades aeronáuticas de França, Espanha, Itália e Portugal proibiram o sobrevoo do avião de Evo Morales,
Presidente da Bolívia, que foi forçado a aterrar em Viena, onde foi retido e, segundo fontes austríacas, apreendido. O
avião de Evo Morales tinha partido de Moscovo com um plano de voo de regresso à Bolívia e deveria sobrevoar o
espaço aéreo francês e efetuar uma paragem técnica em Lisboa, mas o plano foi recusado, presumidamente, devido à
suspeita de que o ex-analista norte-americano Edward Snowden se encontrava a bordo do avião presidencial, depois
de solicitar asilo político a diversos países sem êxito.

A retenção do Presidente Evo Morales e a apreensão da sua aeronave constituem um claro atentado contra a
imunidade nos termos da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre as Imunidades Jurisdicionais dos Estados e dos seus
Bens. Por seu lado, colocou-se em risco a integridade física do Presidente.

Os países europeus mencionados e a UE, no seu conjunto, cederam novamente a pressões do seu aliado preferido, os
Estados Unidos, que suspeitava que Edward Snowden se encontrasse no avião, pondo assim em dúvida a palavra do
Presidente da Bolívia.

Os voos da CIA, o escândalo do sistema de espionagem PRISM e agora este acontecimento demonstram que os
Estados da UE estão dispostos a violar direitos fundamentais e o direito internacional a fim de satisfazer os pedidos
dos Estados Unidos, em vez de cooperar de forma legal, transparente e imparcial.

Que opinião tem a Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante sobre este escândalo? Considera que a Convenção de Viena foi
violada no caso em questão? Informará se as decisões de França, Espanha, Portugal e Itália se deveram a pressões por
parte dos Estados Unidos?

Que consequências terá este acontecimento nas relações bilaterais com a Bolívia e com os países membros da Unasur,
que têm manifestado o seu apoio a Evo Morales e denunciado a sua retenção? Apresentará um pedido de desculpas
público por parte da UE ao Presidente Evo Morales pelos incidentes causados?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008175/13**

**à Comissão**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) e João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Proibição de sobrevoo do Presidente Evo Morales sobre vários países da UE

Portugal, Espanha, França e Itália recusaram que o avião que transportava o Presidente da Bolívia, Evo Morales,
sobrevoasse o seu espaço aéreo, vindo da Rússia, quando, de acordo com as normas internacionais, o chefe de Estado
tem imunidade internacional.

Assim, pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Conhece algum tipo de pressão exercida pelos EUA sobre estes Estados‐Membros para que não autorizassem o
sobrevoo do seu espaço aéreo pelo avião que transportava o Presidente da Bolívia? Se sim, essa pressão está
relacionada com o caso Edward Snowden?

2. A decisão destes Estados‐Membros foi coordenada ao nível da Comissão?

C 65 E / 116 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

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

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente lamenta o incidente ocorrido com o avião presidencial mas considera que os
Estados-Membros interessados já apresentaram as suas explicações e, quando necessário, apresentaram as suas
desculpas.

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente gostaria ainda de referir que esta não é uma questão da competência da UE mas
sim da soberania nacional dos Estados-Membros. No âmbito da Convenção de Chicago da ICAO (1944), qualquer
país tem o direito de recusar o acesso ao seu espaço aéreo soberano, o que constitui uma competência de cada um dos
Estados‐Membros. Além disso, a legislação relativa ao Céu Único Europeu reconhece a responsabilidade nacional
pelos direitos de sobrevoo ao abrigo de acordos internacionais concluídos nesta matéria.

Nos últimos anos, a UE tem envidado grandes esforços para reforçar as relações entre a Bolívia e cada um dos EstadosMembros e a UE no seu conjunto. A União Europeia continua empenhada em manter as suas boas relações com a
Bolívia.

A União Europeia espera que se mantenham a cooperação construtiva e o ambiente cordial que caracterizam as
relações globais entre a UE e os países da região.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 117

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008072/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Franziska Keller**

**(Verts/ALE), Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Helmut**

**Scholz (GUE/NGL), Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL) and Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Detention of Bolivian President, Evo Morales, in Europe

The aviation authorities of France, Spain, Italy and Portugal closed their airspace to a plane carrying Bolivian
President, Evo Morales. His jet was forced to land in Vienna, where it was grounded and, according to Austrian
sources, searched. The presidential plane had left Moscow to return to Bolivia and was due to fly through French
airspace before making a technical stop in Lisbon, but permission to continue was refused, allegedly because of
suspicion that former US intelligence agent Edward Snowden was on board. Snowden had requested political asylum
from a number of countries with no success.

The detention of President Morales and the search of his plane both constitute a clear violation of presidential
immunity guaranteed under the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States and their Property.
Furthermore, the physical integrity of the President was put at risk.

The European countries listed above, and the EU in general, have once again given in to pressure from their preferred
partner, the United States of America, which suspected that Mr Snowden was on board and questioned the word of
the Bolivian President.

This latest incident, together with CIA flights and the PRISM surveillance scandal, show that EU Member States are
prepared to violate fundamental rights and international law in order to please the USA, rather than cooperate in a
legal, transparent and impartial manner.

What is the opinion of the Vice‐President / High Representative with regard to this scandal? Does she believe that the
case described above constitutes an infringement of the Vienna Convention? Were the decisions taken by France,
Spain, Portugal and Italy a result of pressure exerted by the USA?

What impact will this incident have on bilateral relations with Bolivia and other Unasur members that have already
expressed support for Evo Morales and condemned his detention? Will the Vice-President/High Representative make
a public apology to President Morales on behalf of the EU?

**Question for written answer E-008095/13**

**to the Commission**
**Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Forced landing of President Morales' presidential plane

President Morales landed in La Paz yesterday (4 July), following a 13-hour forced stopover in Vienna (and a 17-hour
flight), due to rumours that, because he was returning from a trip to Moscow, Edward Snowden was on the
presidential plane with him. Later, however, both France and Spain denied that they had refused use of their airspace
and Portugal stated that it had granted permission to use its airspace, but not to refuel in Lisbon.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Is it aware of the above events? Why was the Bolivian president not allowed to complete his scheduled journey and
obliged to make a forced landing? Is the way in which the Bolivian president was treated by the Member States not an
infringement of international law, the sovereignty of states and individual rights? Edward Snowden was not on
President Morales’ plane. If, however, the rumours started by the United States were true, should the EU Member
States not have helped the Bolivian President to protect a person who had had the courage to blow the whistle on
highly organised and systematic human rights violations?

C 65 E / 118 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**Question for written answer E-008175/13**

**to the Commission**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) and João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Overflying ban imposed on President Evo Morales by Member States

Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy closed their airspace to the aircraft carrying the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, on
his way back from Russia; this happened in spite of the fact that, under international law, a head of state enjoys
international immunity.

1. Does the Commission know whether the US pressured the above Member States into refusing permission for
the Bolivian President’s aircraft to fly through their airspace? If pressure was exerted — in whatever form — did it
have any connection with the Edward Snowden affair?

2. Was the Member States’ decision coordinated within the Commission?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The HR/VP regrets the incident involving the presidential plane. The VP/HR understands that the Member States
concerned have given their explanations and where appropriate, apologised.

The HR/VP would like to underline that this is not a matter of EU competence but under the national sovereignty of
Member States. Under the ICAO Chicago Convention (1944), any country has the right to refuse access to its
sovereign airspace, a competence of each individual Member State. Furthermore, the Single European Sky legislation
acknowledges national responsibility for over-flights rights under the international agreements in this area.

During the last few years, the EU has worked hard to strengthen the relationship both between Bolivia and individual
member states and with the EU as a whole. The EU remains committed to maintain its good relations with Bolivia.

The EU hopes that the constructive cooperation and the cordial atmosphere that characterised the overall relationship
between the EU and the countries of the region will be preserved.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 119

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008073/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(5 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Investigación sobre ayudas a la construcción naval en Holanda

La Comisión Europea ha iniciado una investigación sobre el sistema holandés de ayudas y, además, existe una
denuncia de la asociación española de construcción naval contra el mismo por su selectividad y elevada intensidad.
Otra perturbación de la competencia es la demostrada existencia de ayudas de Estado, condiciones sociales y
medioambientales de fabricación y otras circunstancias que entran de lleno en la calificación de «dumping» en
astilleros del sudeste asiático y venden sus productos a armadores europeos o empresas de transporte marítimo que
operan en aguas europeas. Esto genera que astilleros e industrias que han realizado enormes esfuerzos en innovación
y producen barcos de primera calidad y a precios muy competitivos estén en grave riesgo de desaparición por razones
ajenas a su eficiencia o capacidad profesional.

1. ¿En qué estado se encuentra la investigación sobre el sistema holandés de ayudas a la construcción naval?

2. ¿Considera la Comisión que el cruce de denuncias entre Estados miembros es la mejor forma de hacer frente a la
competencia asiática que también disfruta de ayudas de Estado y practica el dumping social y medioambiental?

3. ¿En qué fórmulas trabaja la Comisión para orientar sus esfuerzos a proteger la industria naval europea de esta
desleal competencia exterior?

4. ¿Hay una apuesta estratégica europea por su sector naval? ¿Si es así, en que se plasma?

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

_(9 de septiembre de 2013)_

Los Países Bajos respondieron a la denuncia a la que se refiere su Señoría en marzo de 2013. Su evaluación está en

curso.

Los Estados miembros pueden conceder ayudas estatales a las compañías marítimas ( [1] ), en particular mediante
regímenes de tributación en función del tonelaje y reducciones de las cotizaciones a la seguridad social y del impuesto
sobre la renta para los trabajadores del mar. El Marco aplicable a las ayudas estatales a la construcción naval ( [2] ),
adoptado en 2011, tiene por objeto responder a las peculiaridades del sector de la construcción naval, incluidas
normas específicas sobre la concesión de ayudas a proyectos innovadores, disposiciones específicas sobre las ayudas
regionales y créditos a la exportación. Por supuesto, la concesión de ayudas estatales sin previa autorización de la
Comisión es contraria al artículo 108, apartado 3, del TFUE y entraña el riesgo de que se consideren incompatibles y
sean recuperadas.

Las Decisiones de la Comisión de 20 de noviembre de 2012 y 17 de julio de 2013 relativas a España indican que los
Estados miembros también pueden apoyar la financiación de activos (incluidos buques) para aumentar la
competitividad de las industrias de la UE mediante regímenes de amortización acelerada, siempre que se apliquen con
carácter general a todas las empresas.

En lo que se refiere a las subvenciones al sector de la construcción naval en los países no pertenecientes a la UE, los
únicos instrumentos políticos a este respecto son, a falta de un acuerdo internacional, el grupo de trabajo de la OCDE
sobre la construcción naval y el sistema de solución de diferencias de la OMC.

La Comisión, en estrecha cooperación con el sector de la construcción naval, se ha empeñado durante años en un
esfuerzo a largo plazo por contribuir a garantizar la competitividad futura de este importante sector. Véanse la
Comunicación de la Comisión sobre la estrategia LeaderSHIP 2015 «Definir el futuro de la industria europea de la
construcción naval y la reparación de buques — Competitividad a través de la excelencia» ( [3] ) y la reciente
actualización en el informe de LeaderSHIP 2020 de 20 de febrero de 2013 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Véanse las Directrices comunitarias sobre ayudas de Estado al transporte marítimo (DO C 13 de 17.1.2004, p. 3).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase DO C 364 de 14.12.2011, p. 9.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0717:FIN:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Véase http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-116_en.htm

C 65 E / 120 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008073/13**

**to the Commission**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Investigation into shipbuilding aid in the Netherlands

The Commission has initiated an investigation into aid in the Netherlands. Furthermore, a complaint has been lodged
by the Spanish shipbuilding association regarding Dutch aid and the high levels and selective nature thereof. A further
distortion of competition is the proven existence of state aid, social and environmental manufacturing conditions and
other flagrant examples of ‘dumping’ in shipyards in Southeast Asia which sell their products to European ship
owners or maritime transport undertakings operating in European waters. This leads to a situation in which shipyards
and industries which have made huge efforts to produce innovative, first‐class ships at very competitive prices are in
grave danger of disappearing for reasons other than their own efficiency or professional ability.

1. What is the state of play regarding the investigation into the Dutch system of aid in the shipbuilding sector?

2. Does the Commission believe that Member States lodging complaints against one another is the best way to
react to competition from Asia, which also uses state aid and which practises social and environmental dumping?

3. How does the Commission focus its efforts to protect the European shipbuilding industry from unfair
competition from third countries?

4. Does Europe have a strategic approach for its shipping industry? If so, what does this consist of?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

The Netherlands reacted to the complaint referred to by the Honourable Member in March 2013. The assessment is
ongoing.

Member States can grant state aid to shipping companies ( [1] ), notably through tonnage tax schemes and reductions of
social security charges and income tax for seafarers. The framework on state aid to shipbuilding ( [2] ) adopted in 2011
aims to address the particularities of the shipbuilding sector, such as specific rules for aid to be granted to innovative
projects, specific provisions for regional aid and export credits. Of course, granting state aid without prior
Commission authorisation is contrary to Article 108 (3) TFUE and entails the risk that it might be found incompatible
and recovered.

The Commission decisions of 20 November 2012 and 17 July 2013 concerning Spain show that Member States can
also support the financing of assets — including vessels — to improve the competitiveness of EU industries through
accelerated depreciation schemes, provided they are generally applicable to all undertakings.

As regards subsidies to the shipbuilding sector in non-EU countries, in the absence of an International Shipbuilding
Agreement, the only policy tools in this respect are the OECD Working Party on shipbuilding and the WTO dispute
settlement system.

The Commission, in close cooperation with the shipbuilding industry, has been inv

olved for years in a long term effort to help ensure the future competitiveness of this important sector. Please see
Commission Communication on the LeaderSHIP 2015 strategy Defining the Future of the European Shipbuilding
and Repair Industry — Competitiveness through Excellence ( [3] ), and the recent update in the LeaderSHIP 2020 Report
of 20 February 2013 ( [4] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See Guidelines on state aid to maritime transport, OJ C 13 of 17.01.2004, p.3.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See OJ C 364 of 14.12.2011, p.9.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0717:FIN:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) [See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-116_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-116_en.htm)

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 121

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008074/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(5 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Pérdida de contratos de construcción naval en el País Vasco

La Comisión Europea ha anunciado una próxima decisión presuntamente contraria al sistema de ayudas español al
sector naval. Los años transcurridos desde que se inició este expediente han originado ya grandes perjuicios, pero este
anuncio produce nuevos problemas. Para empezar, los bancos con que opera habitualmente el sector naval han
ordenado bloquear todas las operaciones del mismo y han decidido que no habrá más avales hasta que no se
produzca el fallo. Los proveedores igualmente han bloqueado sus operaciones y clientes con los que se negociaban
contratos también.

A consecuencia de estas decisiones un contrato pendiente para construir cuatro remolcadores para el mar Caribe ha
sido adjudicado a un astillero holandés. Los clientes han comunicado al astillero vasco, que les había construido cinco
barcos idénticos y negociaba el contrato para estos cuatro más, que toman la decisión ante la incertidumbre que
genera el fallo anunciado por la Comisión. Esta decisión nada tiene que ver con la calidad de los buques, con su precio
o las cuestiones que caracterizan la competencia industrial.

1. ¿Considera la Comisión que la pérdida del contrato de estos remolcadores tiene que ver con la competencia
legítima entre astilleros?

2. ¿Qué valoración le merecen los hechos que se comentan?

3. Si se demuestra que esta demora ha sido clave en el cambio de destino de este contrato ¿va a estudiar la
Comisión fórmulas para compensar a los perjudicados?

4. ¿Considera que las limitaciones a las que proveedores y bancos someten a estos astilleros permite la libre
competencia?

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

_(26 de agosto de 2013)_

El 17 de julio de 2013, la Comisión adoptó una Decisión definitiva ( [1] ) con respecto al Sistema español de
arrendamiento fiscal, que concluyó que dicho sistema constituye ayuda estatal parcialmente incompatible con el
mercado interior y que debe ser recuperada de los beneficiarios.

Dos principios fundamentales del control de las ayudas estatales de la UE son que las nuevas ayudas deben ser
notificadas a la Comisión y que las ayudas incompatibles deben ser recuperadas cuando se hayan concedido sin la
aprobación previa de la Comisión. Conceder una ayuda sin la autorización previa de la Comisión entraña el riesgo de
que esta sea considerada incompatible y se exija su devolución a los beneficiarios. La Comisión no puede
pronunciarse sobre si cualquier limitación impuesta a los astilleros españoles por parte de proveedores y bancos se
debe a la investigación formal de la Comisión en relación con el Sistema español de arrendamiento fiscal, que se ha
utilizado como mecanismo de apoyo para la adquisición de buques.

En su Decisión definitiva de 17 de julio de 2013, la Comisión no ordena la devolución de la ayuda por parte de los
astilleros ni de los armadores que eran sus clientes, sino de los miembros de las agrupaciones de interés económico
que se han beneficiado de una reducción de la base imponible a efectos del impuesto sobre la renta.

_Además_, la Decisión de la Comisión de 17 de julio de 2013 —así como la adoptada el 20 de noviembre de 2012
relativa al nuevo Sistema español de arrendamiento fiscal ( [2] )— han disipado la incertidumbre en cuanto a las medidas
que pueden utilizarse en el contexto de las operaciones de financiación de activos. De hecho, las Decisiones de la
Comisión de 20 de noviembre de 2012 y 17 de julio de 2013, cuyo destinatario es España, muestran que la
adquisición de activos mediante contratos de arrendamiento financiero también pueden recibir apoyo a través de
medidas generales que no constituyen ayuda estatal prohibida por la normativa de la UE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pendiente de publicación en el Diario Oficial.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DO C 384 de 13.12.2012.

C 65 E / 122 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008074/13**

**to the Commission**
**Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Loss of shipbuilding contracts in the Basque Country

The Commission has announced that it will soon be adopting a decision which will allegedly have a negative impact
on the Spanish system of state aid in the shipping industry. In the years since proceedings were initiated, a great deal
of damage had already been caused, but this announcement has exacerbated the situation. To begin with, banks used
by the shipping industry have frozen all operations with the sector and have decided that no further loans will be
made until a decision is taken. Likewise, suppliers have also frozen all operations, as have clients with whom contracts
were being negotiated.

As a consequence of the decisions, a contract to build four tugs for the Caribbean was awarded to a Dutch shipyard.
The Basque shipyard, which had already built five identical tugs for the client and which was in the process of
negotiating the contract to build four additional boats, has been told by the client that the decision was made on
account of the uncertainty created by the Commission’s announcement. It has nothing to do with quality, price, or
other factors affecting competition in the industry.

1. Does the Commission believe that legitimate competition between shipyards led to the loss of the contract to
build the tugs?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the circumstances commented on?

3. If it can be proved that the delay was a key factor in the decision to move the contract to another shipyard, will
the Commission look into ways of compensating those who have suffered damage?

4. Does the Commission believe that free competition is possible in view of the constraints placed on shipyards by
suppliers and banks?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

On 17 July 2013, the Commission adopted a final decision ( [1] ) with respect to the Spanish Tax Lease system,
concluding that it constitutes state aid that is partly incompatible with the internal market and requiring its recovery
from the beneficiaries.

Two fundamental principles of EU State aid control are that new aid must be notified to the Commission and that
incompatible aid must be recovered when it is granted without the Commission's prior approval. Granting aid
without prior authorisation by the Commission entails the risk that it will be found incompatible and that its recovery
from the beneficiaries will be required. The Commission is not in a position to comment on whether any constraints
placed on Spanish shipyards by suppliers and banks can be explained by the Commission’s formal investigation of the
Spanish Tax Lease system, which was being used as a support mechanism for ship acquisition.

In its final decision of 17 July 2013, the Commissoin does not order recovery of the aid from either the shipyards or
the shipowners that were their customers,but from the members of Economic Interest Groupings which have
benefited from a reduction of their tax base for income tax purposes.

In addition, the Commission's decision of 17 July 13 — as well as the one adopted on 20 November 2012 concerning
the new Spanish Tax Lease system ( [2] ) — have cleared uncertainties as to the measures that can be used in the context
of asset financing operations. In fact, the Commission decisions of 20 November 2012 and 17 July 2013 addressed to
Spain show that the acquisition of assets through financial leasing contracts can also be supported through general
measures that do not constitute state aid prohibited by EU rules.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ C 384, 13.12.2012.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 123

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008076/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)**

_(5 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ακατάλληλο πρόγραμμα αποκατάστασης στη λιμνοθάλασσα Επανομής (GR1220011 και GR1220012)
χρηματοδοτούμενο από το πρόγραμμα Life+

Η λιμνοθάλασσα Επανομής είναι ενταγμένη στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δίκτυο NATURA 2000, με τους κωδικούς GR1220011 (SPA)
και GR1220012 (SAC), αποτελεί Καταφύγιο Άγριας Ζωής και είναι οικότοπος προτεραιότητας με είδη προτεραιότητας.
Πρόσφατα δόθηκε Έγκριση Περιβαλλοντικών Όρων ( [1] ) των έργων της δράσης C.2 Αποκατάσταση των λειτουργιών της
λιμνοθάλασσας Επανομής του προγράμματος Life09 ΝΑΤ/GR/000343 με τίτλο «ACCOLAGOONS», η οποία
περιλαμβάνει έντονες παρεμβάσεις στο φυσικό περιβάλλον, όπως διάνοιξη διωρύγων, εγκατάσταση τεσσάρων υδατοφραχτών,
σταθεροποίηση των κλίσεων σε περιοχή περίπου 3 000 m [2], κατασκευή νησίδων κ.α. ( [2] ), χωρίς α) να έχει ακολουθηθεί η
διαδικασία Στρατηγικής Περιβαλλοντικής Εκτίμησης που προβλέπεται ως δράση Α.7 ( [3] ), για την υλοποίηση των τεχνικών
έργων της δράσης C.2 και να έχει εκφραστεί η δημόσια γνώμη, β) να έχει γνωμοδοτήσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή. Οι
παρεμβάσεις της δράσης C.2 θεωρούνται απαράδεκτες διότι θα οδηγήσουν στην αποστράγγιση και ολοκληρωτική αλλοίωση
του χαρακτήρα της περιοχής, κάτι που έχει επιχειρηθεί και στο παρελθόν, αλλά αποτράπηκε από τις παρεμβάσεις
Περιβαλλοντικών ΜΚΟ. Μια ιδιαίτερα αξιόλογη διαχειριστική μελέτη για την περιοχή, η οποία εκπονήθηκε το 2002 από την
Ελληνική Ορνιθολογική Εταιρεία για λογαριασμό της «Ελληνικά Τουριστικά Ακίνητα ΑΕ» ( [4] ), κατέληγε σε σοβαρές
διαχειριστικές προτάσεις, οι οποίες καταστρατηγούνται στην πράξη από τα έργα της δράσης C.2 του συγκεκριμένου
προγράμματος Life.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Έχει σχετική πληροφόρηση από τις αρμόδιες αρχές;

—
Συμφωνεί ότι τα προαναφερθέντα έργα έρχονται σε αντίθεση, αντιστοίχως,

—
με την Οδηγία 2001/42/ΕΚ και τη σχετική ελληνική νομοθεσία ( [5] );

—
με την Οδηγία 92/43/EOK (άρθρο 6, 7, 8, 11 κ.α.) και τη σχετική ελληνική νομοθεσία ( [6] );

—
Εάν ναι, τι μέτρα προτίθεται να λάβει προκειμένου το πρόγραμμα να μη λάβει κοινοτική χρηματοδότηση;

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

_(30 Αυγούστου 2013)_

— Οι επιδόσεις της Στρατηγικής Περιβαλλοντικής Εκτίμησης (ΣΠΕ), που προβλέπονται στη δράση A7, ολοκληρώθηκαν
σύμφωνα με την εθνική νομοθεσία και υποβλήθηκαν από την Περιφέρεια της Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας για έγκριση στο
Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος, Ενέργειας και Κλιματικής Αλλαγής.

Η ΣΠΕ εξέτασε και ενέκρινε τον σχεδιασμό των προτεινόμενων εργασιών, αλλά όχι την υλοποίησή τους. Σύμφωνα με την
εθνική νομοθεσία, για τον σκοπό αυτό απαιτείται περαιτέρω άδεια και σχετική μελέτη περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων, καθώς
και ειδική οικολογική εκτίμηση. Οι ανωτέρω απαιτήσεις εκπληρώθηκαν και η άδεια εκδόθηκε από την Περιφέρεια της
Κεντρικής Μακεδονίας.

Στην περίπτωση της ACCOLAGOONS και της δράσης C2, στη μελέτη περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων δεν διαπιστώνονται
δυνητικές αρνητικές επιπτώσεις, αλλά μόνο θετικές επιπτώσεις στην υδρολογία και στην ποιότητα των υδάτων της
λιμνοθάλασσας.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://et.diavgeia.gov.gr/f/pkm/ada/%CE%92%CE%95%CE%96%CE%A37%CE%9B%CE%9B-%CE%9F%CE%97%CE%96
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.accolagoons.gr/Drasi-C.2.aspx
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.accolagoons.gr/Drasi-A.7.aspx
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Ελληνική Ορνιθολογική Εταιρεία. 2002. ΣΧΕΔΙΟ ΔΙΑΧΕΙΡΙΣΗΣ ΥΓΡΟΤΟΠΟΥ ΕΠΑΝΩΜΗΣ. 184 σελ. + χάρτες. Ελληνικά Τουριστικά Ακίνητα ΑΕ και

Αγροτουριστική ΑΕ.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Αριθ. ΥΠΕΧΩΔΕ/ΕΥΠΕ/οικ.107017/06 (ΦΕΚ-1225Β/2006)

http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=DL%2fEqFqSv1c%3d&tabid=840&language=el-GR

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Αριθ. 33318/3028/98 (ΦΕΚ-1289Β/1998), άρθρο 6 παράγραφος 2

http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=U%2bLLPDOBRhU%3d&tabid=236&language=el-GR
& N. 4014/11 (ΦΕΚ-209Α/2011), άρθρο 10 παράγραφος 4
http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Y1xOrJ90MSE%3d&tabid=506&language=el-GR

( **|**

( **|**

C 65 E / 124 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Η δράση A3, που αποτελεί την προπαρασκευαστική δράση για την δράση C2, περιλάμβανε εκτίμηση των λειτουργιών της
λιμνοθάλασσας. Στο πλαίσιο αυτής της δράσης, επισημάνθηκε η μείωση των λειτουργιών του υγροτόπου και εκπονήθηκε
σχέδιο αποκατάστασης της λιμνοθάλασσας για τη βελτίωσή τους. Η υλοποίηση του έργου αναμένεται να έχει σειρά θετικών
επιπτώσεων όσον αφορά τη διατήρηση των οικοτόπων και των ειδών της λιμνοθάλασσας, καθώς και όσον αφορά το
περιβάλλον.

Οι εργασίες που προτείνονται στο πλαίσιο της δράσης C2 είναι σύμφωνες με τις προτάσεις της διαχειριστικής μελέτης για την
περιοχή που εκπονήθηκε το 2002 από την ΕΟΕ για λογαριασμό της ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΤΟΥΡΙΣΤΙΚΑ ΑΚΙΝΗΤΑ ΑΕ.

— Η Επιτροπή κατανοεί ότι η εκπονηθείσα μελέτη περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων πληροί τις προϋποθέσεις για κατάλληλη
αξιολόγηση των επιπτώσεων σχετικά με τους στόχους διατήρησης του τόπου σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 6 της οδηγίας
92/43/ΕΟΚ για τους οικοτόπους.

— Συνεπώς, η Επιτροπή θα εξακολουθήσει να υποστηρίζει το έργο και να παρακολουθεί τα θέματα αυτά εκ του σύνεγγυς.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 125

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008076/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Unsuitable programme financed under the Life+ programme to restore Epanomi Lagoon (GR1220011 and
GR 12200112)

Epanomi Lagoon form part of the Natura 2000 European network [codes GR1220011 (SPA and GR 1220012(SAC)]
and is a refuge for wildlife and a priority habitat containing priority species. Approval of environmental terms ( [1] ) was
recently granted for projects under action C.2 [Restoration of Epanomi Lagoon under Life09 Accolagoons
programme (NAT/GR/000343)], which includes severe interventions in the natural environment, such as opening up
canals, installing four weirs, stabilising banks over an area measuring approximately 3 000 m [2], constructing islands
and so forth ( [2] ) without a) applying the Environmental Assessment Strategy provided for as action A.7 ( [3] ) for the
technical works under action C.2 or holding a public consultation and b) informing the European Commission. The
interventions under action C.2 are unacceptable, because they will drain and completely alter the character of the
area; this is something that has been attempted in the past but which was stopped following intervention by
environmental NGOs. One particularly valuable management study on the area prepared in 2002 by the Hellenic
Ornithological Society on behalf of Ellinika Touristika Akinita SA ( [4] ) resulted in solid management proposals, which
are being circumvented in practice by the works under action C.2 of this particular Life programme.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

Does it have the relevant information from the competent authorities?

Does it agree that the aforementioned works conflict, respectively, with:

—
Directive 2001/42/EC and the corresponding Greek legislation ( [5] )?

—
Directive 92/43/EEC (Articles 6, 7, 8, 11 and so forth) and the corresponding Greek legislation ( [6] )?

If so, what measures does it intend to take to ensure that this programme does not obtain Community financing?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

— The performance of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), foreseen in action A7, was completed in
accordance with national legislation and submitted by the Region of Central Macedonia (RCM) to the Ministry of
Environment, Energy and Climate Change for approval.

The SEA examined and approved the planning of the proposed works but not their implementation. According to
National legislation this requires a further permit and a related Environmental Impacts Study (EIS) and Special
Ecological Evaluation (SEE). These were made and the permit was issued by the RCM.

In the case of ACCOLAGOONS and action C2, the EIS did not reveal any potential negative impacts, it found only
positive impacts on the lagoon’s hydrology and water quality.

Action A3, the preparatory action for action C2, included an assessment of the lagoon’s functions. It identified the
diminished wetland functions and designed the lagoon restoration plan to improve these. The implementation of the
plan is expected to have a number of positive impacts on the conservation of lagoon's habitats and species and on the
environment.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://et.diavgeia.gov.gr/f/pkm/ada/%CE%92%CE%95%CE%96%CE%A37%CE%9B%CE%9B-%CE%9F%CE%97%CE%96
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.accolagoons.gr/Drasi-C.2.aspx
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.accolagoons.gr/Drasi-A.7.aspx
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Hellenic Ornithological Society 2002. EPANOMI WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 184 pages + maps Ellinika Touristika Akinita SA and

Agrotouristiki SA.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Number YPECHODE/EYPE/oik.10717/06 (Greek Official Gazette II/1225/2006).
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Number 33318/3028/98 (Greek Official Gazette II/1289/1998), Article 6(2), http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=U%2bLLPDOBRhU

%3d&tabid=236&language=el-GR & Law 4014/11 (Greek Official Gazette I/209/2011), Article 10(4) http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?
fileticket=Y1xOJ0MSE%3d&tabid=506&language=el-GR

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

C 65 E / 126 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

The works proposed under action C2 are in line with the proposals of the Management Study on the area prepared in
2002 by HOS on behalf of Ellinika Touristika Akinita SA.

— The Commission understands that the SEE carried out fulfils the requirements for an appropriate assessment of the
implications on the site's conservation objectives pursuant to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.

— The Commission will, therefore, continue to support this project, and will monitor these issues closely.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 127

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008077/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)**

_(5 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Εκποιούμενες προστατευόμενες περιοχές Κυκλάδων — Υγρότοποι/περιοχές Natura

Σύμφωνα με απόφαση της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης, η οποία δημοσιεύτηκε στο Φ.Ε.Κ. 1020/24-5-13, το Ταμείο Αξιοποίησης
της Ιδιωτικής Περιουσίας του Ελληνικού Δημοσίου (ΤΑΙΠΕΔ) αναλαμβάνει να διαχειρίζεται και να εκποιεί εκτάσεις στα νησιά
των Κυκλάδων, που βρίσκονται εντός των ορίων περιοχών NATURA 2000. Ήδη έχει ξεκινήσει διαδικασία προκαταρκτικής
ενημέρωσης υποψήφιων επενδυτών για το «Δημόσιο ακίνητο στην περιοχή Λίμνες Αγίου Προκοπίου» στη Νάξο και υπάρχουν
πληροφορίες ότι επίκειται η εκποίηση και άλλων εκτάσεων στις Κυκλάδες:

—
4 περιοχές υγροτόπων σε Νάξο, Μήλο και Άνδρο που βρίσκονται εντός ορίων περιοχών Natura — Ειδικές Ζώνες
Διατήρησης, από τις οποίες οι 3 και εντός Ζωνών Ειδικής Προστασίας — περιοχών σημαντικών για τα πουλιά,

—
1 υγρότοπος στη Νάξο που έχει χαρακτηρισθεί καταφύγιο άγριας ζωής, και

—
3 περιοχές υγροτόπων σε Πάρο-Αντίπαρο που έχουν χαρακτηρισθεί προστατευόμενες ως μικροί υγρότοποι.

Σημαντικά τμήματα των υγροτόπων αυτών καλύπτονται από οικότοπους προτεραιότητας. Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 11 παρ. 2
του Ν. 3986/2011 «δεν επιτρέπεται η αξιοποίηση δημοσίων ακινήτων, τα οποία εμπίπτουν στο σύνολό τους σε οικότοπους
προτεραιότητας και σε περιοχές απόλυτης προστασίας της φύσης ή προστασίας της φύσης».

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Έχει σχετική πληροφόρηση από τις αρμόδιες αρχές;

—
Θεωρεί συμβατή με την Ελληνική και Ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία μια τέτοια προοπτική; Ενθαρρύνει μια τέτοια προοπτική ο
εκπρόσωπός της στην τρόικα;

—
Συνεχίζει να θεωρεί την προστασία των περιοχών του Δικτύου Natura 2000 ως ευρωπαϊκή προτεραιότητα ή έχει
αλλάξει την προσέγγισή της υπό την πίεση της οικονομικής κρίσης και χρηματοπιστωτικών κέντρων που απαιτούν
αποπληρωμή των χρεών υπερχρεωμένων χωρών όπως η Ελλάδα, με κάθε θυσία, ακόμη και με εκποίηση φυσικών
περιοχών ανεκτίμητης οικολογικής αξίας;

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

_(13 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει ενημερωθεί από τις ελληνικές αρχές σχετικά με την απόφαση που αναφέρεται από το Αξιότιμο Μέλος του
Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με τις χερσαίες περιοχές εντός του δικτύου Natura 2000 σε νησιά των Κυκλάδων, καθώς δεν υπάρχει
απαίτηση για τέτοιου είδους πληροφορίες.

Η Επιτροπή δεν παρεμβαίνει σε αλλαγές ιδιοκτησίας γης εντός των περιοχών Natura 2000, αλλά οι ελληνικές αρχές θα
πρέπει να εξασφαλίσουν ότι οι εν λόγω μεταβολές δεν υποσκάπτουν τις ανάγκες διατήρησης των περιοχών και ότι οι τυχόν
επακόλουθες εξελίξεις θα αξιολογούνται δεόντως και θα εγκρίνονται σύμφωνα με τις διατάξεις του άρθρου 6 της οδηγίας
92/43/ΕΟΚ για τους οικοτόπους ( [1] ). Η Επιτροπή υπογραμμίζει ότι η επιλογή του τι και σε ποιο βαθμό τα δημόσια στοιχεία
ενεργητικού (συμπεριλαμβανομένων των ακίνητων περιουσιακών στοιχείων και επιχειρήσεων) θα ιδιωτικοποιηθεί, εναπόκειται
εξ ολοκλήρου στα κράτη μέλη. Σύμφωνα με τις εθνικές νομοθετικές διατάξεις, οι διαδικασίες ανάπτυξης/πώλησης ακινήτων
υπάγονται, κατά περίπτωση, σε στρατηγική περιβαλλοντική εκτίμηση, σύμφωνα με την οδηγία ΣΕΠΕ 2001/42/ΕΚ, ώστε να
διασφαλίζεται η βιωσιμότητα του οικείου περιβάλλοντος.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Οδηγία 92/43/ΕΟΚ του Συμβουλίου της 21ης Μαΐου 1992 για τη διατήρηση των φυσικών ενδιαιτημάτων και της άγριας πανίδας και χλωρίδας. ΕΕ L 206
της 22.7.1992.

C 65 E / 128 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Η Επιτροπή θεωρεί τη διατήρηση και βιώσιμη διαχείριση του δικτύου Natura 2000 ως βασικό μέτρο προτεραιότητας για την
επίτευξη των στόχων της στρατηγικής της ΕΕ για τη βιοποικιλότητα με ορίζοντα το 2020 ( [2] ). Ένα υψηλό επίπεδο προστασίας
των περιοχών που περιλαμβάνονται στο δίκτυο είναι αναγκαία επίσης στο πλαίσιο της τρέχουσας οικονομικής κρίσης, καθώς
αυτό θα τους επιτρέψει, επιπλέον των ωφελειών όσον αφορά την βιοποικιλότητα, να αποδώσει τα πολλαπλά
κοινωνικοοικονομικά οφέλη από τις διάφορες οικοσυστημικές υπηρεσίες που προσφέρουν.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)244 τελικό.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 129

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008077/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sale of conservation areas/wetlands in the Cyclades/Natura areas

According to a decision by the Greek Government published in the Greek Official Gazette 1020/24.05.2013, the
Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund (TAIPED) has undertaken to manage and sell land on islands in the
Cyclades which lies inside the boundaries of Natura 2000 areas. A procedure to provide preliminary information to
potential investors in government property in the area of Agios Prokopios Lakes in Naxos is already under way and,
according to reports, other land in the Cyclades is up for sale:

—
4 wetland areas in Naxos, Milos and Andros which lie inside the boundaries of Natura special areas of
conservation, 3 of which are also inside special protection areas for birds;

—
1 wetland area in Naxos which is listed as a wildlife refuge and

—
3 wetland areas in Paros/Antiparos which are listed as small protected wetlands.

Large sections of these wetlands are priority habitats. Under Article 11 (2) of Law 3986/2011, ‘it is prohibited to
develop public property which, as a whole, lies within a priority habitat or in an absolute nature reserve or nature
reserve area’.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Does it have the relevant information from the competent authorities?

—
Does it consider that any such prospect is in keeping with Greek and European legislation? Does its
representative in the Troika encourage any such prospect?

—
Does it still consider that protection of Natura 2000 areas is a European priority or has it changed its mind
under pressure from the economic crisis and from financial centres demanding repayment of the debts of overindebted countries such as Greece at any price, even by selling off nature reserves of inestimable ecological
value?

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

_(13 August 2013)_

The Commission has not been informed by the Greek authorities about the decision referred to by the Honourable
Member concerning land within Natura 2000 sites on Cyclades islands as there is no requirement for such
information.

The Commission does not interfere in land ownership changes within Natura 2000 sites but the Greek authorities
will have to ensure that such changes do not undermine the conservation needs of the sites and that any resulting
developments are properly assessed and authorised in accordance with the provisions of Art. 6 of the Habitats
Directive 92/43/EEC ( [1] ). The Commission would like to highlight that the choice of what and how far public assets
(including real estate assets and companies) should be privatised remains entirely with the Member States. According
to national legislative provisions, the real estate development/sale procedures are subject where appropriate to a
strategic environmental assessment according to the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC in order to guarantee their
environmental sustainability.

The Commission considers the conservation and sustainable management of the Natura 2000 network as a key
priority measure for achieving the targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 ( [2] ). A high level of protection of the
sites included in the network is necessary also in the context of the current economic crisis as this will allow them, in
addition to biodiversity gains, to deliver the multiple socioeconomic benefits from the various ecosystem services
they provide.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 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.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 244 final.

C 65 E / 130 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008078/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)**

_(5 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Πρόωρες συνταξιοδοτήσεις και επιπτώσεις στο έλλειμμα της Γενικής Κυβέρνησης

Η Επιτροπή, ως μέρος της τρόικας, παρεμβαίνει μέσω του μνημονίου σε εκατοντάδες θέματα που αφορούν την πορεία των
δημοσίων οικονομικών της Ελλάδας, σε συνεργασία ασφαλώς με τις εκάστοτε ελληνικές κυβερνήσεις.

Στο πλαίσιο αυτό κεντρικό στοιχείο των παρεμβάσεών της ήταν από το πρώτο κιόλας μνημόνιο το ασφαλιστικό σύστημα.
Παρόλα αυτά, στη διάρκεια των τελευταίων τριών ετών, με τη δική της ουσιαστική αποδοχή συνεχίστηκε το φαινόμενο των
μαζικών πρόωρων συνταξιοδοτήσεων (ακόμα και υγιέστατων ανθρώπων ηλικίας 52-55 ετών), που έχει εκτροχιάσει τα
ασφαλιστικά ταμεία και του οποίου την πραγματική έκταση (με δεδομένο ότι εκκρεμούν και δεν έχουν αποδοθεί πάνω από
350 000 συνταξιοδοτικά δικαιώματα) δεν γνωρίζουμε ακόμα. Στη διάρκεια της παρουσίας της τρόικας στην Ελλάδα είχαμε
μάλιστα στο θέμα των πρόωρων συνταξιοδοτήσεων πρόσθετη ενθάρρυνσή τους με την θέσπιση πλήθους νέων δυνατοτήτων
εξαγοράς πλασματικών ετών συνταξιοδότησης (περιλαμβάνονται πλέον ακόμα και οι ημέρες απεργίας).

Την ίδια ώρα, για να καλυφθεί το δημοσιονομικό κόστος και η απαιτούμενη πρόσθετη ρευστότητα του δημοσίου — λόγω
των πρόωρων αυτών συνταξιοδοτήσεων — συνεχίζεται η υπερφορολόγηση και η μείωση της ρευστότητας προς τον ιδιωτικό
τομέα. Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Γνωρίζει — στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος εξυγίανσης των ελληνικών δημοσίων οικονομικών — πόσες πρόωρες
συνταξιοδοτήσεις έχουν δοθεί από το 2010 μέχρι το 2012 στην Ελλάδα;

—
Γνωρίζει ποια είναι η επίπτωσή τους στο έλλειμμα της Γενικής Κυβέρνησης;

—
Θεωρεί ότι συμβάλουν στην προσπάθεια ανάκαμψης της ελληνικής οικονομίας;

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

_(4 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Από το 2010 έως το 2012, το Ελληνικό Κοινοβούλιο ψήφισε σημαντικά μέτρα για τη μεταρρύθμιση του συνταξιοδοτικού
συστήματος της χώρας προκειμένου να καταστεί βιώσιμο. Με τις μεταρρυθμίσεις αυτές απλοποιήθηκε το υπερβολικά
κατακερματισμένο συνταξιοδοτικό σύστημα, ενισχύθηκε η διαφάνεια με τη δημιουργία ισχυρότερης αλληλεξάρτησης μεταξύ
των εισφορών που καταβάλλονται και των συντάξεων που λαμβάνονται από τους συνταξιούχους και μετατέθηκε η ηλικία
συνταξιοδότησης. Πρωταρχικός στόχος της μεταρρύθμισης είναι να εξασφαλίσει τη βιωσιμότητα του συνταξιοδοτικού
συστήματος του δημόσιου τομέα. Μέτρα που αφορούν ειδικά την πρόωρη συνταξιοδότηση είναι: i) η αύξηση του νόμιμου
ορίου συνταξιοδότησης στα 67 έτη και η επακόλουθη σύνδεσή του με την αύξηση του προσδόκιμου ζωής, ii) η αύξηση της
ελάχιστης ηλικίας πρόωρης συνταξιοδότησης στα 60 έτη και η επακόλουθη σύνδεσή της με την αύξηση του προσδόκιμου
ζωής, iii) η θέσπιση ελάχιστων περιόδων συσσώρευσης δικαιωμάτων για τη θεμελίωση ανταποδοτικών συντάξεων, iv) η
αύξηση των ποινών για πρόωρη συνταξιοδότηση και v) η σημαντική αναθεώρηση του καταλόγου επικίνδυνων και
ανθυγιεινών επαγγελμάτων που παρέχουν δικαίωμα σε μικρότερη ηλικία συνταξιοδότησης.

Τα μέτρα αυτά περιορίζουν σημαντικά την πρόωρη συνταξιοδότηση, με θετικό αντίκτυπο για τα δημόσια οικονομικά.
Λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες σχετικά με τις πρόωρες συνταξιοδοτήσεις κατά την υπό εξέταση περίοδο θα πρέπει να ζητηθούν
από τις ελληνικές αρχές. Η Επιτροπή συνιστά στα κράτη μέλη να περιορίζουν την πρόσβαση σε συστήματα πρόωρης
συνταξιοδότησης και σε άλλες δυνατότητες πρόωρης αποχώρησης και να ενθαρρύνουν την παράταση του επαγγελματικού
βίου, σύμφωνα με τις προτεραιότητες που καθορίστηκαν από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή στις ετήσιες επισκοπήσεις της
ανάπτυξης των ετών 2011, 2012 και 2013, καθώς και στη Λευκή Βίβλο της για επαρκείς, ασφαλείς και βιώσιμες συντάξεις.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 131

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008078/13**

**to the Commission**
**Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Early retirement and its impact on the general government deficit

The Commission, as a member of the Troika, is interfering, via the Memorandum, in hundreds of issues in connection
with public finances in Greece, doubtless in cooperation with successive Greek governments.

Within this framework, the insurance system has been a core element of its interference since the very first
Memorandum. Nonetheless, it has basically accepted the problem of mass early retirement (even of people aged
between 52 and 55 in the best of health) which has persisted over the last three years. While the Troika was in Greece,
it further encouraged early retirement by introducing a series of new ways of buying out notional pensionable years
(which now even include days on strike).

At the same time, in order to cover the fiscal cost and the additional public-sector liquidity needed to pay for those
early retirements, over-taxation and the reduction in liquidity to the private sector continue. In view of the above, will
the Commission say:

—
Does it know, as part of the programme to resolve Greek public finances, how many people took early
retirement in Greece between 2010 and 2012?

—
Does it know what impact that has had on the general government deficit?

—
Does it consider that early retirement is a help in efforts to get the Greek economy on the road to recovery?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

Significant pension reform measures have been adopted by the Greek parliament between 2010 and 2012 in order to
make the Greek pension system sustainable. These reforms simplified the highly fragmented pension system,
enhanced transparency by creating a tighter link between contributions paid and pension benefits received, and
postponed the retirement age. The overarching objective of the reform is to ensure the sustainability of the public
pension system. Measures that specifically address early retirement are i) the increase of the statutory retirement age
to 67 and the subsequent link to gains in life expectancy, ii) the increase of the minimum early retirement age to 60
and the subsequent link to gains in life expectancy, iii) the introduction of minimum accrual periods for contributory
pensions, iv) the increase of penalties on early retirement and v) a substantial revision of the list of hazardous and
arduous professions entitled to a lower retirement age.

These measures restricted early retirement markedly, with a positive impact on public finances. Detailed information
on the early retirements which took place in the years under consideration should be requested to the Greek
authorities. The Commission encourages Member States to restrict access to early retirement schemes and other early
exit pathways as well as to support longer working lives, in line with the priorities in European Commission's Annual
Growth Surveys 2011, 2012 and 2013 as well as in its White Paper on adequate, safe and sustainable pensions.

C 65 E / 132 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008080/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(5 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Iniziativa dei sindaci veronesi a causa del livello della pressione fiscale in Italia

Considerando gli articoli 113 e 114 TFUE, rispettivamente sulle imposte indirette e dirette, ed in particolar modo il
primo nella parte in cui richiama la necessità di un'armonizzazione tra Stati membri per evitare distorsioni di
concorrenza ed il secondo laddove mira a realizzare un più stretto «ravvicinamento delle disposizioni legislative,
regolamentari ed amministrative degli Stati membri che hanno per oggetto l'instaurazione ed il funzionamento del
mercato interno»;

ponendo come obiettivo la crescita economica mediante una convergenza e una competitività rafforzate, come
stabilito dall'articolo 9 del trattato sulla stabilità, sul coordinamento e sulla governance nell'unione economica e
monetaria;

evidenziando inoltre che la materia della fiscalità diretta, pur non essendo di competenza dell'Unione europea, in
questo caso coinvolge anche la fiscalità indiretta, poiché le ripercussioni di un'imposizione fiscale che in Italia ha
ormai raggiunto quota 44,4 % si hanno non solo sulle finanze degli enti locali, ma anche sui privati, che incontrano
sempre più difficoltà nel mantenere in vita le proprie imprese e nel contribuire alla libera circolazione delle merci e
alla libera prestazione dei servizi nel mercato unico;

osservando come gli enti locali siano pregiudicati, a causa della mancanza di risorse finanziarie, anche nella loro
partecipazione ai progetti di cofinanziamento europeo;

ricordando che per avere maggiori risorse per la crescita, un gruppo di sindaci della provincia di Verona, in Veneto, ha
recentemente avviato una raccolta di firme per chiedere al Presidente della Repubblica italiana una riduzione della
pressione fiscale, considerando l'aumento dell'imposizione tramite l'imposta municipale unica (Imu) ed il tributo
comunale sui rifiuti e sui servizi (Tares). Vista l'impossibilità di usufruire della liquidità presente nelle casse comunali,
visti i vincoli imposti dall'originario trattato di Amsterdam, e successive modifiche, in tema di stabilità e crescita;

si chiede alla Commissione:

—
se sia a conoscenza del livello raggiunto dalla pressione fiscale in Italia;

—
quali misure intenda intraprendere, dato lo stato di emergenza, per consentire la sopravvivenza degli enti locali,
delle imprese e dei privati.

**Risposta di Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione**

_(3 settembre 2013)_

1) La Commissione fa riferimento all’edizione 2013 della relazione «Taxation Trends in the European Union»,
secondo cui nel 2011 (ultimo anno per cui si dispone di dati) l’onere fiscale complessivo in Italia (compresi i
contributi previdenziali e assistenziali), pari al 42,5 % del PIL, era il sesto più alto nell’UE27. La Commissione aggiorna
annualmente la relazione.

2) Il controllo della spesa nazionale e delle decisioni in materia di entrate è di competenza delle autorità nazionali.
Nel settore della politica fiscale la Commissione vigila sul rispetto degli obiettivi di bilancio fissati nel trattato e nella
legislazione secondaria, in particolare nel patto di stabilità e crescita.

La Commissione controlla inoltre attentamente il rispetto delle raccomandazioni formulate nei confronti dell’Italia
dal Consiglio del 21 giugno 2013, nel contesto del semestre europeo. Le raccomandazioni vertono, fra l’altro, sia sulla
politica fiscale che sulle imprese.

La raccomandazione sulla politica fiscale era basata sulla conclusione che anche se, nell’attuale situazione di bilancio,
la riduzione del carico fiscale globale non è ipotizzabile a breve-medio termine, l’Italia ha modo di migliorare
l’efficienza del sistema tributario, ridurre le distorsioni e continuare la lotta all’evasione fiscale.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 133

Per quanto riguarda le imprese e la competitività si raccomanda all’Italia, fra l’altro, di semplificare la
regolamentazione per i cittadini e le imprese, potenziare l’accesso ai mercati dei capitali per le imprese, rafforzare la
formazione professionale, contrastare in modo decisivo il lavoro non dichiarato e l’economia sommersa, abolire le
restrizioni nei servizi professionali e promuovere l’accesso ai mercati, ad esempio nella prestazione dei servizi
pubblici locali.

C 65 E / 134 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008080/13**

**to the Commission**

**Lorenzo Fontana (EFD)**

_(5 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Initiative by mayors from the Verona area due to the heavy tax burden in Italy

Considering Articles 113 and 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, respectively covering
indirect and direct taxation, in particular the former where it underlines the need for harmonisation between Member
States in order to avoid distortion of competition, and the latter where it aims to achieve closer ‘approximation of the
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the
establishment and functioning of the internal market’;

aiming to achieve economic growth through enhanced convergence and competitiveness, as set out in Article 9 of the
Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union;

furthermore, highlighting that the area of direct taxation, although not the responsibility of the European Union, in
this case also involves indirect taxation, since the repercussions of taxation in Italy, which has now reached 44.4%,
affect not only the finances of local authorities, but also those of individuals who are finding it increasingly difficult to
keep their businesses afloat and to contribute to the free movement of goods and freedom to provide services in the
single market;

observing how this lack of financial resources hinders local authorities from even taking part in European cofinancing projects;

given that in order to set aside more resources for growth, a group of mayors in the province of Verona, in the Veneto
region, recently launched a petition calling on the President of the Italian Republic to reduce the tax burden,
considering the increase in recurrent taxation on immovable property (IMU) and the municipal tax on waste
collection and services (Tares);

given that the cash in the municipal coffers cannot be used, in view of the constraints imposed by the original Treaty
of Amsterdam, and subsequent amendments, regarding stability and growth;

can the Commission state:

—
whether it is aware of the extent of the tax burden in Italy;

—
what action it will take, given the state of emergency, to enable local authorities, businesses and individuals to
survive?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

1. The Commission refers to the ‘Taxation Trends in the European Union’ report 2013 edition, which estimates
the total tax burden in Italy (including social security contributions) at 42.5% of GDP in 2011 (latest available year),
the 6th highest in the EU-27. The Commission updates the report annually.

2. Control over national expenditure and revenue decisions is the competence of national authorities. In the area
of fiscal policy, the Commission monitors compliance with the budgetary targets set out in the Treaty and secondary
legislation, in particular the Stability and Growth Pact.

The Commission also closely monitors compliance with the recommendations to Italy issued by the Council on
21 June 2013, in the context of the European semester. Recommendations cover both taxation and the business
environment, among other issues.

The recommendation on taxation was based on the assessment that while in the short to medium term reducing the
overall tax burden is not an option in the current budgetary conditions, Italy has scope for improving the efficiency of
the tax system, reducing distortions and pursuing the fight against tax evasion.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 135

Regarding the business environment and competitiveness, Italy is recommended to — among others — simplify the
regulatory environment for citizens and businesses, develop access to capital markets for companies, strengthen
vocational training, take decisive steps against undeclared work and the shadow economy, remove restrictions in
professional services and foster market access, for instance in the provision of local public services.

C 65 E / 136 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-008081/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Esther Herranz García (PPE)**

_(8 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Nuevo sistema de peajes en Guipúzcoa

La Diputación de Guipúzcoa ha expresado su intención de implantar un nuevo sistema de peajes en algunas vías de
esa provincia (País Vasco) que consistiría en lo siguiente:

—
un peaje para todos los camiones, con un descuento solo para los pertenecientes a establecimientos de la
provincia de Guipúzcoa;

—
un peaje de 25 euros al mes como máximo para los coches de residentes en la provincia de Guipúzcoa, que
sería íntegramente subvencionado;

—
un peaje de 25 euros al mes como máximo para los coches de los residentes en las provincias de Álava, Vizcaya
y Navarra; y

—
un peaje variable para los coches de residentes en el resto de España y la Unión Europea.

¿Ha recibido información la Comisión sobre este sistema?

Un sistema como el descrito ¿es acorde con los principios de no discriminación por lugar de nacionalidad o residencia
y proporcionalidad?

¿Cumple el sistema descrito, en relación con los camiones, con la Directiva sobre la euroviñeta?

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

_(5 de agosto de 2013)_

La Comisión ha recibido información preliminaria acerca del proyecto de sistema de peajes en la provincia de
Gipuzkoa. Sin embargo, la notificación oficial del sistema, exigido por la Directiva 1999/62/CE ( [1] ), no ha sido aún
recibido.

En ausencia de esta notificación oficial de la provincia de Gipuzkoa no es posible apreciar si el sistema de peajes sería
discriminatorio para el tráfico pesado con arreglo a lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 _decies_ de la citada Directiva. Por lo que
se refiere a los turismos, la Comisión recomienda que se apliquen principios similares a los del tráfico pesado con el
fin de evitar toda discriminación, como precisó en su Comunicación de 2012 relativa a la imposición de tasas
nacionales a los vehículos particulares ligeros por el uso de la infraestructura vial ( [2] ).

La Comisión está en contacto con las autoridades competentes y, una vez examine la notificación oficial de la
provincia de Gipuzkoa —si la recibe y cuando la reciba—, emitirá el correspondiente dictamen con arreglo a la
Directiva 1999/62/CE.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DOJ L 187 de 20.7.1999.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012)199 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 137

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008081/13**

**to the Commission**
**Esther Herranz García (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ New system of tolls in Gipuzkoa

Gipuzkoa Provincial Council has announced its intention to introduce a new system of tolls on some of the roads in
this province of the Basque Country. The system would be set up as follows:

—
a toll for all lorries, with reductions only for those belonging to businesses based in Gipuzkoa Province;

—
a toll of max. EUR 25/month for cars belonging to residents of Gipuzkoa Province, with full subsidy;

—
a toll of max. EUR 25/month for cars belonging to residents of the provinces of Araba, Biscay and Navarre; and

—
a variable toll for cars belonging to residents of other Spanish provinces and European Union residents.

Has the Commission received any information regarding this system?

Would a system such as the one described above be compatible with the principles of non‐discrimination on the
grounds of nationality or place of residence and proportionality?

With regard to its treatment of lorries, does the system described above comply with the Eurovignette Directive?

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

_(5 August 2013)_

The Commission has received preliminary information about the planned road tolling arrangement in the Province of
Gipuzkoa. However, the formal notification of the tolling arrangement, which is required according to
Directive 1999/62/EC ( [1] ), has not yet been received by the Commission.

In the absence of such formal notification from the Province of Gipuzkoa, it is not yet possible to provide an
assessment of whether the tolling arrangement would be discriminatory for heavy goods vehicles according to Art 7i
of the above Directive. Regarding passenger cars, the Commission recommends that similar principles are applied as
for heavy goods vehicles with a view to avoiding discrimination, as stated in its 2012 Communication on the
application of national road infrastructure charges levied on light private vehicles ( [2] ).

The Commission is in contact with the competent authorities and will issue an opinion following the assessment of
the formal notification of Province of Gipuzkoa, as and when received, in accordance with Directive 1999/62/EC.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 187, 20.7.1999.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 199 final.

C 65 E / 138 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-008082/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(8 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Aplicarea cooperării consolidate în domeniul taxei pe tranzacții financiare

Aplicarea taxei pe tranzacții financiare în 11 dintre statele membre poate conduce la armonizarea dispozițiilor
privind impozitarea indirectă a acestui tip de tranzacții, dar și la garantarea faptului că instituțiile financiare suportă și
ele anumite costuri generate de criza economică și financiară.

Totuși, aplicarea acestui instrument legislativ în 11 dintre cele 28 de state membre, poate avea un impact și asupra
funcționării instituțiilor financiare din celelalte state membre.

În propunerea votată și amendată de către Parlamentul European în data de 3 iulie 2013 există amendamente care se
referă la necesitatea ca, înainte de introducerea TTF, „Comisia să demonstreze că cooperarea consolidată nu va
submina piața internă sau coeziunea economică, socială și teritorială. De asemenea, Comisia ar trebui să demonstreze
că aceasta nu constituie un obstacol sau o sursă de discriminare în relațiile comerciale dintre statele membre și nu
denaturează concurența dintre acestea. Comisia ar trebui să prezinte o nouă analiză solidă și o nouă evaluare de
impact referitoare la consecințele propunerii privind o TTF comună, atât asupra statelor membre participante, cât și a
celor neparticipante, precum și asupra pieței unice în ansamblu.”

Intenționează Comisia să vină cu o astfel de analiză?

Dacă da, poate oferi Comisia un termen pentru realizarea unei astfel de analize aprofundate?

În cazul în care va rezulta că propunerea de aplicare a TTF în cele 11 state membre subminează piața internă și
coeziunea economică, socială și teritorială, ce intenții are Comisia?

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

_(30 iulie 2013)_

Atât Comisia, cât și Consiliul consideră că o cooperare consolidată în domeniul taxei pe tranzacțiile financiare
respectă cerințele menționate de distinsa membră a Parlamentului European, cerințe prevăzute la articolul 326 din
TFUE.

În ceea ce privește impactul propunerii sale de directivă a Consiliului de punere în aplicare a unei cooperări
consolidate în domeniul taxei pe tranzacțiile financiare [COM (2013) 71 final], Comisia a realizat evaluările necesare

[SWD(2013) 28 final].

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 139

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008082/13**

**to the Commission**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Implementing enhanced cooperation in the field of the financial transaction tax

The application of the financial transaction tax in 11 of the Member States could lead to a harmonisation of the
provisions concerning the indirect taxation of such transactions, but would also ensure that financial institutions
would themselves also bear certain costs arising from the economic and financial crisis.

However, the implementation of this legislative act in 11 of the 28 Member States could also have an impact on the
functioning of the financial institutions in the other Member States.

In the proposal which Parliament voted upon and amended on 3 July 2013, there are amendments which state that
‘Prior to the introduction of FTT the Commission should demonstrate that enhanced cooperation will not undermine
the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion. It should also demonstrate that it neither constitutes
a barrier to, or discrimination in relation to, trade between Member States, nor distorts competition between them.
The Commission should present a new robust analysis and impact assessment, of the consequences the proposal for a
common FTT on participating and non-participating Member States and on the internal market as a whole.’

Does the Commission plan to come forward with such an analysis?

If so, can the Commission indicate when it will have completed that further analysis?

In the event that the proposal for the application of an FTT in 11 Member States does undermine the internal market
and economic, social and territorial cohesion, what will the Commission do?

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

_(30 July 2013)_

Both the Commission and the Council have assessed that enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction
tax complies with the requirements referred to by the Honourable Member and laid down in Article 326 TFEU.

Regarding the impact of its Proposal for a Council Directive implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of
financial transaction tax (COM(2013) 71 final) the Commission has made the necessary assessments (SWD(2013) 28
final).

C 65 E / 140 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-008084/13**

**до Комисията**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(8 юли 2013 г.)_

_Относно:_ Намаляване на средствата за развитие на селските райони за периода 2014—2020 г.

След заседанието на министрите на земеделието в Люксембург на 24 и 25 юни стана ясно, че се предвиждат намаления
на средствата за развитие на селските райони за периода 2014—2020 г. Предвид тези намаления разпределеният
пакет за България в цени към 2011 г. е на обща стойност 2 078,6 млн. евро. В сравнение със сумата за настоящия
период 2007—2013 г. в размер на 2 609,09 млн. евро това представлява намаление с 20,33 %. В тази връзка
разполага ли Комисията с данни за това:

—
Как е изчислен размерът на намаление за отделните държави членки?

—
Какви са причините за намаляване на средствата за развитие на селските райони за България?

—
Въз основа на какви критерии е намалението на средствата за България?

—
Кога министърът на земеделието на България е бил информиран за намалението, засягащо страната?

**Отговор, даден от г-н Cioloş от името на Комисията**

_(13 август 2013 г.)_

На заседанието на Европейския съвет от 8 февруари 2013 г. държавните и правителствените ръководители постигнаха
съгласие за общ пакет в размер на 84 936 млн. евро (по цени от 2011 г.) за развитие на селските райони за периода
2014—2020 г., включително допълнителните средства, договорени за някои държави членки. Това съответства на
намаление от 7,6 % в сравнение с предложението на Комисията.

По време на същото заседание на Съвета държавните и правителствените ръководители бяха информирани относно
пакета за тяхната държава членка. Освен това на 28 май 2013 г. Комисията изпрати на генералния секретар на
Европейския парламент и на Съвета таблица, в която се посочва как ще бъде разпределена сумата, одобрена от
Европейския съвет. В таблицата са отразени сумите, които са разгледани и одобрени от държавните и правителствените
ръководители по време на Европейския съвет. В тях се вземат предвид общият пакет за развитие на селските райони,
договорените допълнителни средства, обективните критерии, свързани с политиката за развитие на селските райони и

с резултатите от минали периоди, както и сумата за техническа помощ, която не е разпределена между държавите

членки.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 141

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008084/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mariya Gabriel (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cuts in rural development funding for 2014-2020

It became clear, after the EU Agriculture Ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg on 24 and 25 June 2013, that rural
development funding for the period 2014-2020 is to be reduced. Bulgaria’s share of the available funding, at 2011
prices, will now total EUR 2 078.6 million. By comparison with the EUR 2 609.09 million allocation for the current
2007-2013 funding period, this represents a 20.33% cut. Can the Commission, therefore, indicate:

—
how the extent of the reduction for individual Member States has been calculated;

—
the reasons for cutting rural development funding to Bulgaria;

—
the criteria on which the cut in funding to Bulgaria is based;

—
when Bulgaria’s Agriculture Minister was informed of the cut?

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

_(13 August 2013)_

At the European Council of 8 February 2013, the Heads of State and Government agreed on a total envelope of
EUR 84 936 million (in 2011 prices) for rural development for the period 2014-2020, including additional
allocations agreed for certain Member States. This corresponds to a decrease of 7.6% compared to the Commission
proposal.

During the same Council meeting, the Heads of State and Government were informed about the envelope for their
Member State. Furthermore, on 28 May 2013, the Commission sent to the Secretary General of the European
Parliament and of the Council a table showing how the amount agreed by the European Council would be distributed.
Those figures reflect the ones seen and agreed by the Heads of State and Government during the European Council.
The figures took into account the overall envelope for rural development, the additional allocations agreed, objective
criteria related to the rural development policy and past performance as well as an amount for technical assistance
that is not allocated among Member States.

C 65 E / 142 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008085/13**

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

_(8 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Carta a la consejería de Fomento y Vivienda de la Junta de Andalucía

En la carta remitida por la Dirección General de Economía y Finanzas de la Comisión Europea al Gobierno
Autonómico de Andalucía _,_ la Comisión excede el ámbito de las competencias de dicha Dirección General realizando
consideraciones sobre áreas donde prevalece el Derecho nacional por encima de las normas de gobernanza
económica y el Memorando de Entendimiento.

En la carta la Comisión pide explicaciones para que el Gobierno de España esclarezca la situación legal sobre el
Decreto-Ley de Andalucía sobre la Función Social de la Vivienda. Dice la Comisión Europea que dicho decreto pone
en riesgo los intereses de los inversores internacionales y el proceso de recapitalización del sistema bancario español.
Los propios servicios de la Comisión, que toman decisiones sobre España a través del Memorando de Entendimiento,
parecen carecer de recursos suficientes para comprender el marco legal de un Estado miembro. La normativa
española resulta meridianamente clara en sus competencias y en la soberanía que la Comunidad Autónoma de
Andalucía dispone para desarrollar un Decreto-Ley de estas características en el ámbito de la aplicación efectiva del
derecho a una vivienda, derecho recogido en la máxima norma del sistema jurídico de España, la Constitución.

El verdadero problema es cuando se pretende situar por encima de la soberanía que la citada Constitución otorga al
pueblo andaluz el Memorando de Entendimiento firmado por el Gobierno y la Unión Europea para el _«_ rescate _»_ del
sector bancario. Esto podría ser entendido como una injerencia en la voluntad popular de una de las regiones de
Europa y por eso debe ser aclarado.

¿Qué pretende decir la Comisión cuando exige la clarificación de «legal and governance situation in Spain» cuando
esta norma emanada de los correspondientes órganos autonómicos es absolutamente ajustada al derecho español y
comunitario?

¿Cuáles son las competencias exactas que la Comisión se atribuye para actuar en torno a una normativa regional
perfectamente ajustada a Derecho y que tiene que ver con ámbito de la vivienda?

¿Considera que la Implementación del Memorando de Entendimiento puede encontrarse por encima de una norma
soberana de un Estado miembro?

¿Considera que el derecho a vivienda recogido por la Constitución española, siendo la máxima norma de un Estado
miembro, no se encuentra por encima de lo acordado en el Memorando de Entendimiento?

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

_(7 de octubre de 2013)_

La Comisión es consciente de la precaria situación de algunas familias en situación especialmente vulnerable en
España que han sufrido ejecuciones hipotecarias o desahucios, o están amenazadas de sufrirlos. Se congratula de que
el Gobierno español y el Gobierno de Andalucía hayan aprobado recientemente medidas legales para proteger, al
menos parcialmente, a las familias más vulnerables ante una situación de penuria considerable e inmediata. Considera
que este tipo de iniciativas deben ser efectivas y conseguir un equilibrio viable entre la exigencia imperativa de
proteger a las familias más vulnerables y la exigencia, igualmente imperativa, de estabilizar el sector financiero
español.

La Comisión opina que ambas exigencias están intrínsecamente vinculadas: el restablecimiento de la estabilidad
financiera en España es una condición necesaria para que el país vuelva a una senda de crecimiento sostenible y para
conseguir unos efectos positivos y duraderos en las condiciones de vida de todos los ciudadanos españoles.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 143

Esta última exigencia es el principal objetivo de la ayuda al sector bancario español. El 23 de julio de 2012 la
Comisión, en nombre de la FEEF/Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad (MEDE), España y el Banco de España firmaron
un Memorando de Entendimiento en el que se exponen los elementos horizontales institucionales y específicos del
país de las condiciones vinculadas al suministro de la ayuda financiera. Dicho Memorando de Entendimiento es un
acuerdo celebrado entre España y el Mecanismo Europeo de Estabilidad cuyo respeto condiciona el desembolso de la
ayuda financiera por parte de este último. La Comisión supervisa su aplicación con arreglo a las condiciones del
Tratado Constitutivo del Mecanismo de Estabilidad y al Reglamento 472/2013.

C 65 E / 144 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008085/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Letter to the Government of Andalusia's Department of Public Works

The letter from the Commission’s Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs to the autonomous
Government of Andalusia goes beyond the scope of the Directorate-General’s powers into areas in which national law
prevails over economic governance rules and the memorandum of understanding.

The Commission asks the Spanish Government for clarifications on the legal status of Andalusia’s Decree-Law on the
social function of housing. The Commission claims that the decree undermines the interests of international investors
and the process of recapitalising the Spanish banking system. The Commission’s departments, who make decisions
about Spain via the memorandum of understanding, appear to be unable to understand the legal system of this
Member State. Spanish law makes it abundantly clear that Andalusia has sufficient powers and sovereignty to pass
decrees on the right to housing, a right enshrined in Spain’s most important legal text, its constitution.

The real issue here is a desire to set the memorandum of understanding signed by the Government and the EU to
‘rescue’ the banking sector above the sovereignty the constitution bestows on the people of Andalusia. This could be
seen to be an effort to interfere in the affairs of a region against the will its people, and should therefore be clarified.

— What does the Commission mean in asking for clarification on the ‘legal and governance situation in Spain’ given
that this decree was passed by the appropriate authorities in accordance with Spanish and EC law?

— Precisely what powers has the Commission been accorded in respect of action concerning a lawfully adopted piece
of regional legislation on housing?

— Does the Commission believe that the implementation of the memorandum of understanding can prevail over
sovereign legislation in a Member State?

— Does the Commission not think that the right to housing enshrined in the Spanish constitution, the most
important source of law in a Member State, outweighs the provisions of the memorandum of understanding?

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

_(7 October 2013)_

The Commission recognises the precarious situation of some most vulnerable households in Spain, subject to or
threatened by evictions or foreclosures. It welcomes that the Spanish Government and the government of Andalusia
have recently introduced legislation in order to shelter these most vulnerable households from some of their
immediate and massive hardship. It is of the view that such initiatives should be effective and strike a workable
balance between the imperative needs of protecting these most vulnerable households and the equally imperative
requirements of stabilising the financial sector in Spain.

These two requirements are in the view of the Commission intrinsically linked: restoring financial stability in Spain
constitutes a necessary requirement for Spain to move back on a sustainable growth path and to deliver lasting
positive effects on the living conditions on all Spanish citizens.

The latter requirement is the main objective of the banking-sector assistance in favour of Spain. On 23 July 2012, a
memorandum of understanding (MoU) was entered into between the Commission, acting on behalf of the
EFSF/European Stability Mechanism (ESM), Spain and the Bank of Spain setting out the institution and countryspecific horizontal elements of the conditions attached to the provision of the financial assistance. The mentioned
MoU is an agreement concluded between Spain and the ESM, whose respect conditions the disbursement of the
financial assistance by the latter. The Commission monitors its implementation under the terms of the ESM Treaty
and Regulation 472/2013.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 145

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008086/13**

**a la Comisión (Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ VP/HR — Asesinato de 17 civiles pakistaníes por un avión no tripulado estadounidense

Según una noticia aparecida en la prensa el 3 de julio, un avión no tripulado del ejército de los Estados Unidos de
América ha producido la muerte de 17 civiles inocentes en un bombardeo realizado en la ciudad de Miranshah, en la
región pakistaní de Waziristán del Norte.

Esta inestable región fronteriza del país es considerada un bastión para las milicias de los talibanes y por ello el ejército
de los EE.UU. se atribuye la capacidad de intervenir en la zona. El Primer Ministro del país, Nawaz Sharif ha pedido
con anterioridad el final de estos ataques realizados con «drones», pero el Ejército estadounidense ha hecho caso
omiso a la voluntad del legítimo representante de la voluntad política de Pakistán.

Los asesinatos con este tipo de equipamiento militar no tripulado plantean numerosas dudas legales sobre la
responsabilidad en la autoría de los crímenes de guerra, así como riesgos que implican para la población civil, y por
ello son parte de un importante debate internacional. Sin embargo, el ejército de EE.UU. los viene empleando
sistemáticamente en todos los conflictos militares que el país ha abierto a lo largo y ancho del mundo. En Pakistán,
argumentando que el ejército nacional no tiene capacidad para controlar varias zonas fronterizas, se emplean
habitualmente, por lo que ésta no es la primera vez que se produce el asesinato de inocentes en el país.

— ¿Piensa la Vicepresidenta/Alta Representante condenar y exigir responsabilidades al Gobierno de Estados Unidos
por el asesinato de los citados 17 civiles pakistaníes?

— ¿Considera una violación de la soberanía de Pakistán el empleo de «drones» pese a que el Gobierno paquistaní ha
exigido el fin de este equipamiento militar?

— ¿Condena al ejército de EE.UU. por el empleo de este tipo de equipamiento militar en Pakistán en contra de la
voluntad política del país, expresada por su Primer Ministro Nawaz Sharif?

**Respuesta de la Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta Ashton en nombre de la Comisión**

_(10 de septiembre de 2013)_

La AR/VP es consciente del trágico incidente en el que el ataque de un drone causó la muerte de 17 civiles, así como de
otros incidentes de ese tipo.

La UE ha manifestado en varias ocasiones su opinión de que la lucha contra el terrorismo debe llevarse a cabo dentro
del respeto del Estado de Derecho y en plena conformidad con las disposiciones aplicables del Derecho internacional,
incluido el Derecho internacional en materia de derechos humanos, el Derecho internacional relativo a los refugiados
y el Derecho humanitario internacional.

La UE y los Estados miembros mantienen un diálogo informal con los Estados Unidos sobre cuestiones de Derecho
internacional público, que tiene lugar dos veces al año. En el contexto de ese diálogo, expertos de la Unión Europea en
Derecho internacional han planteado repetidamente una serie de preguntas y preocupaciones a los representantes de
los Estados Unidos sobre la lucha contra el terrorismo y el Derecho internacional, incluida la utilización de drones.

C 65 E / 146 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008086/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Murder of 17 Pakistani civilians by a US drone

According to press reports, on 3 July seventeen innocent civilians were murdered in a US drone strike on the city of
Miranshah, in the Pakistani region of North Waziristan.

This unstable border region is considered a stronghold for the Taliban militia, and the US military has therefore
decided it can intervene there. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has called for an end to these drone attacks, but
the US army continues to ignore the wishes of this country’s legitimate political representative.

Killings perpetrated in drone strikes raise numerous questions concerning legal responsibility for war crimes and
endangering the civilian population, and are thus a crucial issue in international debate. However, the US military
continues to systematically use drones in all of the conflicts in which it is engaged around the world. It uses them as a
matter of course in Pakistan, claiming that several border areas are out of the Pakistani army’s control, and this is
therefore not the first time that the country has seen innocent people murdered in this way.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to condemn the murder of these 17 Pakistani civilians and
hold the US Government to account?

— Does she consider the use of drones expressly against Pakistani Government’s wishes to be in violation of it
sovereignty?

— Will she condemn the US military for using drones in Pakistan in direct violation of its political will, as expressed
by Prime Minister Sharif?

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

_(10 September 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the tragic incident in which 17 civilians were killed in a drone strike, as well as other such
incidents.

The EU has repeatedly stated its position that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with respect for the rule
of law and in full conformity with applicable international law including international human rights law,
international refugee law and international humanitarian law.

The EU and its Member States conduct an informal dialogue with the US on topical issues of public international law,
which takes place twice a year. In the context of this dialogue, international law experts from the European Union
have repeatedly raised a number of questions and concerns with the US representatives regarding counter-terrorism
and international law, including the use of drones.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 147

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008088/13**

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

_(8 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Venta de la finca La Almoraima en Cádiz

El ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio ambiente del Gobierno español ha declarado su interés en poner
de nuevo a la venta la finca pública La Almoraima, situada en la provincia de Cádiz. Dicha venta se realizará para
«ponerla en valor» a través de la construcción de un hotel de cinco estrellas, dos campos de golf y un aeródromo.

La finca La Almoraima ha sido calificada como «el mayor latifundio de España»: unas 14 109 hectáreas que contienen
el 90 % del Parque Natural de los Alcornocales, una de las reservas de la biosfera más importantes de Andalucía, con
un incalculable valor ecológico, económico y cultural. Este parque natural fue expropiado en 1983 a Rumasa, y ahora
es un verdadero motor económico de la zona que no necesita ser «puesto en valor»: la recolección de setas, el corcho,
el turismo, la organización de monterías, su importancia para el abastecimiento de agua en la provincia, su
biodiversidad, etc., dan una idea de la importancia y el valor de sus usos públicos, resaltando que la «puesta en valor»
planteada por el ministerio supondría un fuerte impacto y su degradación.

Existen propuestas para un incremento del uso de la finca sin poner en peligro los bienes públicos que produce.
Diferentes movimientos políticos y sociales han expresado su interés por la finca a través de su ocupación simbólica
para generar empleo a través de la agricultura, cediendo el usufructo de parte de la finca para el desarrollo de
agricultura ecológica por parte de desempleados. Dicha actividad permitiría generar empleo e impuestos sin un
impacto en el patrimonio natural de la finca que afectase a los bienes públicos que provee, manteniendo su titularidad
pública. En este sentido, la Junta de Andalucía aprobó el pasado 20 de marzo una resolución para exigir al Gobierno
central su gestión para evitar este tipo de proyectos.

¿Conoce la Comisión la intención del Gobierno de España de privatizar la citada finca? ¿Y los planes de construcción
de un aeródromo, hotel y campos de golf? ¿Ha solicitado información a las autoridades españolas sobre sus planes
con respecto a dicha finca? ¿Conoce la movilización por un uso alternativo, que pretende la cesión del usufructo de
parte de la finca para agricultura ecológica? ¿Considera que una finca que provee tal cantidad de bienes públicos a la
población local y visitante necesita «ponerse en valor» a través de los proyectos anteriormente citados? ¿Considera que
la privatización planteada podría ser contraria a las Directivas 92/43/CEE y 2009/147/CE, que protegen el parque de
los Alcornocales?

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

_(14 de octubre de 2013)_

La Comisión no dispone de información detallada acerca de los planes del Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y
Medio Ambiente español en relación con la finca La Almoraima y no ha solicitado información a las autoridades
españolas a este respecto.

El parque de los Alcornocales (ES0000049) ha sido designado espacio Natura 2000 de acuerdo con la Directiva sobre
hábitats ( [1] ) y la Directiva sobre aves ( [2] ). De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 6, apartado 3, de la Directiva
sobre hábitats, cualquier plan o proyecto que pueda tener un impacto significativo en un espacio de la Red Natura
2000 se someterá a una adecuada evaluación teniendo en cuenta los objetivos de conservación de dicho espacio. La
aplicación de la legislación de la UE compete principalmente a los Estados miembros. Las disposiciones de la Directiva
sobre hábitats y la Directiva sobre aves relativas a los espacios de la Red Natura 2000 son aplicables
independientemente de que estos espacios sean de propiedad pública o privada.

De la información proporcionada por Su Señoría, parece desprenderse que las autoridades españolas todavía no han
autorizado ningún proyecto para el desarrollo de la finca La Almoraima. Por consiguiente, no se ha podido constatar
infracción alguna de la legislación de la UE.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directiva 92/43/CEE del Consejo, de 21 de mayo de 1992, relativa a la conservación de los hábitats naturales y de la fauna y flora silvestres

(DO L 206 de 22.7.1992).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directiva 2009/147/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 30 de noviembre de 2009, relativa a la conservación de las aves silvestres

(DO L 20/7 de 26.1.2010), que codifica la Directiva 79/409/CEE del Consejo, de 2 de abril de 1979, relativa a la conservación de las aves
silvestres.

( **|**

C 65 E / 148 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008088/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sale of the Almoraima estate in Cádiz

The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment has said that it is interested in selling off once again
the Almoraima publicly‐owned estate in the province of Cádiz in order to develop it by building a five‐star hotel, two
golf courses and an airfield.

Almoraima has been described as the ‘finest estate in Spain’. It covers some 14 109 hectares and includes 90% of the
Los Alcornocales Natural Park, one of Andalusia’s largest biosphere reserves whose environmental, economic and
cultural value is incalculable. The park was expropriated from the Rumasa company in 1983 and is now a key source
of local income which is in no need of development. The fact that it is used for activities as diverse as mushroom
picking, cork growing, tourism, and hunting and the role it plays in safeguarding water resources and biodiversity,
among other things, give an idea of its importance and value. Developing it, as the ministry plans, would in fact do
untold damage.

There are proposals to increase the use made of the estate without jeopardising the benefits it provides for society.
Various political and social organisations have expressed interest in using part of the estate to set up a flagship project
to involve unemployed people in organic farming. This would generate jobs and tax revenue without damaging the
environment and thus undermining the benefits it offers to society while keeping it in public hands. On March 20 the
Andalusian regional government passed a resolution calling on the central government to retain control over the
estate in order to block any plans for its commercial exploitation.

Is the Commission aware of the Spanish Government's plans to privatise this estate? Is it aware of the plans to build
an airfield, hotel and golf courses? Has it requested information from the Spanish authorities on their plans? Is it
aware of the campaign to set aside part of the estate for organic farming? Does the Commission think that an estate
which offers such benefits to the local population and visitors needs to be developed by means of the aforementioned
building projects? Does it think that the plans to privatise the estate are inconsistent with Directives 92/43/EEC and
2009/147/EC, which provide for the protection of areas such as the Los Alcornocales park?

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

_(14 October 2013)_

The Commission does not possess detailed information about the plans of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food
and Environment in relation to the land estate of Almoraima, and it has not requested information from the Spanish
authorities on this matter.

The site ‘Los Alcornocales’ (ES0000049) has been designated as a Natura 2000 site in accordance with the Habitats ( [1] )
and the Birds ( [2] ) Directive. In accordance with Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive any plan or project likely to have a
significant impact on a Natura 2000 site must be subject to an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s
conservation objectives. The implementation of the EU legislation lies primarily within the Member States. The
Provisions of the Habitats and Birds Directive concerning the Natura 2000 sites are applicable regardless of whether
sites are publicly or privately owned.

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, it appears that the Spanish authorities have not
authorised any project for the development of the land state of Almoraima at this stage. Therefore, it has not been
possible to identify any breach of EU legislation.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the protection of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206 of 22.07.1992).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20/7,

26.1.2010) that codifies the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 149

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008089/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(8. juli 2013)_

_Om:_ Mærkning af tøj

En borger har rettet henvendelse til mig vedrørende mærkning af tøj. Borgeren ønsker en større åbenhed omkring
produktionsvilkårene for tøj, der sælges i EU. En mærkning vil give forbrugerne en garanti for, at tøjet er fremstillet
efter så gode vilkår som muligt. En mærkning skal både dække over de miljømæssige forhold, f.eks farvning af tøjet,
men også arbejdsvilkårene, så bl.a. en lignende ulykke som den seneste i Bangladesh og børnearbejde undgås.

Mit spørgsmål er derfor følgende:

—
Er der en mærkningsordning på vej for tøj, så de europæiske forbrugere kan blive bedre oplyst om
produktionsforholdene for tøj?

—
Hvad er de nuværende regler for mærkning af tøj med produktionsforhold?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Antonio Tajani**

_(11. september 2013)_

Kommissionen har ingen planer om en forordning om mærkning med oplysninger om produktionsforholdene i
beklædnings‐ og tekstilindustrien. Forordning (EU) nr. 1007/2011 udgør den sektorspecifikke EU-lovgivning om
tekstilvarer og beklædningsgenstande; den omfatter krav om angivelse af fibersammensætningen.

Kommissionen minder om, at den støtter forbedring af arbejdsvilkårene overalt i verden, navnlig gennem tæt
samarbejde med Den Internationale Arbejdsorganisation (ILO) og fremme af ratificeringen og den effektive
gennemførelse af ILO's konventioner, især de grundlæggende arbejdstagerrettigheder, gennem en bred vifte af
politikker.

Kommissionen fremmer også aktivt virksomhedernes sociale ansvar (VSA) ( [1] ) og anbefaler, at virksomhederne
overholder internationalt anerkendte principper og retningslinjer for virksomhedernes sociale ansvar, herunder
OECD’s retningslinjer om multinationale virksomheder, ILO’s trepartserklæring om multinationale virksomheder og
FN’s vejledende principper om erhvervslivet og menneskerettigheder. Disse dokumenter vedrører også sundhed,
sikkerhed og arbejdsvilkår i virksomhedernes forsyningskæde.

Hvad angår Bangladesh, lancerede Kommissionen, regeringen for Bangladesh og ILO den 8. juli 2013 sammen med
repræsentanter for industrien, fagforeninger og andre centrale berørte parter et initiativ, som kaldes »Staying engaged:
A Sustainability Compact for continuous improvements in labour rights and factory safety in the Ready-Made
Garment and Knitwear Industry in Bangladesh« ( [2] ) (fortsat engagement: en aftale vedrørende bæredygtighed, som skal
give løbende forbedringer inden for arbejdstagerrettigheder og fabrikssikkerhed i industrien for konfektionstøj og
strikvarer i Bangladesh), med en beskrivelse af deres forpligtelser inden for arbejdstagerrettigheder, arbejdsforhold og
ansvarlig virksomhedsførelse.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2011)0681 endelig.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151601.pdf .

C 65 E / 150 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008089/13**

**to the Commission**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Labelling of clothes

I have a query about clothes labelling from a member of the public, who desires greater transparency concerning the
conditions under which clothes sold in the EU are produced. Labelling would give consumers a guarantee that the
clothes were produced under the best possible conditions. Labelling should cover not just environmental conditions,
e.g. the dyes used, but also working conditions, so as to prevent, for example, accidents such as the recent one in
Bangladesh, and the use of child labour.

I therefore have the following questions:

—
Are there any plans for a labelling regulation for clothes, to enable European consumers to be better informed
about the conditions under which clothes are produced?

—
What are the current rules governing the labelling of clothes to indicate conditions of production?

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

_(11 September 2013)_

The Commission has no plans for a labelling regulation to indicate conditions of production in the cloth and textile
industry. Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 is the sector-specific EU legislation applicable to textile and clothing
products; it requires the indication of fibre composition.

The Commission recalls that it supports the improvement of working conditions worldwide, notably through close
cooperation with the International Labour Organisations (ILO) and the promotion of the ratification and effective
implementation of the Conventions of the ILO, in particular the core labour standards, through a wide range of
policies.

The Commission also actively promotes Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ( [1] ), and recommends that companies
adhere to internationally recognised CSR principles and guidelines, including the OECD Guidelines on Multinational
Enterprises, the ILO Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises, and the UN Guiding Principles on business
and human rights. Such instruments also adress health, safety and labour conditions along companies' supply chain.

As regards Bangladesh, the Commission, the Government of Bangladesh and the ILO, accompanied by
representatives of industry, trade unions and other key stakeholders, launched on 8 July 2013 ‘Staying engaged: A
Sustainability Compact for continuous improvements in labour rights and factory safety in the Ready-Made Garment
and Knitwear Industry in Bangladesh’ ( [2] ), outlining their commitments on labour rights, working conditions and
responsible business conduct.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)681 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151601.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 151

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008090/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(8. juli 2013)_

_Om:_ Testpaneler i forslaget til nyt tobaksdirektiv, KOM(2012)0788

Vil Kommissionen på baggrund af det fremsatte forslag til ny regulering af tobaksprodukter, KOM(2012)0788,
oplyse, hvad der er den praktiske plan med de på side 5 nævnte testpaneler?

Betragter Kommissionen det som et tilstrækkeligt videnskabeligt grundlag at lade et testpanel — med forskellige,
subjektive vurderinger af smagsoplevelser — afgøre, hvorvidt enkelte produkter skal være lovlige eller ulovlige?

Mener Kommissionen, at et testpanel på betryggende vis vil kunne teste de tusinder af forskellige tobaksprodukter,
der forhandles i EU?

Hvordan forestiller Kommissionen sig endelig, at dette/disse testpanel(er) skal fungere og sammensættes?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Tonio Borg**

_(3. september 2013)_

Ifølge Kommissionens forslag KOM(2012)0788 skal Kommissionen vedtage fælles regler for de procedurer, der skal
anvendes for at fastslå, om en tobaksvare afgiver en kendetegnende aroma. Uafhængige paneler vil bistå i
beslutningsprocessen, og det vil blive fastsat i en gennemførelsesretsakt, hvordan sådanne rådgivende paneler helt
præcist skal fungere.

[Sensorisk analyse, der inddrager paneler af forsøgspersoner, er en veletableret videnskabelig metode, der anvender](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
[principper om udformning af forsøg og statistisk analyse på udnyttelse af menneskets sanser med henblik på at](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense)
evaluere forbrugerprodukter. Der er udviklet en række internationale ISO-standarder på området ( [1] ). Sensorisk
analyse er allerede blevet anvendt i EU-lovgivningen ( [2] ) ( [3] ). Endvidere findes der omfattende dokumentation
vedrørende sensoriske undersøgelser, der er udført af tobaksindustrien for at afprøve, om og hvordan aromaer gør et
produkt mere eller mindre attraktivt. Derfor mener Kommissionen, at den foreslåede metode er tilstrækkelig og
pålidelig til det tiltænkte formål.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://sst-web.tees.ac.uk/external/U0000504/Notes/Sensory/ISOStandards.pdf .
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 273/2008 af 5. marts 2008 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1255/1999 for så

vidt angår metoder til analyse og kvalitetsvurdering af mælk og mejeriprodukter. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=CONSLEG:1991R2568:20080101:DA:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2568/91 af 11. juli 1991 om kendetegnene for olivenolie og olie af olivenpresserester og de i den

forbindelse anvendte metoder. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:088:0001:0115:DA:PDF.

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 152 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008090/13**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Test panels in the proposal for a new Tobacco Directive

In the light of its proposal for new rules on tobacco products (COM(2012)0788), can the Commission state what
practical plans are implied by the test panels referred to on page 5?

Does the Commission regard it as an adequate scientific basis to allow a test panel — with differing subjective
assessments of taste sensations — decide whether individual products are to be legal or illegal?

Does the Commission consider that a test panel will be able to reliably test the thousands of different tobacco
products that are marketed in the EU?

Finally, how does the Commission envisage that this test panel /these test panels will operate and be composed?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The Commission proposal COM(2012)788 requires the Commission to adopt uniform rules on the procedures for
determining whether a tobacco product imparts a characterising flavour. Independent panels would be used to assist
in such decision making and the precise functioning of such advisory panels would be determined by implementing

act.

[Sensory analysis, involving panels of test subjects, is an established scientific method that applies principles of](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)
[experimental design and statistical analysis to the use of human senses for the purposes of evaluating consumer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense)
products. A number of international ISO standards have been developed in this field ( [1] ). Sensory analysis has been
already been used in EU legislation ( [2] ) ( [3] ). Moreover, there is a wealth of documentation on sensory studies conducted
by the tobacco industry to test the influence of flavours on the attractiveness of a product. In this respect, the
Commission believes that the proposed method is adequate and reliable for the purpose in question.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://sst-web.tees.ac.uk/external/U0000504/Notes/Sensory/ISOStandards.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 273/2008 of 5 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)

No 1255/1999 as regards methods for the analysis and quality evaluation of milk and milk products.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1991R2568:20080101:EN:PDF.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 of 11 July 1991 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of

analysis: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:088:0001:0115:EN:PDF

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 153

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008091/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(8. juli 2013)_

_Om:_ Støtte til Ma'an News Agency

Den palæstinensiske medieorganisation Ma'an News Agency, der betegner sig selv som »uafhængig«, publicerer på sin
egen eller tilknyttede hjemmeside(r) stærkt anti-israelsk og antisemitisk materiale ( [1] ).

I et svar til Folketinget har den danske udenrigsminister oplyst, at Danmark ikke har støttet Ma'an økonomisk siden
2009, ligesom den danske regering i svaret tilføjer, at den »… tager skarpt afstand fra ytringer og budskaber, der
opfordrer til vold og terrorhandlinger. Endvidere tager regeringen afstand fra opildnende udtalelser, der kun
medvirker til at skabe yderligere afstand mellem parterne og derved medvirker til en undergravning af en
fredsløsning« ( [2] ). Det fremgår af Ma'ans hjemmeside ( [3] ), at organisationen samarbejder med og er støttet af bl.a.
Europa-Kommissionen.

Kan Kommissionen bekræfte, at den støtter Ma'an News Agency økonomisk eller i øvrigt samarbejder med
organisationen?

Vil Kommissionen i bekræftende fald oplyse, hvilke beløb der er tale om, både pr. år siden støtten er påbegyndt og det
samlede beløb til dags dato?

Finder Kommissionen i lighed med den danske regering og spørgeren, at samarbejdet med Ma'an er stærkt
problematisk, og agter Kommissionen i givet fald at underkaste organisationen og dens publikationer et nærmere
eftersyn og som konsekvens heraf evt. indstille den økonomiske støtte til og samarbejdet med den?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Štefan Füle**

_(4. september 2013)_

EU har aldrig direkte finansieret Ma’an News Agency, som blot er et af de mediebureauer, der indgår i Ma'an Network,
og EU har ingen indflydelse på dens redaktionelle linje.

Ma'an Network, der er en ikke-statslig medieorganisation, har modtaget EU-støtte til to separate projekter til et samlet
beløb af 888 290 EUR.

Det første projekt, der blev finansieret, var en tjenesteydelseskontrakt til en værdi af 600 000 EUR med titlen
»Maksimering af EU’s tilstedeværelse i den europæiske naboskabspolitik og de begunstigede lande«, som blev afsluttet
i 2010. Inden for rammerne af denne kontrakt afsluttede netværket seks medieprojekter til fremme af EU’s aktiviteter
i Palæstina. For det andet bevilgede Kommissionen i 2011 en støtte på 288 290 EUR til Ma’an Network inden for
rammerne af Det europæiske instrument for demokrati og menneskerettigheder til et projekt med titlen »Mobilisering
af medierne for at fremme menneskerettigheder, demokratiske reformer og intern forsoning for borgerne og
civilsamfundet i Palæstina«.

Begge kontrakter blev gennemført på en tilfredsstillende måde, og Kommissionen ser ingen grund til at underkaste
organisationen øget kontrol. Under alle omstændigheder finansierer EU ikke ikke-statslige organisationer (ngo’er),
men yder støtte til specifikke projekter og veldefinerede foranstaltninger; Ma’an Network kan fortsat søge om støtte til
sådanne foranstaltninger, men er også ansvarlig herfor.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8493.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ft.dk/samling/20121/spoergsmaal/S1067/svar/1028088/1215552/index.htm?/samling/20121/
spoergsmaal/S1067/svar/1028088/1215552/index.htm

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.maannet.org/modules/publisher/item.php?itemid=7.

( **|**

C 65 E / 154 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008091/13**

**to the Commission**
**Morten Messerschmidt (EFD)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Support for the Ma'an News Agency

The Palestinian media organisation Ma’an News Agency, which describes itself as ‘independent’, publishes strongly
anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic material on its own and associated websites ( [1] ).

In a reply to a question in the Danish Parliament (Folketing) the Danish Foreign Minister said that Denmark had not
supported Ma’an financially since 2009, and in its answer the Danish Government added that it ‘…distances itself
firmly from statements and messages calling for violence and terrorist action. The Government also distances itself
from inflammatory opinions which only help deepen the division between the parties and thus contribute to
undermining a peaceful solution’ ( [2] ). It appears from the Ma’an website ( [3] ) that the organisation works with and
receives support from the European Commission, among others.

Can the Commission confirm that it supports the Ma’an News Agency financially or otherwise cooperates with this
organisation?

If so, will the Commission state what amounts are involved, both per year since the aid began, and as a total to date?

Does the Commission agree with the Danish government and myself that cooperation with Ma’an is highly
problematic, and if so does the Commission propose to subject this organisation and its publications to closer
scrutiny and possibly, in consequence, halt financial aid to it and cooperation with it?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

The EU never directly funded the Ma’an News Agency, which is merely one of the media agencies that are part of the
Ma'an Network, and has no influence on the content of its editorial line.

The Ma’an Network, a non-governmental organisation for media network, has received EU funding for two separate
actions amounting to a total of EUR 888 290.

The first action financed was a service contract for a value of EUR 600 000 entitled ‘Maximising EU Presence in the
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and beneficiary countries’, which ended in 2010. Under this contract the
Network completed six media actions promoting EU activities in Palestine. Secondly, in 2011 the Commission
awarded a EUR 288 290 grant to Ma’an Network under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights
for a project entitled ‘Mobilising Media to Empower Citizens and Civil Society for Human Rights, Democratic Reform
and Intra-Palestinian reconciliation’.

Both contracts were implemented in a satisfactory manner and the Commission sees no reasons to subject the
organisation to closer scrutiny. In any event, the EU does not provide funding to non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) but awards grants supporting specific projects and well-defined actions, for which Ma’an Network will
remain eligible to apply, but also accountable.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=8493
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ft.dk/samling/20121/spoergsmaal/S1067/svar/1028088/1215552/index.htm?/samling/20121/
spoergsmaal/S1067/svar/1028088/1215552/index.htm

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.maannet.org/modules/publisher/item.php?itemid=7

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 155

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008092/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE), Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE) und Markus Pieper (PPE)**

_(8. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Förderung von Nichtregierungsorganisationen

Nichtregierungsorganisationen spielen eine zunehmend wichtige Rolle in der europäischen Politik und der
Gesetzgebung.

Welche sogenannten Nichtregierungsorganisationen haben im Jahr 2012 Mittel aus dem Haushalt der Europäischen
Kommission oder einer Agentur erhalten; in welcher Höhe und für welche Projekte?

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

_(21. August 2013)_

Die Kommission hat bereits in ihrer Antwort auf die schriftliche Anfrage E-10716/11 ( [1] ) darauf hingewiesen, dass es
auf EU-Ebene keine einheitliche Definition von Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NRO) gibt. Im
Rechnungsführungssystem der Kommission wird derzeit zwischen natürlichen Personen, privatrechtlichen
Einrichtungen und öffentlich-rechtlichen Körperschaften unterschieden. Die Kommission behandelt NRO nicht
anders als andere Empfänger von EU-Finanzhilfen oder andere Vertragspartner.

Für gezieltere Anfragen kann das Finanztransparenzsystem (FTS) ( [2] ) konsultiert werden. Im FTS ist eine Suche anhand
von Kriterien wie Name des Begünstigten, Land, Haushaltslinie oder Finanzhilfebetrag möglich.

Das FTS enthält Informationen ab 2007 über alle Empfänger von EU-Finanzmitteln, die zentral direkt oder indirekt
von der Kommission oder zentral indirekt von den Exekutivagenturen verwaltet werden. Informationen über andere
Verwaltungsarten (dezentrale, geteilte oder gemeinsame Mittelverwaltung) können auf der Website der betreffenden
Verwaltungsbehörde ( [3] ) eingeholt werden.

Weitere Informationen können auch mit zwei speziellen Suchwerkzeugen für Maßnahmen im Außenbereich
recherchiert werden: zum einen mithilfe einer Suchmaschine, die Auskunft über Empfänger von Außenhilfe gibt und
von EuropAid ( [4] ) verwaltet wird, und zum anderen in einer speziellen Datenbank für Empfänger humanitärer Hilfe ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/de/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/index_de.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/grants/beneficiaries_de.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/funding/beneficiaries/index.cfm?lang=en&mode=SM&type=
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding/grants_contracts/agreements_en.htm

C 65 E / 156 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008092/13**

**to the Commission**
**Daniel Caspary (PPE), Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE) and Markus Pieper (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Support for non-governmental organisations (NGOs)

NGOs play an increasingly important role in European policy and legislation.

Which so-called NGOs received funding from the Commission budget or an agency in 2012? How much money were
they allocated and for which projects?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

As previously mentioned in its reply to Written Question E-10716/11 ( [1] ), the Commission would like to recall the
absence of an agreed definition of non-governmental organisations (NGO) at EU level. At present the Commission's
accounting system distinguishes between natural persons, private law bodies and public law bodies. The Commission
treats NGOs no differently than all other recipients of European Union (EU) grants or contracts.

For a more targeted request, the Financial Transparency System (FTS) ( [2] ) could be consulted. The FTS allows a search
by criteria such as the name of the beneficiary, its country, the relevant budget line or the amount granted.

The FTS includes information from 2007 on all beneficiaries of EU funds implemented by the Commission under
centralised direct and centralised indirect management modes, and by Executive Agencies under the centralised
indirect management mode. Information regarding other management modes (decentralised, shared, and joint) can
be found in the relevant management authority's website ( [3] ).

Further data is also available in two specific search tools for the area of external actions: on one hand, a search engine
giving access to the details of beneficiaries in the field of external aid and managed by EuropAid ( [4] ). And on the other
hand, a separate database for beneficiaries in the field of humanitarian aid ( [5] ) .

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/beneficiaries/fts/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/beneficiaries_en.htm
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/funding/beneficiaries/index.cfm?lang=en&mode=SM&type=.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding/grants_contracts/agreements_en.htm

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 157

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008093/13**

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

_(8. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-Familienstrategie und Europäisches Jahr 2014

Familienfreundlichkeit ist ein entscheidender Faktor im globalen Wettbewerb um die besten Fachkräfte. Politisch sind
dazu schlüssige Familienstrategien gefragt. Bereits 2007 hat die deutsche EU-Ratspräsidentschaft die Schaffung der
„Europäischen Allianz für Familien“ angeregt. April 2011 hat das spanisch-belgisch-ungarische Präsidentschaftstrio
— ergänzt um Polen — offiziell dafür plädiert, die Familienpolitik unter dem Vorzeichen der Demographie, der
europäischen Sozialagenda und einer nachhaltigen wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in den Rang einer europäischen
Angelegenheit zu erheben. Im März 2013 haben fast 400 Mitglieder des Europäischen Parlaments für die Schriftliche
Erklärung 32/2012 gestimmt und ein „Europäisches Jahr für die Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf 2014“
gefordert. Diese Position wird im offiziellen Arbeitsprogramm der aktuellen Trio-Ratspräsidentschaft Irlands,
Litauens und Griechenlands (Ratsdokument 16994/12) und von vielen Nichtregierungsorganisationen geteilt.

1. Warum hat die Kommission Ende 2012 die Förderung der erfolgreichen „Europäischen Allianz für Familien“
beendet und — unter Meidung des Familienbegriffs — durch eine „Plattform für Investitionen in Kinder“ ersetzt, wo
sie sich entgegen dem Subsidiaritätsprinzip verstärkt den national und regional zu regelnden Themen
Kinderbetreuung und Bildung widmet?

2. Was sind die Gründe dafür, dass die Kommission a) bis heute (Juli 2013!) keinen Vorschlag für ein Europäisches
Jahr 2014 vorgelegt hat und sich b) weigert, entsprechend den klaren Vorgaben aus Europäischem Parlament und
Europäischem Rat ein „Europäisches Jahr zur Vereinbarkeit von Familie und Beruf 2014“ vorzuschlagen?

3. Wie steht die Kommission zur Ergänzung der Europa-2020-Ziele um den Aspekt einer kinder‐ und
familienfreundlichen Gesellschaft?

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

_(23. August 2013)_

1. Für die Umsetzung der Empfehlung „Investitionen in Kinder — Den Kreislauf der Benachteiligung
durchbrechen“ wurde ein neues EU-Instrument benötigt ( [1] ). Aus diesem Grund hat die Europäische Kommission
beschlossen, die Website der „Europäischen Allianz für Familien“ in „Europäische Plattform für Investitionen in
Kinder (EPIC)“ umzubenennen, wobei die Kernaufgabe beibehalten wurde, d. h. die Führung eines Verzeichnisses über
evidenzbasierte vorbildliche Verfahren in der Kinder‐ und Familienpolitik ( [2] ). In der Empfehlung wird die Bedeutung
einer hochwertigen, erschwinglichen frühkindlichen Bildung und Betreuung zur Verbesserung der Chancen der
Kinder und zur Unterstützung erwerbstätiger Eltern hervorgehoben.

2. Die Europäische Kommission prüft derzeit sorgfältig die Möglichkeiten für Thema und Inhalt eines
Europäischen Jahres 2014 anhand der eingereichten Vorschläge (darunter der Vorschlag des Europäischen
Parlaments in seiner Schriftlichen Erklärung) sowie der Prioritäten der europäischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger und der
EU-Politik in der derzeitigen wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Lage.

3. Die Verringerung der (Kinder)Armut um 20 Millionen, eines der Hauptziele der Strategie Europa 2020, wird zu
einer kinderfreundlicheren Gesellschaft beitragen. Beim diesjährigen Europäischen Semester hat der Rat fünf
länderspezifische Empfehlungen zur Kinderarmut, zehn zum Zugang zu Kinderbetreuung und zwei zu
Negativanreizen für Zweitverdiener angenommen.

Der kürzlich veröffentlichte Bericht über die Barcelona-Ziele ( [3] ) zeigt, dass die Regierungen die Erwerbstätigkeit von
Frauen steigern können, wenn sie für eine bessere Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie sorgen. Die Verfügbarkeit von
Kinderbetreuungseinrichtungen ist von entscheidender Bedeutung. Neben flexiblen Formen der Arbeitsorganisation
und Elternzeit ist dies Bestandteil des empfohlenen Maßnahmenkatalogs für eine bessere Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und
Privatleben.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Siehe C(2013)778.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Siehe http://europa.eu/epic/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Siehe KOM(2013)322.

C 65 E / 158 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008093/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ The EU family strategy and the European Year 2014

Family friendliness is a decisive factor in the global competition for the most highly skilled workers. From a political
perspective, coherent family strategies are needed in this area. As early as 2007, the German Council Presidency
launched the European Alliance for Families. In April 2011, the Spanish, Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies,
together with Poland, officially called for family policy to be raised to the status of a European concern, against the
background of demographic change, the European social agenda and sustainable economic development. In
March 2013, almost 400 Members of the European Parliament voted in favour of Written Declaration 32/2012 and
called for a European Year for Reconciling Work and Family Life 2014. This position forms part of the official work
programme of the current trio of Council Presidencies of Ireland, Lithuania and Greece (Council document
16994/12) and is shared by many non-governmental organisations.

1. Why did the Commission bring to an end its support for the successful European Alliance for Families in 2012?
Why did the Commission replace it with the Platform for Investing in Children, which avoids the use of the term
‘family’ and, contrary to the subsidiarity principle, has an increasing focus on subjects such as childcare and education
that come under national and regional authority?

2. What are the reasons why the Commission a) has not yet (by July 2013) made a proposal on the European Year
2014 and b) refuses to propose a European Year for Reconciling Work and Family Life 2014 in line with the clear
calls from the Parliament and the Council?

3. What is the Commission’s view on adding the concept of a child‐ and family-friendly society to the Europe
2020 objectives?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

1. A new EU instrument was needed to support the ‘Investing in children — breaking the cycle of disadvantage’
recommendation ( [1] ). For this reason the European Commission decided to rebrand the European Alliance for Families
website as the European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC) while maintaining its core activity, i.e. a registry
with evidence based best practices in the area of child and family policies ( [2] ). The recommendation stresses the
importance of high quality, accessible early childhood education and care services to improve children's'
opportunities while supporting working parents.

2. The European Commission is currently carefully considering the options on a theme and content for a possible
2014 European Year in the light of the inputs received, including from the European Parliament in its Written
Declaration, and of the priorities for the European citizens and for the EU policy framework in the current
socioeconomic situation.

3. A reduction in (child) poverty by 20 million, one of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, will
contribute to a more child friendly society. At this year’s European semester the Council adopted 5 Country Specific
Recommendations on child poverty, 10 on access to childcare and 2 on disincentives for second earners.

The recent report on the Barcelona objectives ( [3] ) shows that governments can increase female employment if they
make it easier to reconcile work and family life. The availability of childcare facilities is crucial in this respect. together
with flexible working arrangements and the provision of parental leave, it is part of the recommended policy mix for
achieving a better work-life balance.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See C(2013)778l.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See http://europa.eu/epic/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See COM(2013) 322.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 159

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008094/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(8. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Neue Studie zu den negativen Auswirkungen von gentechnisch veränderten Nahrungs‐ und Futtermitteln auf
die menschliche Gesundheit

Die Verfütterung von gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen soll auch nachhaltige negative Auswirkungen auf die
Gesundheit des Menschen haben: Eine Studie des Institute for Health and Environment Research aus
Adelaide/Australien hat schwere Schäden für das Verdauungs‐ und Fortpflanzungssystem von Schweinen ergeben.
Das Institut hatte eine fünf Monate dauernde Studie an insgesamt 168 Schweinen in den USA durchgeführt. Dabei
wurde die Hälfte der Schweine mit gentechnisch manipulierten Soja‐ und Maispflanzen gefüttert. Alle Futterpflanzen
sollen aus Saatgut des Agrarindustriekonzerns Monsanto gezogen worden sein. Am Ende der fünfmonatigen
Studiendauer wurden alle Tiere geschlachtet und auf Gesundheitsschäden untersucht.

Die mit gentechnisch veränderten Futterpflanzen gefütterten Schweine zeigten sowohl signifikant höhere Werte bei
Magen-Darm-Erkrankungen als auch Einschränkungen bei der Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit. Bei einzelnen gentechnisch
versorgten Tieren nahm das Gewicht der Gebärmutter um bis zu 25 % zu; gleichzeitig erhöhte sich das Risiko von
Magen-Darm-Erkrankungen auf das bis zu 2,6-fache jener Untersuchungsgruppe, die ohne Gen-Futter aufgezogen
wurde. Da Menschen den Schweinen in ihrem biologischen Grundaufbau ähnlich sind, würden die Ergebnisse der
Studie laut Wissenschaftlern auch auf den Menschen zutreffen. Damit hätten Gentechnik-Produkte einen
unmittelbaren Einfluss auf die Gesundheit des Menschen. Auch der Verzehr von Fleisch von gentechnisch gefütterten
Schweinen könnte für den Menschen schädlich sein ( [1] ).

1. Kennt die Kommission die oben erwähnte Studie, und wenn ja, wie beurteilt sie diese Studie?

2. Gedenkt die Kommission, eine ähnliche Studie in Europa durchzuführen?

3. Wie beurteilt die Kommission die möglichen negativen Folgen von genmanipulierten Lebensmitteln oder mit
Genfutter ernährten Tieren für den Menschen?

4. Wie gedenkt die Kommission, die EU-Bürger vor diesen dargelegten Gesundheitsschäden zu schützen?

5. Wäre diese Studie nicht ein Anlass für ein europaweites Verbot von GMO?

6. Werden die Ergebnisse dieser Studie in die Verhandlungen über die transatlantische Freihandelszone
miteinfließen?

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Quelle: http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/carman-vlieger-2013-gm-toxicology-study-pigs.pdf

C 65 E / 160 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008692/13**

**an die Kommission**

**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(15. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Neue Studie zu den negativen Auswirkungen von gentechnisch veränderten Nahrungs‐ und Futtermitteln auf
die menschliche Gesundheit

Die Verfütterung von gentechnisch veränderten Pflanzen soll auch auf die Gesundheit des Menschen nachhaltige
negative Auswirkungen haben: Eine Studie des Institute for Health and Environment Research aus
Adelaide/Australien hat schwere Schäden für das Verdauungs‐ und Fortpflanzungssystem von Schweinen ergeben.
Das Institut hatte eine fünf Monate dauernde Studie an insgesamt 168 Schweinen in den USA durchgeführt. Dabei
wurde die Hälfte der Schweine mit gentechnisch manipulierten Soja‐ und Maispflanzen gefüttert. Alle Futterpflanzen
sollen aus Saatgut des Agrarindustriekonzerns Monsanto gezogen worden sein. Am Ende der fünfmonatigen
Studiendauer wurden alle Tiere geschlachtet und auf Gesundheitsschäden untersucht. Die mit gentechnisch
veränderten Futterpflanzen gefütterten Schweine hatten sowohl signifikant höhere Werte bei
Magen-Darm-Erkrankungen als auch Einschränkungen bei der Fortpflanzungsfähigkeit. Bei einzelnen gentechnisch
versorgten Tieren nahm das Gewicht der Gebärmutter um bis zu 25 % zu; gleichzeitig erhöhte sich das Risiko von
Magen-Darm-Erkrankungen auf das bis zu 2,6-fache jener Untersuchungsgruppe, die ohne Gen-Futter aufgezogen
wurde. Da Menschen den Schweinen in ihrem biologischen Grundaufbau ähnlich sind, würden die Ergebnisse der
Studie laut Wissenschaftlern auch auf den Menschen zutreffen. Damit hätten Gentechnik-Produkte einen
unmittelbaren Einfluss auf die Gesundheit des Menschen. Auch der Verzehr von Fleisch von gentechnisch gefütterten
Schweinen könnte für den Menschen schädlich sein ( [2] ).

1. Kennt die Kommission die oben erwähnte Studie, und wenn ja, wie beurteilt sie diese Studie?

2. Gedenkt die Kommission, eine ähnliche Studie in Europa durchzuführen?

3. Wie beurteilt die Kommission die möglichen negativen Folgen von genmanipulierten Lebensmitteln oder mit
Genfutter ernährten Tieren für den Menschen?

4. Wie gedenkt die Kommission, die EU-Bürger vor diesen dargelegten Gesundheitsschäden zu schützen?

5. Wäre diese Studie nicht ein Anlass für ein europaweites Verbot von GMO?

6. Werden die Ergebnisse dieser Studie in die Verhandlungen über die transatlantische Freihandelszone
miteinfließen?

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

_(21. August 2013)_

1./5. Der Kommission ist die genannte Studie bekannt. Sie hat die Europäische Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit
(EFSA) schriftlich gebeten, die Studie zu überprüfen und mitzuteilen, ob diese neue wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse
zur Risikobewertung von GVO liefert.

2. Die Kommission hat die Durchführung einer toxikologischen Langzeitstudie zu GVO öffentlich ausgeschrieben.
Schwerpunkt der Studie sollen zweijährige Versuche mit Ratten sein, die mit NK603 gefüttert werden. Aktuell wird
außerdem eine 90‐tägige Fütterungsstudie mit MON 810 durchgeführt, die den Titel „GMO risk assessment and
communication of evidence“ (Risikobewertung von GVO und Weitergabe der Ergebnisse) trägt.

3./4. Alle Anträge auf Zulassung von GV‐Lebens‐ und Futtermitteln werden einer Risikobewertung durch die EFSA
unterzogen und nur dann genehmigt, wenn sie als unbedenklich für die Gesundheit von Mensch und Tier sowie für
die Umwelt eingestuft wurden. Des Weiteren trat im April dieses Jahres eine neue Verordnung über Anträge auf
Zulassung genetisch veränderter Lebens‐ und Futtermittel in Kraft. Gemäß der neuen Verordnung sind Antragsteller
verpflichtet, einen systematischen Überblick über alle in den letzten zehn Jahren durchgeführten Studien vorzulegen,
bei einzelnen Ereignissen die 90‐tägige Studie mit Ratten, die zuvor nur auf Einzelfallbasis eingesetzt wurde,
durchzuführen, und bei der Durchführung von Studien eine Qualitätssicherung (Gute Laborpraxis oder ISO)
vorzunehmen, während auf Einzelfallbasis durchgeführte zweijährige Toxizitätsstudien weiterhin verpflichtend sind.

6. Die Rahmenvorschriften der EU in Bezug auf Risikobewertung und ‐management von GVO werden nicht
Gegenstand der laufenden Verhandlungen zur transatlantischen Freihandelszone sein.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Quelle: http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/carman-vlieger-2013-gm-toxicology-study-pigs.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 161

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008094/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ New study on the negative effects of genetically modified food and animal feed on human health

It has been claimed that feeding genetically modified crops to animals has lasting negative effects on the health of
humans. A study carried out by the Institute of Health and Environmental Research Inc. (IHER) in Adelaide in
Australia showed that severe damage was caused to the digestive and reproductive systems of pigs. The institute
carried out the study on a total of 168 pigs in the USA for a period of five months. Half of these pigs were fed with
genetically modified soya and maize. It is said that all the feed crops were grown from seed supplied by the
agribusiness company Monsanto. At the end of the five-month study, all the animals were slaughtered and examined
for health problems.

The pigs fed on genetically modified crops had significantly higher levels of gastro-intestinal disease, together with
reproductive problems. In some of the animals fed on genetically modified feedstuffs the uterus was up to 25%
heavier. At the same time, the risk of gastro-intestinal diseases was as much as 2.6 times higher than in the group of
animals fed on non-genetically modified feed. Because humans have a similar biological make-up to pigs, scientists
say that the results of the study could also apply to humans. This would mean that genetically modified products
would have a direct influence on human health and that eating meat from pigs fed on genetically modified feedstuffs
could also be harmful to humans ( [1] ).

1. Is the Commission aware of the study that is being referred to and, if so, what is its opinion of this study?

2. Does the Commission plan to carry out a similar study in Europe?

3. What is the Commission’s view on the possible negative consequences of genetically modified food or of
animals fed on genetically modified feedstuffs for humans?

4. How does the Commission intend to protect the citizens of the EU from the damage to their health described in
this study?

5. Does this study not represent a reason for introducing a Europe-wide ban on genetically modified organisms
(GMOs)?

6. Will the results of this study be introduced into the negotiations on the transatlantic free trade area?

**Question for written answer E-008692/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franz Obermayr (NI)**

_(15 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ New study on the negative human-health impact of genetically modified food and feed

Feeding animals genetically modified (GM) crops is said to have a lasting negative impact on human health. A study
by the Institute for Health and Environment Research in Adelaide, Australia, has shown that serious damage is caused
to pigs’ digestive and reproductive systems. The institute carried out the study on a total of 168 pigs in the US over
five months. Half of the pigs were fed with GM soya and maize. All feed crops used were reportedly grown from seed
supplied by the agro-industry concern Monsanto. At the end of the five-month study, all the animals were slaughtered
and examined for health problems. The pigs fed on GM crops had significantly higher levels of gastro-intestinal
disease, together with reproductive problems. In some of the animals fed on GM feed, the uterus was up to 25%
heavier. At the same time, the risk of gastro-intestinal diseases was as much as 2.6 times higher than in the group of
animals fed on non-GM feed. Because humans have a similar biological make-up to pigs, scientists say that the results
of the study could also apply to humans. This would mean that GM products have a direct influence on human health
and that eating meat from pigs fed on GM feed could also be harmful to humans ( [2] ).

1. Is the Commission aware of the study referred to and, if so, what is its opinion of it?

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) _Source:_ http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/carman-vlieger-2013-gm-toxicology-study-pigs.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) _Source:_ http://farmandranchfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/carman-vlieger-2013-gm-toxicology-study-pigs.pdf

C 65 E / 162 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

2. Is the Commission proposing to carry out a similar study in Europe?

3. How does the Commission view the possible negative consequences, for humans, of GM food or of animals fed
on GM feed?

4. How does the Commission propose to protect EU citizens from the harm to their health described in the study?

5. Should this study not prompt a Europe-wide ban on GMOs?

6. Will the results of the study be considered as part of the negotiations on the transatlantic free-trade area?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

1, 5. The Commission is aware of this study. The Commission has written to the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) asking it to review the study and inform whether the study adds any new scientific elements for the risk
assessment of GMOs.

2. The Commission has launched a public tender for conducting a long-term toxicological study on GMOs. The
call for the study focuses on 2-year feeding trials of rats with NK603. There is also an ongoing project concerning
90 day feeding studies for MON 810 titled ‘GMO risk assessment and communication of evidence’.

3, 4. All applications for GM food and feed undergo a risk assessment by EFSA and are only authorised if they are
found to be safe for human and animal health and the environment. Furthermore a new Regulation on GM food and
feed applications for authorisation entered into force earlier this year. The new regulation includes: a requirement for
applicants to submit a systematic review of all studies conducted over the last 10 years; imposes the 90-day study
with rats for single events, previously only performed on a case-by-case basis; requires quality assurance for studies
(Good Laboratory Practice or ISO); and maintains the requirement for 2 year toxicity studies performed on a case-bycase basis.

6. The EU framework legislation on GMO risk assessmert and management will not be part of the current
negotiations on the transatlantic free-trade area.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 163

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008096/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(8 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Valorile de referință privind aportul de energie pentru copii

Angajamentul UE este un program prin care numeroase societăți se angajează să-și autoreglementeze publicitatea
privind produsele alimentare pentru copii. Acesta face parte din strategia UE din 2007 privind problemele de sănătate
legate de alimentație, excesul de greutate și obezitate.

Angajamentul UE este ilustrat în Cartea albă care stabilește criteriile nutriționale conform cărora trebuie evaluate
diferitele categorii de produse alimentare. În ceea ce privește valorile energetice, autorii observă următoarele: „În
prezent, nu există valori zilnice de referință aprobate oficial sau consimțite la nivel de UE privind aportul de energie
pentru copii” ( [1] ).

Valorile zilnice de referință privind aportul de energie pentru copii ar putea contribui în mod util la combaterea
obezității infantile, care constituie o problemă de sănătate publică tot mai mare.

1. A realizat Comisia o eventuală cercetare referitoare la valorile de referință privind aportul de energie pentru
copii?

2. Are intenția Comisia să publice astfel de valori de referință în viitorul apropiat?

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

_(19 august 2013)_

1. În urma unei solicitări din partea Comisiei, Autoritatea Europeană pentru Siguranța Alimentară (EFSA) a
furnizat valorile nutriționale de referință privind de aportul energie, pe grupuri de vârstă și sex ( [2] ).

2. Valorile aportului de referință ale UE au fost stabilite, în scopul etichetării, pentru adulți în Regulamentul (UE)
nr. 1169/2011 ( [3] ). Articolul 36 alineatul (3) litera (c) din acest regulament solicită Comisiei să adopte acte de punere
în aplicare în ceea ce privește cerințele referitoare la indicarea voluntară a aportului de referință pentru grupe specifice
de populație, cum ar fi copiii, pe lângă aportul de referință deja prevăzut în regulament. În conformitate cu articolul
43 din regulament, până la adoptarea unor astfel de acte de punere în aplicare, statele membre pot adopta măsuri de
drept intern referitoare la indicarea voluntară a aportului de referință pentru grupe specifice de populație.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0279:FIN:RO:PDF

http://www.eu-pledge.eu/sites/eu-pledge.eu/files/releases/EU_Pledge_Nutrition_White_Paper_Nov_2012.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Jurnalul EFSA 2013; 11(1):3005.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) JO L 304 22.11.2011, p.18.

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

C 65 E / 164 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008096/13**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Energy intake reference values for children

The EU Pledge is a scheme in which a number of companies engage in self-regulation of advertising of food products
for children. It operates as part of the 2007 EU Strategy on nutrition, overweight and obesity-related health issues.

The EU Pledge is described in a White Paper setting out the nutrition criteria by which different categories of food
products are to be assessed. Regarding energy values, the authors note: ‘Currently there are no officially approved or
EU-endorsed daily reference intake values for children available in Europe’ ( [1] ).

Daily reference values for energy intake for children could make a useful contribution to the fight against childhood
obesity, which is an ever-increasing public health concern.

1. Has the Commission carried out any research into energy intake reference values for children?

2. Does the Commission intend to publish such reference values in the near future?

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

_(19 August 2013)_

1. Following a request from the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) provided dietary
reference values for energy for specified age and sex groups ( [2] ).

2. EU reference intake values have been established for labelling purposes for adults in Regulation (EU)
No 1169/2011 ( [3] ). Article 36(3)(c) of this regulation requests the Commission to adopt implementing acts on the
application of the requirements applying the voluntary indication of reference intakes for specific population groups,
such as children, in addition to the reference intakes already set out in the regulation. Following Article 43 of the
regulation, Member States, pending the adoption of such implementing acts, may adopt national measures on the
voluntary indication of reference intakes for specific population groups.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0279:FIN:EN:PDF;

http://www.eu-pledge.eu/sites/eu-pledge.eu/files/releases/EU_Pledge_Nutrition_White_Paper_Nov_2012.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3005.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 165

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008097/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(8 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Επίπεδο πληρωμών στις 30 Ιουνίου 2013

Μετά από έγκριση του Σχεδίου Διορθωτικού Προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 6/2012, η Επιτροπή, κατόπιν αιτήσεως της αρμόδιας
για τον προϋπολογισμό αρχής, υπέβαλε Σχέδιο Διορθωτικού Προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 2/2013, ο οποίος ανέρχεται σε 11,2
δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ, ποσό που επιτρέπει σε όλες τις νόμιμες υποχρεώσεις πληρωμών που παραμένουν σε εκκρεμότητα το
τέλος του 2012, καθώς και σε αυτές που θα προκύψουν πριν από το τέλος του 2013, να καλυφθούν από τον
προϋπολογισμό του τρέχοντος έτους.

Κατά τη συνεδρίαση του Συμβουλίου Ecofin της 14ης Μαΐου 2013, επιτεύχθηκε πολιτική συμφωνία για την παροχή της
επιπλέον χρηματοδότησης για τον Προϋπολογισμό του 2013 σε δύο δόσεις, με την πρώτη ύψους 7,3 δισ. ευρώ, ενώ οι
υπουργοί δεσμεύτηκαν να επανέλθουν στο θέμα αργότερα εντός του έτους. Ωστόσο, δεν υπήρξε καμία επίσημη δέσμευση για
το υπόλοιπο ποσό των 3,9 δισεκατομμυρίων του Σχεδίου Διορθωτικού Προϋπολογισμού αριθ. 2/2013.

Η πολιτική συμφωνία στην οποία κατέληξαν τα θεσμικά όργανα στις 27 Ιουνίου 2013 επί του ΠΔΠ 2014-2020 ορίζει ότι
το Συμβούλιο δεσμεύεται να λάβει επίσημη απόφαση για την πρώτη δόση του Σχεδίου Διορθωτικού Προϋπολογισμού αριθ.
2/2013 το αργότερο μέχρι τη συνεδρίαση του Συμβουλίου Ecofin στις 9 Ιουλίου 2013 και να λάβει όλα τα απαραίτητα
πρόσθετα μέτρα ώστε να διασφαλίσει ότι τηρούνται πλήρως οι υποχρεώσεις της Ένωσης για το 2013. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό,
βάσει της πρότασης που πρόκειται να υποβάλει η Επιτροπή στις αρχές του φθινοπώρου, με βάση τις νέες ενημερωμένες
εκτιμήσεις όσον αφορά τις πιστώσεις πληρωμών, το Συμβούλιο δεσμεύεται να αποφασίσει χωρίς καθυστέρηση επί ενός
πρόσθετου σχεδίου διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού προκειμένου να αποφευχθεί οποιαδήποτε ανεπάρκεια για τις
αιτιολογημένες πιστώσεις πληρωμών.

Λαμβάνοντας υπόψη όλα τα ανωτέρω και δεδομένου του γεγονότος ότι το επίπεδο πληρωμών για τον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ
όσον αφορά το 2013 είναι κατά 5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ χαμηλότερο από τις εκτιμήσεις της Επιτροπής για τις ανάγκες
πληρωμών στο σχέδιο προϋπολογισμού της για το 2013, θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να παράσχει λεπτομερείς πληροφορίες
σχετικά με το επίπεδο των αιτημάτων πληρωμών που της έχουν διαβιβασθεί μέχρι τις 30 Ιουνίου 2013;

Ειδικότερα, θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να γνωστοποιήσει τις πληρωμές που έχουν καταβληθεί κατά τους μήνες Ιανουάριο,
Φεβρουάριο, Μάρτιο, Απρίλιο, Μάιο και Ιούνιο 2013, κατανεμημένες ανά κράτος μέλος και ανά τομέα/πρόγραμμα
πολιτικής;

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

_(22 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Η αναλυτική κατανομή των έγκυρων αιτημάτων πληρωμών ( [1] ) που υποβλήθηκαν τον Ιούνιο για τα χρηματοδοτούμενα από το
ΕΚΤ, το ΕΤΠΑ και το ΤΣ επιχειρησιακά προγράμματα της περιόδου 2007-2013, παρατίθεται στο παράρτημα I της παρούσας
απάντησης, ενώ τα στοιχεία σχετικά με το ΕΤΑ παρατίθενται στο παράρτημα ΙΙ. Όσον αφορά το ΕΓΤΑΑ, δεν υποβλήθηκαν
αιτήματα πληρωμών κατά τη διάρκεια του Ιουνίου. Τα αριθμητικά στοιχεία του πίνακα προκύπτουν από τη σύγκριση των
αιτημάτων πληρωμής που υποβλήθηκαν έως το τέλος Ιουνίου 2013 με τα στοιχεία που υποβλήθηκαν μέχρι το τέλος Μαΐου
2013. Η Επιτροπή μπορεί να αποφασίσει την αλλαγή χαρακτηρισμού ενός αιτήματος πληρωμής από «Αποδεκτή» σε «Πλήρως
απορριφθείσα» ή «Επιστραφείσα προς διόρθωση» και συνεπώς, τα αριθμητικά στοιχεία των παραρτημάτων της παρούσας
απάντησης ενδέχεται να αποτελέσουν αντικείμενο περαιτέρω προσαρμογών. Τα αρνητικά υπόλοιπα του ΕΚΤ για το Ηνωμένο
Βασίλειο, για παράδειγμα, είναι αποτέλεσμα τέτοιας αλλαγής κατάστασης.

Ανάλογα στοιχεία για τους μήνες Ιανουάριο, Φεβρουάριο, Μάρτιο, Απρίλιο και Μάιο δόθηκαν από την Επιτροπή στις
ερωτήσεις E-1090/2013, E-3237/2013, E-3928/2013, E-4903/2013 και E-6405/2013 ( [2] ), αντίστοιχα.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Με εξαίρεση τα ποσά που έχουν απορριφθεί πλήρως.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 65 E / 166 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008097/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Level of payments as of 30 June 2013

After the approval of Draft Amending Budget No 6/2012, the Commission, at the request of the Budgetary Authority,
submitted Draft Amending Budget No 2/2013, amounting to EUR 11.2 billion, that will allow all the legal payment
obligations left pending at the end of 2012, as well as those arising before the end of 2013, to be covered in this year’s
budget.

At the Ecofin meeting of 14 May 2013, a political agreement was reached to provide the extra funding for the 2013
Budget in two tranches, with the first one amounting to EUR 7.3 billion, while the Ministers undertook to return to
the issue later in the year. However, there has been no formal commitment on the remaining EUR 3.9 billion of Draft
Amending Budget No 2/2013.

The political agreement of 27 June 2013 reached by the institutions on the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial
Framework (MFF) stipulates that the Council undertakes to make a formal decision on the first tranche of Draft
Amending Budget No 2/2013 no later than the Ecofin Council on 9 July 2013 and to take all necessary additional
steps to ensure that the Union’s obligations for 2013 are fully honoured. In this respect, on the basis of a proposal to
be made by the Commission in early autumn, based on the latest updated estimates regarding payment
appropriations, the Council undertakes to decide, without delay, on a further draft amending budget to avoid any
shortfall in justified payment appropriations.

Taking all of the above into consideration and given the fact that the level of payments for the 2013 EU Budget is
EUR 5 billion lower than the Commission’s estimates for payment needs in its 2013 Draft Budget, could the
Commission provide detailed information on the level of payments received by the 30 June 2013?

More specifically, could the Commission provide information on payments received in the months of January,
February, March, April, May and June 2013, broken down by Member State and policy area/programme?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

A detailed breakdown of the valid payment claims ( [1] ) received in June for the 2007-2013 ESF, ERDF and CF-funded
operational programmes is provided in Annex I to this reply while for EFF the data is included in Annex II. For EAFRD
no payment claims were submitted during the month of June. The figures in the table result from comparing valid
payment claims submitted until the end of June 2013 with those submitted until the end of May 2013. The
Commission may decide to change the status of a payment claim from ‘Accepted’ to ‘Fully rejected’ or ‘Returned for
corrections’ and therefore the figures presented in the annexes to this reply could still undergo further adjustments. A
negative ESF balance for the United Kingdom, for instance, is the result of such changes in status.

Similar data for the months of January, February, March, April and May were provided by the Commission to
Questions E-1090/2013, E-3237/2013, E-3928/2013, E-4903/2013 and E-6405/2013 ( [2] ), respectively.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Excluding fully rejected amounts.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html .

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 167

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008098/13**

**to the Commission**
**Glenis Willmott (S&D)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Alcohol and nutrition

Alcohol accounts for nearly 10% of the calorie intake of adults who drink ( [1] ).

It has an energy value of 7 kcal/g, second only to fat, which is the most energy-dense macronutrient at 9 kcal/g.
Therefore daily energy intake may rise considerably when alcohol is consumed ( [2] ).

Many people are unaware of how many calories they are consuming in the form of alcohol. For example, a medium
glass of white wine (175ml) has 130 calories, similar to an average chocolate bar. Two pints of beer have more
calories than a cheeseburger.

Currently, producers of alcoholic beverages are not required to state the ingredients of their products or to provide
nutritional information about them. The Commission is obligated to come forward with a report on nutritional
labelling on alcohol under the Food Information to Consumers Regulation.

Could the Commission update Members of the European Parliament on activities in this area, especially given next
year’s deadline for submission of a report on the matter, as outlined in the regulation (EU) No 1169/2011?

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

_(19 August 2013)_

The report refered to by the Honourable Member is planned for December 2014. Given that the preparation of the
report is currently at a very early stage, the Commission is not in a position to comment about orientations on the
issue in question.

The Commission has started some preliminary work by collecting information from Member States on existing
national legislation in this field and on information provided voluntarily by food business operators on different types
of alcoholic beverages. This work also includes an ongoing project on ‘health related information on alcoholic
beverage labels’, the results of which will be a precursor to starting a discussion on the possible inclusion of
ingredients and nutrition labelling, for example of energy content, on the labels of alcoholic beverages.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Bates B, Alison Lennox A, G S. National diet and nutrition survey: headline results from year of the rolling programme (2008/2009). London:

Food Standards Agency, 2009.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dennis EA, Flack KD, Davy BM. Beverage consumption and adult weight management: A review. Eating Behaviors 2009;10(4):237.

( **|**

C 65 E / 168 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenska različica)_

**Vprašanje za pisni odgovor E-008099/13**

**za Komisijo**
**Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE) in Alojz Peterle (PPE)**

_(8. julij 2013)_

_Zadeva:_ Izboljšanje postopka za vložitev zdravstvenih trditev

Na delavnici v Parlamentu februarja 2013 so se poslanci Evropskega parlamenta, predstavniki Evropske agencije za
varnost hrane (EFSA) in Komisija na splošno strinjali, da je pri sedanjem postopku Evropske agencije za varnost hrane
za ocenjevanje zdravstvenih trditev nastal precejšen problem na področju probiotikov. Na področju, kjer je Evropska
unija v raziskave vložila več kot 70 milijonov EUR, je Evropska agencija za varnost hrane negativno ocenila več kot
300 zahtevkov za zdravstvene trditve za specifične probiotike kljub obsežnim znanstvenim dokazom o njihovih
koristih za zdravje. Tako potrošnikom niso na voljo informacije, ki bi lahko koristile njihovemu zdravju.

Čeprav so že bili uvedeni ukrepi, da bodo lahko vsi prosilci Evropski agenciji za varnost hrane predložili pisna
vprašanja, jim je vendar treba pri trditvah za probiotike pomagati v večjem obsegu. Evropska agencija za varnost
hrane priznava, da se ti zahtevki obravnavajo posamezno ter da lahko prosilci za zdravstvene trditve na probiotikih
zahtevane standarde razumejo le, če pred predložitvijo dokumentacije sodelujejo v kakršnem koli preglednem
dialogu z EFSA.

V posameznih redkih primerih, kot je primer probiotikov, bi bilo treba dialog v kakršni koli obliki med člani odbora
EFSA in prosilci, da bi ti lahko razumeli standarde za presojo ter da bi čim bolje izkoristili čas in sredstva Evropske
agencije za varnost hrane.

Ali bo Komisija pripravila študijo, kako izboljšati postopek za vložitev zahtevka za zdravstvene trditve na probiotikih,
skupaj s preglednim posvetovanjem, ki ohranja neodvisnost Evropske agencije za varnost hrane, tako da bi lahko
prosilci pred pripravo dokumentacije dobro poznali standarde, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati?

**Odgovor komisarja Tonia Borga v imenu Komisije**

_(2. september 2013)_

Tako Evropska agencija za varnost hrane (EFSA) kot Komisija sta si zelo prizadevali za zagotovitev jasnosti pri
ocenjevanju zdravstvenih trditev.

Od leta 2007 dalje je EFSA sodelovala z deležniki, da bi predstavila in pojasnila postopek odbora NDA ( [1] ) za
ocenjevanje trditev. Zaradi znanstvene in tehnične kompleksnosti zdravstvenih trditev je EFSA objavila splošne
smernice ( [2] ) o načelih, ki se uporabljajo pri postopku ocenjevanja. Poleg tega je leta 2010 v Amsterdamu organizirala
sestanek o znanstvenih zahtevah za zdravstvene trditve v zvezi z delovanjem črevesja in imunskega sistema, po
katerem so bile izdane dodatne posebne smernice ( [3] ).

EFSA bo novembra 2013 organizirala sestanek ( [4] ) za spodbujanje interaktivne izmenjave strokovnih mnenj o
informacijah, potrebnih za celovito znanstveno ocenjevanje študij na ljudeh, ki so predložene za znanstveno
utemeljitev zdravstvenih trditev. Julija 2013 je odgovorila na dva dopisa, ki jih je prejela od svetovnega združenja za
probiotike (Global Alliance for Probiotics) in mednarodne organizacije za probiotike (International Probiotics
Association), v katerih je odgovorila na številna znanstvena vprašanja iz navedenih dopisov.

Komisija je v zvezi s tem sprejela Uredbo (ES) št. 353/2008 ( [5] ) o vlogah za zdravstvene trditve, vključno s pravili za
pripravo in vložitev vlog ter zahtevanimi znanstvenimi dokazi. Službe Komisije in deležniki, vključno s probiotičnim
sektorjem, so se srečali na številnih sestankih o utemeljitvi zdravstvenih trditev.

Komisija se zaveda, da je probiotični sektor na evropskem industrijskem področju ključnega pomena, vendar ga s
posebnimi ukrepi glede zdravstvenih trditev za probiotike ne more obravnavati drugače od ostalih prehranskih
sektorjev.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Odbor EFSA za dietetične izdelke, prehrano in alergije (Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergy).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2011; 9(4):2135.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2011; 9(4):1984.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Tehnični sestanek o poročanju o študijah na ljudeh, ki so predložene za znanstveno utemeljitev zdravstvenih trditev.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 353/2008 z dne 18. aprila 2008 o določitvi izvedbenih pravil za vloge za odobritev zdravstvenih trditev, kakor je

predvideno v členu 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 1924/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta, UL L 109, 19.4.2008.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 169

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008099/13**

**komissiolle**
**Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE) ja Alojz Peterle (PPE)**

_(8. heinäkuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Terveysväitteiden hyväksymisjärjestelmän kehittäminen

Euroopan parlamentin seminaarissa helmikuussa 2013 Euroopan parlamentin jäsenet sekä Euroopan
elintarviketurvallisuusviranomaisen (EFSA) ja Euroopan komission edustajat olivat laajasti yksimielisiä siitä, että
EFSAn nykyiseen terveysväitteiden arviointimenettelyyn liittyy merkittävä ongelma, joka koskee probiootteja. Alalla,
jonka tutkimukseen EU on sijoittanut yli 70 miljoonaa euroa, yli 300 probiootteja koskevaa terveysväitehakemusta
on hylätty EFSAn arvioinnissa, huolimatta probioottien terveysvaikutuksia puoltavasta laajasta tieteellisestä näytöstä.
Näin ollen kuluttajilla ei ole mahdollisuutta tutustua tietoon, joka voisi olla heidän terveytensä kannalta hyödyllistä.

On totta, että joitakin toimia on toteutettu, jotta kaikki hakijat voisivat esittää kirjallisia kysymyksiä EFSAlle, mutta
enemmän on kuitenkin vielä tehtävä terveysväitehakemuksen esittäjien tukemiseksi. EFSA myöntää, että
terveysväitteitä tarkastellaan tapauskohtaisesti ja että tästä syystä hakijat voivat saada selkeän käsityksen siitä,
millaisia vaatimuksia heidän on täytettävä, ainoastaan, jos he käyvät jossain muodossa avointa vuoropuhelua EFSAn
kanssa ennen hakemusasiakirjan toimittamista.

Tietyissä esimerkiksi probiootteja koskevissa rajatuissa tapauksissa EFSAn lautakunnan jäsenten ja terveysväitteiden
hyväksyntää hakevien toimijoiden välillä olisi otettava käyttöön jonkinlainen avoimen vuoropuhelun muoto, sillä
näin voitaisiin varmistaa, että hakijat ymmärtävät vaatimukset, joiden perusteella väitteitä arvioidaan sekä optimoida
EFSAn ajankäyttöä ja voimavaroja.

Ryhtyykö komissio selvittämään probiootteja koskevien terveysväitteiden hyväksymisjärjestelmän
kehittämismahdollisuuksia, kuten EFSAn avointa kuulemista, jolla sen riippumattomuus säilytetään, jotta hakijat
voivat saada selkeän käsityksen vaatimuksista, jotka heidän on täytettävä, ennen hakemusasiakirjojen laatimista?

**Tonio Borgin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(2. syyskuuta 2013)_

Niin Euroopan elintarviketurvallisuuviranomainen (EFSA) kuin komissiokin ovat kaikin keinoin pyrkineet
varmistamaan, että terveysväitteiden arviointi olisi selkeää.

EFSA on vuodesta 2007 lähtien yhdessä sidosryhmien kanssa auttanut jäsentämään ja selkeyttämään sitä prosessia,
jota sen ravitsemusasioita käsittelevä lautakunta ( [1] ) käyttää väitteiden arvioinnissa. Koska terveysväitteet ovat
tieteellisesti ja teknisesti monimutkaisia, EFA on asettanut saataville yleisen oppaan ( [2] ), jossa käsitellään
arviointiprosessissa sovellettuja periaatteita. Lisäksi se järjesti vuonna 2010 Amsterdamissa kokouksen, jossa
tarkasteltiin suolistoon ja immuunijärjestelmään liittyviä terveysväitteitä koskevia tieteellisiä vaatimuksia ja jonka
pohjalta julkaistiin erityisesti niitä koskeva uusi opas ( [3] ).

EFSA järjestää marraskuussa 2013 kokouksen ( [4] ). Kokouksessa on määrä edistää interaktiivista asiantuntijoiden
näkemysten vaihtoa niistä tiedoista, joita tarvitaan täyden tieteellisen arvioinnin tekemiseksi terveysväitteiden
tieteellistä perustelemista varten toimitetuista ihmisillä tehdyistä tutkimuksista. Heinäkuussa 2013 EFSA vastasi
kahteen kansainvälisiltä probiootteja käsitteleviltä järjestöiltä (Global Alliance for Probiotics ja International
Probiotics Association) saamaansa kirjeeseen ja kommentoi erinäisiä kussakin kirjeessä esiin nostettuja tieteellisiä
kysymyksiä.

Komissio on lisäksi antanut terveysväitteitä koskevia hakemuksia käsittelevän asetuksen (EY) N:o 353/2008 ( [5] ), jossa
säädetään niiden laatimisesta ja esittämisestä ja niitä varten tarvittavasta tieteellisestä näytöstä. Komission yksiköt ja
sidosryhmät, probioottiala mukaan luettuna, ovat lisäksi järjestäneet lukuisia kokouksia terveysväitteiden
perustelemiseen liittyen.

Komissio tiedostaa, että probioottiala on keskeinen teollisuuden ala Euroopassa. Se ei kuitenkaan voi syrjiä muita
elintarvikesektoreita ryhtymällä erityisiin toimiin nimenomaan probiootteja koskevien väitteiden osalta.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergy.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2011;9(4):2135.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2011; 9(4):1984.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Tekninen kokous niiden ihmisillä tehtyjen tutkimusten raportoimisesta, jotka on toimitettu terveysväitteiden tieteellistä perustelemista varten.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Komission asetus (EY) N:o 353/2008, annettu 18 päivänä huhtikuuta 2008, Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 1924/2006

15 artiklassa säädettyjen terveysväitteiden hyväksyntää koskevien hakemusten soveltamissäännöistä (EUVL L 109, 19.4.2008).

C 65 E / 170 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008099/13**

**to the Commission**
**Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE) and Alojz Peterle (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Improving the health claim application procedure

At a Parliament workshop in February 2013, there emerged a broad consensus among MEPs and representatives of
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Commission that a significant problem existed with the current
EFSA health claims assessment procedure in respect of probiotics. In a sector in which the EU has invested over
EUR 70 million in research, more than 300 specific probiotics claim applications have been negatively assessed by
EFSA, despite extensive scientific evidence supporting the health benefits of probiotics. As a result, consumers are
being denied access to information that could be beneficial to their health.

Recognising that some steps have been taken to allow all applicants to submit written questions to the EFSA, more
needs to be done to assist applicants of probiotics claims. The EFSA acknowledges that these claims are reviewed on a
case-by-case basis and that probiotics claim applicants may therefore only really understand what standards they are
required to meet if they are involved in some form of transparent dialogue with the EFSA before they submit a
dossier.

In certain limited cases, such as that of probiotics, some form of dialogue between the EFSA panel members and the
applicant should be introduced to ensure that applicants understand the standards against which they will be judged
and to optimise the EFSA’s time and resources.

Will the Commission undertake to study how to improve the health claim application process for probiotics,
including transparent consultation that preserves the EFSA’s independence, so that applicants have a clear
understanding of the standards they are required to meet before they prepare their dossier?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

Both European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Commission have made considerable efforts to ensure clarity on
the issue of the evaluation of health claims.

Since 2007, EFSA has engaged with stakeholders to outline and clarify the process followed by the NDA Panel ( [1] ) in
the evaluation of claims. Due to the scientific and technical complexity of health claims, EFSA has made available a
general guidance document ( [2] ) covering the principles applied in the evaluation process. Furthermore, it organised a
meeting in 2010 in Amsterdam, on the scientific requirements for health claims related to gut and immune function
which led to publication of additional specific guidance ( [3] ).

EFSA will organise a meeting ( [4] ), in November 2013, in order to promote an interactive exchange of expert views
regarding the information required for a full scientific evaluation of human studies submitted for the scientific
substantiation of health claims. In July 2013, EFSA responded to two letters received by the Global Alliance for
Probiotics and by the International Probiotics Association replying to a number of scientific questions raised in each
letter.

In the same context, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 353/2008 ( [5] ) concerning health claims'
applications which inlcuded rules for their prepration, presentation and scientific evidence required. Various meetings
on the substantiation of health claims have also taken place between the Commission services and stakeholders,
including the probiotic sector.

The Commission recognises that the sector of probiotics represents a key sector in the European industrial scene,
however, it cannot discriminate between the various food sectors by proceeding with specific actions concerning
claims for probiotics.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergy.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2011;9(4):2135.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EFSA Journal 2011; 9(4):1984.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) A technical meeting on the reporting of human studies submitted for the scientific substantiation of health claims.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 353/2008 of 18 April 2008 establishing implementing rules for applications for authorisation of health claims

as provided for in Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, OJ L 109, 19.4.2008.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 171

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008101/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Antonio Cancian (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Pratiche commerciali scorrette nella vendita di farmaci

Secondo quanto segnalato da alcune associazioni di categoria, le farmacie sono spesso vittime di una pratica
commerciale che procura danni a loro ed ai consumatori finali.

È infatti emerso che alcune aziende multinazionali produttrici di farmaci hanno stabilito un meccanismo di
contingentamento, al fine di impedire l'esportazione parallela da parte di aziende italiane di piccole dimensioni, che
operano come distributori intermedi, verso altri Paesi europei in cui lo stesso prodotto viene venduto a prezzi più alti.

Nello specifico, le farmacie sono obbligate ad ordinare direttamente alle aziende produttrici modiche quantità di
prodotto, con grave detrimento per i pazienti che spesso, a causa di queste restrizioni, sono costretti ad aspettare
diversi giorni, se non settimane, prima di poter acquistare il medicinale.

I ritardi nella somministrazione della terapia che ne conseguono possono dare luogo a problemi per il paziente e non
di rado a ricoveri dovuti alla sostituzione di farmaci o alla interruzione della terapia.

Ritiene la Commissione che questa pratica commerciale costituisca una violazione del trattato sul funzionamento
dell'Unione europea, in particolare dell'articolo 102, che definisce incompatibile con il mercato interno e vietato lo
sfruttamento abusivo di una posizione dominante per il fatto di introdurre condizioni di transazione non eque e
palesemente contrarie agli scopi del mercato interno stesso?

Ritiene inoltre che essa violi la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, che all'articolo 35 sancisce che ogni
persona ha diritto di accedere alla prevenzione sanitaria e ottenere cure mediche alle condizioni stabilite dalle
legislazioni e dalle prassi internazionali?

**Risposta di Joaquín Almunia a nome della Commissione**

_(11 settembre 2013)_

Sulla base delle informazioni fornite, la Commissione non può stabilire se le pratiche menzionate dall'onorevole
parlamentare violino l'articolo 102 del TFUE.

Per accertare una violazione dell'articolo 102 del TFUE, la Commissione dovrebbe individuare i mercati rilevanti e
dimostrare che le imprese farmaceutiche interessate occupano una posizione dominante. Inoltre essa dovrebbe
stabilire che le pratiche in questione (l'applicazione di un meccanismo di fissazione dei prezzi per impedire le
esportazioni parallele di farmaci) rappresentano una «pratica abusiva», ai sensi dall'articolo 102 del TFUE. Questo
richiede un'attenta valutazione basata sulle circostanze specifiche del caso. La Corte di giustizia ha decretato che la
Commissione dovrebbe valutare, tra l'altro, se queste pratiche costituiscano una misura ragionevole e proporzionata
alla minaccia rappresentata dalle esportazioni parallele rispetto ai legittimi interessi commerciali delle imprese
farmaceutiche ( [1] ).

L'articolo 35 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, riguardante il diritto di accedere all'assistenza
sanitaria e alle cure mediche, non si applica ai privati, bensì alle istituzioni, organi e organismi dell'Unione, come pure
agli Stati membri nell'attuazione del diritto dell'Unione (v. art. 51, par. 1 della Carta).

⋅1∙
( **|** **|** ) Cause riunite C-468/06 a C-478/06 _Sot. Lélos kai Sia EE e a./ GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proïonton_, _già Glaxowellcome AEVE_ ; Racc. [2008]
I-07139, punto 70 .

C 65 E / 172 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008101/13**

**to the Commission**

**Antonio Cancian (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Unfair commercial practices regarding the sale of medicines

According to reports by certain trade organisations, pharmacies are often victims of a commercial practice which
harms them and end users.

It has emerged that certain multinational pharmaceutical companies have established a quota mechanism to prevent
parallel exports by small Italian businesses, operating as intermediate distributors, to other European countries where
the same product is sold at a higher price.

To be specific, pharmacies are obliged to order directly from manufacturers small quantities of a product, to the
serious detriment of patients who, owing to these restrictions, are often forced to wait for several days, if not weeks,
before they can buy the medicine.

The consequent delays in administering treatment may cause problems for patients and often lead to their admission
to hospital owing to their medicine being replaced or their treatment being interrupted.

Does the Commission believe that this commercial practice violates the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, particularly Article 102 which defines as incompatible with the internal market, and prohibits, any abuse of a
dominant position inasmuch as it introduces unfair trading conditions which clearly conflict with the aims of the
internal market?

Furthermore, does it believe that it violates Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
which states that everyone has the right of access to preventive healthcare and the right to benefit from medical
treatment under the conditions established by laws and international practices?

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

_(11 September 2013)_

The Commission cannot establish, on the basis of the information provided, whether the commercial practices
mentioned by the Honourable Member infringe Article 102 TFEU.

To find a breach of Article 102 TFEU, the Commission would have to delineate the relevant markets and demonstrate
that the pharmaceutical companies concerned are dominant. Moreover, it would have to establish that the practices at
issue (the application of a quota mechanism to prevent parallel exports of medicines) constitute an ‘abuse’ within the
meaning of Article 102 TFEU. This requires a careful assessment based on the specific circumstances of the case. The
Court of Justice has ruled that the Commission would have to assess, among other things, whether these practices
constitute a reasonable and proportionate measure in relation to the threat that parallel exports represent to the
legitimate commercial interests of the pharmaceutical companies concerned ( [1] ).

Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which concerns the right of access to
healthcare and medical treatment, is not addressed to private parties, but to the institutions, bodies, offices and
agencies of the Union and to the Member States when they are implementing Union law (see Article 51(1) of the
Charter).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Joined Cases C-468/06 to C-478/06 _Sot. Lélos kai Sia EE and Others v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proïonton_, _formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE_ ;
ECR [2008] I-07139, para.70 .

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 173

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008102/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Stato dei fiumi italiani

L'Italia è attraversata da una grande quantità di corsi d'acqua naturali piccoli e medi. Sebbene i vantaggi di poter
disporre comodamente di una fonte di approvvigionamento idrico in buono stato siano chiari, soprattutto per il
settore agricolo, un adeguato impegno per proteggere i corsi d'acqua italiani sembra ancora mancare. I dati
provenienti dai risultati delle analisi effettuate da enti di rilevazione istituzionali e non, infatti, sono allarmanti. Uno
degli ultimi rapporti pubblicati è quello dell'Istituto superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale e si concentra
sulla presenza di pesticidi, usati soprattutto in agricoltura per migliorare i raccolti, nelle acque superficiali: più della
metà di esse (55 %) risulterebbe inquinato, mentre per quanto riguarda le falde sotterranee, il 28,2 % è inquinato.
L'istituto ha rilevato la presenza di centinaia di tipologie diverse di agenti inquinanti, alcuni anche potenzialmente
tossici. A quanto appena esposto va aggiunto lo stato di incuria in cui versano molti impianti di depurazione delle
acque reflue che, insieme a un'eccessiva urbanizzazione delle coste italiane che ha congestionato i sistemi fognari,
contribuiscono ad acuire il problema dell'inquinamento dei corsi d'acqua e, conseguentemente, anche a
compromettere la balneabilità delle spiagge.

Le direttive 2000/60/CE e 2006/118/CE impegnano gli Stati membri a raggiungere entro il 2015 l'obiettivo del
buono stato sia per le acque superficiali che per quelle sotterranee. I rischi per l'uomo derivanti dall'inquinamento dei
corsi d'acqua, soprattutto per i soggetti più esposti come le donne in gravidanza, non sono ben chiari, anche a causa
della difficoltà di stabilire le concentrazioni di pericolosità delle diverse sostanze, ragion per cui sarebbe utile adottare
dei provvedimenti cautelari.

Alla luce di quanto sopra, può la Commissione far sapere:

—
se è a conoscenza delle analisi effettuate sullo stato delle acque dei fiumi italiani;

—
se intende raccogliere dati di campionamenti volti a chiarire i livelli di inquinamento;

—
se ritiene di dover fornire ulteriori linee guida per condurre gli Stati membri al miglioramento delle condizioni
dei corsi d'acqua in vista dell'obiettivo del 2015?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(30 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione non era a conoscenza della relazione dell'I.S.P.R.A, ma ha ricevuto informazioni sullo stato dei corpi
idrici italiani nell'ambito dell'attuazione della direttiva quadro sulle acque 2000/60/CE ( [1] ). La relazione del 2010
relativa ai piani di gestione dei bacini idrografici nell'ambito della direttiva quadro sulle acque dovrebbe contenere una
valutazione dello stato di tutti i corpi idrici sotterranei e di superficie, in base ai programmi di monitoraggio previsti a
norma dell'articolo 8 della stessa direttiva. Incombe pertanto agli Stati membri l'obbligo di effettuare il
campionamento e la valutazione dello stato delle acque.

La Commissione, nel novembre 2012, ha pubblicato una relazione sull'attuazione della direttiva quadro sulle
acque ( [2] ) comprendente una valutazione dell'attuazione in Italia, corredata di numerose raccomandazioni. La
Commissione sta organizzando riunioni bilaterali con gli Stati membri al fine di garantire che venga dato seguito alle
raccomandazioni con gli interventi dovuti. Inoltre la Commissione, come gli Stati membri, ha già elaborato numerose
linee guida in merito all'attuazione della direttiva quadro nell'ambito della strategia comune di attuazione ( [3] ).
Recentemente è stato approvato un nuovo programma di lavoro per il 2013-2015 che affronta le priorità evidenziate
nella relazione sull'attuazione del 2012.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 327 del 22.12.2000, pag. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Relazione della Commissione al Parlamento europeo e al Consiglio concernente l'attuazione della direttiva quadro sulle acque (2000/60/CE) —

Piani di gestione dei bacini idrografici COM(2012)670 e A European Overview — Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the
report (Rassegna europea — Documento di lavoro della Commissione che accompagna la relazione, solo in inglese): SWD(2012)379. Entrambi i
documenti sono consultabili all'indirizzo seguente: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Una procedura informale istituita nel 2001. Per ulteriori informazioni cfr. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water
framework/objectives/implementation_en.htm

( **|**

⋅3∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 174 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Per quanto riguarda l'inquinamento urbano, la direttiva 1991/271/CEE ( [4] ) stabilisce delle scadenze entro le quali gli
Stati membri sono tenuti a raccogliere e trattare le acque reflue degli agglomerati urbani. Attualmente vi sono due casi
d'infrazione in corso nei confronti dell'Italia (causa C-565/10 per cui è stata pubblicata una sentenza della Corte e C85/13 ancora pendente).

Per quanto riguarda le acque di balneazione, dalle ultime informazioni trasmesse dall'Italia risulta che il 96 % delle
acque di balneazione rispetta i requisiti della direttiva sulle acque di balneazione 2006/7/CE ( [5] ). Laddove le acque di
balneazione non siano conformi alle norme, devono essere adottate le idonee misure.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) GU L 135 del 30.5.1991, pag. 40.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) GU L 64 del 4.3.2006, pag. 37.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 175

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008102/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ State of Italian rivers

A large number of small and medium-sized natural watercourses run through Italy. Although the advantages of being
able to easily draw upon a water supply in a good state are clear, especially for the agricultural sector, sufficient efforts
to protect Italian watercourses still appear to be lacking. The data obtained from the results of analyses carried out by
institutional and other monitoring bodies are, in fact, alarming. One of the most recently published reports is that by
ISPRA (Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) focusing on the presence of pesticides, used in
particular in the agricultural sector to improve harvests, in surface waters: over half of these (55%) have been found to
be polluted, whereas 28.2% of underground aquifers are polluted. The institute found hundreds of different kinds of
pollutants present, some of which are potentially toxic. In addition to the above situation is the state of neglect of
many wastewater purification plants which, together with the excessive urbanisation of Italy’s coasts which has
congested sewerage systems, are contributing to the problem of pollution of watercourses and, consequently, also
jeopardising the quality of bathing water at beaches.

Directives 2000/60/EC and 2006/118/EC require the Member States to attain the objective of good surface water and
groundwater status by 2015. The risks to humans from the pollution of watercourses, especially for more vulnerable
persons such as pregnant women, are unclear, not least owing to the difficulty of establishing the concentrations at
which the various substances are dangerous; it would therefore be appropriate to take precautionary measures.

In light of the above, can the Commission state:

—
whether it is aware of the analyses carried out on the state of the water in Italian rivers;

—
whether it plans to collect sampling data in order to clarify the pollution levels;

—
whether it believes it necessary to provide further guidelines to ensure that the Member States improve the
conditions of watercourses with a view to the 2015 objective?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Commission was not aware of the ISPRA report but has received information on the status of Italian water bodies
in the context of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC ( [1] )). The WFD River Basin
Management Plans (RMBPs) reported in 2010 should include the assessment of the status of all surface and
groundwater bodies, based on the monitoring programmes established under WFD Article 8. It is therefore the MS's
obligation to carry out the sampling and status assessment.

The Commission published a WFD implementation report ( [2] ) in November 2012, including an assessment of the
WFD implementation in Italy which included a number of recommendations. The Commission is holding bilateral
meetings with MS to ensure that the recommendations are followed up appropriately. In addition, extensive guidance
on the WFD implementation has been produced by the Commission and the MS under the Common Implementation
Strategy ( [3] ). A new work programme for 2013-2015 was recently approved which addresses the priorities identified
in the 2012 implementation report.

As regards urban pollution, Directive 1991/271/EEC ( [4] ) establishes certain deadlines for MS to collect and treat waste
water from urban agglomerations. There are currently two ongoing infringement cases against Italy (Case C-565/10
for which a Court ruling has been published and C‐ 85/13 still pending before the Court).

As regards bathing water, the latest information submitted by Italy show that 96% of bathing waters fulfil the
requirements of the Bathing water Directive 2006/7/EC ( [5] ). Where bathing water does not meet the standards,
measures should be taken.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p.1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Water Framewok Directive — River Basin

Management Plans (COM(2012)670 and A European Overview — Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the report:
SWD(2012)379. Both available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/map_mc/map.htm

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) [An informal process established in 2001. For more information see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/objectives/)

implementation_en.htm

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40‐52.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) OJ L 64, 4.3.2006, p. 37‐51.

( **|**

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

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 176 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008103/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Il ruolo dei trattamenti placebo nella sperimentazione: tra dibattiti medico-legali ed etici

Lo scorso anno in un centro medico degli Stati Uniti un'equipe di ricercatori ha creato un programma di studi sui
trattamenti placebo e sui rapporti terapeutici tra medico e paziente. Il programma è arrivato a dimostrare che anche
trattamenti che non prevedano la somministrazione di alcun farmaco attivo possono apportare dei benefici, in
particolare, sono utili a stimolare reazioni fisiologiche come cambiamenti nel ritmo cardiaco e nella pressione
sanguigna o nelle attività chimiche all'interno del cervello. Di fatto sono state condotte sperimentazioni che
consistevano nel confrontare le reazioni di diversi gruppi di pazienti ai vari trattamenti a cui venivano sottoposti: in
alcuni casi le persone venivano informate che la terapia non prevedeva la somministrazione di farmaci bensì di
placebo, mentre in altri la sperimentazione consisteva nel simulare un trattamento farmacologico, laddove i
medicinali erano, invece, rimpiazzati da sostanze inerti senza che i pazienti ne fossero stati a conoscenza. I risultati di
tali studi hanno evidenziato un tangibile impatto sul sollievo provato dai pazienti trattati con placebo, benché vi siano
comunque degli effetti collaterali dovuti all'attivazione di una parte del cervello, l'ippocampo, che può generare
disturbi quali mal di testa e nausea.

Considerato che:

—
vi sono pareri discordanti sula definizione e sull’utilizzo del placebo, in quanto ciò pone delicate questioni
mediche e giuridiche di conciliazione tra dovere d’informazione al soggetto sul quale si compie la
sperimentazione, in modo tale da riceverne un valido compenso alla stessa, unitamente alla costante necessità
della mancata consapevolezza sullo stato di reale assunzione della sostanza da sperimentare, soprattutto in
riferimento al fondamentale obbligo di agire nel rispetto della persona coinvolta nella sperimentazione e nella
tutela della sua salute;

—
il ricorso al placebo evidenzia la grande consapevolezza del maggior rigore scientifico della sperimentazione
clinica «in cieco» e delle migliori capacità tecniche usate per dare adeguate risposte terapeutiche al possibile
sorgere di episodi sfavorevoli, collegati sempre di più alla prevenzione della terapia efficace.

Può la Commissione riferire:

—
qual è il suo orientamento in merito all'utilizzo di trattamenti placebo e se ritiene che il quadro regolamentare
attuale sia chiaro, non solo per gli operatori sanitari ma anche per i pazienti;

—
se intende incentivare l'Agenzia europea per i medicinali all'approfondimento delle ricerche sugli effetti che i
placebo hanno sui pazienti?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(5 settembre 2013)_

1) L'attuale quadro legislativo (direttiva 2001/20/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 4 aprile 2001 ( [1] ),
concernente il ravvicinamento delle disposizioni legislative, regolamentari e amministrative degli Stati membri
relative all'applicazione della buona pratica clinica nell'esecuzione della sperimentazione clinica di medicinali ad uso
umano) non prevede regole specifiche per gli esperimenti placebo controllati. Essa prevede tuttavia regole chiare volte
ad assicurare che qualsiasi prova clinica sia concepita ed eseguita in modo da tutelare le persone che vi sono
assoggettate e da ottenere dati affidabili. Inoltre, un esperimento placebo controllato, come qualsiasi altra prova, deve
essere approvato, prima di iniziare, in ciascuno Stato membro in cui si intende effettuarlo. La Commissione ritiene
adeguato questo approccio.

2) Non rientra nel mandato dell'Agenzia europea per i medicinali condurre ricerche sugli aspetti menzionati
dall'onorevole parlamentare.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 121 dell'1.5.2001, pag. 34.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 177

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008103/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ The role of placebo treatment in trials: medico-legal and ethical issues

In the United States last year, a team of researchers conducted a study on treatment with placebo and the therapeutic
relationship between doctor and patient. The study showed that treatments that do not involve giving an active drug
can also bring benefits. These treatments are particularly useful in stimulating physiological reactions such as changes
in heart rate and blood pressure or chemical activity in the brain. In fact, trials have been conducted comparing the
reactions of different groups of patients to various treatments: in some cases, the people were informed that the
therapy used a placebo rather than a drug. In other trials, the medicines were replaced by inert substances without the
patient's knowledge, simulating pharmacological treatment. These studies showed a tangible effect on the relief
provided to patients treated with the placebo, although there were some side effects due to activation of a part of the
brain — the hippocampus — that can cause symptoms such as headache and nausea.

There are conflicting opinions on the definition and use of placebos: they pose sensitive medical and legal issues on
how to reconcile a) the duty to provide information to trial subjects so that they may receive sufficient reward for
their participation, with b) the continued need for the subject not to be aware of whether they are taking the trial drug
— especially in relation to the fundamental obligation to treat trial subjects with respect and protect their health.

The use of placebos shows a greater awareness of the increased scientific rigour of blind clinical trials, and the greater
technical capacity to provide sufficient therapeutic responses to any adverse events, which are increasingly linked to
the prevention of effective therapy.

— Given the above, what is the Commission's position on the use of placebo treatment, and does it believe that the
current regulatory framework is clear, both for healthcare workers and patients?

— Will the Commission encourage the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to conduct further research on the effects
of placebos on patients?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

1) The current legislative framework (Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
4 April 2001 ( [1] ) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for
human use) does not provide for specific rules on the placebo controlled trails. However, it provides with clear rules
ensuring that any clinical trial is designed and conducted in a way to protect clinical trial subjects and to obtain
reliable data. Furthermore, a placebo controlled trial, as any other trial, has to be approved before its start in each of
the Member State where it is intended to be performed. The Commission considers such an approach appropriate.

2) It is not in the remit of the European Medicines Agency to conduct research on the aspects referred to by the
Honourable Member.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) L 121/34, 01.05.2001.

C 65 E / 178 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008104/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Nuovo vaccino «al contrario» per i pazienti con diabete di tipo 1 o insulinodipendente

Il diabete giovanile è una malattia in cui il sistema immunitario del paziente attacca e uccide le cellule pancreatiche
che producono insulina e i sintomi compaiono improvvisamente, con sete sfrenata, aumento della diuresi, aumento
dell'appetito non accompagnato da incremento del peso bensì da una riduzione del peso corporeo. Nota anche come
diabete di tipo 1 o insulinodipendente, questa patologia riguarda il 3 % della popolazione mondiale. Il paziente,
quindi, per regolare la propria glicemia, ha bisogno di iniettarsi ogni giorno e per tutta la sua vita dosi di insulina (di
qui la definizione di diabete insulinodipendente). I vaccini normalmente servono per stimolare il sistema immunitario
ad attaccare il nemico. Ma il nuovo vaccino c.d. inverso spegne anziché accendere la risposta immunitaria, uccidendo
le cellule immunitarie impazzite che danneggiano il pancreas.

La ricerca, condotta su 80 pazienti con diabete da almeno 1-3 anni, ha dato risultati ottimi. Nello specifico ha
dimostrato che le persone vaccinate erano in grado di produrre maggiori quantità di insulina (l’ormone che trasporta
il glucosio nel sangue) rispetto a quelle non sottoposte al trattamento e che le cellule dannose o immunitarie cattive
che attaccano il pancreas risultavano numericamente ridotte. Anche se il vaccino «al contrario» ha avuto ottimi
risultati, ancora non garantisce al diabetico di liberarsi definitivamente delle dosi di insulina.

Considerato che:

—
il diabete di tipo 1 colpisce prevalentemente neonati e giovani, difficilmente si manifesta sopra i 40 anni e ha un
picco d'incidenza intorno ai 14 anni;

—
il nuovo vaccino è il primo vaccino inverso efficace e in grado di cambiare radicalmente il decorso della
malattia evitando che si aggravi;

può la Commissione far sapere se e come intenda approfondire la ricerca in tale campo e che posizione intenda
assumere in merito al nuovo vaccino «al contrario» per diabetici di tipo 1?

**Risposta di Máire Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(19 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza delle attività di ricerca sul vaccino «inverso» a base di DNA per il diabete di tipo 1,
pubblicate su Science Translational Medicine il 26 giugno 2013 ( [1] ) e menzionate dall’onorevole parlamentare. Da
tempo la scienza è alla ricerca di una terapia per il diabete di tipo 1 che colpisca la risposta autoimmune specifica di
questa malattia lasciando però intatto il resto del sistema immunitario.

La ricerca sul diabete, e in particolare sul diabete di tipo 1, è stata ampiamente coperta nell’ambito del Settimo
programma quadro per la ricerca e lo sviluppo tecnologico (7 [o] PQ, 2007‐2013). Il contributo totale dell’UE per i 174
progetti di ricerca sul diabete è superiore a 380 milioni di EUR, che includono 24 progetti sul diabete di tipo 1 ai quali
sono stati destinati 92,3 milioni di EUR.

Nuove strategie per il trattamento di questo tipo di diabete — simili a quelle alle quali si riferisce la pubblicazione
citata, basate su una migliore conoscenza dei meccanismi autoimmuni e che non intaccano il funzionamento delle
cellule beta‐pancreatiche — sono oggetto di diversi progetti quali BETACELLTHERAPY ( [2] ), EE-ASI ( [3] ) o NAIMIT ( [4] ). La
proposta della Commissione per Orizzonte 2020, il programma quadro per la ricerca e l’innovazione (2014-2020),
offrirà probabilmente ulteriori opportunità per la ricerca sugli approcci terapeutici al diabete di tipo 1, attraverso, tra
l'altro, nuove sfide per la società quali l'obiettivo specifico «Salute, cambiamento demografico e benessere» ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23803704
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.betacelltherapy.org/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ee-asi.eu/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://naimit.eu/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0809:FIN:it:PDF

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 179

La pubblicazione in _Science Translational Medicine_ dimostra che il vaccino, basato su un plasmide che contiene il codice
per la proinsulina, riduce la frequenza delle cellule CD8(+) T reattive alla proinsulina (un obiettivo importante della
risposta immunitaria adattiva nel diabete di tipo 1) pur preservando il peptide-C nel corso della somministrazione.
Sono necessarie ulteriori ricerche per determinare l'intero potenziale offerto da questo approccio terapeutico nel
trattamento della malattia.

C 65 E / 180 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008104/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ New ‘reverse vaccine’ for patients with type 1 or insulin-dependent diabetes

Juvenile diabetes causes the immune system to attack and kill the pancreatic cells that produce insulin. Symptoms
appear suddenly, including extreme thirst, increased urination, increase in appetite without an increase in weight, and
a reduction of body weight. Also known as type 1 or insulin-dependent diabetes, this disease affects 3% of the
population globally. To regulate their blood glucose levels, patients must self-administer insulin injections every day
for the rest of their lives (giving rise to the term ‘insulin-dependent’). Vaccines normally work to stimulate the
immune system to fight off invaders, but the new ‘reverse vaccine’ actually turns the immune response off, killing the
haywire immune cells that damage the pancreas.

The research, conducted on 80 patients who had had diabetes for at least 1-3 years, has produced excellent results,
showing that vaccinated people were able to produce greater quantities of insulin (the hormone that transports
glucose into the blood) compared with those who had not been vaccinated, and that the harmful or haywire immune
cells that attack the pancreas were reduced in number. Although the ‘reverse vaccine’ has produced excellent results, it
still does not guarantee diabetics total freedom from insulin injections.

Since type 1 diabetes largely occurs in infants and children, is rarely seen over the age of 40, and has a peak incidence
around the age of 14, and since the new vaccine is the first effective reverse vaccine capable of radically changing the
course of the disease and preventing its progression, does the Commission intend to continue research in this area?
What is its position on the new ‘reverse vaccine’ for type 1 diabetics?

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

_(19 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware of research efforts on DNA ‘reverse’ vaccine for type 1 Diabetes, published in Science
Translational Medicine (26 June 2013 ( [1] )) and mentioned by the Honourable Member. A therapy for type 1 Diabetes
that targets the specific autoimmune response in this disease while leaving the remainder of the immune system
intact, has long been sought.

Research on diabetes, and specifically on type 1 Diabetes, has been extensively covered within the Seventh
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013). The total EU contribution
provided for the 174 research projects on diabetes exceeds EUR 380 million, including 24 projects on type 1 Diabetes
granted with EUR 92.3 million.

Novel treatment strategies for type 1 Diabetes based on a better knowledge of autoimmune mechanisms and
preservation of pancreatic beta-cell functioning, as the abovementioned publication refers to, are dealt with in several
projects such as BETACELLTHERAPY ( [2] ), EE-ASI ( [3] ) or NAIMIT ( [4] ). The Commission's proposal for Horizon 2020 —
The framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) will likely offer opportunities for research on
therapeutic approaches of Type 1 Diabetes, amongst other, through the ‘Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing’ societal challenge ( [5] ).

The publication demonstrates that a plasmid encoding proinsulin reduces the frequency of CD8(+) T cells reactive to
proinsulin — a major target of the adaptive immune response in type 1 Diabetes — while preserving C-peptide over
the course of dosing. Further research is needed to establish the full potential offered by this therapeutic approach in
the treatment of this disease.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23803704
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.betacelltherapy.org/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.ee-asi.eu/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://naimit.eu/
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0809:FIN:en:PDF

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 181

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008105/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sicurezza alimentare e etichettatura: prospettive per una possibile revisione delle norme e del sistema di
controlli

L'attuale politica di sicurezza alimentare è incentrata su una serie di principi stabiliti e attualizzati all'inizio degli anni
2000. Questi principi, applicati adottando l'approccio globale dai campi alla tavola, comprendono in particolare la
trasparenza, l'analisi e la prevenzione dei rischi, la tutela degli interessi dei consumatori e la libera circolazione di
prodotti sicuri e di qualità nel mercato interno e con i paesi terzi. Una serie di organismi specializzati, in particolare
l'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare, contribuiscono a garantire la sicurezza dei prodotti alimentari che,
insieme alla ricerca rappresentano un elemento importante della politica di sicurezza alimentare. Per raggiungere tale
obiettivo, l'Unione europea provvede a elaborare e far rispettare norme di controllo in materia di igiene degli alimenti
e dei prodotti alimentari, salute e benessere degli animali, salute delle piante e prevenzione dei rischi di
contaminazione da sostanze esterne. Inoltre prescrive norme volte a garantire l'adeguata etichettatura di tali prodotti.

Nonostante ciò, in Europa si è registrato un aumento sensibile degli «scandali alimentari», legati alla contraffazione e
al mancato rispetto delle prescrizioni igienico-sanitarie. In particolare, ancora una volta in Italia è stato denunciato un
caso di distribuzione di cibi scaduti e avariati in scuole materne e istituti per anziani, che a partire dal 2009 ha
coinvolto gli stessi dirigenti sanitari ospedalieri e amministratori dei vari comuni oltre a un folto gruppo di
imprenditori che, grazie alla collusione e compiacenza di pubblici funzionari, hanno messo a rischio la salute di molte
vite umane, eludendo i dovuti accertamenti sulla quantità e qualità nella gestione di fornitura di cibo.

Considerato che a fronte dei recenti scandali alimentari, la politica di sicurezza alimentare dell'Unione europea ha
evidenziato lacune normative nella protezione della salute e degli interessi dei consumatori, mettendo a rischio il
regolare funzionamento del mercato interno, può la Commissione riferire se ritiene opportuno fissare nuove linee
guida ai fini di una corretta attuazione da parte degli Stati membri delle vigenti misure sull'etichettatura e sulla
sicurezza dei prodotti alimentari, sulla legislazione veterinaria pertinente e sui controlli sanitari dei prodotti
alimentari e dei sistemi di produzione alimentare?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(8 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione concorda sul fatto che i recenti casi di mancato rispetto delle regole della catena agroalimentare
evidenziano la necessità di applicare in modo efficace la legislazione vigente. A tale scopo e per rafforzare le norme
applicabili ai controlli ufficiali sulla catena agroalimentare, la Commissione ha pertanto adottato il 6 maggio 2013
una proposta di revisione del regolamento vigente sui controlli ufficiali ( [1] ). La proposta intende rafforzare il sistema
esistente, in particolare per quanto riguarda la lotta contro le frodi alimentari e le sanzioni da comminare in caso di
violazioni intenzionali.

Norme chiare ed efficaci, che possono essere applicate senza ulteriori orientamenti, sono inoltre essenziali per
garantire un'adeguata attuazione delle norme tecniche dell'UE sulla catena agroalimentare. Le norme sull'etichettatura
alimentare sono state migliorate e rafforzate mediante l'adozione del regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 ( [2] ); il 6 maggio
2013 la Commissione ha inoltre adottato una serie di proposte legislative volte a semplificare e modernizzare la
legislazione applicabile alla sanità degli animali e alla sanità delle piante e le norme sul riproduttivo vegetale.
Informazioni più dettagliate su queste proposte sono disponibili sul sito web della Commissione ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)265 def.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 relativo alla fornitura di informazioni sugli alimenti ai consumatori, GU L 304 del 22.11.2011, pag.18. Il

regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011 si applica dal 31 dicembre 2014.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://wcmcom-ec-europa-eu-wip.wcm3vue.cec.eu.int:8080/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/animal-plant-health_en.htm

( **|**

C 65 E / 182 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008105/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Food safety and labelling: prospects of a possible revision of standards and control systems

Current food safety policy is based on a set of principles established and updated in the early 2000s. Those principles,
applied in line with the integrated ‘from the farm to the fork’ approach, specifically include transparency, risk analysis
and prevention, the protection of consumers’ interests and the free movement of safe and quality products within the
internal market and with third countries. A group of specialist bodies, and in particular the European Food Safety
Authority, help guarantee the safety of food products and, together with research, are an important part of food safety
policy. In order to achieve this objective, the EU ensures that control standards are established and adhered to as
regards food and food product hygiene, animal health and welfare, plant health and preventing the risk of
contamination from external substances. It also lays down rules on appropriate labelling for these products.

Despite this, there has been a significant increase in ‘food scandals’ in Europe, linked to counterfeiting and failure to
comply with hygiene and health requirements. In particular, there have been reports of yet another case in Italy
involving out-of-date and rotten food being distributed to nursery schools and care homes for the elderly. This has
been going on since 2009 and involves hospital health officials and officials from several municipalities as well as a
large group of contractors who, in collusion with accommodating public officials, have endangered the health of lots
of people by circumventing the proper quantity and quality checks in managing food supplies.

Considering that in view of the recent food scandals the EU’s food safety policy has revealed regulatory loopholes in
the protection of consumers’ health and interests, jeopardising the proper functioning of the internal market, does the
Commission think it should set new guidelines for the proper implementation, by Member States, of the measures in
force on the labelling and safety of foodstuffs, on the relevant veterinary legislation and on health checks on
foodstuffs and food production systems?

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

_(8 August 2013)_

The Commission agrees that recent cases of non-compliance with the agri-food chain rules show the need to
effectively enforce existing legislation. Therefore, to pursue this objective and to strengthen the rules applicable to
official controls on the agri-food chain it adopted on 6 May 2013 a proposal to review the current Regulation on
official controls ( [1] ). This proposal aims to strengthen the existing system, including as regards the fight against food
fraud and the sanctions to be applied in cases of intentional violations.

Clear and efficient rules that can be implemented without additional guidelines are also key for the proper
implementation of EU agri-food chain standards. While the rules on food labelling were improved and strengthened
with the adoption of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 ( [2] ), on 6 May 2013 the Commission also adopted legislative
proposals aimed at simplifying and modernising the legislation applicable to animal health and plant health
requirements and the rules on plant propagating material. More detailed information on these proposals is available
on the Commission web page ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 265 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p.

18. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 enters into application on 13 December 2014.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://wcmcom-ec-europa-eu-wip.wcm3vue.cec.eu.int:8080/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/animal-plant-health_en.htm

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 183

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008106/13**

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

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Elezioni in Iran: passi avanti per la democratizzazione delle istituzioni iraniane

Il 14 giugno in Iran si sono tenute le elezioni presidenziali che hanno visto prevalere con larghissimo margine Hassan
Rouhani, candidato che la stampa internazionale considera moderato: il 50,71 % dei quasi 40 milioni di iraniani che
si sono recati alle urne, pari a quasi l'80 % degli aventi diritto, segno della volontà della popolazione di esprimere il
proprio diritto di voto, ha infatti scelto l'ex segretario del Consiglio supremo di sicurezza nazionale. Proprio i
precedenti incarichi ricoperti da Rouhani danno però adito a scetticismi: come già anticipato, è stato infatti il rettore
dell'organo responsabile della difesa del paese per ben 16 anni, membro dell'influente Consiglio del discernimento,
nonché caponegoziatore con i paesi membri dell'Agenzia internazionale per l'energia atomica riguardo al programma
nucleare iraniano. Un tale coinvolgimento nelle posizioni di vertice dell'establishment lascia intendere che,
nonostante le posizioni di Rouhani siano meno radicali di quelle di alcuni dei candidati sconfitti alle elezioni, come
Saeed Jalili o Mohammad Baqe Qalifab, vi possano essere legami con la guida, o leader supremo, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei.

Considerato che l'articolo 110 della Costituzione iraniana attribuisce poteri molto ampi alla guida come ad esempio
la firma dell'atto di nomina del Presidente della Repubblica in seguito alle elezioni, nonché della sua destituzione; il
comando supremo delle forze armate; la facoltà di dichiarare guerra, concordare la pace e mobilitare le forze armate;
il potere di indire i referendum, nominare e/o destituire sei dei dodici faqih componenti il Consiglio dei guardiani, il
presidente della radio e televisione nazionale, il capo di Stato maggiore e il comandante in capo delle Forze armate e
delle Forze di polizia; la concentrazione di tali poteri in mano ad un eminente esperto di teologia islamica, quale deve
essere la guida, de facto svilisce la figura del Presidente, eletto democraticamente, e rende l'Iran simile a una teocrazia;
le candidature alle elezioni presidenziali iraniane non sono libere poiché è il Consiglio dei guardiani a stabilirne
l'ammissibilità caso per caso, organo che può anche invalidare il voto popolare, può il Vicepresidente/Alto
Rappresentante, Baronessa Lady Ashton riferire se i canali diplomatici attuali si stiano impegnando a fare in modo che
la suddetta struttura gerarchica, profondamente imperniata sull'islamismo, sia rivista e modificata nell'ambito di un
reale processo di democratizzazione dell'Iran e delle sue istituzioni?

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

_(10 settembre 2013)_

L’Unione europea promuove il rispetto dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali e una maggiore apertura della vita
politica in Iran mediante contatti diplomatici e dichiarazioni pubbliche e applicando sanzioni nei casi di violazione
dei diritti umani. L’Iran è uno Stato sovrano e qualsiasi iniziativa di modifica della Costituzione deve partire dal suo
interno.

C 65 E / 184 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008106/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Elections in Iran: progress towards democratic Iranian institutions

On 14 June 2013 presidential elections were held in Iran. Hassan Rouhani, seen as the moderate candidate by the
international press, won by a landslide: 50.71% of the almost 40 million Iranians who voted — almost 80% of the
electorate and a sign of the people’s desire to exercise their right to vote — actually chose the former secretary of the
Supreme National Security Council. Previous positions Rouhani has occupied, however, give cause for scepticism: as
already mentioned, he was the head of the national defence body for some 16 years, a member of the influential
Expediency Discernment Council, as well as chief negotiator with the member countries of the International Atomic
Energy Agency with regard to the Iranian nuclear programme. Such involvement in the highest echelons of the
establishment suggests that, despite Rouhani’s views being less radical than those of some of the unsuccessful election
candidates, such as Saeed Jalili and Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, he may have links with the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei.

Article 110 of the Iranian Constitution gives the Supreme Leader wide-ranging powers, such as signing the act to
appoint the President of the Republic after the elections, as well as the act to remove him; supreme command of the
armed forces; the power to declare war, agree peace and mobilise the armed forces; the power to call referendums,
appoint and/or dismiss 6 of the 12 Faqihs sitting on the Guardian Council, the president of national radio and
television, the chief of staff and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the police. The concentration of
these powers in the hands of an eminent expert on Islamic theology, as the Supreme Leader must be, effectively
undermines the role of the democratically elected President and makes Iran something of a theocracy. People are not
free to stand as candidates in the Iranian presidential elections as the Guardian Council, the body that can also veto
the popular vote, determines eligibility on a case-by-case basis. Can the Vice-President/High Representative say
whether diplomatic efforts are currently being made to ensure that the aforementioned hierarchy, which is
fundamentally rooted in Islamism, is reconsidered and transformed as part of a genuine process to democratise Iran
and its institutions?

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

_(10 September 2013)_

The European Union encourages respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and a greater opening of
political life in Iran. It does this through diplomatic contacts and public statements as well as through the imposition
of sanctions on human rights offenders. Iran is a sovereing state and changes to its Constitution must be initiated
from within Iran.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 185

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008107/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Farmaci anticancro e diritto alle cure

Un cortocircuito delle normative europee e italiane sta producendo una macroscopica ingiustizia per i malati. Due
nuovi farmaci oncologici molecolari che allungano la vita e ne migliorano la qualità sono stati messi in commercio in
Italia (giacché per il momento potevano essere reperiti solo all'estero) ma a totale carico dei cittadini: il Pertuzumab
usato contro i carcinomi della mammella e l'Aflibercept per i tumori del colon retto. Il primo costa 6 000 euro
all'inizio e poi 3 000 ogni tre settimane, il secondo 4 000 euro ogni tre settimane. L'Ema, l'agenzia di regolazione
farmaceutica europea, ha approvato i due medicinali, rispettivamente il 4 marzo e il 1 [o] febbraio scorsi, ma fino ad ora
l'agenzia per il farmaco italiana non ne ha ancora previsto la commercializzazione ritenendo necessari un incontro
con l'azienda produttrice e una decisione sul prezzo, nonché sul valore del rimborso che il Sistema sanitario nazionale
dovrebbe riconoscere per il medicinale. È la prima volta che due farmaci oncologici vengono fatti pagare ai pazienti.
Nessuno si augura di sviluppare un cancro, malattia già destabilizzante sotto l'aspetto fisico e psicologico, e per
questo non bisogna aggiungere un ulteriore onere finanziario per i malati.

Considerato che il diritto alle cure e alla salute deve essere garantito a tutti e a livello europeo, i farmaci devono essere
garantiti ai pazienti e essere a carico della sanità nazionale, specialmente per patologie così gravi e in Italia 9 milioni di
malati si sono rivolti alla sanità «low cost» o hanno addirittura rinunciato alle cure a causa del reddito insufficiente,
può la Commissione far sapere:

—
se è a conoscenza del caso in questione e come intende garantire il diritto alla cura e alla salute;

—
se ritiene che il caso in questione possa determinare sul lungo termine una fuga di pazienti e un aumento al
ricorso a farmaci «low cost»;

—
quale posizione intende assumere rispetto alla problematica sollevata del differente trattamento nazionale che
esiste per il le cure oncologiche;

—
se intende avviare nuove azioni di sensibilizzazione per gli Stati membri che conducano a un adeguamento
progressivo del sistema di cura delle malattie oncologiche nelle diverse normative nazionali?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(20 agosto 2013)_

Il 6 marzo 2013 la Commissione ha adottato una decisione con cui rilascia l'autorizzazione alla commercializzazione
del farmaco «Perjeta» (sostanza attiva pertuzumab) ( [1] ) per il trattamento del cancro della mammella metastatico o non
resecabile e il 5 febbraio 2013 per il farmaco «Zaltrap» (aflibercept) ( [2] ) per il trattamento del cancro colo-rettale
metastatico. Sulla base di queste autorizzazioni unionali alla commercializzazione, valide su tutto il territorio dell'UE,
il «Perjeta» e il «Zaltrap» possono essere immessi sul mercato in tutti gli Stati membri dell'UE.

Tuttavia, l'erogazione di assistenza sanitaria compreso l'accesso ai prodotti medicinali successivamente
all'autorizzazione, i prezzi dei medicinali e la loro inclusione nel sistema sanitario o di sicurezza sociale nazionale
rientrano, conformemente al trattato UE, nelle competenze degli Stati membri. Pertanto, la Commissione non può
intervenire per quanto concerne l'accesso, nei diversi Stati membri, ai due farmaci menzionati né in merito alle
opzioni terapeutiche offerte nel trattamento del cancro.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h813.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h814.htm

C 65 E / 186 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008107/13**

**to the Commission**

**Oreste Rossi (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cancer drugs and the right to treatment

An oversight in European and Italian legal systems means that the sick are being done a great injustice. Two new
molecular cancer drugs that extend life expectancy and improve the quality of life have been put on sale in Italy (they
could previously only be found abroad) but entirely at the cost of the public: Pertuzumab, used in the treatment of
breast cancer and Aflibercept, for colorectal tumours. The first costs EUR 6 000 initially and then EUR 3 000 every
three weeks, while the second costs EUR 4 000 every three weeks. The EMA, the European Medicines Agency, has
approved both drugs, on 4 March 2013 and 1 February 2013 respectively, but up to now the Italian Medicines
Agency has still not issued a marketing authorisation for them, as it feels that it needs to hold a meeting with the
manufacturer and to decide on the price, as well as on the amount that the Italian national health service should
reimburse for the drug. It is the first time that two cancer drugs are to be paid for by patients. No one hopes they
develop cancer, a disease that is physically and psychologically debilitating, so laying another financial burden on
patients is unnecessary.

Everyone should be guaranteed the right to treatment and health across Europe and patients should be guaranteed
drugs, which should be paid for by national health systems, particularly for such serious diseases. Nine million people
in Italy have turned to ‘low-cost’ healthcare or have even given up treatment because they cannot afford it.

— Is the Commission aware of this case and how will it guarantee the right to treatment and health?

— Does it think that the case in question could, in the long term, lead to patients going elsewhere and increased use of
‘low-cost’ drugs?

— What position will it take with regard to the problem of cancer treatment being handled differently in different
countries?

— Does it plan to take further action to raise awareness among the Member States to gradually adapt the system for
treating cancer in their various national legislations?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

The Commission adopted a decision granting a marketing authorisation for ‘Perjeta’ (the active substance
pertuzumab) ( [1] ) for the treatment of metastatic or unressectable breast cancer on 6 March 2013 and for ‘Zaltrap’
(aflibercept) ( [2] ) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer on 5 February 2013. On the basis of these EU
marketing authorisations, valid across the whole EU, ‘Perjeta’ and ‘Zaltrap’ can be placed on the market in all EU
Member States.

However, the delivery of healthcare including the access to medicinal products after authorisation, the prices of
medicinal products and their inclusion in the national health system or social security schemes is, according to the
EU Treaty, the competence of the Member States. Therefore, the Commission does not have ability to take action on
the access to the two medicinal products mentioned in the different Member States, nor on the treatment options for
cancer offered.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h813.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/h814.htm

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 187

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008108/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Pakistan: due sorelle uccise per aver ballato sotto la pioggia

Il 30 giugno scorso a Chilas, località della regione settentrionale del Gilgit-Baltistan, due sorelle di 15 e 16 anni sono
state uccise insieme alla loro madre da un commando armato per essersi fatte filmare nel giardino di casa con il
cellulare mentre ballavano sotto la pioggia. Nel video le ragazze appaiono velate e vestite in abiti tradizionali mentre
ridono e accennano ad alcuni passi di danza sotto la pioggia insieme a due bambini. Il fratellastro, che ha giudicato il
filmato (risalente a sei mesi fa) lesivo dell'onore della famiglia, è stato arrestato insieme a quattro presunti complici
con l'accusa di essere il mandante dell'omicidio. Solo un anno fa quattro donne erano state uccise per aver cantato e
danzato con alcuni uomini durante un matrimonio a Kohistan, nel nordest del Pakistan. Il consiglio dei capitribù del
villaggio avevano ordinato l'omicidio dopo aver decretato che il gesto era stato in realtà un atto di fornicazione.
Secondo la Aurat Foundation, gruppo per la tutela dei diritti delle donne che ha sedi in diverse città del Pakistan, sono
circa un migliaio i delitti d'onore che vengono commessi ogni anno nel paese. Nel 77 % dei casi gli accusati vengono
poi assolti.

— È la Commissione a conoscenza della vicenda?

— Ritiene la Commissione che il governo pakistano abbia accolto l'esortazione, che l'Unione europea gli aveva rivolto
in seguito alla morte della giovane Anusha, a prendere con urgenza misure atte a garantire la protezione dei diritti
delle donne?

— Considerando che il nuovo governo eletto il 17 maggio scorso aveva dichiarato il proprio impegno a una graduale
apertura sui diritti delle donne, come valuta la Commissione le sue reazioni a fronte dei fatti sopra descritti?

— Considerando che i dati ufficiali non riflettono perfettamente la realtà, visto che molti di questi delitti vengono
mantenuti segreti all'interno di nuclei familiari o nelle comunità tribali, non ritiene la Commissione opportuno
richiamare l'attenzione della comunità internazionale?

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

_(2 settembre 2013)_

L'Alta Rappresentante/Vicepresidente è a conoscenza del caso delle sorelle Noor. L'onorevole deputata è invitata a
consultare le risposte alle interrogazioni scritte E-10574/12 ed E-10338/12 riguardanti le misure adottate dall'UE per
affrontare la problematica dei delitti d'onore nel dialogo con il Pakistan e i provvedimenti adottati dalle autorità
pakistane. L'UE ha condannato ripetutamente gli atti di violenza contro donne e bambini, incoraggiando il governo
del Pakistan ad adottare misure urgenti per proteggere i diritti di questi due gruppi e invitando le autorità a garantire
l'incolumità fisica e la protezione dei diritti di tutti i cittadini.

La questione dei delitti d'onore sarà sollevata con il nuovo governo nell'ambito del prossimo dialogo sui diritti umani,
previsto per l'autunno del 2013. L'UE difende la posizione secondo cui è possibile influenzare gli sviluppi che
interessano la società soltanto con un progressivo impegno globale con il Pakistan, favorendo la sensibilizzazione e la
protezione dei diritti umani, rafforzando le organizzazioni della società civile, sostenendo programmi di istruzione e
di equilibrio di genere e programmi sullo Stato di diritto, oltre che fornendo assistenza per l'accesso dei gruppi
vulnerabili alla giustizia.

I delitti d'onore sono un fenomeno mondiale. La risoluzione 1681 adottata dal Consiglio di Europa nel 2009
avvertiva che il problema si era aggravato, anche in Europa, e metteva in luce la difficoltà di valutare il numero dei
delitti di questo tipo. Uno degli ostacoli principali è la mancanza di testimoni. Le vittime più frequenti sono le donne
e, nella maggior parte dei casi, i delitti d'onore sono perpetrati da altri membri della famiglia della donna o della
ragazza giudicata colpevole.

C 65 E / 188 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008108/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Two sisters killed for dancing in the rain in Pakistan

On 30 June 2013 in Chilas, a town in the northern region of Gilgit-Baltistan, two sisters, aged 15 and 16, were killed
along with their mother by an armed group for having been filmed on a mobile phone in their garden while they
danced in the rain. The girls appear in the video wearing veils and traditional dress, smiling and dancing in the rain
together with two children. Their stepbrother, who thought the video (which was filmed six months ago)
dishonoured the family, has been arrested along with four alleged accomplices, and charged with ordering the
killings. Only one year ago, four women were killed for singing and dancing with men at a wedding in Kohistan, in
north-eastern Pakistan. The village’s council of tribal elders ordered them to be killed after decreeing that the act was
tantamount to fornication. According to the Aurat Foundation, a group for the protection of women’s rights that has
offices in several cities in Pakistan, around a thousand honour killings take place every year in the country. In 77% of
cases, those accused are acquitted.

— Is the Commission aware of this incident?

— Does the Commission think that the Pakistani Government has heeded the call made by the European Union
following the death of young Anusha, to take urgent action to ensure that women’s rights are protected?

— Given that the new government elected on 17 May 2013 has reaffirmed its commitment gradually to promote
women’s rights, what does the Commission think of its response to the above incident?

— Given that official information does not entirely correspond with the facts, since many such killings are kept secret
within families or within tribal communities, does the Commission not think it should bring this to the attention of
the international community?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the case of the Noor sisters. See replies to E-10574/12 and E-10338/12 concerning action
taken by the EU to address the issue of honour crimes in its dialogue with Pakistan, and steps taken by the Pakistani
authorities. The EU has regularly condemned violence against women and children and encouraged the Government
of Pakistan to take urgent measures to ensure protection for the rights of both groups and has called on the
authorities to ensure the physical security and protect the rights of all its citizens.

The issue of honour killings will be raised with the new government in the forthcoming human rights dialogue,
expected to take place in the autumn of 2013. The EU’s position is that we can only influence developments through
progressive engagement with Pakistan across the board, including through improving awareness and protection of
human rights, strengthening civil society organisations, supporting programmes related to education and gender
balance, and programmes on the rule of law as well as support for access to justice for vulnerable groups.

Honour crimes are a worldwide phenomenon. A 2009 Council of Europe Resolution (Resolution 1681 (2009))
warned that the problem of honour killings has worsened, including in Europe, and referred to the difficulty of
assessing the number of such crimes. A major challenge is a lack of witnesses. The most frequent victims of this crime
are women, and in the majority of cases, honour killings are perpetrated by other family members of the woman or
the girl regarded as culpable.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 189

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008109/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Situazione del sistema di stage in Italia e in Europa

Il Progetto Excelsior — Sistema informativo per l'occupazione e la formazione — di Unioncamere e del ministero del
Lavoro italiano, ha redatto un rapporto dal titolo «Formazione sul luogo di lavoro e attivazione di stage, i risultati
dell'indagine 2012». Il rapporto analizza i dati relativi al mondo degli stage e dei tirocini in Italia evidenziando che dal
2007 al 2011 la percentuale degli assunti, in seguito a questa esperienza, è passata dal 12,9 % al 10,6 %; per di più
risulta che una minima percentuale degli stage che si svolgono in Italia sono retribuiti.

Considerando che stage e tirocini rappresentano da un lato la possibilità per completare la formazione scolastica per i
giovani e dall'altro, per le imprese, la possibilità di formare ad hoc nuovi giovani da inserire nelle proprie aziende, può
la Commissione indicare:

—
Lo stato dell'offerta formativa di stage e tirocini negli altri Stati membri?

—
Qual è la percentuale di assorbimento nel mercato di stagisti e tirocinanti, in seguito a tali esperienze, negli altri
Stati membri?

—
Se ritiene che questo sistema sarebbe da potenziare in Italia al fine di supportare i giovani nell'inserimento del
mercato del lavoro?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(29 agosto 2013)_

Lo studio del 2012 effettuato dalla Commissione su un'ampia rassegna delle disposizioni sui tirocini negli Stati
membri ( [1] ) conferma che sempre più spesso i giovani effettuano tirocini per acquisire esperienze lavorative nei 27
Stati membri (Croazia ancora esclusa). Inoltre, da un recente sondaggio Eurobarometro è emerso che il 46 % dei
cittadini dell'UE di età compresa fra i 18 e i 35 anni aveva al suo attivo almeno un'esperienza di tirocinio.

Sebbene la Commissione non disponga di alcuna informazione circa il tasso di occupazione complessivo dei
tirocinanti dopo aver completato il tirocinio, dal summenzionato sondaggio Eurobarometro è risultato che al 27 %
dei partecipanti è stato offerto un contratto di lavoro, da parte dell'organizzazione ospitante, al termine dell'ultimo
tirocinio effettuato. I risultati a livello nazionale oscillano tra il 15 % ( [2] ) e il 56 % ( [3] ). In Italia il sondaggio ha rivelato
che al 25 % dei tirocinanti è stato offerto un contratto di lavoro dall'organizzazione ospitante subito dopo il tirocinio.

La formazione in azienda è anche importante per i giovani studenti impegnati in attività di istruzione e formazione
professionali.

Si ritiene che gli apprendistati nel corso dei quali la formazione in azienda va di pari passo e si alterna ufficialmente
con periodi di istruzione in istituti scolastici, e che terminano con il conferimento di titoli di studio riconosciuti a
livello nazionale, agevolino l'ingresso dei giovani studenti nel mondo del lavoro. Uno studio del 2012 ( [4] ) rivela che
9,4 milioni di giovani sono apprendisti o che la formazione in azienda costituisce parte integrante della loro
istruzione e formazione professionali. Nel mese di luglio è stata avviata l'Alleanza europea per l'apprendistato, per
rafforzare la qualità, l'offerta e l'immagine dell'apprendistato.

La Commissione ritiene che tirocini e apprendistati rappresentino strumenti di grande rilevanza per aiutare i giovani
nella transizione scuola-lavoro. Essa sostiene pertanto tirocini e apprendistati di elevata qualità, che contribuiscano
all'attuazione della raccomandazione del Consiglio ( [5] ) sull'istituzione di una garanzia per i giovani.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=fr&pubId=6717.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Cipro.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Slovenia.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/education/vocational-education/doc/forum12/supply_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Raccomandazione del Consiglio, del 22 aprile 2013, sull'istituzione di una garanzia per i giovani (2013/C/120/01).

C 65 E / 190 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008109/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Situation of the internship system in Italy and Europe

The Excelsior project — the employment and training information system — run by Unioncamere, the Italian union
of chambers of commerce, industry, craft trades and agriculture, and the Italian Ministry of Employment has
produced report entitled _Formazione sul luogo di lavoro e attivazione di stage, i risultati dell'indagine 2012_ (Training in the
workplace and internships, results of the 2012 survey). According to the report, which analyses figures for
internships and traineeships in Italy, the percentage of people recruited following an internship or traineeship fell
from 12.9% to 10.6% between 2007 and 2011. Moreover, very few internships undertaken in Italy are paid.

Internships and traineeships give young people a chance to build on their school education and give companies the
opportunity to train young people as they need them, in order to take them on in their companies.

— What training is available in terms of internships and traineeships in other Member States?

— What percentage of interns and trainees are employed in the market in other Member States, on completion of
such internships or traineeships?

— Does the Commission think that this system should be expanded in Italy in order to support the integration of
young people into the labour market?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

The European Commission's 2012 study on a Comprehensive overview of traineeship arrangements in the Member
States ( [1] ) confirms that young people increasingly take up traineeships to gain practical work experience in
27 Member States (Croatia not yet included). Furthermore, a recent Eurobarometer survey found that 46% of the EU
population aged 18-35 had at least one traineeship experience.

While the Commission has no information about the overall employment rate of trainees after the finishing of the
traineeship, the abovementioned Eurobarometer survey found that 27% of the trainees were offered an employment
contract at the end of their last traineeship by their host organisation. National results vary between 15% ( [2] ) and
56% ( [3] ). In Italy the survey found that 25% were offered an employment contract by the host organisation
immediately after the traineeship.

In-company training is also important for young students in vocational education and training.

Apprenticeships that formally combine and alternate company based training with periods in school, and that lead to
nationally recognised degrees, are seen to ease young students' way into employment. A 2012 study ( [4] ) shows that
9.4 million young people are apprentices or have in-company training as part of their vocational education and
training. In July, a European Alliance for Apprenticeships was launched to boost the quality, supply and image of
apprenticeships.

The Commission believes that both traineeships and apprenticeships are indeed important tools to support young
people's education to work transitions. Therefore it supports high quality traineeships and apprenticeships that help
implementing the Council Recommendation on establishing a Youth Guarantee ( [5] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=fr&pubId=6717.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Cyprus.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Slovenia.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/education/vocational-education/doc/forum12/supply_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee; 2013/C 120/01.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 191

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008110/13**

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

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Dati preoccupanti relativi ad alcuni comuni della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano per quanto riguarda le
concentrazioni di uranio nell'acqua potabile

L'uranio, sotto forma di metallo disciolto, può essere presente anche nell'acqua; accanto ai pericoli di contaminazione
radiologica notoriamente associati a tale elemento, esso presenta anche una tossicità chimica, in quanto tende ad
accumularsi nei reni e a causare patologie quali le nefropatie. ( [1] )

Secondo quanto si può leggere sul sito Internet dell'OMS (Organizzazione mondiale della sanità), essa ha fissato il
valore limite/guida di presenza di uranio nell'acqua potabile dapprima a 15 µg/l e successivamente a 30 µg/l. ( [2] )

Si tratta di una valutazione basata sugli effetti della sostanza su un individuo adulto di 60 kg, ma per quanto riguarda
lattanti, bambini e donne in gravidanza, per logica conclusione, il valore dovrebbe attestarsi su una soglia di molto
inferiore.

In base a una recente ricerca sugli acquedotti commissionata dall'Agenzia provinciale per l'ambiente della Provincia
autonoma di Bolzano, le concentrazioni di uranio nell'acqua potabile superano i 20 µg/l in diversi comuni della
provincia, precisamente San Genesio (22 µg/l), Postal (23 µg/l), Lana (36 µg/l), Silandro (62 µg/l) e infine Martello, in
merito al quale i rilievi registrano il preoccupante valore di 80 µg/l. ( [3] )

Tutto ciò premesso si chiede alla Commissione di rispondere ai quesiti di seguito esposti.

— È a conoscenza dei dati sopra riportati riguardanti la presenza di uranio nell'acqua potabile della Provincia
autonoma di Bolzano?

— Non intende contattare le autorità locali al fine di fare chiarezza sulle ragioni della presenza negli acquedotti di
concentrazioni così elevate del metallo disciolto in questione?

— Può far sapere se sono stati rilevati dati analoghi in altre zone dell'Unione europea? In caso affermativo, dove?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(30 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione non è a conoscenza di questa situazione nella provincia di Bolzano. Tuttavia, concentrazioni di
uranio sono state riscontrate in altre zone italiane, come in Lombardia, e in altri Stati membri, Finlandia e Svezia.

La direttiva sull'acqua potabile ( [4] ) stabilisce che le acque destinate al consumo umano devono essere salubri e pulite. In
particolare, gli Stati membri devono garantire il rispetto di taluni requisiti minimi di cui all'allegato I della detta
direttiva. In quest'ultimo l'uranio non figura nell'elenco dei parametri chimici. Ai sensi dell'articolo 5 della direttiva gli
Stati membri devono fissare valori per parametri aggiuntivi non riportati nell'allegato I, qualora ciò sia necessario per
tutelare la salute umana. Vari Stati membri hanno adottato i valori dell'OMS ( [5] ) per l'uranio citati dall'onorevole
parlamentare come riferimento o valore limite da non superare nell'acqua potabile.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Esistono vari studi elaborati dalla comunità scientifica sull'argomento (cfr. ad es. un articolo presente sul sito della Columbia University di New

York: http://goo.gl/JAixo).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Cfr. pag. 16 del documento «Uranium in Drinking-water: background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water

Quality»: http://goo.gl/DFs6X (Uranio nell'acqua potabile: documento di base per l'elaborazione delle linee guida dell'OMS sulla qualità dell'acqua
potabile).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cfr. tabella a pag. 17 della relazione sulla ricerca: http://goo.gl/my1Hk.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Direttiva 98/83/CE del Consiglio, del 3 novembre 1998, concernente la qualità delle acque destinate al consumo umano.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Organizzazione mondiale della sanità.

( **|**

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

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 192 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Inoltre, una direttiva sulle sostanze radioattive presenti nelle acque destinate al consumo umano, basata sul
trattato Euratom, è attualmente in attesa di adozione finale da parte del Consiglio ( [6] ). Ai sensi di questo progetto di
direttiva, se è superato il valore radiologico del parametro di riferimento, devono essere avviate indagini relative al
rischio per la salute connesso al consumo di acqua, e se sussiste un rischio considerevole devono essere adottate
misure correttive.

La Commissione scriverà alle autorità nazionali competenti al fine di ottenere informazioni più dettagliate sulla
situazione in provincia di Bolzano, prima di decidere sugli eventuali provvedimenti futuri.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Proposta di direttiva del Consiglio che stabilisce requisiti per la tutela della salute della popolazione relativamente alle sostanze radioattive presenti
nelle acque destinate al consumo umano (COM(2012)147).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 193

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008110/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Worrying figures for several municipalities in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano as regards uranium
concentrations in drinking water

Uranium, in the form of dissolved metal, may be present in water. As well as the well-known dangers of radiological
contamination associated with this element, it is also chemically toxic, in that it tends to accumulate in the kidneys
and cause kidney disease ( [1] ).

According to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) website, it originally set the limit/guide value for uranium in
drinking water as 15 µg/l and then 30 µg/l ( [2] ).

This value was based on the effects the substance has on an adult weighing 60 kg, but for infants, children and
pregnant women, the value should logically be a lot lower.

According to a recent study on the water supply, commissioned by the Provincial Environmental Agency of the
Autonomous Province of Bolzano, the concentrations of uranium in drinking water exceed 20 µg/l in several
municipalities in the province, namely Jenesien (22 µg/l), Burgstall (23 µg/l), Lana (36 µg/l), Schlanders (62 µg/l) and
finally Martell, where measurements show a worrying value of 80µg/l ( [3] ).

— Is the Commission aware of the above figures regarding the presence of uranium in drinking water in the
Autonomous Province of Bolzano?

— Does it plan to contact the local authorities to clarify why such high concentrations of the dissolved metal in
question are present in the water supply?

— Have similar levels been detected in other parts of the European Union? If so, where?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Commission is not aware of this situation in the Province of Bolzano. However, uranium concentrations have
been found in other areas of Italy, such as the region of Lombardy, and other Member States, such as Finland and
Sweden.

The Drinking Water Directive ( [4] ) stipulates that water intended for human consumption must be wholesome and
clean. In particular, Member States must ensure that certain minimum requirements set out in Annex I to the directive
are met. Uranium is not included in the list of chemical parameters in Annex I. According to Article 5 of the directive,
Member States must, however, set values for additional parameters not included in Annex I where the protection of
human health so requires. Several Member States have taken the WHO ( [5] ) values for uranium mentioned by the
Honourable Member as the reference or limit value not to be exceeded in drinking water.

Moreover, a directive on radiological substances in drinking water, based on the Euratom Treaty, is currently awaiting
final adoption by the Council ( [6] ). According to this draft Directive, where the (radiological) indicative parametric value
is exceeded, investigations have to be carried out as to the health risk posed by the consumption of water with such
values, and if there is a significant risk, remedial measures have to be taken.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) There are several studies by the scientific community on the issue (see, for example, an article on the website of Columbia University in New York:

http://goo.gl/JAixo).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See page 16 of the document Uranium in Drinking Water: background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water

Quality: http://goo.gl/DFs6X

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See table on page 17 of the study report: http://goo.gl/my1Hk
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) World Health Organisation.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Proposal for a Council Directive laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive

substances in water intended for human consumption (COM(2012)147).

( **|**

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

C 65 E / 194 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

The Commission will write to the competent national authorities with the view to obtaining more detailed
information on the situation in Province of Bolzano before deciding on possible action.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 195

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008111/13**

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

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Eccessivo sfruttamento idroelettrico del bacino fluviale del Piave dovuto a gravi violazioni della direttiva
quadro sulle acque e delle direttive VIA, VAS e Habitat

Ben il 90 % dei corsi d'acqua che compongono il tratto alpino del bacino del fiume Piave è attualmente caratterizzato
da impianti e derivazioni realizzati a fini di produzione di energia idroelettrica, e molti altri progetti sono in fase di
approvazione. Trattasi di aree connotate da elevata naturalità e da scarse/assenti pressioni antropiche, per larga parte
tutelate all'interno della rete Natura 2000 quali siti di importanza comunitaria (SIC) e zone di protezione speciale
(ZPS) ai sensi delle direttive Habitat (92/43/CEE) e Uccelli (2009/147/CE). A causa delle opere in questione numerosi
corsi d'acqua sono stati compromessi o addirittura sostanzialmente prosciugati.

Per reagire alla situazione descritta, il Comitato bellunese «Acqua Bene Comune» ha commissionato a una società di
consulenza ambientale l'analisi tecnica della situazione in atto, allegandola a una denuncia presentata alla
Commissione ( [1] ). Secondo quanto emerso, la causa va individuata nel susseguirsi di provvedimenti statali, regionali e
provinciali, promananti dall'Autorità del bacino dei fiumi dell'Alto Adriatico, posti in essere in violazione della
normativa dell'UE. In estrema sintesi ( [2] ), nella succitata relazione si ravvisano per esempio plurime violazioni della
direttiva quadro sulle acque (2000/60/CE) nell'ambito del Piano di gestione dei bacini idrografici delle Alpi Orientali
adottato ai sensi dell'articolo 13 per l'omonimo distretto idrografico. Il censimento dei corpi idrici e delle relative
«condizioni di riferimento» (condizioni idromorfologiche e fisico-chimiche nonché biologiche) ivi presente risulta
infatti incompleto, sommario e superficiale. Risulta inoltre sistematicamente violata/elusa da parte delle autorità la
direttiva 2011/92/UE sulla valutazione dell'impatto ambientale (VIA), in virtù dell'esclusione di qualsiasi valutazione
per i progetti ritenuti minori e, quanto alla generalità dei progetti, nel caso in cui gli stessi soddisfino sulla carta
determinati parametri ( [3] ), senza tenere conto né della loro ubicazione (in violazione dell'articolo 2), né del loro
rilevante impatto cumulativo ( [4] ). Vengono altresì riscontrate violazioni della direttiva 2001/42/CE sulla valutazione
ambientale strategica (VAS), in particolare alla luce del fatto che l'autorità competente per la VAS del Piano di tutela
delle acque della Regione Veneto in quanto piano attuativo del succitato piano di gestione risulta essere
sostanzialmente la stessa che ha elaborato e approvato il medesimo, nonché della direttiva Habitat, con valutazioni di
incidenza ambientale sui progetti — VINCA — gravemente lacunose.

Tutto ciò premesso, quali iniziative intende la Commissione intraprendere per accertare le violazioni in questione e
reagire alle stesse? Come valuta la situazione in atto, ricordando che l'articolo 1 della direttiva quadro sulle acque
impone agli Stati membri il miglioramento, o almeno la conservazione, della qualità dei corpi idrici?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(27 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione ha ricevuto la denuncia cui l'onorevole parlamentare fa riferimento e l'ha protocollata con il
riferimento CHAP(2013)01873. La Commissione valuterà questa denuncia e deciderà sulle misure adeguate di
follow-up da adottare.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Cfr. relazione dal titolo «Lo sfruttamento idroelettrico in provincia di Belluno» del marzo 2013, asseverata da giuramento, che il Comitato ha

commissionato alla società di consulenza ambientale Terra S.r.l. di San Donà di Piave (VE) e allegato alla denuncia alla Commissione presentata nel
giugno del 2013.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) In ragione della brevità imposta al testo dell'interrogazione, quest'ultimo contiene solo meri accenni alle più gravi violazioni della normativa

comunitaria rilevate; per l'analisi completa si rinvia alla succitata denuncia e all'allegata relazione.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Delibere della giunta regionale della Regione Veneto nn. 327/2009 e 2834/2009.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) In base a quanto chiarito dalla giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione europea la valutazione dell'impatto cumulativo è

imprescindibile (cfr., ex multis, la sentenza 28.2.2008, sez. II, causa C-2/07, e la sentenza 25.7.2008, sez. III, causa C-142/07).

( **|**

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

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 196 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008111/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Excessive hydroelectric exploitation of the Piave river basin due to serious violations of the Water Framework,
EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) and Habitats Directives

Over 90% of the waterways that make up the Alpine section of the Piave river basin are currently being used by
hydroelectric plants, and many similar projects are now awaiting authorisation. These are natural areas with little to
no human impact, largely protected as part of the Natura 2000 network as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and
Special Protection Areas (SPA), pursuant to the Habitats Directive (94/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (2009/147/EC).
Because of these hydroelectric plants, many of these waterways have been compromised or even substantially dried

up.

In response, the _Belluno Acqua Bene Comune_ Committee commissioned an environmental consulting firm to perform a
technical analysis on the current situation, attaching it to a complaint submitted to the Commission ( [1] ). The report
identifies as the cause the series of national, regional, and provincial provisions issued by the Northern Adriatic River
Basin Authority and implemented in violation of EU regulations. Very briefly ( [2] ), the report cites, for example,
multiple violations of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) in the Eastern Alps River Basin Management
Plan, adopted under Article 13 of the abovementioned Directive by the Eastern Alps river basin district. The census of
bodies of water and their ‘reference conditions’ (biological, hydromorphological and physico-chemical conditions) is
in fact brief, superficial, and incomplete. The report also found that the authority systematically violated or evaded
Directive 2011/92/EU on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), lacking any assessment of projects that were
considered minor, and those whose project details satisfied certain parameters on paper ( [3] ), without taking into
consideration either their location (in violation of Article 2), or their significant cumulative impact ( [4] ). The report also
found violations of Directive 2001/42/EC on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); in particular, the competent
authority for the Veneto Region's Water Protection Plan SEA, as the implementing plan for the abovementioned
management plan, was found to be essentially the same authority that developed and approved it (as well as the
Habitats Directive), with a severe lack of environmental implications assessments (known in Italy as VINCA) on the
projects.

What will the Commission do to ascertain and take action on these violations? How does it assess the current
situation, keeping in mind that Article 1 of the Water Framework Directive requires that Member States improve, or
at least conserve, the quality of bodies of water?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

The Commission has received the complaint mentioned by the Honourable Member and registered it under reference
CHAP(2013)01873. The Commission will assess this complaint and decide on the appropriate follow-up to be taken.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See report entitled ‘Hydroelectric exploitation in the province of Belluno’, March 2013, sworn by oath, commissioned by the Committee from the

environmental consulting firm Terra S.r.l. of San Donà di Piave (VE) and attached to the complaint to the Commission submitted in June 2013.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Due to the brief format for questions, only the most serious infringements of the relevant Union legislation are mentioned here. For a full analysis,

please refer to the abovementioned complaint and attached report.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Veneto Region Joint Council Resolution Nos 327/2009 and 2834/2009.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Based on the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, assessment of cumulative impact is mandatory (see, among many

others, the judgment of 28 February 2008, Section II, Case C-2/07, and the judgment of 25 July 2008, Section III, Case C-142/07).

( **|**

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 197

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-008112/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE)**

_(8 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Uitspraken inzake subsidies voor hernieuwbare en fossiele energiebronnen

Tijdens de conferentie van de Commissie over het energie‐ en klimaatbeleid voor 2030 (High Level Stakeholder
Conference on the 2030 framework for climate and energy policies) op 19 juni heeft de Commissie (DG Energie)
gezegd dat in Europa de subsidies voor hernieuwbare en fossiele energiebronnen allebei EUR 30 miljard bedragen [op
jaarbasis] ( [1] ).

1. Kan de Commissie de uitspraak dat in de Europese Unie de subsidies voor hernieuwbare en fossiele
energiebronnen allebei EUR 30 miljard bedragen bevestigen?

2. Mocht het antwoord op vraag 1 bevestigend zijn, kan de Commissie dan aangeven waarop deze cijfers zijn
gebaseerd?

3. Mocht het antwoord op vraag 1 bevestigend zijn, kan de Commissie dan aangeven per fossiele brandstof wat de
hoogte van de subsidies zijn?

4. Mocht het antwoord op vraag 1 bevestigend zijn, kan de Commissie dan aangeven per hernieuwbare brandstof
wat de hoogte van de subsidies zijn?

5. Mocht het antwoord op vraag 1 bevestigend zijn, kan de Commissie dan per lidstaat aangeven wat de hoogte is
van de subsidies voor hernieuwbare en fossiele energiebronnen?

**Antwoord van de heer Oettinger namens de Commissie**

_(1 oktober 2013)_

De cijfers zijn gebaseerd op verslagen van het IEA ( [2] ) en de OESO ( [3] ). De Commissie is zich ervan bewust dat het
moeilijk is goed gefundeerde en exacte cijfers vast te stellen voor de subsidiebedragen die zijn toegekend aan energie,
door de grote verscheidenheid aan methoden en instrumenten van de steunmaatregelen. De beschikbare gegevens
wijzen echter duidelijk op een mate van ondersteuning die in de miljarden euro’s loopt. Deze aanzienlijke steun kan
tot een verstoring van de concurrentievoorwaarden leiden en verhoogt de totale maatschappelijke kosten van de
productie van elektriciteit.

Met behulp van de methode van de OESO heeft de Commissie ook ramingen ( [4] ) gemaakt voor de zes EU-landen die
geen lid zijn van de OESO: Bulgarije, Cyprus, Letland, Litouwen, Malta en Roemenië.

Wel moet er op worden gewezen dat bij de schattingen van de OESO en IEA twee verschillende benaderingen zijn
toegepast. Het IEA maakt gebruik van de prijsverschil-benadering, terwijl de OESO-inventaris betrekking heeft op een
bredere scala van metingen in de betrokken landen (zoals rechtstreekse budgettaire overdrachten en
belastingvoordelen die uitsluitend een voordeel verstrekken of waarbij de voorkeur uitgaat naar productie met of
consumptie van fossiele brandstoffen). Dit resulteert in verschillende, maar elkaar aanvullende informatie. Deze cijfers
moeten dan ook gehanteerd worden rekening houdend met deze beperkingen, en zijn slechts indicatief voor de orde
van grootte van de subsidies.

Bovendien is bij de cijfers van de OESO voor subsidies voor fossiele brandstoffen geen rekening gehouden met
indirecte subsidies voor conventionele brandstoffen wat betreft hun maatschappelijke en gezondheidskosten. Deze
zijn geraamd op nog eens 40 miljard euro per jaar voor de gezondheidsstelsels in de EU.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming/index.php?es=2&sessionno=96b250a90d3cf0868c83f8c965142d2a (time 2:11:26).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) World Energy Outlook 2012, blz 235, Internationaal Energieagentschap (IEA).
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Inventaris van geraamde budgettaire ondersteuning en belastingfaciliteiten voor fossiele brandstoffen, 2013, Organisatie voor Economische

Samenwerking en Ontwikkeling (OESO).

( ⋅4∙ ) DG Milieu.

( **|**

C 65 E / 198 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008112/13**

**to the Commission**
**Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Statements concerning subsidies for energy from renewable and fossil sources

On 19 June 2013, at the Commission’s High Level Stakeholder Conference on the 2030 framework for climate and
energy policies, the Commission (DG Energy) said that in Europe energy subsidies amounted to EUR 30 billion per
year for energy from renewable sources, and another EUR 30 billion for fossil fuels.

1. Can the Commission confirm the statement that in the European Union energy subsidies amount to
EUR 30 billion for energy from renewable sources, and the same again for fossil fuels?

If so:

2. What is the basis of these figures?

3. What is the amount of subsidies for each type of fossil fuel?

4. What is the amount of subsidies for each type of renewable fuel?

5. What is the amount of subsidies for each Member State for energy from renewable and fossil sources?

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

_(1 October 2013)_

The figures are based on reports from the IEA ( [1] ) and OECD ( [2] ). The Commission is aware that it is difficult to establish
well founded and precise figures on the subsidies amounts granted to energy, because of the variety of methods and
instruments of the support measures. However the date available clearly points to a level of support that amounts to
billions of Euros. Such substantive support risks distorting the level playing field and increases the overall societal cost
of electricity generation.

Using the OECD’s method the Commission ( [3] ) extended the coverage to the six non-OECD EU countries: Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania.

It should be noted that the OECD and IEA estimations follow two different approaches. The IEA uses the price-gap
approach, while the OECD inventory addresses a broader range of measures used in the covered countries (such as
direct budgetary transfers and tax expenditures that provide a benefit or preference for fossil-fuel production or
consumption). This results in distinct but complementary information. Thus these figures have to be used with these
limitations in mind, as an indication of the order of magnitude of the issue.

Furthermore, the OECD figures for fossil fuel subsidies exclude indirect subsidies of conventional fuels in terms of
their social and health costs that have been estimated at a further annual EUR 40bn for the EU health systems.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) World Energy Outlook 2012, p. 235, International Energy Agency (IEA).
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for Fossil Fuels, 2013, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and

Development (OECD).

( ⋅3∙ ) DG Environment.

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 199

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008113/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR)**

_(8 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Relacje UE-Azerbejdżan

Azerbejdżan, jako państwo uczestniczące w Partnerstwie Wschodnim oraz jako członek Rady Europejskiej, jest
partnerem UE. Pozostaje w stanie zawieszenia broni w związku z nierozwiązanym konfliktem o Górski Karabach,
mającym ogromny wpływ na stabilność w regionie Kaukazu. Azerska ropa i gaz odgrywają dużą rolę w dostarczaniu
energii dla Europy, co podkreśla debata i niedawna decyzja Konsorcjum Szach Deniz II o rezygnacji z Nabucco West
i wybudowaniu zamiast niego TAP. Ponieważ Europa nadal poszukuje źródeł dywersyfikacji dostaw energii, ta
decyzja o budowie TAP z trasą przez Włochy w porównaniu do przebiegu trasy Nabucco West przez Austrię rodzi
konsekwencje, jeśli chodzi o stan bezpieczeństwa dostaw energii do Europy Środkowej. Bez Nabucco West,
ogromnego projektu dywersyfikacji źródeł dostaw energii, rynek energetyczny Europy Środkowej pozostaje
zmonopolizowany.

1. Jaki jest obecny wkład UE w mediacje dotyczące trwającego konfliktu w Górnym Karabachu?

2. W świetle decyzji o budowie TAP zamiast Nabucco West, jakie będą konsekwencje tej decyzji dla
bezpieczeństwa Europy Środkowej?

3. Jakie są priorytety UE we współpracy energetycznej z Azerbejdżanem? Czy zmieniają się w związku z decyzją
Konsorcjum Szach Deniz II?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(26 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

1. Zacieśnienie stosunków między Unią Europejską a krajami Południowego Kaukazu stwarza UE nowe
możliwości wspierania działań mających na celu rozwiązanie konfliktów. Odnosząc się do konfliktu o Górski
Karabach, UE wspiera wysiłki mediacyjne grupy mińskiej OBWE ( [1] ), takie jak niedawne oświadczenia wydane przez
jej współprzewodniczących, w których wzywają przywódców wszystkich zainteresowanych stron do ponownego
zobowiązania się do przestrzegania zasad Aktu końcowego z Helsinek, zwłaszcza tych mówiących o niestosowaniu
siły lub groźby jej użycia, poszanowaniu integralności terytorialnej państw, równouprawnieniu i prawie narodów do
samostanowienia. UE wspiera apele o powstrzymanie się od retoryki lub działań, które mogłyby prowadzić do
eskalacji konfliktu, i jest gotowa udzielić zwiększonych środków na rzecz budowy zaufania.

2. Komisja z zadowoleniem przyjmuje decyzję o budowie gazociągu transadriatyckiego (TAP) jako ważny krok
w kierunku ukończenia budowy południowego korytarza gazowego, co spowoduje dywersyfikację dostaw gazu do
Europy i poprawę jej bezpieczeństwa energetycznego. Komisja będzie nadal współpracować z Azerbejdżanem
i zainteresowanymi krajami w celu zwiększenia wielkości dostaw, oferując możliwość zbudowania drugiego
gazociągu przez Europę Środkową do Austrii.

3. Komisja będzie kontynuować i pogłębiać współpracę z Azerbejdżanem w stopniowej harmonizacji
prawodawstwa w dziedzinie energii, propagowania bezpieczeństwa energetycznego i bezpiecznego przesyłu energii,
działań na rzecz poprawy efektywności energetycznej i odnawialnych źródeł energii w Azerbejdżanie i współpracy
badawczej. Inicjatywy wspierające wyżej wymienione cele są w trakcie realizacji.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Organizacja Bezpieczeństwa i Współpracy w Europie.

C 65 E / 200 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008113/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — EU-Azerbaijan relations

As an Eastern Partnership country and a member of the Council of Europe, Azerbaijan is one of the EU’s partners.
Although the ceasefire agreement has held, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has major implications for the
stability of the Caucasus region as a whole, remains unresolved. Azeri oil and gas play an important role in the supply
of energy to the EU, and the Shah Deniz 2 consortium’s recent selection of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) instead
of the Nabucco West project is thus highly significant. The EU is continuing to seek to diversify its energy supply, and
the decision to build the TAP, which will go through Italy, instead of the Nabucco West pipeline (through Austria),
will have an impact on Central Europe’s security of energy supply. Without the Nabucco West project, which would
make a major contribution to diversifying energy supply, the Central European energy market will remain a
monopoly.

1. What is the extent of the EU’s involvement in mediation efforts being conducted in connection with the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

2. What security implications does the decision to build the TAP rather than the Nabucco West pipeline have for
Central Europe?

3. What are the EU’s priorities for energy cooperation with Azerbaijan? Have they changed as a result of the Shah
Deniz 2 consortium's decision?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

1. The strengthening of relations between the EU and the South Caucasus countries has created new opportunities
for the EU to support conflict settlement efforts. On Nagorno-Karabakh, the EU supports the mediation efforts of the
OSCE ( [1] ) Minsk Group, including recent statements by its Co-Chairs urging the leaders of all sides to recommit to the
Helsinki principles, particularly the non-use of force or the threat of force, territorial integrity, equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples. The EU supports appeals to avoid actions or rhetoric that could lead to escalation of the
conflict, and stands ready to provide enhanced confidence building measures.

2. The Commission welcomes the decision to build TAP as an important step towards the completion of the
Southern Gas Corridor, bringing significant diversification of gas supplies to Europe and improving Europe's energy
security. The Commission will continue to work with Azerbaijan and the countries concerned to increase the
volumes supplied, opening the possibility of a second pipeline through Central Europe to Austria.

3. The Commission will pursue and intensify cooperation with Azerbaijan on the gradual harmonisation of
legislation in the field of energy, the promotion of energy security and safe energy transit, the development of energy
efficiency and renewables in Azerbaijan and on research cooperation. Iinitiatives to support these priorities are
underway.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 201

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008114/13**

**do Komisji**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) oraz Tadeusz Cymański (EFD)**

_(8 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Zwolnienia grupowe w Hucie Częstochowa

Szefostwo Huty Częstochowa, największego zakładu pracy w Częstochowie, poinformowało o planowanych
masowych zwolnieniach. ISD Huta Częstochowa chce zwolnić od 1000 do 1500 osób. Sytuacja ekonomiczna huty
od 2009 r. jest bardzo trudna. Przedsiębiorstwo produkuje i sprzedaje mniej więcej jedną trzecią tego, co może
produkować. Zwolnienie w hucie znacznie pogorszą sytuację na rynku pracy w Częstochowie. Tymczasem na
częstochowskim rynku jest coraz mniej pracy. Stopa bezrobocia w mieście przekracza 14 procent, a w regionie
częstochowskim 22,1 proc.

1. W rezolucji numer P7_TA(2012)0509 dotyczącej stanu przemysłu hutniczego w UE Parlament Europejski
zobowiązał KE do bliższego monitorowania sytuacji przemysłu hutniczego w Europie, ze szczególnym
uwzględnieniem min Śląska, w ramach którego administracyjnie leży Częstochowa. Czy wobec tego Komisja zna
sytuację w ISD Huta Częstochowa?

2. Czy Komisja ma zamiar podjąć działania w celu pomocy hutnikom zwalnianym w Hucie Częstochowa? Jeśli
tak, to jakie?

3. Czy Komisja otrzymała od polskiego rządu wniosek o uruchomienie funduszy pomocowych z Europejskiego
Funduszu Dostosowania do Globalizacji dla zwalnianych osób i Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego?

4. Czy Komisja ma zamiar opracować koncepcje w celu utrzymania silnego przemysłu hutniczego w Unii
z uwzględnieniem istotnej roli takich ośrodków przemysłowych jak Częstochowa?

5. Czy Komisja ma zamiar przywrócić obowiązywanie systemu uprzedniego nadzoru nad przywozem niektórych
wyrobów ze stali i rur stalowych, który to system ustanowiono na mocy rozporządzenia Komisji (UE) nr 1241/2009?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wiceprzewodniczącego Antonio Tajaniego w imieniu Komisji**

_(3 września 2013 r.)_

1. Komisja zna sytuację Huty Częstochowa.

2. Polska jest jednym z głównych beneficjentów EFS ( [1] ). Polski Program Operacyjny „Kapitał Ludzki”
współfinansowany przez EFS udziela wsparcia osobom w szczególnie trudnej sytuacji na rynku pracy. Panowie
Posłowie mogą skontaktować się z administracją województwa śląskiego w celu uzyskania dalszych informacji na
temat wszelkich planowanych środków.

3. Komisja nie posiada informacji o jakichkolwiek zgłoszonych przez Polskę wnioskach o finansowanie przez
EFG ( [2] ) w związku ze wspomnianymi zwolnieniami. Pod warunkiem, że sytuacja ta może zostać powiązana ze
zmianami zachodzącymi w światowej strukturze handlu, Polska ma możliwość ubiegania się o wsparcie z EGF.
Pracownicy Huty Częstochowa nie otrzymali do tej pory wsparcia z EFS.

4. Nowa strategia polityczna dla sektora stalowego została wyznaczona w komunikacie Komisji w sprawie planu
działania na rzecz przemysłu stalowego UE ( [3] ), w którym również zachęca się wszystkie zainteresowane strony do
uruchomienia dostępnych instrumentów oraz mechanizmów wsparcia UE w celu wspomożenia przemysłu, jego
pracowników oraz regionów, które borykają się z wyzwaniami związanymi z adaptacją. W przypadku znaczącego
ograniczania działalności lub zamykania zakładów Komisja ułatwi dostęp do środków UE, wykorzystując specjalne
grupy zadaniowe, powoływane na wniosek państw członkowskich lub związków zawodowych.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Europejski Fundusz Społeczny.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Europejski Fundusz Dostosowania do Globalizacji.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013)407 z 11.6.2013.

C 65 E / 202 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

5. Po wygaśnięciu mechanizmu uprzedniego nadzoru dnia 31 grudnia 2012 r. UE w dalszym ciągu uważnie śledzi
przywóz stali dzięki systemowi „Surveillance 2”, który pozwala na monitorowanie prawie w czasie rzeczywistym,
o znacznym stopniu dokładności, jako że dostarcza informacji o rzeczywistym przywozie w krótkim czasie po
przeprowadzonej operacji przywozu. Raporty systemu „Surveillance 2” są bardziej szczegółowe niż te dostarczane
przez nadzór uprzedni.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 203

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008114/13**

**to the Commission**
**Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD) and Tadeusz Cymański (EFD)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Mass redundancies at the Częstochowa steelworks

The management of ISD Częstochowa steelworks, the city’s largest employer, have announced that there are to be
mass redundancies at the plant, with between 1000 and 1500 jobs being shed. The company has been in severe
financial difficulties since 2009. Production and sales currently stand at around one-third of capacity. The lay-offs at
the steelworks will hit an already shrinking Częstochowa labour market extremely hard. Unemployment in the city
has already topped the 14% mark and stands at 22.1% for the Częstochowa region as a whole.

1. In its resolution of 13 December 2012 on the EU steel industry (P7_TA(2012)0509) Parliament stressed how
important it was for the Commission to keep a close eye on the situation in Europe's steel industry, in particular in
Silesia, where Częstochowa is located. In view of this, can the Commission say whether it is aware of the situation at
the Częstochowa steelworks?

2. Will the Commission be doing anything to help the steelworkers who are to be laid off, and if so, what?

3. Has it received an application from the Polish Government for funding under the European Globalisation
Adjustment Fund for workers who lose their jobs, as well as under the European Social Fund?

4. Will it be putting forward proposals for maintaining a strong steel industry in the EU, in view of the important
role played by plants such as the Częstochowa steelworks?

5. Will it be bringing the prior surveillance system for imports of steel products and steel pipes, as established
under Commission Regulation (EU) No 1241/2009, back into force?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the situation of Czestochowa Steelworks.

2. Poland is one of the major beneficiaries of the ESF ( [1] ). The Polish Human Capital Operational Programme cofinanced by the ESF provides assistance for individuals in a particularly difficult situation on the labour market. The
Honourable Members may wish to communicate with the Slaskie administration for further information on any
planned measures.

3. The Commission is not aware of any application for funding from the EGF ( [2] ) being lodged by Poland related to
these redundancies. Provided that this situation could be linked to the changing global trade patterns, Poland has the
possibility to apply for support from the EGF. The Czestochowa Steelworks' workers have not received any support
from the ESF so far.

4. The communication on an Action Plan for the EU steel industry ( [3] ) sets a new political strategy for the steel
sector and intends to encourage all relevant stakeholders to mobilise the available EU instruments and support
mechanisms to help the industry, its workers and the affected regions to face the adaptation challenges. In the case of
significant downsizing or closures, the Commission will streamline access to EU funds, by using dedicated task forces,
to be established at the request of Member States or trades unions.

5. After the expiry of the prior surveillance mechanism on 31 December 2012, the EU continues to closely
monitor steel imports via ‘Surveillance 2’ system which allows for almost real-time monitoring to a considerable
degree of accuracy since it provides information on actual imports very shortly after the import operation has taken
place. The ‘Surveillance 2’ reports are more detailed than those produced by the prior surveillance.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Social Fund.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Globalisation Adjustment Fund.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013)407, 11.6.2013.

C 65 E / 204 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008115/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(8 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Agroindustria

În economiile moderne s-a constituit, treptat, „modelul occidental al integrării industriale”. Acest model se
caracterizează prin impactul crescând al agro-industrializării canalelor agroalimentare. Astfel, s-au generalizat
metodele de producție moderne în agricultură și industriile de prelucrare, s-au dezvoltat producția, distribuția și
consumul de masă, au crescut consumurile energetice și consumurile intermediare. S-a obținut astfel un nivel înalt al
productivității muncii și a scăzut numărul de agricultori. Agroindustria este modelul de producție care susține
modelele de consum occidentale și s-a transformat de-a lungul unui proces istoric, după legi proprii și ca rezultat al
proceselor de industrializare.

Industrializarea agriculturii, tocmai în cazul Europei, are influențe negative asupra alimentației mondiale. Pe de-o
parte, industrializarea a dus la o creștere a volumului de produse animaliere care, pe de o parte, afectează sănătatea
cetățenilor europeni, iar pe de alta duce la un supraconsum în cadrul Uniunii Europene.

În acest context, care este abordarea Comisiei față de procesul agro-industrializării la nivel european, astfel încât să se
evite efectele negative asupra mediului, dar și a securității alimentare?

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

_(23 august 2013)_

Datorită unei populații mondiale în creștere și unei cereri importante pentru bunuri publice ecologice și zone rurale
sustenabile, agricultura Uniunii continuă să joace un rol esențial pentru societatea europeană.

Pentru a o sprijini, Uniunea pune în aplicare un cadru politic solid, Politica agricolă comună, constând într-o serie de
instrumente care vizează îndeplinirea a trei obiective comune și complementare: producția alimentară sustenabilă
bazată pe activități agricole competitive și ultramoderne și pe un lanț alimentar funcțional; gestionarea sustenabilă a
resurselor naturale și a politicilor climatice care protejează însăși baza producției agricole; și dezvoltarea teritorială
echilibrată, care să pună în valoare diversitatea Europei constituită din zonele sale rurale și comunitățile acestora.

În vederea îndeplinirii cu succes a acestor obiective bazate pe o competitivitate sporită, pe o sustenabilitate mai bună
și pe o mai mare eficacitate, Comisia a prezentat, în 2011, propuneri de reformă, care au culminat cu acordul politic
interinstituțional din luna iunie privind noua PAC.

Reforma modifică paradigma politicii prin transformarea celor doi piloni făcându-i mai „ecologici”, oferă un sprijin
mai eficient, mai bine țintit și mai integrat — printre altele — pentru tânăra generație și recunoaște diversitatea
agriculturii în întreaga UE, prin acordarea unei mai mari flexibilități în punerea în aplicare. De asemenea, ea continuă
să sprijine inovarea în domeniul activităților agricole și diversificarea acestora, punând și mai mult accentul pe
calitate, pe organizațiile de producători și pe lanțurile scurte de aprovizionare.

Astfel, noua PAC reprezintă un angajament clar pentru un model de producție agricolă bazat pe sustenabilitate în
toate dimensiunile sale — ecologică, economică, socială și teritorială — și introduce modificări și instrumente
necesare realizării obiectivelor acesteia, acționând împreună cu alte politici ale Uniunii.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 205

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008115/13**

**to the Commission**
**Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Agri-food industry

The ‘Western model of industrial integration’ has gradually established itself in modern economies. One major aspect
of that model is the growing impact of the industrialisation of agri‐food circuits. Modern agricultural production and
processing methods are becoming increasingly widespread, and we have seen the development of mass production,
distribution and consumption, and an increase in energy consumption and intermediate consumption. This has
resulted in a high level of productivity and fewer farmers. The agri‐food production model is a key component of the
Western consumption model and has developed through time, according to its own laws, and as a result of a process
of industrialisation.

The industrialisation of agriculture in Europe has had adverse effects on the world food system. Industrialisation has
also led to an increase in the volume of animal products, which has both impacted on the health of the European
public and led to over‐consumption in the European Union.

In this connection, what approach will the Commission adopt to the process of agricultural industrialisation in
Europe, in order to avoid its adverse effects the environment and also on food security?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

Due to an increasing world population and a strong demand for ecological public goods and sustainable rural areas
the Union's agriculture continues to play a key role for European society.

In order to support it the Union puts in place a strong policy framework, the common agricultural policy, consisting
of a series of instruments aimed at the fulfilment of three common and complementary objectives: viable food
production based on competitive and state-of-the-art agricultural activities and a functioning food chain; sustainable
management of natural resources and climate action that safeguard the very basis for agricultural production; and
balanced territorial development that values Europe's diversity constituted by its rural areas and their communities.

To successfully pursue these objectives based on enhanced competitiveness, improved sustainability and greater
effectiveness the Commission put forward in 2011 reform proposals which culminated in the June interinstitutional
political agreement on the new CAP.

It changes the policy paradigm by making the two pillars ‘greener’, adopts a more efficient, targeted and integrated
support‐ among others — for the young generation and recognises the diversity across EU agriculture by granting
greater flexibility in implementation. It also continues to support innovation in and diversification of agricultural
activities, while strengthening the focus on quality, producer organisations and short supply chains.

Thus, the new CAP is a clear commitment to an agricultural production model based on sustainability in all its
dimensions — environmental, economic, social and territorial — and introduces changes and instruments to deliver
on it acting together with other Union policies.

C 65 E / 206 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008116/13**

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

_(8 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Interdicții comerciale impuse de Federația Rusă

Federația Rusă a anunțat că, începând cu 1 iulie 2013, nu va mai importa cartofi sau material săditor din Uniunea
Europeană, afirmând că în ultimul timp au fost descoperiți dăunători periculoși în produsele agricole importate din
Europa.

Autoritățile ruse susțin că, la controlul fitosanitar efectuat asupra cartofilor livrați din mai multe țări europene între
anii 2010 și 2013, au fost depistate mai mult de 100 cazuri de cartofi contaminați.

Comisia este rugată să prezinte un punct de vedere cu privire la această decizie a Federației Ruse.

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

_(13 septembrie 2013)_

Federația Rusă a impus la 1 iulie 2013 o interdicție privind cartofii de masă și de sămânță și anumite plante destinate
plantării, exportate din UE, după două amânări ale datei intrării în vigoare a interdicției. Agenția guvernamentală rusă
în cauză justifică această măsură pe baza cazurilor de depistare în importurile din UE a unor organisme dăunătoare
reglementate de Federația Rusă. Cu toate acestea, Comisia ia notă de faptul că aceste depistări se referă în principal la
fructe, legume și flori tăiate și, într-o anumită măsură, la cartofii pentru consum. Comisia consideră că ar trebui să fie
luate în considerare riscurile diferite cauzate de aceste categorii de produse, în comparație cu plantele destinate
plantării.

Comisia contestă compatibilitatea măsurii propuse cu principiile din Acordul SPS al OMC, întrucât măsura nu pare să
fie susținută de o evaluare științifică a riscurilor și pare să fie mai restrictivă pentru comerț decât este necesar.

În același timp, Comisia depune toate eforturile pentru a răspunde preocupărilor exprimate de Federația Rusă și, după
consultarea statelor membre ale UE, a propus Federației Ruse în acest scop un sistem care să asigure garanții de
certificare suplimentare. Agenția guvernamentală rusă nu a acceptat până în prezent această propunere ca oferind o
bază suficientă pentru a ridica interdicția, iar Comisia continuă să coopereze cu statele membre ale UE cu scopul de a
ajusta sistemul propus și de a adresa observațiile Rusiei.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 207

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008116/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Trade bans imposed by the Russian Federation

The Russian Federation has announced that, as from 1 July 2013, potatoes and plant propagating products will no
longer be imported from the European Union, claiming that in recent years harmful pests have been found in imports
of these agricultural products from Europe.

The Russian authorities maintain that these pests were detected in over 100 of the plant health checks conducted on
potatoes supplied by divers European countries between 2010 and 2013.

What is the Commission’s view of this decision by the Russian Federation?

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

_(13 September 2013)_

The Russian Federation imposed a ban on table and seed potatoes as well as certain plants for planting exported from
the EU on 1 July 2013, after two postponements of the date of entry into force of the ban. The concerned Russian
governmental agency justifies this measure based on the detections in imports from the EU of harmful organisms
regulated in the Russian Federation. However, the Commission notes that these detections concern mainly fruits,
vegetables and cut flowers, and to some extent ware potatoes. The Commission considers that the different risks
caused by these categories of products, compared to plants for planting, should be taken into account.

The Commission questions the compatibility of the proposed measure with the principles of the WTO SPS
Agreement as the measure appears not to be supported by a scientific risk assessment and to be more trade restrictive
than necessary.

Simultaneously, the Commission is doing its utmost to address the concerns raised by the Russian Federation and to
that end has proposed to the Russian Federation, after consultation with the EU Member States, a system providing
further certification guarantees. The Russian governmental agency has so far not accepted this proposal as providing
a sufficient basis to lift the ban, and the Commission continues to work with EU Member States to fine-tune the
proposed system and address the Russian comments.

C 65 E / 208 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008117/13**

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

_(8 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Modificarea procedurilor de achiziții publice în România

Parlamentul României a aprobat o lege care prevede eliminarea procedurilor de achiziții publice pentru companiile cu
capital de stat și regiile autonome și creșterea pragului de achiziții publice (la 30 000 euro) și lucrări (100 000 euro)
fără licitații.

Această modificare legislativă elimină principiile fundamentale în ceea ce privește cheltuirea banului public și anume,
principiile transparenței, al nediscriminării și al bunei funcționări a unei piețe concurențiale.

Totodată, singura instituție care putea sesiza o instanță de judecata în ceea ce privește anularea contractelor încheiate
ilegal de autoritățile publice a pierdut această competența. Această instituție a fost înființată ca organism de control și
reglementare a achizițiilor publice în aplicarea prevederilor capitolului 21 a Tratatului de Aderare al României la UE.

Comisia este rugată să prezinte un punct de vedere cu privire la aceste decizii și la măsurile care se impun.

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

_(5 septembrie 2013)_

Distinsul membru atrage atenția Comisiei asupra unei noi legi privind achizițiile publice, adoptată în România.
Comisia a luat cunoștință de Legea 139/2013, publicată la 1 iulie 2013, referitoare la aprobarea și la modificarea
OUG 77/2012. Deși această lege nu a fost încă notificată în mod oficial Comisiei, în prezent, Comisia analizează
dispozițiile acesteia și va decide cu privire la acțiunile pe care urmează să le întreprindă.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 209

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008117/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Change in public tender procedures in Romania

The Romanian Parliament has adopted a law that abolishes public tender procedures for autonomous public capital
companies and increases the threshold for the exemption of public procurement and works contracts from tender
procedures to EUR 30 000 and EUR 100 000 respectively.

This change in legislation does away with the basis principles of public expenditure, and namely those of
transparency, non‐discrimination and a correctly‐functioning competitive market.

At the same time, the only body which could refer cases of illegally‐concluded public contracts to the courts has been
deprived of that power. That institution was the public purchase monitoring and regulation authority, which was
established under Chapter 21 of the Treaty on the Accession of Romania to the EU.

What is the Commission’s view of these decisions and what steps does it consider should be taken in this regard?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The Honourable Member draws the attention of the Commission to a new law on public procurement adopted in
Romania. The Commission is aware of Law 139/2013 published on 1 July 2013 approving and amending Emergency
Ordinance 77/2012. Although this law has not yet been officially notified to the Commission, the Commission is
currently analysing its provisions and will decide on an appropriate follow-up.

C 65 E / 210 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008118/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Vývoz zbraní do tretích krajín

Koncom apríla toho roku, na zasadaní Výboru pre zahraničné veci sa hlasovalo o správe týkajúcej sa vývozu zbraní.
Vývoz zbraní zo Slovenskej i Českej republiky do tretích krajín sa predovšetkým z ekonomických dôvodov realizuje
tranzitom do námorných prístavov susedných štátov. Tento tranzit však podlieha schváleniu tranzitných krajín
podľa ich národnej legislatívy; akoby sa teda ignorovali vydané národné licencie.

Takýto postup však nezriedka zapríčiňuje ekonomické straty. Nepovažuje Komisia za opodstatnené zrušiť tieto
tranzitné licencie a ponechať kontrolu na princípe policajných povolení, ktoré sa pri zaistení bezpečnosti i tak
citlivého materiálu ako sú zbrane, javia byť dostatočným opatrením?

**Odpoveď vysokej predstaviteľky Únie a podpredsedníčky Komisie Catherine Ashtonovej v mene Komisie**

_(21. augusta 2013)_

Rozhodnutie udeliť licenciu na vývoz, tranzit a sprostredkovanie obchodu súvisiace s vývozom zbraní je
zodpovednosťou vnútroštátnych orgánov členských štátov (a tretích krajín). Kým podľa smernice 2009/43/ES
o transferoch výrobkov obranného priemyslu členské štáty nemôžu požadovať ďalšie povolenia na tranzit výrobkov
obranného priemyslu cez svoje územie (v rámci EÚ), v prípade vývozu do tretích krajín je situácia odlišná. Na ten sa
môžu vzťahovať výnimky stanovené v článku 346 ZFEÚ o opatreniach nevyhnutných na ochranu základných
záujmov vlastnej bezpečnosti a článku 36 ZFEÚ o obmedzeniach vývozu alebo tranzitu tovaru odôvodnené, okrem
iného, ochranou zdravia a života ľudí. V prípade opatrení prijatých podľa článku 346 však tieto opatrenia nesmú
nepriaznivo ovplyvniť hospodársku súťaž, pokiaľ ide o výrobky dvojakého použitia, zatiaľ čo obmedzenia uplatnené
podľa článku 36 musia byť primerané a nediskriminačné a nesmú predstavovať skryté obmedzovanie obchodu.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 211

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008118/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Arms exports to third countries

At the end of April this year, a vote was held at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the report on arms
exports. Arms exports from Slovakia and the Czech Republic to third countries are, mainly for economic reasons,
implemented by transit to the seaports of neighbouring states. This transit is subject to approval by the transit
countries according to their national legislation, as if they were ignoring national licences that may have been issued.

Such an approach, however, often causes economic losses. Does the Commission not consider it justified to withdraw
the transit licences and retain control over the principle of police permits so as to ensure the security of sensitive
material such as arms. Does this appear to be a sufficient remedy?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The decision to grant a license authorising the export, transit and brokering related to arms export transactions is the
responsibility of national authorities of Member States (and third countries). Whereas in line with
Directive 2009/43/EC on transfers of defence-related products, Member States cannot ask further authorisations for
the intra EU transit of defence-related products through their territory, the situation is different for exports to third
countries. The latter may fall under the exceptions provided by Article 346 of the TFEU on measures necessary for the
protection of the essential interests of security and Article 36 of the TFEU restrictions on exports or transit of goods
justified, _inter alia_, on grounds of public health or life of human beings. However, in the case of measures taken under
Article 346, these must not adversely affect competition regarding dual use products, while restrictions imposed
under Article 36 shall be proportionate and not discriminatory or constitute disguised restriction on trade.

C 65 E / 212 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008119/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Zabíjanie slonov v Afrike

V Stredoafrickej republike zmietanej násilnosťami dochádza k zabíjaniu veľkého množstva slonov. Miestne
ochranárske organizácie vyzvali Stredoafrickú republiku a susedné štáty na okamžité zvýšenie bezpečnosti v danej
oblasti v snahe ochrániť miestnych obyvateľov i slony.

V Afrike sa kvôli slonovine ročne zabije cca 30 000 slonov pre slonovinu žiadanú v Ázii. Je v možnostiach Komisie
podniknúť kroky v snahe zastaviť pytliactvo, ktoré tento región sužuje?

**Odpoveď pána Potočnika v mene Komisie**

_(27. augusta 2013)_

Boj proti nezákonnému obchodu so slonovinou v Stredoafrickej republike je jednou z priorít EÚ, o ktorej sa diskutuje
na politickej úrovni s krajinami regiónu, v ktorom k nemu dochádza najviac.

EÚ zaujala k pytliactvu na slonov aktívny prístup v rámci Dohovoru o medzinárodnom obchode s ohrozenými
druhmi voľne žijúcich živočíchov a rastlín (dohovor CITES). EÚ podporuje iniciatívy v rámci dohovoru CITES ako
napr. MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants – monitorovanie nezákonného zabíjania slonov), ktorá sa
zameriava na sledovanie vývoja a zisťovanie faktorov, ktoré tento vývoj ovplyvňujú, čím pomáha tvorcom politík
vytýčiť vhodné reakcie. Na sekretariáte CITES prebiehajú diskusie v súvislosti s možným programom následného
monitorovania vrátane rozšírenia činností na iné reprezentatívne druhy a na boj proti pytliactvu.

EÚ je tiež hlavným prispievateľom (1,7 milióna EUR) do konzorcia „ _International Consortium against Wildlife Crime_ “
(Medzinárodné konzorcium na boj proti zločinom súvisiacim s voľne žijúcimi živočíchmi a voľne rastúcimi
rastlinami), ktoré združuje Interpol, Úrad OSN pre drogy a kriminalitu, Svetovú colnú organizáciu, CITES a Svetovú
banku. Tento medziinštitucionálny orgán zriadený v roku 2010 má za úlohu bojovať proti nezákonnému obchodu
s voľne žijúcimi živočíchmi a voľne rastúcimi rastlinami.

Komisia podporuje prebiehajúce medzinárodné iniciatívy s cieľom dosiahnuť vysokú mieru aktivizácie v boji proti
nezákonnému obchodovaniu s voľne žijúcimi živočíchmi a voľne rastúcimi rastlinami.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 213

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008119/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Killing of elephants in Africa

In the violence-torn Central African Republic, a large number of elephants have been killed. Local conservation
organisations have called on the Central African Republic and neighbouring states to immediately increase security in
the area in an effort to protect local people and elephants.

In Africa, approximately 30 000 elephants are killed annually to satisfy the Asian demand for ivory. Is it possible for
the Commission to take action in the effort to stop the poaching that is ravaging this region?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

In Central Africa, the combat against illegal ivory trade is an EU priority which has been raised at political level with
the countries from the region where it is most prevalent.

The EU has taken an active stance against elephant poaching in the context of the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The EU supports initiatives within the context of the CITES
Convention such as MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) which measures trends and identifies the
factors that influence these trends, thereby helping policy-makers to define appropriate responses. Discussions with
the CITES Secretariat are ongoing with regard to a possible follow-up programme, including a broadened scope of
activities to other flagship species and to the fight against poaching.

The EU is also a major donor (EUR 1.7 million) to the ‘ _International Consortium against Wildlife Crime_ ’ which brings
together Interpol, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Customs Organisation, CITES and the World Bank.
The mandate of this inter-agency body created in 2010 is to tackle wildlife trafficking.

The Commission is supportive of the ongoing international initiatives aiming for high level mobilisation against
wildlife trafficking.

C 65 E / 214 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008120/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Ľudia bez domova v Európskej únii

Bezdomovectvo je kdekoľvek vo svete chápané ako závažný sociálny problém – forma extrémneho vylúčenia zo
spoločnosti. Ľudia bez domova sú vylúčení na perifériu spoločnosti, izolovaní od účasti na tvorbe a rozdeľovaní
spoločenských hodnôt. Napriek skutočnosti, že Európa je pomerne bohatý región, problémy súvisiace
s bezdomovectvom pretrvávajú, v niektorých krajinách sa situácia dokonca zhoršuje.

Akými opatreniami sa môže Komisia usilovať o prevenciu, ale zároveň i o zníženie hrozby vysťahovania
a minimalizáciu prípadov, keď ľudia opustia určitú inštitúciu bez toho, aby mali zabezpečené miesto na bývanie?

**Odpoveď pána Andora v mene Komisie**

_(2. septembra 2013)_

Za vykonávanie politiky v oblasti bezdomovectva sú primárne zodpovedné členské štáty; Komisia poskytuje
podporu. V rámci balíka o sociálnych investíciách ( [1] ) Komisia poukázala na to, že ľuďom, ktorí prišli o domov
v dôsledku núteného vysťahovania, skutočne hrozí, že sa stanú bezdomovcami. Okrem toho osoby opúšťajúce
ústavné zariadenia (väzenia, nemocnice, psychiatrické liečebne či detské domovy) potrebujú primeranú prípravu na
samostatný život, dostatočnú následnú podporu a pomoc pri hľadaní bývania. V dôsledku súčasnej finančnej
a hospodárskej krízy sa zhoršila situácia a zvýšil počet bezdomovcov, čiastočne z dôvodu oslabenia finančnej situácie
vlastníkov domov a bytov. Balík o sociálnych investíciách obsahuje odporúčané postupy, ktorými môžu členské štáty
bezdomovectvu predchádzať. Okrem toho apeluje na členské štáty, aby zreformovali svoje právne predpisy
o nútenom vysťahovaní.

Komisia spolupracovala na tvorbe usmernení ( [2] ) k prechodu od ústavnej starostlivosti k starostlivosti prebiehajúcej
v rámci komunity s využitím finančných prostriedkov EÚ a vydala odporúčania pre konkrétne krajiny ( [3] ). Okrem
toho uverejnila pracovný dokument útvarov Komisie o vnútroštátnych opatreniach na zamedzenie zabaveniu
majetku pre nesplatenie hypotekárneho úveru ( [4] ). Eurofond uskutočnil štúdiu o dlhovom poradenstve pre
domácnosti ( [5] ). V správe Komisie sa preskúmali opatrenia, ktoré existujú v jednotlivých členských štátoch na ochranu
spotrebiteľov vo finančných ťažkostiach pred osobným bankrotom, plnením _datio in solutum_ a násilným vymáhaním
dlhov ( [6] ).

Komisia v súčasnosti finalizuje štúdiu o nadmernej zadlženosti ( [7] ). V júli 2013 uverejnila výzvu na predkladanie
ponúk na vypracovanie štúdie o ochrane práva na bývanie ( [8] ), v rámci ktorej sa zozbierajú údaje o nútenom
vysťahovaní, vyhodnotí sa jeho súvis s bezdomovectvom a identifikujú sa spôsoby, akými možno v členských štátoch
zvýšiť účinnosť opatrení na ochranu pred núteným vysťahovaním.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pozri najmä _Commission Staff Working Document (2013) 42 final on Confronting Homelessness in the European Union_ (Pracovný dokument útvarov

Komisie (2013) 42 final o riešení problému bezdomovectva v Európskej únii). Viac informácií k balíku o sociálnych investíciách možno nájsť tu:
[http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=fr&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes](http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=fr&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes)

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) _Common European Guidance on the transition from institutional to community based care, European Expert group on the transition from institutional to_

_community based care_ (Spoločné európske usmernenia k prechodu od ústavnej starostlivosti k starostlivosti prebiehajúcej v rámci komunity).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Pozri najmä odporúčania z roku 2013 adresované konkrétne Slovinsku a Estónsku.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) [Pozri http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2011:0357:FIN:EN:PDF](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0357:FIN:EN:PDF)
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) _Household debt advisory servicesin the European Union_ (Služby dlhového poradenstva pre domácnosti v Európskej únii).

[Pozri http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2011/89/en/1/EF1189EN.pdf](http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2011/89/en/1/EF1189EN.pdf)

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) [Pozri http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/fsug/papers/debt_solutions_report_en.pdf](http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/fsug/papers/debt_solutions_report_en.pdf)
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) _The over-indebtedness of European households: update mapping of the situation, nature and causes, effects and initiatives for alleviating its impact._ (Nadmerná

zadlženosť európskych domácností – aktualizované zmapovanie situácie, jej povaha a príčiny, jej dôsledky a iniciatívy na ich zmiernenie.)
Uverejnenie sa plánuje v druhej polovici roku 2013.

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) [Pozri http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=624&langId=en&callId=387&furtherCalls=yes](http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=624&langId=en&callId=387&furtherCalls=yes)

( **|**

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

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

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|**

⋅8∙ **|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 215

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008120/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Homeless people in the European Union

Homelessness is understood around the world to be a serious social problem — an extreme form of social exclusion.
Homeless people find themselves on the periphery of society, isolated from participation in the creation and
distribution of social values. Despite the fact that Europe is a relatively rich region, the problems associated with
homelessness are persisting and, in some countries, the situation is even getting worse.

By what means can the Commission seek to prevent but also reduce the threat of eviction and minimise the number
of cases where people leave a particular institution without having a secure place to live?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

Member States are primarily responsible for implementing homelessness policies while the Commission provides
support. In the Social Investment Package (SIP) ( [1] ) the Commission pointed out that people evicted from their homes
can indeed be vulnerable to homelessness. Similarly persons leaving institutions such as prisons, hospitals, mental
health institutions and foster care homes need adequate preparation for their after **-** care life, sufficient follow **-** up
support and help to find housing. The current financial and economic crisis has exacerbated both the gravity and
extent of homelessness, partly due to the increased vulnerability of homeowners. The SIP identifies good practices for
Member States to prevent homelessness and urges them to reform their legal and regulatory framework on evictions.

The Commission collaborated at the development of Guidelines ( [2] ) for implementing the transition from institutional
to community-based care with the help of EU funds and issued relevant country-specific recommendations ( [3] ). The
Commission also published a Staff Working Paper on national measures to avoid foreclosure ( [4] ). Eurofound
conducted a study on household debt advisory services ( [5] ). A Commission report studied measures in Member States
to protect consumers in financial difficulty against personal bankruptcy, datio in solutum of mortgages and abusive
debt collection practices ( [6] ).

The Commission is currently finalising a study on over-indebtedness ( [7] ). In July 2013 the Commission published a
call for tender for a study focusing on the protection of the right to housing ( [8] ), which will gather data on evictions,
establish the link with homelessness and identify how the efficiency of eviction safeguard measures may be improved
in the Member States.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

⋅8∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See in particular the Commission Staff Working Document (2013) 42 final on Confronting Homelessness in the European Union. For more

information on the SIP, see http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=fr&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Common European Guidance on the transition from institutional to community based care, European Expert group on the transition from

institutional to community based care (November 2012).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See in particular the 2013 country-specific recommendations addressed to Slovenia and Estonia.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SEC:2011:0357:FIN:EN:PDF .
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) ‘Household debt advisory services in the European Union, 2012.’.

See http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2011/89/en/1/EF1189EN.pdf .

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/fsug/papers/debt_solutions_report_en.pdf .
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) ‘The over-indebtedness of European households: update mapping of the situation, nature and causes, effects and initiatives for alleviating its

impact’. Foreseen to be published in the second half of 2013.

( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) See http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=624&langId=en&callId=387&furtherCalls=yes .

( **|**

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

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

( **|**

C 65 E / 216 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008121/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Povinné tachografy

V uplynulom období Parlament a Rada po dlhých diskusiách dospeli k dohode vo veci nového nariadenia, ktoré
povedie k zvýšeniu bezpečnosti cestnej premávky pre všetkých a zároveň bude garantovať dodržiavanie práv
profesionálnych vodičov zavedením povinných inteligentných tachografov.

Tieto zariadenia sa majú inštalovať do nových nákladných automobilov a autobusov uskutočňujúcich medzinárodnú
prepravu na vzdialenosť dlhšiu než 100 km. Je v možnostiach Komisie legislatívne ošetriť, aby používanie
tachografov poskytlo dostatočnú flexibilitu a zároveň aby bolo možné predísť ďalšiemu zaťaženiu či byrokracii?

**Odpoveď pána Kallasa v mene Komisie**

_(29. augusta 2013)_

Po predložení návrhu Komisie z 19. júla 2011 a ukončení rokovaní 14. mája 2013 spoluzákonodarcovia dosiahli
dohodu na texte, ktorým sa výrazne zmení súčasné znenie nariadenia o tachografoch č. 3821/85. Komisia je
presvedčená, že kompromisný text, ku ktorému sa nakoniec dospelo, predstavuje správnu rovnováhu medzi
existujúcimi záujmami a poskytuje vhodnú flexibilitu pre dopravné podniky.

Nové právne predpisy zlepšia na základe ľahko dostupnej technológie (ako je GNSS) ovládateľnosť tachografov pre
používateľov a zároveň dosiahnu zníženie administratívnej záťaže dopravných podnikov, ako aj kontrolných
orgánov. Ďalšiu generáciu digitálnych tachografov bude treba inštalovať vo všetkých vozidlách s hmotnosťou
presahujúcou 3,5 tony. Výnimky týkajúce sa vzdialenosti, ktoré sa v súčasnosti uvádzajú v článku 13 nariadenia
561/2006, sa budú uplatňovať v jednotnom okruhu do 100 km od základne dopravného podniku. Na vozidlá
s hmotnosťou nad 7,5 tony a používané na prepravu materiálu, zariadenia alebo náradia, ktoré vodič používa počas
práce, sa nebudú vzťahovať nariadenia o dobe jazdy, dobe odpočinku a tachografoch, ak jazda týmto vozidlom
nepredstavuje vodičovu hlavnú činnosť.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 217

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008121/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Compulsory tachographs

In the past year, the Parliament and Council have, following extensive discussions, reached a consensus on the new
regulation which will increase road safety for all and will, at the same time, guarantee the rights of professional drivers
by introducing mandatory smart tachographs.

These devices are to be installed in new trucks and buses used in international transport over distances exceeding
100 km. Is the Commission able to legislate so that the use of tachographs provides sufficient flexibility and, at the
same time, so that it may be possible to avoid additional burdens and bureaucracy?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

After the Commission proposal of 19 July 2011 and following negotiations concluded on 14 May 2013, the colegislators reached an agreement on a text which will significantly modify the current tachograph Regulation
3821/85. The Commission believes that the finally agreed compromise text strikes a good balance between the
interests at stake and provides appropriate flexibility for transport undertakings.

The new legislation will, on the basis of readily available technology (such as GNSS) improve the user-friendliness of
the tachograph while at the same time achieving reductions of administrative burden for both transport undertakings
and control authorities. The next generation of digital tachographs will have to be installed in all vehicles heavier than
3.5 tonnes. The radius-based exemptions currently found in Article 13 of Regulation 561/2006 will be applied within
a uniform radius of 100 km from the base of the transport undertaking. Vehicles not heavier than 7.5 tonnes and
used for carrying materials, equipment or machinery for the driver's use in the course of his work will not fall under
the scope of Regulations on driving time, rest periods and tachograph provided that driving this vehicle does not
constitute the driver's main activity.

C 65 E / 218 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008122/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Mediálna gramotnosť

Mediálna gramotnosť je základnou zručnosťou nielen pre mládež, ale aj pre dospelých, rodičov, učiteľov či
mediálnych pracovníkov. Do istej miery sú tieto zručnosti otázkou úspešného začlenenia do súčasnej
informatizovanej spoločnosti.

Ako sa chce Komisia pričiniť o definovanie stratégií, pomocou ktorých by bolo možné podporovať, koordinovať
a priblížiť možnosť získať dané zručnosti širokej európskej verejnosti?

**Odpoveď pani Vassiliouovej v mene Komisie**

_(29. augusta 2013)_

Komisia začala v roku 2006 v rámci európskej audiovizuálnej politiky a lisabonskej stratégie venovať pozornosť
mediálnej gramotnosti. Oznámenie Komisie z roku 2007 a odporúčanie z roku 2009 zvýšili povedomie o mediálnej
gramotnosti na európskej úrovni a podporili spoločné pochopenie jej definície a dôležitosti.

Komisia plánuje podporovať mediálnu gramotnosť rôznymi spôsobmi:

Po prvé, v roku 2013 bude podporovať diskusiu o úlohe mediálnej gramotnosti vo vzdelávaní prostredníctvom
novovytvorenej skupiny expertov zloženej zo zástupcov ministerstiev školstva všetkých členských štátov. Je
presvedčená, že synergie so vzdelávacími programami a politikami bude treba lepšie využívať a zachovávať pritom
primeranú kultúrnu a audiovizuálnu dimenziu v celkovej stratégii mediálnej gramotnosti.

Po druhé, v roku 2013 vykoná v spolupráci s národnými a regionálnymi orgánmi hodnotenie uskutočniteľnosti
plánu na posúdenie úrovní mediálnej gramotnosti v Európe.

Po tretie, navrhuje začleniť od roku 2014 mediálnu a filmovú dimenziu gramotnosti do budúceho programu
„Tvorivá Európa“, o ktorom v súčasnosti rokujú zákonodarcovia.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 219

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008122/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Media literacy

Media literacy is an essential skill not only for young people, but also for adults, parents, teachers and media
professionals. To some extent, these skills are a matter of successful integration into today’s information society.

How does the Commission intend to do its utmost to define strategies by which it may promote, coordinate and bring
the opportunity to gain such skills to the European public at large?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

In 2006, the Commission started a reflection on media literacy within the framework of the European Audiovisual
Policy and the Lisbon strategy. A Commission Communication in 2007 and a recommendation in 2009 raised
awareness of media literacy at European level and promoted a common understanding of its definition and
importance.

The Commission plans to promote media literacy in several ways:

Firstly, in 2013 the Commission will promote a debate on the role of media literacy in education through a new
Expert Group composed of representatives of the Ministries of Education of all Member States. The Commission
believes that synergies with education programmes and policies will have to be better exploited whilst keeping the
appropriate cultural and audiovisual dimension in the global media literacy strategy.

Secondly, in 2013 the Commission will evaluate the feasibility of a plan for assessing media literacy levels in Europe,
in cooperation with national and regional authorities.

Thirdly, the Commission has proposed to integrate, as from 2014, a media and film literacy dimension into the future
‘Creative Europe’ Programme, which is currently being discussed by the legislators,

C 65 E / 220 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008123/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Právo na kvalitnú dlhodobú starostlivosť a uspokojovanie potrieb staršej populácie

Európa čelí demografickým problémom súvisiacim s nárastom počtu starších ľudí a prisťahovalcov. Starnutie
populácie je bežným javom v rámci všetkých členských štátov Európskej únie. Považujem za dôležité vynakladať
úsilie na zabezpečenie kvalitnej dlhodobej starostlivosti pre všetkých.

Predovšetkým v čase škrtov v oblasti poskytovania verejných služieb a nedostatku finančnej podpory sektora
sociálnej starostlivosti – akým konkrétnym konaním sa môže Komisia zasadiť za podporu zachovania dôstojnosti
a zabezpečiť ochranu starších a izolovaných ľudí?

**Odpoveď pána Andora v mene Komisie**

_(29. augusta 2013)_

Zabezpečenie dlhodobej starostlivosti je povinnosťou členských štátov, ktoré si ako súčasť ich spoločných cieľov
v oblasti sociálnej ochrany ( [1] ) samy stanovili za cieľ zabezpečovať prístup k vysokokvalitnej zdravotnej a dlhodobej
starostlivosti. Dôstojné starnutie bolo témou Európskeho roku 2012 ( [2] ).

Vo svojom balíku o sociálnych investíciách ( [3] ) Komisia preskúmala výzvy a politické možnosti dlhodobej
starostlivosti ( [4] ), ktoré s cieľom zabrániť narastajúcemu nepomeru medzi potrebami a ponukou pri trojnásobnom
zvýšení počtu ľudí starších než 80 rokov si vyžadujú inovatívne prístupy k sociálnej ochrane pred závislosťou
v staršom veku, ktoré by kombinovali preventívne politiky s produktívnymi silami v poskytovaní starostlivosti
a opatrenia na zvýšenie schopnosti starších ľudí žiť naďalej nezávislým životom napriek ich krehkému zdraviu
opierajúc sa pritom o inteligentné pomocné technológie.

Komisia spolupracuje s členskými štátmi v otázkach dlhodobej starostlivosti vo Výbore pre hospodársku politiku
a vo Výbore pre sociálnu ochranu. Pravidelná správa Výboru pre hospodársku politiku o starnutí obyvateľstva ( [5] )
predkladá scenáre o tom, ako môže mať starnutie vplyv na verejné výdavky do roku 2060. Výbor pre sociálnu
ochranu plánuje prijať na začiatku roka 2014 správu o uvedených inovatívnych prístupoch k dlhodobej
starostlivosti.

Európske partnerstvo v oblasti inovácií zamerané na aktívne a zdravé starnutie ( [6] ) je programom v rámci celej EÚ.
Zameriava sa na posilnenie európskeho inovačného potenciálu pri riešení výziev demografickej zmeny súvisiacich so
starnutím obyvateľstva, pričom spája všetkých aktérov v rámci celého inovačného reťazca od verejného
a súkromného sektora na úrovni EÚ, národnej a regionálnej úrovni.

V rámci európskeho semestra 2013 dostalo sedem členských štátov odporúčania pre jednotlivé krajiny týkajúce sa
otázok dlhodobej starostlivosti ( [7] ), v ktorých sa venuje pozornosť potrebe nákladovej účinnosti a silnejšieho
zamerania na prevenciu, rehabilitáciu a nezávislý spôsob života.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) KOM(2005) 706: Nový rámec pre otvorenú koordináciu politík sociálnej ochrany a začlenenia v Európskej únii: http://eur
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52005dc0706:EN:NOT

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Európsky rok aktívneho starnutia a solidarity medzi generáciami: pozri napr. 3. časť usmernení o aktívnom starnutí:

http://europa.eu/ey2012/ey2012main.jsp?langId=en&furtherNews=yes&newsId=1743&catId=970

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 83: K sociálnym investíciám do rastu a súdržnosti: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&

furtherNews=yes

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SWD(2013) 41: Dlhodobá starostlivosť v starnúcich spoločnostiach – Výzvy a politické možnosti: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?

catId=1044&langId=en&newsId=1807&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Správa o starnutí obyvateľstva 2012: hospodárske a rozpočtové prognózy pre členské štáty EÚ-27 (2010 – 2060):

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/2012-ageing-report_en.htm

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=active-healthy-ageing
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Išlo o týchto 7 krajín: AT, BE, DE, FI, LU, NL, SI:

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 221

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008123/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ The right to quality long-term care and satisfaction of the needs of the elderly population

Europe is facing a demographic problem related to the increase in the number of older people and immigrants.
Population ageing is a common phenomenon in all Member States of the European Union. I think it is important to
make an effort to provide quality long-term care for all, especially at this time of cuts in public services and
insufficient funding to the social care sector.

What specific actions can the Commission employ to support the maintenance of dignity and to ensure the
protection of elderly and isolated people?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

Ensuring access to long-term care (LTC) is the obligation of Member States, which as part of their common objectives
in social protection ( [1] ) have set themselves the goal of ensuring access to high quality health and long-term care.
Dignified ageing was a theme in the European Year 2012 ( [2] ).

In its Social Investment Package ( [3] ), the Commission reviewed challenges and policy options in LTC ( [4] ) which — to
avoid a widening gap between needs and provisions as the number of people aged 80+ triples — called for innovative
approaches to social protection against dependency in old age combining preventive policies with productivity drives
in care delivery and measures to increase the ability of older persons to continue independent living even as they
become frail, relying also on smart assistive technologies.

The Commission works with Member States on LTC issues in the Economic Policy Committee (EPC) and the Social
Protection Committee (SPC). The EPC's periodic Ageing Report ( [5] ) presents scenarios for how ageing may impact on
public expenditure until 2060. The SPC plans to adopt a report on the abovementioned innovative approaches to
LTC in early 2014.

The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing ( [6] ) is a EU-wide program. It aims to enhance
Europe's innovation potential for tackling the challenges of demographic change associated with ageing by bringing
together all actors across the entire innovation chain, from public and private sectors, at EU, national and regional
level.

In the 2013 European Semester, seven Member States received country-specific recommendations on LTC issues ( [7] ),
addressing the need for cost-effectiveness and a stronger weight on prevention, rehabilitation and independent living.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2005) 706: A new framework for the open coordination of social protection and inclusion policies in the European Union:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52005dc0706:EN:NOT.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between generations: see e.g. 3rd part of Guidelines on Active Ageing:

http://europa.eu/ey2012/ey2012main.jsp?langId=en&furtherNews=yes&newsId=1743&catId=970.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2013)83: Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) SWD(2013) 41: Long-term care in ageing societies — Challenges and policy options:.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1044&langId=en&newsId=1807&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The 2012 Ageing Report: Economic and budgetary projections for the 27 EU Member States (2010-2060):

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2012/2012-ageing-report_en.htm

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm?section=active-healthy-ageing.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) The 7 countries were AT, BE, DE, FI, LU, NL, SI:

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/making-it-happen/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

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

C 65 E / 222 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008124/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Nenávisť a diskriminácia v súvislosti s komunitou LGBT

Z prieskumu Európskej únie týkajúceho sa trestných činov z nenávisti a diskriminácie v súvislosti s komunitou LGBT
vyplýva, že mnohé lesbičky homosexuáli, bisexuáli a transsexuáli (LGBT) skrývajú svoju identitu a žijú v izolácii alebo
dokonca v strachu. Iní zažívajú diskrimináciu, ba dokonca násilie, ak neskrývajú svoju sexuálnu orientáciu.

Aké konkrétne kroky zamerané na ochranu práv osôb z tejto komunity prijala Komisia v poslednom čase?

**Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie**

_(26. augusta 2013)_

Komisia v členských štátoch vykonáva aktívnu politiku zameranú na boj proti diskriminácii založenej na sexuálnej
orientácii ( [1] ) a zabezpečuje, aby boli právne predpisy Únie v plnom súlade s Chartou základných práv EÚ vrátane jej
článku 21, v ktorom sa zakazuje diskriminácia z dôvodu sexuálnej orientácie.

Komisia zabezpečuje správnu transpozíciu a uplatňovanie právnych predpisov EÚ, ktoré sa týkajú komunity
lesbičiek, homosexuálov, bisexuálov a transrodových osôb (LGBT). Tieto predpisy zahŕňajú napríklad smernicu
2000/78/ES, ktorou sa zakazuje diskriminácia z dôvodu sexuálnej orientácie v zamestnaní, smernicu o obetiach
trestných činov (2012/29/EÚ) alebo smernice o oprávnení (2004/83/ES a 2011/95/EÚ). Komisia v roku 2008 navyše
predložila návrh smernice Rady o vykonávaní zásady rovnakého zaobchádzania s osobami bez ohľadu na
náboženské vyznanie alebo vieru, zdravotné postihnutie, vek alebo sexuálnu orientáciu ( [2] ). Prostredníctvom tohto
návrhu by rozsah ochrany prekročil rámec zamestnania. Rada tento návrh ešte neschválila.

Komisia úzko spolupracuje s členskými štátmi, aby ich podporila v ich úsilí bojovať proti diskriminácii komunity
LGBT na vnútroštátnej úrovni. Táto podpora zahŕňa finančnú pomoc, vydávanie publikácií, ako aj pravidelné
semináre na výmenu osvedčených postupov v oblasti verejnej politiky zameranej na boj proti diskriminácii z dôvodu
sexuálnej orientácie a rodovej identity. Komisia prostredníctvom programu Progress poskytuje finančnú pomoc aj
mimovládnym organizáciám a podporuje ich snahu o presadzovanie rovnakých práv pre komunitu LGBT v Európe.

Komisia potvrdzuje svoje odhodlanie bojovať proti homofóbii a presadzovať rovnosť pre túto komunitu v EÚ.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ďalšie informácie o opatreniach EÚ v tejto oblasti možno nájsť na stránke http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/orientation/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) KOM(2008) 0426 v konečnom znení.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 223

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008124/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Hatred and discrimination in the LGBT community

A survey held in the European Union concerning hate crimes and discrimination in the LGBT community revealed
that many lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people (LGBT) conceal their identity and live in isolation or even
fear. Others experience discrimination and even violence if they do not hide their sexual orientation.

What specific steps aimed at the protection of the rights of people from this community has the Commission adopted
recently?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The Commission conducts an active policy to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Member
States ( [1] ) and ensures that Union legislation fully complies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU,
including its Article 21 which prohibits discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.

The Commission is ensuring the correct transposition and application of EU legislation relevant for LGBT people,
such as Directive 2000/78/EC prohibiting discrimination on ground of sexual orientation in employment, the
Victims Crime Directive (2012/29/EU) or the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC and 2011/95/EU). Moreover, in
2008 the Commission tabled a Proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment
between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation ( [2] ), which would extend the
scope of protection beyond the field of employment. The proposal has not yet been approved by the Council.

The Commission works closely with Member States to support their combat against discrimination of LGBT people at
national level. This support includes financial assistance, publications as well as regular good practice exchange
seminars on public policies combatting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The
Commission also supports financially NGOs and their work to promote equal rights for LGBT people in Europe
through PROGRESS programme.

The Commission reiterates its commitment to fight homophobia and promote equality for LGBT people in the EU.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) More information on EU action in this area can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/orientation/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2008) 0426 final.

C 65 E / 224 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008125/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Transparentnejšie klinické skúšanie liekov

Výbor pre životné prostredie v uplynulých dňoch schválil nové pravidlá pre klinické skúšanie liekov. Testovanie liečiv
„po novom“ by tak malo byť transparentnejšie a zároveň rýchlejšie, v snahe zaistiť dostupnejšiu a účinnú liečbu pre
ľudí, ktorí sú na ňu odkázaní.

V novelizovaných právnych predpisoch je odteraz zakomponovaná i úloha etických komisií. Je v kompetencii
a možnostiach Komisie zabezpečiť, aby zároveň v tejto súvislosti nedochádzalo k zvyšovaniu nákladov a nárastu
byrokracie?

**Odpoveď pána Borga v mene Komisie**

_(5. septembra 2013)_

Návrh nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady o klinickom skúšaní liekov na humánne použitie, ktorým sa zrušuje
smernica 2001/20/ES ( [1] ), neupravuje ani neharmonizuje presné fungovanie etických komisií. Návrh ponecháva na
členských štátoch, aby úlohy prideľovali rôznym interným orgánom, ktoré sú zapojené do procesu posudzovania
žiadosti o povolenie klinického skúšania.

Výslovná zmienka o „etických komisiách“, ako bolo odhlasované vo výbore Európskeho parlamentu pre životné
prostredie, nezvýši náklady a byrokraciu, ak sa dodrží základná zásada návrhu (jedno podanie, jeden súbor
dokumentácie k žiadosti a jedna odpoveď na členský štát).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ú. v. ES L 121/34, 1.5.2001.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 225

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008125/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ More transparent clinical trials of medicines

The Committee on the Environment has recently approved new rules for clinical trials of medicines. Testing of ‘new’
medicines should be more transparent and also faster, in order to ensure a more affordable and effective treatment for
people who are dependent on it.

The role of ethics committees is now incorporated in the revised legislation. Is the Commission competent and able to
ensure that in this respect, too, there will be no increase in costs and bureaucracy?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on clinical trials on medicinal products for
human use and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC ( [1] ) does not regulate or harmonise the precise functioning of ethics
committees. The proposal leaves it up to Member States to organise, internally, the attribution of tasks to different
bodies taking part in the process of the assessment of the application for an authorisation of a clinical trial.

An explicit mentioning of the notion ‘ethics committees’, as voted by the Committee on Environment of the
European Parliament, would not increase the costs and bureaucracy, provided that the basic principle of the proposal
(one submission, one application dossier and one response per Member State) is upheld.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 121/34 01.05.2001.

C 65 E / 226 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008126/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Lepšia ochrana obete násilia v EÚ

Európsky parlament, Komisia a írske predsedníctvo Rady úspešne uzavreli rokovania vzťahujúce sa na snahu zaviesť
účinný systém na ochranu obetí násilia uplatniteľný v rámci celej Únie. Európske inštitúcie vynakladajú snahu, aby
obete, ktorým sa poskytla ochrana v občianskych veciach v jednom členskom štáte Únie, mali tieto ochranné
opatrenia uznané rovnakým spôsobom v celej EÚ.

Je však dôležité, aby členské štáty vynakladali dostatočné úsilie na zvýšenie povedomia európskych obyvateľov o tejto
problematike. Je v možnostiach Komisie dohliadať na tieto kroky jednotlivých členských štátov a identifikovať tak
možné medzery a následne priestor na zlepšenie?

**Odpoveď pani Redingovej v mene Komisie**

_(30. augusta 2013)_

Komisia si je vedomá, že efektívna ochrana obetí a pohyb ochranných opatrení v EÚ závisia okrem iného od
dostupnosti relevantných informácií pre obete. Okrem toho je potrebné zvýšiť povedomie jednotlivých orgánov.

Nariadenie (EÚ) č. 606/2013 kvôli svojmu charakteru a právnemu základu ( [1] ) neukladá členským štátom povinnosti
tohto druhu, Zakladá však pre ne povinnosť poskytnúť verejnosti informácie o vnútroštátnych pravidlách
a postupoch, pokiaľ ide o ochranné opatrenia v občianskych veciach, pričom tieto informácie Komisia uverejní na
portáli e-Justice. Pokiaľ ide o ochranné opatrenia v trestných veciach, v smernici 2011/99/EÚ sa členským štátom
stanovuje priama povinnosť informovať obeť hneď po prijatí vnútroštátneho ochranného opatrenia o tom, že sa
môže potenciálne voľne pohybovať v rámci EÚ, a tiež o hlavných podmienkach pre podanie príslušnej žiadosti.
V smernici sa od členských štátov tiež požaduje, aby Komisiu informovali o svojich vnútroštátnych ochranných
opatreniach a o počte vydaných a uznaných európskych ochranných príkazov. Komisia bude dohliadať nato, aby boli
tieto informácie široko zverejňované a v roku 2016 vydá správu o uplatňovaní tejto smernice.

Oba predpisy tvoria okrem toho balík ( [2] ), spoločne so smernicou 2012/29/EÚ o právach obetí ( [3] ), ktorej dôležitými
prvkami sú ustanovenia o povinnosti informovať a o odbornej príprave pre nositeľov povinností a zainteresované
strany ( [4] ). Komisia preto očakáva, že príslušné orgány a organizácie na podporu obetí poskytnú obetiam všetky
dôležité informácie, vrátane možnosti požiadať o ochranné opatrenia a o ich pohyb v rámci EÚ.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pôsobnosť obmedzená na občianske veci s cezhraničným dosahom.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Odôvodnenie 8 nariadenia č. 606/2013 „Skutočnosť, že sa na určitú osobu vzťahuje ochranné opatrenie nariadené v občianskych veciach,

nebráni nevyhnutne tomu, aby sa táto osoba považovala za,obeť“ v zmysle uvedenej smernice“.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Smernica Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 2012/29/EÚ z 25. októbra 2012, ktorou sa stanovujú minimálne normy v oblasti práv, podpory

a ochrany obetí trestných činov.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Pozri článok 4 ods. e), článok 6 bod 5, článok 18 a odôvodnenie 52, článok 25 a odôvodnenia 61 – 62.

( **|**

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 227

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008126/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Better protection for victims of violence in the EU

The European Parliament, the Commission and the Irish Presidency of the Council successfully held negotiations
relating to efforts to establish an effective system for the protection of victims of violence applicable throughout the
Union. The European institutions are making efforts so that victims who were granted protection in civil proceedings
in one Member State of the European Union may have these safeguards recognised in the same way throughout
the EU.

However, it is important that Member States expend sufficient effort to raise awareness amongst European citizens
regarding this issue. Is the Commission able to monitor these actions by the Member States, thus identifying possible
gaps in order to subsequently find room for improvement?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware that efficient protection of victims and circulation of the protection measures in the EU
depends on, among others, that relevant information being available to victims. Moreover, awareness needs to be
raised among the authorities.

Due to nature of the act and its legal basis ( [1] ), Regulation (EU) 606/2013 does not contain obligations on Member
States of this type. However, it obliges them to provide information on national rules and procedures concerning
protection measures in civil matters to the public; this information will be published by the Commission on the eJustice Portal. For criminal law protection measures, Directive 2011/99/EU provides for straightforward obligations
on Member States to inform the victim upon adoption of the national protection measure that it can potentially move
freely in the EU and, as well as of the main conditions for introducing the corresponding request. It also requires that
Member States inform the Commission about their national measures and the number of European protection orders
issued and recognised. The Commission will monitor that this information is widely published and will issue a report
on the application of the directive in 2016.

In addition, both acts form a package ( [2] ) with Directive 2012/29/EU on victims' rights ( [3] ), where provisions on
information obligations and training for duty bearers and stakeholders are important element ( [4] ). The Commission
expects that competent authorities and victims support organisations will provide victims therefore with all relevant
information, including the possibility to apply for protection measures and to request that they circulate in the EU.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) limited to the cross-border civil matters.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Recital 8 of Regulation (EU) 606/2013 ‘The fact that a person is the object of a protection measure ordered in civil matters does not necessarily

preclude that person from being defined as a “victim” under that directive’.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support

and protection of victims of crime.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) see Article 4(e), Article 6(5), Article 18 and Recital 52, Article 25 and recitals 61-62.

( **|**

( **|**

C 65 E / 228 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008127/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Boj proti nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí

V Európe je v súčasnosti 26,5 milióna nezamestnaných. Vzhľadom na alarmujúcu situáciu je v rámci danej
problematiky žiaduca zmena smerovania európskej politiky. Európska únia vyčlenila 6 miliárd EUR na boj proti
nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí v priebehu najbližších siedmich rokov. Značná časť týchto finančných prostriedkov
by mala byť vhodne využitá čo najskôr.

Akým spôsobom chce Komisia zabezpečiť aby dané finančné prostriedky boli skutočne prospešne a účelne využité
pre potreby mladých nezamestnaných v rámci celej EÚ?

**Odpoveď pána Andora v mene Komisie**

_(29. augusta 2013)_

Iniciatíva na podporu zamestnanosti mladých ľudí sa zameriava na boj proti nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí
v regiónoch EÚ (na úrovni NUTS II) s mierou nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí v roku 2012 nad 25 %. Podporuje
priamo balík opatrení v oblasti zamestnanosti mladých ľudí, a najmä systém záruk pre mladých ľudí, ktorého cieľom
je poskytovať všetkým mladým ľuďom kvalitnú ponuku zamestnania, ďalšieho vzdelávania, učňovskej prípravy
alebo stáže počas doby štyroch mesiacov od straty zamestnania alebo ukončenia formálneho vzdelania. V súlade so
závermi Európskej rady z júna 2013 členské štáty využívajúce balík opatrení v oblasti zamestnanosti mladých ľudí by
mali prijať plán na riešenie nezamestnanosti mladých ľudí vrátane implementácie systému záruk pre mladých ľudí do
konca roku 2013. Komisia bude takisto pozorne sledovať, ako členské štáty reagujú na odporúčania pre jednotlivé
krajiny a priority stratégie Európa 2020 týkajúce sa zamestnanosti mladých ľudí vo svojich dohodách o partnerstve
a operačných programoch na obdobie 2014 – 2020. S cieľom zvýšiť efektívnosť investícií navrhla aj podmienenosť
ex-ante ( [1] ), aby investície z Európskeho sociálneho fondu boli prioritne použité na uplatňovanie iniciatívy na
podporu zamestnanosti mladých ľudí.

Rozpočet vo výške 6 mld. EUR schválený Európskou radou pozostáva z 3 mld. EUR z novo vyčleneného
rozpočtového riadku v rámci viacročného finančného rámca a najmenej 3 mld. EUR z ESF. V záveroch Európskej
rady z júna 2013 sa uvádza, že s cieľom plne realizovať iniciatívu na podporu zamestnanosti mladých ľudí
uhrádzanie 6 mld. EUR by sa malo uskutočniť v prvých dvoch rokoch budúceho viacročného finančného rámca.
Komisia takisto navrhla presunúť dátum oprávnenosti podporovania akcií v rámci tejto iniciatívy na skorší dátum.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)146 final

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 229

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008127/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Combating youth unemployment

In Europe, there are now 26.5 million people unemployed. In view of this alarming situation, it is desirable to have a
change of direction in European policy in this area. The European Union has allocated EUR 6 billion to combat youth
unemployment over the next seven years. A significant portion of these funds should be used appropriately as soon as
possible.

How does the Commission wish to ensure that the funds are actually used beneficially and efficiently for the needs of
young unemployed people across the EU?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) aims to fight youth unemployment in EU regions (NUTS level 2) with a youth
unemployment rate superior to 25% in 2012. It aims to directly support the Youth Employment Package and in
particular the Youth Guarantee. The purpose of the latter is to provide all young people with a good-quality offer of
employment, continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within a period of four months of becoming
unemployed or leaving formal education. In accordance with the June 2013 European Council conclusions, Member
States benefitting from the YEI should adopt a plan to tackle youth unemployment, including through the
implementation of the Youth Guarantee, before the end of 2013. The Commission will also closely monitor how
Member States reflect the country-specific recommendations and Europe 2020 policy priorities on youth
employment in their 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes. To increase the efficiency of
the investments, the Commission has also proposed an _ex-ante_ conditionality ( [1] ) for the European Social Fund
investment priority to be used for the implementation of the YEI.

The budget of EUR 6 billion agreed to by the European Council comprises EUR 3 billion from a new dedicated budget
line within the Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) and at least EUR 3 billion from the ESF. The June 2013
European Council conclusions state that in order for YEI to play its full role, the disbursement of the EUR 6 billion
should take place during the first two years of the next MFF. The Commission has also proposed to bring forward the
date of eligibility of actions under the YEI.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)146 final.

C 65 E / 230 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008128/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Požiar v Bangladéši

Textilné továrne spoločnosti Tazreen v Bangladéši nedávno postihli požiare. Dokonca došlo aj k zrúteniu budovy
Rama Plaza. Tragédia má mnoho obetí. Bangladéš pritom využíva výhody prístupu na trh Európskej únie, ktorý je
oslobodený od kvót a od cla. Ide o tzv. preferenčný prístup, ktorý je možné zrušiť v prípade, ak dochádza
k sústavnému porušovaniu medzinárodných zásad zameraných na ochranu ľudských práv. Nešťastie v Bangladéši
upozorňuje na otrokárske praktiky zamestnávateľov.

Bude Komisia určitým spôsobom aktívna a vyzve Bangladéš na prijatie preventívnych opatrení, ktoré by zabránili
opakovaniu obdobných tragických situácií v budúcnosti?

Bude Komisia vyšetrovať, či nedošlo k porušeniu medzinárodných zásad zameraných na ochranu ľudských
a pracovných práv a či v krajine nedochádza zo strany zamestnávateľov k otrokárskym praktikám?

**Odpoveď pána De Guchta v mene Komisie**

_(18. septembra 2013)_

Komisia reagovala aktívne a rýchlo na tragické zrútenie budovy Rana Plaza v apríli v Dháke, ktorého následkom bolo
viac ako 1 100 obetí na životoch. Dňa 8. júla Komisia spolu s Bangladéšom uviedla spoločnú iniciatívu na zlepšenie
podmienok pre pracovníkov odevných tovární v Bangladéši: „Trvalá angažovanosť: Dohoda o udržateľnosti
(Sustainability Compact) pre neustále zlepšovanie pracovných práv a bezpečnosti v továrňach, pokiaľ ide priemysel
zameraný na konfekčné oblečenie a pletený tovar v Bangladéši“ ( [1] ). Táto iniciatíva zdôrazňuje záväzky, ktoré musia
obe strany prijať v troch kľúčových oblastiach: 1) dodržiavanie pracovných práv; 2) konštrukčná celistvosť budov
a bezpečnosť a zdravie pri práci; a 3) zodpovedné správanie sa podnikov.

Dohodu spoločne s členom Komisie p. De Guchtom uviedli predseda zahraničných vecí Bangladéša Dr. Dipu Moni
a generálny riaditeľ Medzinárodnej organizácie práce (ILO) p. Guy Ryder. Zástupcovia bangladéšskych výrobcov,
hlavní európski dovozcovia, odborové organizácie a ďalšie kľúčové zainteresované strany tiež podporili uvedenú
iniciatívu a zúčastnili sa na jej uvedení.

Komisia bude naďalej venovať mimoriadnu pozornosť hodnoteniam Medzinárodnej organizácie práce týkajúcim sa
opatrení Bangladéša na zabezpečenie dodržiavania základných pracovných noriem v krajine.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pozri: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151601.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 231

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008128/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fire in Bangladesh

Textile factories in Bangladesh belonging to the Tazreen company were recently affected by fire. This led to the
collapse of the Rama Plaza building. The tragedy had many victims. At the same time, Bangladesh is taking advantage
of the benefits of access to the EU market and is exempt from customs duties and quotas. This is called preferential
access, which can be cancelled if there are continual violations of international principles aimed at the protection of
human rights. The calamity in Bangladesh highlights the slavery practices of employers.

Will the Commission be active in some way and invite Bangladesh to adopt precautionary measures to prevent the
recurrence of similar tragic situations in the future?

Will the Commission investigate whether there was a violation of international principles aimed at protecting human
and employment rights, and whether employers are using slavery practices in that country?

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

_(18 September 2013)_

The Commission has responded actively and rapidly to the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka in
April which resulted in over 1,100 deaths. On the 8th July the Commission launched a joint initiative with
Bangladesh for improving conditions for workers in Bangladeshi garment factories: ‘Staying engaged: A Sustainability
Compact for continuous improvements in labour rights and factory safety in the Ready-Made Garment and Knitwear
Industry in Bangladesh’ ( [1] ). This initiative outlines commitments to be taken by both sides in three key areas: 1)
Respect for labour rights; 2) Structural integrity of buildings and occupational safety and health; and 3) Responsible
business conduct.

Joining Commissioner De Gucht in Geneva to co-launch the Compact were Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Dr Dipu
Moni and International Labour Organisation (ILO) Director-General Guy Ryder. Representatives of Bangladeshi
manufacturers, major European importers, trade unions and other key stakeholders also supported the initiative and
were present at the launch.

The Commission will continue to pay close attention to ILO assessments on Bangladesh's actions to ensure the
respect of core labour standards _across the country._

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151601.pdf

C 65 E / 232 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008129/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Problematika bridlicového plynu

Nedávno Európska komisia zverejnila predbežné výsledky verejnej konzultácie zameranej na problematiku
netradičných fosílnych palív a ich využitia v Európskej únii. Konzultácia prebiehala od decembra 2012 do marca
2013 a zapojilo sa do nej približne 23 000 respondentov. V prezentácii k výsledkom bolo uvedené, že veľká väčšina
respondentov sa zhodla na nedostatku adekvátnej legislatívy, potrebe informovať verejnosť a nedostatočnej verejnej
akceptácii nekonvenčných fosílnych palív.

Aký bude mať výsledok tejto verejnej konzultácie vplyv na budúcu činnosť Komisie v oblasti nekonvenčných
fosílnych palív?

**Odpoveď pána Potočnika v mene Komisie**

_(10. septembra 2013)_

Táto verejná konzultácia je súčasťou rozsiahleho procesu, ktorého cieľom je zapojiť zainteresované strany
a jednotlivcov do prebiehajúcej práce Komisie a zaoberá sa príležitosťami ako aj rizikami netradičných fosílnych palív
ako napr. bridlicový plyn. Výsledky tejto konzultácie boli zohľadnené v posúdení vplyvu, na ktorom sa v súčasnosti
pracuje, v súvislosti s vypracovaním iniciatívy Komisie „Rámec environmentálneho hodnotenia v oblasti klímy
a energetiky s cieľom umožniť bezpečnú a zabezpečenú nekonvenčnú ťažbu uhľovodíkov“, ktorá je súčasťou
pracovného programu na rok 2013 ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/key-documents/index_en.htm

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 233

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008129/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ The issue of shale gas

Recently, the European Commission published the preliminary results of the public consultation focused on the issue
of unconventional fossil fuels and their use in the European Union. The consultation ran from December 2012 to
March 2013 and about 23 000 respondents participated in it. In the presentation of the results, it was stated that a
large majority of respondents agreed that there was a lack of adequate legislation, a need to inform the public, and
insufficient public acceptance of unconventional fossil fuels.

What impact will the outcome of this public consultation have on the future activities of the Commission in the field
of unconventional fossil fuels?

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

_(10 September 2013)_

This public consultation is part of a broader process designed to involve interested individuals and stakeholders in the
Commission's ongoing work and addresses the opportunities as well as the risks of unconventional fossil fuels such as
shale gas. The results of the consultation have been taken into account in the impact assessment currently in progress
in the context of the development of the Commission initiative ‘Environmental, Climate and Energy Assessment
Framework to Enable Safe and Secure Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction’, which is part of the 2013 Work
Programme ( [1] ) .

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/key-documents/index_en.htm

C 65 E / 234 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008130/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Nová ústava Európskej únie

Na pôde Európskeho parlamentu nedávno vystúpil slovinský prezident Borut Pahor. Ten tvrdí, že ak chce Európska
únia čeliť kríze, zabezpečiť pre svojich občanov blahobyt a udržať mier, bude potrebovať novú ústavu. Súčasne platná
Lisabonská zmluva bude podľa jeho tvrdení nedostatočná.

Aký je postoj Komisie k takýmto tvrdeniam?

Bude podľa názoru Komisie nová ústavná zmluva v budúcnosti skutočne potrebná?

**Odpoveď pána Šefčoviča v mene Komisie**

_(21. augusta 2013)_

Predseda Barroso vo svojej poslednej správe o stave Únie otvoril diskusiu o ceste k federácii národných štátov. ( [1] )

Komisia vzápätí prijala oznámenie „ _Koncepcia pre rozsiahlu a skutočnú hospodársku a menovú úniu – Zahájenie európskej_
_diskusie_ “. ( [2] ) V tejto koncepcii, ktorá bola predstavená aj Parlamentu, sa uvádzajú nástroje potrebné na takéto
prehĺbenie HMÚ. Rozlišuje sa tu medzi oblasťami, kde možno zmenu dosiahnuť na základe sekundárnej legislatívy,
a oblasťami, v prípade ktorých by bola nutná zmena zmluvy.

Na nedávnej konferencii o koncepcii pre rozsiahlu a skutočnú HMÚ predseda Barroso potvrdil, že Komisia predloží
svoje nápady a konkrétne predstavy o zmene zmluvy, aby sa o nich dalo diskutovať ešte pred voľbami do Európskeho
parlamentu v roku 2014. ( [3] )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Správa o stave Únie, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/archives/2012/09/20120912_1_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/archives/2012/11/pdf/blueprint_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Otvárací prejav na konferencii k danej koncepcii,http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/blueprint-speech-barroso.pdf

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

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 235

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008130/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ The new constitution of the European Union

The Slovenian President, Borut Pahor, recently spoke before the European Parliament. He argues that if the European
Union wishes to deal with the crisis, to ensure the well-being of its citizens and to maintain peace, it will need a new
constitution. At the same time, he claims that the current Lisbon Treaty will be insufficient.

What is the Commission’s position on such claims?

Does the Commission consider that the new Constitutional Treaty will be desirable in the future?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

In his last State of the Union address, President Barroso launched a debate on the path to a federation of nation
states ( [1] ).

Subsequently the Commission has come forward with a communication ‘A blueprint for a deep and genuine
economic and monetary union — Launching a European debate’ ( [2] ). That blueprint, which has also been presented to
Parliament, has identified tools and instruments required for deepening the EMU. It distinguishes between the areas
where changes can be made through secondary legislation and those where changes to the Treaty would be necessary.

As re-affirmed by President Barroso on the occasion of the recent conference on the blueprint for a deep and genuine
EMU, the Commission would set out its views and explicit ideas for Treaty change in order for them to be debated
ahead of the European Parliament elections of 2014 ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 2012 State of the Union Address, http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/archives/2012/09/20120912_1_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/news/archives/2012/11/pdf/blueprint_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Opening keynote speech at the conference on the blueprint, http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/blueprint-speech-barroso.pdf

C 65 E / 236 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008132/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Revízia smernice o tabakových výrobkoch

V súvislosti s revíziou smernice o tabakových výrobkoch panuje všeobecné znepokojenie a niektoré jej ustanovenia
môžeme označiť za kontroverzné. Nadmerná regulácia výroby, obmedzovanie sortimentu, štandardizácia balení či
zákaz ingrediencií je podľa názoru niektorých odborníkov výrazným zásahom do kultúry a kvality predaja, ohrozuje
podnikanie, existenciu malých predajcov a má teda negatívny vplyv aj na zamestnanosť.

Aká bude odpoveď Komisie na obavy, že ustanovenia Smernice o tabakových výrobkov budú mať takýto výrazný
negatívny vplyv na podnikateľské prostredie, a teda aj na zamestnanosť?

**Odpoveď pána Borga v mene Komisie**

_(14. augusta 2013)_

Komisia si dovoľuje poukázať na skutočnosť, že táto otázka sa svojou podstatou nelíši od predošlej písomnej otázky
(E-000228/2013) váženej pani poslankyne, a preto ju odkazuje na príslušnú odpoveď, ktorá už na túto otázku bola
vyjadrená.

Komisia by chcela takisto odkázať váženú pani poslankyňu na svoje odpovede na písomné otázky E-000189/2013
a E-003123/2013 ( [1] ).

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 237

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008132/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Revision of the Tobacco Products Directive

There is widespread concern in connection with the revision of the Tobacco Products Directive and some of its
provisions can be described as controversial. Excessive regulation of production, limiting of the product range,
standardisation of packaging and a ban on ingredients represent, according to some experts, significant interference
with the culture and quality of sales, threatening business and the existence of small retailers, and thus has a negative
impact on employment.

What is the Commission’s response to concerns that the provisions of the Tobacco Products Directive will have such
a significant negative impact on the business environment, and thus on employment?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

The Commission would point out that this question is of the same nature as the Honourable Member's previous
Written Question E-000228/2013 and would therefore refer the Honourable Member to the corresponding answer
already given.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written questions E-000189/2013 and
E-003123/2013 ( [1] ).

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

C 65 E / 238 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008133/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Ohrozenie systému predaja legálnych cigariet

Podľa Európskej komisie by mala revízia smernice o tabakových výrobkoch znížiť objem predaja cigariet a tým aj
zdravotné riziká našich obyvateľov. Štandardizácia balení však podľa názoru niektorých odborníkov vytvorí
motiváciu na masívne pašovanie a falšovanie cigariet z okolitých krajín. Nelegálne cigarety v mnohých prípadoch
nevyhovujú platným zdravotným normám, a tak pre našich obyvateľov predstavujú obrovské zdravotné riziko.
Pašovanie cigariet má, samozejme, negatívny vplyv aj na štátne rozpočty členských krajín.

Je si Komisia vedomá toho, aké obrovské zdravotné riziko spôsobujú pašované cigarety? Ak áno, tak akým spôsobom
chce takémuto ohrozeniu zdravia obyvateľov EÚ zabrániť?

**Odpoveď pána Borga v mene Komisie**

_(22. augusta 2013)_

Účinné opatrenia proti nezákonnému obchodovaniu predstavujú skutočný záujem politiky týkajúcej sa kontroly
tabaku, pretože nelegálne produkty ohrozujú regulačné úsilie právnych predpisov v oblasti kontroly tabaku a zvyšujú
cenovú dostupnosť tabakových výrobkov.

Pred vypracovaním svojho legislatívneho návrhu Komisia vykonala dôkladnú analýzu hospodárskych, sociálnych
a zdravotných vplyvov všetkých svojich politických opatrení. Neočakáva sa, že sa v dôsledku návrhu zvýši nezákonné
obchodovanie. Tento názor zastávajú mnohí odborníci vrátane odborníkov na presadzovanie práva. V návrhu sa
okrem toho predpokladá zavedenie opatrení proti nezákonnému obchodovaniu, najmä systém úplného sledovania
a zisťovania a viditeľné bezpečnostné prvky.

Komisia sa výrazne angažuje za boj proti nezákonnému obchodovaniu s tabakovými výrobkami a nedávno prijala
oznámenie „Posilnenie boja proti pašovaniu cigariet a iným formám nezákonného obchodu s tabakovými výrobkami
– Komplexná stratégia EÚ“, ktoré sprevádza akčný plán proti pašovaniu s touto tematikou ( [1] ). Jedným dôležitým
prvkom tohto plánu je rýchle prijatie smernice o tabakových výrobkoch s ustanoveniami na riešenie nezákonného
obchodovania. Komisia okrem toho nedávno navrhla rozhodnutie Rady, ktoré ju oprávňuje podpísať v mene
Európskej únie Protokol o odstránení nezákonného obchodovania s tabakovými výrobkami ( [2] ), čím sa zdôrazňuje
záväzok Komisie bojovať proti nezákonnému obchodovaniu.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/policy/preventing-fraud/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0539:FIN:EN:PDF.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 239

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008133/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Threat to the system of sales of legal cigarettes

According to the European Commission, the review of the Tobacco Products Directive should reduce the volume of
sales of cigarettes and thus the health risks facing our population. Standardisation of packaging, however, in the
opinion of some experts, creates a massive incentive for smuggling and counterfeiting of cigarettes from
neighbouring countries. In many cases, illegal cigarettes do not comply with applicable health standards, and so they
represent a huge health risk to our citizens. Cigarette smuggling also has, of course, a negative impact on the national
budgets of Member States.

Is the Commission aware of the immense health risks caused by contraband cigarettes? If so, how does it wish to
prevent such threats to the health of EU citizens?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

Effective measures against the illicit trade are in the genuine interest of tobacco control policy, because illicit products
undermine the regulatory efforts of tobacco control legislation and increase the affordability of tobacco products.

Prior to making its legislative proposal the Commission carried out a thorough analysis of the economic, social and
health impacts of all its policy measures. The proposal is not expected to increase the illicit trade, an analysis that is
shared by many experts including many law enforcement experts. In addition, the proposal foresees the introduction
of measures against the illicit trade, in particular a full tracking and tracing system and visible security features.

The Commission is strongly committed to combat the illicit trade in tobacco products and recently adopted a
communication on Stepping up the fight against cigarette smuggling and other forms of illicit trade in tobacco
products — A comprehensive EU Strategy is accompanied by an Anti-smuggling Action Plan to this effect ( [1] ). One
important element of that plan is the rapid adoption of the Tobacco Products Directive with its provisions to address
illicit trade. Also the Commission recently proposed a Council Decision authorising it to sign, on behalf of the
European Union, the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products ( [2] ) further underlining the Commission's
commitment to the fight against illicit trade.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/policy/preventing-fraud/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0539:FIN:EN:PDF

C 65 E / 240 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008134/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Interpretácia nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a rady (ES) č. 1924/2006 o výživových a zdravotných
tvrdeniach pri označovaní potravín

Nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1924/2006 o výživových a zdravotných tvrdeniach pri označovaní
potravín je pomerne neprehľadné a jeho správna interpretácia a aplikácia nie je vždy jasná. Je to tak aj v prípade
výživových doplnkov rastlinného pôvodu, tzv. „botanicals“, teda rastlín a rastlinných substancií. Mali by sa riadiť
režimom „on hold“, čo znamená, že by sa na ne nemali vzťahovať tzv. „zdravotné tvrdenia“.

Akým režimom sa doplnky stravy z „botanicals“ (rastliny a rastlinné substancie ako napr. ženšen, goji, acai, pestrec…)
vlastne riadia a aké typy tvrdení na obaloch a reklamných materiáloch možno v prípade týchto produktov používať?

**Odpoveď pána Borga v mene Komisie**

_(20. augusta 2013)_

V EÚ sú potravinové doplnky regulované smernicou 2002/46/ES ( [1] ), ktorou sa stanovujú harmonizované pravidlá
označovania potravinových doplnkov a zavádzajú osobitné pravidlá pre vitamíny a minerály v potravinových
doplnkoch. Pravidlá pre používanie látok iných ako vitamíny a minerály, napr. rastlín/rastlinných prípravkov,
v potravinových doplnkoch nie sú harmonizované, a preto sa bez toho, aby boli dotknuté ustanovenia zmluvy, riadia
vnútroštátnymi predpismi.

V EÚ sa potravinové doplnky považujú za potraviny, a preto by sa aj na potravinové doplnky mali uplatňovať právne
predpisy EÚ o potravinách. Z toho teda vyplýva, že podľa nariadenia (ES) č. 178/2002 ( [2] ) prevádzkovatelia
potravinárskych podnikov uvádzajúci na trh Únie potravinové doplnky majú primárnu zodpovednosť zabezpečiť,
aby takéto potraviny boli bezpečné. Podobne musia potravinové doplnky označené tvrdeniami okrem pravidiel
stanovených v smernici 2002/46/ES byť v súlade aj s pravidlami stanovenými v nariadení (ES) č. 1924/2006 ( [3] ).

V kontexte nariadenia (ES) č. 1924/2006 sa Komisia rozhodla zaradiť do režimu „on hold“ tvrdenia o rastlinných
substanciách, ktoré podľa článku 13 opisujú „funkcie“ alebo na ne odkazujú, s cieľom ďalej uvažovať o primeranom
prístupe k týmto tvrdeniam. Ak je tvrdenie v režime „on hold“, môže sa naďalej používať na trhu v rámci
zodpovednosti prevádzkovateľa potravinárskeho podniku za predpokladu, že je v súlade s požiadavkami nariadenia
(ES) č. 1924/2006 a platnými vnútroštátnymi ustanoveniami, ktoré sa naň vzťahujú. Tvrdenia, ktoré zostávajú
[v režime „on hold“, sú uvedené na webovej stránke registra EÚ: http://ec.europa.eu/nuhclaims/](http://ec.europa.eu/nuhclaims/)

Napokon, podľa nariadenia (ES) č. 178/2002 majú členské štáty presadzovať potravinové právo, monitorovať
a overovať, či prevádzkovatelia potravinárskych podnikov plnia príslušné požiadavky potravinového práva.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Smernica 2002/46/ES o aproximácii právnych predpisov členských štátov týkajúcich sa potravinových doplnkov, Ú. v. ES L 181, 12.7.2002,

s. 51.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Nariadenie (ES) 178/2002, ktorým sa ustanovujú všeobecné zásady a požiadavky potravinového práva.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Nariadenie (ES) č. 1924/2006 o výživových a zdravotných tvrdeniach o potravinách, Ú. v. EÚ L 404, 30.12.2006, s. 9.

( **|**

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

**|** )

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 241

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008134/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition
and health claims made on foods

Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on nutrition and health claims made
on foods is relatively non-transparent and its correct interpretation and application is not always clear. This is also the
case with nutritional supplements of plant origin, known as ‘Botanicals’, i.e. plants and plant substances. They should
be categorised as ‘on hold’, meaning that they should not involve ‘health claims’.

What system are food supplements from ‘botanicals’ (plants and plant substances such as ginseng, goji, acai, milk
thistle, etc.) actually governed by, and what types of claims on packaging and promotional materials may be used for
these products?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

In the EU food supplements are regulated by Directive 2002/46/EC ( [1] ) which establishes harmonised rules for the
labelling of food supplements and introduces specific rules on vitamins and minerals in food supplements. Rules for
the use of substances other than vitamins and minerals in food supplements, e.g. plants/plant preparations, are not
harmonised and therefore are governed by national rules, without prejudice to the provisions of the Treaty.

Food supplements are considered foodstuffs within the EU and therefore EU food legislation would also apply to food
supplements. It follows, therefore, that according to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 ( [2] ), food business operators
placing on the Union market food supplements have the primary responsibility to ensure that such foods are safe.
Likewise, food supplements bearing claims, further to the rules laid down in Directive 2002/46/EC, must also comply
with the rules set out in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 ( [3] ).

In the context of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, the Commission decided to put ‘on hold’ Article 13 ‘function’
claims made on botanical substances to further reflect on their appropriate treatment. While a claim is on hold, it may
continue to be used on the market under the responsibility of the food business operator provided that they comply
with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 and existing national provisions applicable to them. Claims
remaining on hold may be found on the web page of the EU Register: http://ec.europa.eu/nuhclaims/

Finally, according to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Member States shall enforce food law, monitor and verify that the
relevant requirements of food law are fulfilled by food business operators.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2002/46/EC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to food supplements, OJ L 181, 12.07.2002, p.51.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, OJ L 404, 30.12.2006, p. 9.

C 65 E / 242 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008135/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Obmedzenie regulácie na úrovni EÚ

Holandská vláda nedávno vykonala audit oblastí, ktoré podliehajú regulácii Európskej únie. Iniciuje pritom prísnejšie
uplatňovanie princípu subsidiarity, podľa ktorého by mala Európska únia zasahovať iba do oblastí, kde je európska
regulácia efektívnejšia ako vnútroštátna. Holandsko dokonca vytvorilo zoznam oblastí, ktoré by mali byť ponechané
vo výlučnej právomoci členských štátov. Podobnú revíziu kompetencií Únie iniciuje aj Veľká Británia, ktorá iniciatívu
Holandska podporila.

Bude Komisia vyvodzovať z holandskej iniciatívy konkrétne závery?

Bude podľa názoru Komisie podobné obmedzovanie právomocí Európskej únie v období stále pretrvávajúcej krízy
skutočne dobrým riešením?

**Odpoveď pána Šefčoviča v mene Komisie**

_(6. septembra 2013)_

V Zmluve o EÚ sa uvádzajú národné parlamenty a Výbor regiónov v súvislosti s monitorovaním dodržiavania zásady
subsidiarity. Tieto orgány môžu takisto napadnúť legislatívne akty, o ktorých sa domnievajú, že nie sú v súlade so
zásadou subsidiarity, a predložiť vec Súdnemu dvoru Európskej únie.

Pre Komisiu však toto právo neznamená, že sa obmedzia právomoci Únie, ale že sa preskúma, či sa môžu ciele
potrebného opatrenia (napr. chrániť zdravie a bezpečnosť, udržať vnútorný trh a rovnaké podmienky v celej Únii,
zabezpečiť hospodársku súťaž a bojovať proti zlyhaniam trhu) uspokojivo dosiahnuť na vnútroštátnej úrovni.

Komisia v rámci svojej politiky inteligentnej regulácie a svojho Programu regulačnej vhodnosti a efektívnosti skúma
mnohé z otázok, ktoré nastolili holandské orgány vo svojej revízii subsidiarity. V súvislosti so súčasnou
hospodárskou krízou Komisia vynakladá maximálne úsilie na to, aby európske právne predpisy v plnej miere
prinášali pre občanov a podniky očakávaný prospech, a to za minimálne náklady a pri dodržiavaní zásad subsidiarity
a proporcionality.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 243

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008135/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restriction of regulations at EU level

The government of the Netherlands recently carried out an audit on areas that were subject to European Union
regulations. This has initiated a still more rigorous application of the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the
European Union should intervene only in those areas where European regulations are more effective than national
regulations. The Netherlands have even created a list of areas that should be left to the exclusive competence of the
Member States. A similar review of Union competence is being initiated by the United Kingdom, which supported the
initiative of the Netherlands.

Will the Commission draw specific conclusions from the Dutch initiative?

Will the Commission consider similar limitations on the powers of the European Union during the still ongoing crisis
to be a truly good solution?

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

_(6 September 2013)_

The EU Treaty associates national parliaments and the Committee of the Regions with the monitoring of the principle
of subsidiarity. These bodies may also contest before the European Court of Justice legislative acts seen by them as not
complying with this principle.

For the Commission, however, this is not an issue of limiting the powers of the Union but of examining whether or
not the objectives of necessary action (e.g. to protect health and safety, to sustain the internal market, to maintain a
level playing field throughout the Union, to ensure competition and to counter market failures) can be sufficiently
achieved by measures at national level.

In its Smart Regulation policy and Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme, the Commission is examining
many of the issues that the Dutch authorities have raised in their subsidiarity review. In the current economic crisis,
the Commission undertakes every effort to ensure that EU legislation fully delivers the expected benefits to citizens
and businesses at minimum costs, whilst respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

C 65 E / 244 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008136/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Vzťah medzi životným prostredím a ľudským zdravím

Európska environmentálna agentúra EEA zverejnila nedávno spolu so Spoločným výskumným centrom JRC správu,
ktorá za zaoberá vzťahom medzi životným prostredím a ľudským zdravím. Zo správy vyplýva, že na hlavné príčiny
predčasných úmrtí, ako je rakovina či cukrovka alebo srdcovocievne ochorenia, má veľký vplyv aj životné prostredie.
Obyvateľstvo je podľa správy vystavené rôznym negatívnym environmentálnym faktorom, ktoré majú vplyv na
dĺžku a kvalitu života. Podľa správy je potrebné dôkladne ich preskúmať a pokúsiť sa čo najviac obmedziť ich vplyv
najmä na najzraniteľnejších členov spoločností, ako sú deti či starí ľudia.

Aké konkrétne kroky plánuje prijať Komisia v nadväznosti na túto správu?

**Odpoveď pána Potočnika v mene Komisie**

_(23. augusta 2013)_

Komisia si je vedomá početných prepojení medzi ľudským zdravím a životným prostredím a táto skutočnosť je
zdôraznená v nedávnej správe JRC/EEA.

Na základe návrhu Komisie spoluzákonodarcovia nedávno dosiahli dohodu o „všeobecnom environmentálnom
akčnom programe Únie do roku 2020“ ( [1] ). Program upriamuje pozornosť na dôležitosť toho, aby členské štáty
vykonávali súbor právnych predpisov EÚ v oblasti životného prostredia nielen ako náležitú investíciu pre životné
prostredie a ekonómiu, ale aj s cieľom ochrany ľudského zdravia. Medzi prioritné opatrenia patrí ochrana občanov
pred tlakmi súvisiacimi so životným prostredím a zdravotnými rizikami. Opatrenia, ktoré sú súčasťou programu,
zahŕňajú kvalitu vzduchu, riadenie odpadu, hluk, normy pre vodu, kombinované účinky chemických látok, látky
narúšajúce endokrinný systém, riziká spojené s nebezpečnými látkami a bezpečnosť nanomateriálov a materiálov
s podobnými vlastnosťami. Program je zameraný na dosiahnutie zdravého životného prostredia pre všetkých
občanov EÚ, pričom sa v ňom berie do úvahy zraniteľnosť detí a tehotných žien, a to najmä v súvislosti
s nebezpečnými a znečisťujúcimi látkami.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 710 final. Politický kompromis sa dosiahol 19. júna 2012 a Európsky parlament ho odsúhlasil 10. júla 2012.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 245

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008136/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Relationship between the environment and human health

The European Environment Agency (EEA), in conjunction with the Joint Research Centre (JRC), has recently
published a report which addresses the relationship between the environment and human health. The report shows
that the environment has a major impact on the main causes of premature death, such as cancer or diabetes or
cardiovascular disease. According to the report, the population faces various negative environmental factors which
affect the length and quality of life. The report states that these factors should be thoroughly examined and that we
should try as much as possible to limit their impact, particularly on the most vulnerable members of society such as
children or the elderly.

What specific steps does the Commission intend to take in response to this report?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the multiple links between human health and the environment, as highlighted in the
recent JRC/EEA report.

Based on a proposal from the Commission, agreement was reached recently between the co-legislators on the
‘General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020’ ( [1] ). The Programme draws attention to the importance of
Member States' implementation of the EU environmental _acquis_ as a sound investment not only for the environment
and the economy, but also for protecting human health. Priorities for actions include safeguarding citizens from
environment-related pressures and risks to health. Actions included in the Programme cover air quality, waste
management, noise pollution, standards for water, combination effects of chemicals, endocrine disruptors, risks
associated with hazardous substances and safety of nanomaterials and materials with similar properties. The
Programme aims to bring about a healthy environment for all EU citizens, acknowledging the vulnerability of
children and pregnant women notably with regard to hazardous substances and pollutants.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 710 final. A political compromise was reached on the 19 June 2012 and endorsed by the European Parliament on 10 July 2012.

C 65 E / 246 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Slovenské znenie)_

**Otázka na písomné zodpovedanie E-008137/13**

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

_(8. júla 2013)_

_Vec:_ Inovatívne zelené miesta

V súčasnom období ekonomickej a sociálnej krízy je našou prioritou ekonomický rast, rozvoj podnikania,
konkurencieschopnosti a zvýšenie zamestnanosti. V tejto súvislosti však nesmieme zabúdať na dôležitosť
environmentálych politík, investícií do obnoviteľných zdrojov energie či energetickej účinnosti. Environmentálne
priemyselné odvetvie už v súčasnosti produkuje viac ako 2,5 % HDP Európskej únie. Pozitívnou správou je aj to,
že zamestnáva viac ako 3 milióny ľudí. Tvorba inovatívnych zelených pracovných miest je účinným nástrojom na
zvýšenie zamestnanosti a súčasne prispieva k zvyšovaniu kvality životného prostredia.

Aké konkrétne opatrenia zamerané na tvorbu inovatívnych zelených pracovných miest prijala Komisia v poslednom
čase a aké konkrétne opatrenia sa naopak chystá prijať v nastávajúcom období?

**Odpoveď pána Andora v mene Komisie**

_(29. augusta 2013)_

Cieľom Komisie realizovaním opatrení balíka na podporu zamestnanosti 2012 ( [1] ) je pripraviť európsku pracovnú silu
na kvalifikačné požiadavky ekologického hospodárstva. Opatrenia zahŕňajú posilnenie partnerstiev medzi službami
zamestnanosti pri poskytovaní ekologických pracovných miest, čoraz väčšie využívanie štandardizovaných systémov
osvedčovania zručností, ako aj modernizovanie kvalifikácie a schém odbornej prípravy.

V programovom období 2014 – 2020 budú prostriedky z ESF podporovať posun smerom k ekologickému
hospodárstvu pomocou reformy systémov vzdelávania a odbornej prípravy, adaptácie zručností a kvalifikácií
a vytvorenia nových pracovných miest v sektoroch súvisiacich so životným prostredím a energetikou ( [2] ).

Pripravuje sa oznámenie o MSP a ekologickom podnikaní. Na základe spolupráce s Európskou investičnou bankou sa
poskytnú pôžičky vo výške 10 – 15 mld. EUR podnikom, ktoré podporujú inovácie založené na ekologickom
hospodárstve a efektívnosť zdrojov. Komisia pracuje aj na rámcových podmienkach priameho vplyvu na tvorbu
pracovných miest ako napríklad presun daňového zaťaženia z práce na životné prostredie.

Komisia prostredníctvom svojich politík o efektívnom využívaní zdrojov pomáha zvýšiť počet ekologických
pracovných miest ( [3] ). Nakoniec v rámci akčného plánu v oblasti ekologických inovácií ( [4] ) spolupracuje s členskými
štátmi na relevantnej kvalifikácií pracovníkov z hľadiska ekologického hospodárstva.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173 final z 18. apríla 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) KOM(2011) 607 v konečnom znení/2: Návrh nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady o Európskom sociálnom fonde, ktorým sa zrušuje

nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 1081/2006.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) KOM(2011) 571 v konečnom znení z 20. septembra 2011.

Pozri http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies_modelling/pdf/report_macroeconomic.pdf.
Pozri http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) KOM(2011) 899 v konečnom znení z 15. decembra 2011.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 247

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008137/13**

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

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Innovative green spaces

In this current period of economic and social crisis, our priority is economic growth, business development,
competitiveness and an increase in employment. In this context, we must not forget the importance of environmental
policies, or investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The environmental industry is already responsible
for more than 2.5% of EU GDP. The positive news is that it also employs more than 3 million people. The creation of
innovative green jobs is an effective tool for increasing employment and, at the same time, contributing to improving
the quality of the environment.

What specific measures aimed at the creation of innovative green jobs has the Commission recently adopted, and
what specific measures is it preparing to adopt in the coming period?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

By implementing the actions foreseen in the 2012 Employment Package ( [1] ) the Commission aims at preparing the
European workforce to the skill requirements of a green economy. Actions include the strengthening of partnerships
between employment services in the delivery of green job services, boosting the uptake of standardised skills
certifications schemes also by upgrading qualification and training schemes.

In the programming period 2014-2020, the ESF shall support the shift towards a green economy, through reform of
education and training systems, adaptation of skills and qualifications, and the creation of new jobs in sectors related
to the environment and energy ( [2] ).

A Communication on SMEs and green entrepreneurship is in preparation. Cooperation with the European
Investment Bank will provide EUR 10-15 billion lending to firms to support green-based innovation and resource
efficiency. The Commission is also working on the framework conditions such as shifting from labour to
environmental taxation for a direct impact on job creation.

Through its policies on resource efficiency, the Commission is helping to increase green jobs ( [3] ). Finally, the
Commission is working with Member States on green skills through the Eco-innovation Action Plan ( [4] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 173 final of 18 April 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2011)607 final/2: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Social Fund and repealing

Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 571 final of 20 September 2011

See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/studies_modelling/pdf/report_macroeconomic.pdf.
See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/study%2012%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 899 final of 15 December 2011.

( **|**

( **|**

⋅4∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 248 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-008138/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D)**

_(8 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Verticale marktafbakeningen

Uit het groenboek van de Europese Commissie inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken in de food‐ en non‐food
toeleveringsketen tussen ondernemingen in Europa blijkt dat deze sectoren met verschillende oneerlijke
handelspraktijken kampen, waardoor er vaak grote prijsverschillen bestaan voor identieke voedingsproducten tussen
verschillende lidstaten. Zo blijkt bijvoorbeeld uit een recente studie van de Belgische Federale Overheidsdienst
Economie dat de prijzen voor de eindgebruiker in België 7 % hoger liggen dan in Frankrijk, 10,4 % hoger dan in
Nederland en 10,6 % hoger dan in Duitsland. Hierdoor wordt de Europese eindconsument met een zwaar
gefragmenteerde interne markt geconfronteerd. Volgens het groenboek meent tegelijk 58 % van de Europeanen dat
de bestaande handhavingsmechanismen ter bescherming van zwakke partijen ontoereikend zijn.

In dat kader de volgende vragen:

1. Is de Commissie, met name de Commissaris voor mededinging, op de hoogte van deze prijsverschillen voor
dezelfde voedingsproducten in de verschillende lidstaten? In hoeverre zijn deze verschillen volgens de
Commissie te wijten aan het bestaan van verticale akkoorden die de Europese markt land per land afbakenen,
die parallelhandel verhinderen en die aldus ingaan tegen de principes van een interne markt?

2. Een gebrekkige handhaving is problematisch. Onlangs is binnen het directoraat-generaal Mededinging een
taskforce inzake food opgericht. Wat zijn de prioriteiten van deze taskforce? Vormt de aanpak van verticale
marktafbakeningen in de voedselsector een prioriteit van deze taskforce? Indien ja, welke maatregelen zal de
Commissie treffen en wanneer verwacht zij concrete resultaten? Indien de aanpak verticale marktafbakeningen
in de voedingssector geen prioriteit vormt voor deze taskforce, waarom niet? Hoe en waar moeten ze volgens
de Commissie dan wel effectief aangepakt worden?

**Antwoord van de heer Almunia namens de Commissie**

_(5 augustus 2013)_

De Commissie is ervan op de hoogte dat sommige bedrijven in de verschillende EU-lidstaten verschillende prijzen
hanteren voor dezelfde producten.

Verschillende voedselprijzen tussen en binnen landen worden veroorzaakt door een aantal factoren zoals de
productiekosten, de omvang van de markt, de voorkeur van de consument, transportkosten en verschillende
regelgevingskaders. In verscheidene studies wordt het relatieve belang van dergelijke structurele factoren becijferd,
bijvoorbeeld uit het verslag over België en zijn buurlanden van de Belgische mededingingsautoriteit. Ook de Europese
Centrale Bank ( [1] ) heeft de aanwezigheid en de omvang van prijsverschillen in de eurozone onderzocht, en op de
webpagina van Eurostat is een Europees instrument voor de bewaking van de voedselprijzen ( [2] ) gepubliceerd dat is
gericht op een betere transparantie en voorspelbaarheid van de prijzen, alsook op een gemakkelijkere toegang tot
statistische gegevens over voedselprijzen.

De taak van de voedseltaskforce („Food Task Force”) van het directoraat-generaal Concurrentie bestaat erin
afbakeningspraktijken te onderzoeken die in strijd zijn met de mededingingsregels, als zij aanwijzingen van dergelijke
praktijken voorgelegd krijgen. Een voorbeeld van een dergelijke afbakeningspraktijk is een situatie waarin een
handelaar hetzelfde product tegen een verschillende prijs verkoopt in twee lidstaten en de verdelers verhindert het
product te verkopen aan klanten die daarom verzoeken (passieve verkoop), als deze klanten voornemens zijn het
product uit te voeren.

De Commissie verricht ook een studie naar de werking van concurrentie in de voedingsdetailhandel in de EU ( [3] ). In de
studie zal worden onderzocht of er bepaalde gebieden en/of specifieke productcategorieën in de EU
concurrentieproblemen ondervinden en zullen kwantitatieve gegevens worden opgenomen over de evolutie van
consumentenkeuze en innovatie (en de factoren daarvoor). In dit onderzoek zullen mogelijke verschillen tussen de
lidstaten worden aangewezen.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) „Structural features of distributive trades and their impact on prices in the Euro area”, Europese Centrale Bank. Reeks „Occasional Papers”.

Nummer 128 / september 2011. http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpops/ecbocp128.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Zie http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Zie de studie COMP/2012/015 „The economic impact of modern retail on choice and innovation in the EU food sector”, PB/S S244 van

19.12.2012.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 249

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008138/13**

**to the Commission**
**Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Vertical market demarcation

It appears from the European Commission’s Green Paper on unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food
and non-food supply chain in Europe that these sectors are faced with various unfair trading practices, and there are
often large price differences for identical food products between different Member States. For example, according to a
recent study by Belgium’s Federal Public Service for the Economy, prices for end users in Belgium are 7% higher than
in France, 10.4% higher than in the Netherlands and 10.6% higher than in Germany. The European consumer is thus
confronted with a deeply fragmented internal market. According to the Green Paper, 58% of Europeans also consider
that the existing enforcement mechanisms for protecting weaker parties are insufficient.

1. Is the Commission, and in particular the Commissioner for competition, aware of these price differences for the
same food products in different Member States? To what extent does the Commission consider these differences to be
due to the existence of vertical agreements that demarcate the European market on a country-by-country basis and
prevent parallel trade, thus violating the principles of an internal market?

2. The lack of enforcement is problematic. A task force on food was recently set up within the Directorate-General
for Competition. What are the priorities for this task force? Is the vertical demarcation of the market in the food
sector a priority? If so, what measures will the Commission take and when does it expect to achieve concrete results?
If the vertical demarcation of the market in the food sector is not a priority for this task force, why not? How and
where does the Commission think that this issue should be tackled?

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

_(5 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware that certain companies are selling similar products at different prices across EU Member
States.

Price differences in food between and within countries are caused by a number of factors such as input costs, market
size, consumer preferences, transport costs and different regulatory frameworks. Several studies quantify the relative
importance of such structural factors, for example, the report on Belgium and its neighbouring countries done by the
Belgian Competition Authority. The European Central Bank ( [1] ) has also investigated the presence and magnitude of
price differences in the euro area; and the Eurostat web page includes a European Food Prices Monitoring Tool ( [2] ) that
aims to increase price transparency and predictability, as well as to improve the accessibility of statistical data on food
prices.

DG Competition's Food Task Force is ready to investigate demarcation practices that may be infringing competition
rules if presented with evidence of such practices, for instance that an operator is selling the same product at different
prices in two Member States and prevents its distributors from selling to clients who make requests to them (passive
sales) when these clients want to export the product.

The Commission is also undertaking a study on the working of competition in the EU food retail sector ( [3] ). The study
intends to find out whether areas and/or specific product categories face competition problems in the EU, and to
provide quantitative evidence on the evolution of choice and innovation (and their drivers). This analysis will identify
possible differences between Member States.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Structural features of distributive trades and their impact on prices in the Euro area’, European Central Bank. Occasional Paper Series.

No 128/September 2011. http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpops/ecbocp128.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) At http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/hicp/methodology/prices_data_for_market_monitoring
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Cf. COMP/2012/015 study on ‘The economic impact of modern retail on choice and innovation in the EU food sector’, OJ/S S244 of 19.12.2012.

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

C 65 E / 250 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008139/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Συνολικό διαθέσιμο κεφάλαιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Σταθερότητας για την ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των ευρωπαϊκών
τραπεζών

Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει η Επιτροπή αναφορικά με το διαθέσιμο κεφάλαιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Ταμείου Σταθερότητας για
την ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των ευρωπαϊκών τραπεζών; Ποιο είναι το ύψος που μέχρι σήμερα έχει ήδη χρησιμοποιηθεί και από
ποιά κράτη μέλη;

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

_(3 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Χρηματοοικονομικής Σταθερότητας (ΕΤΧΣ) χρησιμοποιήθηκε για την παροχή χρηματοδότησης
σχετικά με τρία προγράμματα, και συγκεκριμένα τα προγράμματα της Ελλάδας, της Ιρλανδίας και της Πορτογαλίας. Όλα
αυτά τα κράτη μέλη έλαβαν χρηματοδοτική συνδρομή (δάνεια) συνοδευόμενη από πρόγραμμα μακροοικονομικής
προσαρμογής. Το ΕΤΧΣ περιλάμβανε επίσης ένα μέσο χρηματοδοτικής συνδρομής για την ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των
χρηματοπιστωτικών ιδρυμάτων (έμμεσα, μέσω του κράτους μέλους), το οποίο χρησιμοποιήθηκε για την παροχή συνδρομής
στην Ισπανία. Εντούτοις, το μέσο αυτό μεταφέρθηκε στη συνέχεια στον Ευρωπαϊκό Μηχανισμό Σταθερότητας (ΕΜΣ), μόλις
αυτός συστάθηκε. Το ΕΤΧΣ δεν διαθέτει μηχανισμό για την άμεση ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των χρηματοπιστωτικών
οργανισμών/τραπεζών.

Από την 1η Ιουλίου 2013, ωστόσο, το ΕΤΧΣ δεν μπορεί πλέον να αναλάβει νέες χρηματοδοτήσεις προγραμμάτων ή να
συνάψει νέες συμφωνίες δανειακής διευκόλυνσης. Ο ΕΜΣ συνιστά σήμερα τον μοναδικό μόνιμο μηχανισμό που επιτρέπει να
ανταποκρινόμαστε σε νέα αιτήματα χρηματοδοτικής συνδρομής που απευθύνουν τα κράτη μέλη της ζώνης του ευρώ.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 251

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008139/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Total funds available in the European Financial Stability Facility for recapitalising European banks

Is the Commission in a position to inform me as to the funds that are available in the European Financial Stability
Facility for recapitalising European banks? How much has been used to date and by which Member States?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) was used to provide financing for three programmes — for Greece,
Ireland and Portugal. All these Member States were granted financial assistance (loans) accompanied by a
macroeconomic adjustment programme. The EFSF also comprises an instrument for financial assistance for the
purpose of recapitalizing financial institutions (indirectly, via the Member State), which was used to provide
assistance to Spain. However, this programme was subsequently transferred to the European Stability Mechanism
(ESM) upon the latter's establishment. The EFSF does not have an instrument that would allow for the direct
recapitalization of financial institutions/banks.

As of 1 July 2013, however, the EFSF may no longer engage in new financing programs or enter into new loan facility
agreements. The ESM is now the sole and permanent mechanism for responding to new requests for financial
assistance by euro area Member States.

C 65 E / 252 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008140/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Αποτελεσματικότητα της συμβολής της Task Force για την επανεκκίνηση των έργων προτεραιότητας στην Ελλάδα

Πριν από δύο περίπου χρόνια, η Ελλάδα, σε στενή συνεργασία με την Επιτροπή, κατάρτισε έναν κατάλογο 181 σχεδίων
προτεραιότητας. Σύμφωνα με τον σχεδιασμό αυτό, όλα τα έργα θα πρέπει να ολοκληρωθούν και να καταστούν επιχειρησιακά
έως το τέλος του 2015. Μάλιστα, το 2011, σε προηγούμενη απάντηση της (E-012655/2011) η Επιτροπή επικαλέστηκε ότι
οι καθυστερήσεις στην εκτέλεση των έργων δεν αποδίδονται μεταξύ άλλων και στις μακροχρόνιες δικαστικές διαδικασίες
(π.χ. απαλλοτριώσεις) που εμποδίζουν την εφαρμογή των συγχρηματοδοτούμενων έργων. Υπογράμμισε δε, πως η Ειδική
Ομάδα (Task Force) για την Ελλάδα επικουρεί τις ελληνικές αρχές στον προσδιορισμό μέτρων για τη μείωση της δυσκίνητης
και χρονοβόρου γραφειοκρατίας, καθώς και στη χρησιμοποίηση τεχνικής βοήθειας για τη διευκόλυνση της εφαρμογής των
σχεδίων.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Διαπιστώνει συγκεκριμένες πρωτοβουλίες και προτάσεις της Ειδικής Ομάδας για τον προσδιορισμό μέτρων για τη
μείωση της δυσκίνητης και χρονοβόρου γραφειοκρατίας και την επανεκκίνηση των μεγάλων έργων;

—
Ποιες είναι οι σημαντικότερες παρεμβάσεις της Ειδικής Ομάδας σε αυτό το ζήτημα;

—
Διαπιστώνει καλύτερους ρυθμούς υλοποίησης των 181 έργων;

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

_(22 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Η ομάδα δράσης για την Ελλάδα (TFGR), καθώς και η ΓΔ REGIO ( [1] ) και η ΓΔ EMPL ( [2] ) υποστηρίζουν τις προσπάθειες των
ελληνικών αρχών για την επιτάχυνση της εφαρμογής των έργων προτεραιότητας. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, έχουν αναληφθεί
ορισμένες πρωτοβουλίες: Η στήριξη της Jaspers ( [3] ) έχει επεκταθεί στην Ελλάδα για να καταστεί δυνατή η παροχή τεχνικής
βοήθειας για τα μεγάλα έργα, ιδίως στον τομέα των έργων ΤΠ· επιπλέον, έχουν γίνει ρυθμίσεις για τον ορισμό πεπειραμένων
υπεύθυνων των ελληνικών έργων για τα πλέον πολύπλοκα έργα και εκείνα που δεν προχωρούν ικανοποιητικά.

Προκειμένου να συμβάλει στη μείωση της γραφειοκρατίας, η TFGR συνεργάστηκε με τις ελληνικές αρχές για την
απλούστευση των εσωτερικών διαδικασιών διαχείρισης και ελέγχου, ιδίως στους τομείς των εγκρίσεων των έργων, της
χρηματοδότησης της διαδικασίας, της επιτάχυνσης της υλοποίησης του έργου, καθώς και των βελτιώσεων στον ρυθμό της
εκτέλεσης πληρωμών για τα έργα. Το σύνολο των εν λόγω σημαντικών αλλαγών τέθηκε σε εφαρμογή έως τα τέλη Μαρτίου.
Επίσης, έγιναν πρόσφατα αλλαγές στη νομοθεσία, που επιταχύνουν τις διαδικασίες που αφορούν απαλλοτριώσεις, την
περιβαλλοντική αδειοδότηση, τις δημόσιες συμβάσεις, καθώς και τα προς επίλυση προβλήματα λόγω της περιορισμένης
ρευστότητας.

Επιπλέον, για να συμβάλει στην απλοποίηση των διαδικασιών, η TFGR συντόνισε την τεχνική βοήθεια για βασικά έργα
προτεραιότητας, ιδίως σχετικά με τις παραχωρήσεις αυτοκινητοδρόμων, τη διαχείριση αποβλήτων και το κτηματολόγιο ( [4] ).

Σύμφωνα με την τελευταία έκθεση προόδου η οποία εστάλη από τις ελληνικές αρχές στις 31 Μαΐου, 19 έργα προτεραιότητας
έχουν ολοκληρωθεί και 85 προχωρούν σύμφωνα με το πρόγραμμα. Η προσοχή και η υποστήριξη που περιγράφονται
ανωτέρω απαιτείται για τα υπόλοιπα έργα, τα οποία εξακολουθούν να χρειάζονται επιτάχυνση. Όσον αφορά τη διαδικασία, οι
εγκρίσεις έχουν φθάσει το 92% και οι συμβάσεις το 67% των δαπανών για δημόσια έργα.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΓΔ Περιφερειακής και Πολεοδομικής πολιτικής.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) ΓΔ Απασχόλησης, Κοινωνικών Υποθέσεων και Ένταξης.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Κοινή ενίσχυση για τη χρηματοδότηση έργων στις ευρωπαϊκές περιφέρειες.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Οι λεπτομέρειες καθορίζονται στις τακτικές εκθέσεις της TFGR, η τελευταία από τις οποίες μπορεί να αναζητηθεί στον ιστότοπο

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/president/pdf/qr4_en.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 253

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008140/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Efficacy of Task Force in re-starting priority projects in Greece

About two years ago, Greece prepared a list of 181 priority projects in close cooperation with the Commission.
According to that plan, all those projects should be completed and operational by the end of 2015. In fact, in a
previous reply given in 2011 (E-012655/2011), the Commission stated that delays in the implementation of the
projects were not only attributed to lengthy legal procedures (e.g. expropriations), which impede the implementation
of co-financed projects. It emphasised that the Task Force for Greece was assisting the Greek authorities in identifying
measures to reduce cumbersome and time-consuming bureaucracy and in financing technical assistance to facilitate
project implementation.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Has it found that the Task Force has taken specific initiatives and made specific proposals to reduce
cumbersome and time-consuming bureaucracy and re-start major projects?

—
What are the most important interventions which the Task Force has made in this matter?

—
Has it found that the rate of implementation of the 181 projects has picked up?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

The Task Force for Greece (TFGR) along with DG REGIO ( [1] ) and DG EMPL ( [2] ) supports the efforts of the Greek
authorities to accelerate implementation of the priority projects. In that context it has taken a number of initiatives:
the support of Jaspers ( [3] ) has been extended to Greece to enable provision of technical assistance for major projects,
particularly IT projects; in addition, arrangements have been made to assign experienced Greek project managers to
the more complex projects and those that were not progressing well.

To help reduce bureaucracy, TFGR worked with the Greek authorities to simplify internal management and control
procedures, notably in the areas of project approvals, the financing process, acceleration of project implementation
and improvements in the speed of making payments to projects. These significant changes were all implemented by
the end of March. Furthermore, changes to the law have recently been made that speed up procedures relating to
expropriations, environmental licensing, public procurement and resolving problems due to limited liquidity.

In addition to help with simplification of procedures, TFGR has coordinated technical assistance for key priority
projects, notably relating to the motorway concessions, waste management and the Cadastre ( [4] ).

According to the last progress report sent by the Greek authorities on 31 May, 19 priority projects have been
completed, and 85 are progressing according to plan. The focus of attention and the support described above is on
the remaining projects, where acceleration is still required. It terms of process, approvals have reached 92% and
contracts 67% of the projects' public expenditure.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) DG Regional and Urban Policy.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Joint assistance to support projects in European regions.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Details are set out in the regular reports of the TFGR, the latest of which can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010
2014/president/pdf/qr4_en.pdf .

C 65 E / 254 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008141/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Δηλώσεις της Ιρλανδής Υπουργού Οικονομικών για ανταποδοτική ανακεφαλαιοποίηση τραπεζών και θέση της
Επιτροπής

Με δήλωσή της στο τηλεοπτικό δίκτυο RTE στις 29 Ιουνίου, η Ιρλανδή Υπουργός Οικονομικών δήλωσε ότι συντάσσει ένα
πλάνο για να παρουσιαστεί στην ευρωομάδα το φθινόπωρο, με στόχο μια ανταποδοτική ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των τραπεζών
της Ιρλανδίας ύψους 30 δισ. ευρώ. Αυτός ο μηχανισμός θα αφορά την άμεση ένεση ρευστότητας στις τράπεζες από τον ESM
χωρίς να προσμετράται το ποσό αυτό στο δημόσιο χρέος. Μάλιστα η Υπουργός ανέφερε ότι η τρόικα έχει ενημερωθεί
σχετικά.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Καθώς συμμετέχει στην τρόικα, επιβεβαιώνει ότι είναι ενήμερη για το συγκεκριμένο πλάνο; Είναι σε θέση να με
ενημερώσει για την θέση της επί του συγκεκριμένου σχεδίου;

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

_(5 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή γνωρίζει τις σκέψεις των ιρλανδικών αρχών σχετικά με τη συμμετοχή του Ευρωπαϊκού Μηχανισμού
Σταθερότητας (ΕΜΣ) σε μια στρατηγική για τις ιρλανδικές τράπεζες. Ενώ τον Ιούνιο η Ευρωομάδα συμφώνησε σχετικά με τα
κύρια χαρακτηριστικά του επιχειρησιακού πλαισίου του μελλοντικού μέσου άμεσης ανακεφαλαιοποίησης του ΕΜΣ, το μέσο
αυτό δεν έχει ακόμη τεθεί σε λειτουργία. Στο παρόν στάδιο, η Επιτροπή δεν είναι σε θέση να λάβει συγκεκριμένη θέση σχετικά
με αυτές τις πρώτες σκέψεις των ιρλανδικών αρχών.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 255

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008141/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Statements by Irish Minister for Finance on bail-in of banks and Commission position

In a statement on RTE television on 29 June, the Irish Minister for Finance stated that she was preparing a
EUR 30 billion bail-in plan for Irish banks for submission to the Eurogroup in the autumn. This mechanism will
involve an immediate injection of liquidity into the banks from the ESM which will not increase the public debt. The
Minister even said that the Troika had been advised accordingly.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
As it is a member of the Troika, can it confirm that it is aware of this particular plan? Is it able to inform me of
its position on this particular plan?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The European Commission is aware of the Irish authorities' considerations to involve the European Stability
Mechanism (ESM) in a strategy for Irish banks. While in June the Eurogroup agreed on the main features of the
operational framework of the future ESM direct recapitalisation instrument, this instrument is not yet operational.
The Commission is not in a position to take a particular stand on the Irish authorities' early considerations at this
stage.

C 65 E / 256 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008142/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Ευρυζωνικά δίκτυα στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με δήλωση της Επιτροπής δεν παρέχονται στους ευρωπαίους καταναλωτές οι ευρυζωνικές ταχύτητες
τηλεφόρτωσης για τις οποίες πληρώνουν. Μάλιστα, η πραγματική ταχύτητα ανέρχεται μόλις στο 74%, κατά μέσο όρο, της
διαφημιζόμενης ονομαστικής ταχύτητας που χρεώνεται στους καταναλωτές.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Είναι σε θέση να μου παραθέσει συγκεκριμένα συγκριτικά στοιχεία της Ελλάδας σε σχέση με τα άλλα κράτη μέλη για το
συγκεκριμένο ζήτημα;

—
Καθώς διαπιστώνεται ότι η διαφημιζόμενη από τα δίκτυα ευρυζωνική ταχύτητα πολλές φορές διαφέρει από την
πραγματική που απολαμβάνουν οι καταναλωτές, διαπιστώνει η Επιτροπή εντατικοποίηση των ελέγχων από τις εθνικές
αρχές προκειμένου οι πολίτες να επωφελούνται από τις υπηρεσίες για τις οποίες πληρώνουν; Ποιά η περίπτωση της
Ελλάδας;

**Απάντηση της κ. Kroes εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(20 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Δεδομένα για τον λόγο πραγματικής ταχύτητας/διαφημιζόμενης ταχύτητας για όλα τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ περιλαμβάνονται
στη μελέτη στην ακόλουθη διεύθυνση http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?
doc_id=2319

Στην Ελλάδα, η πραγματική ταχύτητα τηλεφόρτωσης σταθερών ευρυζωνικών συνδρομών είναι 48,6% της διαφημιζόμενης
ταχύτητας, ποσοστό το οποίο είναι πολύ χαμηλότερο του ενωσιακού μέσου όρου (60,3%).

Το κανονιστικό πλαίσιο για δίκτυα και υπηρεσίες ηλεκτρονικών επικοινωνιών της ΕΕ προβλέπει στην οδηγία του για την
καθολική υπηρεσία και τα δικαιώματα των χρηστών ότι τα κράτη μέλη πρέπει να εξασφαλίζουν ότι οι συμβάσεις που
συνάπτονται μεταξύ καταναλωτών και παρόχων υπηρεσιών ηλεκτρονικών επικοινωνιών προσδιορίζουν με σαφή, κατανοητό
και εύκολα προσβάσιμο τρόπο τα ελάχιστα προσφερόμενα επίπεδα ποιότητας υπηρεσιών, ιδίως δε την προθεσμία της αρχικής
σύνδεσης και, κατά περίπτωση, άλλες παραμέτρους της ποιότητας της υπηρεσίας, όπως ορίζονται από τις εθνικές ρυθμιστικές
αρχές. Εξάλλου, οι εθνικές ρυθμιστικές αρχές μπορούν, βάσει των ενωσιακών κανόνων (άρθρο 22 της οδηγίας για την
καθολική υπηρεσία) να καθορίζουν, μεταξύ άλλων, τρεις προς μέτρηση παραμέτρους ποιότητας της υπηρεσίας και το
περιεχόμενο, τη μορφή και τον τρόπο δημοσίευσης των πληροφοριών, προκειμένου να εξασφαλίζεται η πρόσβαση των
τελικών χρηστών σε πλήρεις, συγκρίσιμες, αξιόπιστες και εύχρηστες πληροφορίες.

Ορισμένα κράτη μέλη (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της Ελλάδας) έδωσαν τη δυνατότητα στους χρήστες να δοκιμάζουν την
ταχύτητα διαβίβασης δεδομένων της ευρυζωνικής τους σύνδεσης. Στην Ελλάδα, η Εθνική Επιτροπή Τηλεπικοινωνιών και
Ταχυδρομείων (ΕΕΤΤ) ανέπτυξε ένα διαδικτυακό εργαλείο που διατίθεται στη διεύθυνση http://hyperiontest.gr/. Η ΕΕΤΤ
δημοσιεύει επίσης τριμηνιαίες εκθέσεις που ελέγχουν την ποιότητα των υπηρεσιών, με στόχο τη διευκόλυνση της διαφάνειας.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 257

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008142/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Broadband networks in Greece

According to a Commission press release, European consumers are not getting the broadband download speeds
which they pay for. In fact, on average, consumers receive only 74% of the advertised headline speed they have paid
for.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Is it in a position to provide me with comparative data on Greece in relation to the other Member States on this
particular issue?

—
As the broadband speeds advertised by networks frequently differ from the actual speed consumers get, has the
Commission found that the national authorities have stepped up controls in order to ensure that consumers
benefit from the services which they pay for? What is the situation in Greece?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

Data on the ratio of actual speed/advertised speed for all EU Member States are included in the study, available at
[http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=2319.](http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=2319)

In Greece the actual download speed of fixed broadband subscriptions is 48.6% of the advertised speed, which is well
below the EU average (60.3%).

The EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication Networks and Services foresees in its Directive on
Universal Service and user's rights (USD) that Member States must ensure that the contracts concluded between
consumers and providers of electronic communication services specify in a clear, comprehensive and easily accessible
form the minimum service quality levels offered, namely the time for the initial connection and, where appropriate,
other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities. In addition, national regulatory
authorities are enabled by the EU rules (Article 22 USD) to specify, _inter alia_, the quality of service parameters to be
measured and the content, form and manner of the information to be published in order to ensure that end-users
have access to comprehensive, comparable, reliable and user-friendly information.

Some Member States (including Greece) have enabled users to test the data rates of their broadband connection. In
Greece, EETT National Telecommunications and Post Commission) has developed a web-based tool available at
[http://hyperiontest.gr/. Quarterly reports monitoring the quality of services are also published by EETT, with the](http://hyperiontest.gr/)
objectives of facilitating transparency.

C 65 E / 258 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008143/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Προσωρινή κατανομή κονδυλίων προς την Ελλάδα για τη διαχείριση των μεταναστευτικών ροών για το 2014

Είναι σε θέση να με ενημερώσει η Επιτροπή, στο υπάρχον πλαίσιο των διαπραγματεύσεων για τον νέο προϋπολογισμό, ποια
είναι η ενδεικτική — μέχρι να υπάρξει τελική συμφωνία — κατανομή των πόρων από τα ευρωπαϊκά διαρθρωτικά ταμεία για
την Ελλάδα στον τομέα της διαχείρισης των μεταναστευτικών ροών για το 2014;

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

_(4 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Oι προκαταρκτικές απόψεις της Επιτροπής για τη μελλοντική περίοδο, όπως εκφράζονται στο έγγραφο θέσης που εστάλη
στις ελληνικές αρχές στις 13 Νοεμβρίου 2012, αφορούν το ζήτημα της μετανάστευσης υπό το πρίσμα του θεματικού
στόχου της προώθησης της κοινωνικής ένταξης και της καταπολέμησης της φτώχειας, με κύριο στόχο την επαγγελματική
εκπαίδευση, την κατάρτιση και τη διά βίου μάθηση. Ωστόσο, ο διάλογος μεταξύ της Επιτροπής και των ελληνικών αρχών για
την περίοδο 2014-2020 βρίσκεται σήμερα σε εξέλιξη. Ως εκ τούτου, πριν από την υποβολή της συμφωνίας εταιρικής σχέσης
από τις εθνικές αρχές, η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να σχολιάσει την προβλεπόμενη ελληνική εθνική στρατηγική και τις
προτεραιότητες σε θέματα επενδύσεων.

Επιπλέον, στο πλαίσιο της προετοιμασίας των πολυετών εθνικών προγραμμάτων της περιόδου 2014-2020, για τα νέα ταμεία
εσωτερικών υποθέσεων (Ταμείο Ασύλου και Μετανάστευσης και Ταμείο Εσωτερικής Ασφάλειας), η Επιτροπή διεξάγει
πολιτικό διάλογο υψηλού επιπέδου με κάθε επιμέρους κράτος μέλος (και για ορισμένες συνιστώσες του Ταμείου Εσωτερικής
Ασφάλειας, διεξάγεται διάλογος και με τις συνδεδεμένες χώρες Σένγκεν). Αυτός ο πολιτικός διάλογος αποσκοπεί στον από
κοινού με κάθε κράτος προσδιορισμό των προτεραιοτήτων για μελλοντική χρηματοδότηση από το μελλοντικό Ταμείο
Εσωτερικών Υποθέσεων της ΕΕ, με σκοπό την επίτευξη των βασικών στόχων πολιτικής της ΕΕ. Η συνάντηση πολιτικού
διαλόγου με την Ελλάδα είναι προγραμματισμένη για τις 25 Οκτωβρίου 2013. Μετά τη διεξαγωγή του διαλόγου οι
προτεραιότητες του ελληνικού εθνικού προγράμματος για τα προαναφερόμενα ταμεία εσωτερικών υποθέσεων θα καταστούν
σαφέστερες.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 259

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008143/13**

**to the Commission**
**Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Provisional allocation of funds to Greece for managing migration flows in 2014

Is the Commission in a position to give me an indication, in light of the current round of new budget negotiations
(and pending final agreement), of the European structural fund resources that will be allocated to Greece for
managing migration flows in 2014?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

The Commission preliminary views on the future period as expressed in the position paper addressed to the Greek
authorities on the 13 November 2012 deal with the question of migration in the light of the thematic objective of
promoting social inclusion and combating poverty, mostly aiming at vocational education, training and life-long
learning. However, the dialogue between the Commission and the Greek authorities for the 2014-2020 period are
currently ongoing. Therefore, before the submission of the partnership agreement by the national authorities, the
Commission cannot comment on the envisaged Greek national strategy and the investment priorities.

In addition, in the context of the preparation of the multiannual 2014-2020 national programmes for the new Home
Affairs Funds (Asylum and Migration Fund and Internal Security Fund), the Commission is conducting a senior-level
policy dialogue with each individual Member State (and for some components of the Internal Security Fund also the
Schengen Associated Countries). This policy dialogue aims at jointly identifying with each State the priorities for
future EU Home Affairs funding in view of achieving key EU policy objectives. The policy dialogue meeting with
Greece is scheduled for the 25 October 2013. Once the dialogue has taken place, the priorities of Greece's national
programme for the abovementioned Home Affairs Funds will become clearer.

C 65 E / 260 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008144/13**

**to the Commission**
**Emer Costello (S&D)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Shale gas and shale oil extraction activities

How is the Commission responding to the European Parliament’s resolution of 21 November 2012 on the
environmental impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities ( [1] ), in particular to

— Paragraph 4, which called on it to conduct a thorough assessment on the basis of the European regulatory
framework for the protection of health and the environment and to propose, as soon as possible and in line with
Treaty principles, appropriate measures, including legislative measures, if necessary;

— Paragraph 7, which called on it to introduce an EU-wide risk management framework for unconventional fossil
fuels exploration or extraction, with a view to ensuring that harmonised provisions for the protection of human
health and the environment apply across all Member States;

— Paragraph 14, which called on it to consider including operations related to hydraulic fracturing in Annex III of the
Environmental Liability Directive and on the relevant authorities to require sufficient financial guarantees by
operators for environmental and civil liability covering any accidents or unintended negative impacts caused by their
own activities or those outsourced to others;

— Paragraph 23, which called on it to bring forward proposals to ensure that Environmental Impact Assessment
Directive provisions adequately cover the specificities of shale gas, shale oil, and coal bed methane exploration and
extraction and which insisted that prior environmental impact assessment includes full life-cycle impacts on air
quality, soil quality, water quality, geological stability, land use and noise pollution;

— Paragraph 24, which called for the inclusion of projects including hydraulic fracturing in Annex I of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive;

— and Paragraph 28, which called on it to bring forward proposals to explicitly include fracking fluids as ‘hazardous
waste’ under Annex III of the European Waste Directive (2008/98/EC)?

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

_(11 September 2013)_

The Commission included in its 2013 Work Programme the item ‘Environment, Climate and Energy Assessment
Framework to Enable Safe and Secure Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction’, subject to an impact assessment,
which is currently being carried out. The objective of this initiative is, _inter alia_ to ensure that unconventional fossil
fuels developments, in particular shale gas, are carried out with proper climate and environmental safeguards in place
and under maximum legal clarity and predictability for competent authorities, citizens and operators. In this
framework regulatory uncertainties and gaps as well as different policy options will be examined. Suggestions made
in the European Parliament resolution referred to by the Honourable Member will be considered.

With regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive ( [2] ) specifically, a proposal for a revised EIA
Directive was put forward by the Commission on 26th October 2012, which is currently being discussed with the
European Parliament and Member States. The outcome of these discussions will be taken into consideration by the
Commission in the context of its ongoing work on shale gas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0443.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on environment (OJ L 26/1, 28.01.2012).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 261

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008145/13**

**to the Commission**
**Chris Davies (ALDE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Norway and the EU

The Commission will be aware that the Confederation of British Industry recently published a report on alternatives
to UK membership of the EU. This concluded that if the UK opted for a position similar to that of Norway in the EEA,
British businesses would still have to follow EU rules, but the UK would no longer be able to protect its national
interests.

Can the Commission confirm the truth and accuracy of the claims made in _The Times_ newspaper on 5 July 2013 by
Mr Nigel Farage, Co-President of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group in the European Parliament, in which
he stated by way of response that:

—
90% of single market rules are covered by UN and other international bodies, and that

—
Norway has more influence on EU rules from outside than Member States (like the UK) have from within?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

It is the Commission policy not to comment on articles appearing in the press.

C 65 E / 262 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008146/13**

**to the Commission**
**Chris Davies (ALDE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cross-border coroner assistance

Every year thousands of EU citizens die unexpectedly while visiting another Member State. Too often, bereaved
families experience difficulty obtaining basic information which is essential if legal affairs are to be resolved.

There is no convention or framework requiring the assistance of coroners across borders in civil matters. Coroners in
one Member State are at liberty to ignore requests for assistance from coroners in another. In some instances, it may
take years before bereaved relatives are even provided with a cause of death.

Will the Commission consider the steps it might take to establish a framework for cross‐border cooperation in such
matters between competent authorities in Member States, together with guidelines for the provision of information
to next-of-kin?

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

_(12 September 2013)_

The Commission has not been informed of any such Europe-wide difficulties but welcomes any further information
on the issue. Its work programme does not, therefore, include any specific measures in this respect; it does, however,
include the following relevant measures.

On 24 April the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation, the purpose of which is to simplify the acceptance
of certain public documents in the European Union (COM(2013) 228 final), including death certificates. Furthermore,
this initiative provides for increased cooperation between authorities in Member States and for a multilingual EU
standard form covering death.

The recently adopted Regulation (EC) No 650/2012 ( [1] ) on matters of succession will make it easier to settle crossborder successions. In particular, it provides for the free movement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters
of succession and sets out the creation of a European Certificate of Succession which will make it easier for heirs and
administrators of the estate to prove their claim in another Member State.

I would end by adding that directive 2012/29 ( [2] ) provides for increased information for victims in criminal
proceedings and that, for the purposes of the directive, the definition of ‘victim’ includes ‘family members of a person
whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence and who have suffered harm as a result of that person's death’.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and

enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European
Certificate of Succession. OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p.107.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support

and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 263

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008147/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE),**

**Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE) og Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(8. juli 2013)_

_Om:_ Udslip i Østersøen af fosfor fra gødningsfabrikker

I de senere år er der blevet opdaget adskillige alvorlige lækager med udslip af fosfor fra bunker af affald fra
gødningsfabrikker tæt på Østersøkysten. I foråret 2012 blev det konstateret, at der fra den russiske gødningsfabrik
EuroChem var sket et massivt udslip af fosfor i Luga-floden i Kingisepp i det nordvestlige Rusland.

Dette år gav lækager fra fosfatgiftbunker anledning til lignende bekymringer i Gdansk (GZNF-Fosfor Plant), og hos
politiet i Polen (Zaklady Chemiczne Plant). Disse produktionsanlæg slipper måske hundredvis af ton fosfor ud i
Østersøen hvert år — langt mere end hvad samtlige byspildevandsrensningsanlæg udsender i Finland.

Eksperter forventer, at der vil blive opdaget flere af den slags forurenende gødningsfabrikker i Østersøens
afvandingsområde. Fosfor og kvælstof er hovedårsagerne til eutrofiering — det største miljøproblem i Østersøen,
hvilket også anerkendes i EU's strategi for Østersøen. Blomstring af giftige blågrønne alger i havet er et af
symptomerne på eutrofiering i dette temmelig lavvandede hav, som hovedsagelig er omgivet af EU-medlemsstater.

Hvad agter Kommissionen at gøre for at mindske disse fosforudslip fra lukkede fabrikker og fabrikker, der er i drift, i
Østersøens afvandingsområde?

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Janez Potočnik**

_(3. september 2013)_

Direktiv 2008/1/EF om integreret forebyggelse og bekæmpelse af forurening ( [1] ) (IPPC) finder anvendelse på anlæg, der
fremstiller phosphat-, kvælstof‐ eller kaliumholdig kunstgødning (enkeltgødning eller blandingsgødning).
Medlemsstaterne skal sikre at anlæg drives således, at der bl.a. træffes alle de nødvendige forebyggende
foranstaltninger mod forurening, navnlig ved anvendelse af den bedste tilgængelige teknik (BAT), og at der ikke
forårsages nogen væsentlig forurening.

Den bedste tilgængelige teknik for de uorganiske kemikalier i storskalaproduktion dvs. industrier der producerer
ammoniak, syrer og gødningsstoffer er beskrevet på europæisk plan i et BAT-referencedokument (BREF) ( [2] ).

IPPC-direktivet vil blive ophævet ved direktiv 2010/75/EU om industrielle emissioner (IED) med virkning fra den
7. januar 2014. IED-direktivet ( [3] ) indeholder strengere bestemmelser for anvendelsen af den bedste tilgængelige
teknik og om overvågning, kontrol og håndhævelse af godkendelsesvilkårene.

Gennem Østersøstrategien samarbejder de otte medlemsstater omkring Østersøen blandt andet om at begrænse
tilførslen af næringsstoffer i havet.

De polske myndigheder, som er koordinator for det prioriterede område: »at reducere udledningen af næringsstoffer i
havet til et acceptabelt niveau«, har gjort Kommissionen opmærksom på, at der kan stilles spørgsmål ved tallene for
udledning fra fabrikken i Gdansk, og at de er ved at blive undersøgt nøjere. De finske og polske myndigheder har
foretaget uafhængige prøveudtagninger, og de endelige resultater vil snart blive fremlagt.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EFT L 24 af 29.1.2008, s. 8.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EFT L 334 af 17.12.2010, s. 17.

C 65 E / 264 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008147/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE),**

**Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE) und Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(8. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Austritt phosphorhaltiger Abwässer aus Düngemittelfabriken in die Ostsee

In den vergangenen Jahren ist nahe der Ostsee nachweislich mehrmals in erheblichem Maße Phosphor aus
Industrieabfallhalden von Düngemittelfabriken ausgetreten. Im Frühjahr 2012 wurde festgestellt, dass aus der
russischen Düngemittelfabrik EuroChem in der Nähe der Stadt Kingissepp im Nordwesten Russlands große Mengen
phosphorhaltiger Abwässer in die Luga strömten.

Dieses Jahr wurden ähnliche Bedenken in Bezug auf die Freisetzung von Phosphor aus Phosphorgipshalden in den
polnischen Städten Danzig (von der Fabrik GZNF Fosfory) und Police (von der Fabrik Zakłady Chemiczne) laut. Aus
diesen Fabriken gelangen möglicherweise jährlich hunderte Tonnen Phosphor in die Ostsee, was einer Menge
entspricht, die größer ist als die der phosphorhaltigen Abwässer aus allen kommunalen
Abwasserbehandlungsanlagen in Finnland zusammen.

Fachleute erwarten, dass festgestellt wird, dass es im Gewässereinzugsgebiet der Ostsee auch durch andere
Düngemittelfabriken zu Umweltverschmutzungen kommt. Phosphor und Stickstoff bilden die Hauptursachen der
Eutrophierung, die in der Ostsee das größte Umweltproblem darstellt und in der Ostseestrategie der EU als solches
anerkannt ist. Die Blüte der giftigen Blaualgen/Cyanobakterien ist eines der Symptome für die Eutrophierung in
diesem eher flachen Meer, das im Wesentlichen von EU-Mitgliedstaaten umgeben ist.

Was beabsichtigt die Kommission zu unternehmen, um das Problem phosphorhaltiger Abwässer aus bereits
geschlossenen und noch in Betrieb befindlichen Düngemittelfabriken im Wassereinzugsgebiet der Ostsee zu
entschärfen?

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

_(3. September 2013)_

Die Richtlinie 2008/1/EG über die integrierte Vermeidung und Verminderung der Umweltverschmutzung ( [1] )
(IVU-Richtlinie) gilt für Chemieanlagen zur Herstellung von phosphor-, stickstoff‐ oder kaliumhaltigen Düngemitteln
(Einnährstoff‐ oder Mehrnährstoffdünger). Laut der Richtlinie müssen die Mitgliedstaaten dafür sorgen, dass die
Anlagen u. a. so betrieben werden, dass insbesondere durch den Einsatz der besten verfügbaren Techniken (BVT) alle
geeigneten Vorsorgemaßnahmen gegen Umweltverschmutzungen getroffen und keine erheblichen
Umweltverschmutzungen verursacht werden.

Die BVT für die anorganischen Grundchemikalien Ammoniak, Säuren und Düngemittel sind auf EU-Ebene in einem
BVT-Merkblatt (BREF) ( [2] ) beschrieben.

Die IVU-Richtlinie wird mit Wirkung vom 7. Januar 2014 durch die Richtlinie 2010/75/EU über Industrieemissionen
aufgehoben. Diese Richtlinie ( [3] ) enthält stringentere Bestimmungen zur Anwendung der BVT sowie zur
Überwachung, zur Überprüfung der Einhaltung der Vorschriften und zur Durchsetzung der Genehmigungsauflagen.

Im Rahmen der EU-Strategie für den Ostseeraum arbeiten die acht Ostseeanrainer-Mitgliedstaaten u. a. zusammen,
um die Einleitung von Nährstoffen ins Meer zu reduzieren.

Die polnischen Behörden als Koordinatoren für den Schwerpunktbereich „Verringerung des Nähreintrags in die
Ostsee auf ein vertretbares Niveau“ haben die Europäische Kommission darauf hingewiesen, dass die zur Freisetzung
aus der Danziger Anlage genannten Zahlen umstritten sind und eingehender geprüft werden. Die finnischen und die
polnischen Behörden haben unabhängig voneinander Proben genommen, und die endgültigen Ergebnisse werden in
Kürze vorgelegt.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ABl. L 24 vom 29.1.2008, S. 8.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ABl. L 334 vom 17.12.2010, S. 17.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 265

_(Eestikeelne versioon)_

**Kirjalikult vastatav küsimus E-008147/13**

**komisjonile**
**Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE),**

**Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE) ja Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(8. juuli 2013)_

_Teema:_ Väetisetehaste fosforireostus Läänemeres

Viimastel aastatel on tuvastatud mitmeid suuri fosforilekkeid Läänemere rannikul paiknevate väetisetehaste
jäätmemahutitest. 2012. aasta kevadel avastati Loode-Venemaal Kingissepa linna lähedal Luuga jões ulatuslik
fosforileke, mis lähtus väetisetehasest EuroChem.

Käesoleval aastal on ilmnenud samalaadsed probleemid seoses fosfokipsi kuhjatiste leketega Poolas Gdańskis (tehas
GZNF Fosfory) ja Polices (tehas Zaklady Chemiczne). Nendest tehastest võib igal aastal Läänemerre lekkida sadu
tonne fosforit, mida on rohkem, kui voolab merre Soome linnade kõikidest reoveepuhastitest kokku.

Asjatundjate hinnangul võib Läänemere valgalal selguda veel teisigi sellist reostust tekitavaid tehaseid. Fosfor ja
lämmastik on Läänemere eutrofeerumise peamised põhjustajad. Eutrofeerumine on Läänemere suurim
keskkonnaprobleem ja seda tunnistatakse ka ELi Läänemere strateegias. Läänemere, peamiselt ELi liikmesriikidest
ümbritsetud madala mere eutrofeerumist näitab muu hulgas sinivetikate vohamine.

Mida on komisjonil kavas teha, et vähendada Läänemere valgalal asuvatest suletud ja tegutsevatest väetisetehastest
lähtuvat fosforireostust?

**Komisjoni nimel vastanud Hr Potočnikon**

_(3. september 2013)_

Direktiivi 2008/1/EÜ (saastuse kompleksse vältimise ja kontrolli kohta) ( [1] ) kohaldatakse fosfor-, lämmastik- või
kaaliumväetisi (liht- või liitväetised) tootvate keemiatööstusettevõtete suhtes. Direktiivis on nõutud, et liikmesriigid
tagavad, et käitise tegevuse puhul on muu hulgas võetud kõik asjakohased ennetusmeetmed saastuse vältimiseks, seda
eelkõige kasutades parimat võimalikku tehnikat, ning et käitise tegevus ei põhjusta olulist saastust.

Parimat võimalikku tehnikat anorgaanilise suurkeemia saaduste – ammoniaagi, hapete ja väetiste – tootmiseks on
Euroopa tasandil kirjeldatud selliste saaduste parimat võimalikku tehnikat käsitlevas viitedokumendis (PVTviitedokument) ( [2] ).

Direktiiv 2008/1/EÜ tunnistatakse kehtetuks 7. jaanuaril 2014 jõustuva direktiiviga 2010/75/EL (tööstusheidete
kohta). Direktiivis 2010/75/EL ( [3] ) on esitatud rangemad eeskirjad parima võimaliku tehnika rakendamise ning ka
seire, vastavuskontrolli ja loa tingimuste täitmise kohta.

ELi strateegia Läänemere piirkonna kohta ühendab kaheksat Läänemere ääres paiknevat riiki, kes teevad koostööd
muu hulgas ka selleks, et vähendada toitainete juurdevoolu merre.

Poola ametiasutused, kes koordineerivad prioriteetset valdkonda, mille eesmärk on vähendada merre sattuvate
toitainete koguseid vastuvõetava tasemeni, on teavitanud komisjoni, et Gdanski tehase jäätmete kõrvaldamise kohta
esitatud näitajad on vaidlustatud ja et neid uuritakse edasi. Soome ja Poola ametiasutused on võtnud sõltumatuid
proove ja uurimise lõpptulemused tehakse varsti teatavaks.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ELT L 24, 29.1.2008, lk 8.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ELT L 334, 17.12.2010, lk 17.

C 65 E / 266 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008147/13**

**komissiolle**
**Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE),**

**Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE) ja Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(8. heinäkuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Lannoitetehtaiden fosforipäästöt Itämereen

Itämeren rannikon lähettyvillä on viime vuosina havaittu useita vakavia fosforivuotoja lannoitetehtaiden
teollisuusjätekasoista. Keväällä 2012 havaittiin venäläisen lannoitetehtaan EuroChemin aiheuttaneen suuren
fosforivuodon Laukaanjokeen lähellä Kingiseppin kaupunkia Luoteis-Venäjällä.

Tänä vuonna on esiintynyt samanlaisia epäilyjä fosforikipsikasojen vuodoista Gdanskissa (GZNF Fosfory ‐laitoksesta)
ja Policessa (Zaklady Chemiczne ‐laitoksesta) Puolassa. On mahdollista, että nämä laitokset vuotavat satoja tonneja
fosforia Itämereen vuosittain, mikä on enemmän kuin kaikkien yhdyskuntajätevedenpuhdistamoiden päästöt
Suomessa yhteensä.

Asiantuntijat odottavat, että tällaisia saastuttavia lannoitelaitoksia löytyy vielä lisää Itämeren valuma-alueella. Fosfori
ja typpi ovat pääsyyt rehevöitymiseen, joka on suurin ympäristöongelma Itämeressä ja mainittu sellaiseksi myös EU:n
Itämeri-strategiassa. Myrkyllisen sinilevän kukinta on yksi rehevöitymisen merkki tässä melko matalassa meressä, jota
ympäröivät pääasiassa EU:n jäsenvaltiot.

Mitä komissio aikoo tehdä vähentääkseen suljettujen ja toiminnassa olevien lannoitetehtaiden fosforipäästöjä
Itämeren valuma-alueella?

**Janez Potočnikin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(3. syyskuuta 2013)_

Direktiiviä 2008/1/EY ( [1] ), joka koskee yhtenäistettyä ympäristön pilaantumisen ehkäisemistä ja vähentämistä (IPPC),
sovelletaan laitoksiin, joissa tuotetaan fosforiin, typpeen tai kaliumiin perustuvia lannoitteita (lannoitteet sisältävät
joko yhtä ainetta tai niiden seosta). Direktiivin mukaan jäsenvaltioiden on varmistettava, että laitokset toimivat siten,
että muun muassa kaikki pilaantumista estävät toimenpiteet toteutetaan, erityisesti käyttäen parasta käytettävissä
olevaa tekniikkaa (Best Available Techniques eli BAT), ja ettei merkittävää pilaantumista synny.

Epäorgaanisten peruskemikaalien osalta (ammoniakki-, happo‐ ja lannoiteteollisuus) Euroopan tason BAT kuvataan
parhaita käytettävissä olevia tekniikoita koskevassa viiteasiakirjassa (BREF-asiakirja) ( [2] ).

IPPC-direktiivi kumotaan teollisuuden päästöistä annetulla direktiivillä 2010/75/EU (IED-direktiivi) 7. päivästä
tammikuuta 2014 alkaen. IED-direktiivissä ( [3] ) lujitetaan säännöksiä, jotka koskevat parhaiden käytettävissä olevien
tekniikoiden soveltamista sekä lupaehtojen seurantaa, sääntöjenmukaisuuden tarkastamista ja täytäntöönpanoa.

EU:n Itämeren alueen strategian avulla kahdeksan Itämeren ympärillä sijaitsevaa jäsenvaltiota tekevät yhteistyötä
muun muassa mereen päätyvien ravinteiden vähentämiseksi.

Puolan viranomaiset, jotka koordinoivat mereen päästettävien ravinteiden määrän vähentämistä hyväksyttävälle
tasolle, ovat ilmoittaneet Euroopan komissiolle, että Gdanskin laitosta koskevat luvut ovat kiistanalaisia ja niistä
tehdään parhaillaan lisätutkimuksia. Suomen ja Puolan viranomaiset ovat molemmat ottaneet näytteitä, ja lopulliset
tulokset niistä saadaan pian.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUVL L 24, 29.1.2008, s. 8.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EUVL L 334, 17.12.2010, s.17.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 267

_(Svensk version)_

**Frågor för skriftligt besvarande E-008147/13**

**till kommissionen**
**Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE),**

**Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE) och Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 juli 2013)_

_Angående:_ Fosforutsläpp i Östersjön från gödselmedelsanläggningar

Under de senaste åren har man upptäckt allvarliga fosforutsläpp från industriavfallshögar vid
gödselmedelsanläggningar nära Östersjökusten. Under våren 2012 upptäcktes ett enormt fosforläckage från den
ryska gödselmedelsfabriken EuroChem i floden Luga i Kingisepp, i nordvästra Ryssland.

Detta år har liknande farhågor om läckage från fosfatgipslagringar konstaterats i Gdansk (fosforanläggningen
GZNGF) och Police i Polen (anläggningen Zaklady Chemiczne). Från dessa anläggningar kan hundratals ton fosfor
årligen läcka ut i Östersjön. Denna mängd är större än utsläppsmängden från samtliga reningsverk i Finland.

Experterna förväntar sig att fler sådana gödselmedelsanläggningar kommer att upptäckas i Östersjöns
avrinningsområde. Fosfor och nitrogen är de viktigaste orsakerna till eutrofiering – det största miljöproblemet i
Östersjön, något som även konstateras i EU:s Östersjöstrategi. Den giftiga blågröna algens blomning i havet är ett av
symptomen på eutrofiering i detta relativt grund hav som är omgivet av i första hand EU-medlemsstater.

Vad planerar kommissionen att göra föra att minska fosforutsläppen från såväl nedlagda som verksamma
gödselmedelsfabriker i Östersjöns avrinningsområden?

**Svar från Janez Potočnik på kommissionens vägnar**

_(3 september 2013)_

Direktiv 2008/1/EG om samordnade åtgärder för att förebygga och begränsa föroreningar (IPPC-direktivet) ( [1] ) gäller
anläggningar som tillverkar fosfor-, kväve‐ eller kaliumbaserade gödselmedel (enkla eller sammansatta). Enligt
direktivet måste EU-länderna se till att alla lämpliga förebyggande åtgärder vidtas på anläggningarna för att undvika
föroreningar, särskilt genom att använda bästa tillgängliga teknik, och att ingen betydande förorening förorsakas.

Bästa tillgängliga teknik för fabriker i EU som framställer oorganiska baskemikalier som ammoniak, syror och
gödselmedel beskrivs i ett referensdokument ( [2] ).

Den 7 januari 2014 upphävs IPPC-direktivet genom direktiv 2010/75/EU om industriutsläpp. Direktivet om
industriutsläpp ( [3] ) innehåller strängare regler om användningen av bästa tillgängliga teknik samt om övervakning och
tillsyn av att tillståndsvillkoren uppfylls.

Genom EU:s strategi för Östersjöregionen samarbetar de åtta medlemsländerna runt Östersjön bland annat för att
minska tillförseln av näringsämnen till havet.

De polska myndigheterna, som är samordnare för de prioriterade insatserna för att minska näringsläckaget till
godtagbara nivåer, har uppmärksammat kommissionen på att siffrorna för utsläppen från Gdanskanläggningen har
ifrågasatts och håller på att utredas ytterligare. De finska och polska myndigheterna har gjort oberoende
provtagningar och slutresultaten kommer snart att läggas fram.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUT L 24, 29.1.2008, s. 8.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) EUT L 334, 17.12.2010, s. 17.

C 65 E / 268 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008147/13**

**to the Commission**
**Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE), Isabella Lövin (Verts/ALE), Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE),**

**Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE) and Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Phosphorus discharge from fertiliser plants into the Baltic Sea

In recent years several serious leakages of phosphorus from industrial waste piles of fertiliser factories have been
detected close to the Baltic Sea. In the spring of 2012 the Russian fertiliser factory EuroChem was found to have
generated a massive phosphorus leakage into the Luga River near the town of Kingisepp in north-west Russia.

This year similar concerns about leakages from phosphogypsum stacks have been identified in Gdansk (from the
GZNF Fosfory plant) and Police (from the Zaklady Chemiczne plant) in Poland. These plants may be leaking hundreds
of tonnes of phosphorus into the Baltic Sea each year, which is more than all the urban waste-water treatment plants
in Finland put together.

Experts expect more such polluting fertiliser plants to be detected in the Baltic Sea catchment area. Phosphorus and
nitrogen are the key causes of eutrophication, which is the greatest environmental problem in the Baltic Sea, and is
recognised as such in the EU Baltic Sea Strategy. The blooming of toxic blue-green algae is one of the symptoms of
eutrophication in this rather shallow sea which is surrounded mainly by EU Member States.

What is the Commission planning to do to mitigate the phosphorus discharges from closed and operating fertiliser
factories in the Baltic Sea catchment area?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

Directive 2008/1/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control ( [1] ) (IPPC) applies to installations
producing phosphorous-, nitrogen‐ or potassium-based fertilisers (simple or compound fertilisers). It requires
Member States to ensure that installations are operated such that, _inter alia_, all the appropriate preventive measures
are taken against pollution, in particular through the application of the Best Available Techniques (BAT), and that no
significant pollution is caused.

BAT for the large volume inorganic chemicals — ammonia, acids and fertilisers industries are described at European
level in a BAT reference document (BREF) ( [2] ).

The IPPC Directive will be repealed by Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions (IED) with effect from
7 January 2014. The IED Directive ( [3] ) contains strengthened provisions concerning the application of BAT as well as
on monitoring, compliance checking and enforcement of permit conditions.

Through the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, the eight member states around the Baltic Sea are cooperating
amongst other issues to reduce the input of nutrients into the sea..

The Polish Authorities, coordinator for priority area ‘Reducing nutrient inputs to the sea to acceptable levels’ have
made the European Commission aware that the figures quoted regarding discharges from the Gdansk site are
contested and are under further investigation. Finnish and Polish Authorities have made independent samplings and
final results will be presented soon.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 24, 29.1.2008, p. 8.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eippcb.jrc.es/reference/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p.17.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 269

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008148/13**

**al Consiglio**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(8 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Fondo ESM, nuovi stanziamenti per 60 miliardi di euro

A seguito del Consiglio europeo dei ministri delle Finanze dello scorso 20 giugno, è stata data notizia che il fondo
ESM (European Stability Mechanism) predisporrà uno stanziamento di 60 miliardi di euro che sarà destinato alla
ricapitalizzazione degli istituti bancari europei. Sembrerebbe che questo fondo sarà accessibile non solo alle banche
ma più in generale anche alle società finanziarie o, come vengono definite secondo l'articolo ex 106 del TUB (trattato
unico bancario) della Banca d'Italia, anche agli intermediari finanziari: imprese diverse dalle banche che svolgono
attività di assunzione di partecipazioni, di concessione di finanziamenti sotto qualsiasi forma, di prestazione di servizi
di pagamento e di intermediazione in operazioni di cambio.

Alla luce di quanto precede, può il Consiglio far sapere:

1. se conferma che il fondo ESM sarà accessibile anche alle società finanziarie;

2. in caso di risposta affermativa, quali sono i prerequisiti per l'accesso a tale fondo?

**Risposta**
_(7 ottobre 2013)_

Il trattato relativo al meccanismo europeo di stabilità (MES) è stato messo a punto dai 17 Stati membri della zona
euro, per cui tale questione non rientra nella competenza del Consiglio dell'Unione europea.

Ciò nondimeno, e come indicato nelle conclusioni del Consiglio europeo del 20 giugno 2013, l'Eurogruppo ha
convenuto i principali elementi dello strumento di ricapitalizzazione diretta delle banche da parte del MES.
L'Eurogruppo ha inoltre proposto di mettere a punto il quadro operativo, inclusi gli orientamenti, dello strumento di
ricapitalizzazione diretta da parte del MES non appena sarà raggiunto un accordo con il Parlamento europeo riguardo
sia alla direttiva in materia di risanamento e risoluzione delle crisi sia alla direttiva relativa ai sistemi di garanzia dei
depositi.

Una sezione dell'accordo sugli elementi principali dello strumento di ricapitalizzazione diretta stabilisce un limite «ex
ante» per l'importo dell'assistenza finanziaria che è possibile erogare nel quadro di tale strumento, in modo da
garantire la trasparenza per gli investitori e contribuire a preservare l'alta solvibilità del MES. Il limite sarà fissato a 60
miliardi di EUR, ma potrà essere riveduto dal consiglio dei governatori, se ritenuto necessario.

Tuttavia, l'accordo sugli elementi principali dello strumento di ricapitalizzazione diretta delle banche non specifica se
potrà essere messo a disposizione di società finanziarie diverse da quelle che detengono una licenza bancaria. Inoltre,
uno dei criteri di ammissibilità convenuti prevede che l'istituzione sia in violazione (o rischi di esserlo in un futuro
imminente) dei requisiti patrimoniali stabiliti dalla Banca centrale europea (BCE) in qualità di autorità di vigilanza e
non sia in grado di attirare capitali sufficienti da fonti private o con altri mezzi per risolvere i propri problemi di
capitale.

C 65 E / 270 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008148/13**

**to the Council**
**Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ ESM fund: new allocation of EUR 60 billion

Following the Council of Finance Ministers of 20 June 2013, it was announced that the ESM (European Stability
Mechanism) fund will allocate EUR 60 billion for the recapitalisation of European banks. It would appear that this
fund will not only be accessible to banks, but also more generally to financial companies or, as defined by ex
Article 106 of the Bank of Italy’s banking regulatory framework ( _Testo unico bancario_ ), also to financial intermediaries:
undertakings other than banks which perform activities regarding the acquisition of holdings, the granting of funding
in any form, the provision of payment services and intermediation in exchange transactions.

In light of the above, can the Council:

1. confirm whether financial companies will also be able to access the ESM fund;

2. if so, can it state what the requirements are to access this fund?

**Reply**
_(7 October 2013)_

The European Stability Mechanism (ESM) Treaty was established by the 17 euro area Member States. As a result, this
question does not fall within the competence of the Council of the European Union.

Nevertheless, and as stated in the European Council conclusions of 20 June 2013, the Eurogroup agreed on the main
features of the ESM direct bank recapitalisation instrument. The Eurogroup also proposed finalising the operational
framework, including the guideline, of the ESM direct recapitalisation instrument once an agreement had been
reached with the European Parliament on both the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and the Deposit
Guarantee Scheme Directive (DGSD).

Part of the agreement on the main features of the direct recapitalisation instrument establishes an _ex ante_ limit for the
amount of financial assistance deployable under that instrument, in order to provide transparency for investors and
help preserve the high creditworthiness of the ESM. The limit will be set at EUR 60 billion, but can be reviewed by the
Board of Governors, if deemed necessary.

However, the agreement on the main features of the direct bank recapitalisation instrument does not specify whether
it may be made available for financial companies other than those that hold a banking licence. Moreover, one of the
agreed eligibility criteria is that the institution must be (or is likely in the near future to be) in breach of the capital
requirements established by the European Central Bank (ECB) in its capacity as supervisor and is unable to attract
sufficient capital from private sources or other means to resolve its capital problems.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 271

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008149/13**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(8 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Mama białoruskiego więźnia politycznego zwolniona z białoruskiej uczelni za „lojalność” wobec syna

Jak informują białoruskie media, matka więźnia politycznego Igora Oliniewicza, Walentyna, została zwolniona
z Białoruskiego Uniwersytetu Państwowego w Mińsku, gdzie pracowała jako wykładowca Wydziału Ekonomii
Przemysłu. Postawiono jej ultimatum: albo lojalność wobec syna albo praca.

Jak podkreśla Walentyna Oliniewicz, jej przełożeni otwarcie oświadczyli, że otrzymali taki rozkaz z góry, a oni sami
nie mają do niej żadnych zastrzeżeń. Zwolnienie miało być karą za to, że kobieta wielokrotnie komentowała sytuację
białoruskich więźniów, informowała media o sytuacji syna i warunkach panujących w jego celi.

To już nie pierwszy przypadek, gdy na białoruskich uczelniach wywiera się presję i prześladuje się pracowników
naukowych, którzy ośmielają się skrytykować władze. Przypomnę, że jesienią 2012 r. z Grodzieńskiego
Państwowego Uniwersytetu im. Janka Kupały zwolniony został docent historii Andrej Czarniakiewicz, który w swej
książce przedstawił historyczne, nieuznawane przez reżimowe władze, symbole Białorusi. W kwietniu 2013 r.,
w proteście przeciwko prześladowaniu pracowników uniwersyteckich za ich poglądy i postawę obywatelską,
z grodzieńskiej uczelni zwolnił się wykładowca wydziału prawa, Ihar Kuźminicz.

W związku z tym zwracam się z zapytaniem, czy Komisja posiada informacje na temat prześladowania pracowników
naukowych na białoruskich uczelniach oraz, czy Komisja zamierza podjąć interwencję w sprawie zwolnienia
Walentyny Oliniewicz z Białoruskiego Uniwersytetu Państwowego w Mińsku?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(22 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca ma świadomość przypadków prześladowania w środowisku
akademickim, m.in. Walentyny Gliniewicz, Andreja Czarniakiewicza oraz Ihara Kuźminicza. Zwolnienia z pracy są
wykorzystywane przez reżim białoruski jako kolejne narzędzie kontroli i tłumienia głosów sprzeciwu. Szefowie misji
UE w Mińsku poruszyli te kwestie w rozmowach z władzami, co jest częścią starań UE o rozwiązanie niepokojącej
sytuacji w zakresie praw człowieka na Białorusi.

Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca ponawia swoje zobowiązanie na rzecz prowadzenia polityki
krytycznego zaangażowania, m.in. poprzez dialog i Partnerstwo Wschodnie, oraz przypomina, że rozwój stosunków
dwustronnych zależy od postępów Białorusi w dziedzinie poszanowania zasad demokracji, praworządności i praw
człowieka. Wysoka Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodnicząca podkreśla gotowość UE do pomocy Białorusi w realizacji jej
zobowiązań w tym zakresie.

C 65 E / 272 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008149/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Mother of a Belarusian political prisoner dismissed from her job at a Belarusian university on the grounds of
‘loyalty’ to her son

The Belarusian media have reported that Valentina Olinievich, the mother of the political prisoner Igor Olinievich,
has been dismissed from her job at the State University of Belarus in Minsk, where she worked as a lecturer within the
Department of Industrial Economics. She was given an ultimatum: either remain loyal to her son or keep her job.

According to Valentina Olinievich, her bosses were quite open about the fact that they were acting on orders from
above and that they had no complaints about her work. The dismissal was intended to serve as punishment for her
frequent comments on the situation of Belarusian prisoners and the information she had provided to the media
regarding her son’s situation and the conditions in his cell.

This is not the first time that Belarusian universities have persecuted and put pressure on academics who have dared
to criticise the authorities. Let us not forget that in autumn 2012 Andrej Charniakievich, an associate professor in
history, was dismissed from the Yanka Kupala State University in Grodno after publishing a book featuring historical
Belarusian symbols which are not recognised by the authorities. Ihar Kuzhminich, a lecturer in law, left the University
of Grodno in April 2013 in protest at the persecution of university employees for their beliefs and civic stance.

I would therefore like to ask the Commission whether it is aware of the persecution of academics within Belarusian
universities and whether it intends to intervene in respect of the dismissal of Valentina Olinievich from the State
University of Belarus in Minsk?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

The HR/VP is well aware of cases of harassment in academic circles, such as those of Valentina Olinievich, Andrey
Charnyakevich and Ihar Kuzhminich. The ban on professions is used by the Belarusian regime as yet another tool to
control and stifle dissenting voices and views. EU Heads of Mission in Minsk raise these cases with authorities as part
of the EU's general efforts to counter the worrying human rights situation in Belarus.

The HR/VP reiterates her commitment to the policy of critical engagement, including through dialogue and
participation in the Eastern Partnership, and recalls that the development of bilateral relations under the Eastern
Partnership is conditional on progress towards respect by Belarus for the principles of democracy, the rule of law and
human rights. The HR/VP reiterates the EU's willingness to assist Belarus to meet its obligations in this regard.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 273

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008150/13**

**do Komisji**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(8 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wyrok dla białoruskiego opozycjonisty

Dzisiaj sąd w Witebsku skazał działacza białoruskiej opozycji Andreja Hajdukoua na 1,5 r. kolonii karnej za „próbę
nawiązania kontaktów z agentami obcych służb specjalnych”.

Hajdukou jest działaczem niezarejestrowanych organizacji: Związku Młodych Intelektualistów i Białoruskiej
Chrześcijańskiej Demokracji, uczestniczył w „milczących protestach” opozycji, pracował w sztabie wyborczym
Andreja Sannikaua podczas ostatnich wyborów prezydenckich. Zatrzymano go 8 listopada ubiegłego roku
w Witebsku podczas rzekomego instalowania tajnej skrytki, w której zamierzał przechowywać informacje zbierane
na zamówienie obcego wywiadu.

Białoruscy obrońcy praw człowieka zgodnie przyznają, że postępowanie przygotowawcze oraz proces w sprawie
Hajdukoua były pozbawione transparentności, a władze ograniczały jego kontakty z adwokatem i rodziną. Wyrok
uznali za nieuzasadniony i politycznie motywowany. Obrońcy praw człowieka podkreślają również, że kara
pozbawienia wolności jest w tym przypadku jawnym złamaniem prawa do sprawiedliwego procesu.

W związku z tym zwracam się z zapytaniem, czy Komisja zamierza podjąć interwencję w sprawie wyroku dla
Andreja Hajdukoua i wyrazić zdecydowany sprzeciw wobec prześladowania przedstawicieli białoruskiej opozycji?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Štefana Fülego w imieniu Komisji**

_(4 września 2013 r.)_

Unia Europejska zdaje sobie sprawę z sytuacji Andreja Hajdukoua; delegatura UE w Mińsku i szefowie misji UE
w terenie ściśle monitorują tę sprawę. Chociaż szczegóły sprawy wymagają jeszcze pełnego wyjaśnienia, UE
z zaniepokojeniem odnotowała, że proces Andreja Hajdukoua odbył się za zamkniętymi drzwiami oraz że
postępowanie nie spełniało norm międzynarodowych. Jest to kolejny przykład podejmowanych przez białoruskie
władze prób stłumienia odmiennych opinii wśród ludności, a w szczególności wśród stowarzyszeń młodzieżowych.
UE będzie stale śledzić sprawę Andreja Hajdukoua i w miarę rozwoju sytuacji podejmować odpowiednie kroki.
Z uwagi na wciąż niepokojącą sytuację w zakresie praw człowieka w tym kraju, w tym prześladowanie białoruskiej
opozycji, UE nadal będzie wykorzystywała każdą okazję do podniesienia tej kwestii w kontaktach z władzami
białoruskimi.

UE ponawia swoje zobowiązanie do prowadzenia polityki krytycznego zaangażowania, m.in. poprzez dialog i udział
w Partnerstwie Wschodnim, oraz przypomina, że rozwój stosunków dwustronnych zależy od postępów Białorusi
w dziedzinie poszanowania zasad demokracji, praworządności i praw człowieka. UE podkreśla swoją gotowość do
wspierania Białorusi w realizacji jej zobowiązań w tym zakresie.

C 65 E / 274 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008150/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Sentencing of a Belarusian oppositionist

Today a court in Vitebsk sentenced Andrej Hajdukou, a Belarusian opposition activist, to eighteen months in a penal
colony for ‘attempting to make contact with foreign special service agents’.

Hajdukou is an activist with the unregistered organisations ‘Union of Young Intellectuals’ and ‘Belarusian Christian
Democracy’. He took part in the opposition’s ‘silent protests’ and worked at Andrej Sannikau’s campaign
headquarters during the last presidential elections. He was arrested in Vitebsk on 8 November 2012, allegedly while
building a secret recess in which he intended to keep information gathered on the orders of foreign intelligence
agencies.

Belarusian human rights defenders agree that the preparatory proceedings and the hearing for Hajdukou’s case lacked
transparency and that the authorities restricted his contact with his lawyer and family, and they believe that the
sentence is unjustified and politically motivated. They also stress that this custodial sentence is a flagrant violation of
the right to a fair trial.

In view of the above, does the Commission intend to intervene in respect of the sentence handed down to Andrej
Hajdukou, and to express its firm opposition to the persecution of representatives of the Belarusian opposition?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

The EU is well aware of the case of Andrey Haydukow; the EU Delegation in Minsk and EU Heads of Missions on the
ground have been closely monitoring the case. While the details of the case remain to be fully elucidated, the EU has
noted with concern that Mr Hayudkow's trial was held behind closed doors and that proceedings have not met
international standards. This is yet another example of the Belarusian authorities' attempts to stifle and repress
divergent views in its population, and particularly amongst youth associations. The EU will continue to follow
Mr Haydukow's case closely and take appropriate steps as the situation unfolds. Considering the continuing worrying
human rights situation in the country, including the persecution of Belaruisan opposition, the EU will continue to
take every opportunity to raise the matter with the Belarusian authorities.

The EU reiterates its commitment to the policy of critical engagement, incuding through dialogue and participation in
the Eastern Partnership, and recalls that the development of bilateral relations under the Eastern Partnership is
conditional on progress regarding respect by Belarus for the principles of democracy, the rule of law and human
rights. The EU reiterates its willingness to assist Belarus to meet its obligations in this regard.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 275

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008151/13**

**à Comissão**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Despedimento coletivo na empresa Asibel Construções S.A.

A empresa de construção civil Asibel Construções S.A., com sede em Batalha, Portugal, deixou, esta manhã, os 180
trabalhadores à porta da empresa e não lhes foi distribuído trabalho. Esses mesmos trabalhadores estão há mais de
três meses sem receber salário (abril, maio e junho).

Em abril deste ano, a empresa anunciou que iria apresentar um plano de viabilidade e resolver a situação. Esta situação
está a deixar em desespero centenas de famílias do concelho da Batalha, que não têm nenhuma certeza sobre o futuro
dos postos de trabalho da empresa, nem se esta irá encerrar.

De lembrar que esta empresa, no ano de 2012, faturou cerca de 26 milhões de euros.

Assim, solicito à Comissão que me informe do seguinte:

1. A referida empresa recebeu quaisquer apoios comunitários? Com que fins foram concedidos e que
compromissos assumiu aquando da concessão dos apoios?

2. Que meios financeiros podem ser mobilizados, designadamente através do QREN, para apoiar o setor da
construção civil?

3. Que medidas pensa tomar, tendo em conta os graves problemas sociais e económicos existentes em Portugal,
onde o desemprego não cessa de aumentar?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de agosto de 2013)_

1. Segundo as informações disponibilizadas pelas autoridades portuguesas, o FSE nunca concedeu qualquer
contribuição financeira à Asibel Construções S.A. A empresa recebeu 167 690 EUR (aprovados em 2009) do
FEDER ( [1] ) (PO Compete) para apoiar o lançamento das suas atividades em Marrocos.

2. Os fundos da política de coesão são importantes fontes de investimento que incentivam o crescimento
sustentável e o emprego em todos os setores económicos. As autoridades nacionais, regionais e locais devem utilizar
plenamente os recursos disponíveis para desenvolver e concretizar o seu potencial económico e aumentar o emprego.
Todavia, não deve ser concedido apoio a empresas estejam numa situação de falência ou próxima da falência e que
não sejam economicamente viáveis.

3. A Comissão colabora estreitamente com as autoridades portuguesas e encoraja-as a aplicar medidas estruturais
com vista à reforma da legislação laboral, de modo a tornar o mercado de trabalho menos rígido e segmentado, e,
assim, mais acessível para os trabalhadores. Simultaneamente, Portugal tem sido encorajado também a utilizar o
melhor possível os recursos disponíveis ao abrigo dos atuais programas de combate ao desemprego, sobretudo os
fundos e programas da UE. A Comissão aprovou ainda medidas temporárias específicas para acelerar os pagamentos
aos beneficiários, como o «mecanismo complementar», pelo qual são pagos 10 % adicionais por cada certificação de
despesas pagas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional.

C 65 E / 276 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008151/13**

**to the Commission**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL)**

_(8 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Collective redundancy at Asibel Construções S.A.

This morning, the construction company Asibel Construções S.A., based in Batalha, Portugal, locked out its
180 workers and did not give them work. These same workers have not been paid for the past three months (April,
May and June).

In April this year, the company announced that it would submit a viability plan and resolve the situation. This has left
hundreds of families in the municipality of Batalha, vulnerable, uncertain of their job futures and of whether the
company will close.

It is worth noting that in 2012, the company had a turnover of around EUR 26 million.

1. Has Asibel Construções S.A. received any kind of EU aid? If so, for what purpose was it granted and what
undertakings were given when it was received?

2. What financial resources could be mobilised to support the construction industry, in particular through the
National Strategic Reference Framework ?

3. What steps will the Commission take, given the serious social and economic problems in Portugal, where
unemployment continues to rise?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

1. According to information received from the Portuguese authorities the ESF has never granted any financial
contribution to Asibel Construções S.A. The company has received (approved in 2009) EUR 167 690 from the
ERDF ( [1] ) (OP Compete) to support the launch of its operations in Morocco.

2. The funds of the Cohesion Policy are major sources of investment stimulating sustainable growth and
employment across all economic sectors. National, regional and local authorities should use the available resources
fully to develop and realise their economic potential and increase employment. However, support should not be
given to companies that are in or close to bankruptcy and are not financially viable.

3. The Commission cooperates closely with the Portuguese authorities and encourages them to implement
structural measures in view of the reform of employment legislation to render the labour market less rigid and
segmented and thus more accessible for workers. Simultaneously, Portugal has been also encouraged to make the best
use of the resources available under the current programmes to fight unemployment, particularly the EU funds and
programmes. Specific temporary measures have also been approved by the Commission to speed up payments to
beneficiaries, such as the ‘top-up mechanism’, by which an additional 10% are paid for each certification of paid
expenditure.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) European Regional and Development Fund.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 277

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-008152/13**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Βία κατά των γυναικών κατά τη διάρκεια διαδηλώσεων στην Αίγυπτο

Δύο χρόνια μετά την Αραβική Άνοιξη, η κατάσταση των γυναικών στην Αίγυπτο προκαλεί μεγάλη ανησυχία, ιδίως σε σχέση
με τα περιστατικά βίας και άλλες μορφές παρενόχλησης.

Η έκθεση «Το θέμα της σεξουαλικής παρενόχλησης στην Αίγυπτο — αιτίες και τρόποι αντιμετώπισής» που δημοσιεύθηκε τον
Απρίλιο του 2013 από το όργανο των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για την Ισότητα των Φύλων και τη χειραφέτηση των γυναικών
(UN Women), το Δημογραφικό Κέντρο (ένα από τα ερευνητικά κέντρα υπό την αιγίδα του Ινστιτούτου Εθνικού
Σχεδιασμού ) και το Εθνικό Συμβούλιο Γυναικών (NCW), υπογραμμίζει ότι περίπου το 99% των αιγυπτιακών γυναικών
βιώνουν κάποια μορφή σεξουαλικής παρενόχλησης, που κυμαίνεται από μικρές παρενοχλήσεις έως και βιασμό. Πιο
πρόσφατα, η βία κατά των γυναικών ήρθε και πάλι στην επικαιρότητα ως πρόβλημα που μαστίζει την πλατεία Ταχρίρ κατά τη
διάρκεια των συνεχιζόμενων πολιτικών διαμαρτυριών. Πράγματι, ομάδες κατά της παρενόχλησης, όπως η «επιχείρηση:
αντιμετώπιση της σεξουαλικής παρενόχλησης», μια αιγυπτιακή ομάδα γυναικών, επιβεβαίωσε 46 επιθέσεις κατά των
γυναικών στις 30 Ιουνίου, 17την 1η Ιουλίου και 23 στις 2 Ιουλίου 2013 ( [1] ).

Η Αίγυπτος έχει υπογράψει αρκετές νομικά δεσμευτικές διεθνείς συμβάσεις περί ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων,
συμπεριλαμβανομένων του Διεθνούς Συμφώνου για τα Ατομικά και Πολιτικά Δικαιώματα, της Σύμβασης για την Εξάλειψη
των Διακρίσεων κατά των Γυναικών και της Σύμβασης κατά των Βασανιστηρίων, προκειμένου να διασφαλιστούν τα
δικαιώματα των γυναικών, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της προστασίας τους από τις διάφορες μορφές επιθέσεων. Στις 9 Μαΐου
2013, το Υπουργείο Εσωτερικών της Αιγύπτου συνέστησε μια ειδική μονάδα στο πλαίσιο της Διεύθυνσης Ανθρωπίνων
δικαιωμάτων για την αντιμετώπιση του προβλήματος της βίας κατά των γυναικών. Το Εθνικό Συμβούλιο Γυναικών της
Αιγύπτου, που υποστηρίζεται από την ΕΕ, υπέβαλε στις 12 Ιουνίου 2013, ένα νόμο για την καταπολέμηση της σεξουαλικής
βίας στην Προεδρία. Η ΕΕ χρηματοδοτεί επί του παρόντος τα σχέδια της μονάδας του ΟΗΕ για τις γυναίκες με
προϋπολογισμό 4 εκατομμύρια ευρώ με στόχο την καταπολέμηση της βίας και την ενίσχυση της χειραφέτησης των γυναικών,
συμπεριλαμβανομένων των προγραμμάτων «Ασφαλείς Πόλεις χωρίς βία εις βάρος των γυναικών και των κοριτσιών»,
Οικονομική Ενδυνάμωση των Γυναικών και Πρωτοβουλία Πολιτών.

Ωστόσο, αυτά τα μέτρα δεν έχουν τα αναμενόμενα αποτελέσματα. Σύμφωνα με την Επιτροπή, ποιοι είναι οι λόγοι για τον
αναποτελεσματικό τρόπο αντιμετώπισης του φαινομένου;

Με ποιό τρόπο σκοπεύει η ΕΕ για τη δημιουργήσει συνέργειες για την ενίσχυση της συνεργασίας και το συντονισμό των
δραστηριοτήτων, μεταξύ της ΕΕ, του ΟΗΕ, των αιγυπτιακών αρχών και των εκπροσώπων της κοινωνίας των πολιτών,
προκειμένου να αντιμετωπιστεί το φαινόμενο αυτό με αποτελεσματικό τρόπο;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(21 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Η ΕΕ βρίσκεται σε τακτική επαφή με τις τοπικές οργανώσεις της κοινωνίας των πολιτών και παρακολουθεί με προσοχή τα
καταγγελλόμενα κρούσματα βιαιοπραγιών κατά των γυναικών.

Η ΕΕ καταδικάζει σθεναρά όλες τις μορφές βιαιοπραγίας κατά των γυναικών και άλλων ευάλωτων ομάδων και η Ύπατη
Εκπρόσωπος/Αντιπρόεδρος συζητά τακτικά το θέμα αυτό με τις αιγυπτιακές αρχές. Εξάλλου, στο πλαίσιο των πρόσφατων
εξελίξεων στη χώρα, η ΕΕ κάλεσε τη νέα προσωρινή κυβέρνηση της Αιγύπτου να σεβαστεί τις δεσμεύσεις της στον τομέα των
δικαιωμάτων του ανθρώπου, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των δικαιωμάτων των γυναικών, όπως ορίζεται στη συμφωνία σύνδεσης
που συνήφθη με την Αίγυπτο. Η χειραφέτηση των γυναικών και η προαγωγή της ισότητας των φύλων αποτελεί πρωτεύον
μέλημα της ενωσιακής δράσης στην Αίγυπτο. Η ΕΕ επιδιώκει την προαγωγή της ισότητας των φύλων και της χειραφέτησης
των γυναικών στην Αίγυπτο, υποστηρίζοντας τις προσπάθειες των αιγυπτιακών αρχών να προωθήσουν τα δικαιώματα των
γυναικών, εντάσσοντας την ισότητα των φύλων στον πολιτικό της διάλογο με τις αιγυπτιακές αρχές και υποστηρίζοντας
προδραστικά τις πρωτοβουλίες της κοινωνίας των πολιτών που προάγουν τα δικαιώματα των γυναικών. Σχετικά με το θέμα
αυτό, το 2013, η αντιπροσωπεία της ΕΕ διοργάνωσε ένα σεμινάριο γυναικών υπό την προεδρία της ΥΑ/ΑΠ με θέμα
«Αιγύπτιες γυναίκες — πορεία προς το μέλλον», κατά τη διάρκεια του οποίου υπεγράφη σύμβαση ύψους 4 εκατομμυρίων
ευρώ για τη στήριξη της δράσης των γυναικών των Ηνωμένων Εθνών που έχει ως στόχο την παροχή δελτίων ταυτότητας στις
Αιγύπτιες.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Human Rights Watch, δελτίο τύπου της 3 Ιουλίου, 2013.

C 65 E / 278 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008152/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Violence against women during demonstrations in Egypt

Two years after the Arab Spring, the situation of women in Egypt is of great concern, in particular with regard to
incidents of violence and other forms of harassment.

The report ‘Study on Ways and Methods to Eliminate Sexual Harassment in Egypt’ published in April 2013 by the
United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), the Demographic Centre
(one of the research centres under the umbrella of the Egyptian National Planning Institute) and the Egyptian National
Council for Women (NCW), highlights that approximately 99% of Egyptian women experience some form of sexual
harassment, ranging from minor harassment to rape. More recently, violence against women has once more become
an issue plaguing Tahrir Square during the ongoing political protests. Indeed, anti-harassment groups such as
Operation Anti-Sexual Harassment, an Egyptian women’s group, confirmed 46 attacks against women on 30 June,
17 on 1 July and 23 on 2 July 2013 ( [1] ).

Egypt has signed several legally binding international human rights conventions, including the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the
Convention Against Torture, in order to guarantee women’s rights, including their protection from various forms of
assault. On 9 May 2013 the Interior Ministry of Egypt set up a special unit within the human rights division to address
the issue of violence against women. The NWC, supported by the EU, submitted on 12 June 2013 an anti-sexual
violence law to the Egyptian cabinet and presidency. The EU is currently funding UN Women projects with a budget
of EUR 4 million in view of combating violence and enhancing women empowerment, including the global
programme ‘Safe Cities Free of Violence against Women and Girls’, the Women’s Economic Empowerment
Programme and the Citizenship Initiative.

However, the results of these measures have not been as expected. According to the Commission, what are the
reasons for the ineffective way in which the phenomenon of violence against women has been addressed?

What is the EU doing to establish synergies to enhance collaboration, and to coordinate activities, among the EU, the
UN and Egyptian authorities and civil society representatives in order to tackle this phenomenon in an efficient way?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The EU is well aware of the situation of women in Egypt and the EU Delegation in Cairo is in regular contact with
local Civil Society Organisations and closely monitors reported cases of violence against women.

The EU strongly condemns all forms of violence against women and other vulnerable groups and the HR/VP raises
the issue regularly with the Egyptian authorities. Moreover and in light of the recent developments in the country,
the EU called upon the new Egyptian interim administration to respect the Human rights commitments, including the
rights for women, as stipulated under the Association Agreement concluded with Egypt. Empowering women and
promoting gender equality have been a longstanding priority of the EU's action in Egypt. The EU seeks to promote
gender equality and women empowerment in Egypt by supporting Egyptian authorities' efforts to promote women's
rights, by mainstreaming gender equality in its political dialogue with the Egyptian authorities and by proactively
supporting civil society initiatives that promote women's rights. In this respect, in 2013 the EU Delegation organised
a women’s seminar chaired by HR/VP on ‘Egyptian Women — the Way Forward’ during which a EUR4 million
contract in support of UN Women’s action to provide Egyptian women with ID cards was signed.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Human Rights Watch, press release of 3 July 2013.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 279

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008154/13**

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

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Planes de reestructuración de HP en Zaragoza

La multinacional de la informática Hewlett Packard está decidiendo plantear el cierre de sus oficinas situadas en el
polígono industrial de Pilar, en Zaragoza. Dicha multinacional anunció en 2012 su plan de reorganización y
reestructuración del grupo que supondría la eliminación de 8 200 puestos de trabajo en Europa _, con lo que se amenaza_
_también a los trabajadores de Zaragoza._

La firma cuenta con más de 7 500 trabajadores en España, de los cuales 1 100 se encuentran actualmente en el centro
de trabajo de Zaragoza. En la actualidad _, el plan de reestructuración de HP lleva a sus espaldas 3 845 despidos, una cantidad_
_muy por debajo de la inicialmente planteada para Europa, lo cual hace sospechar que se producirán muchos más. En concreto, el_
_centro de Zaragoza parece encontrarse bajo amenaza debido a que la empresa se niega a aportar información al comité de empresa_
_sobre la implementación de su plan de reestructuración._

Los trabajadores del centro han denunciado a la compañía por no respetar la obligación _de ser informados que estipula el_
_Derecho laboral español. Del mismo modo, denuncian que los incentivos fiscales y ayudas que ha recibido la empresa debería_
_permitir exigir el cumplimiento de su responsabilidad social corporativa y tener en cuenta los intereses del Estado donde se_
_encuentra. La empresa, una de las más punteras en el sector a nivel mundial, se encuentra en una boyante situación y ha obtenido_
_pingües beneficios durante los últimos ejercicios. Siempre resultará más beneficioso deslocalizar la producción hacia países con un_
_menor nivel de salarios y de protección social, pese a que no haya razones económicas para ello, tan solo el descenso del coste del_
_despido que ha producido la última reforma laboral._

¿Está la Comisión al tanto de los planes de reestructuración de la compañía en el citado centro de trabajo? ¿Considera
que el plan de reestructuración obedece ciertamente a las necesidades del mercado? ¿Puede entenderse, a juicio de la
Comisión, que la actuación de la empresa matriz ha atentado contra el principio de libre co _mpetencia en el mercado_
_único? ¿Cuál es la cantidad exacta de fondos públicos y beneficios fiscales que se han empleado para atraer a la firma a Zaragoza?_
_En numerosas otras preguntas anteriores hemos preguntado, ante los cientos de casos donde la responsabilidad social corporativa_
_no produce ningún efecto en la conducta de las empresas, sobre la necesidad de una legislación vinculante para poder exigir que las_
_empresas cumplan con su RSC. ¿Ha considerado la Comisión plantear la creación de una legislación vinculante sobre el tema?_

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

_(27 de agosto de 2013)_

La Comisión carece de competencias para interferir en las decisiones concretas que toman las empresas. No obstante,
les exhorta a aplicar buenas prácticas de previsión y de gestión socialmente responsable de las reestructuraciones. Tras
su Libro Verde ( [1] ) de enero de 2012 y la adopción por el Parlamento Europeo el 15 de enero de 2013 del informe
Cercas, la Comisión propondrá una Comunicación para la creación de un marco de calidad que englobe la legislación
de la UE y las iniciativas que afecten a las reestructuraciones y presentará las mejores prácticas para su aplicación por
todas las partes interesadas.

La Comisión recuerda que, en caso de cierre de empresas, los empleadores deben respetar las obligaciones que les
corresponden en materia de información y consulta de los trabajadores de conformidad con la legislación de la UE ( [2] ).
Las autoridades nacionales competentes, incluidos los tribunales, son responsables de hacer cumplir la legislación.

La Comisión también desearía señalar que los trabajadores afectados por una reestructuración pueden recibir ayudas
del FSE y, siempre que se cumplan las condiciones necesarias, del Fondo Europeo de Adaptación a la Globalización.

La Comisión no tiene la intención de introducir legislación en el ámbito de la responsabilidad social de las empresas,
pero, en la línea de su Comunicación de 2011 sobre este tema, espera que las empresas que se reestructuran lo hagan
de manera responsable y que respeten los requisitos en materia de legislación laboral.

La Comisión carece de información acerca de las ayudas concedidas por España a la empresa HP. Esta información
debería solicitarse a las autoridades españolas. La Comisión no considera que cuando una empresa decide
reestructurar sus actividades esté atentando contra los principios de la libre competencia.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Véanse las respuestas y un resumen en: http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) En particular, la Directiva 2002/14/CE por la que se establece un marco general relativo a la información y a la consulta de los trabajadores en la

Comunidad Europea (DO L 80 de 23.3.2002); la Directiva 98/59/CE relativa a la aproximación de las legislaciones de los Estados miembros que se
refieren a los despidos colectivos (DO L 225 de 12.8.1998); y la Directiva 2009/38/CE sobre la constitución de un comité de empresa europeo o
de un procedimiento de información y consulta a los trabajadores en las empresas y grupos de empresas de dimensión comunitaria (DO L 122
de 16.5.2009).

C 65 E / 280 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008154/13**

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

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restructuring plans at HP in Zaragoza

The multinational computer company Hewlett Packard (HP) has decided to close one of its offices, at the Pilar
business park in Zaragoza. In 2012, HP announced restructuring plans that would mean the loss of 8 200 jobs in
Europe, and which may thus jeopardise those at its Zaragoza offices.

The firm has more than 7 500 staff in Spain, of whom 1 100 currently work in Zaragoza. The restructuring plan has
so far led to 3 845 job losses, much less than originally proposed for Europe, giving rise to suspicions that there will
be many more to come. The HP office in central Zaragoza appears to be threatened with closure, as the company has
refused to provide the works council with any details of how the restructuring plan will be implemented.

Staff at this office have condemned HP for breach of its obligation under Spanish labour law to inform them of its
intentions. They also maintain that the tax breaks and grants HP has received should require it to act in a manner
consistent with corporate social responsibility and respect the interests of the State in which it is based. HP is a global
market leader in its field and has received huge profits in recent years. It will always be more profitable to move
production facilities to countries with levels of wages and social protection, although there are no economic reasons
to do so, other than the fact that since the last round of labour reforms it is now cheaper to sack workers.

Is the Commission aware of HP’s plans to restructure this office? Does it consider the restructuring plan to be truly in
line with market needs? In the Commission’s opinion, can the parent company’s actions be in breach of the principle
of free competition in the single market? What is the exact amount of public funds and tax breaks that were used to
attract the company to Zaragoza?

I have stated in several previous questions, in respect of hundreds of cases illustrating that corporate social
responsibility (CSR) has no effect whatsoever on how companies behave, that there is a need for binding legislation
on CSR. Has the Commission considered bringing in such legislation?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

The Commission has no powers to interfere in specific company's decisions. It urges them, however, to follow good
practices of anticipation and socially responsible management of restructuring. Following its January 2012 Green
Paper ( [1] ) and the adoption by the European Parliament on 15 January 2013 of the Cercas report, the Commission will
propose a communication establishing a Quality Framework that will frame the EU legislation and initiatives relevant
to restructuring and will present the best practices to be implemented by all stakeholders.

The Commission recalls that, in case of closure of undertakings, employers must respect their obligations relating to
information and consultation of workers in accordance with EC law ( [2] ). The competent national authorities, including
courts are responsible for ensuring compliance.

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

The Commission does not intend to legislate in the area of corporate social responsibility, but in line with its 2011
Communication on this subject it expects companies that restructure to do so responsibly and respecting labour law
requirements.

The Commission has no information on aid granted by Spain to HP. Such information should be available from the
Spanish authorities. The Commission does not consider that company decisions to restructure their activities are in
conflict with the principles of free competition.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See the replies and a summary under http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) In particular, Directive 2002/14/EC establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community,

OJ L 80, 23.3.2002,; Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, OJ L 225,
12.8.1998; Directive 2009/38/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees, OJ L 122 of 16.5.2009.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 281

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008155/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-weites Verbot von Asbest: Gefährdung von Arbeitern

Im März hat das Europäische Parlament einen Initiativbericht über das EU-weite Verbot von Asbest angenommen
(P7_TA(2013)0093). Kann die Kommission folgende Fragen zur Sanierung von Gebäuden und zur Gefährdung von
Arbeitern beantworten:

— Wann ist mit einem Entwurf der Kommission für eine Richtlinie zu rechnen?

—
Wie ist der Stand der Sanierung öffentlicher und gewerblicher Gebäude in Deutschland im Vergleich zu
anderen Mitgliedstaaten?

—
Welche Anreize können für private Eigentümer von Wohngebäuden geschaffen werden, um ein
Asbest-Screening und eine Asbest-Sanierung durchzuführen?

—
Welche Kosten sind zu erwarten, wenn tatsächlich europaweit bis 2028 sämtlicher Asbest aus öffentlichen und
privaten Gebäuden entfernt wird?

—
Gibt es in europäischen Mitgliedstaaten Regelungen, die Mietminderungen erlauben, wenn sich in einer
Wohnung Asbest befindet, und nach Verkauf eine Rückabwicklung erlauben, wenn in einer verkauften
Immobilie Asbest entdeckt wird, über den der Verkäufer nicht informiert hat?

—
Wie schätzt die Kommission die Gefahr für Bauarbeiter ein, die an bisher nicht kernsanierten Gebäuden aus den
siebziger und achtziger Jahren Sanierungsarbeiten, z. B. im Rahmen von Energie-Effizienz-Sanierungen,
vornehmen? Welche Maßnahmen plant die Kommission, um diese Arbeiter vor der Kontamination mit Asbest
zu schützen?

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

_(30. August 2013)_

Aufgrund mehrerer Ersuchen um Überprüfung des in der Richtlinie 2009/148/EG festgelegten Grenzwerts für die
Asbest-Exposition von Arbeitnehmern prüft die Kommission derzeit, ob ein Änderungsverfahren eingeleitet werden
sollte. Zu diesem Zweck hat sie Konsultationen initiiert.

Der Kommission liegen keine Angaben zum Stand der Sanierung öffentlicher und privater Gebäude in Deutschland
vor, die ihr einen Vergleich mit anderen Mitgliedstaaten erlauben würden.

Auch verfügt sie nicht über Informationen, die ihr ermöglichen würden, die Kosten für die europaweite Entfernung
sämtlichen Asbests bis 2028 zu berechnen. Allerdings könnte man z. B. Polen für eine mögliche Extrapolierung
heranziehen: Die Gesamtkosten der Durchführung des polnischen Asbestbeseitigungsprogramms im
Zeitraum 2009-2032 werden auf ca. 40,4 Mrd. PLN ( [1] ), d. h. weit über 9 Mrd. EUR veranschlagt.

Der Kommission sind keine Vorschriften bekannt, die eine Mietminderung oder eine Rückabwicklung in den von der
Frau Abgeordneten genannten Fällen erlauben würden. Die Richtlinie 2009/148/EG enthält die erforderlichen
Vorschriften, damit sichergestellt ist, dass die von der Frau Abgeordneten angesprochenen Risiken unabhängig vom
Baujahr und der Art der Sanierung verhütet werden. Ein Anstieg der Zahl der Sanierungen dürfte keine Änderung der
Risikoverhütungsmaßnahmen zur Folge haben, die gemäß der in der Richtlinie vorgeschriebenen Risikobewertung in
jedem Fall durchzuführen sind.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Informationen auf der polnischen Programm-Website: www.mg.gov.pl/azbest

C 65 E / 282 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008155/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU-wide ban on asbestos: worker safety

The European Parliament adopted an own‐initiative report on an EU‐wide ban on asbestos (P7_TA(2013)0093) in
March 2013. Could the Commission answer the following questions concerning the refurbishment of buildings and
worker safety?

— When can a Commission proposal for a directive be expected?

— How does the status of the refurbishment of public and private buildings in Germany compare with that of other
Member States?

— What incentives can be put in place to encourage private owners of residential buildings to screen for asbestos and
to remove it if necessary?

— What would be the total cost of removing asbestos from all public and private properties in Europe by 2028?

— Do rules exist in Member States allowing for rent reductions if asbestos is found in a rented property and
restitution if asbestos is found in a purchased property where the seller had not informed the buyer of the existence
thereof?

— How does the Commission assess the danger to labourers working on buildings from the 1970s and 1980s which
have not yet undergone a thorough refurbishment, for example when carrying out work to increase the energy
efficiency of a building? What action does the Commission intend to take in order to protect these workers from
contamination with asbestos?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

In view of several requests to review the limit value for exposure of workers to asbestos set under
Directive 2009/148/EC, the Commission is currently considering the opportunity of launching a revision procedure.
It has initiated consultations with this purpose.

As regards the status of the refurbishment of public and private buildings in Germany the Commission does not have
information allowing for a comparison with the corresponding status in other Member States.

The Commission does not have information allowing for a calculation of costs of a total asbestos removal across
the EU by 2028. However, if the example of Poland was used for possible extrapolations, the total cost of the PL
asbestos removal programme implementation for the period 2009-2032 is estimated to be in the order of circa PLN
40.4 billion ( [1] ) i.e. well over EUR 9 billion.

No rules are known to the Commission that could allow for rent reductions or restitutions in the cases mentioned by
the Honourable member. Directive 2009/148/EC contains the necessary provisions to ensure that the risks alluded to
by the Honourable member are prevented irrespective of building's erection dates and nature of refurbishment(s). An
upsurge in the number of refurbishments should not change the nature of the risk protection measures that the
mandatory risk assessment provided for under the directive should mandate in each case.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Information available in the PL programme implementation website www.mg.gov.pl/azbest.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 283

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008156/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ EU-weites Verbot von Asbest: Gefährdungspotential

Im März hat das Europäische Parlament einen Initiativbericht über ein EU-weites Verbot von Asbest angenommen
(P7_TA(2013)0093). Kann die Kommission folgende Fragen zum Gefährdungspotential beantworten:

—
Hält die Kommission es für richtig, weiter zwischen fest gebundenem und schwachgebundenem Asbest zu
unterscheiden, oder ist die Unterscheidung zwischen festem und nicht festem Asbest (bitte um Korrektur: Wie
genau lautet hier die Formulierung im Bericht?) eher der Tatsache angemessen, dass ca. 40 Jahre nach dem
Einsatz auch aus ehemals fest gebundenem Asbest mittlerweile Fasern ausbrechen, weil die Materialien spröde
wurden?

—
Teilt die Kommission die Einschätzung, dass es keinen unteren Grenzwert gibt, unterhalb dessen keine
Gefährdung durch Asbest-Staub in der Luft vorliegt (die sogenannte „Ein-Faser-Theorie“)?

—
Welchen Sinn machen dann Luftmessungen?

—
Teilt die Kommission die Ansicht, dass im Fall einer Krebserkrankung bei einem Menschen, der an einem
Mesotheliom leidet oder über einen gewissen Zeitraum Asbest ausgesetzt war, die Beweislast umzukehren wäre
oder jedenfalls darauf zu verzichten wäre, dass der Betroffene einen Kausalitätsnachweis führen muss, um
Schadenersatz zu bekommen, oder aus welchen Gründen teilt die Kommission diese Ansicht nicht?

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

_(30. August 2013)_

Die Kommission informiert die Frau Abgeordnete, dass Artikel 3 Absatz 3 der Richtlinie 2009/148/EG ( [1] ) die
Arbeitsvorgänge definiert, bei denen die in den Artikeln 4, 18 und 19 genannten Bestimmungen nicht angewendet
werden müssen. Die Frage der Brüchigkeit wird in dem genannten Artikel 3 Absatz 3 Buchstabe a behandelt. Darin ist
festgehalten, dass kurze, nicht aufeinander folgende Wartungsarbeiten, bei denen nur an nicht brüchigen Materialien
gearbeitet wird, zu den Arbeitsvorgängen gehören, bei denen auf die Anwendung der Bestimmungen verzichtet
werden kann. Als Voraussetzung hierfür sind gemäß Artikel 3 Absatz 3 jedoch auch bei nicht brüchigem Asbest eine
Gefährdungsbeurteilung und entsprechende Maßnahmen des Risikomanagements vorgesehen.

Die Kommission erinnert daran, dass das Konzept bezüglich des in der Asbest‐Richtlinie festgelegten Arbeitsschutzes
risiko‐ und nicht gefahrenbasiert ist. Werden nicht brüchige Asbestfasern brüchig, so sind die daraus resultierenden
Folgen ebenfalls nach den Bestimmungen der Richtlinie zu beurteilen, insbesondere nach Artikel 3 Nummer 5.

Aufgrund mehrerer Anfragen, den in der Richtlinie festgelegten Grenzwert für die Asbestexposition von
Arbeitnehmern zu überdenken, prüft die Kommission derzeit die Möglichkeit, ein Änderungsverfahren einzuleiten.
Die Kommissionsdienststellen sind kürzlich mit Experten der Mitgliedstaaten zur Erörterung dieser Frage
zusammengekommen und werden zu gegebener Zeit den Wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss für Grenzwerte
berufsbedingter Exposition (SCOEL) anhören.

Erkranken Arbeiter an einem Mesotheliom, so gelten gemäß den derzeit gültigen EU‐Bestimmungen und dem
einschlägigen Rechtsakt ( [2] ) die nationalen Beweislastregelungen.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Richtlinie 2009/148/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 30. November 2009 über den Schutz der Arbeitnehmer gegen

Gefährdung durch Asbest am Arbeitsplatz (kodifizierte Fassung) (ABl. L 330 vom 16.12.2009, S. 28).

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Empfehlung der Kommission vom 19. September 2003 über die Europäische Liste der Berufskrankheiten (bekannt gegeben unter Aktenzeichen

K(2003) 3297) (Text von Bedeutung für den EWR) (2003/670/EG), ABl. L 238 vom 25.9.2003, S. 28.

C 65 E / 284 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008156/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jutta Steinruck (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU-wide ban on asbestos: potential risks

The European Parliament adopted an own‐initiative report on an EU‐wide ban on asbestos (P7_TA(2013)0093) in
March 2013. Could the Commission answer the following questions concerning the potential risks involved?

— Does the Commission think it wise to continue to differentiate between friable and non‐friable asbestos, given that
non‐friable asbestos also becomes brittle and fibres start to break off after a period of approximately 40 years?

— Does the Commission share the view that there is no threshold level below which no risk is posed by asbestos dust
in the air (the ‘single fibre theory’)?

— If so, what is the point in conducting atmospheric measurements?

— Does the Commission share the view that, if a cancer patient suffers from mesothelioma or was exposed to
asbestos over a certain time period, the burden of proof should be reversed or, as a minimum, the patient should be
exempted from having to provide proof of causality in order to receive compensation? If not, why not?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that directive 2009/148/EC ( [1] ), in its Article 3, point 3, describes
the instances where its provisions, namely those under Articles 4, 18 and 19, may be waived. The friability/nonfriability issue is addressed under the mentioned Article 3, point 3, a), stipulating that short, non-continuous
maintenance in which only non-friable materials are handled are among the activities that can be possibly covered by
such waiving. However, non-friable asbestos are not exempted from risk assessment and the resulting risk
management measures as stipulated in Article 3, point 3, as a pre-condition for waiving.

The Commission recalls that the approach followed as regards workers protection, as provided for under the
Asbestos Directive, is risk based and not hazard based. Any consequences arising from degradation of asbestos fibres
from a non-friable to a friable state should be dealt with if the provisions of the directive, namely its Article 3, point 5,
are respected.

In view of several requests to review the limit value for exposure of workers to asbestos, set under the directive, the
Commission is currently considering the opportunity of launching a revision procedure. The Commission services
have met recently experts representing the Member States to discuss this issue and will consult in due course the
Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL).

As regards the burden of proof in case of workers suffering from mesothelioma, according to the current provisions
in force and the relevant legal instrument ( [2] ), this is a matter that is regulated at national level.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2009/148/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the protection of workers from the risks related

to exposure to asbestos at work (codified version), OJ L 330/28, 16.12.2009.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Recommendation of 19 September 2003 concerning the European schedule of occupational diseases (notified under document

number C(2003) 3297) (Text with EEA relevance) (2003/670/EC), OJ L 238/28, 25.9.2003.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 285

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008157/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Οικοτεχνική εκμετάλλευση καπνού στην Ελλάδα

Έλληνες καπνοκαλλιεργητές ενδιαφέρονται να διαθέσουν στο εμπόριο λεπτοκομμένο καπνό για χειροποίητα (στριφτά)
τσιγάρα, μέσω μικρών οικοτεχνικών μονάδων. Σημειώνεται ότι οι ενδιαφερόμενοι είναι κάτοικοι ιδιαίτερα προβληματικών,
άγονων περιοχών, με πολύχρονη παράδοση και εμπειρία στην καλλιέργεια καπνών, κυρίως ανατολικού τύπου. Η προσπάθειά
τους αυτή, ωστόσο, προσκρούει σε ρυθμίσεις και απαιτήσεις της εθνικής νομοθεσίας, όπως ο υψηλός ειδικός φόρος
κατανάλωσης για τον λεπτοκομμένο καπνό και η υποχρέωση της ύπαρξης «επαγγελματικού εργαστηρίου» με την υποχρέωση
για καταβολή ελάχιστου ορίου εγγύησης, η οποία δε λαμβάνει υπόψη τον οικοτεχνικό χαρακτήρα των εκμεταλλεύσεων
αυτών.

Δεδομένου ότι, με βάση το άρθρο 14, παράγραφος 2 της οδηγίας 2011/64/ΕΕ, από 1ης Ιανουαρίου 2013 ο συνολικός
ειδικός φόρος κατανάλωσης επί του λεπτοκομμένου καπνού που προορίζεται για την κατασκευή χειροποίητων (στριφτών)
τσιγάρων ορίζεται σε 47 ευρώ τουλάχιστον ανά χιλιόγραμμο, και ότι στην Ελλάδα ο φόρος αυτός ανέρχεται στα 153 ευρώ
ανά χιλιόγραμμο, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Έχει τη δυνατότητα η ελληνική κυβέρνηση να θεσπίσει διαφοροποιημένο ειδικό φόρο κατανάλωσης για οικοτεχνίες
που παράγουν λεπτοκομμένο καπνό για χειροποίητα τσιγάρα, θέτοντας παράλληλα μία ανώτατη ποσότητα δυνατής
διάθεσης ανά παραγωγό (πχ. 2 000 κιλά), ανάλογα με το μέγεθος της οικογενειακής εκμετάλλευσης;

—
Τα κράτη μέλη, προκειμένου για την ανωτέρω κατηγορία παραγωγών λεπτοκομμένου καπνού, μπορούν να θεσπίσουν
παρεκκλίσεις από τις υποχρεώσεις του άρθρου 13 της οδηγίας 92/12/ΕΟΚ, όσον αφορά στην παροχή εγγύησης,
παραγωγής, μεταποίησης, κατοχής και κυκλοφορίας καπνού, εφόσον το θεωρούν ορθό;

—
Επειδή τα αιτήματα για ελαστικότερη και ευνοϊκότερη μεταχείριση από τις εθνικές αρχές, προκειμένου να βγάλουν τα
προϊόντα τους στην αγορά, είναι εύλογα και προέρχονται από αγρότες ειδικών μειονεκτικών περιοχών, θα μπορούσε η
Επιτροπή, σε συνεργασία με την ελληνική κυβέρνηση, να εξετάσει τα αιτήματα αυτά;

—
Μπορεί να δώσει στοιχεία για το ύψος του φόρου ανά κιλό στα 5 κράτη μέλη με τη χαμηλότερη φορολόγηση
λεπτοκομμένου καπνού;

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

_(5 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Σύμφωνα με το δίκαιο της ΕΕ ( [1] ), η ελληνική κυβέρνηση δεν δύναται να εφαρμόσει χαμηλότερο συντελεστή ειδικού φόρου
κατανάλωσης για τον λεπτοκομμένο καπνό για ορισμένη ομάδα κατασκευαστών.

Το άρθρο 18 της οδηγίας 2008/118/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου, καλύπτει την παροχή εγγυήσεων για τους ειδικούς φόρους
κατανάλωσης και απαιτεί εγγύηση από οικονομικούς φορείς που εξουσιοδοτούνται να αποστέλλουν υποκείμενα σε ειδικό
φόρο κατανάλωσης εμπορεύματα ώστε να εξασφαλίζεται η διακίνηση υπό καθεστώς αναστολής των εν λόγω φόρων. Ένα
κράτος μέλος μπορεί να αποφασίσει σχετικά με την απαλλαγή από την υποχρέωση αυτή για τις διακινήσεις που
πραγματοποιούνται εξ ολοκλήρου στο έδαφός τους. Τα κράτη μέλη απαιτούν εγγυήσεις για τη λειτουργία των φορολογικών
αποθηκών ώστε να καλύψουν τους εγγενείς κινδύνους που συνεπάγεται η παραγωγή και αποθήκευση εμπορευμάτων
υποκείμενων σε ειδικούς φόρους κατανάλωσης. Η φύση, το μέγεθος και η διαχείριση των εγγυήσεων είναι θέματα εθνικής
αρμοδιότητας, παρόλο που για τη διακίνηση των υποκείμενων σε ειδικό φόρο κατανάλωσης προϊόντων η εγγύηση πρέπει να
ισχύει σε όλη την ΕΕ.

Η παραγωγή ακατέργαστου καπνού είναι πλήρως ενσωματωμένη στα γενικά μέσα της γεωργικής πολιτικής. Η καλλιέργεια
του καπνού υπάγεται στον πρώτο πυλώνα της ΚΓΠ ( [2] ) από το «καθεστώς ενιαίας ενίσχυσης», που καλύπτει την πλειονότητα
των γεωργικών προϊόντων. Το ΠΑΑ ( [3] ), του δεύτερου πυλώνα, προσφέρει πολλές δυνατότητες για την παροχή βοήθειας
στους γεωργούς που αποφασίζουν διαρθρωτικές αλλαγές στην παραγωγή, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του καπνού. Μπορεί να
χρησιμοποιηθεί για τον εκσυγχρονισμό των εκμεταλλεύσεων καπνού και για βελτιώσεις των υποδομών. Τα κράτη μέλη έχουν
τη δυνατότητα να καταρτίζουν και να εφαρμόζουν τα καλύτερα μέτρα αγροτικής ανάπτυξης που είναι προσαρμοσμένα στις
συγκεκριμένες ανάγκες τους.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Άρθρο 14 παράγραφος 3 της οδηγίας 2011/64/EΕ του Συμβουλίου.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Κοινή Γεωργική Πολιτική.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Προγράμματα αγροτικής ανάπτυξης.

C 65 E / 286 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Όσον αφορά τους ειδικούς φόρους κατανάλωσης, το ύψος των ειδικών φόρων κατανάλωσης στην τιμή λιανικής πώλησης
1 κιλού λεπτοκομμένου καπνού, στα πέντε κράτη μέλη για τα οποία έχουν ζητηθεί στοιχεία, είναι το ακόλουθο: LU
(30,69 EUR/kg τηρώντας το 43% της σταθμισμένης μέσης τιμής (ΣΜΤ)), HU (43,70 EUR/kg τηρώντας το 43% της ΣΜΤ),
LT (47,21 EUR/kg), LV (48,84 EUR/kg), ΒΕ (54,19 EUR/kg) ( [4] ).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/excise_duties/tobacco_products/rates/excise_dutiespart_iii_tobacco_en.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 287

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008157/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cottage tobacco industry in Greece

Greek tobacco farmers are keen to sell fine-cut tobacco for hand-rolled cigarettes as small cottage industries. The
farmers in question are located in highly problematic, infertile areas with a long tradition of and experience in the
cultivation of tobacco, especially oriental tobacco. However, their endeavour has come up against the regulations and
requirements of national law, such as the high excise duty on fine-cut tobacco, the need to have a ‘professional
workshop’ and the obligation to pay a minimum guarantee, which overlooks the fact that these are cottage industries.

In view of the fact that, under Article 14(2) of Directive 2011/64/EU, the overall excise duty on fine-cut smoking
tobacco intended for the rolling of cigarettes was set at a minimum of EUR 47 per kilogram as of 1 January 2013 and
that, in Greece, that excise duty is EUR 153 per kilogram, will the Commission say:

—
Is the Greek Government allowed to introduce differentiated excise duty for cottage industries producing finecut tobacco for hand-rolled cigarettes and, at the same time, cap the quantity which each producer can sell (for
example at 2 000 kilograms), depending on the size of the cottage industry?

—
In the case of the above category of fine-cut tobacco producers, are the Member States allowed to enact
derogations from the requirements of Article 13 of Directive 92/12/EEC concerning the provision of a
guarantee to cover production, processing, holding and movement of tobacco, if they deem fit?

—
As the demands for more flexible and favourable treatment by the national authorities in connection with the
marketing of their products are reasonable and come from farmers in extremely disadvantaged areas, could the
Commission consider those demands in cooperation with the Greek government?

—
Can it provide data on the excise duty per kilogram in the 5 Member States with the lowest rate for fine-cut
tobacco?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

According to EC law ( [1] ) it is not possible for the Greek Government to implement lower excise duty rates on fine-cut
tobacco for a certain group of manufacturers.

Article 18 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC covers the creation of guarantees for excise duties and requires a
guarantee from economic operators who are authorised to dispatch excise goods in order to guarantee movements
under duty suspension. A Member State may decide whether to waive this obligation for movements taking place
entirely on its territory. Member States shall require guarantees on the operation of tax warehouses in order to cover
the inherent risks involved in the production and storage of excise goods. The nature, size and management of
guarantees are national matters, although for the movement of excise goods the guarantee must be valid throughout
the EU.

The production of raw tobacco is fully integrated into the general agricultural policy instruments. Tobacco growing is
covered in the first pillar of the CAP ( [2] ) by the ‘single payment scheme’ which covers the majority of agricultural
productions. The RD ( [3] ), the second pillar, offer numerous possibilities to help farmers who decide structural changes
in production, including tobacco. It may be used for modernising tobacco farms and for infrastructure
improvements. Member States have the opportunity of drawing up and implementing the best RD measures adapted
to their specific needs.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 14(3) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Common Agricultural Policy.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Rural Development Programmes.

C 65 E / 288 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

In relation to excise duty rates the following is the share of excise duties in the retail selling price of 1 kg finecut tobacco for the five Member States requested: LU (30,69 EUR/kg respecting 43% of the weighted average
price (WAP)), HU (43,70 EUR/kg respecting 43% of the WAP), LT (47,21 EUR/kg), LV (48,84 EUR/kg),
BE (54,19 EUR/kg) ( [4] ).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/excise_duties/tobacco_products/rates/excise_dutiespart_iii_tobacco_en.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 289

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008158/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Οδηγία για την εξυγίανση των τραπεζών και εγγύηση καταθέσεων στην ΕΕ

Σύμφωνα με ανακοίνωση του ελληνικού Υπουργείου Οικονομικών, οι «καταθέσεις των ελλήνων, αλλά και των άλλων πολιτών
της ΕΕ, στα πιστωτικά ιδρύματα, με βάση την απόφαση του Ecofin, είναι απολύτως εγγυημένες, τουλάχιστον μέχρι του
ποσού των 100 000 ευρώ ανά άτομο και ανά τράπεζα». Με βάση την απόφαση του Συμβουλίου της ΕΕ στις 27 Ιουνίου
2013, αλλά και της οδηγίας 2009/14/ΕΚ σχετικά με τη θέσπιση Συστημάτων Εγγύησης Καταθέσεων στα κράτη μέλη,
ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Πιστεύει ότι η απόφαση που έλαβε το Συμβούλιο στις 27 Ιουνίου, αποκλείει κατηγορηματικά τη χρήση των
καταθέσεων των ευρωπαίων πολιτών που είναι κάτω από 100 000 ως δυνητικά εργαλεία των διαδικασιών bail-in για
την εξυγίανση των προβληματικών τραπεζών;

—
Αποδέχεται τους ισχυρισμούς του ελληνικού Υπουργείου Οικονομικών, ότι με τη συγκεκριμένη απόφαση του
Συμβουλίου οι καταθέσεις κάτω από 100 000 ανά άτομο και ανά τράπεζα είναι απολύτως εγγυημένες σε όλη την ΕΕ;
Με βάση την απόφαση του Συμβουλίου, έχει ξεκαθαριστεί ποιοι τύποι λογαριασμών (όψεως, ταμιευτηρίου,
προθεσμιακές κ.λπ.) δεν καλύπτονται από τα Συστήματα Εγγύησης Καταθέσεων, γιατί δεν θεωρούνται καταθέσεις,
αλλά επενδύσεις;

—
Διαθέτει στοιχεία για τα απόλυτα επίπεδα των αποθεματικών των Συστημάτων Εγγύησης Καταθέσεων, καθώς επίσης
και για το ποσοστό κάλυψης των εγγυημένων καταθέσεων από τους διαθέσιμους πόρους, ανά κράτος μέλος; Εφόσον
μέχρι στιγμής δεν υπάρχει ευρωπαϊκός μηχανισμός εγγύησης καταθέσεων, σε περίπτωση αδυναμίας των Εθνικών
Συστημάτων Εγγύησης να ανταπεξέλθουν κάλυψη των καταθέσεων, πώς μπορούν οι ευρωπαίοι πολίτες να είναι
σίγουροι για την εγγύηση των καταθέσεών τους έως τις 100 000 ευρώ;

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

_(28 Αυγούστου 2013)_

1. Η μεταρρύθμιση όσον αφορά την ανάκαμψη και την εξυγίανση των τραπεζών, που πρότεινε η Επιτροπή στηρίζεται,
μεταξύ άλλων, στον στόχο της προστασίας των καταθέσεων που καλύπτονται βάσει της οδηγίας 94/19/ΕΚ ( [1] ) περί των
συστημάτων εγγυήσεως των καταθέσεων («οδηγία ΣΕΚ») («καλυπτόμενες καταθέσεις»). Ο στόχος αυτός αναφέρεται ρητώς
στο άρθρο 26 της αρχικής πρότασης της Επιτροπής ( [2] ) και αντικατοπτρίζεται στο άρθρο 38 παράγραφος 3, που αποκλείει τις
καλυπτόμενες καταθέσεις από το πεδίο εφαρμογής της διάσωσης με ίδια μέσα.

H γενική προσέγγιση στην οποία κατέληξε το Συμβούλιο στις 26 Ιουνίου 2013, διατηρεί τη διάταξη αυτή η οποία
καθίσταται ακόμη σαφέστερη στο προοίμιο του κειμένου. Σύμφωνα με την αιτιολογική σκέψη 47 της γενικής προσέγγισης,
«για την προστασία των κατόχων των καλυπτόμενων καταθέσεων, το εργαλείο διάσωσης με ίδια μέσα, δεν θα πρέπει να
εφαρμόζεται στις καταθέσεις που προστατεύονται βάσει της οδηγίας 94/19/ΕΚ ( [3] )». Στην αιτιολογική σκέψη 74α, οι
«καλυπτόμενες καταθέσεις προστατεύονται από ζημίες».

2. Ο χαρακτηρισμός των διαφόρων υφιστάμενων ειδών λογαριασμών ως «καταθέσεων» πρέπει να ερμηνευθεί σε εθνικό
επίπεδο, σύμφωνα με τις σχετικές διατάξεις της ενωσιακής νομοθεσίας και ιδίως με τις διατάξεις της οδηγίας 2009/14/ΕΚ.
Όσον αφορά τα μέσα που δεν εμπίπτουν στον χαρακτηρισμό ως καταθέσεις, αλλά μάλλον στον χαρακτηρισμό ως επενδυτικά
προϊόντα εγγυημένα βάσει της οδηγίας 97/9/ΕΚ ( [4] ) σχετικά με τα συστήματα αποζημίωσης των επενδυτών, δεν υπάρχει
παρόμοια εξαίρεση αλλά η προστασία τους παραμένει στόχος της εξυγίανσης σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 26.

3. Επί του παρόντος δεν υφίσταται υποχρέωση υποβολής εκθέσεων από εθνικά συστήματα εγγύησης των καταθέσεων
προς την Επιτροπή όσον αφορά το επίπεδο της κεφαλαιοποίησής τους και, ως εκ τούτου, οι αιτήσεις για τέτοιες πληροφορίες
θα πρέπει να απευθύνονται στο αντίστοιχο σύστημα.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 135 της 31.5.1994, σ. 5-14.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012)280 τελικό.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 135 της 31.5.1994, σ. 5-14.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ΕΕ L 84 της 26.3.1997, σ. 22-31.

C 65 E / 290 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008158/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Directive on the resolution of banks and guaranteed deposits in the EU

According to an announcement by the Greek Ministry of Finance, ‘deposits held with credit institutions by Greek and
other EU citizens are absolutely guaranteed under the Ecofin decision, at least up to the sum of EUR 100 000 per
person per bank’. In view of the EU Council decision of 27 June 2013 and Directive 2009/14/EC on depositguarantee schemes in the Member States, will the Commission say:

—
Does it believe that the decision adopted by the Council on 27 June categorically excludes that deposits of less
than EUR 100 000 belonging to European citizens could be instruments for bail-in in order to resolve banks in
trouble?

—
Does it accept the argument of the Greek Ministry of Finance that, under that particular Council decision,
deposits of less than EUR 100 000 per person per bank are absolutely guaranteed throughout the EU? Have the
types of accounts (instant access, savings, fixed deposit and so forth) which are not covered by depositguarantee schemes, because they qualify as investments rather than deposits, been clarified based on the
Council decision?

—
Does it have data on the absolute levels of deposit-guarantee scheme reserves and on the percentage of
guaranteed deposits covered by available resources for each Member State? As there is as yet no European
deposit-guarantee mechanism, if national deposit-guarantee schemes are unable to cover all deposits, how can
European citizens be sure that their deposits of less than EUR 100 000 will be guaranteed?

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

_(28 August 2013)_

1. The bank recovery and resolution reform proposed by the Commission is underpinned _inter alia_ by the objective
of protecting deposits covered under Directive 94/19/EC ( [1] ) on deposit-guarantee schemes (the ‘DGS Directive’)
(‘covered deposits’). This objective is explicitly mentioned under Article 26 of the original Commission proposal ( [2] )
and reflected in Article 38 (3) which excludes covered deposits from the scope of bail-in.

The Council General Approach reached by the Council on 26 June 2013 maintains this provision and makes it even
more explicit in the preamble of the text. According to Recital 47 of the General Approach, ‘In order to protect
holders of covered deposits, the bail-in tool should not apply to those deposits that are protected under
Directive 94/19/EC ( [3] )’. Under Recital 74a, ‘covered deposits are protected from losses’.

2. The qualification as ‘deposit’ of the various existing types of accounts is to be interpreted at national level in
accordance with relevant EC law, in particular Directive 2009/14/EC. As regards instruments which do not fall under
the qualification of deposits but rather qualify as investment products guaranteed under Directive 97/9/EC ( [4] ) on
investor compensation schemes, there is no similar exclusion but their protection remains a resolution objective
under Article 26.

3. There is currently no compulsory reporting from national deposit guarantee schemes to the Commission as
regards their level of capitalisation and therefore requests for such information would have to be addressed to each
respective scheme.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994, p. 5‐14.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 280 final.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 135, 31.5.1994, p. 5‐14.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 22‐31.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 291

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008159/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Συνέπειες της κρίσης στη δασοπροστασία στην Ελλάδα

Η οικονομική κρίση δοκιμάζει τα όρια ενός ήδη προβληματικού συστήματος, όπως ο μηχανισμός δασοπροστασίας και
δασοπυρόσβεσης στην Ελλάδα. Λιγότεροι πόροι για τις ανάγκες αυτές, μειωμένα κονδύλια για προσωπικό, καθηλωμένα
οχήματα λόγω κακής συντήρησης και έλλειψης καυσίμων, ελάχιστες έως ανύπαρκτες δράσης πρόληψης κ.λπ., δημιουργούν
ένα σκηνικό αποσύνθεσης.

Δεδομένου ότι τα τελευταία, ιδιαίτερα, χρόνια, εκτεταμένες δασικές πυρκαγιές λαμβάνουν χώρα στην Ελλάδα σε «τακτά»
χρονικά διαστήματα, και με γνώμονα την τεράστια σημασία της προστασίας του φυσικού πλούτου, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Μπορεί να δώσει συγκριτικά στοιχεία ανά έτος για τα διατεθέντα κονδύλια, από εθνικούς και κοινοτικούς πόρους,
στον τομέα της δασοπροστασίας και δασοπυρόσβεσης από το 2009 μέχρι σήμερα στην Ελλάδα;

—
Μπορεί να δώσει στοιχεία για τις μέχρι σήμερα απορροφήσεις του μέτρου 2.2.6 του ΕΓΤΑΑ «Αποκατάσταση του
δασοκομικού δυναμικού και καθιέρωση δράσεων πρόληψης»; Αν υπάρχουν προβλήματα, πού εντοπίζονται;

—
Υπάρχουν κονδύλια που προέρχονται από το Πράσινο Ταμείο και τα οποία έχουν δοθεί για τη δασοπροστασία και τη
δασοπυρόσβεση; Ποια ήταν αυτά ανά έτος από το 2010 έως και σήμερα; Τι έχει προβλεφθεί για το 2013;

—
Υπάρχουν δυνατότητες ανακατανομής υφιστάμενων πόρων του ΕΣΠΑ στην κατεύθυνση της δασοπροστασίας και
δασοπυρόσβεσης; Αν ναι, ποιες είναι αυτές;

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

_(22 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Στο πλαίσιο του εθνικού τους προγράμματος αγροτικής ανάπτυξης 2007-13 (ΠΑΑ), τα κράτη μέλη υποβάλλουν ενδεικτικά
χρηματοδοτικά σχέδια όσον αφορά τα μέτρα για τη συνολική περίοδο προγραμματισμού. Δεν υποβάλλεται αναλυτική
κατανομή ανά έτος. Επιπροσθέτως, τα κονδύλια από το Ευρωπαϊκό Γεωργικό Ταμείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΓΤΑΑ) δεν είναι
διαθέσιμα στα κράτη μέλη σε ετήσια βάση. Το μερίδιο που αναλογεί στο ΕΓΤΑΑ επί του συνόλου των δημόσιων δαπανών
επιστρέφεται κατόπιν αίτησης πληρωμής που υποβάλλεται στην Επιτροπή.

Όσον αφορά τα Διαρθρωτικά Ταμεία και το Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή παραπέμπει στην απάντησή της στη
Γραπτή Ερώτηση E-5424/2013 ( [1] ).

Η Επιτροπή δεν διαθέτει τέτοιου είδους πληροφορίες για τα εθνικά ταμεία πυροπροστασίας και πυρόσβεσης από το 2009 και
μετά.

Πληρωμές ύψους 138.720 ευρώ έχουν ζητηθεί έως σήμερα από την ενδεικτική κατανομή του ΕΓΤΑΑ για το μέτρο 2.2.6
(Αποκατάσταση του δασοκομικού δυναμικού και ανάληψη προληπτικών δράσεων), που ανέρχεται σε 69 654 961 ευρώ.

Οι προσκλήσεις εκδήλωσης ενδιαφέροντος για τις τρεις δράσεις του μέτρου αυτού άνοιξαν το 2011 και έκλεισαν στις 14
Οκτωβρίου 2011. Οι αιτήσεις που υποβλήθηκαν καλύπτουν πλήρως τη χρηματοδοτική κατανομή για το συγκεκριμένο
μέτρο. Η διαδικασία επιλογής είναι ακόμη σε εξέλιξη όσον αφορά τη δράση 1 «προληπτικές δράσεις» του μέτρου, ενώ έχει
ολοκληρωθεί για τις δράσεις 2 «αντιπλημμυρικά και αντιδιαβρωτικά έργα» και 3 «δράσεις αναδάσωσης». Για τα περισσότερα
σχέδια που εμπίπτουν στις δράσεις 2 και 3 έχουν ήδη συναφθεί οι σχετικές συμβάσεις, ενώ ορισμένα βρίσκονται στο στάδιο
της υλοποίησης. Μέχρι σήμερα δεν έχει αναφερθεί κανένα πρόβλημα από τη διαχειριστική αρχή του ελληνικού ΠΑΑ.

Εάν οι ελληνικές αρχές θελήσουν να ανακατανείμουν τους υφιστάμενους πόρους του ΕΣΠΑ ή του ΕΓΤΑΑ στην
δασοπροστασία και την πυροπροστασία, θα πρέπει να υποβάλουν αιτήσεις τροποποίησης για κάθε πρόγραμμα που
επηρεάζεται από αυτές της χρηματοδοτικές ανακατανομές.

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

C 65 E / 292 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008159/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Impact of the crisis on forest protection in Greece

The economic crisis has pushed the already problematic system of forest protection and forest fire-fighting over the
edge in Greece. Fewer resources for these functions, funding and staff cutbacks, vehicles which are not roadworthy
due to lack of servicing and fuel shortages, minimal to non-existent prevention plans etc. are causing the system to
unravel.

In view of the fact that, over recent years in particular, extensive forest fires have torn through parts of Greece at
‘regular’ intervals and given how tremendously important it is to protect our natural heritage, will the Commission

say:

—
Can it provide comparative annual data on the national and EU funds made available to Greece for forest
protection and forest fire-fighting since 2009?

—
Can it provide data on the take-up of EAFRD measure 2.2.6 (Restoring forestry potential and introducing
prevention actions)? Where have the problems, if any, arisen?

—
Have funds been provided by the Green Fund for forest protection and forest fire-fighting? If so, what funds
have been provided each year since 2010? What has been provided for 2013?

—
Are there any facilities to reallocate existing NSRF resources to forest protection and forest fire-fighting? If so,
what are they?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

Member States provide indicative financial plans at measure level, for the whole programming period, in their rural
development programmes 2007-13 (RDP). No annual breakdown is provided. Furthermore the European
Agricultural Development Fund (EAFRD) is not made available to the Member States annually. The part of the EAFRD
in total public expenditure is reimbursed on the basis of a payment claim submitted to the Commission.

As regards Structural and Solidarity Funds, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to
Written Question E-5424/2013 ( [1] ).

The Commission does not have this information at its disposal on national funds for forest protection and fire
fighting since 2009.

EUR 138 720 have been claimed until now from the EAFRD indicative allocation of measure 2.2.6 (Restoring forestry
potential and introducing preventive actions) which is of EUR 69 654 961.

The calls of expression of interest for the three actions of this measure opened in 2011 and were finalised on
14 October 2011. The submitted applications fully cover the financial allocation of the measure. The selection
process is still ongoing for action 1 ‘preventive actions’ of the measure and is finalised for actions 2 ‘anti-flood and
anti-erosion works’ and 3 ‘reforestation actions’. Most projects under actions 2 and 3 have been contractualised and
some are in their implementation phase. No problems have been mentioned from the managing authority of the
Greek RDP until now.

If the Greek authorities wish to reallocate existing NSRF or EARDF resources to forest protection and forest fighting,
they would need to submit relevant modification requests for each programme affected by these financial transfers.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 293

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008160/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Τέλη διέλευσης για αγωγό φυσικού αερίου TAP (Trans Adriatic Pipeline)

Ανακοινώθηκε, και επίσημα, την 1η Ιουλίου 2013 η απόφαση για την επιλογή του αγωγού TAP (Trans Adriatic Pipeline)
για τη μεταφορά φυσικού αερίου από την Κασπία στην Ευρώπη. Ταυτόχρονα, έγινε γνωστό ότι η Ελλάδα (που υπέγραψε
συμφωνία φιλοξενούσας χώρας) δεν θα εισπράξει τέλη διέλευσης για τον αγωγό.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Μπορεί να διευκρινίσει το θεσμικό καθεστώς που διέπει τον αγωγό TAP και να εξηγήσει ταυτόχρονα γιατί δεν
εισπράττονται τέλη διέλευσης από την Ελλάδα; Υπάρχει σήμερα άλλο κράτος μέλος από το έδαφος του οποίου
περνάει αγωγός φυσικού αερίου και το οποίο δεν εισπράττει τέλη διέλευσης; Μπορεί να διευκρινίσει αν για τα
υπόλοιπα τμήματα από τα οποία περνάει ο TAP (Τουρκία, Αλβανία, Ιταλία, υποθαλάσσιο τμήμα), θα εισπράττονται
τέλη διέλευσης;

—
Πώς συμβιβάζεται η μη είσπραξη τελών διέλευσης από την Ελλάδα με την εξαίρεση που δόθηκε στον TAP βάση του
άρθρου 36 της οδηγίας 2009/73/EK το οποίο, μεταξύ άλλων, προϋποθέτει ότι για να δοθεί η εξαίρεση «πρέπει να
επιβάλλονται τέλη στους χρήστες της εν λόγω υποδομής»; Ποιοι είναι οι χρήστες της υποδομής κατά την έννοια της
οδηγίας;

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

_(30 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Ο Aδριατικός Αγωγός Φυσικού Αερίου (Trans Adriatic Pipeline — TAP) είναι μεγάλο έργο υποδομής που έτυχε εξαίρεσης
δυνάμει του άρθρου 36 της οδηγίας 2009/73/ΕΚ. Η απόφαση υπάρχει στη διεύθυνση:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/exemptions/doc/doc/gas/2013_tap_decision_en.pdf

Ο TAP αποτελεί επένδυση η οποία δεν μπορούσε να πραγματοποιηθεί βάσει του ελληνικού και του ιταλικού κανονιστικού
καθεστώτος λόγω των κινδύνων που συνδέονται με το έργο TAP (βλ. ιδίως αιτιολογική σκέψη 161 και επόμενες στην
απόφαση). Ο TAP δεν είναι αγωγός ενσωματωμένος στα εθνικά συστήματα μεταφοράς που χρηματοδοτείται από τέλη που
καθορίζονται από την εθνική ρυθμιστική αρχή, αλλά χρηματοδοτείται από τους μετόχους του οι οποίοι αναλαμβάνουν όλους
τους σχετικούς επιχειρηματικούς κινδύνους. Οι μέτοχοι του TAP λαμβάνουν αντάλλαγμα για την επένδυσή τους
επιβαρύνοντας με τέλη μεταφοράς τους χρήστες του TAP.

Ως εκ τούτου, τα τέλη που επιβάλλονται στους χρήστες του TAP σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 36 της οδηγίας 2009/73/ΕΚ δεν
αποφέρουν κέρδος στον έλληνα διαχειριστή συστήματος μεταφοράς (ΔΣΜ), αλλά στους μετόχους του TAP.

Η κανονιστική δομή του TAP είναι η ίδια σε όλες τις χώρες από τις οποίες διέρχεται.

Γενικά, εάν ο μεταφορέας αερίου (ανεξάρτητα από το αν μεταφέρει αέριο για παράδοση εντός κράτους μέλους ή για διέλευση
μέσω αυτού) χρησιμοποιεί ένα δίκτυο μεταφοράς αερίου, τότε οφείλονται τέλη μεταφοράς. Η τρίτη δέσμη μέτρων δεν
προβλέπει καμία διάκριση μεταξύ τελών μεταφοράς και τελών διέλευσης και, κατά συνέπεια, δεν είναι δυνατόν να
επιβάλλονται εντός της ΕΕ μόνο ειδικά τέλη διέλευσης. Εάν ο μεταφορέας χρησιμοποιεί το δίκτυο που εκμεταλλεύεται ο
ΔΣΜ, τότε τα τέλη καταβάλλονται στον τελευταίο. Εάν χρησιμοποιεί δίκτυο που εξαιρείται δυνάμει του άρθρου 36 της
οδηγίας 2009/73/ΕΚ από ορισμένες διατάξεις ρύθμισης των τιμών, οφείλει επίσης να καταβάλλει τέλη, αλλά στους μετόχους
του δικτύου.

C 65 E / 294 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008160/13**

**to the Commission**
**Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) transit fees

The decision to choose the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) to carry natural gas from the Caspian Sea to Europe was
officially announced on 1 July 2013. At the same time, it transpired that Greece (which has signed a host country
agreement) will not be paid transit fees for the pipeline.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

—
Can it clarify the institutional framework governing the TAP and also explain why Greece will not be paid
transit fees? Are there currently any other Member States through which a natural gas pipeline passes that are
not paid transit fees? Can it clarify if transit fees will be paid for the other sections of the TAP (Turkey, Albania,
Italy, submarine section)?

—
How can the non-payment of transit fees to Greece be reconciled with the exemption granted for the TAP
under Article 36 of Directive 2009/73/EC, which presupposes, among other things, that ‘charges must be
levied on users of that infrastructure’ in order to obtain an exemption.? Who are the users of the infrastructure
within the meaning of the directive?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) is a major infrastructure project which was exempted pursuant to Article 36 of
Directive 2009/73/EC. The decision can be found under the following link:

[http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/exemptions/doc/doc/gas/2013_tap_decision_en.pdf](http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/exemptions/doc/doc/gas/2013_tap_decision_en.pdf)

TAP represents an investment that could not be realised under the Italian and Greek regulatory regimes in view of the
risks attached to the TAP project (see in particular Recital 161 and following of the decision). Instead of a pipeline
integrated in the national transmission systems that is financed through tariffs set by the national regulator, TAP is
financed by its shareholders that carry all associated commercial risks. The shareholders of TAP obtain a return on
their investment by charging transport tariffs to the users of TAP.

Consequently, charges levied on users of TAP in accordance with Article 36 of Directive 2009/73/EC do not accrue to
the Greek transmission system operator (TSO) but to the shareholders of TAP.

The regulatory structure of TAP is identical in all countries it crosses.

In general, if a shipper of gas (regardless of whether it ships gas for delivery within a Member State or for transit
through the Member State concerned) uses a gas transmission network, transmission charges are due. The Third
Package does not foresee a distinction between transmission charges and fees for transit and, hence, specific fees only
for transit cannot exist within the EU. If the shipper uses the network operated by the TSO, the transmission charges
are due to the latter. If it uses a network that is exempted pursuant to Article 36 of Directive 2009/73/EC from certain
provisions on tariff regulation, it also has to pay charges, but to its shareholders.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 295

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008161/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Παραβίαση της τυποποίησης των γεωγραφικών ονομάτων της Κύπρου

Πληροφορίες αναφέρουν ότι σε επίσημα έγγραφα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που χρηματοδοτεί σειρά έργων στην
τουρκοκρατούμενη περιοχή της Κύπρου, αναφέρονται κατεχόμενα χωριά με τη μετονομασία που τους έδωσαν τα κατοχικά
στρατεύματα και όχι με τα ιστορικά ονόματα των χωριών αυτών.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Είναι ενήμερη για το γεγονός αυτό;

—
Δεν συμφωνεί ότι αυτό παραβιάζει τη σχετική Σύμβαση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τα γεωγραφικά ονόματα, καθώς η
Δημοκρατία της Κύπρου έχει καταθέσει στα Ηνωμένα Έθνη κατάλογο των ιστορικών ονομάτων και τοπωνύμιων της
χώρας, κατοχυρώνοντας έτσι τον μόνο σωστό και νομικά αναγνωρισμένο τρόπο γραφής και ονομασίας αυτών των
χωριών;

—
Δεν συμφωνεί ότι, υιοθετώντας τις υπό των κατοχικών αρχών επιβληθείσες μετονομασίες, καταστρατηγεί η ίδια το
διεθνές δίκαιο;

—
Τι προτίθεται να κάνει για τον άμεσο τερματισμό αυτής της παρανομίας;

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008283/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(10 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Τα τοπωνύμια στις κατεχόμενες περιοχές της Κύπρου

Σε επίσημα έγγραφα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που χρηματοδοτεί έργα στις κατεχόμενες από τον τουρκικό στρατό περιοχές
της Κύπρου, τα τοπωνύμια που αναγράφονται είναι αυτά που έδωσαν οι κατακτητές στα χωριά μας και όχι αυτά που είναι
καταγεγραμμένα επισήμως σε κατάλογο στα Ηνωμένα Έθνη, αυτά δηλαδή που χρησιμοποιεί επισήμως η αναγνωρισμένη
Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία.

Ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

1. Για ποιο λόγο υιοθετεί τοπωνύμια που δίνει το ψευδοκράτος και όχι αυτά που επίσημα αναγνωρίζουν τα Ηνωμένα
Έθνη;

2. Τι προτίθεται να πράξει για να διορθώσει αυτή την κατάσταση;

**Κοινή απάντηση του κ. Füle εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(18 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Η πρακτική της Επιτροπής προβλέπει ότι για τα δεσμευτικά νομικά έγγραφα, η Επιτροπή δεσμεύεται από το γλωσσικό
καθεστώς της ΕΕ, όπως ορίζεται στον κανονισμό αριθ. 1/1958 του Συμβουλίου ( [1] ). Εκτός αυτών των ορίων, η Επιτροπή, όταν
αναφέρεται σε τοπωνύμια στο βόρειο τμήμα της Κύπρου και ιδίως στις εκθέσεις της Επιτροπής σχετικά με χρηματοδοτική
στήριξη στο βόρειο τμήμα της Κύπρου και σε υλικό που προορίζεται για πληροφόρηση και επικοινωνία το οποίο
χρησιμοποιείται από την αντιπροσωπεία της Επιτροπής στην Κύπρο και από την ειδική ομάδα για την τουρκοκυπριακή
κοινότητα, χρησιμοποιεί πρώτα την επίσημη ελληνική ονομασία ακολουθούμενη αμέσως από την τρέχουσα τουρκική
ονομασία. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, η Επιτροπή ακολουθεί την πρακτική των Ηνωμένων Εθνών.

Το ζήτημα που θίγει το Αξιότιμο Μέλος καταδεικνύει για μία ακόμη φορά την ανάγκη ταχείας και συνολικής διευθέτησης
του κυπριακού προβλήματος.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ΕΟΚ Συμβούλιο: κανονισμός αριθ. 1 περί καθορισμού του γλωσσικού καθεστώτος της Ευρωπαϊκής Οικονομικής Κοινότητος, ΕΕ L 17 της 6.10.1958.

C 65 E / 296 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008161/13**

**to the Commission**
**Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Infringement of standardisation of geographical names in Cyprus

Reports have been published that, in official documents of the European Union, which is financing a series of projects
in the Turkish-occupied area of Cyprus, occupied villages are referred to using the changed names given to them by
the occupying army, rather than by their historical names.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

— Is it aware of this fact?

—
Does it not agree that this violates agreements by the UN conferences on geographical names, given that
Cyprus has filed a list of historical and local names in Cyprus with the UN, thus safeguarding the only proper
and legally recognised way of writing the names of these villages?

—
Does it not agree that, in adopting the changed names imposed by the occupying authorities, it too is in breach
of international law?

—
What does it intend to do to put an immediate halt to this unlawful situation?

**Question for written answer E-008283/13**

**to the Commission**
**Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Place names in occupied areas of Cyprus

Official documents of the European Union, which is financing projects in the areas of Cyprus occupied by the Turkish
army, refer to places by the names given to our villages by the occupying army, rather than by the names officially
recorded in the UN list, the names officially used by the recognised Republic of Cyprus.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Why is it using place names given by the pseudo-state, rather than the names officially recognised by the United
Nations?

2. What does it intend to do to rectify this situation?

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

_(18 September 2013)_

The Commission's practice provides that for legally binding documents the Commission is bound by the language
regime of the EU as laid down in Regulation No 1/1958 ( [1] ). Outside these boundaries, the Commission, when
referring to place names in the northern part of Cyprus and, in particular, in the Commission reports on the financial
support in the northern part of Cyprus and in material for information and communication used by the Commission
representation in Cyprus and by the Task Force for the Turkish Cypriot Community, is to first use the official Greek
name, followed immediately by the current Turkish name. In doing so, the Commission follows UN practice.

The issue raised by the Honourable Member once again emphasises the urgency of reaching a comprehensive
settlement of the Cyprus problem.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EEC Council: Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, OJ L 17, 6.10.1958.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 297

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008162/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Έλλειμμα χρηματοδότησης της πραγματικής οικονομίας στην Ελλάδα

Σύμφωνα με τις δηλώσεις του Υπουργού Ανάπτυξης κ. Χατζηδάκη ( [1] ), έρευνα του οίκου Oliver Wyman που κατατέθηκε στο
ελληνικό Υπουργείο Ανάπτυξης, κατέληξε στο συμπέρασμα πως το έλλειμμα χρηματοδότησης του ιδιωτικού τομέα
υπολογίζεται από 15 έως 18 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ ετησίως. Παράλληλα, τονίστηκε ότι παρά το γεγονός ότι η Ελλάδα
βρίσκεται στην 4η θέση ως προς την απορρόφηση των πόρων του ΕΣΠΑ ( [2] ), ακόμα και αν υπήρχε πλήρης απορρόφηση των
πόρων, το πρόβλημα της ρευστότητας δεν μπορεί να λυθεί. Δεδομένου η χρηματοδότηση της πραγματικής οικονομίας
αποτελεί βασική παράμετρο για την ανάπτυξη και την απασχόληση, ερωτάται η Επιτροπή:

—
Πώς αντιμετωπίζει τις εκτιμήσεις της Oliver Wyman για το έλλειμμα χρηματοδότησης στον ιδιωτικό τομέα της
ελληνικής οικονομίας; Διαθέτει δικές της εκτιμήσεις;

—
Παρά την ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των τραπεζών, την ενεργοποίηση του ΕΤΕΑΝ και τα Προγράμματα της Ευρωπαϊκής
Τράπεζας Επενδύσεων, η ρευστότητα στην ελληνική οικονομία παραμένει εξαιρετικά περιορισμένη. Ενόψει της
δημιουργίας και του Ελληνικού Αναπτυξιακού Ταμείου, θεωρεί ότι το σύνολο των εργαλείων αυτών μπορούν να
καλύψουν το έλλειμμα χρηματοδότησης στο βραχυπρόθεσμο μέλλον; Διαθέτει σχετικές εκτιμήσεις;

—
Θεωρεί ότι θα πρέπει να αναζητηθούν ευρύτερα σχήματα χρηματοδότησης του ιδιωτικού τομέα των οικονομιών
κρατών μελών, πέρα από τη συμμετοχή των εγχώριων τραπεζικών ιδρυμάτων σε αυτή την προσπάθεια; Ποια εργαλεία
θεωρεί καταλληλότερα για την ευρωπαϊκή οικονομία; Ποια τα συμπεράσματα από τις έως τώρα πρακτικές;

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

_(23 Σεπτεμβρίου 2013)_

Η χρηματοδότηση στην Ελλάδα, ιδίως για τις ΜΜΕ, παραμένει δυσχερής στην παρούσα συγκυρία. Η ΕΕ στηρίζει λύσεις εντός
και εκτός του ελληνικού τραπεζικού συστήματος και των υφιστάμενων δομών χρηματοδότησης.

Στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος προσαρμογής, εφαρμόζεται ένα σύνολο μέτρων για τη στήριξη και τη σταθεροποίηση του
ελληνικού τραπεζικού τομέα. Η ανακεφαλαιοποίηση των τραπεζών θα δημιουργήσει γερά θεμέλια για την ανάκαμψη της
χορήγησης δανείων προς την οικονομία και είναι η πλέον θεμελιώδης μεταρρύθμιση στον τομέα αυτό. Οι τέσσερις βασικές
τράπεζες έχουν ήδη ολοκληρώσει την ανακεφαλαιοποίησή τους και έχουν αρχίσει την αναδιάταξη των δανείων των
υφιστάμενων πελατών τους, με τη μείωση των επιτοκίων δανεισμού ή τη χαλάρωση ορισμένων όρων δανεισμού.

Δημιουργήθηκε μια πλατφόρμα συνεργασίας της οποίας προεδρεύει η Ελληνική Ένωση Τραπεζών και στην οποία
συμμετέχουν ΜΜΕ, η Ομάδα Δράσης για την Ελλάδα και το Υπουργείο Ανάπτυξης, με σκοπό τον εντοπισμό των εμποδίων
στην παροχή ρευστότητας στην αγορά.

Η χρηματοδότηση κεφαλαίων κίνησης με τα μέσα των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων της ΕΕ είναι δυνατή από το 2011 και το εθνικό
ποσοστό συγχρηματοδότησης για έργα στο πλαίσιο των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων μειώθηκε από 15% σε 5%.

Ποσό άνω των 2,66 δισ. ευρώ διατίθεται για τις ελληνικές επιχειρήσεις με τη μορφή δανείων, ήτοι 2 δισ. ευρώ από την
πλευρά του δημοσίου (Επιτροπή, ΕΤΕπ, Ελληνική Δημοκρατία), στα οποία προστίθεται συμπληρωματικό ποσό 0,6 δισ. ευρώ
από ιδιωτικές τράπεζες. Η ΕΤΕπ έχει υπογράψει συμβάσεις ύψους 500 εκατ. ευρώ με έξι τράπεζες στο πλαίσιο του
προγράμματος χρηματοδότησης για την ενίσχυση του εμπορίου. Η Επιτροπή έχει επίσης στηρίξει ή θεσπίσει νέα μέσα για την
παροχή ρευστότητας ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://tinyurl.com/qxwm4p3
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://goo.gl/jh8se
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Επί του παρόντος εξετάζεται το πλαίσιο για τη μικροχρηματοδότηση και προετοιμάζεται η εφαρμογή πιλοτικών σχεδίων, με σκοπό την παροχή

χρηματοδότησης μικρών ποσών μέσω μη τραπεζικών ιδρυμάτων. Επιπλέον, η πρωτοβουλία της ΕΕ για τη ρευστότητα των ΜΜΕ για την περίοδο 20142020 αναμένεται να ωφελήσει τις ελληνικές τράπεζες, χάρη στον επιμερισμό των κινδύνων που θα επιτρέψει την εισφορά κεφαλαίου και τη ρευστότητα που
απαιτούνται για την αύξηση του όγκου των διαθέσιμων πιστώσεων προς τις ΜΜΕ.

C 65 E / 298 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Τέλος, στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος προσαρμογής, η ελληνική κυβέρνηση προτίθεται να ιδρύσει το Ίδρυμα για την
Ανάπτυξη, έναν μη τραπεζικό χρηματοπιστωτικό οργανισμό, για τη στήριξη της καινοτομίας και της ανάπτυξης, με την
κινητοποίηση χρηματοδότησης από τον ιδιωτικό τομέα, ιδίως για τις ΜΜΕ, και την ταυτόχρονη ελαχιστοποίηση των
δημοσιονομικών κινδύνων.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 299

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008162/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Lack of financing for real economy in Greece

According to statements by Mr Hatzidakis, the Minister for Development ( [1] ), a study by the firm of Oliver Wyman
submitted to the Greek Ministry of Development estimated the lack of financing for the private sector at EUR 1518 billion per annum. At the same time, it pointed out that although Greece was in 4th place in terms of take-up of
NRSF funds ( [2] ), even full take-up of funds would not resolve the liquidity problem. In view of the fact that financing
for the real economy is a basic factor for growth and employment, will the Commission say:

—
How does it rate the Oliver Wyman estimate of the lack of financing for the private sector of the Greek
economy? Does it have its own estimates?

—
Despite recapitalisation of the banks, activation of the Hellenic Fund for Entrepreneurship and Development
and European Investment Bank programmes, liquidity in the Greek economy is still extremely limited. In view
of the creation of the Hellenic Development Fund, does it consider that all these tools can underwrite the lack of
financing in the short term? Does it have any relevant estimates?

—
Does it consider that broader private-sector financing vehicles should be found for the Member States’
economies over and above the participation of domestic banking institutions in this effort? What instruments
does it consider would be most suited to the European economy? What are its conclusions from practices to
date?

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

_(23 September 2013)_

Financing in Greece, especially for SMEs, remains challenging at the present juncture. The EU is supporting solutions
inside and outside the Greek banking system and current financing structures.

In the context of the adjustment programme, a set of measures are being implemented to support and stabilise the
Greek banking sector. The recapitalisation of banks will create solid foundations for recovery of lending to the
economy and is the most fundamental reform in this regard. The four core banks have completed their
recapitalisation and have started restructuring loans of the existing clients, reducing lending rates or relaxing some
lending conditions.

A cooperation platform chaired by the Hellenic Banking Association involving SMEs, the TFGR and the Ministry of
Development has been established to identify obstacles in providing liquidity to the market.

Financing of working capital with EU structural funds (SF) instruments is possible since 2011, and the national cofinancing rate for SF projects was reduced from 15% to 5%.

More than EUR 2.66 billion are available for Greek companies as loans, EUR 2 billion from the public side
(Commission, EIB, Hellenic Republic) further leveraged by and additional EUR 0.6 billion from private banks. The EIB
has signed contracts of EUR 500 million with six banks in the context of the Trade Enhancement Financing
Programme. The Commission has also supported or introduced new instruments to provide liquidity ( [3] ).

Finally, in the context of the adjustment programme, the Greek Government intends to establish the Institution for
Growth (IfG), a nonbank financial institution, to support innovation and growth by catalysing private sector
financing, especially for SMEs, while minimising fiscal risks.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://tinyurl.com/qxwm4p3.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://goo.gl/jh8se.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) The framework for microfinance is currently being analysed and the implementation of pilot projects prepared, with the purpose of providing

financing of small amounts via non-bank institutions. In addition, the EU SME liquidity initiative in the period 2014-2020 should benefit Greek
banks with risk sharing which will allow the capital relief and the liquidity required to increase the volume of the available credit to SMEs.

C 65 E / 300 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008163/13**

**to the Commission**
**Catherine Stihler (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Construction industry blacklisting and exclusion from procurement procedures

Will the Commission say whether it is permissible, under current procurement legislation, for contractors to be
excluded from procurement procedures if found to have been involved in the practice of blacklisting employees and
trade union representatives in the construction industry?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

Under the current EU legislation ( [1] ) on public procurement, an economic operator can be excluded from participation
in a public procurement procedure if it ‘has been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which
the contracting authorities can demonstrate’. The concept of grave professional misconduct includes, in particular,
breaches of laws, regulations and professional principles, rules and established practices to be observed in the conduct
of the business. It does not require a violation of formal legislation.

The practice of blacklisting employees and trade union representatives can obviously be considered as grave
professional misconduct, unless such blacklisting is based on a decision by courts or other relevant authorities or
bodies. The Commission refers to its reply to E-003112/2012 ( [2] ) on reported blacklisting of construction workers for
reporting health and safety risks in the workplace. The Commission recalls that directive 89/391/EEC ( [3] ) provides that
workers or workers' representatives with specific responsibilities for the health and safety of workers, may not be
placed at a disadvantage because they consult or raise health and safety issues with the employer.

Blacklisting may also be illegal under national data protection laws implementing EU Directive 95/46/EC ( [4] ) if it based
on unlawful processing of the personal data of the employees concerned, or arises from lawful activities of the worker
or his/her exercise of fundamental rights, including membership of a trade union or acting as a trade union
representative.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public

works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, S. 114, Directive 2004/17/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport
and postal services sectors, OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1; Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on
the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or
entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/a17/EC and 2004/18/EC, OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Council Directive 89/391/EEC 89/391 of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of

workers at work, OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

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

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 301

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008164/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Françoise Castex (S&D) y Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Nuevo sistema de pago de copias privadas en España

El Real Decreto 20/2011 de 30 de diciembre de 2011 introdujo un nuevo sistema de pago de copias privadas según
el cual al titular de los derechos se le ha de pagar a través del presupuesto nacional. Esto significa que todos los
ciudadanos españoles y demás ciudadanos europeos que pagan determinados impuestos en España han de contribuir
a estos pagos con independencia de que hayan hecho o no copias privadas de obras protegidas por derechos de autor.
En agosto de 2012, las organizaciones españolas de titulares de derechos presentaron una denuncia ante la Comisión
basada en el argumento de que el nuevo sistema infringe la jurisprudencia de la UE y otra, ya que no está en
consonancia con el principio de que son los usuarios particulares que hacen las copias privadas quienes han de pagar
(Asuntos C-467/08 (Padawan contra SGAE, C-462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie contra Opus y C-457/11 VG Wort
contra Kyocera y otros).

Debido a su situación financiera y al requisito de aplicar medidas de saneamiento presupuestario, España ha reducido
el pago de 115 millones EUR a 5 millones EUR sin evaluar los daños que causan las copias privadas a los titulares de
los derechos. La decisión se basó enteramente en la actual capacidad presupuestaria de España. Según el Tribunal, el
pago debe considerarse como compensación por el daño sufrido por los titulares de los derechos resultante de la
copia privada de sus obras sin su autorización previa. Además, a pesar de que el sector de las TIC ha quedado exento
de la obligación de tener que efectuar el pago, los precios de venta de los correspondientes medios de comunicación
en España no se han reducido.

Nos preocupa esta cuestión. ¿Qué decisión ha adoptado la Comisión en este ámbito? Qué fase se ha alcanzado en la
tramitación de la denuncia? ¿Cuándo va a proceder la Comisión a una declaración al respecto?

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

_(28 de agosto de 2013)_

La Comisión está muy atenta a la evolución del sistema español de compensación por copia privada. A raíz de una
serie de denuncias, la Comisión entabló un diálogo estructurado con las autoridades españolas. Hasta ahora, la
Comisión ha celebrado dos series de cambios de impresiones con las autoridades españolas sobre la base de las
preguntas formuladas el 16 de noviembre de 2012 y el 3 de abril de 2013. El 27 de junio de 2013 se envió una tercera
batería de preguntas a las autoridades españolas.

La Comisión está recopilando todos los datos necesarios para evaluar correctamente la legislación española antes de
considerar cualquier medida ulterior. Los resultados del amplio proceso actual de reforma de la normativa española
en materia de derechos de autor que pueden tener consecuencias en la cuestión de las copias para uso privado
también pueden ser pertinentes, en función del momento de su finalización.

C 65 E / 302 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008164/13**

**à la Commission**
**Françoise Castex (S&D) et Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Nouveau système de paiement pour les droits de reproduction privée en Espagne

Le décret royal n° 20/2011, du 30 décembre 2011, a introduit un nouveau système de paiement pour les
reproductions privées, selon lequel le titulaire des droits doit être payé par le budget général de l'État. Cela implique
que tous les citoyens espagnols et les autres citoyens européens s'acquittant de certaines taxes en Espagne doivent
contribuer à ces paiements, qu'ils aient ou non effectué des reproductions privées d'œuvres couvertes par les droits
d'auteurs. En août 2012, des organisations espagnoles de défense des titulaires des droits ont déposé une plainte
auprès de la Commission, en arguant que le nouveau système allait à l'encontre de la jurisprudence de l'Union
européenne et d'autres sources de droit, en ce sens qu'il enfreint le principe selon lequel il incombe à l'utilisateur privé
effectuant des reproductions privées de s'acquitter des droits correspondants (affaires C‐467/08 Padawan/SGAE, C‐
462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie/Opus, et C‐457/11 VG Wort/Kyocera et autres).

En raison de la situation financière et de l'exigence de mettre en place des mesures de consolidation fiscale, l'Espagne a
réduit ce paiement de 115 millions à 5 millions d'euros sans faire le bilan des dommages que représente la
reproduction privée pour les titulaires de droits de reproduction. La décision a été entièrement basée sur les capacités
budgétaires actuelles du pays. Selon la Cour, le paiement doit être considéré comme un dédommagement pour les
titulaires de droits qui sont victimes des reproductions privées de leurs œuvres sans autorisation préalable. En outre,
en dépit du fait que les industries TIC ont été exonérées de la contribution, le prix de vente des médias concernés en
Espagne n'a pas été diminué.

Nous sommes préoccupés par cette question. Quelle décision la Commission a-t-elle pris à ce sujet? Où en est-on dans
le traitement de la plainte? Quand la Commission va-t-elle faire une déclaration à cet égard?

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

_(28 août 2013)_

La Commission suit de près l'évolution du système espagnol de compensation de la copie privée. À la suite d'un
certain nombre de plaintes, la Commission a ouvert un dialogue structuré avec les autorités espagnoles. Elle a jusqu'à
présent organisé deux séries d'échanges avec celles-ci, en se fondant sur des questions posées le 16 novembre 2012 et
le 3 avril 2013, et une troisième série de questions a été adressée aux autorités espagnoles le 27 juin 2013.

La Commission rassemble actuellement tous les éléments nécessaires à une appréciation correcte de la loi espagnole
avant d'envisager toute autre mesure. Un processus approfondi de réforme du cadre législatif espagnol en matière
de droits d'auteur est en cours et ses résultats, qui peuvent avoir une incidence sur la question de la copie privée,
pourront également présenter un intérêt pour la Commission, en fonction de la date à laquelle cette réforme
sera achevée.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 303

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008164/13**

**to the Commission**
**Françoise Castex (S&D) and Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ New payment system for private copying in Spain

Spanish Royal Decree 20/2011 of 30 December 2011 brought in a new payment system for private copying whereby
the rights holder had to be paid via the national budget. This means that all Spanish citizens and other European
citizens paying certain taxes in Spain have to contribute to these payments regardless of whether or not they have
made private copies of copyrighted works. In August 2012 Spanish rights holders’ organisations lodged a complaint
with the Commission on the grounds that the new system infringes EU and other case-law as it is not in line with the
principle that it is the private users making the private copies that have to pay (Cases C-467/08 Padawan vs SGAE, C462/09 Stichting de Thuiskopie vs Opus, and C-457/11 VG Wort vs Kyocera and Others).

Owing to its financial situation and the requirement to apply fiscal consolidation measures, Spain has reduced the
payment from EUR 115 million to EUR 5 million without assessing the damage that private copying causes to rights
holders. The decision was entirely based on Spain’s current budgetary capacity. According to the Court, payment
must be regarded as recompense for the harm suffered by rights holders resulting from the private copying of their
works without their prior authorisation. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that the ICT industries have been exempted
from having to make the payment, the sale prices of the affected media in Spain have not been reduced.

We are concerned about this issue. What decision has the Commission taken on this matter? What stage has been
reached in processing the complaint? When will the Commission make a statement?

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

_(28 August 2013)_

The Commission closely follows the evolution of the Spanish system of compensation for private copying. Based on a
number of complaints, the Commission opened a structured dialogue with the Spanish authorities. So far, the
Commission held two series of exchanges with the Spanish authorities, based on questions addressed on
16 November 2012 and 3 April 2013. On 27 June 2013 a third round of questions was addressed to the Spanish
authorities.

The Commission is gathering all the elements necessary for the proper assessment of the Spanish law before
considering any further step. The outcome of the ongoing, wider process of reform of Spanish copyright framework
which may have an impact on the issue of private copying, may also be of relevance, depending on the timing of its
completion.

C 65 E / 304 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008165/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Paolo De Castro (S&D), Herbert Dorfmann (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Eric Andrieu (S&D),**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), Michel Dantin (PPE) y Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos**

**(S&D)**
_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia sobre el Reglamento (UE) n° 543/2011

El 30 de mayo de 2013, el Tribunal de Justicia en Luxemburgo dictó sentencia en los asuntos acumulados T-454/10 y
T-482/11, solicitando la anulación de disposiciones contenidas en el Reglamento (UE) n° 543/2011 (por el que se
modifica el Reglamento (CE) n° 1234/2007) sobre la inclusión de las frutas y hortalizas transformadas en el contexto
de los programas operativos de las organizaciones de productores (OP) de la UE que reconoce el Reglamento (CE)
n° 1234/2007.

En los procedimientos judiciales iniciados por el sector privado, la Comisión fue apoyada por las organizaciones que
representan las OP y las cooperativas europeas en Italia, Francia, España y Portugal interesadas en mantener el apoyo a
las OP que operan en el sector de las frutas y hortalizas transformadas.

La Sentencia establece que todas las inversiones y actividades relacionadas con las frutas y hortalizas transformadas y
promovidas y realizadas por las OP, en primer lugar, no entran en consideración para ayudas de la UE.

La sentencia del Tribunal de Primera Instancia también establece que las medidas previstas por el Reglamento (UE)
n° 543/2011 de la Comisión, en favor de las frutas y hortalizas transformadas y producidas por las OP son
discriminatorias de cara a las empresas privadas (que carecen de acceso ayudas de la UE), lo que significa que existe un
falseamiento de la competencia entre empresas privadas y OP.

El principio de no discriminación en el contexto de la Política Agrícola Común es una expresión específica del
principio general de igualdad de trato que exige que unas situaciones comparables no sean tratadas de forma
diferente, y que unas situaciones diferentes no se traten de la misma manera.

— ¿Tiene la Comisión la intención de recurrir la sentencia en primera instancia del Tribunalde Justicia?

— ¿Cree la Comisión que la discriminación entre empresas privadas y OP, establecida enesta sentencia, puede
constituir un precedente peligroso que podría cuestionar no solotodo el razonamiento en que se basa la PAC sino
también las medidas reguladoras que seestán debatiendo actualmente en el contexto de la reforma de la PAC?

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

_(23 de agosto de 2013)_

La Comisión decidió con fecha de 30 de julio de 2013 presentar un recurso ante el Tribunal de Justicia contra la
sentencia dictada por el Tribunal General en los asuntos acumulados T-454/10 y T-482/11.

El recurso, que se presentó el 12 de agosto siguiente, impide que la sentencia adquiera carácter firme. En espera del
resultado del recurso, la Comisión prefiere abstenerse de comentar las consecuencias de esa sentencia en los asuntos
mencionados.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 305

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008165/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Paolo De Castro (S&D), Herbert Dorfmann (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Eric Andrieu (S&D),**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), Michel Dantin (PPE) und Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos**

**(S&D)**
_(9. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Urteil des Gerichtshofs über die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 543/2011

Am 30. Mai 2013 erließ der Gerichtshof in Luxemburg ein Urteil in den verbundenen Rechtssachen T‐454/10 und
T-482/11, in denen die Nichtigerklärung der in der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 543/2011 (zur Änderung der
Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1234/2007) enthaltenen Bestimmungen zur Einbeziehung von Verarbeitungserzeugnissen aus
Obst und Gemüse in den Rahmen der unter Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1234/2007 anerkannten operationellen
Programme der Erzeugerorganisationen der Europäischen Union beantragt wird.

In den von privaten Unternehmen eingeleiteten Verfahren wurde die Kommission von Organisationen unterstützt,
die Erzeugerorganisationen und europäische Genossenschaften in Italien, Frankreich, Spanien und Portugal
repräsentieren, die daran interessiert sind, die Unterstützung für Erzeugerorganisationen, die im Sektor
Verarbeitungserzeugnisse aus Obst und Gemüse tätig sind, beizubehalten.

Das Urteil stellt fest, dass alle Investitionen und Tätigkeiten, die mit der Verarbeitung von Obst und Gemüse in
Verbindung stehen und die von Erzeugerorganisationen gefördert und realisiert werden, zunächst nicht für Beihilfen
der EU in Betracht kommen.

Mit dem erstinstanzlichen Urteil wird auch festgestellt, dass die in der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) Nr. 543/2011
der Kommission vorgesehenen Maßnahmen zugunsten der von Erzeugerorganisationen hergestellten
Verarbeitungserzeugnissen aus Obst und Gemüse für private Unternehmen (die keinen Anspruch auf Unterstützung
der EU haben) diskriminierend sind, was bedeutet, dass zwischen den privaten Unternehmen und den
Erzeugerorganisationen eine Wettbewerbsverzerrung besteht.

Der Grundsatz der Nichtdiskriminierung im Zusammenhang mit der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik ist eine spezielle
Ausprägung des allgemeinen Grundsatzes der Gleichbehandlung, der besagt, dass vergleichbare Situationen nicht
unterschiedlich und unterschiedliche Situationen nicht gleich behandelt werden sollten.

— Beabsichtigt die Kommission, gegen das erstinstanzliche Urteil des Gerichtshofes Berufung einzulegen?

— Ist die Kommission der Ansicht, dass die Benachteiligung der privaten Unternehmen gegenüber den
Erzeugerorganisationen — wie in diesem Urteil dargelegt — einen gefährlichen Präzedenzfall darstellen könnte, der
nicht nur das Grundprinzip der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, sondern die ordnungspolitischen Maßnahmen, die
gegenwärtig im Zusammenhang mit der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik zur Diskussion stehen, infrage stellen könnte?

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

_(23. August 2013)_

Die Kommission beschloss am 30. Juli 2013, beim Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union gegen das Urteil des Gerichts
in den verbundenen Rechtssachen T-454/10 und T‐482/11 Berufung einzulegen.

Die Berufung gegen das Urteil des Gerichts wurde am 12. August 2013 eingelegt, wodurch verhindert wird, dass das
Urteil rechtskräftig wird. Bis das Ergebnis des Rechtsbehelfs vorliegt, möchte sich die Kommission zu den
Auswirkungen des Urteils auf die genannten Fälle nicht äußern.

C 65 E / 306 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008165/13**

**à la Commission**
**Paolo De Castro (S&D), Herbert Dorfmann (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Eric Andrieu (S&D),**

**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), Michel Dantin (PPE)**

**et Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Arrêt de la Cour de justice sur le règlement (UE) n° 543/2011

Le 30 mai 2013, à Luxembourg, la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne a rendu un arrêt dans les affaires jointes T‐
454/10 et T‐482/11, dans lequel elle demande l'annulation de dispositions contenues dans le règlement (UE)
n° 543/2011 (modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 1234/2007), concernant l'inclusion des fruits et légumes transformés
dans le cadre des programmes opérationnels des organisations de producteurs de l'Union européenne reconnues par
le règlement (CE) n° 1234/2007.

Durant la procédure judiciaire engagée par l'industrie privée, la Commission a été soutenue par des organismes
représentant des organisations de producteurs et des coopératives européennes en Italie, en France, en Espagne et au
Portugal qui souhaitent maintenir une assistance aux organisations de producteurs dans le secteur des fruits et
légumes transformés.

L'arrêt établit que tous les investissements et les activités liés aux fruits et légumes transformés qui ont été promus et
réalisés par les organisations de producteurs sont, dans un premier temps, inéligibles au soutien de l'Union.

L'arrêt du Tribunal de première instance établit également que les mesures envisagées par le règlement de la
Commission (UE) n° 543/2011 en faveur des fruits et légumes transformés, produits par des organisations de
producteurs, sont discriminantes vis-à-vis des entreprises industrielles privées (qui ne peuvent avoir accès aux aides de
l'Union), ce qui revient à dire qu'il existe une distorsion de concurrence entre les entreprises industrielles privées et les
organisations de producteurs.

Le principe de non-discrimination, dans le contexte de la politique agricole commune, est l'expression spécifique du
principe général d'égalité de traitement, qui exige que des situations comparables soient traitées de la même façon, et
que des situations différentes soient traitées différemment.

— La Commission a-t-elle l'intention de faire appel de l'arrêt du Tribunal de première instance de la Cour de justice?

— La Commission estime-t-elle que la discrimination entre les entreprises industrielles privées et les organisations de
producteurs, telle qu'elle ressort de l'arrêt du Tribunal, constitue un dangereux précédent susceptible de remettre en
question non seulement la logique même de la politique agricole commune, mais aussi les mesures règlementaires
actuellement en discussion dans le cadre de la réforme de la PAC?

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

_(23 août 2013)_

Le 30 juillet 2013, la Commission a décidé de faire appel devant la Cour de justice de l'arrêt rendu par le Tribunal dans
les affaires jointes T-454/10 et T-482/11.

L'appel contre l'arrêt du Tribunal a été introduit le 12 août 2013 et empêche l'arrêt de passer en force de chose jugée.
Dans l'attente de l'issue de l'appel, la Commission souhaiterait s'abstenir de tout commentaire sur les conséquences de
l'arrêt rendu dans les affaires précitées.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 307

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008165/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Paolo De Castro (S&D), Herbert Dorfmann (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Eric Andrieu (S&D),**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), Michel Dantin (PPE) e Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos**

**(S&D)**
_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Sentenza del Tribunale della CGE sul regolamento (UE) n. 543/2011

Il 30 maggio 2013 il Tribunale della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea a Lussemburgo ha pronunciato una
sentenza nelle cause riunite T-454/10 e T-482/11 aventi ad oggetto una domanda di annullamento di alcune
disposizioni contenute nel regolamento (UE) n. 543/2011 (recante modalità di applicazione del regolamento (CE) n.
1234/2007) concernenti l'inclusione dei prodotti ortofrutticoli trasformati nei programmi operativi delle
organizzazioni di produttori (OP) dell'Unione europea di cui al regolamento (CE) n. 1234/2007.

Nell'azione legale intentata dalle industrie private, la Commissione era sostenuta dalle organizzazioni che
rappresentano le OP e le cooperative europee in Italia, Francia, Spagna e Portogallo interessate a mantenere il
sostegno a favore delle organizzazioni di produttori operanti nel settore degli ortofrutticoli trasformati.

La sentenza stabilisce, in primo luogo, che tutti gli investimenti e le azioni connessi con i prodotti ortofrutticoli
trasformati che sono stati promossi e realizzati dalle OP non sono ammissibili a beneficiare del sostegno dell'UE.

La sentenza del Tribunale stabilisce inoltre che le misure previste dal regolamento (UE) n. 543/2011 della
Commissione a favore degli ortofrutticoli trasformati prodotti dalle OP sono discriminatorie nei confronti delle
industrie private (che non possono accedere al sostegno dell'UE) giacché provocano una distorsione della
concorrenza tra industrie private e OP.

Il principio di non discriminazione nell'ambito della politica agricola comune è espressione specifica del principio
generale della parità di trattamento, in base al quale situazioni comparabili non devono essere trattate in maniera
diversa e situazioni differenti non devono essere trattate allo stesso modo.

— Intende la Commissione ricorrere contro la sentenza del Tribunale di primo grado della CGE?

— Ritiene la Commissione che la discriminazione fra industrie private e organizzazioni di produttori definita in
questa sentenza possa costituire un precedente pericoloso, tale da porre in discussione non solo l'intera ratio della
politica agricola comune, ma anche le misure regolamentari attualmente in discussione nel quadro della riforma della
PAC?

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(23 agosto 2013)_

Il 30 luglio 2013, la Commissione ha deciso di presentare ricorso dinanzi alla Corte di giustizia contro la sentenza del
Tribunale nelle cause riunite T-454/10 e T-482/11.

Il ricorso è stato presentato il 12 agosto 2013 e impedisce che la sentenza diventi definitiva. In attesa dell'esito del
ricorso, la Commissione si asterrà dal commentare gli effetti della sentenza nelle cause summenzionate.

C 65 E / 308 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008165/13**

**à Comissão**
**Paolo De Castro (S&D), Herbert Dorfmann (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Eric Andrieu (S&D),**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), Michel Dantin (PPE) e Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos**

**(S&D)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Decisão do Tribunal de Justiça sobre o Regulamento (UE) n.° 543/2011

Em 30 de maio de 2013, o Tribunal de Justiça no Luxemburgo proferiu um acórdão nos processos apensos T-454/10
e T-482/11 decidindo a anulação de disposições constantes do Regulamento (UE) n.° 543/2011 (que altera o
Regulamento (CE) n.° 1234/2007), sobre a inclusão de frutas e produtos hortícolas transformados no contexto das
organizações de produtores (OP) reconhecidas ao abrigo do Regulamento (CE) n.° 1234/2007.

Na ação judicial instituída pela indústria privada, a Comissão foi apoiada por organizações representando OP e
cooperativas europeias em Itália, França, Espanha e Portugal, interessadas em manter o apoio às organizações de
produtores que funcionam no setor das frutas e produtos hortícolas transformados.

A decisão estabelece que todos os investimentos e atividades relacionadas com frutos e produtos hortícolas
transformados e promovidos e realizados pelas OP, são, em primeira instância, inadmissíveis para apoio da UE.

A decisão do Tribunal de Primeira Instância estabelece também que as medidas previstas pelo Regulamento (UE)
n.° 543/2011 da Comissão a favor das frutas e produtos hortícolas transformados são discriminatórias em relação às
industrias privadas (que não podem aceder ao apoio da UE) o que significa de há uma distorção de concorrência entre
as indústrias privadas e as OP.

O princípio da não-discriminação no contexto da política agrícola comum é uma expressão específica do princípio
geral da igualdade de tratamento, o qual requer que situações comparáveis não sejam tratadas diferentemente, e que
situações diferentes não sejam tratadas da mesma forma.

—
A Comissão pretende recorrer da decisão de primeira instância do Tribunal de Justiça?

—
A Comissão está convicta de que a discriminação entre indústrias privadas e organizações de produtores tal
como se afirma nesta decisão poderá constituir um precedente perigoso que ponha em questão não apenas
todo o raciocínio subjacente à PAC, mas também as medidas de regulamentação atualmente em debate no
contexto da reforma da PAC?

**Resposta dada por Dacian Cioloş em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de agosto de 2013)_

Em 30 de julho de 2013, a Comissão decidiu interpor, no Tribunal de Justiça, um recurso contra o acórdão proferido
pelo Tribunal Geral nos processos apensos T-454/10 e T-482/11.

O recurso contra o acórdão do Tribunal Geral foi interposto em 12 de agosto de 2013 e impede que o acórdão se
torne definitivo. Na pendência do resultado do recurso, a Comissão gostaria de se abster de comentar as
consequências do acórdão em questão.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 309

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008165/13**

**to the Commission**
**Paolo De Castro (S&D), Herbert Dorfmann (PPE), Esther Herranz García (PPE), Eric Andrieu (S&D),**
**Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), Michel Dantin (PPE) and Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos**

**(S&D)**
_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Court of Justice judgment on Regulation (EU) No 543/2011

On 30 May 2013 the Court of Justice in Luxembourg delivered a judgment on Joined Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11
requesting the annulment of provisions contained within Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 (amending Regulation (EC)
No 1234/2007), concerning the inclusion of processed fruit and vegetables in the context of the operational
programmes of European Union producer organisations (POs) recognised under Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

In the legal proceedings brought by private industry, the Commission was supported by organisations representing
POs and European cooperatives in Italy, France, Spain and Portugal interested in maintaining support to producers’
organisations that operate in the processed fruit and vegetables sector.

The judgment establishes that all investments and activities connected with processed fruit and vegetables and
promoted and realised by the POs are, in the first instance, inadmissible for EU support.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance also establishes that the measures envisaged by Commission Regulation
(EU) No 543/2011 in favour of processed fruit and vegetables produced by POs are discriminatory to private
industries (which cannot access EU support), meaning that there is a distortion of competition between private
industries and POs.

The principle of non-discrimination in the context of the common agricultural policy is a specific expression of the
general principle of equality of treatment which demands that comparable situations should not be handled
differently and that different situations not be handled in the same way.

— Does the Commission intend to appeal against the first instance judgment of the Court of Justice?

— Does the Commission believe that the discrimination between private industries and producers’ organisations as
laid down in this judgment might constitute a dangerous precedent that could call into question not only the entire
rationale behind the CAP, but also the regulatory measures currently under discussion in the context of CAP reform?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

On 30 July 2013, the Commission decided to lodge an appeal before the Court of Justice against the judgment of the
General Court in joined cases T-454/10 and T-482/11.

The appeal against the judgment of the General Court was lodged on 12 August 2013 and prevents the judgment
from becoming final. Pending the outcome of the appeal, the Commission would like to abstain from commenting on
the consequences of the judgment in the aforementioned cases.

C 65 E / 310 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008166/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Réglementation du fonctionnement de la chaîne alimentaire

Dans ma question E-004275/2013, j'avais interrogé la Commission, à la suite des scandales récents liés à la
circulation de viande de cheval, sur la possibilité de «dégager un accord sur le cadre volontaire relatif à la lutte contre
les pratiques commerciales déloyales».

Dans sa réponse, la Commission ne prend pas position sur la proposition de la Copa-Cogema de mettre en place
«un système mixte de contrôle combinant des codes volontaires et une législation définissant les pratiques déloyales
et abusives».

La Commission peut-elle définir, de façon plus précise, à quelle(s) initiative(s) réglementaire(s) ou de contrôle doivent
aboutir les discussions engagées avec les États membres autour d'actions spécifiques pour lutter contre la fraude
alimentaire?

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

_(8 août 2013)_

La Commission mène actuellement des discussions avec les États membres sur la manière de renforcer la coopération
avec et entre les autorités nationales compétentes chargées des contrôles officiels de la chaîne agroalimentaire afin de
lutter contre le risque de fraude alimentaire transfrontalière. Un réseau de points de contact nationaux pour la
prévention de la fraude alimentaire est en cours d'établissement; de même, une équipe spécialisée est en train d'être
mise en place pour s'occuper de ces questions à la Commission. Dans les mois à venir, le réseau étudiera les besoins et
spécifications d'un mécanisme spécial d'échange d'informations en matière de fraude alimentaire. La Commission
prévoit également des formations pour les membres du personnel des autorités compétentes afin d'améliorer leurs
techniques d'enquêtes.

Les discussions n'ont pas porté sur les codes de conduite volontaires destinés à l'industrie.

La Commission a également adopté, le 6 mai 2013, une proposition visant à réviser le règlement actuel concernant
les contrôles officiels ( [1] ). L'objectif est de renforcer le système existant, y compris la lutte contre la fraude alimentaire
et les sanctions applicables en cas de violations intentionnelles.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)265 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 311

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008166/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Regulation of the functioning of the food chain

In my Question E-004275/2013, I asked the Commission, following the recent scandals over horse meat, whether it
would be possible ‘to reach an agreement on a voluntary framework for tackling unfair trading practices’.

In its response, the Commission does not take a position on Copa-Cogeca’s proposal to set up ‘a mixed control system
with the operation of voluntary codes backed by legislation that defines unfair and abusive practices’.

Can the Commission define more specifically what regulatory or control initiative(s) are likely to be achieved as a
result of the talks held with the Member States around specific actions to combat food fraud?

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

_(8 August 2013)_

The Commission is currently engaging Member States in discussions on how to strengthen cooperation with and
among national competent authorities tasked with official controls along the agri-food chain in relation to potential
cross-border food frauds. A network of national food fraud contact points is being established and a dedicated team is
being set up to deal with these matters in the Commission. The network will discuss in the course of the coming
months the needs and specifications of a dedicated mechanism for exchange of information in relation to food fraud
matters. The Commission is also planning training courses for competent authorities' staff to strengthen their
investigation skills.

Industry driven voluntary codes of practice have not been part of these discussions.

The Commission has also, on 6 May 2013, adopted a proposal to review the current Regulation on official
controls ( [1] ), which aims to strengthen the existing system, including the fight against food fraud and the sanctions to
apply in cases of intentional violations.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 265 final.

C 65 E / 312 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008167/13**

**à la Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Dumping social dans l'agroalimentaire

La directive du 12 décembre 2006 relative aux services dans le marché intérieur (directive 2006/123/CE), dite
«directive Services» ou «directive Bolkestein», et la directive relative au détachement des travailleurs
(directive 96/71/CE) sont à nouveau accusées de favoriser le dumping social entre pays de l'Union européenne.

En l'absence de salaire minimum en Allemagne, de très gros abattoirs payent des ouvriers d'Europe de l'Est à moins
de 10 euros de l'heure, ce qui va à l'encontre de la loi européenne, car le contrat de travail d'un ouvrier détaché
doit obligatoirement être conforme avec le droit du pays d'accueil. Seules les cotisations sociales sont payées dans le
pays d'origine.

Dans l'agroalimentaire, les abattoirs français, en très grande difficulté, attribuent leurs malheurs au dumping social de
leurs concurrents allemands, qui abusent de la directive pour sous‐payer des ouvriers venus travailler sur le territoire
allemand. La politique des bas salaires et l'inexistence d'un salaire minimum en Allemagne provoquent des dégâts
sociaux dans les pays voisins et mettent sous pression les salariés allemands et européens des abattoirs. Le problème
existe en France, mais aussi en Belgique, au Danemark ou en Autriche.

1. Quelles sont les mesures de contrôle dont dispose la Commission afin d'éradiquer toute concurrence déloyale
dans les contrats de travail, notamment dans les secteurs de la construction et l'agroalimentaire?

2. La Commission considère‐t‐elle qu'il y a dumping social dans les pratiques de bas salaires et l'absence de salaire
minimum dans certains pays de l'Union vis-à-vis du reste des États membres?

3. Quelles mesures compte prendre la Commission afin de faire cesser ces pratiques que subissent les travailleurs
des abattoirs allemands et qui commencent à être connues comme «esclavage moderne», c'est-à-dire des salaires allant
de 1 à 10 euros de l'heure ou des logements insalubres pour ces travailleurs?

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

_(30 août 2013)_

La Commission renvoie l'Honorable Parlementaire aux réponses qu'elle a fournies aux questions E-004484/2013 et
E-006740/2013 ( [1] ) et confirme qu'elle enquête actuellement sur les aspects concrets de l'affaire. La Commission a
sollicité de plus amples informations auprès des autorités allemandes et attend leur réponse.

Dans l'immédiat, puisque l'enquête est en cours, la Commission s'abstiendra de tout autre commentaire sur
cette affaire.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 313

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008167/13**

**to the Commission**
**Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Social dumping in the agri-food industry

The directive of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (Directive 2006/123/EC), known as the
‘Services Directive’ or the ‘Bolkestein Directive’, and the directive concerning the posting of workers
(Directive 96/71/EC) stand once again accused of encouraging social dumping between EU countries.

In the absence of a minimum wage in Germany, very large slaughterhouses are paying Eastern European workers less
than EUR 10 per hour, which goes against European law, since the work contract of a posted worker must comply
with the law of the host country. Only social security contributions are paid in the country of origin.

In the agri-food sector, French slaughterhouses are in serious difficulty and blame their misfortune on social dumping
by their German competitors, who abuse the directive in order to underpay workers who have come to work in
Germany. The low wage policy and lack of a minimum wage in Germany are causing social damage in neighbouring
countries and putting pressure on German and European slaughterhouse employees. This is a problem in France, but
also in Belgium, Denmark and Austria.

1. What control measures can the Commission put in place in order to eradicate any unfair competition in work
contracts, particularly in the construction and agri-food sectors?

2. Does the Commission consider that low wages and the absence of a minimum wage in some EU countries
constitute social dumping with regard to the other Member States?

3. What measures does the Commission intend to take in order to put an end to these practices suffered by
workers in German slaughterhouses and which are becoming known as ‘modern slavery’, with these workers
receiving wages ranging from EUR 1 to 10 per hour and being housed in accommodation that is unfit for habitation?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to questions E-004484/2013 and E­
006740/2013 ( [1] ), and confirms it is currently investigating the factual circumstances of the case. The Commission
has requested further information from German authorities and is awaiting their reply.

In the meantime, as the investigation is still ongoing, the Commission will refrain from giving any further comments
on this case.

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

C 65 E / 314 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008168/13**

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

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti per la realizzazione di un impianto sportivo a Latina

L'associazione dilettantistica Sport management group basket school di Latina è da ventitré anni impegnata
nell'attività giovanile del gioco del basket in tutta la provincia, con numerosi riconoscimenti a livello nazionale tra cui
la «Retina d'oro 2011»: premio come migliore società giovanile di basket nel Lazio.

Nel 2010, tale società è risultata vincitrice di un bando di gara per l'assegnazione di un terreno situato nel quartiere
Nuova Latina per la costruzione di un impianto sportivo dotato di due campi coperti, uffici, spogliatoi, palestra
fitness, zona ristoro e piscina scoperta. La durata della concessione inerente l'area e il complesso sportivo è stabilita in
30 anni e successivamente l'intero complesso diventerà di proprietà comunale.

Si tratta di un progetto unico che porterebbe importanti ricadute occupazionali per tutto il territorio pontino, già
duramente colpito dalla crisi economica.

Tutto ciò premesso, può la Commissione:

1. far sapere se sono previsti finanziamenti per la realizzazione del progetto suesposto;

2. riferire quali azioni o misure sono previste più in generale per lo sport;

3. illustrare un quadro generale della situazione?

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

_(27 agosto 2013)_

1. Il programma per la regione Lazio cofinanziato dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale non fornisce sostegno
ai progetti relativi ad infrastrutture sportive, dato che questo tipo di investimenti non è ammissibile al
cofinanziamento nelle regioni rientranti nell'obiettivo «Competitività regionale e occupazione», come ad esempio il
Lazio.

2. La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputata alla risposta fornita all'interrogazione scritta E-008248/2013.
Finanziamenti per vari progetti in ambito sportivo sono stati erogati tramite le azioni preparatorie del periodo 20092013 e verranno resi disponibili in modo più esteso con il flusso di finanziamenti allo sport nel quadro del futuro
programma per l'istruzione, la formazione, la gioventù e lo sport (attualmente denominato programma Erasmus
Plus). Non sono tuttavia previsti finanziamenti per progetti infrastrutturali. Premesso inoltre che l'attuazione delle
nuove competenze dell'UE in ambito sportivo è sancita dall'articolo 165 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione
europea, nella comunicazione intitolata «Sviluppare la dimensione europea dello sport» (2011) la Commissione ha
presentato un'ampia gamma di proposte, molte delle quali sono state approvate dal Consiglio nel suo «Piano di lavoro
dell'UE per lo sport 2011-2014». In linea con il testo dell'articolo 165 e con il titolo della comunicazione, l'accento
viene posto sullo sviluppo della dimensione europea dello sport. I progetti infrastrutturali non sono tuttavia
ammissibili al finanziamento.

3. La Commissione rinvia l'onorevole deputata alla risposta fornita all'interrogazione scritta E-5798/13 ( [1] ).

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 315

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008168/13**

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

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding to build a sports centre in Latina

For 23 years the amateur association Sport Management Group Basket School of Latina has been coaching young
basketball players throughout the province, winning numerous national awards, including the ‘Retina d’oro 2011’ for
the best youth basketball club in Lazio.

In 2010 the company won a contract to build a sports centre equipped with two indoor arenas, offices, changing
rooms, a gym, a refreshments area and an indoor swimming pool, on a piece of land situated in the Nuova Latina
district. The rights to the land and the sports complex were granted for 30 years, after which time the entire complex
will become the property of the municipality.

This is a unique project that would have a significant impact on employment throughout the Pontine region, which
has already been severely affected by the economic crisis.

In view of the above, can the Commission:

1. say whether any funds have been set aside to carry out the above project;

2. explain what actions or measures are planned for sport in general;

3. provide an overview of the situation?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

1. The programme for region Lazio co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund does not provide
support for sports infrastructure projects as this type of investment is not eligible for co-financing in regional
competitiveness and employment regions such as Lazio.

2. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-008248/2013.
Funding for various sport network projects has been available through the 2009-13 preparatory actions and will be
available more widely as part of the sport funding stream under the future education, training, youth and sport
programme (currently referred to as Erasmus Plus). However, funding for infrastructure projects is not envisaged. In
addition, given that the implementation of new EU sport competence is laid down in Article 165 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, the Commission submitted a wide range of proposals in its communication
‘Developing the European Dimension in Sport’ (2011) many of which were endorsed by the Council in its ‘EU Work
Plan for Sport 2011-2014’. In line with the text of Article 165 and the title of the communication, the focus is on
developing the European dimension in sport. However, infrastructure projects are not eligible for funding.

3. The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-5798/13 ( [1] ).

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

C 65 E / 316 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008169/13**

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

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti per la realizzazione di un centro studi sul diritto di famiglia nel comune di Orvieto

Il comune di Orvieto è impegnato nella realizzazione, all’interno di Palazzo Simoncelli e di Palazzo del Capitano del
popolo, di un centro studi sul diritto di famiglia e le problematiche correlate, che ospiterà varie associazioni nazionali
e internazionali, cultori del diritto di famiglia, oltre all’Università. Il nuovo centro studi rappresenterà un polo unico in
Italia, ad altissima specializzazione, attrezzato in modo da mettere a disposizione degli studiosi del settore materiale
difficilmente reperibile.

All'interno del centro saranno individuate tre aree tematiche: diritto di famiglia, psicologia giuridica e mediazione
sociale. In ciascuna area sarà prevista sia l’attività di ricerca che di formazione, con particolare attenzione agli scambi
tra ricercatori europei e l’istituzione di borse di studio. Tra le varie tematiche affrontate dal centro studi sul diritto di
famiglia è prevista l'attivazione di un filone di ricerca destinato alla rilettura dei codici e delle leggi, con l'obiettivo di
eliminare le numerose contraddizioni e incongruenze oggi presenti e allo stesso tempo monitorare l'applicazione
delle leggi già in vigore in Italia, comparandole con le legislazioni europee in materia.

Inoltre, verranno attivati corsi annuali di aggiornamento, destinati a quella parte dell'avvocatura che si dedica
principalmente al diritto di famiglia, venendo incontro all'attuale tendenza alla specializzazione.

Infine, il centro intende principalmente concentrarsi sul problema delle sottrazioni dei minori e della conseguente
necessità di adottare misure efficaci per la prevenzione e repressione di tale fenomeno.

Tutto ciò premesso, può la Commissione:

1. far sapere se vi sono finanziamenti per il progetto suesposto;

2. riferire se è a conoscenza di centri studi in materia di diritto di famiglia già esistenti in altri paesi europei;

3. illustrare un quadro generale della situazione?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(4 settembre 2013)_

1. La realizzazione di un centro studi sul diritto di famiglia non rientra nel campo di applicazione dei Fondi
strutturali dell'UE o di altri programmi dell'UE. Tuttavia, la parte del progetto riguardante le attività di formazione può
essere cofinanziata dal Fondo sociale europeo (FSE). Per ulteriori informazioni la Commissione invita l'onorevole
deputata a mettersi in contatto con l'autorità di gestione in Umbria:

Direzione Regionale
Sviluppo Economico e Attività Produttive, Istruzione, Formazione, Lavoro
Via M. Angeloni, 61
I- 06124 PERUGIA

[Le Azioni Marie Skłodowska-Curie nell'ambito di](http://ec.europa.eu/mariecurieactions) _Orizzonte 2020_ erogheranno finanziamenti per la mobilità dei
ricercatori, lo sviluppo delle carriere e la formazione. Il nuovo programma Erasmus+ (2014-2020) metterà a
disposizione delle istituzioni d'istruzione superiore finanziamenti per la mobilità del personale a fini di insegnamento
e formazione nonché per la mobilità degli studenti. ( [1] )

Tenuto conto della sfera di attività, il centro potrebbe considerare l'opportunità di candidarsi ad una sovvenzione per
progetti specifici nell'ambito del programma nel settore della giustizia. Gli inviti a presentare proposte sono
[pubblicati sul sito web della DG Giustizia: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/grants/jciv_ag_2013_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/grants/jciv_ag_2013_en.htm)

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Per ulteriori informazioni si invita a contattare le agenzie responsabili della promozione della ricerca europea (http://www.apre.it/) e di Erasmus
(http://www.programmallp.it) in Italia.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 317

2.-3. La Commissione ha istituito una Alleanza europea per le famiglie al fine di promuovere gli scambi di pratiche
ottimali nell'ambito delle politiche per l'infanzia e la famiglia. A ciò ha dato seguito l'istituzione della Piattaforma
europea per investire nell'infanzia (EPIC) ( [2] ). Uno dei suoi principali obiettivi è sostenere l'attuazione della
raccomandazione della Commissione «Investire nell'infanzia per spezzare il circolo vizioso dello svantaggio
sociale» ( [3] ).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://europa.eu/epic/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=it&newsId=1807&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news

C 65 E / 318 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008169/13**

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

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding to create a centre for family law studies in the municipality of Orvieto

The municipality of Orvieto is creating, within Palazzo Simoncelli and Palazzo del Capitano del Popolo, a centre for
research into family law and related issues, which will accommodate various national and international associations
and family law experts, in addition to the university. The new, highly specialised study centre will be unique in Italy
and will be equipped to offer family law scholars access to material that is difficult to find.

The centre will be divided into three thematic areas: family law, forensic psychology and social mediation. Research
and training activities will be carried out in each area, and there will be a particular focus on exchanges between
European researchers and on the introduction of study grants. Among the various topics covered by the centre for
family law studies there are plans to develop a branch of research aimed at revising codes and laws in order to
eliminate the numerous contradictions and inconsistencies that currently exist and, at the same time, to monitor the
application of laws already in force in Italy, by comparing them with relevant European legislation.

There will also be annual refresher courses aimed at legal practitioners who work mainly in the field of family law,
recognising the current tendency to specialise.

Finally, the centre will focus primarily on the problem of child abduction and the consequent need to adopt effective
measures to prevent and counter this phenomenon.

In view of the above, can the Commission:

1. say whether any funding is available for the above project;

2. say whether it is aware of the existence of centres for family law studies in other European countries;

3. provide an overview of the situation?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

1. The creation of a centre for family law studies does not fall within the scope of the EU structural funds or other
EU programmes. However, the part of the project dealing with training activities may be co-financed through the
European Social Fund (ESF). For further information, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to contact
Umbria's managing authority:

Direzione Regionale
Sviluppo Economico e Attività Produttive, Istruzione, Formazione, Lavoro
Via M. Angeloni, 61
I-06124 PERUGIA

[The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions under](http://ec.europa.eu/mariecurieactions) _Horizon 2020_ will provide funding for researchers' mobility, career
development and training. The new Erasmus+ Programme (2014-2020) will make funding available to higher
education institutions for staff mobility for teaching and training, and also for student mobility. ( [1] ).

Taking into account sphere of activity, the centre may consider submitting application for action grant for specific
projects under Justice programs . The calls for proposals are published on the DG Justice website

[http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/grants/jciv_ag_2013_en.htm](http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/grants/jciv_ag_2013_en.htm)

2 & 3. The Commission had established a European Alliance for Families to promote exchange of best practices in the
area of child and family policies. It was followed-up by the European Platform for Investing in Children (EPIC) ( [2] ). One
of its main objectives is to support the implementation of the Commission Recommendation ‘Investing in children —
breaking the cycle of disadvantage’ ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) For more information, please contact Italy's agencies for the promotion of European research (http://www.apre.it/) and Erasmus

(http://www.programmallp.it).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See http://europa.eu/epic/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=89&langId=en&newsId=1807&moreDocuments=yes&tableName=news.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 319

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008170/13**

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

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Comune di Palestrina: possibili finanziamenti per la realizzazione di un complesso per anziani e giovani
coppie

La Cooperativa edilizia «Gruppo Casa» di Palestrina, in provincia di Roma, è impegnata nella realizzazione, in località
«Colle Girello», di un complesso residenziale misto per anziani e giovani coppie, con servizi di assistenza, pertinenze e
servizi comuni.

La stessa Giunta comunale fin dal 2003 aveva aderito al Programma sperimentale di edilizia residenziale «Alloggi in
affitto per gli anziani degli anni 2000», proprio per far fronte alle carenze strutturali che presenta questo territorio.
Infatti, anche la Regione Lazio aveva approvato i relativi elaborati progettuali per la realizzazione di questo progetto.

Il piano prevede l'abbattimento di tutte le barriere architettoniche e il rispetto degli standard qualitativi in tutto l'arco
della vita al fine di realizzare un'atmosfera familiare e domestica e così creare un ambiente che abbia anche un effetto

«terapeutico».

La struttura sarà composta da 36 residenze per anziani e 18 residenze per giovani coppie, di varie tipologie e
grandezze; sarà un nuovo luogo in cui si svilupperà una vita sociale autonoma con servizi e alloggi a misura d'uomo.

Si tratta di un progetto d'importanza strategica per il Comune di Palestrina e per tutti i Comuni limitrofi, dal
momento che tale progetto risponderebbe in maniera efficace alle numerose richieste che provengono da questa zona
del Lazio.

Alla luce di quanto precede può la Commissione:

1. far sapere se esistono possibili finanziamenti per il progetto suesposto;

2. indicare quali azioni sono previste nella nuova programmazione 2014-2020 a favore degli anziani;

3. fornire un quadro generale della situazione?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(30 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione accusa ricevuta dell'interrogazione scritta presentata dall'onorevole deputata.

Né il FSE né il FESR possono intervenire per sostenere la costruzione di infrastrutture residenziali anche se queste
hanno un obiettivo sociale come l'alloggiamento di anziani.

Le possibilità di contributo del FSE riguardano attività che hanno quale principale obiettivo l'accesso al mercato del
lavoro, come ad esempio il finanziamento di attività di formazione per il personale adibito all'assistenza degli anziani
o l'alloggiamento degli anziani in modo da agevolare l'accesso al mondo del lavoro per i loro familiari (misure di
conciliazione famiglia-lavoro). Lo stesso approccio si applicherà nella prossima fase di programmazione 2014-2020
del FSE.

Per ulteriori informazioni sulle possibilità offerte dal FSE e dal FESR invitiamo l'onorevole deputata a mettersi in
contatto con l'autorità di gestione del programma operativo regionale Lazio del FSE o del FESR ai seguenti indirizzi:

Dott.ssa Paola BOTTARO
Management Authority ESF
Regione Lazio
Direzione regionale formazione, ricerca e innovazione, scuola e università, diritto allo studio
Via Rosa Raimondi Garibaldi, 7

I- 00145 ROMA
pbottaro@regione.lazio.it
http://www.sirio.regione.lazio.it/

C 65 E / 320 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Dott.ssa Rosanna BELOTTI
Direttore della Direzione Generale per lo Sviluppo economico
e le Attività produttive
Via Rosa Raimondi Garibaldi, 7

I- 00145 Roma
rbellotti@regione.lazio.it
adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 321

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008170/13**

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

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Municipality of Palestrina: possible funding to build a complex for elderly people and young couples

In the Colle Girello district of Palestrina in the province of Rome, the ‘Gruppo Casa’ housing cooperative is building a
mixed residential complex for elderly people and young couples, with care services and communal facilities and
services.

In 2003 the municipal council approved the residential building pilot programme ‘Rental accommodation for elderly
people in the 2000s’ [Alloggi in affitto per gli anziani degli anni 2000], precisely in order to address the region’s
structural weaknesses. In fact, the Lazio Region also approved the relevant plans for carrying out this project.

The plan provides for the removal of all architectural barriers and for compliance with quality standards at every stage
of life so as to create a domestic, family environment that also has a ‘therapeutic’ effect.

The complex will consist of 36 homes for elderly people and 18 homes for young couples, of various types and sizes;
it will be a new place for people to establish an independent social life with accessible services and accommodation.

This is a strategically important project for the municipality of Palestrina and for all the neighbouring municipalities,
since it would successfully meet the numerous demands coming from this part of Lazio.

In view of the above, can the Commission:

1. say whether any funding is available for the above project;

2. explain what actions are envisaged to benefit elderly people in the new 2014-2020 programming period;

3. provide an overview of the situation?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Commission acknowledges receipt of the written question introduced by the honourable Member of the EP.

Neither the ESF or the ERDF can intervene to support the building of residential infrastructures, even if these have a
social aim as the hosting of elderly people.

The possibilities for ESF contribution concern activities which have the access to the labour market as main target,
such as the funding of training activities for the personnel employed for assisting the elderly, or the accomodation of
the eldrerly people as a way to facilitate the access to employment for member of their family (family-work
reconciliation measure). The same approach is confirmed for the next ESF programming phase 2014-2020.

For further information about the possibilities granted by the ESF and ERDF, we invite the honourable member to
contact the management authority of the ESF or ERDF Regional Operational Programme Lazio; the references are the
following:

Dott.ssa Paola BOTTARO
Management Authority ESF
Regione Lazio
Direzione regionale formazione, ricerca e innovazione, scuola e università, diritto allo studio
Via Rosa Raimondi Garibaldi, 7

I-00145 ROMA
[pbottaro@regione.lazio.it](mailto:pbottaro@regione.lazio.it)
[http://www.sirio.regione.lazio.it/](http://www.sirio.regione.lazio.it/)

Dott.ssa Rosanna BELOTTI
Direttore della Direzione Generale per lo Sviluppo economico e le Attività produttive
Via Rosa Raimondi Garibaldi 7

I-00145 Roma
[rbellotti@regione.lazio.it](mailto:rbellotti@regione.lazio.it)
[adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it](mailto:adgcomplazio@regione.lazio.it)

C 65 E / 322 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008171/13**

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

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Irregolarità nell'iter di approvazione del progetto dell'autostrada italiana «Valdastico A 31 Nord»

Il comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica ha approvato, in data 18 marzo 2013, il primo
stralcio dell'autostrada A31 Valdastico Nord che intende unire Piovene Rocchette (VI) e Besenello (TN) ( [1] ).

Il comune di Besenello ha presentato una valutazione a firma del prof. Zampieri — denominata « _Individuazione di_
_criticità geologica particolarmente rilevante nei Comuni di Valdastico e Pedemonte in merito al progetto preliminare Autostrada_
_Valdastico A31 Nord_ », inviata il 12.7.2012 con protocollo 3604 ai ministri competenti ( [2] ) — riguardante una zona di
frana in località Marogna (Comune di Valdastico) lungo il tracciato autostradale. La commissione VIA (valutazione
dell'impatto ambientale) nazionale si è espressa sul progetto con parere 1112 del 7.12.2012 senza menzionare la
suddetta osservazione e senza prendere in considerazione le tematiche geologiche e i rischi per l'infrastruttura e le

persone.

Il progetto andrebbe ad alterare l'ambiente nei comuni di Piovene Rocchette (VI), Cogollo del Cengio (VI), Velo
d'Astico (VI), Valdastico (VI), Pedemonte (VI), Lastebasse (VI), Arsiero (VI), Rotzo (VI), Lavarone (TN), Folgaria (TN),
Besenello (TN), Calliano (TN), Nomi (TN).

Come si evince dal parere della commissione VIA regionale ( [3] ), nel corso dell'iter procedurale il tracciato autostradale
è stato modificato, ma il nuovo tracciato non è stato reso pubblico impedendo così alla popolazione dei sopradetti
comuni e alle amministrazioni coinvolte di poter confutare le disposizioni del comitato interministeriale per la
programmazione economica.

Il silente mutamento di ubicazione del tracciato è contrario a quanto sancito dal principio di trasparenza in base al
quale tutti gli atti della pubblica amministrazione devono essere divulgati e accessibili, a eccezione di quelli secretati.
Inoltre, ha impedito la partecipazione del pubblico così come garantita dalla direttiva sulla VIA 2011/92/UE.

Si chiede alla Commissione se le suddette violazioni procedurali costituiscano inosservanza delle direttive 2003/4/CE
(sull'accesso del pubblico all'informazione ambientale) e 2004/35/CE (sulla responsabilità ambientale in materia di
prevenzione e riparazione del danno ambientale) e 2011/92/UE (sulla valutazione dell'impatto ambientale).

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(3 settembre 2013)_

Dalle informazioni fornite dall'onorevole deputato i servizi della Commissione non hanno potuto individuare una
violazione della direttiva 2003/4/CE ( [4] ), né della direttiva 2004/35/CE ( [5] ), poiché non è stato causato nessun danno
che risponda alle condizioni previste da quest'ultima direttiva.

La Commissione contatterà le autorità italiane per ottenere chiarimenti sull'applicazione della direttiva
2011/92/UE ( [6] ) al progetto di cui sopra, per quanto riguarda il diritto di informazione e di partecipazione della società
civile e dei comuni limitrofi nella procedura VIA.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.cipecomitato.it/it/il_cipe/sedute/2013/allegati_esito_sedute/Seduta_0003/esito.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.comune.besenello.tn.it/index.asp?IDC=C0264
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Bollettino Ufficiale della Regione Veneto n. 73 DGRV n. 1654 del 7.8.2012 che approva il parere 364 della commissione VIA. Il nuovo tracciato

definito Alternativa 1 «Cogollo del Cengio» è citato a pagina 44 del parere.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2003/4/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 28 gennaio 2003, sull'accesso del pubblico all'informazione ambientale e che

abroga la direttiva 90/313/CEE del Consiglio (GU L 41 del 14.2.2003).

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2004/35/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 21 aprile 2004, sulla responsabilità ambientale in materia di prevenzione e

riparazione del danno ambientale (GU L 143 del 30.4.2004).

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) 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).

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 323

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008171/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Irregularities in the approval procedure for the ‘Valdastico A 31 Nord’ motorway project in Italy

On 18 March 2013, the Italian Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning approved the first section of the
Valdastico A 31 Nord motorway which will join Piovene Rocchette (province of Vicenzo) and Besenello (province of
Trento) ( [1] ).

The municipal government of Besenello submitted an evaluation by Professor Zampieri — entitled ‘Identification of
geological issues of particular importance in the municipalities of Valdastico and Pedemonte with regard to the
preliminary Valdastico A 31 Nord motorway project’, forwarded on 12 July 2012 under reference No 3604 to the
ministers responsible ( [2] ) — concerning a landslide area in the Marogna locality (in the municipality of Valdastico)
along the motorway route. The national Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Commission issued Opinion
No 1112 of 7 December 2012 on the project, without mentioning the above observation or taking into consideration
the geological questions and the risks to infrastructure and persons.

The project would change the environment in the following municipalities in the province of Vicenzo: Piovene
Rocchette, Cogollo del Cengio, Velo d'Astico, Valdastico, Pedemonte, Lastebasse, Arsiero and Rotzo; and the
following municipalities in the province of Trento: Lavarone, Folgaria, Besenello, Calliano and Nomi.

As inferred from the opinion of the regional EIA commission ( [3] ), the motorway route was modified during the
procedure, but the new route was not made public, thereby preventing the population of the aforesaid municipalities
and the administrations concerned from rebutting the provisions of the Interministerial Committee for Economic
Planning.

The silent alteration of the route’s location runs counter to the principle of transparency according to which all public
administration documents must be divulged and accessible, except those classified as officially secret. Furthermore, it
prevented participation of the public as guaranteed by the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU.

Can the Commission state whether the aforesaid procedural violations constitute non-compliance with Directives
2003/4/EC (on public access to environmental information) and 2004/35/EC (on environmental liability with regard
to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage) and 2011/92/EU (on the assessment of impact on the
environment)?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

From the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission services could not identify a breach of
the directive 2003/4/EC ( [4] ), nor of the directive 2004/35/EC ( [5] ), as no damage fulfilling the conditions of this directive
has been caused.

The Commission will contact the Italian authorities to obtain clarifications on the application to the abovementioned
project of the directive 2011/92/EU ( [6] ) with regard to the right of information and participation of the civil society
and neighbouring municipalities in the EIA procedure.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.cipecomitato.it/it/il_cipe/sedute/2013/allegati_esito_sedute/Seduta_0003/esito.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.comune.besenello.tn.it/index.asp?IDC=C0264
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Official Gazette of the Region of Veneto No 73, Veneto Regional Council Decision No 1654 of 7.8.2012 adopting Opinion No 364 of the EIA

Commission. The new route referred to as Alternative 1 ‘Cogollo del Cengio’ appears on page 44 of the opinion.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and

repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, OJ L 41, 14.2.2003.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Directive 2004/35/EC of the European 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.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European 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.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

C 65 E / 324 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008172/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Gas di scisto in Europa

Considerando che, nel periodo 2013-2035, il 50 % circa della crescita della produzione mondiale di gas sarà
riconducibile a risorse non convenzionali, come il gas di scisto;

considerando che mancano stime precise in relazione ai giacimenti europei, anche a causa del ritardo nelle
trivellazioni;

considerando che l'Europa è densamente popolata e che i giacimenti più promettenti si trovano nelle vicinanze dei
centri abitati;

considerando i pareri divergenti degli Stati membri in merito alla questione del gas di scisto e che, tenendo conto di
tutti i requisiti di sicurezza necessari, il potenziale del gas di scisto sfruttabile in Germania, in Italia e in Francia è
talmente piccolo che non avrebbe alcun tipo di impatto sui prezzi energetici regionali;

considerando che non c'è ancora alcuna analisi completa del ciclo di vita e che vi sono dubbi perfino che il gas di
scisto abbia un'impronta di carbonio inferiore a quella del carbone,

può la Commissione far sapere:

—
quali politiche reputa che debbano essere adottate affinché vengano effettuati degli approfondimenti circa i
rischi ambientali e i costi effettivi di produzione;

—
se reputa di dover elaborare una nuova proposta di regolamento che tuteli dall'impatto ambientale derivante da
questa tecnica di estrazione?

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(3 settembre 2013)_

Nel suo programma di lavoro per il 2013 la Commissione ha previsto anche l’istituzione di un «quadro di valutazione
ambientale climatica ed energetica ai fini dell’estrazione sicura di idrocarburi non convenzionali». Questa iniziativa
mira a trattare, tra l’altro, questioni relative alla gestione dei rischi e a rispondere ad eventuali carenze normative. La
Commissione ritiene che spetti in primo luogo all’industria indagare sui costi di produzione effettivi. Nell’ambito
dell’iniziativa saranno esaminati aspetti come quelli sollevati dall’onorevole deputato, così come tutte le pertinenti
opzioni politiche.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 325

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008172/13**

**to the Commission**
**Aldo Patriciello (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Shale gas in Europe

Considering that, between 2013 and 2035, approximately 50% of the growth in global gas production will be
attributable to non-conventional resources, such as shale gas;

considering that there is a lack of accurate estimates regarding deposits in Europe, not least because of the delay in
drilling;

considering that Europe is densely populated and that the most promising deposits are located near built-up centres;

considering the Member States’ differing opinions on the question of shale gas and, taking account of all the necessary
safety requirements, that the potential of the shale gas which could be exploited in Germany, Italy and France is so
small that it would have no impact whatsoever on regional energy prices;

considering that we still do not have a complete analysis of its life cycle and that there are still doubts even as to
whether shale gas has a lower carbon footprint than coal,

can the Commission state:

—
which policies it believes should be adopted in order to further examine the environmental risks and the actual
production costs;

—
whether it believes it is necessary to draft a new proposal for a regulation to safeguard against the
environmental impact caused by this extraction technique?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The Commission included in its 2013 Work Programme an ‘Environment, Climate and Energy Assessment
Framework to Enable Safe and Secure Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction’. This initiative aims to cover, _inter_
_alia_, issues related to managing risks and addressing possible regulatory shortcomings. While the Commission
considers that it is primarily for the industry to investigate actual production costs, the initiative will consider issues
such as those raised by the Honourable Members as well as all relevant policy options.

C 65 E / 326 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008173/13**

**do Komisji**
**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR)**

_(9 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Działania UE na rzecz zapobiegania wyzyskowi pracowników

W ubiegłym tygodniu niemiecka stacja ARD wyemitowała reportaż, którego tematem byli współcześni niewolnicy.
Właściciele rzeźni z zachodu Niemiec stworzyli wyjątkowo sprawnie funkcjonujący system wyzysku pracowników,
którego ofiarami padli imigranci z Europy Środkowej, głównie Polacy i Rumuni. Jest to kolejny taki przypadek
w branży mięsnej. Szacuje się, że ten proceder prowadzi do likwidacji ok. 20 % miejsc stałej pracy w Niemczech i strat
rzędu milionów dolarów.

1. Funkcjonowanie tego systemu było możliwe dzięki pośrednictwu tzw. „firm-krzaków”. Czy planowane jest
wprowadzenie regulacji zapobiegających powstawaniu firm tego typu?

2. Jakie działania podjęły lub zamierzają podjąć instytucje unijne by zagwarantować kontrolę zatrudnienia oraz
kontrolę statusu pracowników zagranicznych i przestrzegania ich umów?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza László Andora w imieniu Komisji**

_(5 września 2013 r.)_

Monitorowanie i egzekwowanie warunków pracy i zatrudniania oraz rzeczywistego wynagrodzenia pracowników –
w tym pracowników delegowanych – należy do kompetencji państw członkowskich, w których funkcjonują
wyspecjalizowane organy odpowiedzialne za prowadzenie kontroli i wprowadzanie stosownych środków
korygujących. Odnosi się to również do ogólnego nadzorowania legalności przedsiębiorstw zakładanych
i prowadzących działalność na ich terytorium.

W marcu 2012 r. Komisja przyjęła wniosek ( [1] ) w sprawie dyrektywy wykonawczej mającej usprawnić wdrożenie
dyrektywy 96/71/WE ( [2] ) przez państwa członkowskie, jej stosowanie i egzekwowanie. W proponowanej dyrektywie
państwom członkowskim zostaną udostępnione bardziej skuteczne instrumenty monitorowania i egzekwowania
warunków pracy, przede wszystkim w odniesieniu do obchodzenia obowiązujących przepisów, które ma miejsce
między innymi dzięki pośrednictwu tzw. „firm-krzaków”. Wniosek jest obecnie badany przez Radę i Parlament.

Ponadto, w celu usprawnienia przepisów UE dotyczących swobodnego przepływu pracowników i zwalczania
dyskryminacji ze względu na narodowość oraz eliminacji nieuzasadnionych przeszkód w swobodnym przepływie
pracowników, w dniu 26 kwietnia 2013 r. Komisja przyjęła wniosek ( [3] ) w sprawie dyrektywy ułatwiającej
korzystanie z praw przyznanych pracownikom migrującym w UE. Wniosek umożliwi skuteczniejsze egzekwowanie
obecnie obowiązujących praw i nałoży na państwa członkowskie obowiązek poinformowania pracowników
migrujących o przysługujących im prawach i udzielenia im pomocy w ich dochodzeniu. Wniosek jest obecnie
również badany przez Radę i Parlament.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Wniosek dotyczący dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie egzekwowania dyrektywy 96/71/WE dotyczącej delegowania

pracowników w ramach świadczenia usług (COM(2012) 131 final z dnia 21 marca 2012 r.).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Dyrektywa 96/71/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 16 grudnia 1996 r. dotycząca delegowania pracowników w ramach świadczenia

usług, Dz.U. L 18 z 21.1.1997.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Wniosek dotyczący dyrektywy Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie środków ułatwiających korzystanie z praw przyznanych

pracownikom w kontekście swobodnego przepływu pracowników (COM(2013) 236 final z dnia 26 kwietnia 2013 r.).

( **|**

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 327

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008173/13**

**to the Commission**
**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU action to prevent workers from being exploited

Last week a report on modern-day slavery screened by the German broadcaster ARD showed how the owners of a
slaughterhouse in western Germany had developed a highly effective system for exploiting workers — in this
instance, migrants from Central Europe, in particular Poland and Romania. This is far from the first time this has
happened in the meat sector. Practices of this kind are thought to have resulted in the loss of 20% of permanent jobs
in Germany and to be costing the government millions of dollars.

1. This system was made possible by the use of ‘fly-by-night’ firms. Are there any plans to bring in rules
prohibiting the setting up of such firms?

2. What steps are the EU institutions taking, or do they intend to take, to ensure that proper checks are made on
employers and the status of foreign workers and that the employment rights of those workers are upheld?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The monitoring and enforcement of working and employment conditions and the actual remuneration of workers,
including posted workers, fall within the competence of the Member States, which have specialised enforcement
bodies to conduct such verifications and determine the appropriate corrective measures. This is also the case when it
comes to supervising the lawfulness in general of companies being established and operating on their territory.

In March 2012 the Commission adopted a proposal ( [1] ) for an enforcement directive to improve the way
Directive 96/71/EC ( [2] ) is implemented, applied and enforced in practice by the Member States. The proposed directive
would offer the Member States more effective instruments for monitoring and enforcing employment conditions,
particularly with regard to the circumvention of the rules applicable, _inter alia_ through ‘letter-box companies’. The
proposal is currently being examined by the Council and Parliament.

Furthermore, in order to make EC law on free movement of workers more effective and to fight discrimination on the
basis of nationality and unjustified obstacles to free movement of workers, on 26 April 2013 the Commission
adopted a proposal ( [3] ) for a directive to facilitate the exercise of rights of EU migrant workers. That proposal improves
the enforcement of existing rights and would require the Member States to provide migrant workers with information
on their rights and more assistance to assert them. The proposal is also currently being examined by the Council and
Parliament.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of

workers in the framework of the provision of service (COM(2012) 131 final of 21 March 2012).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of

the provision of services, OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures facilitating the exercise of rights conferred on workers in the

context of freedom of movement for workers (COM(2013) 236 final of 26 April 2013).

( **|**

( **|**

C 65 E / 328 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008174/13**

**ao Conselho**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) e João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Proibição de sobrevoo do Presidente Evo Morales sobre vários países da UE

Portugal, Espanha, França e Itália recusaram que o avião que transportava o Presidente da Bolívia, Evo Morales,
sobrevoasse o seu espaço aéreo, vindo da Rússia, quando, de acordo com as normas internacionais, o chefe de Estado
tem imunidade internacional.

Assim, pergunta-se ao Conselho:

1. Conhece algum tipo de pressão exercida pelos EUA sobre estes Estados‐Membros para que não autorizassem o
sobrevoo do seu espaço aéreo pelo avião que transportava o Presidente da Bolívia? Se sim, essa pressão está
relacionada com o caso Edward Snowden?

2. A decisão destes Estados‐Membros foi coordenada ao nível do Conselho?

**Resposta**
_(16 de setembro de 2013)_

1. O Conselho não tem conhecimento de qualquer pressão exercida pelos EUA a este respeito.

2. As decisões às quais os Senhores Deputados se referem foram decisões individuais dos Estados‐Membros, que
não foram coordenadas no Conselho.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 329

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008174/13**

**to the Council**
**Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL) and João Ferreira (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Overflying ban imposed on President Evo Morales by Member States

Portugal, Spain, France, and Italy closed their airspace to the aircraft carrying the Bolivian President, Evo Morales, on
his way back from Russia; this happened in spite of the fact that, under international law, a head of state enjoys
international immunity.

1. Does the Council know whether the US pressured the above Member States into refusing permission for the
Bolivian President’s aircraft to fly through their airspace? If pressure was exerted — in whatever form — did it have
any connection with the Edward Snowden affair?

2. Was the Member States’ decision coordinated within the Council?

**Reply**
_(16 September 2013)_

1. The Council is not aware of any US pressure in this regard.

2. The decisions to which the Honourable Member refers were individual Member State decisions, which were not
coordinated within the Council.

C 65 E / 330 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008176/13**

**komissiolle**
**Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE)**

_(9. heinäkuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Avoimuusrekisteriin rekisteröitymisen muuttaminen pakolliseksi

Avoimuusrekisterin alkuperäisenä tavoitteena oli tiedottaa kansalaisille organisaatioista ja itsenäisistä
ammatinharjoittajista, jotka vaikuttavat EU:n päätöksentekoon. Tässä se on osittain onnistunutkin. Mutta rekisterissä
on edelleen suuria puutteita.

Avoimuutta ajavan Alter-EU-järjestön 20. kesäkuuta julkaiseman raportin mukaan rekisteristä puuttuu yli 100 suurta
yritystä, joiden pitäisi olla rekisteröitynyt. Näiden yritysten joukossa on muun muassa Adidas, Apple, General Motors
Europe, Heineken, Porsche, Rio Tinto, Disney, Shanks Group, SAP, Time Warner, Nissan ja Northrop Grumman.

Tällä hetkellä rekisteröityminen on vapaaehtoista. Jotta kaikki EU-edunvalvontaa harjoittavat yritykset saadaan
mukaan rekisteriin, on rekisteröityminen tehtävä pakolliseksi.

Mahdollinen oikeusperusta ainakin komission osalta löytyy Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen
298 artiklasta. Se takaa avoimen, tehokkaan ja riippumattoman eurooppalaisen hallinnon.

— Kokeeko komissio ongelmaksi, että kaikki EU-edunvalvontaa harjoittavat yritykset eivät ole mukana
avoimuusrekisterissä?

— Katsooko komissio, että avoimuusrekisterin alkuperäinen tarkoitus toteutuu nyt, vai onko tarve muuttaa
rekisteröinti pakolliseksi?

**Maroš Šefčovičin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(23. elokuuta 2013)_

Komissio pitää valitettavana sitä, että monet edunvalvontaa harjoittavat yritykset eivät vielä ole avoimuusrekisterissä,
ja rohkaisee kaikkia tällaisia organisaatioita rekisteröitymään.

Arvoisan parlamentin jäsenen mainitsemaa ongelmaa tarkastellaan avoimuusrekisteristä tehdyn toimielinten välisen
sopimuksen (EUVL L 191, 22.7.2011, s. 32) 30 kohdassa määrätyn avoimuusrekisteristä tehtävän
uudelleentarkastelun yhteydessä. Euroopan parlamentin ja Euroopan komission edustajista koostuva toimielinten
välinen työryhmä, jonka puheenjohtajina toimivat varapuhemies Wieland ja varapuheenjohtaja Šefčovič, on juuri
aloittanut tämän uudelleentarkastelun.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 331

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008176/13**

**to the Commission**
**Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Transparency register: making registration mandatory

The original objective of the transparency register was to inform citizens about organisations and self-employed
persons that influence EU decision-making. In this it has partly succeeded. However, there are still large gaps in the
register.

According to the report published on 20 June 2013 by the transparency group Alter-EU, over 100 major
undertakings are missing from the register which ought to be listed. These include Adidas, Apple, General Motors
Europe, Heineken, Porsche, Rio Tinto, Disney, Shanks Group, SAP, Time Warner, Nissan and Northrop Grumman.

At present registration is voluntary. To ensure that all undertakings which carry out EU lobbying are listed on the
register, registration should be made mandatory.

A possible legal basis at least from the Commission’s point of view is to be found in Article 298 TFEU, which supports
an open, efficient and independent European administration.

— Does the Commission perceive it to be a problem that not all undertakings which carry out EU lobbying are listed
on the transparency register?

— Does the Commission consider that the original purpose of the transparency register is now being realised, or does
listing need to be made mandatory?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission regrets that a number of undertakings engaged in lobbying activities have not yet registered and
encourages all such organisations to join the scheme.

The issue mentioned by the Honourable Member will be examined in the context of the review of the Transparency
register scheme foreseen by item 30 of the Interinstitutional agreement on the Transparency Register (JOL191/32 of
22.7.2011). This review has only just started within an interinstitutional working group composed of representatives
of the European Parliament and of the European Commission, co-chaired by Vice-President Wieland and VicePresident Šefčovič.

C 65 E / 332 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008177/13**

**to the Commission**
**Linda McAvan (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Hague Convention on Child Abduction

The Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the main international
family law treaty concerned with child abduction (or the wrongful retention of children) ( [1] ). It helps to facilitate legally
the return of a child to a parent from one signatory country to another, where wrongful removal by another parent
has taken place.

For a state to accede to and start operating the Convention, it must have previously been accepted by all existing
signatories. On 1 August 2004, Regulation EC No 2201/2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (‘Brussels II’) entered into force. As this
regulation overlaps with elements of the Convention, our understanding is as follows:

Only the Commission can give states permission to agree to applications from other states to accede to the 1980
Hague Convention on Child Abduction.

The Commission takes the view that the Member States should allow en bloc accessions.

— Can the Commission confirm that this is correct? And can it broadly explain its procedures relating to a third
country applying to the Convention and being granted accession?

— Is the Commission aware of the potential time delay for countries acceding to the Convention as a result of its
assertion of competence on this issue? Can it give examples of the current actions it is taking to facilitate the necessary
consent of the Member States to third countries’ accession?

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

_(5 August 2013)_

The 1980 Hague Convention establishes a system of cooperation which requires an explicit declaration of acceptance
of new Contracting Parties. The Convention operates on bilateral basis; it is not necessary that all existing Parties
accept the new ones.

The Commission is of the opinion that the matter of international child abduction, pursuant to the constant case-law
of the Court of Justice and the relevant provisions in Article 3(2) TFEU and in Article 216(1) TFEU is under EU
exclusive competence because of the establishment of parallel internal legislation (Regulation Brussels IIa ( [2] )).

The current fragmented situation ( [3] ) is not in line with the Treaties, nor in the child's best interests.

To establish a common EU position on the issue, the Commission adopted a package of proposals for the Member
States' acceptance, on behalf of the EU, of the accession of eight new Contracting Parties, including key partners as
Russia and Morocco ( [4] ).

However, the majority of the Member States are of the view that the acceptance of new parties to the Convention was
not an EU exclusive competence and blocked the negotiations in the Council.

In order to take forward the file, the Commission decided to ask an Opinion to the Court of Justice of the European
Union; the referral is currently pending ( [5] ).

The Honourable Member should be aware that it is not for the Commission to allow Member States to make the
declaration of acceptance: this is an issue to be decided by the Council ( [6] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=21.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 31.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Member States decide now individually whether to accept a new Party without any coordination at EU level.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 904,908,909,911,915,916,917.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) C(2013)1607 final of 21 March 2013.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) This is because the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction does not have a REIO clause, so the EU cannot accede to the Convention itself

and make necessary declarations. The Member States that are parties to the Convention should act on behalf of the EU, and in its interest.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 333

The dispute on the competence would not have prevented Member States from finding a pragmatic solution in the
Council, pending the Court decision. The Honourable Member should be assured that the Commission remains ready
to cooperate should the negotiations be resumed.

C 65 E / 334 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008178/13**

**to the Commission**
**Martin Callanan (ECR)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ability of Member States to regulate or ban propane gas guns (bird scarers)

Several constituents have contacted me to bring to my attention problems they are experiencing caused by the
inconsiderate use of propane gas guns by local farmers.

Propane gas guns (often called ‘bird scarers’) are used by farmers hoping to limit the amount of seed crop that is eaten
by birds. The guns produce periodic loud explosions with sound levels in excess of 150 dB. Birds soon become
accustomed to the noise however, realising that the guns (which generally do not vary in sound magnitude, pitch or
time interval) pose no real threat. Local residents are nevertheless forced to tolerate the noise produced by the guns,
often grouped together and used seven days a week.

My constituents have informed me that they have brought the problem to the attention of national authorities. These
authorities have informed my constituents that propane gas guns do not fall within the scope of EU
Directive 2000/14/EC and associated implementing national legislation, and that the relevant government
department ‘has no enforcement powers to withdraw gas gun bird scarers from the market or prohibit their use’.

I accept that a government department may not currently have such enforcement powers. It is unclear, however,
whether such powers may be bestowed on enforcement agencies by national authorities while remaining in
compliance with EC law. In view of the above, would the Commission therefore answer the following questions:

1. Is there any aspect of Directive 2000/14/EC or any other EU regulation or directive which would prevent
national authorities from regulating or banning the use of propane gas gun bird scarers? If so, could you please
state which regulation or directive would prohibit such national action?

2. If this is not the case, could you explicitly state that no EU legislation currently prevents national authorities
from introducing legislation to regulate or ban the use of propane gas guns?

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

_(13 August 2013)_

Propane ‘gas guns’ designed to scare birds away from agricultural crops are not in the scope of Directive 2000/14/EC
on noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors. The devices themselves are subject to the
Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC and the propane cylinders used with the devices are subject to
Directive 2010/35/EU on transportable pressure equipment. These Directives concern the safe design and
manufacture of the products in their scope and regulate the placing on the market of those products.

These Directives do not prevent national or local authorities from regulating the use of such products for reasons
relating to other aspects, such as the protection of the environment, provided that such regulations do not constitute
unjustified restrictions on the free movement of compliant products in the internal market.For aspects that are not
regulated by EU secondary legislation, any restriction or prohibition of use of the product should be evaluated from
the point of view of free movement of goods as provided for by Articles 34-36 TFEU and the case law of the Court of
Justice of the EU.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 335

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008179/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Recursos pesqueros y pesca artesanal

Recientemente se ha publicado el informe titulado «Empleo a bordo: Análisis del empleo en el sector pesquero
español y su impacto socioeconómico _»_, de Greenpeace, en el que, se realiza un completo **análisis del empleo en el**
**sector pesquero en las últimas décadas, y que mide y valora la contribución económica y, sobre todo, social**
**de la pesca.** Asimismo, también se presentan datos diferenciados entre el empleo del sector artesanal y del industrial.
El estudio demuestra, entre otras cosas que, **en los últimos 20 años, en** la pesca española se han destruido
52 000 empleos netos, disminuyendo el empleo un 60 % con respecto al año 1992. Señala también **el estado de**
**explotación de los stocks pesqueros** afecta directamente a las personas que viven de ellos; en el año 1966 se
alcanza el nivel máximo de capturas, 1 455 000 toneladas, una cifra que comienza a descender hasta que en el
año 2010 se sitúa por debajo del millón de toneladas, la evolución del empleo es muy similar, y disminuye al igual
que las capturas, **la pesca artesanal** tiene gran importancia en el ámbito rural, ya que el 82,7 % de los trabajadores de
este sector y sus familias (en torno a 22 000 personas) residen en municipios pequeños siendo m **ás del 94 % de las**
**mujeres que trabajan** en la pesca extractiva lo hacen en el sector artesanal, así como el 74 % de los jóvenes y el 63 %
de los mayores de 55 años. El **empleo en la pesca artesanal** es más estable, con un porcentaje del 81,8 %, debido al
alto peso del empleo por cuenta propia, frente al 74,1 % de los trabajadores de la pesca no artesanal. El informe
concluye que la estabilidad social de las zonas rurales depende en gran medida de la pesca artesanal ( [1] ) ( [2] ).

¿Ha tenido la Comisión en cuenta este informe en el marco de la reforma pesquera?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión**

_(5 de septiembre de 2013)_

El informe de Greenpeace titulado _Empleo a bordo: análisis del empleo en el sector pesquero español y su impacto_
_socioeconómico_ se publicó en mayo de 2013, casi dos años después de que la Comisión adoptara su propuesta de
reforma de la PPC. No obstante, muchas de las tendencias soecioeconómicas destacadas en el informe reflejan el
análisis realizado por la Comisión en la evaluación de impacto que acompaña a su propuesta de reforma de la PPC ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Informe: http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/report/oceanos/Informe%20Pesca%20Sostenible.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Resumen: http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/report/oceanos/empleoabordoweb.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Documento SEC(2011) 891 sobre la evaluación de impacto de la propuesta de la Comisión de reforma de 2012 de la Política Pesquera Común.

C 65 E / 336 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008179/13**

**to the Commission**
**Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fish stocks and small-scale fisheries

Greenpeace has recently published a report entitled ‘Employment on board: Analysis of employment in the Spanish
fishing industry and its social and economic impact’, for which it carried out a comprehensive analysis of
employment in that fishing industry in recent decades, assessing and putting a value on the economic and,
particularly, social contribution of fishing. The report also presents comparative employment data for industrial and
small‐scale fisheries. Among other things, the study shows that in the last 20 years the Spanish fishing industry has
seen a net loss of 52 000 jobs, constituting a decline of 60% since 1992. It also points out that the current level of
exploitation of fish stocks directly affects those who depend on fishing to make a living; catches peaked in 1966 at
1 455 000 tonnes, then began to fall until, in 2010, the figure stood at under a million tonnes. The trend is very
similar when it comes to employment, which has also been in decline. Small-scale fishing is very common in rural
contexts. Indeed, 82.7% of fishing industry workers and their families (around 22 000 people) live in small towns and
villages. More than 94% of women working in the fishing industry, as well as 74% of young people and 63% of those
over 55, are employed in small-scale fisheries. The level of employment is more stable in small-scale fisheries, owing
to the high proportion of self-employment, and currently stands at 81.8% as opposed to 74.1% in industrial fisheries.
The report concludes that social stability in rural areas depends to a large extent on small‐scale fishing ( [1] )( [2] ).

Has the Commission taken this report into consideration as part of the reform of the common fisheries policy?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

Greenpeace’s report entitled ‘ _Employment on board: Analysis of employment in the Spanish fishing industry and its social and_
_economic impact_ ’ was published in May 2013, nearly two years after the Commission adopted its proposal for a CFP
reform. However, many of the socioeconomic trends highlighted in the report reflect the analysis conducted by the
Commission in the impact assessment accompanying its CFP reform proposal ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Report (in Spanish): http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/report/oceanos/Informe%20Pesca%20Sostenible.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Summary: http://www.greenpeace.org/espana/Global/espana/report/oceanos/empleoabordoweb.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) SEC(2011) 891 ‘Impact assessment concerning the Commission's proposal for the 2012 reform of the common fisheries policy’.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 337

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008180/13**

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

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Pastos permanentes como vía para el acaparamiento de tierras en Europa

El pasado 25 de junio se celebró en el Parlamento Europeo la conferencia _titulada «_ El desafío de la tierra en Europa: del
acaparamiento de tierra a la reforma agraria _»_, en el que surgió un fructífero debate en el que aparecieron numerosas
cuestiones de importancia que atañen a la Comisión.

Una de estas importantes cuestiones sobre las que resulta necesario conocer la posición de la Comisión es el futuro de
la actividad agrícola en Europa, teniendo en cuenta que numerosas empresas extranjeras están comprando terrenos
en diferentes Estados miembros. Estas empresas forman parte del fenómeno mundial del acaparamiento de tierras por
el cual los grandes capitales emplean la tierra como un valor refugio debido a la caída de la rentabilidad de muchas
actividades especulativas. Este acaparamiento de los espacios agrícolas por el capital financiero es una amenaza al
futuro de la actividad y del mismo campesinado, que ha sido el guardián de la agrobiodiversidad durante miles de
años.

Este papel de la PAC de hacer rentables las tierras para bancos y grupos financieros es flagrante, garantizando unos
pagos directos sin apenas establecer límites, al mismo tiempo que la gran mayoría de pequeños productores europeos
no resultan elegibles para recibir las ayudas de dicha política. Esta forma de atraer a los capitales internacionales a
través del empleo de los recursos públicos europeos dilapida el futuro de la soberanía e incluso la seguridad
alimentaria europea.

En el contexto de la negociación de la PAC, existen aún numerosos aspectos por pulir, pero un caso específico de
cómo se favorece el acaparamiento por parte de entidades financieras y no agricultores es el fomento de los pastos
permanentes. El mantenimiento de los pastos permanentes se considera como una medida fundamental para el
«greening» de la política agraria. Pese a los aspectos positivos que pueden conllevar plantear el mantenimiento de
pastos permanentes sin vincularlos a una cabaña ganadera, hacerlo es lo mismo que abogar por el abandono de las
tierras. Bajo la rúbrica de pastos permanentes, miles de hectáreas abandonadas tienen derecho a recibir fondos de la
PAC, siendo éstas propiedad de bancos, empresas multinacionales, financieras, etc., fomentando así la recepción de
fondos por parte de estas empresas.

¿Considera la Comisión que los pastos permanentes sin una cabaña ganadera asociada pueden encubrir tierras en
abandono? ¿Cuál de los objetivos fundamentales de la PAC cumplen tierras abandonadas en manos de capitales
financieros? ¿En cuánto se ha incrementado el número de hectáreas de pastos permanentes sin ganadería? ¿Cuántas en
propiedad de entidades financieras?

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

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

La reforma de los pagos directos de la PAC introduce el requisito de «agricultor activo» y refuerza los requisitos
aplicables a la gestión de las tierras, con objeto de orientar mejor las ayudas. El requisito de «agricultor activo» implica
que las entidades incluidas en la lista no pueden ser elegibles, a menos que demuestren que su actividad agraria no es
marginal.

Por otra parte, en 2015, los derechos de ayuda en el marco del régimen de pago básico se asignarán, por regla general,
únicamente a los beneficiarios de ayudas directas con respecto al año de solicitud 2013. Para poder recibir ayudas del
régimen de pago básico, los agricultores tienen que haber ejercido una actividad agraria en espacios agrícolas, por
ejemplo, como mínimo, el mantenimiento de esos espacios agrícolas en un estado adecuado para el cultivo o el
pastoreo, sin ninguna actuación preparatoria particular más allá de la aplicación de los métodos o máquinas agrícolas
habituales. Habida cuenta de que el régimen de pago básico está concebido como régimen disociado, es decir,
conforme a las normas de la «caja verde» de la OMC, no pueden imponerse requisitos directos o indirectos para criar
animales.

Los datos sobre el régimen de pago único de que dispone la Comisión no distinguen entre distintos tipos de pastos
permanentes en relación con su uso por el ganado, ni entre diferentes tipos de agricultores en términos de propiedad.

C 65 E / 338 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008180/13**

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

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Permanent pasture rules encouraging land grabbing in Europe

On 25 June 2013, Parliament held a conference entitled ‘Land issues in Europe — From land grabbing to land reform’,
in which a fruitful discussion took place, raising many important issues that need to be brought to the Commission’s
attention.

One of the key issues on which the Commission’s position is sought, concerns the future of farming in Europe, given
that many foreign companies are now buying land in a number of Member States. These companies are part of the
global phenomenon of land grabbing, in which wealthy investors are buying land as a safe investment following a
drop in the profitability of many speculative activities. This land grabbing by financial investors threatens the future
of farming and of small farmers themselves, who have been the guardians of agro-biodiversity for thousands of years.

The CAP rules are clearly making it more profitable for banks and financial groups to own farmland by enabling them
to receive direct payments to which almost no limits apply, while the vast majority of small European producers fail
to qualify for subsidies under the policy. European public funds are thus serving to attract foreign investment and, in
so doing, to undermine Europe’s future food sovereignty and, indeed, food security.

In the context of the negotiations on reforming the CAP, there are still many aspects that need fine tuning, but one
specific example of how land grabbing by financial entities is being encouraged to the detriment of farmers is the
emphasis given to promoting permanent pasture. Maintaining permanent pasture is considered an essential part of
the CAP ‘greening’ plans. Despite the benefits of maintaining permanent pasture with no livestock on it, this policy is
tantamount to advocating land abandonment. Because they are classed as permanent pasture, thousands of hectares
of land that has in fact been abandoned qualify for CAP payments, which are then pocketed by the banks,
multinationals, financial firms, etc. that own them.

Does the Commission agree that permanent pasture with no livestock on it may in fact be land that has been
abandoned? Which of the main aims of the CAP are served by having thousands of hectares of abandoned land in the
hands of financial investors? What increase has there been in the number of hectares of permanent pasture with no
livestock on it? How much of that land is owned by financial entities?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

With the aim to target support better, the CAP reform of direct payments introduces the ‘active farmer’ requirement
and strengthens requirements for land management. Active farmer requirement implies that the entities on the list
will not be eligible unless they can show that their agricultural activity is not marginal.

In addition, allocation of payment entitlements under the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) in 2015 will be, as a general
rule, limited to the beneficiaries of direct support in respect of the 2013 claim year. To benefit from the BPS, a farmer
will have to exercise an agricultural activity on agricultural areas, which means at least to maintain agricultural areas
in a state suitable for cultivation or grazing without any particular preparatory action going beyond usual agricultural
methods and machineries. Given that the Basic Payment Scheme is designed as a decoupled scheme, i.e. compliant
WTO Green Box rules, no direct or indirect requirements to rear animals can be imposed.

Data in respect of the single payment scheme, which are available to the Commission, do not distinguish between
different types of permanent pastures as regards their use by livestock or between different farmers in terms of
ownership.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 339

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008181/13**

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

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Trabajadores transfronterizos en Ceuta y Melilla

Las ciudades autónomas españolas de Ceuta y Melilla son puertos de interés, así como áreas industriales importantes
de la costa norte del continente africano. Estas zonas, de importante volumen de producción e intercambio, se
sostienen gracias a la precaria situación de los trabajadores transfronterizos que cada día cruzan la frontera entre
España y Marruecos para ganar un jornal.

Se calcula que estos trabajadores que residen en Marruecos y cruzan la frontera cada día para trabajar son
aproximadamente unos 4 000. Son trabajadores que contribuyen al desarrollo económico de las citadas ciudades
tanto como sus residentes. Estas 4 000 personas se encuentran en una situación de discriminación flagrante y agravio
comparativo por el mero hecho de ser ciudadanos de un país no comunitario.

Esta situación discriminatoria se produce en el trato que las autoridades españolas permiten en las relaciones laborales
de estos ciudadanos marroquíes. La mayoría de estos trabajadores sufren la retención del IRPF, cuando no tienen
derecho a presentar la declaración de la renta. Esto quiere decir que el Estado retiene a personas que no deberían
tributar en España, puesto que ya sufren un descuento en sus nóminas por la aplicación de la Ley de la Renta de no
residentes. Estos trabajadores tampoco tienen derecho al desempleo pese a cotizar como cualquier otro trabajador
español, y ven limitado su derecho a la asistencia sanitaria de manera arbitraria. Asimismo, algunas autoridades
toman un papel activo en esta discriminación llegando a exigir hasta 750 euros de tasas por la renovación de
permisos y reduciendo la vigencia de los permisos de trabajo de cinco a un año.

— ¿Tiene la Comisión información sobre la situación de los trabajadores transfronterizos en las ciudades autónomas
de Ceuta y Melilla?

— ¿Considera que existen bases jurídicas para que trabajadores que tributan en un tercer país extranjero, —
tributación por la cual ya reciben una reducción de su salario—, sufran retenciones en el IRPF en España?

— ¿Considera que la autoridades españolas deben garantizar la asistencia sanitaria al menos a un nivel equivalente a la
que reciben los trabajadores españoles?

— ¿Considera que los trabajadores que cotizan a la seguridad social española deberían tener derecho a las mismas
prestaciones que dicho servicio garantiza a los trabajadores españoles?

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

_(14 de octubre de 2013)_

España aplica una retención del IRPF a los trabajadores de nacionalidad marroquí respecto de sus rentas del trabajo en
España. Esta norma está plenamente en consonancia con los principios de fiscalidad internacional y con el Modelo de
Convenio Tributario sobre la Renta y sobre el Patrimonio de la OCDE.

Por lo que se refiere al derecho de los trabajadores que viven en Marruecos y trabajan en Ceuta y Melilla a presentar
una declaración de la renta, la Comisión considera que la ley española aplicable ( [1] ) no excluye tal derecho. Sin
embargo, esta acción no tendría ningún efecto porque la devolución del impuesto sobre la renta no es ni es posible ni
necesaria ( [2] ), de forma que el tipo de retención a cuenta aplicado coincide en este caso con el tipo impositivo final ( [3] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artículo 28 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta de no Residentes, aprobada mediante el Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2004 de 5 de marzo de 2004.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Véase también el artículo 89 del Acuerdo Euromediterráneo por el que se crea una asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados

miembros, por una parte, y el Reino de Marruecos, por otra (DO L 70 de 18.3.2000).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Artículo 31, apartado 2, de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta de no Residentes; véase la nota 1.

( **|**

C 65 E / 340 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

El artículo 65 del Acuerdo Euromediterráneo indica que los trabajadores marroquíes y los miembros de sus familias
gozarán de igualdad de trato con los trabajadores nacionales en el ámbito de la seguridad social. Esta disposición de la
legislación de la UE es directamente aplicable a la legislación española ( [4] ). Por lo que se refiere a la asistencia sanitaria,
el efecto del artículo 65 respecto a la legislación española está por determinar (ya que la legislación nacional establece
si un trabajador no residente puede tener acceso al sistema sanitario español). Por lo que se refiere a otras prestaciones
de la seguridad social, el artículo 65 garantiza claramente la igualdad de trato en lo que concierne a todas las
prestaciones de la seguridad social ( [5] ). El efecto del artículo 65 quedará aún más reforzado cuando se llegue a un
acuerdo sobre la decisión de aplicación del Consejo de Asociación que actualmente está siendo negociada por las
autoridades marroquíes, la Comisión y los Estados miembros, y tal decisión entre en vigor.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Asunto C-18/90 Office national de l'emploi/Bahia Kziber, apartado 23.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Tal y como se indica en el artículo 3 del Reglamento (CE) n° 883/2004, sobre la coordinación de los sistemas de seguridad social.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 341

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008181/13**

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

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Cross-border workers in Ceuta and Melilla

The autonomous Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla are major ports and important industrial areas on Africa’s
northern coast. These cities, which have significant volumes of production and exchange, rely on the precarious
situation of the cross-border workers who enter Spain from Morocco each day to earn a day’s wages.

These workers, who live in Morocco and cross the border every day to work, are estimated to number approximately
4 000. They contribute to the economic development of these cities just as the cities’ own residents do. These 4 000
workers are subject to flagrant discrimination and comparatively poor treatment, merely because they are citizens of
a non-EU country.

This discriminatory situation is a result of the way that Spanish authorities allow these Moroccan citizens to be
treated in the context of labour relations. Most of these workers have personal income tax withheld from their pay,
even though they do not have the right to file a tax return. This means that the Spanish Government is withholding
money from individuals who should not pay taxes in Spain, given that their salary statements are already reduced
because they are subject to the Non-Resident Income Law. In addition, these workers do not have the right to
unemployment, even though they contribute to it just as other Spanish workers do, and their right to healthcare is
arbitrarily restricted. Furthermore, some authorities play an active part in this discrimination, going so far as to
demand up to EUR 750 in fees to renew permits, and reducing the validity of work permits from five years to just one.

— Does the Commission have information about the situation of the cross-border workers in the autonomous cities

of Ceuta and Melilla?

— Does it believe that a legal basis exists for withholding personal income tax in Spain from workers who pay taxes
in a third country — taxes which already reduce their pay?

— Does it believe that Spanish authorities should guarantee healthcare at a level that is at least equivalent to the level
of healthcare that Spanish workers receive?

— Does it believe that workers who contribute to Spanish social security should have the right to the same benefits
that this service guarantees to Spanish workers?

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

_(14 October 2013)_

Spain applies a withholding tax to workers of Moroccan nationality in respect of their employment-related income
from Spain. This rule is fully in line with the principles of international taxation and with the OECD Model Tax
Convention on Income and Capital.

As regards the right of workers living in Morocco and working in Ceuta and Melilla to file a tax return, the
Commission understands that the applicable Spanish law ( [1] ) does not preclude this. However, doing so would have no
effect because no reimbursement of income tax is possible nor required ( [2] ) so the withholding tax rate applied is the
final tax rate for them. ( [3] )

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 28 of the Non-Resident Income Tax Act, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 5/2004 of 5 March 2004.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) See also Article 89 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member

States and the Kingdom of Morocco, OJ L 70, 18.3.2000.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Article 31(2) of the Spanish Non-Resident Income Tax Act — see note 1.

( **|**

C 65 E / 342 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Article 65 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement provides that Moroccan workers and members of their family shall
enjoy equal treatment with national workers in the field of social security. This provision of EC law is directly
applicable in Spanish law ( [4] ). As regards healthcare, the effect of Article 65 has to be determined with regard to
Spanish law — as national law determines whether a non-resident worker can have access to the Spanish healthcare
system. As regards other social security benefits, Article 65 gives a clear guarantee of equal treatment in respect of all
social security benefits ( [5] ). The effect of Article 65 will be reinforced further when an implementing decision of the
Association Council, currently being negotiated between the Moroccan authorities, the Commission and the Member
States, is finally agreed and enters into force.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Case C-18/90 Kziber at paragraph 23.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) As listed in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 343

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008182/13**

**to the Commission**
**Edward McMillan-Scott (ALDE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Unfair restrictive practices between mortgage lenders and the Property Care Association

The Property Care Association (PCA), a UK trade body, has written to mortgage lenders encouraging them to use only
its members to provide reports on dampness within the homes mortgaged to lenders. This advice has been largely
followed by the mortgage lenders, resulting in a huge financial loss for other organisations, such as the Institute of
Specialist Surveyors and Engineers (ISSE), that likewise offers this service.

Despite complaints being made to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, this unfair collusion between mortgage lenders
and the PCA has so far not been rescinded. Complaints to the Office of Fair Trade (OFT) have gone unheeded, as the
OFT remains of the opinion that householders have a choice of surveyors; the ISSE, which is based in my constituency
of Yorkshire & Humber, assures me that this is not the case and that its members are discriminated against on a dayto-day basis due to this unfair restrictive trade practice agreed between the PCA and mortgage lenders.

Will the Commission:

1. Look into which, if any, EU legislation is contravened by the unfair arrangement between the two bodies in
question, limiting consumer choice and competition?

2. State whether the OFT is neglecting its duty to enforce EU regulation, and protect consumers and organisations
such as the ISSE in this case?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

On the basis of the information provided, it does not appear that PCA's conduct encouraging mortgage lenders to use
its members' services breaches EU competition rules, namely Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union (TFEU). There is no indication of an agreement within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU
between the PCA and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. It also seems unlikely that the recommendation letters
circulated unilaterally by the PCA can be qualified as an agreement between the PCA and the lenders or even if they
could, that they would appreciably restrict competition. Finally, there is no indication that the PCA is in a dominant
position as required by Article 102 TFEU, nor that its behaviour, i.e. the promotion of its members' activities, could be
qualified as abusive. This also appears to be the conclusion reached by the OFT.

C 65 E / 344 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008183/13**

**to the Commission**
**Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Land grabbing in Sri Lanka

Is the Commission aware of the practice of land grabbing in Sri Lanka? Is it aware of any banks or other companies
based in the European Union profiting or benefiting in any way from these activities?

Does the Commission intend to take action to oppose land grabbing in Sri Lanka?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

There have been several media reports, studies and written statements to the UN Human Rights Council by nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) that indicate there is a trend of land grabbing in the North and East of Sri Lanka.
This is particularly linked to the tourist industry.

The Sri Lankan Government claims that the acquisition is being done under the Land Acquisition Act, which states
[that lands can be acquired for public purposes and a circular released in January 2013 (](http://www.cpalanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Land-Circular-Brief-Commentary-March-20134.pdf) [1] ) declares that land lost during
conflict will be used for security purposes and development activities. There are however many claims and cases filed
in courts that indicate that these are private lands and the benefit to the public and development objectives are not
clear.

The EU is not aware at this time of any specific companies based in the European Union profiting or benefiting from
this land grab but will closely monitor the situation as it evolves.

The EU is following closely and monitoring the situation together with other international organisations and intends
to continue raising these matters in the course of the contacts with the Sri Lankan authorities.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.cpalanka.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Land-Circular-Brief-Commentary-March-20134.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 345

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008184/13**

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

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Possibili finanziamenti per la festa della pasta di Gragnano

La città di Gragnano, storica città della pasta in provincia di Napoli, e il Consorzio Gragnano Città della Pasta da oltre
10 anni celebrano annualmente la pasta IGP, da secoli fondamento dell'economia della città.

Infatti, la pasta di Gragnano dimostra come un territorio, nella fattispecie una città, possa diventare il motore di una
comunità che nei secoli si è sviluppata attorno ad essa.

Le dimensioni ormai raggiunte dall'evento (200 000 presenze nell'edizione del 2011, 15 000 piatti serviti in 3 giorni)
e il carattere internazionale dell'azione del consorzio e delle aziende che ne fanno parte (85 % del fatturato all'export
con oltre 50 paesi serviti) rendono questo evento un appuntamento di rilevanza internazionale ed europea.

La festa si svolge su tutto il percorso delle strade principali di Gragnano. Negli ultimi anni si sono utilizzati gli androni
dei palazzi storici della via Roma, strada disegnata nel '700 dall'architetto Riccardi, come una vera galleria del vento
per asciugare la pasta all'aperto, mentre le corti dei vecchi palazzi del centro della città una volta gloriosi pastifici sono
state trasformate in cucine, taverne e botteghe di pastai dell'inizio del secolo. L'obiettivo è anche quello di diffondere
principi e pratiche della corretta alimentazione, della salute e del benessere dei cittadini coinvolti, prestando
particolare attenzione alla divulgazione e spiegazione dei processi produttivi, all'analisi sensoriale e
all'approfondimento storico-culturale del patrimonio gastronomico della Regione Campania.

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione far sapere:

1. se vi sono finanziamenti comunitari, diretti e indiretti, che possono contribuire alla realizzazione del progetto
suesposto nella programmazione 2007-2013;

2. se nell'ambito della programmazione 2014-2020 vi sono azioni e progetti atti a valorizzare simili iniziative
legate alla sana alimentazione e alla promozione della cultura gastronomica;

3. se è a conoscenza di analoghe iniziative e buone prassi in tale ambito a livello europeo;

4. un quadro generale della situazione.

**Risposta di Dacian Cioloș a nome della Commissione**

_(30 agosto 2013)_

La misura relativa al «sostegno alle associazioni di produttori per attività di informazione e promozione riguardo ai
prodotti che rientrano nei sistemi di qualità alimentare» del programma di sviluppo rurale della regione Campania
(2007-2013) prevede, ai sensi dell'articolo 33 del regolamento (CE) n. 1698/2005 ( [1] ), l'informazione e la promozione
a favore dei prodotti agricoli di qualità destinati al consumo umano. Questi interventi potranno continuare a
beneficiare del sostegno del FEASR (Fondo europeo agricolo per lo sviluppo rurale) per il futuro periodo di
programmazione, conformemente all'accordo politico del 26 giugno 2013 sulla riforma della politica agricola
comune dopo il 2013. Occorre osservare che attualmente per la denominazione «Pasta di Gragnano» è ancora in
corso la procedura di registrazione come IGP. Essa dovrebbe terminare tra qualche mese.

Nell'attuale periodo di programmazione le azioni come quelle menzionate dall'onorevole parlamentare possono
essere sovvenzionate soltanto se relative a prodotti agricoli definiti nell'allegato I del trattato sul funzionamento
dell'Unione europea (TFUE) e destinati al consumo umano. In termini generali, nel prossimo periodo di
programmazione il sostegno sarà esteso ad altri prodotti e sistemi di qualità. Una volta applicabile il nuovo quadro
regolamentare e precisati i dettagli del progetto, sarà possibile effettuare un'analisi del caso specifico.

La Commissione non è a conoscenza di progetti sostenuti in questo ambito, tuttavia presso le autorità nazionali
competenti si potrebbero ottenere informazioni utili.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 277 del 21.10.2005.

C 65 E / 346 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008184/13**

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

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible funding for the Gragnano pasta festival

Every year for more than a decade, the town of Gragnano, a legendary pasta-making town in the province of Naples,
and the Gragnano Pasta City Consortium have celebrated their protected geographical indication (PGI) pasta, the
foundation on which the town’s economy has been built for centuries.

Indeed, Gragnano pasta shows how a region, or in this case a town, can become the driving force behind a
community that, over the centuries, has developed around it.

The current scale of the event (200 000 people attended it in 2011 and 15 000 plates of pasta were served over three
days) and the international nature of the operations carried out by the consortium and the manufacturers within it
(85% of their revenue is generated from exports to more than 50 countries) make this a festival of European and
international importance.

The festival is held along the length of Gragnano’s main streets. In recent years the entrance halls of the historic
_palazzi_ in via Roma, a road designed in 1700 by the architect Riccardi, have been used as an actual wind tunnel for
drying pasta outdoors, while the courtyards of the old town-centre _palazzi_ that were once glorious pasta factories
have been transformed into turn-of-the-century pasta-makers’ kitchens, taverns and shops. The aim is also to share
principles and practices relating to the proper nutrition, good health and well-being of the citizens involved, with a
particular focus on revealing and explaining the production processes used, on carrying out taste tests and on
examining the history and culture of the Campania Region’s food heritage in more depth.

In view of the above, can the Commission:

1. say whether any direct or indirect EU funding is available to help carry out the above project in the 2007-2013
programming period;

2. say whether the 2014-2020 programming period includes any actions and projects for developing similar
initiatives linked to healthy nutrition and the promotion of a gastronomic culture;

3. say whether it is aware of any similar initiatives and good practices in this context at European level;

4. provide an overview of the situation?

_(Version française)_

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

_(30 août 2013)_

La mesure relative au «soutien des groupements de producteurs dans leurs activités d'information et de promotion
pour les produits faisant l'objet de régimes de qualité alimentaire» du programme de développement rural de la
Région Campania (2007-2013) prévoit, au titre de l'article 33 du règlement (CE) n° 1698/2005 ( [1] ), l'information et la
promotion en faveur des produits agricoles de qualité destinés à la consommation humaine. Ces interventions
pourront continuer à bénéficier du soutien du Feader (Fonds européen agricole pour le développement rural) pour la
période de programmation future, conformément à l'accord politique du 26 juin 2013, sur la réforme de la Politique
Agricole Commune après 2013 Il est à noter que, à l'heure actuelle, la dénomination «Pasta di Gragnano» est encore
en cours d'enregistrement en tant que IGP. Celui-ci devrait intervenir dans les prochains mois.

Dans l'actuelle période de programmation, des actions telles qu'envisagés par l'Honorable Parlementaire peuvent être
subventionnées seulement si elles portent sur des produits agricoles tels que définis à l'annexe I du traité sur le
fonctionnement de l'Union européenne (TFUE) et destinés à la consommation humaine. En termes généraux, dans
la future période de programmation le support sera étendu à d'autres produits et systèmes de qualité. Une analyse du
cas spécifique sera possible une fois que le nouveau cadre règlementaire sera applicable et que les détails du projet
seront précisés.

La Commission n'a pas connaissance des projets soutenus dans ce cadre, mais en revanche, des informations utiles
pourraient être obtenues auprès des autorités nationales compétentes.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 277 du 21.10.2005.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 347

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008185/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Necessità di una strategia europea per il contenimento dell'ambrosia, responsabile di gravissime allergie

L'Ambrosia Artemisiifolia, pianta erbacea infestante originaria del Nord America, si è ormai diffusa in buona parte
dell'Europa orientale e meridionale.

Il polline di ambrosia costituisce un potente allergene in grado di provocare sintomi allergici di gravità variabile in
una percentuale superiore al 10 % della popolazione europea; le ordinanze di sfalcio, emanate dalle autorità locali, si
sono dimostrate poco efficaci e, in alcune aree in cui l'ambrosia è particolarmente diffusa (come nella zona di
Castellanza in provincia di Varese), oltre il 15 % della popolazione residente manifesta sintomi allergici associati
all'esposizione a polline di ambrosia.

Le patologie di natura allergica causate dal polline di ambrosia comportano costi sociali estremamente elevati: oltre ai
costi legati alla temporanea inidoneità al lavoro di una quota consistente dei soggetti allergici, che sovente
manifestano gravi sintomi asmatici, occorre considerare che le terapie necessarie per contenere i sintomi ed evitare ai
pazienti allergici danni permanenti o addirittura la morte per shock anafilattico (terapie che consistono in vaccini
desensibilizzanti e farmaci antistaminici) risultano estremamente costose.

La sola ASL Milano 1 spende ogni anno più di 5 milioni di euro per curare l'allergia all'ambrosia; in Austria, altro
paese dove il problema sta assumendo le caratteristiche di una vera emergenza, per ogni persona allergica
all'ambrosia il sistema sanitario si trova ad affrontare una spesa aggiuntiva di 600 euro annui.

Considerando, quindi, che la diffusione del polline di ambrosia costituisce una grave minaccia per la salute dei
cittadini europei, e che le patologie provocate da tale allergene comportano elevati costi sociali, l'interrogante chiede
alla Commissione quali politiche intende adottare per affrontare il problema a livello europeo e tentare di eradicare o,
quantomeno, di limitare la diffusione della pianta infestante in oggetto.

**Risposta di Janez Potočnik a nome della Commissione**

_(23 agosto 2013)_

Come auspicato nella comunicazione «Strategia dell'UE sulla biodiversità fino al 2020 ( [1] )», la Commissione sta
considerando l'elaborazione di una proposta legislativa per prevenire e gestire l'introduzione e la diffusione di specie
esotiche invasive. I possibili approcci includono un sistema di allerta precoce e di risposta rapida associato a un
sistema di scambio di informazioni tra gli Stati membri mirati a garantire un'azione tempestiva e coordinata.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)244 definitivo.

C 65 E / 348 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008185/13**

**to the Commission**
**Matteo Salvini (EFD)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Need for an EU strategy to control ragweed, the cause of very severe allergies

_Ambrosia artemisiifolia_, a weed indigenous to North America, has now spread throughout much of eastern and
southern Europe.

Ragweed pollen is a powerful allergen that can cause allergy symptoms of varying degrees of severity in more than
10% of the European population; the mowing orders issued by the local authorities have proven ineffective, and in
some areas in which ragweed is particularly widespread (such as in Castellanza in the province of Varese), more than
15% of the resident population have been displaying allergy symptoms associated with exposure to ragweed pollen.

Allergic disorders caused by ragweed pollen have huge social costs: as well as the costs associated with a significant
number of allergy sufferers, who often display severe asthma symptoms, being temporarily unable to work, it should
also be borne in mind that treatments such as desensitising vaccines and antihistamines, which are required to control
the symptoms and to prevent allergy patients from suffering any long-term damage or even dying from anaphylactic
shock, are very costly.

The Milan 1 ASL (local health administration unit) alone spends over EUR 5 million each year treating ragweed
allergy sufferers; in Austria, another country in which the problem is becoming a real emergency, the health system is
having to find an extra EUR 600 each year for every person allergic to ragweed.

Given, therefore, that the spread of ragweed pollen poses a serious threat to European citizens’ health, and that the
diseases caused by this allergen have high social costs, what policies does the Commission intend to adopt in order to
tackle the problem at European level and to try to prevent, or at least limit, the spread of this weed?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

As outlined in the communication on an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 ( [1] ), the Commission is considering a
legislative proposal for the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien
species.Possible approaches may include an early warning and rapid response system, coupled with a system for the
exchange of information between Member States to ensure swift and coordinated action.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011)244 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 349

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008186/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Franco Bonanini (NI) e Mario Pirillo (S&D)**

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Esclusione delle operazioni riguardanti le navi adibite alla navigazione sotto costa dalla direttiva
2006/112/CE

— Vista la direttiva 2006/112/CE relativa al sistema comune d'imposta sul valore aggiunto, in particolare il suo
articolo 148 (capo 7) riguardante talune esenzioni connesse ai trasporti internazionali,

— vista anche la legge 15 dicembre 2011 n. 217 «Disposizioni per l'adempimento di obblighi derivanti
dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunità europee — Legge comunitaria 2010», con la quale l'Italia ha adeguato la
propria previgente normativa alla direttiva europea,

i sottoscritti chiedono alla Commissione di rispondere ai quesiti di seguito esposti.

— Non ritiene ingiustamente penalizzante l'esclusione dall'esenzione, prevista dall'articolo 148 della citata direttiva,
delle cessioni di beni collegate alle attività delle navi adibite alla navigazione costiera, che svolgono un importante
ruolo sociale e di gestione di servizi di pubblica utilità contribuendo altresì alla decongestione del traffico stradale?

— Quali misure intende intraprendere per agevolare a livello fiscale importanti attività collegate alla navigazione
sotto costa come ad esempio il rifornimento, il vettovagliamento, la cessione, la trasformazione e la manutenzione
delle navi utilizzate?

— Esiste un'effettiva e uniforme applicazione del regime di esenzioni previsto dall'articolo 148 della citata direttiva in
tutti gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea, o invece permangano disparità ed eccezioni tra Stati membri nella
concessione di condizioni di esenzione che comportano gravi distorsioni del mercato interno e della concorrenza?

**Risposta di Algirdas Šemeta a nome della Commissione**

_(3 settembre 2013)_

L’articolo 148 della direttiva IVA ( [1] ) prevede un’esenzione per alcune cessioni di beni e prestazioni di servizi a navi
adibite alla navigazione d’alto mare e al trasporto a pagamento di passeggeri […]. Oltre a questa, esistono disposizioni
transitorie che autorizzano taluni Stati membri ad applicare altre esenzioni, l’aliquota zero o aliquote superridotte al
trasporto di passeggeri. Informazioni relative alle aliquote IVA in vigore e alle esenzioni applicabili nell’UE al
trasporto di passeggeri sono disponibili nel sito web indicato sotto ( [2] ) (si veda in particolare la tabella al punto VI).

La Commissione è consapevole del fatto che le attuali norme in materia di IVA applicabili nel settore del trasporto di
passeggeri provocano difficoltà e le ha segnalate nel Libro verde sul futuro dell’IVA ( [3] ) (cfr. punto 5.1.2 e «topic» 3 del
documento di lavoro dei servizi della Commissione ( [4] )). Nella comunicazione sul futuro dell’IVA ( [5] ) (cfr. punto 5.2.1),
la Commissione ha annunciato l’intenzione di proporre un quadro dell’IVA più neutro e più semplice per le attività di
trasporto di passeggeri. A tal fine, la Commissione ha avviato un’analisi economica esterna (in corso fra il 2013 e il
2014), il cui obiettivo è fornire una valutazione economica dell’impatto degli attuali regimi IVA e i probabili effetti di
regimi IVA alternativi e uniformi. In particolare tale studio descriverà dettagliatamente il modo in cui vengono
applicate le norme attualmente in vigore in materia di IVA nei 28 Stati membri e valuterà se la vigente normativa in
materia di IVA provoca distorsioni della concorrenza.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Direttiva 2006/112/CE del Consiglio, del 28 novembre 2006, relativa al sistema comune d’imposta sul valore aggiunto.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/consultations/tax/future_vat/com(2010)695_it.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/consultations/tax/future_vat/sec(2010)1455_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0851:FIN:IT:PDF.

C 65 E / 350 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008186/13**

**to the Commission**
**Franco Bonanini (NI) and Mario Pirillo (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Exclusion of transactions relating to vessels used for coastal navigation from Directive 2006/112/EC

Can the Commission state, with regard to Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, in
particular Article 148 (Chapter 7) thereof on certain exemptions related to international transport; and with regard to
Italian Law No 217 of 15 December 2011 on ‘Conditions for the fulfilment of obligations arising from Italy’s
membership of the European Communities — Community law 2010’ [ _Disposizioni per l'adempimento di obblighi_
_derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunità europee — Legge comunitaria 2010_ ], in accordance with which Italy
brought its previous legislation into line with the EU directive:

—
whether it does not consider it unfair to exclude from the exemption provided for in Article 148 of the
aforementioned directive, the supply of goods relating to the activities of vessels used for coastal navigation,
which play an important role in social terms and in terms of operating services for the public, while also
helping to reduce the amount of road congestion;

—
what measures it will take to simplify the tax rules for important coastal navigation activities such as the
fuelling, provisioning, supply, modification and maintenance of the vessels used;

—
whether the exemption conditions laid down in Article 148 of the aforementioned directive are applied
effectively and uniformly throughout the EU Member States, or whether there continue to be disparities and
exceptions between Member States in the granting of exemptions that lead to serious distortions of the internal
market and competition?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

Article 148 of the VAT Directive ( [1] ) provides for an exemption of some supplies of goods and services to vessels used
for navigation on the high seas and carrying passengers for reward […]. Besides this, there exist other transitional
rules allowing certain Member States to apply other exemptions, zero or super-reduced rates to passenger transport.
Information as regards current VAT rates and exemptions applicable in the EU on passenger transport is provided
under this web link ( [2] ) (see in particular the table under point VI).

The Commission is aware that the current VAT rules applicable in the passenger transport sector cause difficulties and
raised these in its Green Paper ( [3] ) on the future of VAT (see point 5.1.2 and topic 3 of the Commission staff working
document ( [4] )). In its communication ( [5] ) on the future of VAT (see point 5.2.1), the Commission announced its
intention to propose a more neutral and simpler VAT framework for passenger transport activities. To this end, the
Commission launched an external economic study (running from 2013 to 2014) whose objective is to provide an
economic assessment covering the impact of the current VAT regimes and the likely effects of alternative uniform
VAT regimes. This study will in particular describe in detail how current VAT rules are applied in the 28 Member
States and will examine whether distortions of competition exist from the current VAT rules.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/consultations/tax/future_vat/com(2010)695_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/consultations/tax/future_vat/sec(2010)1455_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/vat/key_documents/communications/com_2011_851_en.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 351

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008187/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Philippe De Backer (ALDE)**

_(9 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Maatregelen naar aanleiding van afluisterpraktijken door VS

Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten hebben de gebouwen van de Europese instellingen en buitenlandse ambassades
afgeluisterd. Onder meer EU-missies in New York en Washington, en de Franse, Italiaanse en Griekse ambassades in
de VS worden vermeld, evenals bondgenoten als Zuid-Korea, Japan, Mexico en India, en ook enkele landen in het
Midden-Oosten. Dit blijkt uit documenten die werden vrijgegeven door de heer Snowden.

Naar aanleiding van deze informatie stel ik de Commissie graag de volgende vragen:

1. Op welke manier zal de Commissie reageren ten aanzien van de Verenigde Staten van Amerika?

2. Weet de Commissie op welke manier de nationale veiligheidsdiensten betrokken zijn bij deze
afluisterpraktijken?

3. Zo ja, wat is de rol van de nationale veiligheidsdiensten? Zo nee, zal de Commissie de nodige informatie
hieromtrent verzamelen en bekendmaken?

4. Welke maatregelen zal de Commissie nemen om ervoor te zorgen dat dergelijke praktijken niet meer zullen
gebeuren?

5. Hoe zal de Commissie controleren welke gebouwen en missies — en eventueel personen — worden
afgeluisterd en op welke manier? Hoe zal dit verholpen worden?

**Antwoord van hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter Ashton namens de Commissie**

_(5 september 2013)_

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter is zich terdege bewust van de belangstelling van diverse
inlichtingendiensten van derde landen voor de activiteiten van de EU en van de bedreigingen die daaruit kunnen
voortvloeien voor de gebouwen en communicatie‐ en informatiesystemen van de EU.

De Commissie heeft zich ernstig bezorgd getoond en heeft van de Verenigde Staten volledige en onmiddellijke
duidelijkheid geëist over het beweerde afluisteren van gebouwen van de instellingen van de EU en haar delegaties in
het buitenland. De Commissie neemt nota van de toezegging van de Amerikaanse president Obama om deze
duidelijkheid te verschaffen.

Om operationele redenen kan de hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter vanzelfsprekend geen commentaar geven
over specifieke of mogelijke tegen de EU gerichte inlichtingenactiviteiten, noch over de aard van door haar genomen
tegenmaatregelen. De veiligheidsdiensten van de EU-instellingen zorgen voor stelselmatige coördinatie en
samenwerking met elkaar en met diensten van de lidstaten, onder meer via het Beveiligingscomité.

De hoge vertegenwoordiger/vicevoorzitter heeft geen aanwijzingen dat er lekken zijn in de EU-systemen voor
beveiligde communicatie.

De EU-instellingen beschikken over procedures voor de toepassing van de door de instellingen en de lidstaten
overeengekomen veiligheidsnormen, die redelijkerwijs zekerheid bieden dat personeel en contractanten geen
gevoelige of gerubriceerde informatie bekendmaken.

C 65 E / 352 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008187/13**

**to the Commission**
**Philippe De Backer (ALDE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Response to US communications surveillance practices

American intelligence services have carried out communications surveillance on the buildings of European
institutions and foreign embassies. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden reveal that EU missions in New York and
Washington and the French, Italian and Greek embassies in the US were bugged, as well as allies such as South Korea,
Japan, Mexico and India, and individual countries in the Middle East.

In the light of the above:

1. What action will the Commission take against the USA in response to these disclosures?

2. Does the Commission know in what way national security services are involved in these surveillance practices?

3. If so, what is the role of the national security services? If not, will the Commission acquire and publish the
relevant information?

4. What measures does the Commission propose to take to ensure that such practices do not recur?

5. How will the Commission check which buildings and missions — and perhaps persons — were under what
type of surveillance? What means will be used to achieve this?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The HR/VP is fully aware of the interest of various, third country intelligence services in EU activities and of the
resulting threats potentially affecting EU buildings and communication and information systems.

The Commission has expressed its strong concerns and has sought a full and immediate clarification from the United
States on the alleged surveillance of EU institutions premises and delegations abroad. The Commission notes US
President Obama's commitment to provide such clarification.

For obvious operational reasons, the HR/VP can neither comment on specific or potential intelligence activities
against EU interests nor on the nature of the counter-measures taken. The EU institutions` security services routinely
coordinate and cooperate with each other and with their counterparts in Member States in that regard, including
through Security Committee proceedings.

The HR/VP has no evidence to believe that the current EU systems of secure communications have been
compromised.

The EU institutions have procedures in place applying security standards mutually agreed among the institutions and
Member States that offer reasonable assurance that no sensitive or classified information is disclosed by its staff and

contractors.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 353

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite P-008188/13**

**à la Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Hausse du prix de l'énergie en Europe

La hausse du prix de l'énergie inquiète de plus en plus les ménages européens alors que leur pouvoir d'achat s'effrite en
temps de crise. Au même moment, le prix de l'énergie baisse de façon significative aux États-Unis.

Selon une étude de l'office statistique de l'Union européenne Eurostat, publiée le 27 mai 2013, le prix de l'électricité
pour les ménages dans l'UE27 a augmenté de 6,6 % entre le deuxième semestre 2011 et le deuxième semestre 2012,
après une hausse de 6,3 % entre le deuxième semestre 2010 et le deuxième semestre 2011. Les augmentations les plus
marquées concernent les pays du sud de l'Europe. Quant au prix du gaz pour les ménages, il a augmenté de 10,3 %
dans l'UE27 entre le deuxième semestre 2011 et le deuxième semestre 2012, après une augmentation de 12,6 % entre
le deuxième semestre 2010 et le deuxième semestre 2011, avec de fortes hausses en Lettonie, Estonie et Bulgarie.

— Quelles conclusions la Commission tire-t-elle de l'étude Eurostat?

— Comment explique-t-elle la hausse du prix de l'énergie en Europe et les écarts constatés entre les États membres de
l'Union?

— Quelles mesures compte-t-elle mettre en place pour stabiliser ou réduire le prix de l'énergie en Europe sans
compromettre les investissements dans les infrastructures énergétiques?

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

_(8 août 2013)_

1-2. La Commission surveille et analyse l'évolution des prix de l'énergie, aussi bien sur les marchés de gros que de
détail; la direction générale de l'énergie établit des rapports trimestriels réguliers concernant les marchés du gaz et de
l'électricité dans l'Union européenne ( [1] ). D'ici à la fin de l'année 2013, la Commission présentera une analyse de la
structure des prix et des coûts de l'énergie dans l'ensemble des États membres, ainsi que des facteurs qui les
déterminent, et examinera plus généralement la compétitivité de l'Union par rapport à ses homologues dans
l'économie mondiale.

Certains facteurs sont cependant bien établis. Les prix de l'énergie sur le marché de gros varient au sein de l'Union en
fonction des facteurs déterminant l'offre et la demande dans les États membres. Dans les États membres qui
continuent de réguler les prix de l'énergie de gros ou finals, des décisions administratives prises par chaque État
membre accentuent encore davantage ces disparités. Par ailleurs, les coûts des réseaux de transport et de distribution
ainsi que les impôts et taxes fixés par les États membres constituent une part substantielle des prix de détail. Dans
certains États membres, les impôts et taxes représentent près de 50 % du prix de détail ( [2] ) et sont en grande partie à
l'origine de l'augmentation des prix de l'énergie dans plusieurs États membres de l'Union.

3. La législation de l'Union dans le secteur de l'énergie s'est employée à exercer une pression à la baisse et à faire
converger les prix sur certains segments du marché où une concurrence et une libéralisation efficaces ont été
introduites. Mais ces mesures ne sont pas suffisantes pour exploiter le potentiel d'un marché européen intégré et
permettre aux consommateurs de bénéficier pleinement de leur droit à choisir leur fournisseur d'énergie et à retenir
l'offre économiquement la plus avantageuse. Dans sa communication récemment publiée sur le marché intérieur de
l'énergie, la Commission a recensé plusieurs actions en vue de cet objectif ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Pour les dernières éditions concernant le premier trimestre de 2013, voir http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/electricity/electricity_fr.htm et

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/gas/gas_fr.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Des réponses analogues ont déjà été données aux questions avec demande de réponse écrite (E-006570/2013, E-006575/2013

et E-006463/2013) posées à la Commission par M. Hans-Peter Martin (NI).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Voir http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0663:FR:NOT

( **|**

( **|**

C 65 E / 354 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008188/13**

**to the Commission**

**Gaston Franco (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increase in energy prices in Europe

The increase in energy prices is a growing worry for European households, while their purchasing power is being
eroded at a time of crisis. At the same time, energy prices are falling significantly in the USA.

According to a study by the EU’s statistical office Eurostat, published on 27 May 2013, the price of domestic
electricity in the EU-27 increased by 6.6% between the second half of 2011 and the second half of 2012, following an
increase of 6.3% between the second half of 2010 and the second half of 2011. The most marked increases took place
in countries in Southern Europe. The price of domestic gas rose by 10.3% in the EU-27 between the second half of
2011 and the second half of 2012, following a rise of 12.6% between the second half of 2010 and the second half of
2011, with steep rises in Latvia, Estonia and Bulgaria.

— What conclusions does the Commission draw from this Eurostat study?

— How does it explain the rise in energy prices in Europe and the divergences between the various EU Member
States?

— What measures does it propose to take to stabilise or reduce energy prices in Europe without compromising
investments in energy infrastructures?

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

_(8 August 2013)_

1 and 2. The Commission is monitoring and analysing energy prices evolution at both wholesale and retail level: DG
Energy produces regular quarterly reports on gas and electricity markets in the EU ( [1] ). By the end of 2013 the
Commission will present an analysis of the composition and drivers of energy prices and costs across the Member
States, and looking more widely at the EU's competitiveness vis-à-vis its global economic counterparts.

Certain factors are however well documented. Wholesale energy prices differ across the EU in accordance with the
factors determining supply and demand in the Member States. In Member States still regulating wholesale or final
energy prices, Member State-specific administrative decisions give even stronger rise to disparities. Furthermore,
transmission and distribution network charges, as well as taxes and levies fixed at Member State level make up a
substantial part of retail prices. In some Member States taxes and levies constitute around 50% of retail prices ( [2] ) and
they constitute an important part of the rise of energy prices in some EU Member States.

3. EU legislation in the energy sector has worked to put downward pressure and bring convergence of prices in
market segments where effective competition and liberalisation were introduced. However, more needs to be done to
exploit the potential of an integrated European market and let consumers fully benefit from their right to choose their
energy provider and obtain best value for their money. In its recently published internal energy market
communication the Commission has identified several actions to this end ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Latest editions on the first quarter of 2013, see http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/electricity/electricity_en.htm and

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/gas/gas_en.htm

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Similar replies were already provided to Questions to the Commission for written answer E-006570/2013, E-006575/2013 and E-006463/2013

from Mr Hans-Peter Martin (NI).

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52012DC0663:EN:NOT

( **|**

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 355

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008189/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Code pénal tunisien

1. La Commission compte-t-elle entamer une concertation avec la Tunisie concernant la révision des dispositions
héritées du régime précédent, notamment dans le code pénal, afin de garantir la liberté d'expression des Tunisiennes
et des Tunisiens?

2. La Commission partage-t-elle l'idée que pour la Tunisie, la réforme de la justice pour asseoir son indépendance
et son impartialité est une œuvre de longue haleine indispensable pour ancrer la démocratie?

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

_(10 septembre 2013)_

Le dialogue avec les autorités tunisiennes sur le respect des libertés fondamentales, y compris la liberté d'expression,
est en cours, dans le cadre du soutien de l'UE au processus de transition démocratique. Dans ce contexte, l'UE saisit
chaque occasion de plaider pour la révision du code pénal hérité du régime précédent, en particulier des dispositions
répressives telles que les articles 218, 227 _bis_ et 239. Le respect des Droits de l'homme, l'indépendance du système
judiciaire, l'amélioration de l'accès à la justice et la réforme des médias sont des objectifs essentiels du Plan d'action
UE-Tunisie 2013-2017.

En effet, l'instauration de réformes est une entreprise de longue haleine, mais l'UE a commencé à œuvrer dans le
secteur de la justice et entend poursuivre ses efforts, reconnaissant l'État de droit comme un pilier fondateur du
processus de démocratisation.

De manière plus substantielle, la mise en œuvre du plan stratégique pour la réforme de la justice, adopté en 2012,
figure parmi les principaux objectifs d'un important programme financé par l'UE (Programme d'appui à la relance II).
De plus, l'UE coopère étroitement avec le Conseil de l'Europe afin de soutenir les réformes démocratiques dans les
pays du voisinage méridional.

Enfin, au niveau régional, la Tunisie participe aux activités d'Euromed et notamment au programme Justice II.

C 65 E / 356 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008189/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tunisian Criminal Code

1. In order to guarantee freedom of expression for Tunisian citizens, does the Commission intend to engage in
dialogue with Tunisia with a view to the revision of provisions inherited from the previous regime, in particular those
of the Criminal Code?

2. Does the Commission agree that reforms aimed at establishing judicial independence and impartiality in Tunisia
will be a lengthy undertaking, but one which is essential in order to give democracy a firm foothold?

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

_(10 September 2013)_

The dialogue with Tunisian authorities on the respect of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression is
ongoing, as part of the EU support to the democratic transition. As such, the EU uses every opportunity to plead for
the revision of the Penal code inherited from the previous regime, especially repressive provisions such as
Articles 218, 227 bis et 239. Respect of Human Rights, independence of the justice system, increased access to justice
and reform of the media are key objectives of the EU-Tunisia bilateral Action Plan 2013-2017.

Indeed the undertaking of reforms will be lenghty, but the EU has been engaged in the justice sector, and is going to
continue its efforts, recognising rule of law as a founding pillar in the democratisation process.

More substantially, the implementation of the strategic plan for the reform of justice, adopted in 2012, is included
among the key objectives of an important EU-financed programme (‘Programme d'Appui à la Relance II’) . Moreover
the EU is closely cooperating with the Council of Europe to support democratic reforms in Southern Neighbourhood
countries.

Finally at regional level Tunisia participates in Euromed activities, notably the programme ‘Justice II’.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 357

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008190/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Critiques sur la fin du roaming

Le Forum des Télécommunications a été l'occasion d'un débat tendu sur le marché européen unique des
télécommunications tel qu'il peut être vu par la Commission européenne, les opérateurs de télécommunications, les
experts et l'Arcep, le régulateur français.

Tout est parti de la volonté manifestée par la Commission européenne d'abolir le roaming mobile en Europe, une
manière, selon elle, de concrétiser le marché unique européen. Cela a déclenché une levée de boucliers en France, tant
côté opérateurs que côté gouvernement et régulateur. «Faut-il abolir le roaming? Il faut être prudent. Si on décrétait
l'abolition du roaming, on aurait immédiatement 300 opérateurs en concurrence frontale. Il y aurait beaucoup de
morts», a prévenu Benoît Loutrel, directeur général de l'Arcep, lors d'une table ronde.

Les consommateurs prendraient en effet leur forfait dans le pays où il est le moins cher. Or, les opérateurs n'ont pas
les mêmes obligations de couverture selon les pays. Il ajoute: «l'abolition du roaming doit être un résultat du marché
unique européen et non un moyen d'y parvenir».

Que répond la Commission à ce double argument contre la fin du roaming?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Kroes au nom de la Commission**

_(12 août 2013)_

Les coûts d'itinérance constituent un obstacle important au bon fonctionnement du marché unique.

Ces coûts restent à ce jour sensiblement plus élevés que les coûts sous-jacents. Cette question a été traitée dans les
règlements successifs de l'UE sur l'itinérance. La réglementation la plus récente, adoptée en 2012, a permis de
diminuer davantage les coûts d'itinérance et a introduit des mesures pour renforcer la concurrence sur le marché de
l'itinérance.

Les nouvelles règles établissent clairement qu'on ne peut pas parler de marché intérieur des télécommunications tant
que des différences importantes existent entre les prix nationaux et les prix d'itinérance. Par conséquent, l'objectif
ultime devrait être de supprimer la différence entre les prix nationaux et les prix d'itinérance, afin de créer ainsi un
marché intérieur des services de communications mobiles.

En réponse à l'appel du Conseil européen du printemps 2013, la Commission a l'intention de présenter, au début du
mois de septembre 2013, une initiative législative visant à créer un véritable marché unique des télécommunications.
Cette initiative portera sur un certain nombre de domaines, dont l'itinérance.

C 65 E / 358 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008190/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Criticism of the abolition of roaming charges

A debate was held during the Telecommunications Forum on the future of the single European telecoms market as
seen by the Commission, telecoms operators, experts and the French regulatory body ARCEP.

The debate was organised in response to the Commission’s stated intention to abolish mobile roaming charges in
Europe, which it believes will help to strengthen the single European market. This has caused an outcry in France,
both from operators and from the government and the regulatory body. ‘Should roaming charges be abolished? We
need to be careful with our answer to this question. If we issued a decree abolishing these charges, we would
immediately be faced with 300 operators in direct competition. Many of them would go under,’ warned
Benoît Loutrel, ARCEP’s Director-General, during a round-table session.

What would happen is that consumers would choose a phone package in whichever country was cheapest, yet
operators are not subject to the same coverage obligation in each country. Loutrel added that, ‘the abolition of
roaming charges should be a result of the single European market, not a way of achieving it.’

What is the Commission’s response to this double argument again the abolition of roaming charges?

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

_(12 August 2013)_

Roaming charges are an important bottleneck to the functioning of the single market.

The roaming charges are still significantly higher than the underlying costs. The successive EU Regulations on
Roaming addressed this issue. The latest rules, adopted in 2012, not only further diminish roaming charges but also
introduce measures to boost competition in the roaming market.

The revised rules clearly determine that a single telecommunications market cannot be said to exist while there are
significant differences between domestic and roaming prices. Therefore the ultimate aim should be to eliminate the
difference between domestic charges and roaming charges, in an internal market for mobile communication services.

Following the call of the 2013 Spring European Council, the Commission intends to come forward in early
September 2013 with a legislative initiative to create a true Telecoms Single Market. This initiative will concern a
number of different areas, including roaming.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 359

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008191/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Interdiction d'utiliser des gaz fluorés dans les réfrigérateurs

L'utilisation de gaz fluorés néfastes pour l'environnement devrait être interdite d'ici 2020 dans les nouveaux appareils
d'air conditionné et les réfrigérateurs. L'utilisation générale des hydrofluorocarbures (HFC), gaz à effet de serre
puissants, devrait, selon les députés, être réduite de 84 % d'ici 2030.

Après l'interdiction des chlorofluorocarbures (CFC) dans les années 1980 destinée à stopper l'appauvrissement de la
couche d'ozone, ce projet de législation porte sur l'utilisation d'autres gaz fluorés néfastes pour le climat. Les «gaz
fluorés» peuvent avoir un effet de serre des milliers de fois plus important que leur équivalent en CO 2 .

L'utilisation globale des HFC doit être réduite à 16 % de la consommation actuelle d'ici 2030 (contre 21 % suggérés
par la Commission).

Afin de respecter le principe du pollueur-payeur, la commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la
sécurité alimentaire propose d'imposer aux producteurs des frais pouvant s'élever à 10 euros par tonne d'équivalent
CO 2 pour les HFC qu'ils utilisent. Cette mesure inciterait d'autant plus à l'innovation et au recyclage et contribuerait à
éliminer les différences régionales en termes d'application de la réglementation.

1. La Commission accepte-t-elle de mener une étude d'impact afin de définir le système et les frais?

La commission parlementaire a renforcé la législation en proposant une interdiction d'exportation pour empêcher
que les appareils utilisant des gaz fluorés ne soient mis en décharge dans des pays en dehors de l'Union européenne.

2. La Commission est-elle en phase avec la position de la commission parlementaire?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Hedegaard au nom de la Commission**

_(28 août 2013)_

La Commission a adopté sa proposition de règlement relatif aux gaz à effet de serre fluorés le 7 novembre 2012. La
proposition était accompagnée d'une analyse d'impact des mesures proposées. Cette analyse d'impact ne prévoyait
pas d'imposer aux producteurs de HFC le paiement d'une redevance pour les gaz qu'ils utilisent.

La commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire du Parlement a adopté son
rapport sur cette proposition le 19 juin 2013. Celui-ci est toujours en cours d'examen au Conseil. À ce stade de la
procédure, la Commission maintient sa proposition et n'est pas en mesure de se prononcer sur les amendements
proposés.

C 65 E / 360 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008191/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ban on the use of fluorinated gases in refrigerators

The use of environmentally harmful fluorinated gases in new air conditioning appliances and refrigerators is to be
banned by 2020. MEPs have said that overall use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are powerful greenhouse
gases, should be reduced by 84% between now and 2030.

Following on from the ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) imposed in the 1980s in order to halt depletion of the
ozone layer, this legislative draft focuses on the use of other fluorinated gases which damage the climate. ‘Fluorinated
gases’ can have a greenhouse gas effect thousands of times greater than their equivalent in CO 2 .

Overall use of HFCs must be reduced to 16% of current consumption by 2030, instead of the 21% proposed by the
Commission.

In line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has
proposed charging producers a fee of up to EUR 10 per tonne of CO 2 equivalent for the HFCs they use. This would be
a further incentive for innovation and recycling and would help eliminate regional differences in terms of
enforcement of the rules.

1. Is the Commission prepared to carry out an impact study to define the system and the costs?

The parliamentary committee has tightened up the legislation by proposing a ban on exports in order to prevent
appliances containing fluorinated gases being landfilled in countries outside the European Union.

2. Does the Commission endorse the parliamentary committee’s position?

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

_(28 August 2013)_

On 7 November 2012 the Commission adopted its proposal for a regulation on fluorinated greenhouse gases,
accompanied by an impact assessment of the proposed measures. The impact assessment did not consider charging
HFC producers a fee for the gases they use.

On 19 June 2013 the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety of the Parliament adopted its
report on this proposal, which is currently still discussed in Council. At this stage of the procedure the Commission
maintains its proposal and is not in the position to comment on the proposed amendments.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 361

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008192/13**

**au Conseil**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Interdiction d'utiliser des gaz fluorés dans les réfrigérateurs

L'utilisation de gaz fluorés néfastes pour l'environnement devrait être interdite d'ici 2020 dans les nouveaux appareils
d'air conditionné et les réfrigérateurs. L'utilisation générale des hydrofluorocarbures (HFC), gaz à effet de serre
puissants, devrait, selon les députés, être réduite de 84 % d'ici 2030.

Après l'interdiction des chlorofluorocarbures (CFC) dans les années 1980 destinée à stopper l'appauvrissement de la
couche d'ozone, ce projet de législation porte sur l'utilisation d'autres gaz fluorés néfastes pour le climat. Les «gaz
fluorés» peuvent avoir un effet de serre des milliers de fois plus important que leur équivalent en CO2.

L'utilisation globale des HFC doit être réduite à 16 % de la consommation actuelle d'ici 2030 (contre 21 % suggérés
par la Commission).

Afin de respecter le principe du pollueur-payeur, la commission de l'environnement, de la santé publique et de la
sécurité alimentaire propose d'imposer aux producteurs des frais pouvant s'élever à 10 euros par tonne d'équivalent
CO 2 pour les HFC qu'ils utilisent. Cette mesure inciterait d'autant plus à l'innovation et au recyclage et contribuerait à
éliminer les différences régionales en termes d'application de la réglementation.

La Commission se chargerait de mener une étude d'impact afin de définir le système et les frais. La commission
parlementaire a renforcé la législation en proposant une interdiction d'exportation pour empêcher que les appareils
utilisant des gaz fluorés ne soient mis en décharge dans des pays en dehors de l'Union.

1. Quelle est la position du Conseil sur le dossier?

2. Le Conseil entend-t-il à présent valider la position de la commission parlementaire?

**Réponse**
_(16 septembre 2013)_

La proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif aux gaz à effet de serre fluorés  ( [1] ) est
actuellement à l'étude au sein des instances préparatoires du Conseil.

La position du Conseil sur les questions évoquées n'a pas encore été établie.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Doc. 15984/12.

C 65 E / 362 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008192/13**

**to the Council**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ban on the use of fluorinated gases in refrigerators

The use of environmentally harmful fluorinated gases in new air conditioning appliances and refrigerators is to be
banned by 2020. MEPs have said that overall use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are powerful greenhouse
gases, should be reduced by 84% between now and 2030.

Following on from the ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) imposed in the 1980s in order to halt depletion of the
ozone layer, this legislative draft focuses on the use of other fluorinated gases which damage the climate. ‘Fluorinated
gases’ can have a greenhouse gas effect thousands of times greater than their equivalent in CO2.

Overall use of HFCs must be reduced to 16% of current consumption by 2030, instead of the 21% proposed by the
Commission.

In line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety has
proposed charging producers a fee of up to EUR 10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent for the HFCs they use. This would be
a further incentive for innovation and recycling and would help eliminate regional differences in terms of
enforcement of the rules.

The Commission would be responsible for carrying out an impact study in order to define the system and the costs.
The parliamentary committee has tightened up the legislation by proposing a ban on exports in order to prevent
appliances containing fluorinated gases being landfilled in countries outside the European Union.

1. What is the Council’s position on this matter?

2. Doe the Council currently intend to support the parliamentary committee’s position?

**Reply**
_(16 September 2013)_

The proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on fluorinated greenhouse gases ( [1] ) is
currently under consideration in the preparatory bodies of the Council.

The position of the Council on the issues requested has not yet been established.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 15984/12.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 363

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008193/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Baisser les prix d'eurotunnel

Selon la Commission européenne, les prix excessifs réclamés pour l'accès à l'infrastructure ferroviaire freinent la
croissance dans le secteur alors que seulement 43 % des capacités du tunnel sont utilisées (6 trains de marchandise par
jour seulement). Eurotunnel facture 4 320 euros de frais de réservation aux trains Eurostar, les seuls habilités à
traverser la Manche jusqu'ici (la compagnie Deutsche Bahn les rejoindra bientôt) et 16,60 euros à chaque passager et
ce pour chaque déplacement (donc à multiplier par 2 en cas d'aller-retour). Pour la Commission européenne, ces prix
qui n'existent, selon elle, que pour subventionner le service de navette pour les voitures devraient être réduits
de moitié.

1. La Commission a-t-elle pris en compte que le prix a été établi par une convention en 1987 qui court jusqu'en
2086 et qui tient compte des 15 milliards d'euros d'investissement (privés) pour creuser le tunnel?

2. La Commission a-t-elle pris en compte que si des modifications devaient intervenir dans un sens défavorable
aux petits actionnaires du groupe Eurotunnel, la société aurait alors le droit de demander des indemnisations aux États
à l'origine de ces modifications?

3. Quant au recul de la fréquentation des opérateurs de fret, la Commission prend-elle en compte le fait que
plusieurs sociétés ayant des difficultés sur leur marché intérieur se sont retirées du trafic transmanche mais que, selon
l'entreprise, des aides ont été mises en place pour les nouveaux entrants?

4. Le risque n'est-il pas, in fine, que ce soit Eurostar, qui se plaint de cette tarification d'Eurotunnel, qui paie les pots
cassés et, par conséquent, que le consommateur, en bout de chaîne, soit également pénalisé?

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

_(22 août 2013)_

1. La Commission précise que ni le traité de Cantorbéry de 1986 ni l'accord de concession ne fixent les prix
d'utilisation du tunnel sous la Manche.

2. La Commission, en sa qualité de «gardienne des traités», veille à ce que la législation de l'Union applicable aux
systèmes de tarification de l'infrastructure ferroviaire ( [1] ) soit respectée, y compris lorsque ces systèmes sont fixés par
des gestionnaires d'infrastructures privées. La Commission est au fait des arrangements contractuels conclus entre
Eurotunnel et les États membres concernés.

3-4. La Commission estime qu'une structure tarifaire qui respecte la législation de l'UE incitera un plus grand
nombre d'exploitants ferroviaires à utiliser le tunnel sous la Manche, et une concurrence accrue aura un impact positif
sur le niveau des tarifs pratiqués pour la traversée.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Voir les articles 31 et 32 de la directive 2012/34/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 21 novembre 2012 établissant un espace ferroviaire
unique européen, JO L 343 du 14.12.2012, p. 32 (articles 7 et 8 de la directive 2001/14/CE précédemment applicable).

C 65 E / 364 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008193/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reduction in Eurotunnel charges

The European Commission believes that the excessive prices charged for access to rail infrastructure are preventing
growth in the sector, given that the capacity utilisation rate for the Channel Tunnel is only 43%, corresponding to just
six freight trains a day. Eurotunnel charges a reservation fee of EUR 4 320 for Eurostar trains, which are currently the
only trains authorised to cross the Channel, although Deutsche Bahn trains soon will be too. It also charges
EUR 16.60 per passenger one way, or in other words double that sum for a return journey. The Commission believes
that the prices are so high because they subsidise the car shuttle service, and should be reduced by half.

1. Ha the Commission taken into account the fact that these prices were set by a convention in 1987 and will
remain in force until 2086, and that they were intended to provide a return on the (private) investments of
EUR 15 billion used to dig the tunnel?

2. Is the Commission aware of the fact that if these changes work to the disadvantage of minority shareholders in
the Eurotunnel Group, the company would be entitled to claim compensation from the Member States responsible
for the changes?

3. As regards the drop in utilisation by freight operators, is the Commission aware of the fact that several rail
undertakings facing problem in their domestic markets have stopped their cross-Channel services, and yet the
company is claiming that new entrants to the market are eligible for aid?

4. Is there not ultimately a risk that Eurostar will suffer the consequences of changing the charges which it is
complaining about, and that end consumers will also be penalised as a result?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

1. The Commission notes that neither the Treaty of Canterbury of 1986 nor the Concession agreement set the
prices for the use of the Channel Tunnel.

2. The Commission as the ‘guardian of the Treaties’ ensures that the Union legislation applicable to charging
schemes for railway infrastructure ( [1] ) is respected, including where the charges schemes are set by private
infrastructure managers. The Commission is aware of the contractual arrangements between Eurotunnel and the
Member States concerned.

3. and 4. The Commission believes that a charging structure which complies with EU legislation will attract more
railway operators to use the Channel Tunnel, and more competition will have a positive impact on the level of the
fares charged for its crossing.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See Articles 31 and 32 of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single
European railway area, OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32‐77 (Articles 7 and 8 of the previously applicable Directive 2001/14/EC).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 365

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008195/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Cigarettes qui parlent

Une innovation en matière de sensibilisation et de lutte contre le tabagisme est maintenant à l'essai, rapporte le Daily
Mail (Royaume-Uni), alors que des chercheurs écossais se penchent sur une nouvelle méthode pour le moins
étonnante.

C'est qu'après avoir tenté d'écœurer — dans le sens de dégoûter — les fumeurs grâce à des séries d'images choc
imprimées sur les paquets de cigarettes, ces chercheurs croient qu'il est peut‐être temps de songer aux paquets
parlants!

C'est ce qui ressort d'un rapport déposé par les spécialistes de l'Université de Stirling et du Centre de recherche pour le
contrôle du tabac, qui auraient créé deux paquets parlants munis de messages préenregistrés.

Utilisant le même genre de technologie que les cartes de souhaits musicales, ces paquets pourraient bien constituer la
prochaine tendance en la matière, croit l'équipe de chercheurs.

Ces derniers pensent par ailleurs qu'il est important de lutter avec les mêmes armes que les producteurs de tabac, qui
utilisent certains moyens marketing pour rendre leur produit plus attrayant.

Les messages seraient toujours accompagnés des images sordides, un duo de choc qui pourrait inciter les fumeurs à
écraser pour de bon, souhaitent ces pionniers de la lutte au tabac.

1. Quelle est la réaction de la Commission?

2. Compte-t-elle lancer une étude sur le sujet?

3. Partage-t-elle l'approche scientifique utilisée pour obtenir de telles conclusions?

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

_(3 septembre 2013)_

La Commission considère que les avertissements relatifs à la santé figurant sur les emballages des produits du tabac
représentent un outil efficace pour faire connaître les effets nocifs du tabagisme et encourager les consommateurs à
arrêter de fumer. Les preuves scientifiques montrent que les avertissements illustrés sont plus efficaces que ceux qui ne
comportent que du texte, notamment en tant que moyen de dissuasion pour les nouveaux fumeurs et d'incitation à
quitter le tabac pour les fumeurs actuels.

La proposition de la Commission concernant une révision de la directive sur les produits du tabac ( [1] ) prévoit
l'obligation d'apposer un avertissement illustré sur les paquets de cigarettes et de tabac à rouler. Les mesures
proposées reposent sur une analyse approfondie des preuves scientifiques ainsi que de l'impact de cet avertissement
sur l'économie, le marché intérieur, la société et la santé. ( [2] ) La Commission se concentre actuellement sur le processus
interinstitutionnel devant aboutir à l'adoption de la directive révisée et ne prévoit pas d'étude sur d'autres types
d'avertissements relatifs à la santé.

La Commission se félicite de la recherche sur la manière de continuer d'améliorer l'efficacité des avertissements relatifs
à la santé sur les paquets de produits du tabac. Les résultats initiaux de l'étude sur des paquets de cigarettes «parlants»,
présentés par des chercheurs écossais, sont encourageants à cet égard et la Commission attend avec intérêt les
résultats validés de l'étude. Cependant, des recherches supplémentaires seront nécessaires pour recueillir des preuves
indiscutables permettant une compréhension globale de toutes les incidences d'une telle solution technique.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)788 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD(2012)452 final.

C 65 E / 366 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008195/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Talking cigarettes

According to the _Daily Mail_ (United Kingdom), an innovative way to fight smoking and raise awareness of its dangers
is currently being tested, and the new method which Scottish researchers are working on is surprising to say the least.

After having tried to put smokers off by disgusting them with shock images on cigarette packets, the researchers
believe that it might now be time to think about talking cigarette packets.

This is the outcome of a study by specialists at the University of Stirling and the Centre for Tobacco Control Studies,
who have apparently created two talking packets with recorded messages.

The packets use the same technology as musical greetings cards, and the team of researchers believe that they could
well be the next trend in the fight against smoking.

They also think that since tobacco manufacturers use certain marketing methods to make their products more
attractive, it is important to fight them with their own weapons, since they use certain marketing methods to make
their products more attractive.

The recordings will play alongside the gory images which will continue to be printed on the packs, a double shock
which these anti-tobacco pioneers hope could encourage smokers to stub out for good.

1. What is the Commission’s response to this news?

2. Does it intend to commission a study on the subject?

3. Does it agree with this scientific approach used to obtain these conclusions?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The Commission considers health warnings on the packages of tobacco products to be an effective tool for
communicating the dangers of tobacco usage as well as encouraging consumers to quit. Scientific evidence suggests
that pictorial warnings are more effective than text-only warnings in particular as a deterrent for new smokers and a
means to encourage cessation among current smokers.

The Commission proposal for a revised Tobacco Products Directive ( [1] ) provides for mandatory picture warning on
packs of cigarettes and ‘roll your own’ tobacco. The proposed measures are underpinned by a thorough analysis of the
scientific evidence base as well as economic, internal market, social and health impacts. ( [2] ) Currently the Commission
is focusing on the interinstitutional process leading to the adoption of the revised directive and does not foresee
studies on other types of health warnings.

The Commission welcomes research on how to further improve the efficiency of health warnings on the packages of
tobacco products. The initial results of the study with ‘talking’ cigarette packages presented by Scottish researchers are
encouraging in this respect and the Commission is looking forward to publication of peer-reviewed results of the
study. However further research will be needed to collect robust evidence allowing a comprehensive assessment of all
impacts of such a technical solution.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 788 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) SWD (2012) 452 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 367

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008196/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Victimes du tétrazépam: qui est coupable?

Le retrait du marché des médicaments contenant du tétrazépam (Myolastan du laboratoire Sanofi et ses génériques),
utilisés dans le traitement des contractures musculaires douloureuses en rhumatologie, est intervenu ces deux
dernières semaines en Belgique et en France.

1. La Commission a-t-elle pris toutes les mesures nécessaires afin que ce retrait soit européen?

2. Cette suspension est-elle accompagnée dans chaque pays d'un rappel de toutes les boîtes disponibles sur le
marché?

3. L'Agence européenne du médicament (EMA) n'avait-elle rien détecté ou n'avait-elle pas évalué le médicament et
ses graves effets secondaires pour les patients?

4. La Commission estime-t-elle que ces troubles auraient pu être évités grâce à une plus grande vigilance des
producteurs?

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

_(14 août 2013)_

Le 29 mai 2013, la Commission a adopté une décision ( [1] ) suspendant les autorisations de mise sur le marché des
médicaments à usage humain contenant du tétrazépam, qui doit être mise en œuvre dans tous les États membres de
l'UE. En l'absence d'une autorisation de mise sur le marché valide, tous les produits concernés doivent cesser d'être
commercialisés.

Cette décision a été adoptée dans le cadre de la procédure de saisine ( [2] ) entamée suite à des rapports faisant état de
réactions cutanées graves liées à l'utilisation de tétrazépam. Dans le cadre de cette procédure, le comité pour
l'évaluation des risques en matière de pharmacovigilance de l'Agence européenne des médicaments a examiné les
données disponibles soumises par les titulaires d'une autorisation de mise sur le marché (AMM), les données de
l'enquête française de pharmacovigilance, les données fournies par d'autres États membres, les soumissions des parties
prenantes, les données communiquées par les titulaires d'une AMM ainsi que les données publiées. Le comité a
recommandé la suspension sur la base de l'examen des bénéfices et des risques des médicaments concernés.

Pour de plus amples informations sur la procédure, nous renvoyons l'Honorable Parlementaire à la réponse donnée à
la question E-004982/2013 ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2013/20130529126025/dec_126025_fr.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** )    Article 107 _decies_ de la directive 2001/83/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

C 65 E / 368 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008196/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tetrazepam victims: who is responsible?

Drugs containing tetrazepam (Myolastan from the Sanofi laboratory and equivalent generic drugs), used for treating
painful muscular contractions in rheumatology, have been withdrawn from the market over the past two weeks in
Belgium and France.

1. Has the Commission taken all the necessary measures for this withdrawal to be effective across the EU?

2. Does this ban include recalling in each country all available packets on the market?

3. Did the European Medicines Agency (EMA) not find anything or had it not assessed the drug and its serious side
effects for patients?

4. Does the Commission believe that these issues could have been avoided through greater vigilance on the part of
the manufacturers?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

On 29 May 2013 the Commission adopted a decision ( [1] ) on the suspension of the marketing authorisations for
tetrazepam-containing medicinal products for human use, which has to be implemented in all EU Member States.
Without a valid marketing authorisation all products concerned should cease to be marketed.

The decision has been adopted in the framework of the EU referral procedure ( [2] ) initiated following reports of serious
cutaneous reactions with the use of tetrazepam. Within the procedure, the European Medicine Agency's
Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) considered available data submitted by marketing
authorisation holders (MAHs) and also those from the French pharmacovigilance survey, data provided by other
Member States, stakeholder’s submissions and data submitted by MAHs, as well as published data. The Committee
concluded on the suspension based on the review of the benefits and risks of these medicines.

For further information about the procedure we refer the Honorable Member to the reply to the Question
E-004982/2013 ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2013/20130529126025/dec_126025_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article 107i of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 369

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008197/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Aides aux aéroports

La Commission souhaite supprimer les aides accordées aux aéroports. Les aéroports régionaux doivent donc
s'attendre à bénéficier à l'avenir de moins d'aides d'État.

Le commissaire s'est exprimé à ce sujet: «Notre but est de faire en sorte que l'argent du contribuable soit dépensé à bon
escient, là où il est nécessaire».

1. La Commission estime-t-elle qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de faire vivre et prospérer un aéroport régional?

2. Estime-t-elle que les emplois que ces aides d'État ont permis de créer, à Charleroi et ailleurs, ne sont pas
nécessaires?

3. Qu'entend la Commission par «dépenser à bon escient»?

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

_(9 septembre 2013)_

La Commission partage le point de vue selon lequel le développement des aéroports régionaux est important pour la
croissance économique et la cohésion territoriale. Néanmoins, la Commission fait observer que de nombreux
aéroports régionaux sont constamment déficitaires et dépendent dans une très large mesure d'aides publiques. En
outre, il n'est pas toujours sûr qu'il y ait une demande pour de nouveaux aéroports régionaux qui sont en cours de
construction, parfois à proximité des aéroports déjà existants.

Le projet de lignes directrices sur les aides d'État aux aéroports et aux compagnies aériennes ( [1] ), qui est actuellement en
phase de consultation publique, a pour but de traiter ces questions. Il introduit des conditions de compatibilité des
aides au fonctionnement en faveur des petits aéroports régionaux pour une durée limitée. Pendant une période
transitoire, les gestionnaires de petits aéroports régionaux auraient le temps de s'adapter à la nouvelle situation du
marché. De plus, les aéroports peuvent, sous certaines conditions, être chargés de fournir des services d'intérêt
économique général (SIEG) et percevoir une compensation pour les services à prester.

Les externalités positives d'un aéroport en faveur de la région concernée seraient dûment prises en compte dans
l'évaluation réalisée par la Commission pour déterminer si l'aide à un aéroport contribue réellement à la réalisation
d'un objectif d'intérêt commun, tel que le développement régional.

En même temps, la création d'infrastructures aéroportuaires inutilisées ou utilisées de manière inefficace devrait être
évitée. Les investissements initiaux n'offrant pas de perspectives d'utilisation raisonnablement satisfaisantes à moyen
terme ou détériorant les perspectives d'utilisation à moyen terme des infrastructures existantes dans la zone
d'attraction ne sont pas susceptibles de répondre à un objectif d'intérêt commun.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Disponible à l'adresse: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_aviation_guidelines/index_en.html

Le projet est destiné à remplacer les actuelles lignes directrices communautaires sur le financement des aéroports et les aides d'État au démarrage

pour les compagnies aériennes au départ d'aéroports régionaux (JO C 312 du 9.12.2005).

C 65 E / 370 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008197/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Aid for airports

The Commission wishes to get rid of aid given to airports. Regional airports should therefore expect to receive less
state aid in future.

In this regard, the Commissioner said: ‘Our aim is to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well-spent and goes where it is
truly needed’.

1. Is it the Commission’s view that there is no need to help regional airports survive and thrive?

2. Does it take the view that the jobs created by this state aid, in Charleroi and elsewhere, are not needed?

3. What does the Commission mean by ‘well-spent’?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

The Commission shares the view that the development of regional airports is important for economic growth and
territorial cohesion. Nevertheless, the Commission observes that many regional airports are consistently loss-making
and depend to a considerable degree on public support. Moreover, it is not always clear that there is demand for new
regional airports that are being constructed, sometimes close to existing ones.

The draft Guidelines on state aid to airports and airlines, currently in the process of public consultation ( [1] ), intend to
address these issues. They introduce compatibility conditions for operating aid to smaller regional airports for a
limited period of time. During a transitional period, managers of smaller regional airports would be given time to
adjust to the new market situation. In addition, airports may under certain conditions be entrusted with Services of
General Economic Interest (SGEI) and receive compensation for services to be discharged.

Positive externalities of an airport in favour of the region resulting would be adequately taken into account in the
Commission's assessment of whether aid to an airport contributes effectively to an objective of common interest,
such as regional development.

At the same time, the creation of unused or inefficiently used airport infrastructures should be avoided. Initial
investments that do not have reasonably satisfactory medium-term prospects for use, or deteriorate the medium-term
prospects for use of existing infrastructures in the catchment area are unlikely to serve an objective of common
interest.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_aviation_guidelines/index_en.html The draft is intended to replace the existing
Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports (OJ C 312, 9.12.2005).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 371

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008198/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Registre européen des nanomatériaux

Les nanomatériaux sont inclus de manière croissante dans toutes sortes de produits et d'applications. Ils peuvent être
retrouvés dans les composants de voitures, dans les laques et peintures, les cosmétiques, les technologies
électroniques et de l'information, les cellules photovoltaïques, les appareils médicaux, les produits de beauté, les
sprays, les articles de sport, les textiles, etc. En un mot, ils peuvent se trouver tant dans le dentifrice que vous utilisez le
matin, les chaussettes et le t-shirt que vous portez, ou encore la voiture que vous conduisez.

Les nanomatériaux ne sont pas réglementés et devraient être fabriqués, vendus, utilisés et éliminés d'une manière
responsable, sûre et durable. Ce n'est que de cette manière que les citoyens pourront, éventuellement, faire confiance à
cette technologie, mais cette confiance doit encore être gagnée… Les fabricants de nanomatériaux ne sont pas
d'accord avec cette approche et arguent qu'une liberté (presque) totale devrait leur être laissée pour les produire et les
distribuer.

Les consommateurs, les travailleurs et la société civile devraient savoir exactement ce qu'ils achètent,
manutentionnent et utilisent. Pour atteindre cet objectif, nous devrions tous avoir accès à des informations
transparentes et complètes sur les nanomatériaux et les produits qui en contiennent.

La création d'un registre des nanomatériaux en Europe est cruciale pour assurer la traçabilité et garantir le respect du
droit de tous les citoyens de savoir avec quels matériaux ils travaillent, ce qu'ils achètent, ce qu'ils consomment et de
quelle manière leurs choix affectent, ou non, la société et l'environnement.

1. La Commission est-elle en faveur de l'instauration d'un registre qui garderait trace de tous les nanomatériaux et
de tous les produits qui en contiennent? Un tel outil garantirait la traçabilité, inspirerait confiance à toutes les parties
prenantes et contribuerait à la compétitivité et à l'innovation des entreprises européennes. En outre, si l'exposition à
des nanomatériaux devait mener à des maladies, à des crises en matière de santé publique ou à des problèmes
environnementaux, les autorités seraient capables d'utiliser les informations de ce registre et d'agir de manière plus
efficace.

2. La Commission est-elle aussi d'avis qu'il est souhaitable que ce registre contienne des informations claires:

—
sur la manière dont certains nanomatériaux spécifiques doivent, ou ne doivent pas, être utilisés et éliminés (pris
individuellement, dans des mélanges et dans des produits finis),

—
sur les dangers possibles pour les travailleurs ou les consommateurs, spécialisés ou non,

—
sur les mesures de protection ainsi que sur les vêtements et équipements qui doivent être utilisés lors de la
manipulation de nanomatériaux,

—
sur l'impact des nanomatériaux sur l'environnement?

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

_(3 septembre 2013)_

La transparence de l'information sur les nanomatériaux et les produits qui en contiennent est essentielle. La
Commission tient à renvoyer l'auteur de la question à sa communication sur le deuxième examen réglementaire relatif
aux nanomatériaux ( [1] ) qui conclut que des informations sur les nanomatériaux existent sur le marché de l'Union, mais
pas sous la forme d'un registre. La Commission effectue donc actuellement une étude d'impact sur l'éventuelle
création d'un inventaire européen et tiendra compte de certains systèmes nationaux, comme celui utilisé en France.
Les résultats de l'étude sont attendus pour 2014.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)572 final.

C 65 E / 372 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008198/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ European register of nanomaterials

Nanomaterials are increasingly being incorporated into all kinds of products and applications. They can be found in
car components, in lacquers and paints, cosmetics, electronic and information technologies, photovoltaic cells,
medical appliances, beauty products, sprays, sports equipment, textiles, etc. In a nutshell, they are equally likely to be
found in the toothpaste you use in the morning, the socks and t-shirt you are wearing and in the car you drive.

Nanomaterials are not regulated and should be manufactured, sold, used and disposed of in a responsible, safe and
sustainable manner. Only then, perhaps, can citizens put their trust in this technology, but this trust still has to be
won… Manufacturers of nanomaterials do not agree with this approach and argue that they should be granted
(almost) total freedom to produce and distribute them.

Consumers, workers and civil society should know exactly what they are purchasing, handling and using. In order to
achieve this goal, we will all have to have access to transparent and comprehensive information about nanomaterials
and the products that contain them.

The creation of a register of nanomaterials in Europe is critical to ensuring traceability and guaranteeing respect for
the right of all citizens to know what materials they are working with, what they are purchasing, what they are
consuming and whether or not their choices affect society and the environment.

1. Is the Commission in favour of the introduction of a register, which would keep track of all nanomaterials and
all products containing them? Such a tool would guarantee traceability, inspire confidence in all stakeholders and
contribute to the competitiveness and innovation of European companies. Moreover, if exposure to nanomaterials
were to cause diseases, public health crises or environmental problems, the authorities would be in a position to take
more effective action, based on the data in this register.

2. Is the Commission also of the opinion that it is desirable for this register to contain clear information:

—
regarding the way certain specific nanomaterials must or must not be used and disposed of (individually, in
mixtures and in finished products);

—
regarding the potential risks to workers or consumers, whether specialists or not;

—
regarding protective measures, as well as clothing and equipment that must be used when handling
nanomaterials;

—
regarding the environmental impact of nanomaterials?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

Transparency of information on nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials is essential. The Commission
would like to refer the Honourable Member to its communication on the second regulatory review on
nanomaterials ( [1] ) which concludes that information on nanomaterials on the EU market exists although not in the
form of a register. The Commission is thus performing an impact assessment on the possible creation of an EU
inventory and will take into account national schemes such as the French one. The results of the assessment are
expected in 2014.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 572 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 373

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008200/13**
**à la Commission (Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante)**

**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Utilisation à des fins illégales d'aides de l'Union européenne à la Libye

Plusieurs ONG viennent de mettre en lumière le traitement inacceptable réservé à des milliers d'étrangers, dont
beaucoup sont originaires d'Afrique subsaharienne. Soumis à des arrestations arbitraires, ils sont incarcérés pendant
de longues périodes dans des conditions déplorables à l'intérieur de centres de détention des services de l'immigration,
sans perspective de libération ni de réparations. Les actes de torture et les mauvais traitements mis au jour dans ces
centres de détention sont inacceptables et viennent souiller le bilan de la Libye de l'après-Kadhafi. Les abus perpétrés
contre des personnes originaires d'Afrique subsaharienne étaient l'une des caractéristiques du régime Kadhafi et
risquent de devenir une des marques de fabrique du pays si les autorités libyennes ne font pas immédiatement marche
arrière sur ce terrain.

Or, l'Union européenne, lauréate du prix Nobel de la paix cette année, et ses États membres ont aidé les autorités
libyennes à renforcer la sécurité aux frontières et à élaborer une "stratégie intégrée de gestion des frontières" afin de
juguler la "migration illégale" vers l'Europe, aux dépens des droits humains.

1. Comment réagit la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante à la déplorable situation libyenne?

2. La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante peut-elle garantir que les droits des réfugiés, des demandeurs d'asile et
des migrants ont été pleinement respectés?

3. Peut-elle confirmer que sa volonté d'empêcher certaines personnes de pénétrer sur le territoire de l'Union
européenne ne contribue pas aux violations des droits humains et ne les perpétue pas?

4. Confirme-t-elle l'information selon laquelle des aides versées par l'Union européenne ont, semble-t-il, été
utilisées afin de financer des établissements où sont détenus illégalement des milliers d'étrangers?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(29 novembre 2013)_

L'UE a connaissance des conditions inacceptables qui règnent dans les centres de détention pour migrants en Libye,
notamment ceux placés sous le contrôle des milices.

L'UE appelle les autorités à accélérer le processus visant à placer l'ensemble des lieux de détention sous leur contrôle et
à enquêter sur les allégations de violation des droits des détenus. Le gouvernement libyen a ultérieurement déclaré
qu'il s'employait actuellement à mettre en œuvre des mesures visant à retirer le contrôle des lieux de détention aux
milices pour le confier aux autorités. Les conditions de vie des migrants dans les centres de détention gérés par les
autorités libyennes n'en restent pas moins toujours mauvaises.

Le soutien apporté par l'UE à la Libye en matière de migrations porte à la fois sur des questions systémiques et sur la
nécessité d'améliorer rapidement la situation des migrants. L'UE finance des projets mis en œuvre par l'OIM, le HCR,
le Mercy Corps et l'Office danois d'aide aux réfugiés, axés sur la protection des migrants vulnérables, des réfugiés, des
demandeurs d'asile et des personnes déplacées à l'intérieur du pays.

La mission de l'UE d'assistance à la frontière (EUBAM) s'est engagée à former les gardes-frontières. Cette action
contribuera à l'instauration d'une bonne gouvernance en Libye, en renforçant également la capacité des institutions
publiques à planifier efficacement la gestion des migrations et à agir dans ce domaine, conformément aux normes
internationales visant à faire en sorte que les migrants jouissent du respect intégral de leurs droits fondamentaux.

De plus, l'UE prépare en ce moment un nouveau programme centré sur l'amélioration des conditions d'existence des
migrants placés dans des centres de détention, qui prévoit de réexaminer le cadre réglementaire relatif aux migrations
et à l'asile, ainsi que les procédures administratives. Ce programme visera aussi à améliorer les services offerts aux
migrants et à favoriser l'accès des migrants sans travail à l'emploi et à l'intégration.

C 65 E / 374 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008200/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Use of EU aid to Libya for illegal purposes

A number of NGOs have just highlighted the unacceptable treatment of thousands of foreigners, many of whom from
sub-Saharan Africa. Subjected to arbitrary arrest, they are being incarcerated for long periods in abominable
conditions in the immigration service's detention centres, with no prospect of release or redress. The torture and
abuse that have been uncovered in these detention centres are unacceptable and are tarnishing the image of postGaddafi Libya. Since the abuse of people from sub-Saharan Africa was one of the characteristics of the Gaddafi
regime, it is likely to become one of the country's trademarks unless the Libyan authorities take immediate action to
resolve the problem.

However, the European Union, winner of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, and its Member States have helped the Libyan
authorities to strengthen the country's border security and to develop an ‘integrated border management strategy’ in
order to curb ‘illegal migration’ to Europe at the expense of human rights.

1. What is the Vice-President/High Representative's response to this deplorable situation in Libya?

2. Can the Vice-President/High Representative guarantee that the rights of refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants
have been fully respected?

3. Can she confirm that its will to prevent certain people from entering the territory of the European Union is not
contributing to human rights violations and is not perpetuating them?

4. Can she confirm the information according to which aid granted by the European Union has apparently been
used to fund establishments in which thousands of foreigners are being illegally detained?

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

_(29 November 2013)_

The EU is aware of the unacceptable conditions prevailing in retention centres for migrants in Libya, notably in those
under the control of militias.

The EU is calling on the authorities to accelerate the process of bringing all places of detention under their control and
to investigate allegations of violations of detainees’ rights. The Libyan government has subsequently declared that it is
in the process of implementing measures aiming at transferring the control of detention facilities to the authorities
and away from the militias. Nonetheless, living conditions in migrants detention centres managed by the authorities
also remain poor.

EU support to Libya regarding migration is addressing both systemic issues and the need for rapid improvement of
migrants' situation. The EU is funding projects implemented by IOM, UNHCR, Mercy Corps and Danish Refugee
Council focusing on the protection of vulnerable migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers and Internally Displaced People.

The EU Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM) has engaged in the training of the border guards. The action will
contribute to good governance in Libya also by strengthening the capacity of public institutions to effectively plan
and deliver on migration management, in line with international standards to guarantee that migrants are treated with
full respect for their fundamental rights.

Moreover, the EU is preparing a new program with a focus on improvement of living conditions for migrants in
detention facilities, by reviewing the regulatory framework for migration and asylum as well as administrative
procedures. It will also aim at improving services provided to the migrants and facilitating access to employment and
integration for job-seeking migrants.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 375

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008201/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — Camp Liberty

Plus de 300 députés européens ont dénoncé mardi l'attaque survenue samedi 15 juin 2013 près de Bagdad d'un camp
hébergeant des Moudjahidines du peuple, un groupe d'opposition iranien, et exigé leur retour dans un camp mieux
protégé. La récente attaque terroriste survenue le 15 juin dernier, qui a fait deux morts et plus de 70 blessés, a prouvé
une fois de plus que la question la plus urgente est maintenant la sécurité et la sûreté des 3 100 personnes prises au
piège dans le camp Liberty près de Bagdad. Tant que le départ d'Irak de ces opposants iraniens n'est pas acquis, la seule
solution pratique est de les renvoyer vers le camp d'Achraf, situé à 80 km au nord-est de Bagdad, où résidaient les
Moudjahidines avant leur transfert vers le Camp Liberty. Cette atrocité a été planifiée pour coïncider avec la
mascarade d'élection présidentielle du régime iranien.

Dans leur appel, les 300 députés européens ont également dénoncé «le silence» à la tête de la diplomatie de l'Union
européenne, accusée «d'inaction» face au «programme d'assassinat et d'agression» du régime iranien et du
gouvernement irakien.

Quelle est la réaction de la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique
de sécurité à l'interpellation de plus de 300 députés sur ce sujet?

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

_(13 septembre 2013)_

L'Union européenne s'intéresse de très près à la question de la réinstallation des anciens réfugiés du camp d'Achraf et
soutient les initiatives visant à trouver une solution pacifique et harmonieuse à ce problème d'ordre humanitaire.

Aussi la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante a-t-elle, à maintes reprises, souligné qu'elle soutenait pleinement le
processus actuel, mené sous les auspices des Nations unies, et assuré M. Martin Kobler, représentant spécial du
secrétaire général de son appui. L'UE a été le principal bailleur de fonds de ce processus de réinstallation avec une
enveloppe de 14 millions d'euros, cofinançant les opérations des agences des Nations unies concernées —
notamment menées par le HCR et l'UNOPS.

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante est convaincue que la réinstallation dans des pays tiers est la seule solution
pacifique, durable et raisonnable. Il est dès lors crucial, ainsi que Mme Ashton l'a souligné dans sa déclaration du
20 mars, que les réfugiés recommencent à coopérer sans réserve avec les Nations unies et acceptent les propositions
de réinstallation faites par des pays tiers, afin que ce processus essentiel puisse se dérouler sans attendre.

La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante a demandé à plusieurs reprises au gouvernement iraquien d'assurer la
sécurité des habitants du camp Hurriya, conformément au protocole d'accord du 25 décembre 2011 conclu entre le
gouvernement iraquien et les Nations unies. Les multiples attaques menées récemment sur le camp Hurriya,
condamnées publiquement par l'UE, nous rappellent qu'il est urgent d'accélérer ce processus, en collaboration avec les
réfugiés et les pays tiers disposés prêts à les accueillir. Toute personne en mesure d'exercer une influence positive en
vue de contribuer à résoudre ce problème humanitaire doit accorder une priorité absolue à la sécurité des réfugiés.

C 65 E / 376 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008201/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Camp Liberty

On Tuesday, more than 300 Members of the European Parliament denounced the attack that took place on Saturday,
15 June 2013 near Baghdad, on a camp housing the People’s Mujahedin, an Iranian opposition group, and urged that
they return to a better protected camp. The recent terrorist attack took place on 15 June, killing two and injuring over
70 people, proving once again that the most pressing issue now is the safety and security of the 3 100 people trapped
at Camp Liberty, near Baghdad. As long as these Iranian opponents remain in Iraq, the only practical solution is to
send them back to Camp Ashraf, 80 km northeast of Baghdad, where the Mujahedin lived before being transferred to
Camp Liberty. This atrocity was planned to coincide with the Iranian regime’s farcical presidential elections.

In their appeal, the 300 Members of the European Parliament also denounced ‘the silence’ from the diplomatic
leadership of the European Union, accusing it of ‘inaction’ in the face of the ‘programme of assassination and
aggression’ by the Iranian regime and the Iraqi Government.

What is the reaction of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy to the appeal from more than 300 MEPs on this subject?

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

_(13 September 2013)_

The EU follows the issue of resettlement of the former residents of Camp Ashraf very closely and supports efforts to
find a peaceful and orderly solution to what is a humanitarian issue.

This is why the HR/VP has repeatedly stressed her full support to the ongoing process facilitated by the United
Nations and to Martin Kobler, the Special Representative of the Secretary General. The EU has been the biggest
contributor to this resettlement process with an envelope of 14 million euro, co-financing the operations of the
United Nations agencies involved — notably the UNHCR and UNOPS.

The HR/VP is convinced that resettlement to third countries is the only peaceful, durable and orderly solution. It is
therefore crucial now, as the HR/VP stressed in her statement of 20 March that the residents resume their full
cooperation with the UN and accept the resettlement offers made by third countries, so that this crucial process can
proceed without delays.

The HR/VP has called repeatedly on the Government of Iraq to ensure the safety of the residents in Camp Hurriya, in
accordance with the memorandum of understanding of 25 December 2011 between the Government of Iraq and the
UN. The multiple recent attacks on Camp Hurriya, condemned publicly by the EU, remind us of the urgency to
accelerate this process, with the cooperation of both the residents and third countries that are ready to receive them.
Everybody who can have a positive influence to help ensure that this humanitarian concern can be tackled
successfully should place the safety and security of the residents as their utmost priority.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 377

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008203/13**
**à la Commission (Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante)**

**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ VP/HR — La Corée du Nord menace son peuple

Les menaces de sanctions lourdes récemment adressées par un ministère nord-coréen aux personnes quittant la Corée
du Nord sans autorisation relancent les inquiétudes concernant la liberté de mouvement dans ce pays, dont le bilan en
matière de Droits de l'homme est affligeant.

Mercredi 19 juin, l'agence de presse de l'État a diffusé une déclaration émanant du ministère nord-coréen de la
Sécurité populaire, promettant des «mesures considérables afin de faire disparaître les ordures méprisables» qui
quittent le pays sans permission — ce qui constitue un acte de trahison du point de vue du gouvernement. La
déclaration se poursuit ainsi: «Ces sordides ordures humaines ne pourront plus jamais regarder en l'air pour voir le
ciel, ni trouver un seul lopin de terre où être enterrées après leur mort».

Nul ne doit être arrêté, poursuivi ni puni de quelque manière que ce soit pour avoir simplement exercé son droit à la
liberté de mouvement en quittant la Corée du Nord.

1. La Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante partage-t-elle l'idée que les déclarations du type de celle du ministère
pour la Sécurité populaire montrent que le gouvernement nord-coréen est bien déterminé à poursuivre sa politique de
châtiments sévères contre toute personne interceptée en train de quitter le pays sans permission?

2. Comment réagit-elle au fait que cela expose les personnes franchissant la frontière à un risque de détention
arbitraire, de torture et d'autres formes de mauvais traitements, voire à la mort?

3. Comment réagit la Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante aux propos de la Corée?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Ashton, Vice-présidente/Haute Représentante au nom de la Commission**

_(15 octobre 2013)_

L'Union européenne demeure profondément préoccupée par les violations persistantes et systématiques des droits
civils, politiques, économiques, sociaux et culturels en République populaire démocratique de Corée (RPDC). L'Union
a clairement condamné cette situation et ne manque pas d'exprimer son inquiétude à ce sujet lors de chaque rencontre
avec des représentants de la RPDC ainsi que dans un cadre plus large. Elle attire ainsi régulièrement l'attention du
Conseil des Droits de l'homme des Nations unies et de l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies sur cet état de fait
dramatique.

En mars 2013, afin de remédier à cette situation alarmante, une résolution adoptée à l'initiative de l'Union
européenne et du Japon par le Conseil des Droits de l'homme a établi une commission d'enquête sur les violations des
Droits de l'homme commises en RPDC. Le rapport final de cette commission d'enquête, dans lequel seront consignées
ses constatations et ses recommandations, sera publié en mars 2014.

L'UE est résolue à contribuer dans toute la mesure du possible à l'amélioration de la situation en maintenant un
dialogue critique ainsi qu'une assistance limitée pour les groupes vulnérables, tels que les mères en période
d'allaitement. Elle adopte une approche globale dans les efforts qu'elle déploie afin de faciliter la réforme et le
changement en République populaire démocratique de Corée dans le domaine des Droits de l'homme ainsi que dans
d'autres domaines comme la dénucléarisation et le développement économique. Elle continuera de suivre la situation
et d'explorer les moyens permettant de contribuer réellement à l'amélioration des Droits de l'homme en RPDC.

C 65 E / 378 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008203/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — North Korea threatens its people

The latest threat by a North Korean government ministry of harsh punishment against people leaving North Korea
without permission renews concerns about freedom of movement in a country with a deplorable human rights
record.

On Wednesday, 19 June 2013, the state news agency published a statement by the Ministry of People’s Security,
vowing to ‘take substantial measures to physically remove despicable human scum’ who leave the country without
permission — an act the government views as treason. The statement added ‘Sordid human scum will never be able to
look up to the sky nor be able to find an inch of land to be buried after their death.’

Nobody should be detained, prosecuted or punished in any way simply for exercising their right to freedom of
movement by leaving North Korea.

1. Does the Vice-President share the view that statements such as that made by the Ministry of People’s Security
demonstrate that the North Korean government has every intention of continuing its policy of harsh punishment for
anyone caught attempting to leave the country without permission?

2. How does the Vice-President react to the fact that this puts border-crossers at risk of arbitrary detention, torture
and other ill-treatment, or even death?

3. What is the Vice-President’s reaction to North Korea’s statements?

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

_(15 October 2013)_

The EU remains deeply worried about the continuing and systematic violations of civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The EU has been clear in its condemnation of
this situation and expresses its concerns at every occasion with DPRK representatives and beyond. The EU regularly
draws the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly to this
appalling state of affairs.

To help address this grave situation, the EU, together with Japan, initiated in March 2013 a resolution in the United
Nations Human Rights Council that established a Commission of Inquiry with the mandate to investigate violations
of human rights in the country. Its final report, with findings and recommendations, will be issued in March 2014.

The EU is committed to contributing wherever possible to improving the situation through maintaining a critical
dialogue as well as limited assistance for vulnerable groups, for example nursing mothers. It takes a comprehensive
approach of its efforts to facilitate reform and change in the DPRK in the field of human rights as well as other areas
such as denuclearisation or economic development. It will keep monitoring the situation and exploring ways to make
an effective contribution to the improvement of human rights in the DPRK.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 379

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008204/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Danger des colliers antiparasitaires

La France a interdit la vente d'une série de colliers antiparasitaires pour chiens et chats. Certains de ces produits
pourraient en effet être dangereux pour les enfants, plus précisément en cas de contacts répétés et prolongés avec
l'animal.

Les instances françaises compétentes ont retiré les autorisations de mise sur le marché de 76 colliers antiparasitaires
pour animaux de compagnie. Il s'agit de colliers qui ont le statut de médicament vétérinaire et qui sont censés prévenir
ou lutter contre la présence de tiques et de puces chez les chiens et les chats.

La décision a été prise à la suite de travaux de réévaluation des risques de tous les médicaments vétérinaires contre les
parasites. Des travaux qui ont abouti à la conclusion que certains colliers antiparasitaires comportaient un risque pour
les enfants, à tout le moins en cas d'exposition prolongée et, plus précisément, de contacts cutanés répétés avec
l'animal. Il s'agit plus spécifiquement de colliers contenant du dimpylate (diazinon), du tétrachlorvinphos et du

propoxur.

1. La Commission a-t-elle étudié la nécessité de prendre des mesures comparables pour les colliers autorisés dans
d'autres États membres?

2. Reste-t-il des États membres permettant la vente de ces produits?

3. Le dimpylate (diazinon), le tétrachlorvinphos et le propoxur étaient-ils en cause? Si oui, sont-ils présents dans
d'autres produits?

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

_(12 août 2013)_

Le 17 avril 2012, l'Agence française a informé les États membres, l'Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) et la
Commission du retrait de colliers antiparasitaires contenant du dimpylate (diazinon), du tétrachlorvinphos ou du
propoxur. Ce retrait faisait suite à une réévaluation générale des risques des médicaments vétérinaires antiparasitaires
à usage externe et non à des événements indésirables survenus dans le cadre de la pharmacovigilance. Par conséquent,
aucune saisine à l'échelle de l'UE conformément à l'article 78 de la directive 2001/82/CE ( [1] ) n'a été entamée.

En juillet 2012, les États membres, avec le soutien de la Commission, ont néanmoins invité l'EMA et son comité des
médicaments vétérinaires (CMV) à fournir des conseils scientifiques, notamment sur la méthode la plus appropriée
pour évaluer les risques en matière de sécurité que court l'utilisateur dans le cas des colliers antiparasitaires et sur les
scénarios d'exposition. Les recommandations ont été fournies par le CMV en décembre 2012, permettant ainsi aux
autorités compétentes de parvenir à des évaluations et des mesures réglementaires cohérentes et harmonisées pour les
produits en cause sur leurs marchés nationaux.

Il convient de noter que le CMV a recommandé une méthode différente de celle utilisée par la France. Il est donc
possible que des produits donnés aient été évalués et jugés sûrs dans d'autres États membres et puissent encore être
commercialisés. Même en France, il existe toujours sur le marché des colliers contenant du dimpylate, qui ont été
considérés comme ne présentant pas un risque inacceptable. Étant donné que les produits concernés sont
exclusivement autorisés au niveau national, la Commission ne dispose pas d'autres informations sur les autorisations
existantes dans les États membres. De même, la Commission n'a pas d'informations sur la présence éventuelle des
substances visées dans des produits autres que les médicaments vétérinaires.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/82/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 6 novembre 2001 instituant un code communautaire relatif aux médicaments
vétérinaires (JO L 311 du 28.11.2001).

C 65 E / 380 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008204/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Danger of antiparasitic collars

France has banned the sale of a line of antiparasitic collars for dogs and cats. Some of these products could pose a risk
to children, specifically in cases of repeated and prolonged contact with the animal.

The competent authorities in France have withdrawn the marketing authorisations for 76 antiparasitic collars for
pets. These are collars that are categorised as veterinary medicines and are supposed to prevent or combat the
presence of ticks and fleas in dogs and cats.

The decision was taken following work to re-evaluate the risks of all antiparasitic veterinary medicinal products. This
work culminated in the conclusion that some antiparasitic collars present a risk to children, at least in cases of
prolonged exposure and, more precisely, repeated skin contact with the animal. Specifically, this involves collars
containing dimpylate (diazinon), tetrachlorvinphos and propoxur.

1. Has the Commission examined the need to take comparable measures for collars authorised in other Member
States?

2. Do some Member States still permit the sale of these products?

3. Were dimpylate (diazinon), tetrachlorvinphos and propoxur involved? If so, are they present in other products?

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

_(12 August 2013)_

The French Agency has informed Member States, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Commission on
17 April 2012 about the withdrawal of antiparasitic collars containing dimpylate (diazinon), tetrachlorvinphos or
propoxur. This was based on a general re-evaluation of the risks of antiparasitic veterinary medicinal products for
external use and not on actual adverse events in the framework of Pharmacovigilance reporting. Therefore, no EUwide referral in accordance with Article 78 of Directive 2001/82/EC ( [1] ) was initiated.

Nevertheless, Member States, supported by the Commission, called upon EMA and its Committee for Medicinal
Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) in July 2012 to provide scientific advice, particularly on the most appropriate
methodology for the user safety risk assessment relevant to antiparasitic collars and on exposure scenarios. The
recommendations were provided by CVMP in December 2012 enabling the competent authorities to arrive at
consistent and harmonised evaluations and regulatory actions for the relevant products on their national markets.

It is important to note that CVMP recommended a methodology different from the one used by France. Therefore, it is
possible that individual products have been evaluated to be safe in other Member States and may still be marketed.
Even in France there are still collars containing dimpylate on the market, which have been evaluated as not posing an
unacceptable risk. Since the products concerned are exclusively authorised nationally, the Commission does not have
further information on existing authorisations in Member States. Likewise, the Commission does not have
information on whether the substances involved are present in other than veterinary medicinal products.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary
medicinal products, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 381

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008205/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ La publicité pour le tabac convertit un adolescent sur trois

L'ampleur de l'attraction des publicités pour le tabac sur les plus jeunes est pour la première fois quantifiée grâce à une
étude (du British Medical Journal), qui a suivi durant deux ans et demi 1 300 adolescents de 15 ans, qui étaient tous
non-fumeurs au début de l'étude.

Les conclusions sont claires: ceux qui ont vu le plus de publicités subissaient un risque doublé de commencer à fumer
par rapport à ceux qui en avaient vu moins. La publicité a converti un adolescent du groupe test sur trois.

1. La Commission partage-t-elle l'idée d'une interdiction de toute forme de publicité pour les cigarettes?

2. Que pense la Commission de la demande de plusieurs associations européennes qui prônent une limitation du
nombre de lieux de vente, arguant, entre autres, que vendre ce type de produit dans des magasins alimentaires est un
danger?

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

_(21 août 2013)_

La Commission est consciente des effets qu'a la publicité pour le tabac sur l'entrée dans le tabagisme. La directive sur la
publicité pour le tabac prévoit l'interdiction totale de celle-ci dans la presse et d'autres publications imprimées, dans les
émissions radiodiffusées, dans les services de la société de l'information et lors de manifestations transfrontalières ( [1] ). La
portée de cette directive est limitée, la Cour ayant estimé que la Commission ne pouvait légitimement interdire, sur la
base de l'article 114 du TFUE, que certaines formes de publicité pour le tabac ayant des effets transfrontaliers. En outre, la
directive 2010/13/UE ( [2] ) sur les services de médias audiovisuels interdit toutes les formes de communication
commerciale audiovisuelle en faveur du tabac, dont le placement de produits à la télévision.

La présentation des produits du tabac dans les points de vente est traitée dans la recommandation 2003/54/CE ( [3] ) relative
à la prévention du tabagisme ( [4] ). Bien que la Commission n'ait introduit aucune disposition à ce sujet dans sa proposition
de révision de la directive sur les produits du tabac, cette proposition est actuellement à l'examen au Conseil et au
Parlement.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/33/CE, JO L 152 du 20.6.2003, p. 16.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) JO L 95 du 15.4.2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) JO L 22 du 25.1.2003.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Recommandation 2003/54/CE du Conseil, JO L 22 du 25.1.2003.

C 65 E / 382 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008205/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tobacco advertising converts one in three adolescents

For the first time, the scale of the appeal of tobacco advertising for the youngest in society has been quantified, thanks
to a study (in the British Medical Journal) which monitored 1 300 15-year-old adolescents for two-and-a-half years,
all of whom were non-smokers at the beginning of the study.

The conclusions are clear: those who saw the most advertising were at twice the risk of starting to smoke, compared
with those who saw less. Advertising converted one in three adolescents from the test group.

1. Does the Commission support the idea of a total ban on all forms of cigarette advertising?

2. What does the Commission think of the request from several European associations advocating a limit on the
number of points of sale, arguing, for instance, that selling this type of product in food shops is dangerous?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the impact of tobacco advertising on smoking initiation. The Tobacco Advertising Directive
provides for a comprehensive ban of advertising in the press and other printed publications, cross-border events, as well
as in radio broadcasting and information society services ( [1] ). The scope of this directive is limited because of the Court’s
finding that the EU could legitimately only introduce a ban on certain types of tobacco advertising with cross-border
implications on the basis of Article 114 TFEU. In addition, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU ( [2] )
prohibits tobacco advertising in all forms of audiovisual commercial communications, including product placement on
television.

Tobacco product presentation at points of sales is covered by Recommendation 2003/54/EC ( [3] ) on the Prevention of
Smoking ( [4] ). While the Commission has not included provisions on display at points of sale in the proposal for revision
of the Tobacco Products Directive, this proposal is currently being examined in the Council and Parliament.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2003/33/EC, OJ L 152/16 of 20 June 2003.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 95, 15.04.2010.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) OJ L 22, 25.01.2003.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** )    Council Recommendation 2003/54/EC, OJ L 22 of 25.1.2003.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 383

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris P-008208/13**

**adresată Comisiei**

**Ioan Enciu (S&D)**

_(9 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Posibilă încălcare a acquis-ului Schengen

În cadrul unei delegații oficiale a Parlamentului European ce a avut loc în Spania, compania aeriană ce opera zborul
între București și Malaga mi-a solicitat să prezint informații din pașaport înainte de aterizarea aeronavei pe teritoriul
Spaniei. Potrivit informațiilor furnizate de compania aeriană, „autoritățile din țara dumneavoastră de destinație
(Malaga, Spania) sau de legătură ne solicită trimiterea unor informații specifice cu privire la toți pasagerii înainte de
decolarea aeronavei”.

Având în vedere dispozițiile articolului 20 din Codul Frontierelor Schengen care stipulează că nu se efectuează niciun
control sau vreo măsură echivalentă la frontierele interne și luând în considerare faptul că zborul sus-menționat era
un zbor intern, (București-Paris-Malaga), solicitarea de a furniza informații din pașaport ar putea fi considerată drept o
încălcare a acquis-ului Schengen.

Ținând seama de informațiile prezentate mai sus, are Comisia cunoștință de noile reglementări privind călătoriile,
introduse de autoritățile spaniole?

Consideră Comisia că noile reglementări privind călătoriile constituie o încălcare a _acquis_ -ului Schengen?

Ce măsuri intenționează să adopte Comisia în cazul în care noile reglementări privind călătoriile sunt ilegale?

**Răspuns dat de dna Malmström în numele Comisiei**

_(13 august 2013)_

Conform Directivei 2004/82/CE a Consiliului ( [1] ) privind obligația operatorilor de transport de a comunica datele
privind pasagerii, statele membre au obligația de a comunica datele privind pasagerii în vederea efectuării controalelor
asupra persoanelor la frontierele externe.

Întrucât România nu a aderat încă la spațiul Schengen, trebuie să se realizeze controale la frontierele externe în cazul
zborurilor care intră în spațiul Schengen venind din România.

Controalele la frontierele externe se realizează de regulă în aeroportul din spațiul Schengen pe care are loc prima
aterizare [anexa VI, punctul 2.1.2 litera (a) din Codul frontierelor Schengen]. Însă, dacă un zbor vine din afara
spațiului Schengen și are mai multe escale în spațiul Schengen, fără schimbare de aeronavă, controalele la frontieră se
efectuează la destinația finală [anexa VI, punctul 2.1.2 litera (b) din Codul Frontierelor Schengen].

În cazul în care controlul la frontierele externe s-a realizat la Paris, autoritățile spaniole nu ar trebui să solicite
transmiterea datelor. Însă, în cazul în care controlul la frontieră s-a realizat la Malaga, în conformitate cu anexa IV,
punctul 2.1.2. litera (b), autoritățile spaniole au dreptul să solicite transmiterea datelor.

Comisia va contacta autoritățile spaniole în vederea obținerii unor clarificări suplimentare.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) JO L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 24.

C 65 E / 384 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008208/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ioan Enciu (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible breach of the Schengen _acquis_

In the framework of one of the official delegations of the European Parliament which took place in Spain, I was
requested by the airline company that operated my flight from Bucharest to Malaga to provide passport information
prior to my flight’s arrival on Spanish territory. According to the information provided by the airline, ‘the authorities
in your destination [Malaga, Spain] or connecting country require us to send specific information concerning all
passengers before the flight’s departure’.

Having regard to Article 20 of the Schengen Borders Code which stipulates that no internal-border controls or
equivalent measures should be carried out, and considering the fact that the abovementioned flight was internal
(Bucharest-Paris-Malaga), the requirement to provide passport information could be considered as being in breach of
the Schengen _acquis._

In light of the abovementioned information, is the Commission aware of the new travel rules introduced by the
Spanish authorities?

Does the Commission consider the new travel rules as being in breach of the Schengen _acquis_ ?

What measures is the Commission planning to undertake in the case where the new travel rules are illegal?

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

_(13 August 2013)_

Council Directive 2004/82/EC ( [1] ) on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data requires Member
States to transmit passenger data for carrying out checks on persons at external borders.

As Romania has not yet joined the Schengen area, external border checks need to be carried out on flights coming
from Romania into the Schengen area.

External border checks are normally carried out in the airport of first arrival within the Schengen area (Annex VI,
point 2.1.2. (a) Schengen Borders Code). However, if a flight is coming from outside the Schengen area and has
several stop-overs within the Schengen area where there is no change of aircraft, border checks will be carried out at
the final destination (Annex VI, point 2.1.2. (b) Schengen Borders Code).

If the external border check was carried out in Paris, the Spanish authorities should not request the transmission of
the data. If, however, the border check was carried out in Malaga in accordance with Annex IV, point 2.1.2. (b), the
Spanish authorities are allowed to request the transmission of data.

The Commission will address the Spanish authorities for further clarification.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 24.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 385

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008209/13**

**to the Commission**
**Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Spanish coastal law

The Commission is on record as voicing concern about and welcoming reforms in the application of Spanish coastal
law.

How has the situation improved in the past years and months with the new laws, and what would the Commission
view as a satisfactory outcome to this issue?

What does the Commission recommend for those who are still of the view that their rights are being infringed, due,
for example, to the retrospective application of the previous version of the law?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

As explained in its reply to Question E-011695/2012 ( [1] ), the European Commission can only intervene in cases
where the matter concerns the implementation of Union law.

As a sufficient connection with EC law has not been identified in the issue raised by the Honourable Member, it is for
Member States, including their judicial authorities, to ensure that fundamental rights are effectively respected and
protected in accordance with their national legislation and international obligations.

In particular, the question whether the form of compensation offered by the Spanish authorities is in line with
Spanish constitutional law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has therefore to be
examined by the national courts and, after having exhausted domestic legal remedies, by the ECtHR. The Commission
understands that actions have been filed against the law before the ECtHR.

However, the European Commission has been in contact with the Spanish authorities on several occasions after
receiving a large number of complaints from both Spanish and other EU citizens who have properties in the affected
areas. The Commission has welcomed steps taken by Spain to improve legal certainty for property owners affected by
the Coastal Law while ensuring environmental protection.

In parallel, the Commission has received complaints on the possible incompatibility between the new Spanish Coastal
Act and EU environmental legislation. The Commission is currently assessing the allegations brought to its attention
by the complainants.

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

C 65 E / 386 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-008210/13**

**al Consiglio**
**Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD)**

_(9 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Messa al bando dell'organizzazione terroristica islamica siriana Fronte Jabhat Al Nusra (Fronte della vittoria)

Considerando che:

—
il Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite ha messo al bando Al Qaeda quale organizzazione terroristica,
[come pure tutti i gruppi legati ad Al Qaeda, con le risoluzioni 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), 1455](http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1333(2000))
[(2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009), 1989 (2011) e 2083 (2012);](http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2083(2012))

—
Al Nusra è presente nella lista delle organizzazioni terroristiche legate ad Al Qaeda riconosciuta dal Consiglio di
Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite ( [1] ) _;_

—
il 10 aprile 2013 il leader di Jabhat Al Nusra o Fronte della vittoria ha ufficialmente confermato l'alleanza con
Al Qaeda ( [2] ) _;_

—
nel febbraio 2013 Al Nusra ha rivendicato 49 dei 60 attentati terroristici suicidi che hanno complessivamente
provocato migliaia di morti e feriti tra la popolazione in Siria ( [3] ) _;_

— nel dicembre 2012 gli Stati Uniti hanno messo al bando Al Nusra in quanto legata ad Al Qaeda ( [4] ) _;_

—
gli Stati Uniti e vari Stati europei sostengono le forze siriane che combattono l'esercito del presidente Bashar al
Assad e in particolare l'Esercito libero siriano (Free Syrian Army), che ha confermato di combattere insieme ad
Al Nusra ( [5] ) _;_

— Al Nusra è diventata il covo di migliaia di terroristi islamici provenienti da diversi paesi del mondo tra cui alcuni
paesi europe _i (_ [6] _)_ ;

può il Consiglio far sapere:

—
se l'Unione europea intende mettere al bando Al Nusra quale organizzazione terroristica legata ad Al Qaeda
conformemente alle risoluzioni dell'ONU;

—
se l'Unione europea e gli Stati membri dell'UE garantiscono che gli aiuti finanziari, in armi o di altro genere, dati
direttamente o indirettamente alle forze siriane dell'opposizione, non arrivano ad Al Nusra?

**Risposta**
_(30 settembre 2013)_

Mediante il regolamento di esecuzione (UE) n. 632/2013, la Commissione ha aggiunto l'Al-Nusrah Front quale alias
di Al-Qaeda in Iraq all'elenco delle persone, dei gruppi e delle entità a cui si applica il regolamento (CE) n. 881/2002
del Consiglio che impone misure restrittive nei confronti di determinate persone ed entità associate alla rete AlQaeda. L'adozione di tale regolamento è in linea con la decisione del 30 maggio 2013 del Comitato del Consiglio di
sicurezza conformemente alle risoluzioni 1267 (1999) e 1989 (2011) concernenti Al-Qaeda e le persone ed entità
associate.

Per quanto riguarda l'eventuale fornitura di armi alla Coalizione nazionale delle forze rivoluzionarie siriane (SOC), si
rammenta che dal 1 [o] giugno l'embargo UE sulle armi nei confronti della Siria non è più in vigore. L'eventuale
esportazione di armi verso la Siria è ora una questione di competenza degli Stati membri, i quali hanno dichiarato che
nelle rispettive politiche nazionali procederanno conformemente ai criteri stabiliti nella posizione comune
2008/944/PESC, dell'8 dicembre 2008, che definisce norme comuni per il controllo delle esportazioni di tecnologia e
attrezzature militari. Saranno chieste adeguate salvaguardie contro l'uso fraudolento, comprese informazioni
pertinenti sull'utilizzatore finale e sulla destinazione finale della consegna.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/09/297440/syria-alnusra-merges-with-iraq-alqaeda/.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj9qirBcoA&bpctr=1372341923.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/201759.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_06_27/US-plans-to-deliver-arms-to-Free-Syrian-Army-within-within-a-month-8518/.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22275456.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 387

Per quanto riguarda l'assistenza alla SOC l'UE fornisce attualmente sostegno, in particolare all'unità preposta al
coordinamento dell'assistenza, per permettere di meglio identificare le esigenze della popolazione e agevolare la
fornitura di assistenza all'interno della Siria.

Infine, sono state introdotte talune deroghe alle misure restrittive dell'UE nel settore del commercio e degli
investimenti al fine di aiutare la popolazione civile siriana. Si applicano condizioni rigorose per l'autorizzazione di tali
attività, compresa la consultazione della SOC.

C 65 E / 388 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008210/13**

**to the Council**
**Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ban on the Syrian Islamic terrorist organisation Jabhat Al-Nusra (Victory Front)

In view of the fact that:

—
the United Nations Security Council has placed a ban on Al-Qaida on grounds of its being a terrorist
[organisation, and on all groups with links to it, through resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002),](http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1390(2002))
[1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009), 1989 (2011) and 2083](http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2083(2012))
(2012);

—
Al-Nusra is on the UN Security Council’s list of terrorist organisations with links to Al-Qaida ( [1] );

—
on 10 April 2013 the leader of Jabhat Al-Nusra (Victory Front) confirmed officially its alliance with AlQaida ( [2] );

—
in February 2013 Al-Nusra claimed responsibility for 49 of the 60 suicide terrorist attacks which together
caused the death or injury of thousands of people in Syria ( [3] );

—
in December 2012 the United States placed a ban on Al-Nusra on grounds of its having links to Al-Qaida ( [4] );

—
the United States and various European countries support the Syrian forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s
army, and in particular the Free Syrian Army, which has confirmed that it is fighting alongside Al-Nusra ( [5] );

—
Al-Nusra has become a haven for thousands of Islamic terrorists from different countries around the work,
including some countries in Europe ( [6] ).

Does the European Union intend to place a ban on Al-Nusra on grounds of its being a terrorist organisation with links
to Al-Qaida, in keeping with the UN resolutions?

Can the European Union and the EU Member States guarantee that aid given directly or indirectly to the Syrian
opposition forces, whether financial, in the form of weapons or of any other kind, does not fall into the hands of AlNusra?

**Reply**
_(30 September 2013)_

By means of implementing Regulation (EU) No 632/2013, the Commission added the Al-Nusrah Front as an alias for
Al-Qaida in Iraq to the list of persons, groups and entities to which Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing
restrictive measures against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network applies. The adoption
of this regulation was in line with the decision of 30 May 2013 of the Security Council Committee pursuant to
resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities.

As regards the possible supply of weapons to the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary Forces (SOC) it is
recalled that from 1 June the EU arms embargo against Syria is no longer in force. The possible export of arms to Syria
is now a matter for Member States. Member States have stated that they will proceed in their national policies in
accordance with the criteria set out in Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 on common rules
governing control of exports of military goods. Adequate safeguards against misuse, including relevant information
concerning the end-user and final destination of the delivery, will be required.

Regarding assistance to the SOC, the EU is currently providing support, in particular to the Assistance Coordination
Unit (ACU), in order to enable them to better identify the needs of the population and facilitate the delivery of
assistance inside Syria.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/09/297440/syria-alnusra-merges-with-iraq-alqaeda/
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj9qirBcoA&bpctr=1372341923
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/201759.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://english.ruvr.ru/news/2013_06_27/US-plans-to-deliver-arms-to-Free-Syrian-Army-within-within-a-month-8518/
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22275456

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 389

Finally, certain derogations have been introduced into the EU's restrictive measures in the area of trade and
investment with a view to helping the Syrian civilian population. Strict conditions apply for authorising any such
activities, including consultation with the SOC.

C 65 E / 390 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008211/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Portal VisitEurope

En la vigésimo segunda disposición del informe titulado «Europa, primer destino turístico del mundo: un nuevo
marco político para el turismo europeo» se habla de la necesidad de desarrollar las potencialidades del portal
www.visiteurope.com.

Teniendo en cuenta la importancia de atraer a turistas de terceros países, en especial de los países BRIC, de incentivar
el turismo entre grupos desfavorecidos, como personas de la tercera edad y/o con discapacidad, de promover el
comercio electrónico que podría favorecer a su vez la recopilación de datos estadísticos, de informar a los usuarios de
sus derechos y de favorecer la cooperación entre países y prestadores de servicios turísticos, ¿ha analizado la
Comisión el nivel de accesibilidad de la página web para aquellas personas que por motivos de discapacidad o
similares requieren alguna adaptación del contenido?

¿Contempla la Comisión traducir la página a los principales idiomas de la Unión y de terceros países, especialmente a
portugués (BRA), ruso, chino e hindi, esto es, a las lenguas de los países BRIC?

¿Se ha planteado la Comisión la posibilidad de utilizar la página para otros fines relacionados con el sector y
contemplados en el informe como la recopilación de _feedback_ de los usuarios que permita realizar estadísticas, para
proporcionarles información acerca de sus derechos y promocionar otras formas de turismo más minoritarias?

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

_(20 de agosto de 2013)_

La Comisión reconoce el potencial del portal «visiteurope» dedicado a la promoción en el extranjero de Europa como
destino turístico. Este portal complementa los sitios web y las plataformas de los Estados miembros dedicadas a la
promoción y el márketing y es gestionado por la Comisión Europea de Turismo ( [1] ) (ETC), una organización sin ánimo
de lucro que agrupa a 33 organizaciones nacionales de turismo (ONT) de Europa.

[El portal www.visiteurope.com está disponible en francés, inglés, español, portugués y chino, en consonancia con los](http://www.visiteurope.com/)
principales mercados extranjeros que constituyen un objetivo para la ETC ( [2] ). El portal presenta, de una manera fácil
para los consumidores, contenidos temáticos paneuropeos pertinentes e información sobre una amplia gama de
destinos turísticos europeos. La ETC prevé actualizar el portal a medio plazo.

La Comisión coopera estrechamente con la ETC, entre otras cosas mediante una declaración conjunta firmada
en 2011 y un acuerdo de subvención al efecto en favor de un programa conjunto de trabajo y comunicación sobre
promoción para el período de noviembre de 2012 a marzo de 2014.

Además del portal «visiteurope», el sitio web de la Comisión dedicado al turismo ( [3] ) ofrece abundante información
sobre la política europea de turismo y el fomento del mismo, e incluye las formas menos extendidas de turismo, los
nuevos Destinos Europeos de Excelencia (EDEN) menos conocidos, los itinerarios culturales europeos y los productos
turísticos temáticos transnacionales. También proporciona información sobre la base de conocimientos relativa al
turismo europeo y las iniciativas orientadas a apoyar a las empresas dedicadas al turismo.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.etc-corporate.org/
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Estados Unidos, Canadá, Brasil y China.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/index_en.htm

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 391

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008211/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VisitEurope portal

Item 22 of the report titled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination — a new political framework for tourism in
Europe’ refers to the need to develop the potential of the www.visiteurope.com portal.

Considering the importance of attracting tourists from third countries, especially the BRIC countries [Brazil, Russia,
India, China]; of encouraging tourism among disadvantaged groups, such as senior citizens and/or people with
disabilities; of promoting _e_ -commerce that, in turn, could facilitate the collection of statistical data; of informing users
of their rights; and of facilitating cooperation among countries and tourism service providers, has the Commission
assessed the website’s accessibility to people who, for reasons of disability or other similar reasons, need the content
to be adapted in some way?

Does the Commission plan to translate the site into the main languages of the European Union and third countries,
especially into Portuguese, Russian, Chinese, and Hindi, i.e. the languages of the BRIC countries?

Has the Commission considered the possibility of using the site for other purposes related to the sector and included
in the report, such as gathering user feedback that would allow it to compile statistics, providing information about
tourists’ rights, and promoting other, less widespread forms of tourism?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

The Commission acknowledges the potential of the ‘visiteurope’ portal as a site dedicated to the overseas promotion
of Europe as a tourist destination. This portal complements the promotion and marketing websites and platforms of
Member States and is managed by the European Travel Commission (ETC) ( [1] ), a non-profit organisation regrouping
33 European National Tourism Organisations (NTOs).

[The www.visiteurope.com portal is available in French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese, in line with ETC's](http://www.visiteurope.com/)
main overseas target markets ( [2] ). The portal presents relevant pan-European thematic content as well as information
about a wide variety of European tourist destinations in a consumer-friendly way. An update of the portal is envisaged
by ETC in the medium-term.

The Commission closely cooperates with ETC, amongst others on the basis of a Joint Statement signed in 2011 and a
related grant agreement for a joint communication and promotion work programme for the period November 2012March 2014.

In addition to the ‘visiteurope’ portal, the Commission's dedicated tourism website ( [3] ) provides a wealth of
information with regard to European tourism policy and promoting tourism, including less widespread forms of
tourism, lesser known emerging European Destinations of Excellence (EDEN), European Cultural Routes and
transnational thematic tourism products. It also provides information about the European tourism knowledge base
and initiatives geared to support tourism businesses.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.etc-corporate.org/ .
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) USA, Canada, Brazil and China.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/index_en.htm

C 65 E / 392 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008212/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Turismo y actividad económica

Considerando que el turismo es la tercera actividad socioeconómica de la UE, que supone el principal recurso para
muchas regiones comunitarias, la implicación de las microempresas y PYME en el sector, la vulnerabilidad del mismo
y la precariedad del empleo con él relacionado debido a su condición de estacional, y teniendo en cuenta asimismo el
contenido de las disposiciones 67, 70, 74, 75 y 76 del informe titulado «Europa, primer destino turístico del mundo:
un nuevo marco político para el turismo europeo», así como las opiniones de la Comisión de Industria, Investigación
y Energía y de la Comisión de Desarrollo Regional en relación al citado informe, ¿cómo avanzan las propuestas de
armonización y modernización del régimen del IVA?

¿Considera la Comisión algún tipo de medidas que protejan a las microempresas y PYME frente a la estacionalidad y la
precariedad laboral del sector en el actual contexto de crisis económica?

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

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

Con el fin de modernizar el sistema del IVA, en diciembre de 2011 se adoptó una Comunicación sobre el futuro
del IVA ( [1] ), en la que se establecen cuatro áreas prioritarias para un sistema más simple, robusto y eficiente, y se
incluye el compromiso de una Directiva relativa a una declaración del IVA normalizada en la EU antes del final
de 2013, que reducirá la carga administrativa de las empresas, incluido el sector del turismo.

En cuanto al apoyo a las PYME, la Comisión está poniendo en práctica una serie de medidas:

—
Revisión de la Directiva de requerimientos de capital, Basilea III ( [2] ): las nuevas normas introducen una
reducción de las exigencias de capital para las PYME aplicando un factor de descuento ( [3] ).

—
Instrumentos financieros para facilitar el acceso de las PYME al crédito y al capital de riesgo: el PIC ( [4] ) es el
principal programa de la UE para la financiación de PYME ( [5] ) a través de intermediarios financieros ( [6] ). El nuevo
COSME 2014-2020 se basará en la experiencia lograda con el PIC.

—
Un mecanismo conjunto de riesgo compartido: en este mecanismo se combina el presupuesto de la UE con la
capacidad para conceder préstamos del BEI ( [7] ), el FEI ( [8] ) y los bancos de fomento nacionales. Sumando fuerzas
se alcanzará la masa crítica y se incrementará el efecto multiplicador para conceder préstamos a las PYME.

En lo que respecta al sector del turismo, la Comisión aplica iniciativas para compensar el factor de la estacionalidad
atrayendo más turistas y fomentando los desplazamientos en temporada baja ( [9] ). Se incluyen medidas tales como
grandes campañas de promoción en los países BRICS, así como proyectos con un fin específico, como «Calypso» ( [10] ),
«Senior tourism» ( [11] ) y «50 000 turistas» ( [12] ). Una reciente convocatoria de propuestas alienta explícitamente las
asociaciones público-privadas en proyectos de turismo paneuropeos ( [13] ).

Por último, a fin de alentar la utilización de la financiación de la UE por las partes interesadas del sector del turismo, se
ha elaborado una guía de los instrumentos financieros de la UE ( [14] ), que se actualizará en la primavera de 2014 a fin de
tener en cuenta las perspectivas financieras del periodo 2014-2020.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 851 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:176:SOM:ES:HTML
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Artículo 501 del Reglamento (UE) n° 575/2013.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Programa marco para la innovación y la competitividad 2007-2013.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) El PIC ya ha apoyado a más de 220 000 empresas y ha alentado la concesión a las PYME de más de 15 000 millones de euros de capital mediante

créditos o inversiones más asequibles.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Por ejemplo, fondos de capital riesgo, bancos y sociedades de garantía recíproca.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Banco Europeo de Inversiones.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) Fondo Europeo de Inversiones.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/calypso/index_es.htm
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6766&tpa=0&tk=&lang=es
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/50k/index_es.htm
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) «Cooperation projects to support transnational tourism based on European cultural and industrial heritage» (Proyectos de cooperación para

apoyar al turismo transnacional basados en el patrimonio cultural e industrial europeo)
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7583

( **|** ⋅14∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7652

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

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

( **|**

**|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 393

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008212/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tourism and economic activity

Whereas tourism is the EU’s third most substantial socioeconomic activity, the main resource for many EU regions,
involves many micro-, small‐ and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and is vulnerable given its seasonal nature, with
the result that tourism-related employment is precarious, and bearing in mind items 67, 70, 74, 75 and 76 of the
report titled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination — a new political framework for tourism in Europe’, as well
as the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development
concerning this report, what is the status of the proposals for harmonisation and modernisation of the VAT system?

Is the Commission considering measures that would protect micro-, small‐ and medium-sized enterprises in the
current context of economic crisis, given the sector’s seasonality and precariousness of employment?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

In order to modernise the VAT system, a communication on the future of VAT ( [1] ) was adopted in December 2011. It
sets out priority areas for a simpler, more robust and efficient system, and includes a commitment for a directive on
an EU standard VAT declaration before the end of 2013 that will reduce administrative burdens for businesses,
including in the tourism sector.

Regarding support to SMEs, the Commission is putting in place several measures:

—
Review of the Capital Requirements Directive, Basel III ( [2] ): new rules introduce a reduction in capital charges for
SMEs by applying an SME discount factor ( [3] ).

—
Financial instruments to facilitate SMEs’ access to credit and venture capital: the CIP ( [4] ) is the main EU
programme for funding SMEs ( [5] ) through financial intermediaries ( [6] ). The new COSME 2014-2020 will build
on the CIP experience.

—
A joint risk-sharing mechanism: blending EU budget with the lending capacity of the EIB ( [7] ), EIF ( [8] ) and national
promotional banks. Joining forces will achieve the critical mass and increase leverage for lending to SMEs.

In respect of the tourism industry, the Commission implements initiatives to offset the seasonality factor, by
attracting more tourists and encouraging travel in the low season ( [9] ). Actions include major promotional campaigns
in BRICS countries, as well as projects with a specific focus, such as ‘Calypso’ ( [10] ), ‘Senior tourism’ ( [11] ), and
‘50 000 tourists’ ( [12] ). A recently launched call for proposals explicitely encourages public-private partnerships in panEuropean tourism projects ( [13] ).

Finally, to encourage uptake of EU funding by tourism stakeholders, a guide to EU financial instruments has been
made available ( [14] ). It will be updated in spring 2014 to reflect the 2014-2020 financial perspectives.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

⋅6∙ **|** )
⋅7∙ **|** )
⋅8∙ **|** )
⋅9∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 851 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:176:SOM:EN:HTML.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Art 501 of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme 2007-2013.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) The CIP has already supported over 220 000 companies and stimulated the provision of more than 15 billion EUR of capital for SMEs through

more affordable credit or investments.

( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) eg venture capital funds, banks, mutual guarantees societies.
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) European investment Bank.
( **|** ⋅8∙ **|** ) European Investment Fund.
( **|** ⋅9∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅10∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/calypso/.
( **|** ⋅11∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=6766.
( **|** ⋅12∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/50k/.
( **|** ⋅13∙ **|** ) ‘Cooperation projects to support transnational tourism based on European cultural and industrial heritage’

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7583.

( **|** ⋅14∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7652.

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

( **|**

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

**|** )

C 65 E / 394 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008213/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Turismo limpio

En la disposición sexagésimo quinta del informe titulado «Europa, primer destino turístico del mundo: un nuevo
marco político para el turismo europeo», se habla de fomentar la aplicación de programas de recuperación,
conservación y protección de los lugares de interés cultural, histórico o ambiental.

Dado el impacto generalmente negativo que tiene el turismo en el entorno natural, especialmente el turismo costero y
marítimo, ¿cómo tiene pensado la Comisión que se lleve a cabo la aplicación de dichos programas en el actual
contexto de crisis económica?

¿Considera la Comisión la creación de algunas medidas o mecanismos de concienciación o disuasión para fomentar
que los turistas respeten y ayuden a preservar el entorno al que viajan?

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

_(26 de agosto de 2013)_

La Comisión reconoce que el turismo, tanto a escala de la Unión Europea como mundial, debe gestionarse de forma
responsable y sostenible con el fin de evitar repercusiones negativas para el entorno natural y de potenciar al máximo
el papel que puede desempeñar en la preservación de los recursos naturales y culturales.

Como consta en su respuesta a la pregunta E-6952/2013 ( [1] ), la Comisión ha propuesto ya varias iniciativas a nivel de
la UE para fomentar una gestión del turismo sostenible y respetuosa con el medio ambiente. Entre ellas figura el
Sistema Europeo de Indicadores Turísticos para una Gestión Sostenible a Nivel del Destino ( [2] ). Asimismo, el sector
turístico puede también hacer uso de la etiqueta ecológica de la UE ( [3] ) o del sistema comunitario de gestión y auditoría
medioambientales (EMAS) ( [4] ), cuyo objetivo es facilitar a las empresas una buena gestión medioambiental.

Además, se puede hacer uso de los fondos estructurales para restaurar y conservar lugares de interés cultural, histórico
o medioambiental, dependiendo de las prioridades de los Estados miembros y sus regiones y siempre que los
proyectos subvencionados tengan repercusiones socioeconómicas.

Con el fin de sensibilizar a los turistas y reducir al mínimo su impacto medioambiental, la Comisión ha cofinanciado
varios proyectos transnacionales relacionados con el cicloturismo o el senderismo ( [5] ), y con destinos de turismo
sostenible menos conocidos ( [6] ).

Por lo que se refiere al turismo costero y marítimo, la Comisión está preparando en la actualidad una iniciativa
política, perteneciente a la iniciativa de «crecimiento azul», con el fin de averiguar qué factores son los más
importantes para apoyar un crecimiento económico sostenible a la luz de la reciente crisis financiera ( [7] ).

La Comisión también está trabajando en una Carta europea de turismo sostenible y responsable, así como en una
estrategia de la UE para el turismo marítimo y costero.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/es/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/sustainable-tourism/indicators/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/cycling-tourism/index_es.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/eden/index_es.htm
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) Está previsto que esta iniciativa se adopte antes de finales de año.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 395

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008213/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Clean tourism

Item 65 of the report titled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination — a new political framework for tourism in
Europe’ refers to encouraging the implementation of programmes restoring, preserving and protecting sites of
cultural, historical or environmental interest.

Given the generally negative impact of tourism, especially coastal and marine tourism, on the natural environment,
how does the Commission plan to implement these programmes in the current context of economic crisis?

Is the Commission considering creating any awareness-raising or deterrent measures or mechanisms to encourage
tourists to respect and help preserve the environment they are visiting?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The Commission acknowledges that tourism, both at European Union level and globally, needs to be managed in a
responsible and sustainable manner to avoid negative impacts on the environment, and to make the utmost of the
role it can play in the preservation of natural and cultural resources.

As per its reply to Question E-6952/2013 ( [1] ), the Commission has already proposed several EU level initiatives to
encourage sustainable, including environmentally friendly, tourism management. These include, amongst others, the
development of a European system of indicators for the sustainable management of tourist destinations (ETIS) ( [2] ).
Also the EU Eco-label ( [3] ) or the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) ( [4] ) aiming at facilitating sound
environmental management for businesses, can be used by the tourism sector.

Moreover, the EU structural funds could be used to restore and preserve sites of cultural, historical or environmental
interest depending on Member States’ and their regions’ priorities and provided the projects supported have a
socioeconomic impact.

To raise tourists' awareness and minimise their environmental impact, the Commission has co-financed several
transnational projects related to cycle or hiking tourism ( [5] ), as well as to non-traditional sustainable tourist
destinations ( [6] ).

As regards coastal and maritime tourism, the Commission is currently preparing a policy initiative, under the blue
growth initiative, aiming to identify the most important issues in order to support the sustainable economic growth
in view of the recent financial crisis ( [7] ).

The Commission is also working on a European Charter for a Sustainable and Responsible Tourism as well as on
the EU strategy for maritime and coastal tourism.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/sustainable-tourism/indicators/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/cycling-tourism/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/eden/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅7∙ **|** ) This initiative is planned for adoption before the end of the year.

C 65 E / 396 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008214/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Turismo éticamente responsable

En vista de la disposición sexagésimo primera del informe titulado «Europa, primer destino turístico del mundo: un
nuevo marco político para el turismo europeo _»_, que hace referencia al turismo éticamente responsable y
considerando, asimismo, que la actividad turística, si bien conlleva muchas ventajas como los beneficios para la
economía y desarrollo de las distintas regiones o la creación de un sentimiento de consideración, respeto y
entendimiento recíprocos entre las personas de distintas naciones, también puede ser utilizado para fines más
cuestionables, ¿tiene pensado la Comisión adoptar el Código Ético de la Organización Mundial de Turismo?

¿Qué medidas tiene pensado adoptar la Comisión para favorecer la colaboración entre países a fin de perseguir y
castigar aquellos delitos cometidos durante estancias turísticas?

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

_(11 de septiembre de 2013)_

La Comisión reconoce que el turismo, tanto a nivel de la UE como a escala mundial, debe abordarse de una manera
éticamente responsable a fin de evitar repercusiones sociales o medioambientales negativas y contribuir
positivamente a la competitividad sostenible del sector turístico de la UE. La Comisión trabaja actualmente en una
Carta Europea para un Turismo Sostenible y Responsable ( [1] ), cuya finalidad es fomentar en toda Europa el desarrollo
de tal turismo. En principio, la Carta se basará en iniciativas existentes, como el Código Ético Mundial para el Turismo
de la OMT, y las integrará en un documento único que defina los principios generales de un turismo sostenible y
responsable para los destinos, las empresas turísticas y los propios turistas.

No hay iniciativas específicas de la UE para velar por el enjuiciamiento y la condena en el caso de delitos cometidos
por turistas en la EU. No obstante, conviene tener en cuenta que el conjunto de instrumentos adoptados con arreglo al
título V del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea para garantizar la cooperación judicial en materia penal
en toda la UE y con determinados terceros países se aplica también, naturalmente, a los delitos cometidos por turistas.
Además, la Comisión toma medidas para apoyar la cooperación de las autoridades nacionales en la lucha contra la
delincuencia, especialmente de carácter transfronterizo. Las agencias de la UE Europol y Eurojust prestan apoyo a los
Estados miembros en la investigación y el enjuiciamiento de delitos graves y organizados. La Comisión y sus agencias
también promueven la cooperación transfronteriza entre las autoridades policiales al apoyar los equipos conjuntos de
investigación, las redes operativas de autoridades policiales y judiciales y los centros de policía y aduanas.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/sustainable-tourism/charter/index_en.htm

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 397

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008214/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ethically responsible tourism

In view of item 61 of the report titled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination — a new political framework for
tourism in Europe’, which refers to ethically responsible tourism, and whereas tourist activity has many advantages —
such as benefits to the economy and development of various regions, and the creation of a sentiment of mutual
consideration, respect and understanding among the people of various nations — it can also be used for more
questionable ends, does the Commission plan to adopt the Code of Ethics of the World Tourism Organisation?

What measures does the Commission plan to adopt to encourage cooperation among countries for the purpose of
prosecuting and punishing crimes committed by tourists?

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

_(11 September 2013)_

The Commission acknowledges that tourism, both at EU level and globally, needs to be managed in an ethically
responsible manner in order to avoid negative social or environmental impacts and to positively contribute to the
sustainable competitiveness of the EU tourism industry. The Commission is currently working on a European Charter
for a Sustainable and Responsible Tourism ( [1] ) to encourage sustainable and responsible tourism development across
Europe. The Charter should be based on and streamline existing initiatives, including the UNWTO Global Code of
Ethics, into a single document setting out broad principles of sustainable and responsible tourism for destinations,
tourism enterprises, as well as tourists.

There are no specific EU initiatives to ensure the prosecution and sentencing of crimes commited by tourists within
the EU. It must be noted, however, that the whole range of instruments adopted under Title V of the TFEU ( [2] ) to
ensure judicial cooperation in criminal matters throughout the EU and with certain third countries obviously also
apply to crimes committed by tourists. In addition, the Commission undertakes measures to support national
authorities in cooperating in the fight against crime, especially cross-border crime. The EU agencies Europol and
Eurojust provide support to Member States in investigating and prosecuting serious and organised crimes. The
Commission and its agencies also promote cross border cooperation between law enforcement authorities through
their support of Joint Investigation Teams (JITs), operational law enforcement networks and police and customs

centres.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/tourism/sustainable-tourism/charter/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union .

C 65 E / 398 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008215/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Turismo marítimo y costero

En vista del contenido de las disposiciones quincuagésimo quinta y séptima del informe titulado «Europa, primer
destino turístico del mundo: un nuevo marco político para el turismo europeo», relativas al turismo costero, insular y
marítimo, así como al desarrollo y adaptación de las infraestructuras portuarias, ¿qué medidas específicas tiene
pensado realizar la Comisión para preservar y proteger las costas europeas y otras zonas vulnerables, así como para
fomentar un turismo costero accesible y respetuoso con el medio ambiente?

¿Qué acciones llevará a cabo la Comisión para garantizar que las infraestructuras portuarias se adaptan a las
necesidades de las personas con movilidad reducida, en especial en aquellos puertos que tengan una gran afluencia de
turismo de cruceros?

**Respuesta de la Sra. Damanaki en nombre de la Comisión**

_(13 de septiembre de 2013)_

Según la Comunicación sobre crecimiento azul, el turismo marítimo y costero es uno de los sectores clave para el
crecimiento sostenible y la creación de empleo en Europa. En este contexto, la Comisión está elaborando una
estrategia a largo plazo relativa al turismo marítimo y costero sostenible. Dicha estrategia se centrará especialmente
en la necesidad de reforzar la competitividad de los destinos costeros europeos (respecto a los no europeos) y mejorar
la imagen y el perfil del sector del turismo marítimo y costero, así como en la de desarrollar productos innovadores,
mejorar la calidad de los servicios prestados, hacer frente a los desafíos que plantean el carácter estacional de este
sector, las conexiones, las infraestructuras insuficientes o el deterioro del medio ambiente, y hallar formas de canalizar
las políticas y los instrumentos financieros de la UE hacia ese sector.

La política de transporte de la UE prevé acciones específicas destinadas a garantizar unas infraestructuras portuarias
adaptadas a las necesidades de las personas con movilidad reducida.

El Reglamento (UE) n° 1177/2010 ( [1] ) exige a los operadores de terminal que faciliten el acceso en igualdad de
condiciones de las personas con movilidad reducida y sus acompañantes a las terminales, con las infraestructuras
existentes. También les exige que establezcan un sistema de asistencia a las personas con movilidad reducida y sus
acompañantes, que les permita superar los obstáculos físicos existentes.

Corresponde a los organismos nacionales de ejecución designados por los Estados miembros garantizar el
cumplimiento de la normativa por parte de los operadores de terminales portuarias. La Comisión ha adoptado las
disposiciones necesarias para garantizar que todos los Estados miembros procedan a la designación de dichos
organismos y que estos pongan efectivamente en aplicación el Reglamento en su país respectivo.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Reglamento (UE) n° 1177/2010 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre los derechos de los pasajeros que viajan por mar y por vías
navegables y por el que se modifica el Reglamento (CE) n° 2006/2004 (DO L 334 de 17.12.2010).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 399

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008215/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Marine and coastal tourism

In view of items 55 and 57 of the report titled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination — a new political
framework for tourism in Europe’, referring to coastal, island and marine tourism, and to the development and
adaptation of port infrastructure, what specific measures does the Commission plan to take to preserve and protect
European coasts and other vulnerable areas, and to encourage coastal tourism that is accessible and respectful of the
environment?

What actions will the Commission take to ensure that port infrastructure is adapted to the needs of persons with
reduced mobility, especially at ports that have a high level of cruise tourism?

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

_(13 September 2013)_

Maritime and coastal tourism was identified in the Blue Growth Communication as one of the key areas for
sustainable growth and jobs in Europe. The Commission is developing a long term strategy for sustainable maritime
and coastal tourism in this context. This strategy will give particular attention to the need to increase the
competitiveness of European coastal destinations (vis-à-vis non-European ones) and the improvement of coastal and
maritime tourism sector's image and profile, together with the need to develop innovative products, improve the
quality of services provided, address challenges such as seasonality or connectivity or insufficient infrastructures or
environmental deterioration, and establish ways to mainstream EU policies and financial instruments towards the

sector.

The EU transport policy establishes specific actions to ensure that port infrastructures are adapted to the needs of
persons with reduced mobility.

Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 ( [1] ) requires terminal operators to facilitate the equal access of persons with reduced
mobility and accompanying persons to the terminals with their existing infrastructure. In addition, they are required
to put in place a system of assistance for persons with reduced mobility and accompanying persons so as to overcome
the existing physical barriers.

The compliance of port terminal operators is ensured by national enforcement bodies designated by Member States.
The Commission has taken steps to make sure that all Member States have designated such a body and that those
national enforcement bodies would effectively enforce the regulation in their respective Member States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterways and amending Regulation (EC)
No 2006/2004 (OJ L 334, 17.12.2010).

C 65 E / 400 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008216/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Infraestructuras de alojamiento

En vista del contenido de las disposiciones vigésimo séptima y octava del informe titulado «Europa, primer destino
turístico del mundo: un nuevo marco político para el turismo europeo», relativas a la necesidad de armonizar
progresivamente los sistemas de clasificación de las infraestructuras de alojamiento y a la importancia de que los
mismos cumplan las medidas de seguridad pertinentes y considerando asimismo las disposiciones quincuagésima
acerca del impacto ambiental del turismo y quincuagésimo cuarta relativa a los efectos del cambio climático en zonas
turísticas, ¿prevé la Comisión algún tipo de medidas legislativas para incentivar la adhesión de las infraestructuras de
alojamiento al método MBS («Management, Building and System»), la adaptación de las mismas para mitigar los
riesgos naturales como inundaciones, sequías y demás, y para fomentar la creación de estructuras de alojamiento
sostenibles y respetuosas con el medioambiente, que se autoabastezcan energéticamente y reciclen en la medida de lo
posible los desechos y el agua?

¿Cuándo y cómo se llevará a cabo la armonización de los sistemas de clasificación de las instalaciones de alojamiento?

¿Contemplará la clasificación unificada las características descritas en la pregunta anterior?

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

_(2 de septiembre de 2013)_

La Comisión tiene previsto lanzar una consulta pública durante el tercer trimestre de 2013 sobre la seguridad de los
servicios. Entre otras cuestiones, la consulta explorará la necesidad potencial y el valor añadido de la acción legislativa
en el ámbito de la seguridad contra incendios en los alojamientos turísticos, basada en el método MBS o cualquier
instrumento alternativo. Esta previsto que este ámbito particular de la consulta aproveche los resultados de un
seminario de partes interesadas que se celebró en 2012 para debatir la utilización del MBS en una posible revisión de
la Recomendación 86/666/CEE del Consejo, relativa a la seguridad de los hoteles existentes contra los riesgos de
incendios ( [1] ).

La armonización de la clasificación de los hoteles (sistemas de estrellas) no es competencia de la Comisión, sino de los
países o las regiones. Sin embargo, la Comisión sigue de cerca la evolución de las iniciativas impulsadas por la
industria en este ámbito ( [2] ) y promueve el trabajo de las autoridades nacionales o regionales y las organizaciones
gestoras de los sistemas de clasificación hotelera ( [3] ).

La legislación pertinente (de carácter voluntario) relacionada con el rendimiento medioambiental de las instalaciones
turísticas se basa en el sistema de etiqueta ecológica de la UE [(Reglamento (CE) n° 66/2010] para los servicios de
alojamiento turístico y los servicios de camping (Decisiones 2009/564/CE ( [4] ) y 2009/578/CE ( [5] )) y en el sistema
EMAS [sistema comunitario de gestión y auditoría medioambientales, Reglamento (CE) n° 1221/2009]. Con arreglo
al sistema EMAS, se publicó recientemente el documento de referencia sectorial para el turismo ( [6] ). Dicho documento
ofrece información sobre las mejores prácticas de gestión medioambiental, el uso de indicadores del rendimiento
medioambiental e indicadores clave en el sector turístico, los parámetros comparativos de excelencia y los sistemas de
clasificación que determinan los niveles de comportamiento medioambiental.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_safe/serv_safe/fire_safe/ps07_es.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Por ejemplo, la iniciativa Hotelstars Union de HOTREC: www.hotrec.org/pages/policy_areas/hotelstars
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Para mayor información sobre la clasificación hotelera, se remite también a Su Señoría a las respuestas dadas a las preguntas P-6046/10 y E
8628/10, del Sr. Tarabella, P-10390/10, de la Sra. Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, y E-011708/2011, del Sr. Pirker.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:196:0036:0058:ES:PDF
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:196:0036:0058:ES:PDF
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/documents/legislative_en.htm

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 401

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008216/13**

**to the Commission**
**Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Accommodation

This written question concerns paragraphs 27, 28, 50 and 54 of Parliament’s resolution on ‘Europe, the world’s No 1
tourist destination — a new political framework for tourism in Europe’. Those paragraphs relate, respectively, to the
need to gradually harmonise accommodation classification systems, the importance of compliance with the relevant
safety measures, the environmental impact of tourism, and the impact of climate change on Europe’s tourist areas.

Does the Commission intend to bring forward legislation to promote compliance with the MBS (Management,
Building and System) method and to encourage alterations to accommodation that will mitigate the risks of natural
disasters such as floods and droughts?

Will it also bring forward legislation to promote the creation of sustainable, environment-friendly accommodation
that is energy self-sufficient and maximises the recycling of waste and water?

When and how will the harmonisation of accommodation classification systems be achieved?

Will the single classification system take into account the factors outlined above?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

The Commission is planning to launch a public consultation during the third quarter of 2013 on the safety of
services. Among other issues, the consultation will explore the potential need and added value of legislative action in
the area of fire safety in tourist accommodation, be it based on the MBS methodology or any alternative tool. This
particular area of the consultation is intended to build on the outcomes of a stakeholder workshop held in 2012 to
discuss the use of the MBS in a possible revision of the existing Council Recommendation 86/666/EEC on fire safety
in existing hotels ( [1] ).

The harmonisation of hotel classification (star systems) goes beyond the Commission's remit, being a matter of
national and/or regional competence. Nevertheless, the Commission closely observes the evolution of industry-driven
initiatives in this area ( [2] ) and encourages the work of national/regional authorities and the managing organisations of
hotel classification schemes ( [3] ).

Relevant legislation (on voluntary basis) related to the environmental performance of tourist facilities is in place via
the scheme of EU Ecolabel (Regulation EC 66/2010) for tourist accommodation services and for campsite services
(2009/564/EC ( [4] ), 2009/578/EC ( [5] )) and under the scheme of EMAS (eco-management and audit scheme, Regulation
1221/2009/EC). Under the EMAS scheme the sectoral reference document for ‘Tourism’ was recently published ( [6] ).
The sectoral reference document provides information on best environmental management practice, use of
environmental performance and core indicators for the tourism sector, benchmarks of excellence and ratings systems
identifying environmental performance levels.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_safe/serv_safe/fire_safe/ps07_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) For example the Hotelstars Union initiative by HOTREC: www.hotrec.org/pages/policy_areas/hotelstars.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) For further information on hotel classification, the Honourable Member is also invited to consult the replies to questions P-6046/10 and E
8628/10 by Mr Tarabella, P-10390/10 by Ms Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou and E-011708/2011 by Mr Pirker.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:196:0036:0058:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:196:0036:0058:EN:PDF.
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/documents/legislative_en.htm

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

C 65 E / 402 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Dansk udgave)_

**Forespørgsel til skriftlig besvarelse E-008217/13**

**til Kommissionen**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(9. juli 2013)_

_Om:_ Tomater på det europæiske marked

Gennem Danmarks Radio har jeg fået forelagt et spørgsmål om, hvorfor hollandske tomater fylder så meget på EU's
marked. Masser af danske producenter må smide tomater ud, fordi de ikke kan konkurrere med Holland. Men det
gælder også i en række andre lande som blandt andet Bulgarien og Grækenland.

I forbindelse med min research er jeg adskillige gange løbet ind rygter om, at hollandske tomatproducenter modtager
statstilskud.

Mit spørgsmål til Kommissionen er derfor:

Kan Kommissionen garantere, at der ikke gives (ulovlig) statsstøtte til hollandske tomatproducenter?

Vil det for eksempel være lovligt at modtage støtte til opvarmning af drivhuse?

Har Kommissionen kigget på, hvorvidt der er tale om misbrug af en dominerende stilling på det europæiske
tomatmarked?

Kan Kommissionen endvidere garantere, at løn‐ og ansættelsesvilkår i den hollandske tomatsektor ikke strider imod
EU's regler for arbejdsmiljø, ansættelsesregler med mere?

Jeg undrer mig i hvert fald over, at der ikke er større variation af tomater på det europæiske marked.

**Svar afgivet på Kommissionens vegne af Dacian Cioloş**

_(23. august 2013)_

I henhold til artikel 108, stk. 1 og 3, i TEUF har Kommissionen til opgave at foretage en løbende undersøgelse af de
støtteordninger, som findes i medlemsstaterne, og medlemsstaterne skal underrette Kommissionen i tilstrækkelig god
tid til, at den kan fremsætte sine bemærkninger til eventuelle planer om ydelse eller ændring af støtte. På nuværende
tidspunkt er der ikke anmeldt nogen specifik statsstøtte til nederlandske tomatproducenter til Kommissionen.

I henhold til de gældende regler for statsstøtte ( [1] ) og med forbehold for de udførlige krav, der er anført heri, skal
Kommissionen godkende støtteforanstaltninger vedrørende opvarmning af drivhuse, der anmeldes til den i
overensstemmelse med anmeldelsespligten i artikel 108, stk. 3, i TEUF.

Medlemsstaterne kan også beslutte at yde de minimis-støtte til opvarmning af væksthuse i henhold til Kommissionens
forordning (EF) nr. 1535/2007 ( [2] ), hvorved støtte, som ikke overstiger 7 500 EUR over en periode på tre regnskabsår,
ikke betragtes som statsstøtte og er fritaget for anmeldelsespligten efter artikel 108, stk. 3, i TEUF.

Hvad angår misbrug af en dominerende stilling på det europæiske marked for tomater, foregår der ingen undersøgelse
på nuværende tidspunkt.

Vedrørende arbejdsforhold og sundhed og sikkerhed på arbejdspladsen, minder Kommissionen om, at alle
arbejdsgivere, der er etableret i medlemsstaterne, skal opfylde de mindstekrav, der er fastsat i EU-lovgivningen. Hvad
angår sundhed og sikkerhed, er det tilladt medlemsstaterne at indføre strengere krav, når de omsætter de relevante
direktiver til national ret, og dermed yde arbejdstagerne et højere niveau af beskyttelse. Håndhævelsen og kontrollen
af kravene hører primært under de kompetente nationale myndigheder. Aflønning af arbejdstagere hører under
national lovgivning.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EF-rammebestemmelser for statsstøtte til landbrug og skovbrug for 2007-2013, EUT C 319 af 27.12.2006, s. 1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1535/2007 af 20. december 2007 om anvendelse af EF-traktatens artikel 87 og 88 vedrørende de minimis
støtte til produktion af landbrugsprodukter, EUT L 337 af 21.12.2007.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 403

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008217/13**

**to the Commission**
**Christel Schaldemose (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tomatoes on the European market

I have received a question via Danish radio about why Dutch tomatoes are so predominant on the EU market. Masses
of Danish producers — and indeed producers in a number of other countries including Bulgaria and Greece — have
to throw tomatoes away because they cannot compete with Holland.

In the course of my research I have come up several times against rumours that Dutch tomato producers receive state
aid.

I should therefore like to ask the Commission:

Can the Commission guarantee that no (illegal) state aid is granted to Dutch tomato producers?

Would it for example be legal to receive aid for heating greenhouses?

Has the Commission looked at whether there has been abuse of a dominant position on the European tomato
market?

Can the Commission also guarantee that pay and employment conditions in the Dutch tomato sector do not conflict
with EU rules on the working environment, employment rules, etc.?

At any rate I am surprised at the lack of variety in tomatoes on the European market.

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

_(23 August 2013)_

Pursuant to Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU the Commission has been entrusted with the task to keep under constant
review all systems of aid existing in the Member States and Member States have to inform the Commission, in
sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. However, at this stage, no
specific state aid to Dutch tomato producers has been notified to the Commission.

Under the applicable state aid rules ( [1] ) and subject to the detailed requirements set out therein, the Commission would
indeed have to authorise aid measures concerning heating greenhouses notified to it in accordance with the
notification requirement in Article 108(3) TFEU.

Member States may also decide to grant _de minimis_ aid for the heating of greenhouses under the Commission
Regulation 1535/2007 ( [2] ), by virtue of which aid not exceeding EUR 7500 over any period of three fiscal years is not
considered as state aid and is exempted from the notification obligation provided for in Article 108(3) TFEU.

Concerning abuse of a dominant position on the European tomato market there is no inquiry at this stage.

Regarding employment conditions and health and safety at work requirements, the Commission recalls that all
employers established in Member States have to comply with the minimum requirements set by EC law. In the field of
health and safety, Member States are allowed to introduce stricter requirements when transposing the relevant
Directives into the national law, thus awarding workers higher levels of protection. Their enforcement and
monitoring fall primarily under the responsibility of the competent national authorities. The remuneration of
workers is a matter of national law.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agriculture and Forestry Sector 2007-2013, OJ 2006 C 319/1.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007 of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to _de minimis_ aid in

the sector of agricultural production, OJ L 337, 21.12.2007.

C 65 E / 404 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008218/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Hermann Winkler (PPE)**

_(9. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Ausnahmen und Fristverlängerungen beim Stabilitäts‐ und Wachstumspakt

Am 29.5.2013 hat die Europäische Kommission dem Rat Fristverlängerungen um bis zu zwei Jahre für den Abbau
des übermäßigen Defizits in sechs EU-Mitgliedstaaten vorgeschlagen. Zudem hat Kommissionspräsident Barroso am
3.7.2013 vor dem Europäischen Parlament angekündigt, im präventiven Arm des Stabilitäts‐ und Wachstumspakts
einzelfallbezogene Abweichungen von den mittelfristigen Zielvorgaben zum Abbau des strukturellen Defizits
zuzulassen, sofern diese im Zusammenhang mit öffentlichen Investitionen stehen, die von der Europäischen Union
kofinanziert werden. Damit verlässt die Kommission den Pfad einer stringenten Kontrolle der Einhaltung vereinbarter
Stabilitätskriterien und einer soliden Fiskalpolitik in der Europäischen Union, welcher infolge der verheerenden
Auswirkungen der Staatsschuldenkrise eingeschlagen wurde.

1. Rechnet die Kommission mit einer erneuten Verschärfung der Staatsschuldenkrise in Europa und
Refinanzierungsproblemen für die von den genannten Regelungen betroffenen Staaten?

2. Welche Erwägungen und statistischen Prognosen liegen den genannten Entscheidungen der Kommission
zugrunde?

3. Inwiefern sollen größere Spielräume bei der Aufrechterhaltung eines übermäßigen Staatsdefizits nach Ansicht
der Kommission zur Stabilisierung des EU-Wirtschaftsraums beitragen?

4. Erachtet die Kommission erhöhte öffentliche Investitionen als geeignetes Mittel zum Abbau übermäßiger
Staatsverschuldung?

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

_(27. August 2013)_

Am 13./14. Dezember 2012 kam der Europäische Rat zu dem Schluss, dass die Möglichkeiten, die der bestehende
haushaltspolitische Rahmen der Union bietet, um den Bedarf an produktiven öffentlichen Investitionen mit den
Zielen der Haushaltsdisziplin in Einklang zu bringen, unter umfassender Wahrung des Stabilitäts‐ und
Wachstumspakts (SWP) im Rahmen der präventiven Komponente des SWP in vollem Umfang genutzt werden
können.

In einem Schreiben von Vizepräsident Olli Rehn an die Finanzminister der Mitgliedstaaten und den Vorsitz des
Ausschusses des Europäischen Parlaments für Wirtschaft und Währung hat die Kommission näher ausgeführt, wie sie
eine sogenannte „Investitionsklausel“ im Rahmen des präventiven Arms des SWP anzuwenden gedenkt.

Die Kommission wird gegebenenfalls vorübergehende Abweichungen vom Defizitpfad zur Erreichung der
mittelfristigen Zielvorgaben erlauben oder Abweichungen vom mittelfristigen Ziel, wenn dieses erreicht wurde, bei
Mitgliedstaaten, die nicht Gegenstand eines Verfahrens bei einem übermäßigen Defizit sind und ein negatives
Wirtschaftswachstum bzw. eines, das deutlich unter ihrem Potenzial liegt, aufweisen, die aber weiterhin sowohl das
Defizit‐ als auch das Schuldenstandskriterium des SWP in Bezug auf die nationalen Ausgaben für von der EU
kofinanzierte Projekte im Rahmen der Struktur‐ und Kohäsionspolitik, der transeuropäischen Netze (TEN) und der
Fazilität „Connecting Europe“ (CEF) erfüllen. Diese Investitionsklausel findet jedoch nur Anwendung, solange die
außergewöhnlichen wirtschaftlichen Bedingungen bestehen.

Die Klausel wird auf gesonderten Antrag des betreffenden Mitgliedstaats angewandt. Die Zulässigkeit des Antrags
wird im Herbst auf der Grundlage der zu diesem Zeitpunkt verfügbaren Daten und Prognosen bewertet werden.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 405

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008472/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(11 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Scrisoarea Comisarului Olli Rehn cu privire la clauza de investiții

Printr-o scrisoare transmisă în data de 3 iulie de către Comisarul pentru Afaceri Economice și Financiare, Olli Rehn,
miniștrii de finanțe din statele membre sunt informați despre posibilitatea ca, atunci când se realizează investiții
cofinanțate din fonduri structurale și de coeziune, să fie permisă o deviere de la Obiectivul pe Termen Mediu, așa cum
este el definit în programele de convergență.

Este o măsură de stimulare a investițiilor, care permite statelor cu un deficit bugetar mai mic de 3% să facă investiții
fără a-și compromite țintele asumate în programele de convergență. România ar putea să fie una din țările care
beneficiază de această excepție.

Care este devierea maximă acceptată de către Comisie în acest context și cum definește Comisia „creșterea economică
sub potențial”, invocată de Comisarul Rehn ca una dintre condițiile pentru această derogare?

De asemenea, va fi această măsură disponibilă și pentru statele membre care au un deficit bugetar de sub 3% însă o
datorie publică de peste 60% din PIB?

**Răspuns comun dat de dl Rehn în numele Comisiei**

_(27 august 2013)_

În cadrul Consiliului European din 13-14 decembrie 2012, s-a ajuns la concluzia că, în condițiile respectării depline a
Pactului de stabilitate și de creștere (PSC), posibilitățile oferite de cadrul bugetar existent al UE de a ajunge la un
echilibru între necesitatea unor investiții publice productive și obiectivele legate de disciplina bugetară pot fi
exploatate în cadrul componentei preventive a PSC.

De asemenea, într-o scrisoare adresată de vicepreședintele Olli Rehn miniștrilor de finanțe ai statelor membre și
președintelui Comisiei pentru afaceri economice și monetare din cadrul Parlamentului European, Comisia a explicat
modul în care intenționează să aplice această așa-numită „clauză privind investițiile” în componenta preventivă a PSC.

În cazul statelor membre care nu fac obiectul unei proceduri de deficit excesiv și care au creștere economică negativă
sau cu mult sub potențial, dar care continuă să îndeplinească criteriile privind deficitul și datoria prevăzute de PSC,
Comisia va analiza posibilitatea de a permite abateri temporare de la obiectivul de ajustare a deficitului structural către
obiectivul pe termen mediu (OTM) sau de la OTM pentru statele membre care l-au atins, în ceea ce privește cheltuielile
publice naționale pentru proiectele cofinanțate de UE în cadrul politicii structurale și de coeziune, al rețelelor
transeuropene (RTE) și al mecanismului „Conectarea Europei” (MCE). Această clauză privind investițiile nu se va mai
aplica de îndată ce nu mai sunt valabile condițiile economice excepționale.

Clauza va fi aplicată la cererea expresă a statului membru eligibil. Eligibilitatea va fi evaluată în toamnă, pe baza
datelor și previziunilor disponibile la momentul respectiv.

C 65 E / 406 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008218/13**

**to the Commission**
**Hermann Winkler (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Exemptions and deadline extensions in the Stability and Growth Pact

On 29 May 2013 the Commission proposed to the Council extending by up to two years the deadline for reduction
of excessive deficits in six EU Member States. Furthermore, on 3 July 2013, Commission President Barroso
announced to the European Parliament that, in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, derogations from
the medium-term structural deficit reduction targets would be allowed in individual cases, provided these related to
public investments co-financed by the European Union. In so doing, the Commission has left the path of stringent
controls on compliance with agreed stability criteria and a solid fiscal policy in the European Union, on which it
embarked following the devastating effects of the sovereign debt crisis.

1. Has the Commission considered the possibility of a further intensification of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe,
with re-financing problems for the states affected by these arrangements?

2. What considerations and statistical forecasts underlie the Commission’s abovementioned decisions?

3. To what extent does the Commission consider that allowing greater scope for maintaining an excessive state
deficit will help stabilise the EU economic area?

4. Does the Commission consider increased public investments as a suitable means to reduce excessive sovereign
debt?

**Question for written answer E-008472/13**

**to the Commission**
**Elena Băsescu (PPE)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Letter from Commissioner Olli Rehn on the investment clause

In a letter dated 3 July, the Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Olli Rehn, informed the Finance
Ministers of the Member States that in the case of investments co‐financed under the Structural and Cohesion Funds
they would be allowed to deviate from the medium‐term objectives set in convergence programmes.

This measure seeks to stimulate investment, and will enable states with a budget deficit of under 3% to invest in a
manner that does not jeopardise their targets set in the convergence programmes. Romania could be one of the
countries to which this exemption would apply.

What is the maximum deviation that the Commission could accept in this context and what is the Commission’s
definition of the below‐potential economic growth that Commissioner Rehn said was a precondition for this
derogation?

Will this measure also be available to Member States with a budget deficit of under 3% but a public debt totalling over
60% of their GDP?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

On 13/14 December 2012, the European Council concluded that while fully respecting the Stability and Growth Pact,
the possibilities offered by the EU's existing fiscal framework to balance productive public investment needs with
fiscal discipline objectives can be exploited in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP).

The Commission has further specified in a letter of Vice-President Olli Rehn to the Finance Ministers of the Member
States and the Chair of the EP Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs the way in which it intends to apply
such a so-called ‘investment clause’ in the preventive arm of the SGP.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 407

The Commission will consider allowing temporary deviations from the structural deficit path towards the MediumTerm Objective (MTO), or from the MTO for Member States that have reached it, for Member States which are not
subject of an excessive Deficit Procedure and have a negative, or well below potential, economic growth, but which
continue to fulfil both the deficit and debt criteria of the SGP, in respect of the national expenditure on projects cofunded by the EU under the Structural and Cohesion policy, Trans-European Networks (TEN) and Connecting Europe
Facility (CEF). This investment clause will not anymore apply once the exceptional economic conditions no longer
prevail.

The clause will be applied upon specific request by the eligible Member State. Eligibility will be assessed in autumn on
the basis of then available data and forecasts.

C 65 E / 408 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008219/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Hermann Winkler (PPE)**

_(9. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Einhaltung der Maastricht-Kriterien durch die Republik Kroatien

Am 1.7.2013 ist die Republik Kroatien als 28. Mitgliedstaat der Europäischen Union beigetreten. Damit hat sie auch
die Maastricht-Kriterien gemäß dem Stabilitäts‐ und Wachstumspakt der EU anerkannt und muss diese künftig
erfüllen. Das jährliche Staatsdefizit darf demgemäß nicht höher als 3 % und die Staatsverschuldung nicht höher als
60 % des jeweiligen Bruttoinlandsprodukts ausfallen.

In ihrer regelmäßigen Konjunkturprognose (letztmals veröffentlicht im Mai 2013) geht die Europäische Kommission
für Kroatien im Jahr 2013 von einem Haushaltsdefizit von 4,7 % des BIP aus und erwartet die Überschreitung der
60 %-Grenze bei der Staatsverschuldung für das Jahr 2014.

1. Bereitet die Kommission aktuell die Einleitung eines Defizitverfahrens gemäß Artikel 126 AEUV gegen
Kroatien vor?

2. Falls nicht, für wann rechnet die Kommission mit der Einleitung eines Defizitverfahrens?

3. Inwiefern ist die Aufnahme von Staaten mit ungünstiger finanzieller und wirtschaftlicher Prognose als neue
Mitglieder der Europäischen Union aus Sicht der Kommission mit den Bemühungen um die Stabilisierung des
europäischen Wirtschaftsraums vereinbar?

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

_(23. August 2013)_

Kroatien nahm bereits informell am Europäischen Semester 2013 teil, in dessen Rahmen die
Kommissionsdienststellen das Wirtschaftsprogramm Kroatiens bewerteten (SWD(2013)361 endg.).

Als EU-Mitgliedstaat unterliegt Kroatien nun demselben Monitoring wie alle anderen EU-Staaten auch und ist
gehalten, die Anforderungen des Stabilitäts‐ und Wachstumspakts zu erfüllen. Kroatien sollte Eurostat die Daten zu
den öffentlichen Finanzen nach dem ESVG 95 bis Ende September 2013 melden. Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass
Eurostat die kroatischen VÜD-Statistiken zusammen mit denen der anderen Mitgliedstaaten bis Ende Oktober 2013
validiert.

Anschließend wird die Kommission analysieren, ob die Haushaltsentwicklungen den Verschuldungs‐ und
Defizitkriterien des Vertrags entsprechen, und nach Artikel 126 Absatz 3 einen Bericht erstellen, in dem detailliert
diverse Faktoren Berücksichtigung finden, wie vom Stabilitäts‐ und Wirtschaftspakt vorgegeben. Sollte die
Überprüfung ergeben, dass ein übermäßiges Defizit besteht, so legt die Kommission im Einklang mit Artikel 126
Absätze 5 und 6 AEUV dem Rat eine Stellungnahme und einen Vorschlag vor.

Abschließend sei erwähnt, dass die kroatische Wirtschaft vor der globalen Wirtschaftskrise schneller wuchs als die
EU-Volkswirtschaft. Derzeit befindet sich das Land in einer Rezession, wie mehrere andere Mitgliedstaaten auch.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 409

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008381/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Lara Comi (PPE)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Situazione delle finanze pubbliche croate

Si apprende dalla stampa che la situazione delle finanze pubbliche della Croazia fa presagire, per l'anno in corso, un
eccesso nel rapporto deficit/PIL rispetto ai parametri sanciti dal trattato di Maastricht.

Può la Commissione rendere noto se quanto riportato dai giornali corrisponde a verità e, in caso affermativo, riferire
quali misure sono state decise affinché negli anni a venire tale parametro rientri al di sotto della soglia prevista dal
citato trattato?

**Risposta congiunta di Olli Rehn a nome della Commissione**

_(23 agosto 2013)_

La Croazia ha già partecipato in via informale al Semestre europeo 2013, nel cui ambito i servizi della Commissione
hanno valutato il programma economico croato (SWD(2013)361 def.).

In veste di Stato membro dell'UE, la Croazia è ora soggetta al medesimo monitoraggio esercitato su tutti gli altri Stati
membri ed è tenuta a soddisfare i requisiti del patto di stabilità e crescita. La Croazia dovrebbe notificare a Eurostat,
entro il settembre 2013, dati relativi alle finanze pubbliche conformi al sistema europeo dei conti SEC95 e Eurostat è
tenuto a convalidare i dati statistici croati pertinenti alla procedura per disavanzi eccessivi entro l'ottobre 2013,
parallelamente a quelli degli altri Stati membri.

La Commissione valuterà poi se gli sviluppi della situazione di bilancio siano conformi ai criteri del debito e del
disavanzo previsti dal trattato e presenterà una relazione ai sensi del relativo articolo 126, paragrafo 3, nella quale,
come richiesto dal patto di stabilità e crescita, esaminerà attentamente una serie di fattori. Qualora dall'esame
emergesse l'esistenza di un disavanzo eccessivo, la Commissione trasmetterebbe al Consiglio un parere e una
proposta a norma dell'articolo 126, paragrafi 5 e 6, del TFUE.

È opportuno infine ricordare che, prima della crisi economica mondiale, l'economia croata cresceva più rapidamente
dell'economia dell'UE. È attualmente in fase di recessione, così come vari altri Stati membri.

C 65 E / 410 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008219/13**

**to the Commission**
**Hermann Winkler (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Compliance with Maastricht criteria by the Republic of Croatia

On 1 July 2013 the Republic of Croatia joined the EU as its 28th Member State. In so doing it acknowledged, and
must in future comply with, the Maastricht criteria in accordance with the Stability and Growth Pact. Under these
criteria, a country’s annual deficit must not exceed 3% and its national debt must not be more than 60% of its GDP.

In its regular economic forecast (most recently published in May 2013) the Commission assumes a budget deficit of
4.7% of GDP for Croatia in 2013 and expects its national debt to exceed the 60% limit for 2014.

1. Is the Commission currently preparing to initiate deficit proceedings against Croatia in accordance with
Article 126 TFEU?

2. If not, when does the Commission propose to initiate such proceedings?

3. In the Commission’s opinion, to what extent is the admission of states with unfavourable financial and
economic forecasts as new Member States of the European Union compatible with efforts to stabilise the European
economic area?

**Question for written answer E-008381/13**

**to the Commission**

**Lara Comi (PPE)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Croatia's public finances

According to press reports, this year Croatia is likely to show a higher deficit-to-GDP ratio than is allowed under the
Maastricht criteria.

Are these reports true, and if so, can the Commission say what steps will be taken to ensure that the ratio is brought
within the Maastricht Treaty ceiling in the coming years?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

Croatia already participated informally in the 2013 European Semester, where Commission services assessed the
Economic Progreamme of Croatia (SWD(2013)361 final).

As an EU Member State, Croatia is now subject to the same monitoring as all other EU Member States and is expected
to meet the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. Croatia should notify public finance data consistent with
ESA95 to Eurostat by end-September 2013, and Eurostat is expected to validate Croatian EDP statistics together with
those of the other Member States by end-October 2013.

The Commission will then analyse whether the budgetary developments comply with the debt and deficit criteria of
the Treaty and will produce a report under Article 126(3), which will consider in detail a series of factors as required
by the Stability and Growth pact. Should the examination identify the existence of an excessive deficit, the
Commision shall address an opinion and a proposal to the Council in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of
Article 126 TFEU.

Finally it is worth mentioning that before the global economic crisis, the Croatian economy was growing faster than
the EU economy. It is currently in recession, just as several other Member States.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 411

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008220/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(9. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Unternehmensprüfungen im Rahmen der EU-Forschungsförderung

Im Rahmen der EU-Fördermittelkontrolle lässt die Europäische Kommission durch private
Wirtschaftsprüfungsunternehmen Prüfleistungen zur Erteilung von Bescheinigungen über die ordnungsgemäße
Mittelverwendung für die von ihr verteilten Zuschüsse durchführen.

Nach den vorliegenden Beschwerden eines betroffenen Unternehmens forderte der Wirtschaftsprüfer von ihm
gewerblich sensible Informationen an, die in keinem erkennbaren Zusammenhang mit dem unter FP7 geförderten
Projekt standen. Nachdem das Unternehmen nach anfänglichem Widerstand diese Informationen letztlich pünktlich
an den von der Kommission betrauten Wirtschaftsprüfer weitergab, wartete es vergeblich auf den Abschluss der
Prüfung. Nach Angaben des Unternehmens gibt es für die Prüfungen keine Fristen. Außerdem wurden Zweifel an der
Objektivität der Prüfverfahren geäußert, weil die Wirtschaftsprüfungsunternehmen oft auch den zu prüfenden
Unternehmen ihre Dienstleistungen anbieten.

1. Welche Kriterien gibt es für Informationen, die zu prüfende Unternehmen einem Wirtschaftsprüfer zur
Verfügung stellen müssen, insbesondere hinsichtlich ihrer Relevanz für das geförderte Projekt und gewerblichen
Sensibilität?

2. Gibt es für die Ausstellung der oben erwähnten Bescheinigungen keine zeitlichen Vorgaben?

3. Wie können aus der oben beschriebenen Konstellation potenziell resultierende Interessenkonflikte vermieden
werden?

4. Wird die Kommission das Prüfsystem für den Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen 2014-2020 ändern, um die
beschriebenen Probleme zu verhindern?

**Antwort von Frau Geoghegan-Quinn im Namen der Kommission**

_(21. August 2013)_

Finanzprüfungen sind ein entscheidendes Mittel zur Sicherstellung der wirtschaftlichen Verwendung von EU-Mitteln.

Die Prüfungen sind in Artikel II.22 der Finanzhilfevereinbarungen zum Siebten EU-Forschungsrahmenprogram
vorgesehen, und die Begünstigten akzeptieren das Recht der Rechnungsprüfer der Kommission (oder entsprechend
beauftragter externer Rechnungsprüfer), ihr Projekt zu prüfen.

Diese Finanzprüfungen werden unter Einhaltung der allgemein anerkannten Prüfungsnormen durchgeführt.

1. Bei den Finanzprüfungen wird kontrolliert, ob die geltend gemachten Kosten förderfähig sind.

Deshalb müssen die Prüfer alle Auskünfte anfordern, die ihnen gestatten, eine diesbezügliche Schussfolgerung zu ziehen
(d. h. alle schriftlichen Unterlagen, die die Vereinbarkeit der geltend gemachten Kosten mit dem Rechts‐ und
Regelungsrahmen belegen ( [1] )).

Handelt es sich dabei um gewerblich sensible Daten, so ist die Vertraulichkeit durch die Finanzhilfevereinbarung
garantiert ( [2] ).

2. Es gibt keine Fristen für die Dauer der Prüfverfahren.

Entsprechend den allgemein anerkannten Rechnungsprüfungsnormen wird das kontradiktorische Verfahren
angewandt, bei dem das geprüfte Unternehmen seine Argumente gegen die Feststellungen der Rechnungsprüfer
vorbringt und diese dann sorgfältig gegeneinander abgewogen werden, bevor der abschließende Prüfbericht erstellt
wird.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artikel II.14 der Finanzhilfevereinbarung des Siebten Forschungsrahmenprogramms.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Artikel II.9 der Finanzhilfevereinbarung des Siebten Forschungsrahmenprogramms.

C 65 E / 412 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

3. Externe Rechnungsprüfer werden im Rahmen von Dienstleistungsverträgen beauftragt.

In diesen Verträgen wird ihnen ausdrücklich verboten, Aufträge anzunehmen, durch die ihnen ein Interessenkonflikt
entsteht (etwa durch eine Geschäftsverbindung mit dem zu prüfenden Unternehmen, die innerhalb eines festgelegten
Zeitraums vor der EU-Rechnungsprüfung bestanden hat).

Künftige Verträge werden auch die Verpflichtung enthalten, mit dem geprüften Unternehmen innerhalb eines
bestimmten Zeitraums keinen Vertrag abzuschließen.

4. Alle Beschwerden der Empfänger werden ernst genommen und besonders sorgfältig untersucht.

Da die Zusammenarbeit mit externen Rechnungsprüfern insgesamt zufriedenstellend ist, wird das
Rechnungsprüfungssystem für den Zeitraum 2014-2020 in dieser Hinsicht nicht grundlegend geändert.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 413

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008220/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Company audits in connection with EU research funding

As part of its monitoring of the use of EU funding the Commission has audits carried out by private auditing firms
with a view to certifying that the funds it awards in subsidies are being properly spent.

According to complaints by a company affected, the auditor demanded from the company commercially sensitive
information which had no recognisable link with the project subsidised under the FP7. After initial resistance, the
company eventually passed on this information in good time to the auditor appointed by the Commission, but then
waited in vain for the audit to be concluded. The company maintains that there are no deadlines for such audits.
Furthermore, doubts have been expressed about the objectivity of the audit procedure, because auditing firms also
often offer their services to the companies being audited.

1. What criteria exist for information that companies being audited have to supply to an auditor, particularly
concerning its relevance to the project being subsidised and its commercial sensitivity?

2. Are there no time requirements for the issuance of the abovementioned certificates?

3. How can potential conflicts of interest arising from scenarios such as the one quoted be avoided?

4. Will the Commission change the audit system for the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework in order to
prevent such problems occurring?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

Audits are a key instrument for ensuring the sound financial management of EU Funds.

They are foreseen in Article II.22 of the FP 7 grant agreements and the beneficiaries accept the right of the
Commission auditors (or mandated external audit firms) to audit their project.

These audits are designed and conducted in compliance with generally accepted audit standards.

1. Financial audits examine whether the costs claimed are eligible.

The auditors must/may therefore ask for any information allowing them to reach a conclusion in that regard (i.e. any
documentary evidence substantiating the compliance of the cost claims with the legal and regulatory framework ( [1] )).

If this information is commercially sensitive, its confidentiality is guaranteed under the grant agreement ( [2] ).

2. There is no time-limit for the duration of the audit procedures.

As per the generally accepted audit standards, a contradictory procedure takes place, in which the auditee brings
forward its arguments against the findings of the auditors, which are then carefully analysed before drawing up the
final audit report

3. External audit firms are mandated by way of service contracts.

These contracts expressly prohibit them to accept assignments for which they have a conflict of interest
(e.g. a business relationship with the auditee within a prescribed period of time prior to the EU audit).

Future contracts will also contain an obligation not to contract with the audited entity for a certain period.

4. All complaints by beneficiaries are taken seriously and followed with particular attention.

Since the cooperation with external audit firms is overall satisfactory, the audit system for 2014-2020 will not
substantially change in this respect.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article II.14 of the FP 7 grant agreements.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Article II.9 of the FP 7 grant agreements.

C 65 E / 414 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008222/13**
**προς την Επιτροπή (Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος)**

**Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)**

_(9 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ VP/HR — Καταπολέμηση του φαινομένου της πειρατείας

Σε πρόσφατη έκθεση με τίτλο «Το Ανθρώπινο Κόστος της Θαλάσσιας Πειρατείας — 2012» που δημοσίευσαν το Διεθνές
Γραφείο Ναυτιλίας, το Maritime Piracy Humanitarian Response Program και η οργάνωση Oceans Beyond Piracy στα
μέσα Ιουνίου, υπογραμμίζεται ότι αν και η πειρατεία στη Σομαλία μειώθηκε, αυξάνεται ιδιαίτερα ανησυχητικά ο κίνδυνος για
τη ναυσιπλοΐα στον Κόλπο της Γουινέας. Σύμφωνα με την έκθεση, το 2012, για πρώτη φορά μετά την δραματική αύξηση της
πειρατείας στη Σομαλία, ο αριθμός των περιστατικών πειρατείας στον κόλπο της Γουινέας ήταν μεγαλύτερος από τον αριθμό
των επιθέσεων στον Κόλπο του Άντεν και τον Δυτικό Ινδικό Ωκεανό. Η έκθεση τονίζει ακόμα ότι αν και ο συνδυασμός της
διεθνούς παρουσίας και των μέτρων ασφάλειας στα πλοία με τη χρήση ιδιωτικών ένοπλων φρουρών συνέβαλαν στη μείωση
της εμβέλειας των πειρατικών επιθέσεων, η πειρατεία εξακολουθεί να αποτελεί σοβαρή απειλή.

Σε συνέχεια των ανωτέρω, ερωτάται η Αντιπρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος της Ένωσης για θέματα
Εξωτερικής Πολιτικής και Πολιτικής Ασφαλείας:

1. Ποιές είναι οι εκτιμήσεις της σχετικά με το μέγεθος της πειρατικής απειλής στην Σομαλία μετά το 2014, όταν,
σύμφωνα με τα ισχύοντα, αναμένεται να εκπνεύσει η εντολή των επιχειρήσεων του ΝΑΤΟ και της ΕΕ;

2. Πώς αντιμετωπίζει η Αντιπρόεδρος/Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος την ανανέωση της εντολής της επιχείρησης «Αtalanta» ή
ακόμα και την προσαρμογή/διεύρυνση του πεδίου δράσης της, δεδομένου ότι οι πειρατικές επιθέσεις αυξάνονται σε
άλλες περιοχές, όπως στον Κόλπο της Γουινέας;

3. Σχεδιάζει να προωθήσει και άλλες πρωτοβουλίες για την αντιμετώπιση αυτής της σοβαρής απειλής;

**Απάντηση της Ύπατης Εκπροσώπου/Αντιπροέδρου Ashton εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(22 Οκτωβρίου 2013)_

Η αποτελεσματική αντιμετώπιση από τη διεθνή κοινότητα και η εφαρμογή μέτρων αυτοπροστασίας από τα εμπορικά και
αλιευτικά σκάφη οδήγησαν σε θεαματική πτώση του αριθμού τόσο των αποπειραθεισών όσο και των επιτυχών πειρατικών
επιθέσεων στον κόλπο του Άντεν και στον Δυτικό Ινδικό Ωκεανό. Tο 2013, σημειώθηκαν λιγότερες από 20 επιθέσεις και
ύποπτα περιστατικά στα ανοιχτά των ακτών της Σομαλίας. Κανένα μεγάλο σκάφος δεν υπήρξε θύμα πειρατείας από τον Μάιο
του 2012.

Τα οργανωμένα εγκληματικά δίκτυα στράφηκαν σε άλλες ευκαιρίες, αλλά θα μπορούσαν εύκολα να επανέλθουν στην
πειρατεία με την προοπτική κερδών που θα προέκυπταν από τη χαλάρωση των μέτρων αυτοπροστασίας και την αποχώρηση
των διεθνών ναυτικών δυνάμεων μετά το 2014. Η στρατηγική επισκόπηση της επιχείρησης Αταλάντα φέτος το Φθινόπωρο θα
αποτελέσει βάση για ενδεχόμενη απόφαση του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με την παράταση της εντολής πέραν του 2014

Η ΕΕ υποστηρίζει την ανάπτυξη της ολοκληρωμένης θαλάσσιας στρατηγικής της Αφρικής και είναι έτοιμη να συνεργαστεί με
την Αφρικανική Ένωση και τα κράτη μέλη της σε θέματα κοινού συμφέροντος και ανησυχίας που αφορούν τη θάλασσα. Η
στρατηγική εταιρική σχέση Αφρικής-ΕΕ, η οποία δημιουργήθηκε το 2007, αποτελεί το γενικό πολιτικό πλαίσιο που διέπει τις
σχέσεις μεταξύ της ΕΕ και της Αφρικής.

Ένα σημαντικό κοινό πρόγραμμα της ΕΕ είναι το CRIMGO, στόχος του οποίου είναι η στήριξη περιφερειακών μέτρων και στο
οποίο συμμετέχουν επτά αφρικανικές χώρες γύρω από τον Κόλπο της Γουϊνέας, με σκοπό την εφαρμογή των βέλτιστων
πρακτικών καταπολέμησης της πειρατείας ή άλλων παράνομων δραστηριοτήτων. Η προσέγγιση αυτή ευθυγραμμίζεται με
εκείνη της επικείμενης ευρωπαϊκής στρατηγικής θαλάσσιας ασφάλειας με την οποία η ΕΕ αναπτύσσει ένα πλαίσιο, ώστε η ΕΕ
και τα κράτη μέλη της να συμβάλουν στην καθιέρωση κανόνων που βασίζονται στη χρηστή διακυβέρνηση στη θάλασσα, σε
συνεργασία με διεθνείς οργανώσεις και εταίρους, με βάση τη Σύμβαση των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για το Δίκαιο της Θάλασσας
(UNCLOS).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 415

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008222/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Action to combat piracy

A recent report entitled ‘The Human Cost of Maritime Piracy 2012’ released in mid-June by the International Maritime
Bureau, the Maritime Piracy Humanitarian Response Program and the organisation Oceans Beyond Piracy points out
that, although Somali piracy has declined, there is a very worrying increase in the risk of shipping in the Gulf of
Guinea. According to the report, the year 2012 marked the first time since the surge in Somali piracy that the number
of incidents of piracy in the Gulf of Guinea surpassed that of the Gulf of Aden and of the Western Indian Ocean. The
report also points out that, although the combination of an international presence and security measures on ships,
which are using private armed security personnel, has helped to reduce the scope of piracy attacks, piracy is still a
serious threat.

In view of the above, will the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy say:

1. What, in its estimate, will be the level of Somali piracy post-2014 when, as things currently stand, the mandate
for NATO and EU operations is due to expire?

2. What action is the Vice-President/High Representative taking to renew the mandate for the _Atalanta_ operation
or even to adapt/expand its scope, given that pirate attacks are increasing in other areas, such as the Gulf of
Guinea?

3. Does it plan to promote other initiatives to combat this serious threat?

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

_(22 October 2013)_

The effective response of the international community and the implementation of self protection measures by
merchant and fishing vessels have led to a dramatic reduction of the number of attempted and successful pirate
attacks in the Gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean. In 2013, there have been less than 20 attacks and
suspicious events off the Somali coast. No large ship has been pirated since May 2012.

The organised criminal networks have adapted to other opportunities but could easily shift back to piracy in pursuit
of prospective returns that could result from the relaxation of self-protection measures and the withdrawal of
international naval forces post-2014. The Strategic Review of Operation Atalanta later this autumn will inform a
possible Council decision to extend its mandate beyond 2014.

The EU supports the development of the Africa's Integrated Maritime Strategy and stands ready to cooperate with the
African Union and its Member States on maritime matters of common interest and concern. The Africa-EU Strategic
Partnership, established in 2007, is the overarching political framework guiding relations between the EU and Africa.

One joint EU project to mention is CRIMGO, which aims to support regional measures involving seven African
counties around the Gulf of Guinea in order to implement best management practices against piracy or other illegal
activities. This is in line with the upcoming European Maritime Security Strategy approach where the EU builds a
framework for the EU and its Member States to contribute to rules based on good governance at sea, in cooperation
with international organisations and partners, based on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

C 65 E / 416 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008224/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(9. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Aktualisierung der Verordnung über Prüfmethoden und der REACH-Anhänge

Die erweiterte Eingenerationsuntersuchung der Reproduktionstoxizität (EOGRTS) bietet neue Möglichkeiten,
REACH-Tests (Registrierung, Bewertung, Zulassung und Beschränkung chemischer Stoffe) durchzuführen, und
wurde in die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 440/2008 einbezogen. Diese Prüfmethode könnte den Einsatz von Tieren bei Tests
einschränken und wurde von der OECD angenommen und bereits in die Verordnungen der EU über Biozide
aufgenommen.

1. Welche Maßnahmen ergreift die Kommission in Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass die EOGRTS die Rettung von
Tausenden von Tieren ermöglichen kann, um sicherzustellen, dass die Methode schnellstmöglich in die
REACH-Anhänge und die Verordnung über Prüfverfahren aufgenommen wird? Die Kommission wird gebeten, einen
Zeitplan für das Aufnehmen der EOGRTS in die REACH-Anhänge und die Verordnung über Prüfverfahren
vorzulegen.

2. Welche Maßnahmen werden ergriffen, um sicherzustellen, dass Methoden, die Tierversuche zu Toxizität
verträglicher gestalten, reduzieren oder ersetzen, schnellstmöglich in die Verordnung über Prüfverfahren und die
REACH-Anhänge aufgenommen werden?

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

_(3. September 2013)_

Die Prüfleitlinien (TG) 443 der OECD für die erweiterte Eingenerationen-Prüfung auf Reproduktionstoxizität
(EOGRTS) sehen ein modulares Prüfdesign vor, so dass es möglich ist, je nach den geltenden Vorschriften einer
Rechtsordnung und der bereits vorhandenen Kenntnis einer Chemikalie die Prüfung einer zweiten Generation von
Versuchstieren oder Kohortenstudien der Entwicklungsneurotoxizität und/oder Entwicklungsimmuntoxizität
einzubeziehen oder auszulassen. Deshalb müssen die genauen Einzelheiten des Einsatzes der EOGRTS im Rahmen
der REACH-Verordnung ( [1] ) genauer definiert werden, damit sichergestellt ist, dass der Informationsgehalt der
gewonnenen Daten denen des derzeit angewandten Verfahrens entspricht und die Standarddatenanforderungen
erfüllt.

Nach Annahme der TG 443 durch die OECD hat die Kommission in der Sitzung der für REACH und CLP zuständigen
Behörden Diskussionen darüber eingeleitet, wie dieses Verfahren angewandt werden kann, und eine Expertengruppe
eingesetzt, um die Kommission bei der Erarbeitung einer sachkundigen Entscheidung über das geeignetste
Standard--Prüfdesign zu unterstützen. Die Kommission bereitet zurzeit unter Berücksichtigung der mit den TG 443
zusammenhängenden wissenschaftlichen Aspekte, rechtlichen Anforderungen, Kosten und praktischen Fragen eine
Änderung der Anhänge IX und X der REACH-Verordnung vor, um die EOGRTS als Standardmethode zur Prüfung der
Reproduktionstoxizität einzuführen. Parallel dazu bereitet die Kommission die Einbeziehung der EOGRTS in die
Prüfmethodenverordnung (Verordnung (EG) Nr. 440/2008 ( [2] )) vor.

Die Kommission beobachtet aufmerksam das Prüfleitlinienprogramm der OECD, um sich zeitnah über neue
Prüfmethoden zu informieren, und sorgt dafür, dass zweckdienliche Verfahren vorrangig übernommen werden.
Kommt es auf OECD-Ebene zu übermäßigen Verzögerungen, können Methoden durch ein Schnellverfahren in die
Prüfmethodenverordnung einbezogen werden. Außerdem können nach Artikel 13 Absatz 3 der REACH-Verordnung
auch internationale Methoden angewandt werden, wenn sie von der Kommission oder von der Agentur als
angemessen anerkannt sind.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1907/2006 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Registrierung, Bewertung, Zulassung und Beschränkung

chemischer Stoffe (REACH), zur Schaffung einer Europäischen Chemikalienagentur, zur Änderung der Richtlinie 1999/45/EG und zur
Aufhebung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 793/93 des Rates, der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1488/94 der Kommission, der Richtlinie 76/769/EWG des
Rates sowie der Richtlinien 91/155/EWG, 93/67/EWG, 93/105/EG und 2000/21/EG der Kommission, ABl. L 396 vom 30.12.2006, S. 1.

( ⋅2∙ ) ABl. L 142 vom 31.5.2008.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 417

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008224/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jörg Leichtfried (S&D)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Update of the test methods regulation and REACH annexes

The Extended One Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study (EOGRTS) provides a new way of testing for REACH
(Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) purposes, having been incorporated in the test
methods regulation (Regulation (EC) No 440/2008). This test method would significantly reduce the necessary use of
animals and it has been approved by the OECD, and is already incorporated in European biocide regulations.

1. Given the potential of the EOGRTS to save hundreds of thousands of animals, what measures is the
Commission taking to ensure that the method is implemented into the REACH annexes and test methods regulation
as quickly as possible? Could the Commission provide a timeline for the implementation of the EOGRTS into the
REACH annexes and the test methods regulation?

2. What steps are being taken to ensure that methods that refine, reduce and replace the use of animals in toxicity
testing are included in the test methods regulation and the REACH annexes as quickly as possible?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The OECD test guidelines (TG) 443 for EOGRTS offer a modular test design, which allows including or omitting a
second generation test animals, or developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) and/or developmental immunotoxicity (DIT)
cohorts depending on regulatory requirements of a jurisdiction and previous knowledge on a chemical. Therefore, the
exact details of the use of EOGRTS for REACH ( [1] ) need to be further defined to ensure that generated data give an
equivalent level of information to the currently used method and fulfil the standard information requirements.

Following adoption of TG 443 at OECD, the Commission initiated discussions about the use of this method in the
Meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and Classification and Labelling (CARACAL) and set up an expert
group to help the Commission to make an informed decision on the most appropriate default test design. Taking into
account scientific elements, legal requirements, and costs and practicalities associated with TG 443, the Commission
is currently preparing a modification of REACH Annexes IX and X to implement EOGRTS as the default method to
test for reproductive toxicity. In parallel, the Commission is preparing for the inclusion of EOGRTS in the Test
Method Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 ( [2] )).

For quick uptake of new test methods, the Commission follows closely the OECD test guideline programme and
ensures relevant methods are adopted with priority. In cases of undue delay at OECD level, methods can be included
into the Test Method Regulation via a fast-track procedure. Moreover, Article 13(3) REACH allows the use of
international methods, if recognised by the Commission or the Agency as being appropriate.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation,

Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing
Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission
Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p.1.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) OJ L 142, 31.5.2008.

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 418 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008225/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jill Evans (Verts/ALE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Welsh flags on vessels and Welsh car stickers

I have been contacted by one of my constituents who is concerned about the requirement to fly the Red Ensign on sea
vessels, including leisure vessels, as well as the fact that although car owners in the UK have a choice whether to
display Welsh, English or Scottish car stickers on their number plates, if they are travelling in other Member States
within the EU they must display a GB sticker.

— What is the Commission’s opinion on the possibility of allowing the separate nations within the UK to fly their
national flag on their vessels rather than the Red Ensign when sailing in the EU?

— What is the Commission’s opinion on permitting car owners to display national number‐ plate stickers rather than
being obliged exclusively to display the GB sticker when travelling in the EU?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

While this is a question of national competence, the Commission understands that since none of the devolved
administrations within the United Kingdom are maritime administrations, the flag to be used by vessels registered in
the United Kingdom is the flag known as the Red Ensign.

In terms of leisure craft, each EU Member State maritime administration has its own rules on the need for registration
and in the case of the United Kingdom, the Commission understands that certain leisure craft under 24 metres in
length are exempt from registration and hence from the need to fly the Red Ensign.

According to the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, every motor vehicle in international traffic shall display
at the rear, in addition to its registration number, a distinguishing sign of the State in which it is registered. Within
the EU, the distinguishing signs of Member States in which vehicles are registered shall be mutually recognised in
accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 ( [1] ).

Therefore, there is no legal basis in international or EC law for the recognition by Member States of other flags or
identifiers, which do not indicate the State of registration of the vehicle.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 299, 10.11.1998.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 419

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008226/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Daniël van der Stoep (NI)**

_(9 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič t.a.v. salarissen EU-ambtenaren

1. Bent u bekend met uw stuitende antwoorden (P-006102/2013) op mijn redelijke vragen (P-006102/2013)?
Zo neen, waarom niet?

2. Beseft u dat u betaald wordt door de Europese burger? Zo neen, waarom niet?

3. Beseft u dat het continu weigeren om de gevraagde gegevens te leveren een niet cooperatieve houding van de
Commissie weergeeft? Zo neen, waarom niet?

4. Bent u bereid om alsnog mijn vraag te beantwoorden: hoeveel EU-ambtenaren netto meer krijgen uitgekeerd
dan de Nederlandse Minister-President netto krijgt uitgekeerd, rekening houdend met alle factoren, waaronder
belastingdruk, vergoedingen en toelagen? Zo neen, waarom niet?

Onderhavig verzoek heb ik al meerdere keren gedaan. De heer Barroso heeft mij zelfs in persoon de belofte gedaan
een sluitend antwoord te geven op mijn vragen. Indien de Commissie wederom geen bevredigend antwoord geeft,
rest mij niets dan een gang naar het Europees Hof.

**Antwoord van de heer Šefčovič namens de Commissie**

_(30 oktober 2013)_

De Commissie heeft in haar antwoord op vraag P-006102/2013 uiteengezet waarom zij de vergelijking noch gepast
noch mogelijk achtte.

Salarisvergelijkingen vereisen complexe beoordelingen van financiële en niet-financiële elementen inzake de
bezoldiging van beide partijen. Daarbij moet ook rekening worden gehouden met de situatie en de
levensomstandigheden van degenen die worden vergeleken. Daarom is elke vergelijking afhankelijk van het
individuele oordeel inzake de geschiktheid van de parameters die voor de vergelijking in aanmerking komen.

Iedereen die dat wil, kan een vergelijking maken op basis van de door hem of haar daartoe geschikt geachte
parameters, omdat de regels voor de salarissen, vergoedingen en belastingen van de ambtenaren van de EU in het EUrecht zijn vastgelegd en openbaar toegankelijk zijn.

C 65 E / 420 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008226/13**

**to the Commission**
**Daniël van der Stoep (NI)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Commissioner Šefčovič's answers concerning the salaries of EU officials

1. Are you aware how shocking your answers are to my reasonable questions (P-006102/2013)? If not, why not?

2. Do you realise that you are paid by European citizens? If not, why not?

3. Do you realise that a continued refusal to provide the information requested gives the impression that the
Commission is being uncooperative? If not, why not?

4. Are you prepared finally to answer my question, i.e. how many EU officials earn more net than the Dutch Prime
Minister does, taking all factors into account, including taxation and allowances? If not, why not?

I have attempted to get an answer to these questions on several occasions. Mr Barroso has even personally promised
me to give a conclusive answer to my questions. Should the Commission again not provide proper answers, I shall
have no alternative but to take matters to the European Court of Justice.

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

_(30 October 2013)_

The Commission explained in its answer to Question P-006102/2013 why it considered that the comparison is
neither appropriate nor possible.

Salary comparisons require complex assessments of financial and non-financial elements of the remuneration of the
counterpart. They also require comparisons between the situation and living conditions of those to compare.
Therefore any comparison depends on the individual judgment of the appropriateness of the parameters to take into
account for the comparison.

Everyone who wants to make a comparison can do so based on the parameters he or she considers appropriate for
the comparison because the rules on salaries, allowances and taxes of EU staff are enshrined in EC law and are publicly
accessible.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 421

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008228/13**

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

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Ataque a paiol em Moçambique gera instabilidade

Segundo relatou recentemente a RDP África, houve um ataque a um paiol das Forças Armadas de Moçambique, na
província de Sofala, em que morreram cinco soldados e que aumentou a tensão e a preocupação sobre a situação
político-militar.

Considerando que:

Moçambique vai realizar as próximas eleições autárquicas, as eleições gerais e as eleições das assembleias provinciais
no período de 2013 e 2014, após 5 anos do mandato constitucional dos órgãos eleitos nas últimas eleições.

Pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta-Representante:

—
Que diligência tomou ou prevê tomar no sentido de restabelecer a paz e a estabilidade em Moçambique?

—
Não antevê dificuldades para os próximos atos eleitorais naquele país?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008255/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ataque a paiol em Moçambique gera instabilidade

Segundo relatou recentemente a RDP África, houve um ataque a um paiol das Forças Armadas de Moçambique, na
província de Sofala, em que morreram cinco soldados e aumentou a tensão e a preocupação sobre a situação políticomilitar.

1. Tem a Comissão conhecimento dos recentes acontecimentos em Moçambique?

2. Como os avalia a Comissão?

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

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente (AR/VP) condenou os atos de violência perpetrados em Moçambique, tendo
apelado à contenção e ao respeito pela paz e pelo Estado de direito. A AR/VP apelou a que as diferenças políticas
fossem ultrapassadas através do diálogo.

A mensagem da AR/VP foi enviada ao Governo moçambicano e aos representantes dos partidos políticos. A
delegação da União Europeia em Maputo tem mantido contactos permanentes para apoiar o diálogo e encorajar
iniciativas destinadas a reduzir a tensão. Embora tenham de ser os próprios moçambicanos a encontrarem as soluções
para os seus problemas, a União Europeia tem vindo a promover ativamente o processo de diálogo.

A missão de acompanhamento eleitoral da UE constatou algumas melhorias a nível da legislação eleitoral, embora
subsistam carências na sua aplicação. Os chefes de missão da União Europeia estão a ter em conta essas
recomendações.

O clima de tensão política não favorece a participação o mais alargada possível nas eleições e, por esse motivo, a
AR/VP espera que as discussões abordem as causas das tensões existentes e contribuam para criar um clima mais
favorável. Independentemente do resultado dessas discussões, as ameaças ao processo democrático são
absolutamente inaceitáveis. A AR/VP tomou nota igualmente de que o recenseamento eleitoral se processou de forma
pacífica.

C 65 E / 422 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008228/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attack on storeroom in Mozambique generates instability

RDP África recently reported an attack on an FADM (Mozambique Armed Defence Forces) storeroom, in Sofala
province, which killed five soldiers and has increased tension and concern regarding the political and military
situation.

Mozambique will hold its next local, general and provincial assembly elections between 2013 and 2014, following
the five-year constitutional mandate of the bodies elected in the last elections.

— What steps has the Vice-President/High Representative taken or will she take to restore peace and stability in
Mozambique?

— Does she foresee difficulties for the country’s upcoming elections?

**Question for written answer E-008255/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Attack on an arms depot in Mozambique causes instability

RDP África recently reported an attack on an FADM (Armed Forces for the Defence of Mozambique) arms depot in
Sofala province, in which five soldiers died, heightening tensions and concerns regarding the political and military
situation.

1. Is the Commission aware of the recent events in Mozambique?

2. What is its assessment of them?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The HR/VP has condemned acts of violence in Mozambique encouraging restraint and respect for peace and the rule
of law. She has called for political differences to be resolved through dialogue.

The HR/VP's message has been transmitted to the Government of Mozambique and to representatives of political
parties. The EU Delegation in Maputo maintains regular contacts to support dialogue and encourage initiatives to
reduce tension. It is Mozambicans themselves that must find solutions to their problems, but the European Union is
actively promoting the dialogue process.

The EU Election Follow-up Mission reported on improvements in the electoral legislation and continuing weakness in
implementation. EU Heads of Mission are acting on the recommendations.

The climate of political tension is not conducive to holding elections with the widest possible participation and for
that reason the HR/VP hopes that discussions will address the causes of tension and establish a more propitious
climate. Whatever the outcome of such discussions, threats to the democratic process are not acceptable. The HR/VP
notes that the electoral registration was conducted in a peaceful atmosphere.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 423

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008230/13**

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

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Conflitos no Líbano

Considerando que:

—
Pelo menos 12 soldados libaneses morreram nas últimas horas em sequência de confrontos com militantes
sunitas na cidade de Sídon, sul do Líbano, a 40 quilómetros de Beirute;

—
Na origem da violência sectária estarão divergências sobre o conflito na Síria, desde que o Hezbollah decidiu
apoiar o Governo de Bashar al-Assar na guerra civil na Síria;

—
A tensão no Líbano tem vindo a aumentar de dia para dia, e as eleições parlamentares foram mesmo adiadas.

Pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta-Representante:

Tem conhecimento desta situação?

De que dados dispõe sobre o atual ponto da situação no Líbano?

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

_(3 de setembro de 2013)_

A UE está consciente e, ao mesmo tempo, preocupada com os acontecimentos referidos pelo Senhor Deputado.

O Líbano está profundamente afetado pelo conflito na Síria. A UE considera que o abrandamento das tensões é uma
prioridade. É prestado total apoio às forças armadas libanesas nos seus esforços para restabelecer a ordem. A UE está
igualmente a apoiar financeiramente o Líbano para fazer face à crise sem precedentes de refugiados da Síria. Além
disso, a UE apoia energicamente a formação precoce do Governo e apela a todos os intervenientes políticos para
respeitarem a política oficial do Líbano de separação entre a crise da Síria e a situação interna do Líbano.

A Alta Representante/Vice-Presidente visitou o país em 17 e 18 de junho, tendo recordado o apoio da UE à política do
Líbano de separação em relação ao conflito na Síria. A AR/VP também exorta todas as partes a darem mostras de
contenção e a respeitarem inteiramente os compromissos assumidos na declaração de Baabda.

Na sequência dos confrontos violentos ocorridos em Sídon, a AR/VP emitiu uma declaração, em 26 de junho,
reiterando o compromisso da UE para com o Líbano sobre a paz, a unidade, a soberania e a independência, em apoio
a todas as instituições nacionais nos seus esforços para preservar a paz e a segurança. A UE também apoia o sistema
judicial na luta contra a impunidade e na responsabilização de todos os que recorrem à violência.

Por último, a UE, através da sua delegação em Beirute, acompanha continuamente e analisa a situação no terreno, em
diálogo com as principais partes interessadas, a fim de tomar as medidas adequadas, em especial nas atuais
circunstâncias, de acordo com o contexto político.

C 65 E / 424 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008230/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Conflict in Lebanon

— At least 12 Lebanese soldiers have been killed in the last few hours following clashes with Sunni militants in the
city of Sidon, southern Lebanon, 40 kilometres from Beirut.

— The sectarian violence stems from disagreements over the conflict in Syria which began when Hezbollah decided
to support Bashar al-Assad’s government in the Syrian civil war.

— Tension in Lebanon is mounting daily, and parliamentary elections have been postponed.

Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of this situation?

What information does she have on the current state of play in Lebanon?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The EU is both aware and concerned of the events referred to by the Honourable Member.

Lebanon is deeply affected by the conflict in Syria. The EU believes that de-escalating tensions is a priority. Full
support is provided to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in their efforts to restore order. The EU is also assisting
financially Lebanon to cope with unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis. Furthermore, the EU strongly supports an early
formation of the Government and calls on all political actors to respect Lebanon's official policy of dissociation.

The High Representative/Vice-President visited the country on 17-18 June and recalled EU support for Lebanon's
policy of dissociation from the conflict in Syria. The HR/VP also urged all the parties to show restraint and fully abide
by the commitments made in the Baabda Declaration.

Following the violent events in Sidon, the HR/VP issued a statement on 26 June reiterating the EU commitment to
Lebanon's peace, unity, sovereignty and independence, in support of all national institutions in their efforts to
preserve peace and security. The EU also supports the judiciary in combating impunity and holding to account all
those who resort to violence.

Finally, the EU, through its Delegation in Beirut, is continuously monitoring and analysing the situation on the
ground in dialogue with key stakeholders in order to take the appropriate measures, particularly under the present
circumstances, according to the political context.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 425

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008231/13**

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

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ VP/HR — Síria — novo balanço de vítimas

Considerando que:

—
Segundo o Observatório Sírio dos Direitos Humanos, pelo menos 100 191 pessoas, na maioria civis, morreram
desde o início da revolta contra o Presidente Bashar al-Assad, e há ainda mais de 10 mil detidos pelo regime
cuja localização é desconhecida;

—
O mesmo acontece com várias centenas de soldados capturados pelos grupos rebeldes;

Pergunto à Vice-Presidente/Alta-Representante:

Que dados possui relativamente a esta matéria?

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

_(26 de agosto de 2013)_

A UE não dispõe de estimativas próprias do número de mortes na Síria e recorre às estimativas facultadas pelas
Nações Unidas. A AR/VP condenou, em inúmeras declarações, a continuação da violência na Síria e, juntamente com
os Estados‐Membros, apoiou os esforços dos organizadores (EUA, Rússia e ONU) para convocar a Conferência de
Genebra sobre a Síria (Genebra II).

C 65 E / 426 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008231/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Syria: new death toll

— According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 100 191 people, mostly civilians, have been killed
since the start of the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, and the whereabouts of more than 10 000 people
who are being held by the regime are unknown.

— The same goes for several hundred soldiers captured by rebel groups.

What information does the Vice-President/High Representative have on this matter?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The EU does not possess its own estimates of the death toll in Syria and relies on estimates provided by the United
Nations. The HR/VP in her numerous statements has condemned the continuation of violence in Syria and together
with Member States has supported the organisers (the US, Russia and the UN) in their efforts to convene the Geneva
Conference on Syria (Geneva II).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 427

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008232/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Possível segundo resgate para Portugal

Considerando que:

Em análise recente à situação portuguesa, o Royal Bank of Scotland diz que a subida recente das taxas de juro da
dívida portuguesa torna «questionável» que o País consiga regressar ao financiamento no mercado. O segundo resgate
torna-se provável e pode incluir formas «suaves» de perdão da dívida.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

— Concorda com esta análise?

—
Como vê a possibilidade de um segundo resgate para Portugal?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de setembro de 2013)_

A Comissão não está de acordo com a análise referida.

É certo que durante a recente crise política o rendimento das obrigações portuguesas aumentou de forma
significativa. Contudo, com a confirmação da remodelação do Governo pelo Presidente da República português e a
apresentação pelo Governo do programa para dois anos, os _spreads_ diminuíram novamente, embora ainda se
mantenham acima dos níveis atingidos em meados de maio de 2013. A este respeito, a aplicação integral dos acordos
celebrados com parceiros internacionais por ocasião da 7. [a] revisão do Programa de Ajustamento é essencial para
reforçar a confiança dos mercados.

Por conseguinte, cabe ao Governo tranquilizar os mercados quanto ao seu compromisso de assegurar o êxito desse
programa. O Governo terá uma excelente oportunidade para transmitir esta mensagem na próxima revisão do
programa na segunda quinzena de setembro de 2013.

C 65 E / 428 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008232/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Possible second bailout for Portugal

In a recent analysis of the situation in Portugal, the Royal Bank of Scotland said that the recent rise in interest rates on
Portuguese debt make it ‘questionable’ as to whether the country will be able to return to financing on the market. The
second bailout is becoming likely and may include ‘mild’ forms of debt relief.

— Does the Commission agree with this analysis?

— How does it view the possibility of a second bailout for Portugal?

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

_(26 September 2013)_

The Commission does not agree with this analysis.

It is correct that during the recent political crisis yields for Portuguese bonds rose sharply. However, with the
confirmation of the reshuffled government by the Portuguese President and the government's presentation of the
two-year programme, spreads have come down again although they remain above the levels reached by midMay 2013. In this respect, a full implementation of the agreements reached with international partners on the
occasion of the 7th review of the Adjustment Programme is essential to reinforce markets confidence.

It is therefore in the hands of the government to reassure markets about its commitment to taking the programme to
a successful end. The government will have an excellent opportunity to bring home this message at the forthcoming
programme review in the second half of September 2013.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 429

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008233/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Redução de crédito às empresas

Considerando que:

Portugal é o terceiro país da Zona Euro, depois da Espanha e da Eslovénia, onde o crédito às empresas registou um
maior queda nos últimos dois anos, tendo o saldo dos empréstimos, de acordo com os dados divulgados, descido
12,7 %.

Esta situação é incompreensível num país onde vários bancos receberam apoio estatal.

Pergunta-se:

—
Tem a Comissão conhecimento desta situação?

—
O que tem feito a Comissão para que o crédito, essencial para promover o crescimento económico, chegue às
empresas em Portugal?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(19 de setembro de 2013)_

No âmbito do Programa de Ajustamento Económico para Portugal, a Comissão acompanha de perto a situação
relativa ao financiamento da economia, nomeadamente a concessão de crédito às empresas. Nos últimos dois anos, os
empréstimos concedidos pelos bancos portugueses às empresas diminuíram continuamente, sobretudo durante a
segunda metade de 2012. Em 2013, esta tendência abrandou, mas os valores anuais continuam a ser negativos (por
exemplo, em junho, foi registada uma contração anual de 4,7 %).

O montante do crédito concedido às empresas reflete fatores de oferta e procura. No que respeita à oferta, o sobreendividamento dos setores público e privado reduziu significativamente a classificação de crédito do país. Em
consequência, os investidores associam um prémio relativamente elevado aos ativos portugueses. As restrições das
condições de financiamento da economia no seu conjunto dificultam a obtenção pelas empresas, e pelas PME em
especial, da totalidade do crédito de que necessitam a preço comportável. No que respeita à procura, o crédito é
afetado pelo abrandamento da atividade económica, que leva as empresas a reduzir os seus planos de investimento.

A Comissão trabalha em estreita cooperação com o BEI e o FEI para promover o financiamento do setor empresarial.
Quanto à resposta à pergunta E-005675/2013 ( [1] ) apresentada pelo Senhor Deputado sobre esta matéria, a Comissão
nota que o BEI criou um novo instrumento financeiro comercial que poderia ser utilizado em Portugal para apoiar as
empresas exportadoras.

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

C 65 E / 430 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008233/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reduction in lending to companies

Portugal is the third euro area country after Spain and Slovenia where lending to companies has fallen most in the last
two years; according to sources the stock of loans has gone down by 12.7%.

This is hard to comprehend in a country where several banks have received state support.

— Is the Commission aware of this situation?

— What has it done to ensure that credit, which is essential for promoting economic growth, reaches companies in
Portugal?

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

_(19 September 2013)_

In the context of the Economic Adjustment Programme for Portugal the Commission closely monitors the situation
regarding the financing of the economy, including credit supply to companies. Over the last two years, loans
extended by Portuguese banks to companies recorded a continuous decrease, in particular during the second half of
2012. In 2013, this trend has become less intense but annual figures continue to be negative (e.g. in June, a
contraction of 4.7% year-on-year was recorded).

The amount of credit extended to companies reflects both supply and demand factors. On the supply side, the overindebtedness of the public and private sector reduced significantly the country's creditworthiness. As a consequence,
investors put a relatively high premium on Portuguese assets. The restrictiveness of the financing conditions of the
economy as a whole makes it more difficult for companies, and for SMEs in particular, to obtain the full amount of
credit they need at an affordable price. On the demand side, credit extended to the economy is impacted by the
downturn in economic activity, which leads companies to cut back on their investment plans.

The Commission works in close cooperation with the EIB and the EIF to promote the financing of the corporate
sector. Concerning the reply to Question E-005675/2013 ( [1] ) put forward by the Honourable Member on this topic,
the Commission notes that the EIB has designed a new trade finance instrument that could be used in Portugal to
support exporting companies.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 431

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008234/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Regresso da Irlanda à recessão

Considerando que:

A poucos meses da saída da troica, a Irlanda está novamente em recessão. Os dados oficiais divulgados recentemente
pelo gabinete de estatísticas irlandês surpreenderam os economistas, mostrando que a economia está, desde julho do
ano passado, a enfrentar uma recessão técnica.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

—
Como tem a Comissão acompanhado esta situação?

—
O que poderá ter originado o regresso da Irlanda à recessão?

—
O que poderá ser feito para inverter esta situação?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de setembro de 2013)_

Na Irlanda, os dados do primeiro trimestre de 2013, bem como as séries históricas revistas, evidenciam a fragilidade
da recuperação económica dos últimos dezoito meses. Um fator que contribui para esta situação é o facto de as
exportações de mercadorias estarem em sintonia ainda mais estreita com a procura nos parceiros comerciais do que
se pensava anteriormente. Fica igualmente patente que, por exemplo, o consumo privado foi mais resistente do que o
inicialmente estimado. A debilidade do consumo privado primeiro trimestre de 2013 pode em larga medida ser
explicada por fatores não recorrentes, tais como a alteração dos incentivos à habitação e aquisições. Os indicadores de
alta frequência do segundo semestre, bem como a diminuição do desemprego, também apontam para um melhor
desempenho futuro da economia irlandesa. Continua a prever-se para este ano um crescimento positivo do PIB (ainda
que fraco).

A Comissão e os seus parceiros da troica mantêm um diálogo constante com as autoridades irlandesas e existe um
amplo consenso quanto à análise das perspetivas, bem como quanto às políticas a adotar. Este facto sublinha a
importância de insistir na urgência da agenda de reformas acordada nos domínios orçamental, financeiro e estrutural,
que visa colocar o país numa trajetória sustentável a médio prazo, mesmo perante um anúncio de dados trimestrais
mais desfavoráveis. A Comissão Europeia tem elogiado repetidamente as autoridades irlandesas pelo seu forte
empenho no programa de ajustamento económico, e espera a sua conclusão com êxito até ao final de 2013.

C 65 E / 432 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008234/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ireland falls back into recession

Just months before its exit from the Troika, Ireland is once again in recession. Official data recently released by the
country’s Central Statistics Office have surprised economists and have revealed that the economy has been facing a
technical recession since July last year.

— How has the Commission been monitoring this situation?

— What could have caused Ireland to fall back into recession?

— What can be done to reverse this situation?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

In Ireland, the data for Q1 2013, as well as the revised historical series point to the fragility of the economic recovery
over the last eighteen months. One factor is that merchandise exports are even more closely attuned to trading
partner demand than many previously thought. But it also shows that e.g. private consumption has been more
resilient than first estimated. The weakness of private consumption in Q1 2013 can largely be explained by one-off
factors such as changed incentives for house and purchases. High-frequency indicators through Q2, as well as falling
unemployment also point to a more robust performance of the Irish economy going forward. Positive (but low) GDP
growth is still expected this year.

The Commission and its Troika partners are in constant dialogue with the Irish authorities and there is strong
agreement on the analysis of the outlook and the policy response. This underlines the importance to steadfastly stick
to the agreed reform agenda in the fiscal, financial and structural areas which aim to put the country on a sustainable
medium-term path, even in the face of e.g. one weaker-than-expected quarterly data release. The European
Commission has repeatedly commended the Irish authorities for their strong commitment to the economic
adjustment programme, and expects its successful completion by end-2013.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 433

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008235/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Plano combate ao desemprego dos jovens

Considerando que:

A Comissão Europeia divulgou, recentemente, um programa alargado de combate ao desemprego dos jovens. A
preocupação assenta na gravidade dos números: seis milhões de europeus desempregados jovens em toda a Europa,
com maior incidência em países como Portugal, Espanha e Grécia.

Pergunta-se:

—
Em que se baseia este programa?

—
Que verbas estão destinadas a Portugal no âmbito deste programa?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de agosto de 2013)_

1. O Conselho adotou, em 2013, uma recomendação que estabelece mecanismos de garantia destinados à
juventude. Os Estados-Membros comprometeram-se a garantir que todos os jovens europeus até aos 25 anos
beneficiem de uma oferta de emprego de qualidade, formação contínua e formação em aprendizagem ou estágio, no
prazo de quatro meses após terem deixado a escola ou terem ficado desempregados. A Iniciativa para o Emprego dos
Jovens, a que se refere o Senhor Deputado, lançada em fevereiro pelo Conselho Europeu, tem por objetivo apoiar
diretamente a Garantia da Juventude.

2. A Iniciativa para o Emprego dos Jovens tem um orçamento de 6 mil milhões de euros e está aberta a todas as
regiões com um nível de desemprego dos jovens superior a 25 %. A iniciativa será financiada ao abrigo da política de
coesão, com 3 mil milhões de euros provenientes de investimentos do Fundo Social Europeu (FSE) e outros 3 mil
milhões de euros de uma rubrica orçamental específica. Todas as regiões de Portugal serão elegíveis para
financiamento. Após a adoção final dos regulamentos pertinentes, serão disponibilizados os números concretos
referentes a Portugal.

C 65 E / 434 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008235/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Plan to combat youth unemployment

The Commission recently published a comprehensive programme to combat youth unemployment. The main
concern is due to the severity of the numbers: six million young people across Europe are unemployed, with the
highest incidence in countries such as Portugal, Spain and Greece.

— On what is this programme based?

— What funds are earmarked for Portugal under this programme?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

1. The Council adopted in 2013 a recommendation establishing a Youth Guarantee schemes. Member States have
committed to ensure that all young Europeans under the age of 25 receive a good quality offer of employment,
continued education, an apprenticeship or a traineeship within four months of leaving school or becoming
unemployed. The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), the comprehensive programme that the Honourable Member
refers to, launched by the February European Council aims to directly support the Youth Guarantee.

2. The Youth Employment Initiative has a budget of EUR 6 billion and is open to all regions with a level of youth
unemployment above 25%. The initiative will be funded within the Cohesion Policy by EUR 3 billion coming from
targeted investment from the European Social Fund (ESF) and EUR 3 billion coming from a dedicated budget line. All
of Portugal's regions will be eligible for funding. Concrete figures for Portugal will be available after final adoption of
the relevant regulations.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 435

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008236/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Desemprego juvenil

Considerando que:

—
Atualmente, na UE, quase 5,6 milhões de europeus com menos de 25 anos estão sem trabalho;

—
Foram já atribuídos, com a concordância dos 27 estados-membros, 6 mil milhões de euros para criar uma
«garantia jovem», destinada a oferecer uma oportunidade de formação, um emprego ou um estágio aos jovens
nos quatro meses que se seguem à sua saída do sistema educativo ou entrada no mercado de trabalho;

—
Esta medida não faz face às reais necessidades sentidas, principalmente em países como Grécia ou Espanha,
onde mais de metade dos jovens é afetada por este flagelo, e é uma repetição do que foi definido em 2000 na
chamada Estratégia de Lisboa.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Que mais esforços poderá a U.E pôr em marcha para que este flagelo possa ser invertido?

**Resposta dada por László Andor em nome da Comissão**

_(30 de agosto de 2013)_

A Iniciativa para o Emprego dos Jovens visa dotar as regiões mais afetadas pelo desemprego juvenil de financiamentos
adicionais, no contexto da Garantia para a Juventude. Subsequentemente, a Comissão traduziu este objetivo na sua
proposta alterada do Regulamento do Fundo Social Europeu para 2014-2020.

Na sua Comunicação «Apelo à ação contra o desemprego dos jovens» ( [1] ), a Comissão apresentou novas propostas
para ajudar os Estados-Membros a combater o desemprego juvenil, instando à tomada de medidas urgentes, incluindo
a adoção pelos Estados-Membros de planos de aplicação da Garantia para a Juventude; o recurso ao FSE; a aplicação
acelerada da Iniciativa para o Emprego dos Jovens; um apoio à mobilidade da mão de obra intra-UE com a EURES; o
apoio às PME; e medidas para facilitar a transição do ensino para o trabalho, através de aprendizagens e estágios.

O FSE continua a ser o principal instrumento financeiro da UE para apoiar o investimento em capital humano e, nesse
contexto, o emprego dos jovens. Os recursos do FSE que os Estados-Membros afetam a esta questão, dentro e fora do
âmbito da Iniciativa para o Emprego dos Jovens, implicam, pois, esforços ambiciosos. A Comissão velará por que, no
período 2014-2020, os Estados-Membros atribuam a este objetivo financiamentos suficientes provenientes dos
fundos da UE. A proposta de regulamento do FSE para o período de programação 2014-2020 inclui uma prioridade
de investimento específico que visa a integração no mercado de trabalho dos jovens que não têm emprego nem se
encontram em qualquer ação de educação ou formação.

O Fundo Social Europeu já proporciona um apoio significativo à integração dos jovens no mercado de trabalho:
http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catid=46&langid=en&theme=534&list=0

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 447 final.

C 65 E / 436 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008236/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Youth unemployment

— Nearly 5.6 million Europeans under the age of 25 are currently unemployed in the EU.

— With the agreement of the 27 Member States, EUR 6 billion has already been allocated to create a ‘youth guarantee’
which aims to offer young people training, a job or an internship within four months of leaving education or entering
the job market.

— This measure does not address actual needs, especially in countries such as Greece and Spain, where more than half
of young people are affected by this scourge, and simply repeats what was laid down in 2000 in the so-called Lisbon
strategy.

What further action can the EU take to reverse this scourge?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) aims to provide additional funding to Europe's worst affected regions with
regard to youth unemployment, in the context of the Youth Guarantee. The Commission has subsequently reflected
this in its amended proposal for the European Social Fund regulation 2014-2020.

The Commission has presented further proposals to support Member States in the fight against youth
unemployment, in its communication ‘ _Call to action on youth unemployment’ (_ [1] _)_ . It calls for urgent action on youth
unemployment including the adoption of Youth Guarantee implementation plans by Member States; the use of the
ESF; the front-loading of the YEI; support to intra-EU labour mobility through EURES; support for SMEs; and
measures to ease the transition from education to work through apprenticeships and traineeships.

The ESF remains the main EU financial instrument to support human capital investment, and in that context youth
employment. The ESF resources allocated by the Member States to this issue in and outside of the YEI would therefore
require an ambitious effort. The Commission will monitor that Member States allocate sufficient funding to support
this objective with EU funds in the 2014-2020 period. The 2014-2020 programming period proposal for ESF
Regulation includes a specific investment priority on integration of young persons not in employment, education or
training, into the labour market.

The European Social Fund already provides significant support to the integration of young persons into the labour
market:
http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=46&langId=en&theme=534&list=0

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 447 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 437

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008237/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Continuação da queda dos salários em Portugal

Considerando que:

Segundo os técnicos da Comissão, em Portugal, «os custos unitários de trabalho nominais caíram significativamente
em relação à média da zona euro nos últimos três anos e esta tendência deve continuar em 2013 e 2014.»

Este ajustamento dos custos unitários de trabalho deveu-se essencialmente à destruição de emprego e aos cortes
salariais na função pública.

Pergunta-se:

—
Julga ainda haver margem para a continuação da redução do poder de compra dos portugueses?

—
Numa altura em que é necessário investir no crescimento económico, não lhe parece contraproducente o
reequilíbrio da economia por via da redução dos salários, com as inerentes consequências no consumo e na
receita fiscal?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de setembro de 2013)_

A crise em Portugal teve a sua origem num grave problema de competitividade que conduziu a um nível insustentável
da dívida. A perda de competitividade foi devida, em grande medida, à evolução dos custos unitários do trabalho, ou
seja, os custos dos salários em relação à produtividade, quando se compara com a média da zona euro (ver gráfico).
Esse desfasamento atingiu o seu máximo no primeiro trimestre de 2009 e, desde então, tem vindo a diminuir.
Contudo, registou-se uma pequena inversão desta tendência em 2012/2013, após a reintrodução dos 13. [o] e 14. [o ]

salários no setor público em geral (administração pública e empresas públicas), que levou a um aumento dos custos
do trabalho na economia em geral ( [1] ).

A evolução dos custos unitários do trabalho constitui uma prova da redução do desfasamento da competitividade em
curso em Portugal, o que representa uma evolução positiva. O que importa no futuro é que a melhoria da
competitividade resulte de uma maior produtividade e não de salários mais baixos. As reformas realizadas no quadro
do Programa de Ajustamento Económico são, em grande medida, orientadas para essa finalidade.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Ver quadro em anexo.

C 65 E / 438 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008237/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Further wage cuts in Portugal

According to Commission experts, in Portugal ‘nominal unit labour costs have fallen significantly relative to the euro
area average over the last three years, and this trend is expected to persist in 2013 and 2014.’

This adjustment to unit labour costs was mainly due to job losses and wage cuts in the public sector.

— Does the Commission believe there is still scope to further reduce the Portuguese’s purchasing power?

— At a time when it is necessary to invest in economic growth, does not it seem counterproductive to rebalance the
economy by reducing wages, with the resulting consequences on consumption and tax revenue?

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

_(26 September 2013)_

At the root of the crisis in Portugal there has been a significant competitiveness problem which led to an
unsustainable level of debt. The loss in competitiveness was driven, to a large extent, by the evolution of unit labour
costs, i.e. wages relative to productivity, when compared with the eurozone average (see graph). The gap reached its
maximum in the first quarter of 2009 and has since then been closing. However, a small reversal of this trend has
occurred in 2012/2013 after the reinstatement of the 13th and 14th salary in the wider public sector (public
administration and state-owned enterprises) which has led to an upward shift in labour costs for the economy as a
whole. ( [1] )

The evolution of unit labour costs is evidence of the ongoing reduction in the competiveness gap of Portugal, which is
a welcome development. What will be important in future is that the improvement in competitiveness is brought
about by higher productivity growth rather than lower wages. The reforms undertaken in the framework of the
Economic Adjustment Programme are, to a large extent, geared towards this aim.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See table in annex.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 439

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008238/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Impacto de contratos de derivados nas contas de Itália

Considerando que:

O Governo italiano poderá enfrentar um impacto de oito mil milhões de euros com custos associados a contratos de
derivados financeiros que o país terá reestruturado após a crise financeira de 2008, segundo o «Financial Times».

Esta situação vem juntar-se ao aumento dos juros no último mês, em que os juros da dívida a 10 anos acumularam
uma subida de 100 pontos base (um ponto percentual) e encontram-se nos 4,8 %.

Pergunta-se:

—
Tem conhecimento desta situação?

—
Esta exposição de Itália não pode agravar a sua situação e consequentemente levar a um resgate?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão não comenta os artigos publicados na imprensa.

A Comissão pode informar o Senhor Deputado de que as suas previsões da Primavera de 2013 têm em conta os
efeitos negativos dos _swaps_ para o défice público italiano de cerca de 0,2 % do PIB (3 mil milhões de euros) todos os

anos.

Com base nas informações atualmente disponíveis, a Comissão não altera a sua avaliação dos défices públicos
passados e futuros de Itália. As avaliações dos contratos de derivados pelos respetivos valores de mercado ( _market-to-_
_market_ ) — meras estimativas do valor de mercado destes contratos num momento específico — não implica perdas
realizadas, pelo que não têm impacto nas contas públicas.

A Comissão acompanha de perto a evolução da situação económica e orçamental em Itália. Não obstante as
flutuações recentes, as taxas a que é atualmente emitida dívida pública em Itália são sustentáveis.

A Comissão não especula acerca da probabilidade dos pedidos de assistência financeira dos Estados‐Membros.

C 65 E / 440 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008238/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Impact of derivative contracts on Italy's accounts

According to the _Financial Times,_ the Italian Government could face EUR 8 billion in losses related to financial
derivative contracts that the country restructured following the 2008 financial crisis.

This is in addition to rising interest rates in the last month, which have seen interest on the 10-year debt increase by
100 basis points (one percentage point) to 4.8%.

— Is the Commission aware of this situation?

— Could Italy’s exposure to these contracts worsen its situation and consequently lead to a bailout?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

The Commission does not comment on articles appearing in the press.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that its 2013 Spring Forecast takes into account the negative
impact from swaps on Italy's government deficit of around 0.2% of GDP (EUR 3 billion) each year.

Based on currently available information, the Commission does not change its assessment of past and future
government deficits in Italy. Mark-to-market valuations of derivatives — mere estimates of the market value of
derivatives at a specific point in time — do not imply a realised loss and therefore don't have an impact on
government accounts.

The Commission monitors closely Italian economic and budgetary developments. Notwithstanding recent
fluctuations, the yields at which Italy is currently issuing public debt are sustainable.

The Commission does not speculate about the likelihood of financial assistance requests by Member States.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 441

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008239/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Reestruturação dos bancos portugueses

Considerando que:

A Comissão continua a atrasar a apresentação dos planos de reestruturação dos bancos em Bruxelas, defraudando as
expectativas dos banqueiros portugueses relativamente ao calendário de aprovação desses planos impostos aos
bancos que receberam apoio do Estado.

Os banqueiros esperavam fechar planos de reestruturação este mês de junho, mas já não será possível. O melhor
cenário é o final de julho. O pior é o pós-férias.

Pergunta-se:

—
O que tem originado o atraso na apresentação desses planos de reestruturação?

—
Não será prejudicial para os bancos portugueses o atraso na apresentação e posterior implementação dos
referidos planos?

**Resposta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(9 de setembro de 2013)_

Em 24 de julho de 2013, a Comissão adotou duas decisões que aprovam os planos de reestruturação da CGD e do
BPI. Além disso, chegou a acordo com as autoridades portuguesas sobre o plano de reestruturação do capital do BCP,
e prevê que, nas próximas semanas, poderá adotar uma decisão com base nesse acordo (ver comunicado de imprensa:
[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-738_pt.htm).](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-738_pt.htm)

A CGD, o BPI e o BCP foram recapitalizados por Portugal em junho de 2012, dispondo os referidos bancos de seis
meses após a data em que receberam as injeções de capitais públicos para apresentarem planos de reestruturação. A
Comissão avaliou se os planos apresentados estavam em conformidade com as regras em matéria de auxílios estatais.
Os referidos planos tinham de demonstrar, em especial, que os bancos seriam viáveis sem o apoio permanente do
Estado, que contribuiriam suficientemente para os custos de restruturação e que incluiriam salvaguardas adequadas
para limitar as distorções da concorrência criadas pelos auxílios estatais.

As discussões entre a Comissão e as autoridades portuguesas sobre o quarto banco português que recebeu auxílios
estatais — o Banif — ainda estão em curso, nomeadamente porque este banco recebeu os auxílios estatais mais tarde
do que os outros três bancos.

A Comissão só pode aprovar um plano de reestruturação quando o considerar conforme com as regras em matéria de
auxílios estatais. Foram levadas a cabo discussões sobre os supramencionados planos entre a Comissão, as
autoridades portuguesas, os bancos e os seus consultores.

C 65 E / 442 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008239/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restructuring of Portuguese banks

The Commission continues to delay the presentation of bank restructuring plans in Brussels, thereby failing to meet
Portuguese bankers’ expectations regarding the timetable for approving the plans imposed on banks that have
received state support.

Bankers expected to finalise restructuring plans in June, but this will no longer be possible. The best scenario is the
end of July; the worst is after the holidays.

— What has caused the delay in presenting these restructuring plans?

— Will the delay in presenting and subsequently implementing these plans be detrimental to Portuguese banks?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

On 24 July 2013, the Commission adopted two decisions approving the restructuring plans of CGD and BPI. It also
reached an agreement with the Portuguese authorities on the restructuring plan of BCP and plans to adopt a decision
[on this basis in the coming weeks (see press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-738_en.htm).](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-738_en.htm)

CGD, BPI and BCP were recapitalised by Portugal in June 2012. These banks had six months' time after the date of the
public capital injections to submit restructuring plans. The Commission then assessed whether the submitted plans
were in line with the state aid rules. In particular, the plans needed to demonstrate that the banks would be viable
without continued State support, contribute to a sufficient level to the costs of restructuring and include adequate
safeguards to limit the distortions of competition created by that State support.

Discussions between the Commission and the Portuguese authorities on the fourth Portuguese bank having received
state aid — Banif — are still ongoing, in particular because that bank received state aid later than the other three
banks.

The Commission will only approve a restructuring plan when it is satisfied that the plan is in line with the state aid
rules. Discussions on the abovementioned plans were conducted between the Commission, the Portuguese
authorities, the banks and their advisors.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 443

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008240/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Redução de impostos em Portugal

Considerando que:

Tem vindo a ser defendido em Portugal, nomeadamente por todas as confederações empresariais, a necessidade de se
reduzirem os impostos, para com isso se libertarem meios financeiros para incrementar o consumo interno e, por
essa via, o crescimento económico e a criação de emprego.

Pergunta-se:

—
Concorda a Comissão com esta visão para o crescimento económico e a criação de emprego?

—
Enquanto uma das partes integrantes da Troika, considera possível a redução deimpostos em Portugal?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(12 de setembro de 2013)_

A Comissão concorda que, no contexto atual, em que Portugal tem de apoiar uma atividade económica frágil sem
abandonar o esforço de consolidação, a política fiscal continua a constituir um domínio de intervenção crucial. A
Comissão entende que, embora a curto prazo se deva manter o nível global das receitas fiscais em Portugal, para fazer
face à necessidade de uma consolidação orçamental substancial e de uma redução do peso da dívida, é importante
prosseguir novas reformas fiscais que privilegiem fontes de receitas propícias ao crescimento. Pode conceber-se um
sistema fiscal mais favorável ao crescimento e ao emprego, através, por exemplo, da eliminação das distorções que
contribuem para os desequilíbrios macroeconómicos, transferindo a fiscalidade para os impostos com o menor efeito
de distorção e reforçando o combate à fraude e à evasão fiscais.

C 65 E / 444 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008240/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Tax cuts in Portugal

The need to cut taxes, releasing financial resources to increase domestic consumption and, thereby stimulate
economic growth and job creation, has been advocated in Portugal, particularly by business confederations.

— Does the Commission agree with this vision for economic growth and job creation?

— As an integral part of the Troika, does it believe that tax cuts are possible in Portugal?

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

_(12 September 2013)_

The Commission agrees that in the present context where Portugal needs to support fragile economic activity while
continuing its consolidation effort, tax policy remains a crucial policy area. The Commission believes that while the
total level of tax revenues in Portugal should be maintained in the short term, in order to meet the need for substantial
fiscal consolidation and reduction of the debt burden, it is important to pursue further tax reforms that give priority
to growth-friendly sources of taxation. A more growth and job-friendly tax system can be designed by, for example,
removing distortions that contribute to macroeconomic imbalances, shifting taxation towards the least distortionary
taxes and strengthening the fight against tax fraud and evasion.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 445

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008241/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(9 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Manutenção do FMI na Troika

Considerando que:

Têm sido manifestas as divergências entre as posições do FMI e da Comissão dentro da Troika.

Pergunta-se:

—
Que motivos levam a estas divergências?

—
Poderão as mesmas levar ao abandona da Troika pelo FMI?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

A Troica foi criada por iniciativa dos Estados-Membros da área do euro. Com base nesse mandato, a Comissão está
agora a trabalhar em conjunto com o BCE e o FMI em cinco países. As nossas equipas funcionam muito bem em
conjunto, muitas vezes em situações difíceis. A nossa preocupação é ajudar os governos destes países a conceber e
implementar as reformas necessárias para estimular o crescimento e o emprego.

C 65 E / 446 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008241/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(9 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ The IMF's place in the Troika

The IMF and the Commission have clearly adopted different positions within the Troika.

— What have been the reasons for these differences?

— Could they lead to the IMF leaving the Troika?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The Troika was set up on the initiative of the euro area Member States. On the basis of this mandate, the Commission
is now working together with the ECB and IMF in five countries. Our staff teams work very well together, often in the
most challenging situations. Our focus is on helping these countries' governments to design and implement the
reforms needed to lift growth and employment.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 447

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008242/13**

**do Komisji**
**Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D)**

_(10 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Społeczna odpowiedzialność przedsiębiorstw spoczywająca na sieciach sprzedaży detalicznej w UE

Zawalenie się fabryki odzieży w Bangladeszu, w wyniku którego zginęło wiele osób, uwydatniło złe i niebezpieczne
warunki pracy w branży tekstylnej. Katastrofa przyczyniła się także do podniesienia świadomości społecznej
odpowiedzialności zagranicznych sieci sprzedaży detalicznej działających w tym kraju, z których większość ma
siedzibę na terenie UE.

Czy Komisja podejmie jakiekolwiek środki ustawodawcze, których celem będzie uznanie zasad społecznej
odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorstw za wiążące dla przedsiębiorstw z UE prowadzących działalność poza jej
terytorium?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza László Andora w imieniu Komisji**

_(23 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

Komisja zapewniła o swoim odnowionym zaangażowaniu na rzecz społecznej odpowiedzialności przedsiębiorstw
(CSR), wydając w tej sprawie swój ostatni komunikat w 2011 r. Spora część komunikatu poświecona jest
zagadnieniom międzynarodowym, a Komisja Europejska zachęca w nim wszystkie przedsiębiorstwa europejskie do
przestrzegania uznanych na szczeblu międzynarodowym zasad i wytycznych CSR takich jak wytyczne OECD dla
przedsiębiorstw wielonarodowych, Trójstronna deklaracja zasad dotyczących przedsiębiorstw wielonarodowych
i polityki społecznej, a także wytyczne ONZ dotyczące biznesu i praw człowieka.

Komisja zwraca uwagę Szanownego Pana Posła na odpowiedzi udzielone na pytania E-005631/2013, E-005674/13,
E-005812/2013 oraz E-006345/2013.

C 65 E / 448 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008242/13**

**to the Commission**
**Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Corporate social responsibility of EU retailers

The deadly collapse of a garment factory in Bangladesh has shed light on the poor and unsafe working conditions of
the country’s textile industry. The disaster also helped raise awareness about the corporate social responsibility (CSR)
of the foreign retailers operating in the country, many of which are based in the EU.

Will the Commission take any legislative measures to make CSR criteria binding for EU companies operating outside
the EU?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission gave renewed commitment to corporate social responsibility (CSR) through its latest
Communication on this subject in 2011. The communication contains a large section on international issues and
encourages all European companies to adhere to internationally recognised CSR principles and guidelines such as the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ILO Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises and
Social Policy, and the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights.

The Commission also refers the Honourable Member to its replies to questions E-005631/2013, E-005674/13,
E-005812/2013, and E-006345/2013.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 449

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008243/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(10 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Regels, normen en voorschriften en ten aanzien van commerciële crowdsourcing in internationale
handelsovereenkomsten

De Commissie voert namens de Europese Raad met een aanzienlijk aantal landen onderhandelingen over
vrijhandelsovereenkomsten. Diensten maken een steeds belangrijker onderdeel uit van deze onderhandelingen. Met
het oog op de veranderingen in de dienstensector als gevolg van de technische vooruitgang in de digitale ruimte
(d.w.z. informatie‐ en computertechnologie), is de Commissie ook betrokken bij de onderhandelingen over een
plurilaterale dienstenovereenkomst. Deze veranderingen hebben tevens hun weerslag op de arbeidsmarkt,
arbeidsverhoudingen en arbeidsnormen. Een van deze veranderingen is „crowdsourcing”, oftewel het besluit van een
bedrijf of instelling om een ooit door werknemers vervulde functie uit te besteden aan een ongedefinieerd (en in het
algemeen groot) netwerk van personen in de vorm van een open oproep via internet.

1. Is de Commissie zich bewust van het feit dat bepaalde aspecten van crowdsourcing, in het bijzonder de betaling
van loon aan gecrowdsourcete werknemers, geleid hebben tot bezorgdheid onder belangrijke belanghebbenden,
namelijk vakbonden in de EU, omdat gecrowdsourcete werknemers (met name als zij afkomstig zijn uit
ontwikkelingslanden) bestaande lonen en arbeidsvoorwaarden kunnen ondermijnen?

2. Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat crowdsourcing niet mag bijdragen aan de ondermijning van fundamentele
arbeidsnormen, en dat bedrijven die gebruikmaken van gecrowdsourcete werknemers zich in ieder geval moeten
houden aan het overeengekomen minimumloon van het land waar de gecrowdsourcete werknemer en/of het bedrijf
zijn gevestigd? Is de Commissie het ermee eens dat er behoefte is aan gemeenschappelijke regelgeving op het gebied
van crowdsourcing? Wordt de kwestie aangepakt in de plurilaterale dienstenovereenkomst? Zo nee, is de Commissie
voornemens de kwestie aan te pakken in een andere geplande verordening of richtlijn?

3. De Commissie onderhandelt op dit moment over een vrijhandelsovereenkomst met India. India heeft een sterke
diensten‐ en ICT-sector. Wordt de kwestie crowdsourcingbesproken tijdens de onderhandelingen over mode 1 in
deze mogelijke toekomstigeovereenkomst? Stelt de Commissie in het hoofdstuk over duurzame ontwikkeling
datbedrijven in zowel de EU als India overeenkomsten inzake minimumlonen en sociale enarbeidsnormen in de
respectieve landen moeten naleven?

**Antwoord van de heer De Gucht namens de Commissie**

_(30 augustus 2013)_

De Commissie neemt de bezorgdheid van de belanghebbenden over crowdsourcing zeer ernstig. Crowdsourcing als
zodanig maakt geen deel uit van de onderhandelingen over EU‐handelsovereenkomsten, zoals de lopende
onderhandelingen over de Vrijhandelsovereenkomst EU-India, de EU-Asean, een Multilaterale Overeenkomst
betreffende de handel in diensten of het Trans-Atlantisch Partnerschap inzake handel en investeringen. Indien
bepaalde aspecten van crowdsourcing onder verbintenissen zouden vallen, bijvoorbeeld in de hoofdstukken diensten
en vestiging van EU‐handelsovereenkomsten, zouden die verbintenissen van geen invloed zijn op het recht van de
partijen om regelgevend op te treden wat arbeidsmarkt‐ of andere sociale normen betreft, en bijvoorbeeld
minimumlonen vast te stellen en werknemers te beschermen tegen schijnzelfstandigheid.

Wat de lopende onderhandelingen met India over een Vrijhandelsovereenkomst betreft, heeft het hoofdstuk
duurzame ontwikkeling van de Vrijhandelsovereenkomst tot doel een algemeen kader te bieden dat gebaseerd is op
internationaal erkende normen en overeenkomsten, waaronder de fundamentele arbeidsnormen van de
Internationale Arbeidsorganisatie.

De formulering en toepassing van een nationaal beleid ter bescherming van werknemers tegen verkapte arbeid in
loondienst wordt bovendien geregeld door Aanbeveling nr. 198 van de Internationale Arbeidsorganisatie van 2006
inzake arbeidsverhoudingen.

C 65 E / 450 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008243/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Rules, standards and regulations vis-à-vis commercial crowdsourcing in international trade agreements

The Commission is in the process of negotiating free trade agreements with a substantial number of countries on
behalf of the European Council. Services have become an increasingly important component of these negotiations.
Given the changes in the services sector which have been brought about by technical progress in the digital area
(i.e. information and computer technology), the Commission is also engaged in negotiations for a Plurilateral
Agreement on Services. Those changes also impact on the labour market, labour relations and labour standards. One
of these changes is ‘crowdsourcing’, in other words the act of a company or institution taking a function once
performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people in the form of an
open call via the Internet.

1. Is the Commission aware that aspects of crowdsourcing, in particular those that involve the payment of wages
to crowdsourced workers, have raised concerns amongst major stakeholders, i.e. trade unions in the EU, since
crowdsourced workers (particularly when they originate in developing countries) potentially undermine existing
wages and conditions?

2. Does the Commission agree that crowdsourcing should not contribute to the undermining of core labour
standards and that companies using crowdsourced workers should at least respect the agreed minimum wages of the
country where the crowdsourced worker and/or the company are based? Does the Commission agree that there is a
need for common rules on crowdsourcing? Will the issue be addressed in the Plurilateral Agreement on Services? If it
is not addressed in the Plurilateral Agreement on Services, will the Commission address it in any other forthcoming
regulation or directive?

3. The Commission is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with India. India has a strong services and ICT
sector. Is the issue of crowdsourcing part of the negotiations on Mode I in this possible future agreement? Will the
Commission address the need for companies in the EU and India alike to respect agreements on minimum wages and
social and labour standards in the respective countries in the chapter on sustainable development?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The Commission takes concerns expressed by stakeholders in relation to ‘crowdsourcing’ very seriously.
Crowdsourcing as such is not the subject of negotiations in EU trade agreements, including any ongoing negotiations
such as the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the EU-Asean negotiations, the negotiations on a Plurilateral
Agreement on Trade in Services (TiSA) or on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. If certain aspects of
crowdsourcing were covered by commitments, e.g. in the services and establishment chapters of EU trade
agreements, such commitments would not affect the right of the Parties to regulate on labour market or other social
standards, e.g. to establish minimum wages and to protect workers against bogus self-employment.

As for the ongoing negotiations on an FTA with India, the sustainable development chapter of the FTA has as its
objective to provide an overall framework based on internationally recognised standards and agreements, including
the core labour standards of the International Labour Organisation.

Moreover, the formulation and application of a national policy for protecting workers against disguised employment
relationships is covered by the International Labour Organisation Employment Relationship Recommendation No
198 of 2006.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 451

_(Versiunea în limba română)_

**Întrebarea cu solicitare de răspuns scris E-008244/13**

**adresată Comisiei**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(10 iulie 2013)_

_Subiect:_ Consumul de alcool în timpul sarcinii

Consumul de alcool în timpul sarcinii afectează dezvoltarea normală a fătului și poate cauza o serie de handicapuri
fizice și mintale pe termen lung.

Cu toate acestea, studiile din întreaga Europă sugerează că ratele consumului de alcool în timpul sarcinii sunt încă
alarmant de ridicate în unele state membre ( [1] ).

Potrivit unui raport Eurobarometru ( [2] ), majoritatea covârșitoare (79%) a cetățenilor UE ar susține aplicarea de etichete
de avertizare pe băuturile alcoolice în vederea sensibilizării cu privire la pericolele consumului de alcool în timpul
sarcinii.

— Poate Comisia să indice inițiative specifice menite să prevină consumul de alcool în timpul sarcinii care să fi fost
sprijinite de actualul program al UE în domeniul sănătății?

— Va analiza Comisia posibilitatea de a propune plasarea de avertismente de sănătate obligatorii pe etichetele
băuturilor alcoolice și/sau la punctul de vânzare pentru a sensibiliza publicul cu privire la pericolele prezentate de
consumul de alcool în timpul sarcinii?

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

_(19 august 2013)_

Protejarea copiilor, a tinerilor și a fătului se numără printre principalele priorități ale strategiei UE de sprijinire a
statelor membre în reducerea efectelor nocive ale consumului de alcool ( [3] ). Expunerea la alcool în timpul sarcinii
influențează dezvoltarea fetusului și poate afecta sănătatea pe viață.

Informarea cetățenilor cu privire la efectele nocive ale consumului de alcool este în primul rând responsabilitatea
statelor membre. Mai mult de jumătate dintre acestea derulează, în prezent, campanii la nivel național menite să
sensibilizeze populația cu privire la riscurile asociate consumului de alcool în timpul sarcinii.

Etichetarea, prezentarea și promovarea produselor alimentare este reglementată de Directiva 2000/13/CE ( [4] ). Sunt
abordate informațiile asupra produsului (de exemplu, denumirea produsului), informațiile cu privire la ingrediente și
mesajele de avertizare referitoare la ingredientele specifice (de exemplu, sulfitul). Etichetarea băuturilor alcoolice este
reglementată de Directiva 87/250/CEE ( [5] ).

Au fost încheiate acorduri voluntare privind etichetarea între producători și organisme precum Forumul european
privind alcoolul și sănătatea ( [6] ). De exemplu: Compania AB InBev, producător al unor mărci de bere binecunoscute
cum ar fi Budweiser, Stella Artois și Beck's, s-a angajat să introducă, până la începutul anului 2015, pe ambalajele
produselor de origine europeană etichete cu avertismente ilustrate pe tema consumului de alcool în timpul sarcinii și
pe tema consumului de alcool și a șofatului.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Health Council of the Netherlands, „Risks of alcohol consumption related to conception, pregnancy and breastfeeding” („Riscurile consumului de

alcool legate de concepție, sarcină și alăptat”) (2004/22), Haga (2005); Barry, S. et al., Coombe Women’s Hospital, „The Coombe Women’s
Hospital study of alcohol, smoking and illicit drug use, 1988‐2005” („Studiul Coombe Women’s Hospital privind consumul de alcool, tutun și
droguri ilicite, 1988‐2005”), Dublin (2006).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Eurobarometru (2010) „EU citizens’ attitudes towards alcohol” („Atitudinile cetățenilor UE față de alcool”)

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_331_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Comunicarea Comisiei din 24 octombrie 2006, intitulată „O strategie UE pentru sprijinirea statelor.

membre în reducerea efectelor nocive ale consumului de alcool”, COM (2006) 625 final.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0625en01.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:109:0029:0042:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1987:113:0057:0058:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Sursa: http://ec.europa.eu/eahf/index.jsp

( **|**

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 452 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008244/13**

**to the Commission**
**Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Alcohol consumption during pregnancy

Consumption of alcohol during pregnancy interferes with the normal development of the unborn baby and can cause
a range of long-term physical and mental disabilities.

However, studies from around Europe suggest that rates of alcohol consumption during pregnancy are still
alarmingly high in some Member States ( [1] ).

According to a Eurobarometer report ( [2] ), an overwhelming majority (79%) of EU citizens would support warning
labels on alcoholic drinks to increase awareness of the dangers of consuming alcohol during pregnancy.

— Can the Commission point to any specific initiatives designed to prevent alcohol consumption during pregnancy
which have been supported by the current EU health programme?

— Will the Commission consider proposing mandatory health warnings on the labelling of alcoholic drinks and/or at
their point of sale in order to increase public awareness of the dangers posed by drinking alcohol during pregnancy?

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

_(19 August 2013)_

Protecting children, young people and the unborn child is among the core priorities of the EU strategy to support
Member States in reducing alcohol related harm ( [3] ). Exposure to alcohol during pregnancy influences the
development of the foetus and may cause lifelong damage.

Informing citizens about alcohol related harm is primarily the responsibility ot the Member States. More than half are
currently carrying out nation-wide campaigns to raise awareness of the risks of alcohol during pregnancy.

Labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs is governed by Directive 2000/13/EC ( [4] ). Product information
(e.g. product name), information on ingredients and warning statements relating to specific ingredients (e.g. sulphite)
are addressed. The labelling of alcoholic beverages is governed by the directive 87/250/EEC ( [5] ).

Voluntary agreements concerning labelling have been developed between manufacturers and bodies such as the
European Alcohol and Health Forum ( [6] ). For example: the company AB InBev, the producer of well-known beer
brands such as Budweiser, Stella Artois and Beck’s, has committed to placing pictorial warning labels on drinking
during pregnancy and drink and driving on the packaging of products of European origin by early 2015.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Health Council of the Netherlands, ‘Risks of alcohol consumption related to conception, pregnancy and breastfeeding’ (2004/22), The Hague

(2005); Barry, S. et al., Coombe Women’s Hospital, ‘The Coombe Women’s Hospital study of alcohol, smoking and illicit drug use, 1988‐2005’,
Dublin (2006).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Eurobarometer (2010) EU citizens’ attitudes towards alcohol http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_331_en.pdf
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Communication from the Commission of 24 October 2006, ‘An EU strategy to support Member.

States in reducing alcohol-related harm’, COM(2006) 625 final.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0625en01.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:109:0029:0042:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1987:113:0057:0058:EN:PDF
( **|** ⋅6∙ **|** ) Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/eahf/index.jsp

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

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

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

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )
⋅6∙ **|** )

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 453

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub E-008245/13**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Joseph Cuschieri (S&D)**

_(10 ta' Lulju 2013)_

_Suġġett:_ L-immigrazzjoni illegali fil-gżejjer Maltin

Qed nirreferi għall-operazzjonijiet fuq skala kbira tal-Forzi Armati ta’ Malta fit-3 u d-9 ta’ Lulju 2013 fejn,
rispettivament, 290 migrant u 100 oħra jew iktar waslu fi xtut ta’ Malta.

Dawn l-avvenimenti jirriflettu s-sitwazzjoni ta’ kriżi imminenti f’Malta li tirriżulta minn influss kbir ta’ migranti li
jaslu bid-dgħajjes mill-Afrika. Ittieħdet pożizzjoni b’saħħitha mill-Prim Ministru ta’ Malta, Joseph Muscat, li talab
għas-solidarjetà mill-UE dwar il-kwistjoni tal-migrazzjoni, pożizzjoni li ġiet komunikata formalment lill-President talKunsill Ewropew, Herman Van Rompuy.

Is-sitwazzjoni attwali turi li l-kondiviżjoni tal-piż ta’ immigranti irregolari u persuni li jfittxu l-asil fl-Unjoni Ewropea
mhix qed issir, u li l-isfida tal-immigrazzjoni għal Malta, gżira fuq il-fruntiera bejn l-Ewropa u l-Afrika, tibqa’ tikber
kuljum.

— Fid-dawl ta’ dan ix-xenarju urġenti, il-Kummissjoni tista’ tispjega kif se ttaffi s-sitwazzjoni serja ta’ Malta u ta’ pajjiżi
oħra li qed iħabbtu wiċċhom ma’ sitwazzjoni simili?

— Il-Kummissjoni tista’ tagħti dettalji ta’ kif inhi lesta li tgħin lill-gżejjer Maltin biex jindirizzaw dan ix-xenarju ta’ kriżi
imminenti?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Malmström f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(20 ta' Awwissu 2013)_

Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea hija kompletament konxja tal-pressjonijiet partikolari li Malta qed tħabbat wiċċha
magħhom fis-sistema tal-immigrazzjoni mal-wasla ta’ għadd kbir ta’ migranti fuq ix-xtut Maltin. Il-Kummissjoni
tagħraf ukoll li Malta tirċievi l-akbar numru ta’ applikanti għall-ażil bħala perċentwal tal-popolazzjoni ta’ kull Stat
Membru fl-UE.

Malta kienet għalhekk il-punt fokali tal-ħidma tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea biex tgħin lill-Istati Membri jindirizzaw ilpressjonijiet migratorji. Bħala riżultat ta' dan, Malta rċeviet EUR 84,9 miljun mill-Fondi SOLID 2007-13. L-azzjonjiet
iffinanzjati mill-Fond Ewropew għar-Rifuġjati huma ffukati fuq it-tkabbir tal-ispazju taċ-ċentri ta’ akkoljenza, l-għoti
ta’ għajnuna materjali u kura medika fiċ-ċentri u miżuri biex jiġi ssimplifikat il-mod kif jiġu trattati l-applikazzjonijiet
għall-ażil. Bl-appoġġ tal-Fond għar-Ritorn u l-Fond għall-Fruntieri Esterni, Malta kienet kapaċi wkoll twettaq
programmi ta’ ritorn volontarju, attivitajiet ta' ritorn furzat u investimenti fl-infrastruttura u t-tagħmir biex tiġi
żgurata ġestjoni effiċjenti u sikura tal-fluss fil-fruntieri esterni. Finalment, Malta tista’, permezz tal-fondi SOLID
tagħmel talbiet immedjati lill-Kummissjoni għal għajnuna finanzjarja addizzjonali sabiex tkun tista' tirrispondi għal
sitwazzjoni ta’ emerġenza.

Il-Kummissjoni għamlet ukoll talba sabiex Stati Membri oħra jassistu lil Malta biex taffronta l-influss, permezz tarrilokazzjoni tal-benefiċjarji tal-protezzjoni internazzjonali minn Malta għal Stati Membri oħra. Ir-rilokazzjoni huwa
wieħed mill-aktar atti tanġibbli ta’ solidarjetà disponibbli għall-Istati Membri. L-isforzi ta’ rilokazzjoni tal-UE s’issa
għamluha possibbli sabiex madwar 690 persuna li applikaw għall-ażil f’Malta sa mill-2005 jiġu rilokati xi mkien
ieħor. L-aħħar rilokazzjoni minn Malta seħħet fis-16 ta’ Lulju. L-Istati Membri se jissejħu fil-25 ta’ Settembru f’forum
ta' rilokazzjoni sabiex jiddiskutu kwistjonijiet ta’ rilokazzjoni.

C 65 E / 454 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008245/13**

**to the Commission**
**Joseph Cuschieri (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Illegal immigration in the Maltese Islands

I refer to the large-scale operations by the Armed Forces of Malta on 3 and 9 July 2013 in which, respectively,
290 migrants and a further 100 or more were brought ashore in Malta.

These events reflect the impending crisis situation developing in Malta as a consequence of the large influx of
migrants coming by boat from Africa. A strong stand has been taken by the Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat,
who called for solidarity from the EU on the migration issue, a stand that has been communicated formally to the
President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.

The current situation is evidence that burden-sharing of irregular immigrants and asylum-seekers in the European
Union is failing and that the immigration challenge for Malta, an island on the border of Europe and Africa, continues
to grow by the day.

— In view of this urgent scenario, can the Commission explain how it proposes to alleviate the plight of Malta and
other countries facing a similar situation?

— Can the Commission give details of how it is prepared to assist the Maltese islands in dealing with this emerging
crisis scenario?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

The European Commission is fully aware of the particular pressures facing Malta's immigration system with the
arrival of a high number of migrants on Maltese shores. The Commission also recognises that Malta receives the
largest number of asylum applicants as a percentage of the population of any Member State within the EU.

Malta has therefore been the focus of the European Commission's efforts to assist Member States in dealing with
migratory pressures. As a result, Malta received EUR 84.9M from the SOLID Funds 2007-13. The European Refugee
Fund funded actions focus on increasing capacity of reception centres, the provision of material aid and medical care
in the centres and measures to streamline the treatment of asylum applications. With the support of the Return Fund
and the External Borders Fund, Malta has also been able to carry out voluntary return programmes, forced return
activities and investments in infrastructure and equipment ensuring efficient and secure management of the flow at
the external borders. Finally, Malta can, under the SOLID funds, make immediate requests to the Commission for
additional financial assistance in order to respond to emergency situation.

The Commission has also made a plea to other Member States to assist Malta in dealing with the inflow, via the
relocation of beneficiaries of international protection from Malta to other Member States. Relocation is one of the
most tangible acts of solidarity available to Member States. EU relocation efforts have so far allowed around
690 persons who have applied for asylum in Malta since 2005 to be relocated elsewhere. The most recent relocation
from Malta took place on 16 July. Member States will be convened on 25 September at a relocation forum to discuss
relocation issues.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 455

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008246/13**

**to the Commission**
**Glenis Willmott (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ UK Work Capability Assessments for people with autism

As part of the reforms of the UK’s benefit system, all claimants of Employment and Support Allowance are required to
undergo a Work Capability Assessment to determine how their illness or condition affects their day-to-day lives and
whether they are capable of returning to work.

Since October 2010, 42% of claimants have been assessed as fit for work. However, the Commission may be aware
that concerns have been raised about the suitability of the Work Capability Assessment when it comes to assessing
people with autistic spectrum disorders, with the British Medical Association declaring it not fit for purpose.

I note with interest the Commission’s response to Question E-010254/2012 in which it mentioned the four pilot
projects on employment of persons with Autism Spectrum Disorders and would be interested to know, when the
results are available, how their recommendations compare with the UK approach.

In the meantime, can the Commission state whether it believes that the Work Capability Assessments breach EU
discrimination law?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

The Commission is expecting soon to have the final reports of four Pilot Projects on employment of persons with
Autism Spectrum Disorders. It plans to provide summary information on the results of the four projects still in 2013.

The Commission acts within the limits of competence conferred to it by the Treaty. The direct competence in the area
of assessment of fitness to work belongs to the national authorities. Therefore, the Commission cannot take any
position on how national authorities carry out such assessments.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 is the main EU anti-discrimination law in the area of
employment and occupation. It provides equality to persons with disabilities as regards access to employment and
conditions in the workplace, including the duty for employers to provide reasonable accommodation. This directive
has been transposed into UK law.

If a person believes that a specific decision taken by the UK authorities is in conflict with the specific laws in force in
the UK, he or she can bring a case before the competent national Court. When the particular court does not know
whether the implementation of EC law was correct, or does not know how to interpret a certain norm or term in this
legislation, it may ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU for binding interpretation in this
regard.

C 65 E / 456 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008247/13**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(10 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Espèces menacées en Midi-Pyrénées

En Midi‐Pyrénées, sept espèces animales sont ou ont été concernées par des actions de sauvegarde menées par la
région, soit dix-huit races. L'Union européenne apporte un soutien à ces actions, en ce qu'elle a permis la mise en
place d'un système d'évaluation de la situation des différentes espèces.

Depuis la création du Conservatoire du patrimoine biologique national français, il y a vingt ans, les effectifs des races
animales ont progressé. Mais plusieurs d'entre elles demeurent très fragiles et toutes se situent en deçà des seuils
définis aux niveaux national et européen les classant sans conteste parmi les races à très petits effectifs ou à petits
effectifs (moins de 7 500 femelles reproductrices).

Cela montre que l'effort de conservation et de développement n'est pas à relâcher et que même les races ayant bien
progressé (porc gascon, cheval de Mérens) restent à un niveau qui justifie la continuité d'actions de soutien collectives
pour maintenir la biodiversité d'élevage régionale.

Il paraît important de mener une politique de sauvegarde de ces espèces menacées leur permettant d'évoluer dans leur
environnement naturel.

1. Ainsi, la Commission entend‐elle renouveler son soutien à la protection des espèces menacées dans l'Union et
en particulier en Midi‐Pyrénées?

2. La protection des espèces menacées en Midi‐Pyrénées passe par la recherche de voies de valorisation des
produits issus de ces races. La Commission envisage‐t‐elle de soutenir les micro‐filières locales ou les marchés «de
niche» à forte typicité qui restent les principaux protecteurs de ces espèces rares?

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

_(22 août 2013)_

Dans la nouvelle période de programmation, le soutien pour la conservation et l'utilisation durable des ressources
génétiques agricoles et races locales reste possible dans le cadre de la politique de développement rural. Toutefois, il
appartient aux États membres et aux régions responsables de déterminer le contenu exact des programmes de
développement rural (dans le cadre de la législation de l'Union).

La politique de développement rural prévoit également la possibilité de soutenir les industries agroalimentaires
locales dans la recherche de marchés de niche pour utiliser de manière effective les races locales spécifiques. Dans ce
contexte, l'action préparatoire en vue d'un programme de l'Union européenne pour la conservation et l'utilisation
durable des ressources végétales et génétiques en agriculture, financée à l'initiative du Parlement, revêt un grand
intérêt. Cette action préparatoire permettra d'examiner différentes stratégies pour passer de la conservation à
l'utilisation durable des ressources génétiques.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 457

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008247/13**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Endangered species in the Midi-Pyrenees

In the Midi-Pyrenees region, seven animal species comprising18 breeds are or have been protected by action plans
undertaken by the region. The EU supports these plans and has backed the introduction of an evaluation system
designed to assess the situation of the various species.

Since the French National Conservatory for Biological Heritage was set up twenty years ago, the animal numbers of
certain breeds have increased. However, many of the numbers are still very low and all of them fall below thresholds
set at national and European level classifying these breeds as having low or very low numbers (less than
7 500 reproductive females).

This shows that conservation and development efforts should not be relaxed and even the breeds whose numbers
have increased (for example, Gascon pigs and Mérens horses) remain at a level that justifies the continuation of
collective action to maintain the biodiversity of these regional species.

It is important to pursue a policy to protect these endangered species and enable them to thrive in their natural
environment.

1. Does the Commission intend to renew its support for the protection of endangered species in the EU,
particularly in the Midi-Pyrenees region?

2. In order to protect the endangered species in the Midi-Pyrenees region, research into how products derived from
these breeds can be promoted is required. Does the Commission intend to support local micro-industries or highly
distinctive niche markets, which remain the main guarantors of these rare species’ protection?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

In the new programming period support for conservation and sustainable use of agricultural genetic resources and
local breeds remains possible under the Rural Development Policy. However, it is up to the Member States and
responsible regions to determine the exact content of Rural Development Programmes (within the framework of
the EU legislation).

Rural Development Policy also provides for the possibility to support local food industries to find niche markets to
actually use the specific local breeds. In this context the preparatory action for an EU programme for the conservation
and sustainable use of plant and genetic resources in agriculture ‐funded upon the initiative of the Parliament — is
highly relevant. This preparatory action will explore different strategies to move from conservation to sustainable use
of genetic resources.

C 65 E / 458 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008248/13**

**à la Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(10 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Appui aux échanges interclubs de rugby amateurs à l'échelle européenne

Le rugby est en passe de devenir en Europe un des sports les plus populaires et les plus suivis par nos concitoyens. À
titre d'exemple, la dernière finale de la Coupe d'Europe de rugby à XV (H‐cup) a réuni 4 millions de téléspectateurs.
Même engouement en Grande‐Bretagne, où le nombre de téléspectateurs qui suivent le tournoi est en moyenne de
5,3 millions de téléspectateurs pour les matchs d'Angleterre retransmis par la BBC et peut atteindre potentiellement
7,5 millions de téléspectateurs. Le rugby fait partie intégrante à la fois de l'identité européenne et de celle de nos
territoires.

Dans cette mesure, j'en appelle à la réflexion de la Commission sur un point important. Face à cette prise de
conscience d'une culture sportive commune en Europe, certains clubs amateurs de jeunes joueurs toulousains ont pu
envisager la création de partenariats avec des clubs similaires en Angleterre et en Irlande. C'est le cas du Rugby club
Montaudran à Toulouse, qui a pu organiser un voyage en Irlande pour partager la passion du rugby avec de jeunes
joueurs irlandais.

Cependant, ces voyages, qui servent à la fois l'éducation civique européenne et le partage d'un patrimoine culturel
commun, sont souvent rendus impossibles par manque de moyens financiers. En effet, ni l'Union européenne ni la
région ne subventionnent ces projets pourtant formateurs pour notre jeunesse. Or, ces échanges permettraient de
renforcer le sentiment européen au sein des nouvelles générations.

Ainsi, la Commission entend‐elle soutenir les échanges interclubs de jeunes amateurs par le déblocage de fonds
adéquats?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Vassiliou au nom de la Commission**

_(27 août 2013)_

La Commission partage l'avis de l'Honorable Parlementaire pour ce qui est de la récente augmentation du nombre de
pratiquants de rugby dans l'ensemble de l'UE. Elle est heureuse de constater que les échanges internationaux ne
cessent de se multiplier dans cette discipline.

La Commission a proposé une série de domaines prioritaires susceptibles d'être financés par l'UE dans le cadre du
volet consacré au sport du futur programme intégré pour l'éducation, la formation, la jeunesse et le sport (Erasmus +).
D'après la proposition, actuellement en cours de discussion au Conseil et au Parlement européen, toutes les disciplines
sportives seront admissibles au titre du programme. Dès que ce dernier sera opérationnel, les clubs de rugby, les
fédérations etc. pourront soumettre une demande de financement afin de réaliser des projets transnationaux associant
plusieurs acteurs à l'échelle de l'Union. Le rugby a déjà été représenté dans les actions préparatoires relevant du
domaine sportif.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 459

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008248/13**

**to the Commission**
**Christine De Veyrac (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Support for EU-wide inter-club amateur rugby exchanges

Rugby is becoming one of Europe’s most popular and most-watched sports. The 2013 Heineken European club
rugby cup final, for example, drew 4 million French viewers. The same enthusiasm can be found across the Channel,
where, on average, 5.3 million viewers tune in to the BBC to watch England play and where viewing figures can reach
up to 7.5 million. Rugby is an integral part of our European and national identities.

I would therefore ask the Commission to consider the following important matter. As part of the growing awareness
of a common sporting culture in Europe, a number of amateur rugby clubs in Toulouse have sought partnerships
with similar clubs in England and Ireland. One such club is Montaudran Rugby Club in Toulouse, which organised a
trip to Ireland so that its team members could share their passion for rugby with young Irish players.

However, these trips, which serve to promote both European civic education and the sharing of a common cultural
heritage, often cannot go ahead because of a lack of funding. Although such exchanges would help younger
generations to identify more closely with Europe, neither the European Union nor individual regions finance these
educational projects for our young people.

Will the Commission therefore consider releasing adequate funding to support inter-club exchanges between young
rugby players?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member as concerns the recent growth of the number of followers of
rugby across the EU. The Commission is happy to see that there is a constant increase in international exchanges in
this sporting discipline.

Under the sport chapter of the future integrated programme for Education, training, youth and sport (Erasmus+), the
Commission has proposed a range of priority areas for EU funding. According to the proposal, all sport disciplines
will be eligible under the programme. The proposal is currently being discussed with the Council and EP. Rugby clubs,
federations etc. may apply for funding in order to engage in EU-wide, multi-actor transnational projects as soon as the
new programme will be operational. Rugby has already been represented in the preparatory actions in the field of
sport.

C 65 E / 460 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008249/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Acido retinoico anticancro

I ricercatori dell'università La Sapienza di Roma, in collaborazione con il Comprehensive Cancer Center di Cleveland
(Ohio) hanno scoperto che l'acido retinoico è utile contro il cancro. La molecola, un derivato della vitamina A,
potrebbe costituire la base per una terapia innovativa di due tumori maligni: il cancro della mammella e quello della
prostata.

I ricercatori hanno dimostrato che stimolando un recettore presente nelle cellule cancerogene (il TLR-3, molecola
chiave della risposta immunitaria) si innesca la produzione di specifici microRNA. Queste molecole rendono le cellule
sensibili all'azione dell'acido retinoico. «Le cellule neoplastiche — si legge nell'abstract — vanno incontro
all'autodistruzione attraverso un processo di morte cellulare programmata, definito apoptosi, sia in vitro sia in vivo».
Gli effetti di quest'acido su alcuni tipi di tumore sono noti da qualche tempo, ma non era ancora chiaro il meccanismo
per rendere tutte le cellule neoplastiche sensibili alla sostanza.

La Commissione:

1. è informata di questa importante scoperta che apre vie nuove per il trattamento contro ilcancro;

2. ricorda le polemiche sorte una decina d'anni fa contro un noto professore ricercatore italiano che già usava
l'acido retinoico avendone constatato i benefici presso gli ammalati che aveva in cura, senza essere creduto dai
rappresentanti della scienza ufficiale;

3. ritiene opportuno nell'ambito dell'attività del partenariato europeo per la lotta contro ilcancro, far circolare
questa notizia e raccogliere eventualmente i risultati di questa nuovaterapia?

**Risposta di Mairé Geoghegan-Quinn a nome della Commissione**

_(23 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza della ricerca ( [1] ) ( [2] )menzionata dall'onorevole parlamentare che ha fornito la prova di
un meccanismo di attività antitumorale sull'attivazione dei recettori TLR3 e ha dimostrato che ciò determina una
sensibilizzazione delle cellule tumorali all'acido retinoico e la loro successiva apoptosi.

Questi risultati si basano su studi effettuati su animali e su colture cellulari. Occorrono ulteriori ricerche per valutare
l'importanza di questo percorso di ricerca e il suo potenziale come obiettivo terapeutico nei tumori del seno e della
prostata.

La multerapia del dott. Di Bella (DBM) si basava su un cocktail di ormoni, farmaci e vitamine e comprendeva anche
l'acido retinoico. L'esame dei pazienti curati con questa terapia non ha evidenziato un miglioramento della loro
sopravvivenza. ( [3] ) Inoltre i risultati dei test clinici indipendenti della fase II non hanno dimostrato l'efficacia di questa
terapia. ( [4] )

I retinoidi sono stati oggetto di studi approfonditi per valutarne l'utilità nella prevenzione e nella cura dei tumori e gli
effetti osservati sono stati di vario tipo. Sono stati riscontrati effetti promettenti per la prevenzione dei tumori al seno
e l'acido retinoico è ampiamente utilizzato nel trattamento della leucemia promielocitica acuta. ( [5] ) Nell'ambito del 7°
programma quadro di ricerca, sviluppo tecnologico e dimostrazione (7° PQ, 2007-2013), la Commissione europea
ha assegnato 3,3 milioni di EUR a cinque progetti incentrati sull'acido retinoico e il ruolo dei suoi recettori nello
sviluppo dei tumori e nella terapia antitumorale.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://en.uniroma1.it/notizie/retinoic-acid-cure-prostate-and-breast-cancer.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Galli et al. (2013) PNAS; doi:10.1073/pnas.1304610110.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Buiatti et al. (1999) Cancer; doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991115)86:10<2143::AID-CNCR37>3.0.CO;2-5.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Italian Study Group (1999) BMJ; doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7178.224, Evaluation of an unconventional cancer treatment (the Di Bella multitherapy):

results of phase II trials in Italy.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Tallman et al. (2008) ASH Education Book; doi:10.1182/asheducation-2008.1.391.

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 461

Il ruolo del Partenariato europeo per la lotta contro il cancro è coadiuvare gli Stati membri nell'elaborazione dei lori
piani nazionali di lotta contro il cancro e non diffondere risultati di ricerca e suggerire cure. L'applicazione dei
trattamenti è di esclusiva responsabilità nazionale secondo le procedure nazionali di valutazione tecnologica in
materia di salute.

C 65 E / 462 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008249/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Use of retinoic acid in cancer treatment

Researchers from the University of Rome La Sapienza, in collaboration with the Comprehensive Cancer Centre of
Cleveland (Ohio), have discovered that retinoic acid is useful in treating cancer. The molecule, a product of vitamin A,
could become the basis of an innovative treatment targeting two types of malignant tumours: breast cancer and
prostate cancer.

The researchers have shown that stimulating a receptor present in cancer cells (the TLR3 molecule, a key effector of
immune response) triggers the production of specific microRNAs. These molecules make the cells sensitive to retinoic
acid. According to the abstract, malignant cells self-destruct through a process of programmed cell death, known as
apoptosis, both _in vitro_ and _in vivo_ . The effects of this acid on certain types of tumour have been known for some time,
but it was still not clear before how all malignant cells could be made sensitive to the substance.

1. Is the Commission aware of this important discovery, which paves the way for new types of cancer treatment?

2. Does it recall the controversy, 10 years ago, surrounding a well-known Italian research professor who was
already using retinoic acid, after observing the benefits of using it on patients he was treating, but whom
representatives of the mainstream scientific community refused to believe?

3. Does it consider it appropriate, as part of the European Partnership for Action against Cancer, to circulate this
new information and, where necessary, to obtain the results of this new treatment?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the research ( [1] ) ( [2] ) referred to by the Honourable Member, which provides evidence of an
antitumoral action mechanism upon TLR3 receptor activation and shows that it leads to the sensitisation of cancer
cells to retinoic acid and to their subsequent apoptosis.

The results presented are based on animal and cell culture studies. Further research is required to assess the
importance of this pathway in humans and its potential as a therapeutic target in breast and prostate cancers.

The Di Bella multi-therapy (DBM) was based on a cocktail of hormones, drugs and vitamins that included retinoic
acid. The analysis of patients treated with DBM did not show evidence of improved survival. ( [3] ) Moreover, the results
of independent phase II clinical trials failed to prove its efficacy. ( [4] )

Retinoids have been investigated extensively for their utility in cancer prevention and treatment with varying effects.
Promising results have been observed in the breast cancer prevention setting and retinoic acid is widely used in the
treatment of acute promyelocytic leukaemia. ( [5] ) Under the 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological
Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7, 2007-2013), the European Commission supported five projects
focusing on retinoid acid and its receptors’ role in cancer development and therapy for over EUR 3.3 million.

The role of the European Partnership Action Against Cancer is to support Member States in the development of their
National Cancer Plans and not to disseminate research results and suggest treatments. The implementation of
treatments falls exclusively under national responsibility according to their national Health Technological Assessment
procedures.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://en.uniroma1.it/notizie/retinoic-acid-cure-prostate-and-breast-cancer
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Galli et al. (2013) PNAS; doi:10.1073/pnas.1304610110.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Buiatti et al. (1999) Cancer; doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19991115)86:10<2143::AID-CNCR37>3.0.CO;2-5.
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Italian Study Group (1999) BMJ; doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7178.224, Evaluation of an unconventional cancer treatment (the Di Bella multitherapy):

results of phase II trials in Italy.

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Tallman et al. (2008) ASH Education Book; doi:10.1182/asheducation-2008.1.391.

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 463

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008250/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Conflitto d'interessi all'EFSA

Le dimissioni della presidente del consiglio d’amministrazione dell'Agenzia per la sicurezza alimentare (EFSA)
sottolineano con evidenza la necessità di evitare a ogni costo conflitti d'interesse nella nomina di dirigenti e esperti
delle agenzie dell'Unione europea.

Il fatto che la presidente fosse stata, o fosse ancora, direttrice per l'Europa dell'International Life Science Institut (Ilsi)
— considerato dalle Ong il braccio armato delle principali industrie agroalimentari, chimiche, farmaceutiche e
cosmetiche — forse spiega il perché l'EFSA non abbia mai negato l'autorizzazione a un prodotto dell'industria
biotech. Pare inoltre che esistano altri casi di conflitti d'interesse che riguardano membri dei comitati scientifici e
esperti dell'EFSA tra cui addirittura una forte candidatura al consiglio d'amministrazione di una ex dirigente di
Monsanto e attuale presidente della lobby Food-Drink Europe.

1. È la Commissione al corrente dell'esistenza di questi conflitti?

2. Ritiene essa indispensabile sapere chi sono e cosa fanno quelli che decidono cosapossiamo mangiare o quali
medicine possiamo prendere?

3. La trasparenza è, a mio giudizio, un criterio più che utile per sapere dove questi espertilavorano o hanno
lavorato?

4. Reputa infine più opportuno cercare candidati tra ricercatori e professori anziché tradirigenti e consulenti delle
multinazionali?

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(14 agosto 2013)_

1. Il regolamento (CE) n. 178/2002 ( [1] ) del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio ha istituito l'Autorità europea per la
sicurezza alimentare (EFSA) in quanto agenzia indipendente e stabilito per tale autorità requisiti severi in fatto di
indipendenza e conflitto d'interessi. L'EFSA si è di conseguenza dotata di norme interne in materia di indipendenza al
fine di rispettare i requisiti di cui sopra; norme che sono state periodicamente oggetto di revisioni e aggiornamenti. La
Commissione si dichiara soddisfatta di come l'EFSA pone in atto le proprie norme sull'indipendenza.

2. Il ruolo del consiglio d'amministrazione non consiste nel formulare pareri scientifici ma nel definire, su
proposta del Direttore esecutivo, il bilancio e i programmi di lavoro dell'Autorità, monitorandone inoltre
l'esecuzione.

3. L'elevato livello di trasparenza del funzionamento dell'EFSA rende possibile il sistematico controllo pubblico del
suo operato e ha permesso, fin dalla sua istituzione nel 2002, un ininterrotto miglioramento delle norme interne in
fatto di indipendenza e trasparenza.

4. La selezione dei candidati al ruolo di membri del consiglio d'amministrazione avviene sulla scorta di un invito
pubblico a manifestare il proprio interesse; possono presentare la propria candidatura tutti coloro che possiedono i
requisiti e non esiste preclusione alcuna nei confronti di ricercatori e professori.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 31 dell'1.02.2002.

C 65 E / 464 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008250/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Conflict of interest at EFSA

The resignation of the Chair of the Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Management Board has highlighted how important
it is to avoid, at all costs, conflicts of interest in the appointment of EU agency directors and experts.

The fact that the Chair of the Management Board was, and has again become, the executive director of the
International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) — considered by NGOs to be a champion of the main agri‐food, chemical,
pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries — perhaps explains why EFSA has never refused to authorise products from
the biotech industry. It appears there are also other cases of conflicts of interest involving members of scientific
committees and EFSA experts, including one — a former director at Monsanto and current president of the
FoodDrinkEurope association — who is a leading applicant for membership of the Management Board.

1. Is the Commission aware of these conflicts of interest?

2. Does not consider it essential to know who is in charge of deciding what food we can eat and which medicines
we can take?

3. Is transparency not extremely useful in establishing where these experts work or where they have worked in the
past?

4. Does the Commission not think it would be more suitable to look for candidates who are researchers and
professors, rather than directors and consultants at multinational companies?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

1. Regulation (EC) 178/2002 ( [1] ) of the European Parliament and of the Council established the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) as an independent agency and imposed strict requirements on the Authority in respect of
independence and conflicts of interests. EFSA has therefore established internal rules on independence in order to
comply with these requirements and these have been regularly reviewed and updated. The Commission is satisfied
with the way EFSA implements its rules on independence.

2. The role of the Management Board is not to give scientific advice, but to establish, upon proposal of the
Executive Director, the budget and work programmes of the Authority and to monitor their implementation.

3. The high level of transparency of the way EFSA functions allows for systematic public scrutiny of its work and
has led to a continuous improvement of its rules on independence and transparency since its creation in 2002.

4. Candidates for membership of the Management Board are selected following an open call for expression of
interest and this is open to all suitable candidates, including researchers and academics.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 465

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008251/13**

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

_(10 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Chemische bewaarmiddelen in cosmetica veroorzaken allergie

In België trekken dermatologen aan de alarmbel: steeds meer mensen reageren allergisch op cosmeticaproducten. De
boosdoeners zijn volgens de dermatologen methylchloorisothiazolinon (MCI) en methylisothiazolinon (MI). Dit zijn
chemische bewaarmiddelen die gebruikt worden om de houdbaarheidsdatum van vloeibare cosmeticaproducten op
waterbasis te kunnen verlengen. Deze bewaarmiddelen zijn echter zwaar „allergiserend” en het laatste jaar is het aantal
mensen dat allergisch reageert alarmerend snel gestegen. De Belgische centra voor huidziekten werken nu aan een
wetenschappelijke publicatie met als doel deze bewaarmiddelen te verbieden.

— Is de Commissie op de hoogte van de problemen die MCI en MI veroorzaken?

— Heeft de Commissie weet van studies die in het verleden gedaan zijn of die momenteel lopen, aangaande de
effecten van deze stoffen?

— Op welke manier kan de Commissie ingrijpen en worden er acties gepland?

— Kan de Commissie het gebruik van deze chemische stoffen verbieden op Europees niveau?

**Antwoord van de heer Mimica namens de Commissie**

_(12 september 2013)_

De Commissie is op de hoogte van het sensibiliserend potentieel van methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) en
methylisothiazolinone (MI).

Het mengsel van MCI/MI is toegelaten als conserveermiddel in alle cosmetica in een maximale concentratie van
0,0015 %. In de recentste risicobeoordeling van het Wetenschappelijk Comité voor consumentenveiligheid
(WCCV) ( [1] ) is het sensibiliserend vermogen van het mengsel aan de hand van literatuurstudies onderzocht en is
geconcludeerd dat allergieën minder vaak zouden voorkomen bij een product dat moet worden uitgespoeld dan
wanneer dezelfde concentratie aanwezig is in een product dat niet moet worden uitgespoeld. De Commissie voert
daarom de aanbevelingen van het WCCV uit door het gebruik van MCI/MI te beperken tot uit te spoelen producten.

Daarnaast is MI als conserveermiddel in alle cosmetica toegelaten in een hogere maximale concentratie van 0,01 %.
Bepaalde literatuur geeft aanleiding tot bezorgdheid over het sensibiliserend potentieel vermogen van MI, en daarom
heeft de Commissie het WCCV onlangs gevraagd op basis van deze studies een herbeoordeling uit te voeren.

De Commissie kan alleen een verbod op deze stoffen voorstellen op basis van een WCCV‐ risicobeoordeling waaruit
blijkt dat zij niet veilig zijn voor gebruik in cosmetica. Er zijn echter ook nog andere mogelijkheden om allergieën
tegen te gaan, bijvoorbeeld vermindering van de blootstelling aan deze stoffen om sensibilisering te voorkomen en
vermelding van de stoffen in de verplichte lijst van ingrediënten op het etiket, zodat personen die er al gevoelig voor
zijn ze kunnen vermijden.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SCCS/1238/09.

C 65 E / 466 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008251/13**

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

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Allergenic chemical preservatives in cosmetics

Dermatologists in Belgium are ringing alarm bells: more and more people are becoming allergic to cosmetic products.
According to dermatologists the culprits are methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and methylisothiazolinone (MI).
These are chemical preservatives that are used to extend the shelf life of water-based cosmetic products. However,
these preservatives are highly allergenic and, last year, the number of people that developed allergies increased at an
alarming rate. Belgian skin disease centres are now working on a scientific paper aimed at banning these
preservatives.

— Is the Commission aware of the problems caused by MCI and MI?

— Is the Commission aware of any previous or current studies looking into the effects of these substances?

— How can the Commission intervene and is any action planned?

— Can the Commission ban the use of these chemical substances at European level?

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

_(12 September 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the sensitizing potential of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and
methylisothiazolinone (MI).

The mixture of MCI/MI is authorised as a preservative in all cosmetic products at a maximum concentration of
0.0015%. The latest risk assessment of the Scientific Committee on Consumers Safety (SCCS) ( [1] ) addressed the
sensitizing potential of the mixture using literature studies and concluded that allergies would be less likely in a rinseoff product than when the same concentration is present in a leave-on product. The Commission is therefore in the
process of implementing the SCCS's recommendations by limiting the use of MCI/MI to rinse-off products only.

MI is also authorised as a preservative in all cosmetic products at a higher maximum concentration of 0.01%. Some
literature is available which raises concern on the sensitization potential of MI, and therefore the Commission has
recently requested its reassessment to the SCCS on the basis of those studies.

A ban of these substances can only be proposed by the Commission on the basis of an SCCS risk assessment showing
that they are unsafe for use in cosmetic products. There are, however, other ways of reducing the incidence of
allergies, which include reducing exposure to these substances to avoid sensitization and the labelling of the
substances in the ingredients list, which is mandatory and allows those that are already sensitized to avoid the
substances.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SCCS/1238/09.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 467

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008252/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) en Patricia van der Kammen (NI)**

_(10 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Speciaal verslag nr. 7/2013 inzake het Europees Fonds voor aanpassing aan de globalisering

De Europese Rekenkamer heeft onlangs haar Speciaal verslag nr. 7 uitgebracht inzake de effectiviteit van het Europees
Fonds voor aanpassing aan de globalisering (EFG) ( [1] ). De Rekenkamer kwam tot diverse verontrustende conclusies. Zo
constateerde zij dat „de bestaande gegevens niet volstaan om de doeltreffendheid van de maatregelen op het vlak van
de herintegratie van werknemers in de arbeidsmarkt te beoordelen”. Tevens identificeerde de Rekenkamer
„maatregelen om werknemers inkomenssteun te bieden die de lidstaten sowieso zouden hebben betaald”.
Tegelijkertijd bleek dat gemiddeld 33 % van de EFG-middelen wordt besteed aan „inkomenssteun”, met uitschieters in
bijvoorbeeld Italië en Frankrijk van respectievelijk 64 en 58 %. In dat kader de volgende vragen:

1. Is de Commissie het met de PVV eens dat de huidige EFG-regeling een garantie is dat EFG-subsidies weggegooid
geld betekenen, gezien het feit dat de Commissie niet eens controleert op reeds aanwezige sociale
afvloeiingsregelingen in de lidstaten? Vindt de Commissie eigenlijk dat de EU zich überhaupt moet bemoeien
met dergelijk sociaal beleid in de lidstaten?

2. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat EFG-middelen die in projecten gestoken zijn en die niet of niet
voldoende geëvalueerd en gemonitord zijn, naar rato en per direct teruggestort dienen te worden richting de
nettobetalende lidstaten?

De meest ergerlijke EFG-dossiers en ‐projecten zijn nog niet eens benoemd in het verslag van de Rekenkamer, zoals de
steunverlening aan Opel Antwerpen. General Motors bleek geld beschikbaar te hebben voor afvloeiing en reïntegratie
van haar ontslagen werknemers en de Vlaamse overheid eveneens ( [2] ). Daaroverheen kwam nog eens de EFGsteunverlening van 9,6 miljoen euro ( [3] ).

3. Is de Commissie met de PVV van mening dat haar waarschuwing van destijds in de Begrotingscommissie van
„driedubbele uitbetaling” terecht is gebleken?

4. Wanneer is de Commissie, gezien de bevindingen van de Rekenkamer, eindelijk voornemens het gehele EFG en
bijbehorend beleid tegen het licht te houden en net als de PVV tot de conclusie te komen dat dit fonds zo spoedig
mogelijk kan en moet worden opgeheven, evenals alle werkgelegenheids‐ en werkgarantieplannen die in de maak
zijn?

**Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie**

_(30 augustus 2013)_

1. Anders dan de geachte Parlementsleden beweren, verricht de Commissie wel degelijk audits voor de meeste
bijdragen uit het Europees Fonds voor aanpassing aan de globalisering (EFG). Het is slechts sporadisch voorgekomen
dat zij lidstaten moest vragen verkeerd bestede bijdragen terug te betalen, bijvoorbeeld als de uitgaven buiten de in
het financieringsbesluit vermelde subsidiabiliteitsperiode vielen.

Het staat de lidstaten vrij te beslissen of zij EFG-steun aanvragen. Zij stellen zelf de maatregelen voor die voor
medefinanciering door het EFG in aanmerking komen. De Commissie oefent geen druk uit om het fonds te gebruiken
of voorrang te verlenen aan specifieke maatregelen.

De opener handel met de rest van de wereld heeft in het algemeen voordelen opgeleverd, maar kan leiden tot
banenverlies, met name in kwetsbare sectoren en voor lager opgeleide werknemers. Het EFG is bedoeld als instrument
waarmee uiting wordt gegeven aan solidariteit tussen de velen die profiteren met de enkelen die plotseling
geconfronteerd worden met het verlies van hun baan.

2. EFG-middelen die niet overeenkomstig de door het Parlement en de Raad goedgekeurde aanvraag zijn besteed,
moeten aan de Commissie worden terugbetaald. De sleutel voor de verdeling van deze terugbetaalde middelen over
de lidstaten is vastgesteld op grond van de normale begrotingsprocedure.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/22650780. PDF.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/flanders-to-reclaim-financial-support-to-opel-antwerp-from-gm_261131.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-004130&language=NL.

C 65 E / 468 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

De Rekenkamer heeft volgens haar eigen criteria de te controleren gevallen gekozen. Als de geachte Parlementsleden
geïnformeerd willen worden over deze criteria, wordt hun aangeraden rechtstreeks contact op te nemen met de
Rekenkamer.

3. De Commissie is niet op de hoogte van de door de geachte Parlementsleden bedoelde waarschuwing voor
„driedubbele uitbetaling”, maar is bereid deze informatie te ontvangen en zo nodig te beantwoorden.

4. De Commissie evalueert momenteel het EFG. Overeenkomstig Verordening (EG) nr. 1927/2006 ( [4] ) zal de eerste
fase van de eindevaluatie van de periode 2007-2013 eind 2013 beschikbaar zijn en de laatste fase eind 2014.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Verordening (EG) nr. 1927/2006 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 20 december 2006 tot oprichting van een Europees fonds voor
aanpassing aan de globalisering, PB L 406 van 30.12.2006.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 469

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008252/13**

**to the Commission**
**Lucas Hartong (NI) and Patricia van der Kammen (NI)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Special Report No 7/2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund

The European Court of Auditors has recently published its Special Report No 7 on the effectiveness of the European
Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) ( [1] ). The Court reached several disturbing conclusions. Thus, it found that
‘existing data is not adequate to assess the effectiveness of the measures to reintegrate workers into the labour market.’
In addition, the Court identified ‘measures to provide workers with income support which would have been paid by
the Member States anyway’. At the same time, it appeared that, on average, 33% of the EGF funding is spent on
‘income support’, with Italy and France, for example, paying out 64% and 58% respectively. I have the following
questions in connection with this:

1. Does the Commission agree with the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) that the current EGF scheme guarantees that
EGF subsidies are being wasted because the Commission does not even audit existing social redundancy
schemes in the Member States? Does the Commission really think that the EU should be interfering at all with
individual Member States’ social policies of this nature?

2. Does the Commission share the PVV’s view that any EGF funds that are invested in projects and that are not, or
are not sufficiently, evaluated or monitored should immediately be refunded pro rata to net-paying Member
States?

The most infuriating EGF dossiers and projects, such as aid granted to Opel Antwerp, have not even been mentioned
in the Court’s report. It appears that General Motors had money available for redundancies and the reintegration of
the workers it had laid off, as did the Flemish Government ( [2] ). But they still received EUR 9.6 million ( [3] ) of EGF aid on
top of that.

3. Does the Commission agree with the PVV that the ‘triple payment’ warning sounded by the Committee on
Budgets at the time has turned out to be correct?

4. In view of the Court’s findings, when will the Commission finally shine a light on the entire EGF and its
associated policies and, just like the PVV, come to the conclusion that this fund and all the employment opportunity
and job guarantee plans that are being made can and should be scrapped as swiftly as possible?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

1. Contrary to the Honourable Members’ allegations, the Commission audits most contributions from the
European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). Only in rare cases has it been obliged to require Member States to
reimburse contributions wrongly spent, for instance outside the eligibility period laid down in the relevant financing
decision.

Member States are free to decide whether to apply for EGF assistance. They themselves propose the measures to be
co-funded by the EGF. The Commission exerts no pressure to use the Fund or to prioritise specific measures.

More open trade with the rest of the world has led to overall benefits, but it may result in the loss of some jobs,
particularly in vulnerable sectors, and affecting lower-skilled workers. The EGF was designed as an instrument of
solidarity by the many who benefit with the few who face the sudden shock of losing their jobs.

2. EGF funds not spent in accordance with the application approved by Parliament and the Council must be
reimbursed to the Commission. The key for allocating such reimbursed funds to the Member States is laid down
under the normal budgetary procedure.

The Court of Auditors selected the cases to be audited according to its own criteria. If the Honourable Members wish
to be informed about such criteria, they are advised to ask the Court directly.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/22650780.PDF
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/flanders-to-reclaim-financial-support-to-opel-antwerp-from-gm_261131.html
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2011-004130&language=NL.

C 65 E / 470 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

3. The Commission is not aware which ‘triple payment’ warning the Honourable Members have in mind, but is
willing to receive this information and, if necessary, respond.

4. The Commission is currently evaluating the EGF. The first phase of the final evaluation for the period 2007 to
2013 will be available by the end of 2013, with the final phase following by the end of 2014, as laid down in
Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 ( [4] ).

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) 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.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 471

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008253/13**

**do Komisji**
**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR)**

_(10 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Środki zapobiegania i walki z klęskami żywiołowymi

Po przyjęciu rezolucji P7_TA(2013)0316 dotyczącej powodzi w Europie Centralnej, w tym Austrii, Czech, Niemiec,
Węgier, Polski i Słowacji, pozostaje kwestia implementacji jej ustaleń. Co najmniej 18 osób zginęło na skutek
powodzi, a dziesiątki tysięcy ludzi było zmuszonych do ewakuacji. W samej Polsce ponad 100 tys. gospodarstw
rolnych ucierpiało w wyniku zalania, z tego powodu ucierpiała również zabytkowa warszawska Starówka. Ponieważ
udało nam się już osiągnąć pewien sukces w ustaleniu ogólnoeuropejskiego podejścia do tej sprawy, niezbędne są
dalsze działania.

1. Jakie środki zapobiegania i walki z przyszłymi klęskami żywiołowymi posiada obecnie UE i jakie działania
podjęto w celu ich udoskonalenia?

2. Jakie wnioski wynikają z przebiegu tegorocznej akcji ratunkowej? Jakie możliwości działania w sytuacji
kryzysów żywiołowych mają instytucje europejskie?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Kristalinę Georgijewą w imieniu Komisji**

_(3 września 2013 r.)_

W dziedzinie ochrony ludności UE posiada jedynie kompetencje uzupełniające. Zgodnie z zasadą pomocniczości
główna odpowiedzialność w tym zakresie spoczywa na państwach członkowskich. Komisja pełni rolę podmiotu
wspomagającego, dostarczając analiz i wsparcia w zakresie kształtowania polityki, jak również praktycznych
wskazówek służących do koordynacji krajowych rozwiązań.

Najnowsze „ulepszenie” w zakresie pomocy oferowanej przez Komisję państwom członkowskim polegało na
uruchomieniu w maju 2013 r. nowego Centrum Reagowania Kryzysowego (ERC). W czasie kryzysu ERC bacznie
obserwowało rozwój sytuacji, przekazywało informacje wczesnego ostrzegania oraz pełniło rolę węzła
informacyjnego. Centrum Reagowania Kryzysowego dostarczało także zdjęcia satelitarne wysokiej rozdzielczości
z zalanych obszarów.

Chociaż niedawne powodzie wyrządziły poważne szkody na wielu obszarach Europy Środkowej, region ten był
lepiej przygotowany niż w 2002 r. Od 2010 r. Komisja znacznie pogłębiła współpracę z państwami członkowskimi
w zakresie zarządzania ryzykiem i zapobiegania mu, skupiając się między innymi na wymianie dobrych praktyk,
danych dotyczących katastrof, ocenie ryzyka oraz planowaniu.

Wymienione zagadnienia uwzględniono również we wniosku ustawodawczym Komisji w sprawie Ochrony
Ludności ( [1] ), który jest obecnie przedmiotem dyskusji w Radzie oraz Parlamencie. Powodzie z 2013 r. stanowią
również sygnał ostrzegawczy w kontekście zmiany klimatu. W kwietniu 2013 r. Komisja przyjęła unijną strategię
adaptacyjną w celu udzielenia pomocy decydentom europejskim w wyborze najlepszych rozwiązań adaptacyjnych
dla dobra obywateli.

Zagadnienia związane z zarządzaniem klęskami żywiołowymi zostały również szerzej uwzględnione w ramach
kluczowych dziedzin polityki UE oraz instrumentów finansowych, takich jak na przykład polityka spójności.
Z chwilą zakończenia stanu wyjątkowego państwa członkowskie mogą otrzymać wsparcie finansowe z Funduszu
Solidarności Unii Europejskiej, przeznaczone na pokrycie kosztów środków nadzwyczajnych.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 934 final.

C 65 E / 472 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008253/13**

**to the Commission**
**Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Natural disaster prevention and response capabilities

Following the adoption of Parliament’s resolution of 3 July 2013 on the floods in Europe (P7_TA(2013)0316), which
hit countries including Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, thought now needs to
be given to how it will be implemented. At least 18 people died in the flooding, and tens of thousands were obliged to
leave their homes. In Poland alone, more than 100 000 farms suffered flood damage, as did the old city centre in
Warsaw. Although some progress has been made in establishing a pan-European approach to this issue, more still
needs to be done.

1. What natural disaster prevention and response capabilities does the EU have, and what has been done to
upgrade them?

2. What lessons have been learned from this year’s rescue operations? What scope do the EU institutions have for
taking action in emergency situations of this kind?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The EU has only a supporting competence in the field of civil protection. The primary responsibility lies with the
Member States, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission acts as a facilitator, providing policy
support and analysis as well as practical input to help coordinate national responses.

A recent ‘upgrade’ of the Commission's capacity to serve the Member States has been the inauguration of the new
Emergency Response Centre (ERC) in May 2013. Throughout the crisis the ERC closely monitored the situation,
provided early warning information and acted as an information hub. The ERC also provided high resolution satellite
images of the flooded areas.

While many parts of Central Europe have been seriously impacted by the recent floods, the region was better
prepared than in 2002. Since 2010, the Commission has significantly stepped up cooperation with Member States in
risk management and prevention focusing _inter alia_ on exchange of good practices, disaster data, risk assessment and
planning.

This is also included in the Commission's Civil Protection legislative proposal ( [1] ) which is currently in discussions
between Parliament and the Council. The 2013 floods are also a wake-up call about climate change. In April 2013 the
Commission already adopted the EU Adaptation Strategy to help decision-makers in Europe choose the best
adaptation solutions to the benefit of their citizens.

Disaster management considerations have also been strenghtened in further key EU policies and financial
instruments, such as Cohesion Policy. When the immediate emergency state is over, the EU's Solidarity Fund may
provide financial assistance to Member States in dealing with the costs of the emergency measures.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2011) 934 final.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 473

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008254/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Resgate em Itália

Considerando que:

Em Itália tem-se verificado a subida dos juros implícitos da dívida, que se tem acentuado durante as últimas semanas.
No último mês, os juros da dívida a 10 anos acumularam uma subida de 100 pontos base (um ponto percentual) e
encontram-se nos 4,8 %. Contudo, o que mais tem preocupado os analistas é o diferencial entre os juros dos bilhetes
do Tesouro (dívida de curto prazo) e as obrigações (de longo prazo).

Pergunta-se:

—
Tem a Comissão acompanhado esta situação?

—
Parece-lhe provável, face aos acontecimentos, a possibilidade de um resgate à Itália?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão tem acompanhado atentamente a evolução económica e orçamental italiana. Apesar das recentes
flutuações, as taxas a que a Itália tem emitido dívida pública são sustentáveis.

A Comissão não especula sobre a probabilidade de um Estado-Membro apresentar um pedido de assistência
financeira.

C 65 E / 474 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008254/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bailout in Italy

In Italy there has been a rise in implicit interest rates on debt, which has become more marked in recent weeks. In the
last month, interest on the 10-year debt rose by 100 basis points (one percentage point) to 4.8%. However, what has
most concerned analysts is the differential between the interest on Treasury bills (short-term debt) and bonds (longterm debt).

— Has the Commission been monitoring this situation?

— In the light of these events, does a bailout for Italy seem likely?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

The Commission monitors closely Italian economic and budgetary developments. Notwithstanding recent
fluctuations, the yields at which Italy is currently issuing public debt are sustainable.

The Commission does not speculate on the likelihood of financial assistance requests by Member States.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 475

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008256/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Situação de seca no sul de Angola

Recentemente, o Jornal de Angola revelou que a Conferência Episcopal de Angola e São Tomé (CEAST) está
preocupada com a situação da seca que afeta cerca de 800 mil pessoas no sul do país e deu início a uma «Campanha
de Solidariedade».

A CEAST avança que esta campanha tem como objetivo sensibilizar todas as igrejas e a sociedade em geral para dar
apoio aos que vivem em necessidades extremas.

«A falta de alimentos e água faz com que as populações se alimentem de raízes e frutos silvestres, o que tem causado
problemas de saúde sobretudo às crianças», refere ainda a CEAST, para ilustrar a sua preocupação.

A população está a passar momentos difíceis, porque há dois anos que praticamente não chove nas suas regiões, facto
que está a prejudicar a economia das famílias, cuja base de subsistência é a agricultura e a criação de gado.

1. Tem a Comissão conhecimento da situação descrita?

2. De que forma poderia a UE participar num plano de ajuda médica e alimentar a Angola?

**Resposta dada por Kristalina Georgieva em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão está plenamente ciente da situação de seca que atinge o sul de Angola desde o ano passado. Em resposta,
a Comissão, em parceria com a UNICEF e a World Vision, apoia atualmente os esforços para detetar e combater a
subnutrição infantil nas províncias do Huambo, Bié e Kwanza Sul e defender, a nível nacional e local, o apoio do
Governo a programas de nutrição. O montante destinado à ajuda humanitária foi de 4 milhões de euros.

A Comissão realizou uma missão de acompanhamento nas áreas do Cunene atingidas pela seca, no final de junho de
2013. O pessoal da Comissão encontrou-se com Sua Excelência o Bispo, em Ondjiva, para debater as questões
relacionadas com a seca. O Cunene é a região mais gravemente atingida, com uma pluviosidade a partir de março
abaixo do mínimo histórico de que há registo desde 1989.

Segundo os relatórios disponíveis, o Governo de Angola já preparou um pacote de medidas de resposta, tendo sido
enviados para o Cunene bens alimentares e agrícolas. Um dos maiores resultados da intervenção financiada pela UE,
já iniciada no início deste ano, é que a subnutrição passou a ser considerada uma prioridade e uma componente
importante do pacote de ajuda de emergência.

A Delegação da UE em Angola participa nas reuniões de coordenação periódicas organizadas pelas Nações Unidas
com todas as agências, ONG e doadores, no intuito de seguir a situação de seca. Estas reuniões destinam-se a partilhar
informações e a coordenar as políticas, o apoio e a resposta.

C 65 E / 476 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008256/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Drought in southern Angola

The _Jornal de Angola_ recently reported that the Episcopal Conference of Angola and São Tomé (CEAST) was
concerned about the drought affecting around 800 000 people in southern Angola and had started a ‘Solidarity
Campaign’.

According to CEAST, the campaign aims to make churches and society in general aware of the need to support those
living in extreme poverty.

It further highlights its concern by saying that the lack of food and water causes populations to feed on roots and
berries, which has caused health problems, especially among children.

The people are living in a very difficult situation, as it has hardly rained in the region for two years. This is crippling
the economy of families whose livelihood is based on agriculture and livestock rearing.

1. Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. How could the EU participate in a medical and food aid plan for Angola?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission is fully aware of the drought situation that has been plaguing southern Angola since last year. In
response, the Commission in partnership with the Unicef and World Vision is currently supporting efforts to detect
and cure child malnutrition in the provinces of Huambo, Bie, Kwanza Sul and advocating, at national and local level,
the government support to nutrition programmes. The amount allocated for humanitarian support was
EUR 4 million.

The Commission has carried out a field monitoring mission to the drought affected areas in Cunene at the end of
June 2013. The Commission staff met with His Excellency Bishop in Ondjiva to discuss the issue related to the
drought situation. Cunene is the most seriously affected region, with rainfall after March below the historical
minimum for all years since 1989.

According to available reports, the government of Angola has already prepared a response package including basic
food and agricultural inputs that have been sent to Cunene. One of the greatest achievements of the EU-funded
intervention, already initiated early this year, is that now malnutrition is considered as a priority and an important
component of the emergency aid package.

The EU Delegation to Angola participates in regular coordination meetings organised by the UN offices with all
agencies, NGOs and donors in order to follow the drought situation. These meetings have as an aim to share
information, coordinate policy, advocacy and response.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 477

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008257/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Portugueses desvendam bases do «declínio» imunitário

Uma equipa de cientistas portugueses do Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC) do Porto demonstrou
recentemente, pela primeira vez, que o declínio da nossa capacidade de gerar de raiz um certo tipo de células
imunitárias é, na realidade, um «efeito secundário» da normal maturação do nosso sistema imunitário.

O lado positivo desta descoberta é que o facto de se começar a perceber o complexo processo molecular em causa
permite vislumbrar maneiras de reativar essa «juventude perdida» imunitária no caso de doenças graves, como a
leucemia ou a sida, que, ao comprometerem a integridade das defesas naturais do organismo, põem em perigo a vida
do doente.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento desta importante descoberta?

—
Como a avalia, tendo em conta o enorme progresso demonstrado?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento desta descoberta e considera que, nesta fase precoce, é difícil tirar conclusões ou fazer
previsões sobre a sua relevância clínica ou utilidade.

A Comissão reconhece a importância do sistema imunitário para a saúde e o bem‐estar e para a compreensão e o
tratamento de doenças, o que se reflete também nos seus programas de financiamento da investigação. Em especial
no âmbito das «Abordagens e intervenções terapêuticas inovadoras», a Direção da Saúde financiou, através do 7.°
Programa‐Quadro, cerca de 30 projetos de investigação em colaboração, tendo investido um total de mais de
160 milhões de euros em domínios como a imunologia básica, imunização e vacinas, imunoterapia (incluindo a
imunoterapia de base celular) e reações imunitárias. O próximo programa Horizonte 2020 pode proporcionar outras
oportunidades de investigação, especialmente no âmbito do desafio societal «Saúde, Alterações Demográficas e Bem‐
Estar» e do desafio «Excelência na Investigação» (Conselho Europeu de Investigação).

C 65 E / 478 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008257/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Portuguese scientists uncover reasons for immune ‘decline’

A team of Portuguese scientists from the Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology (IBMC) in Porto recently
demonstrated, for the first time, that the decline in our ability to produce certain immune cells from scratch is in fact a
‘side effect’ of our immune system’s normal maturation.

The positive aspect of this discovery is that, in beginning to understand the complex molecular process in question,
we may find ways to reactivate the immune system’s ‘lost youth’ in the case of serious diseases, such as leukaemia and
AIDS, which compromise the integrity of the body’s natural defences and endanger patients’ lives.

— Is the Commission aware of this important discovery?

— What is its assessment of it, in view of the great progress shown?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware of these findings and considers that it is difficult to draw any conclusions or make
predictions about their clinical relevance or usefulness at this early stage.

The Commission recognises the importance of the immune system for health and wellbeing and for understanding
and treating diseases. This is also reflected in its research funding programmes. In particular under the area of
‘Innovative therapeutic approaches and interventions’, the Health Directorate funded throughout the 7th Framework
Programme about 30 collaborative research projects with a total of over 160 million Euros in areas such as basic
immunology, immunisation and vaccines, immune therapy (including cell-based immunotherapy) and immune
reactions. The up-coming Horizon 2020 programme may further provide opportunities for such research especially
under the Societal Challenge ‘Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing’ and under the Challenge ‘Excellent
Research’ (European Research Council).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 479

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008258/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ EUA — Plano nacional climático

O Presidente Barack Obama anunciou recentemente que vai fixar limites para as emissões de carbono das centrais
termoeléctricas, naquele que é um dos principais pontos de primeiro plano nacional climático dos Estados Unidos.

O plano traz uma série de medidas — algumas novas, outras já em curso ou previstas — agregadas em três áreas:
reduzir as emissões de CO 2 dos Estados Unidos, preparar o país para o impacto das alterações climáticas e liderar os
esforços internacionais nesta área.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que avaliação faz do recente plano nacional climático dos EUA?

—
Tenciona envidar esforços com os EUA nesta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Connie Hedegaard em nome da Comissão**

_(27 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão saúda a adoção do plano, que é um passo em frente para colocar os EUA no caminho de um futuro com
baixas emissões de carbono.

Na ausência de mais pormenores, não é possível proceder a uma análise exaustiva e informada do plano. No entanto,
parece que o seu impacto global fica aquém da parte equitativa com que os EUA deveriam contribuir para atingir o
objetivo coletivo de limitar as alterações climáticas a um aumento da temperatura inferior a 2°C. Mas teremos de fazer
muito mais se quisermos atingi-lo.

Internacionalmente, o plano nacional climático do Presidente Obama inclui uma série de intenções promissoras, que
deverão agora traduzir-se em ações concretas. Até 2015, a Comissão espera assistir a um compromisso firme dos
EUA no sentido de reduzir as emissões internas a longo prazo, enquanto parte de um tratado vinculativo sobre o
clima. É necessária uma resposta multilateral juridicamente vinculativa aplicável a todos os países, a fim de tomar as
medidas adequadas e de alcançar a transparência necessária para garantir que estamos todos no bom caminho.

Os EUA terão a primeira oportunidade para mostrar liderança mundial se apoiarem um acordo ambicioso em
setembro, na OACI, sobre uma solução global para limitar as crescentes emissões da aviação internacional.

A UE continuará a trabalhar para congregar todos os seus parceiros na tomada de medidas ambiciosas. Temos vindo a
trabalhar com os EUA e continuaremos a fazê-lo, bilateralmente e em fóruns como o G8, o G20 e o Fórum das
Maiores Economias, bem como na Cqnuac.

C 65 E / 480 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008258/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ United States — national climate action plan

President Barack Obama recently announced that he would set limits on carbon emissions from power plants, in
what is one of the main points of the first US national climate action plan.

The plan includes a number of measures — some new, some already under way or planned — grouped into three
areas: reducing the United States’ CO 2 emissions, preparing the country for the impact of climate change and leading
international efforts in this area.

— What is the Commission’s assessment of the recent US national climate action plan?

— Will it work with the US on this matter?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

The Commission welcomes the plan as a step forward to put the US on a path towards a low carbon future.

Pending further details a comprehensive and informed assessment is not possible. However, it seems that its aggregate
impact falls short of what the US would have to do as its fair share towards achieving the collective objective of
limiting dangerous climate to an increase of less than 2°C. But we will all have to do far more to achieve that.

Internationally, the President’s Climate Action Plan contains a number of promising intentions which have now to be
translated into concrete action. By 2015 the Commission expects to see a robust US commitment to reduce its
domestic emissions over the longer term as part of a binding climate treaty. A legally binding multilateral response
applicable to all countries is needed to deliver the action that is required and to achieve the transparency needed to
ensure that we are globally on the right path.

The first opportunity for the US to show international leadership will be to support an ambitious deal this September
in ICAO on a global solution to limit burgeoning international aviation emissions.

The EU will continue working to get all our partners on board for ambitious action. We have been, and will continue
to work closely with the US bilaterally, and in fora such as the G8, G20, and the Major Economies Forum, as well as in
the UNFCCC.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 481

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008259/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Vírus H7N9 — nova ameaça

Considerando que:

—
Um grupo de cientistas da Universidade de Hong Kong e do Centro Chinês para a Prevenção e Controlo de
Doenças alertou recentemente a comunidade científica para a possibilidade de o abrandamento atual das
infeções humanas pelo vírus H7N9 poder ser apenas transitório;

—
Num artigo publicado na revista The Lancet esta equipa escreve que «a estação quente começou na China (…) e
que se o H7N9 segue o mesmo tipo de padrão que o H5N1, a epidemia poderia reaparecer no outono.» A
equipa aconselha ainda que «este período de acalmia deveria ser aproveitado para discutir as medidas
preventivas de saúde pública definitivas a tomar, a otimização da gestão clínica e a capacidade de lidar com um
eventual alastramento para além das fronteiras chinesas».

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento das referidas declarações?

—
Que avaliação faz das mesmas?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(2 de setembro de 2013)_

A Comissão está consciente da situação epidemiológica atual de gripe A (H7N9) na China e acompanha qualquer
desenvolvimento em estreito contacto com a delegação da UE no país, com o Centro Europeu de Prevenção e
Controlo das Doenças e com a Organização Mundial de Saúde. O Comité de Segurança da Saúde já forneceu em
junho informações sobre a gripe A (H7N9) no que se refere às viagens e aconselhamento para os trabalhadores do
setor dos cuidados de saúde que tratam doentes afetados ou suspeitos de estarem afetados pela gripe A (H7N9).

A situação foi descrita e comentada pelos peritos da UE, e a recente avaliação dos riscos ( [1] ) elaborada pelo CEPCD
afirma que, apesar de as estirpes do vírus da gripe aviária parecerem seguir as tendências sazonais comuns, é
demasiado cedo para confirmar que este é o caso da gripe A (H7N9). A vigilância contínua, assim como a investigação
de agregados de doença respiratória aguda grave nas zonas afetadas facultarão elementos de prova adicionais para
compreender melhor o desenvolvimento futuro da gripe A (H7N9) na região. Reforçar a preparação para a pandemia
da gripe a nível da UE, melhorar o diagnóstico laboratorial e as medidas de controlo da infeção em unidades de saúde,
elaborar protocolos para localização dos contactos e investir no desenvolvimento de vacinação e opções de
tratamento são recomendações válidas para uma melhor preparação para gerir futuras ameaças decorrentes da gripe
A (H7N9). Estas recomendações foram partilhadas com as autoridades de saúde pública nos Estados-Membros.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/influenza-A(H7N9)-China-rapid-risk-assessment-8-may-2013.pdf

C 65 E / 482 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008259/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ H7N9 virus — new threat

— A group of scientists from the University of Hong Kong and the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention
recently warned the scientific community that the current downturn in the number of people infected with the H7N9
virus may only be temporary.

— In an article published in the journal The Lancet, the team writes that ‘the warm season has now begun in China
and […] if H7N9 follows a similar pattern to H5N1, the epidemic could reappear in the autumn.’ The team also
advises that ‘this potential lull should be an opportunity for discussion of definitive preventive public health
measures, optimisation of clinical management, and capacity building in the region in view of the possibility that
H7N9 could spread beyond China’s borders.’

— Is the Commission aware of these remarks?

— What is its assessment of them?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the current epidemiological situation of influenza A(H7N9) in China and monitors any
development in close contact with the EU Delegation in the country, the European Centre of Disease Prevention and
Control and the World Health Organisation. The Health Security Committee has already issued information on
influenza A(H7N9) with regards to travelling and advice to Healthcare workers caring for patients with confirmed or
possible influenza A(H7N9) infection in June.

The situation has been described and commented by EU experts and the recent risk assessment ( [1] ) prepared by ECDC
states that although avian influenza strains seem to follow common seasonal trends, it is too soon to confirm that it is
the case for influenza A(H7N9). Continuous surveillance as well as investigation of clusters of severe acute respiratory
illness in the affected areas will bring additional elements of evidence to better understand the future development of
influenza A(H7N9) in the region. Strengthening influenza pandemic preparedness at EU level, improving laboratory
diagnostics and infection control measures in healthcare facilities, developing protocols for contact tracing as well as
investing into developing vaccination and treatment options, are valid recommendations to be better prepared to
manage future threats due to influenza A(H7N9); these have been shared with the public health authorities in Member
States.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/influenza-A(H7N9)-China-rapid-risk-assessment-8-may-2013.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 483

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008260/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Demência digital

Considerando que:

— O aumento do uso de _smartphones_ é associado por especialistas sul-coreanos a uma vaga de casos de «demência
digital» entre os jovens;

—
Segundo estes especialistas «o uso excessivo de _smartphones_ e dispositivos de jogos desequilibra o
desenvolvimento do cérebro» e os «utilizadores exaustivos têm grande probabilidade de desenvolver mais o
lado esquerdo dos seus cérebros, deixando o lado direito subdesenvolvido»;

—
O lado direito do cérebro está ligado às capacidades de concentração e o seu subdesenvolvimento provoca não
apenas défices de atenção, mas também menor capacidade de memorização e instabilidade emocional,
podendo conduzir a um quadro de início de demência em 15 % dos casos;

— Na UE, um neurocientista alemão já alertou também pais e educadores, através do livro _Demência Digital_, para
os perigos de deixarem as crianças usar durante demasiado tempo computadores portáteis, telemóveis ou
outros dispositivos eletrónicos.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que avaliação faz dos dados supramencionados?

—
Quais as medidas constantes da agenda da Comissão relativamente a esta matéria?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(2 de setembro de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento das investigações do _Balance Brain Centre_ situado em Seul/Coreia do Sul, bem como do
livro do neurocientista alemão Manfred Spitzer, que fazem referência à expressão «demência digital».

Esta expressão não corresponde ao diagnóstico médico de «demência», em que se descreve uma condição
neurodegenerativa que, na maioria dos casos, afeta as pessoas com uma idade avançada.

A Comissão acompanha essas atividades de investigação com interesse, tendo em conta que os
equipamentos/dispositivos digitais estão cada vez mais presentes na vida quotidiana. Os pais, professores e
profissionais de saúde devem desempenhar um papel importante na orientação das crianças e dos jovens para que
estes desenvolvam formas responsáveis de utilização desses dispositivos.

Ao abrigo da legislação da UE aplicável a esses dispositivos, ou seja, a diretiva relativa à segurança geral dos
produtos ( [1] ), a diretiva relativa aos equipamentos de rádio e equipamentos terminais de telecomunicações  ( [2] ) e a
diretiva relativa à baixa tensão ( [3] ), os produtores são obrigados a colocar no mercado unicamente produtos seguros e
a fornecer informações pertinentes que permitam uma utilização segura do produto. Tanto os operadores
económicos como as autoridades dos Estados-Membros são obrigados a intervir imediatamente para restringir ou
impedir a colocação no mercado ou o fornecimento de produtos perigosos abrangidos pelo âmbito de aplicação de
qualquer das supramencionadas diretivas.

A proposta da Comissão para o programa-quadro Horizonte 2020, o Programa-Quadro de Investigação e Inovação
(2014-2020), é suscetível de trazer novas oportunidades para apoiar a investigação sobre esta temática.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2001/95/CE relativa à segurança geral dos produtos (DSGP), JO L 11 de 15.1.2002, p. 4.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Diretiva 1999/5/CE, de 9 de março de 1999, relativa aos equipamentos de rádio e equipamentos terminais de telecomunicações e ao

reconhecimento mútuo da sua conformidade, JO L 91 de 7.4.1999, p. 10-28.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Diretiva 2006/95/CE relativa à harmonização das legislações dos Estados-Membros no domínio do material elétrico destinado a ser utilizado

dentro de certos limites de tensão, JO L 374 de 27.12.2006, p. 10.

( **|**

C 65 E / 484 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008260/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Digital dementia

South Korean specialists have linked a surge in ‘digital dementia’ amongst the young to the increased use of
smartphones.

According to these specialists, ‘over-use of smartphones and game devices hampers the balanced development of the
brain’ and ‘heavy users are likely to develop the left side of their brains, leaving the right side untapped or
undeveloped’.

The right side of the brain is linked with concentration and its failure to develop affects attention, memory span and
emotional stability, which could lead to the onset of dementia in 15% of cases.

In the EU, a German neuroscientist, in the book _Digital Dementia_, has also warned parents and teachers of the dangers
of allowing children to spend too much time on laptops, mobile phones and other electronic devices.

— What is the Commission’s assessment of the above data?

— What measures does the Commission have on its agenda regarding this issue?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the research of the Balance Brain Centre in Seoul / South Korea and the book by German
brain researcher Manfred Spitzer which both refer to the term of ‘digital dementia’.

This term does not refer to the medical diagnosis of ‘dementia’, which describes a neurodegenerative condition that in
most cases affects people in their higher ages.

The Commission is following these research activities with interest, taking into account that digital devices are
increasingly present in daily lives. Parents, teachers and health professionals should play important roles in guiding
children and young people to develop responsible ways to use such devices.

Under EU legislation applicable to such devices, i.e. the General Product Safety Directive ( [1] ), the Radio and
Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive ( [2] ) and the Low Voltage Directive ( [3] ), producers are obliged to
place only safe products on the market and provide any relevant information enabling the safe use of the product.
Both economic operators and Member State authorities are obliged to intervene immediately to restrict or prevent the
placing on the market or supply of dangerous products which fall within the scope of any of these Directives.

The Commission's proposal for Horizon 2020, the framework Programme for Research and Innovation (20142020), is likely to offer further opportunities to support research on this subject.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety. OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Directive 1999/5/EC Directive 1999/5/EC of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual

recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10‐28.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Directive 2006/95/EC on electrical equipment designed to for use within certain voltage limits, OJ L 374, 27.12.2006, p.10.

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 485

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008261/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Tarifas anti-dumping aplicadas à UE

Considerando que:

—
De acordo com o Ministério do Comércio Chinês, a China vai aplicar tarifas «anti‐dumping» sobre um produto
químico importado da União Europeia, a toluidina, que serão cobradas durante 5 anos;

—
A toluidina é um produto usado no fabrico de corantes, medicamentos e pesticidas, e aos fabricantes da União
Europeia serão cobradas taxas que poderão atingir os 36,9 %, à exceção de uma empresa alemã, à qual será
imposta pelas autoridades chinesas uma tributação de apenas 19,6 %.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Como avalia esta medida no âmbito das recentes disputas comerciais existentes entre a China e UE?

—
Tem conhecimento da razão ou razões pelas quais só uma empresa alemã será beneficiada?

**Resposta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

A China deu início ao inquérito _anti-dumping_ relativo às importações de toluidina provenientes da UE em junho de
2012.

Em junho de 2013, foram instituídos direitos _anti-dumping_ definitivos que abrangiam o direito individual de 19,6 %
imposto à empresa alemã Lanxess Deutschland GmbH e o direito residual de 36,9 % aplicado às restantes empresas da
UE em causa.

No parecer da Comissão, a China tem o direito de iniciar inquéritos e de impor medidas de defesa comercial se forem
respeitadas as regras pertinentes da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC).

Neste contexto, a Comissão gostaria de informar o Senhor Deputado de que nem os Estados-Membros nem a
indústria relevante, que foram devidamente informados, deram qualquer indicação no sentido de os produtores de
toluidina da UE terem sido tratados de forma injusta pela China nesse inquérito.

Segundo as regras pertinentes da OMC, aos exportadores que tenham colaborado com as autoridades responsáveis
pelo inquérito deve ser atribuída uma taxa do direito individual que reflita a sua própria situação. Os exportadores que
não colaboram no inquérito, cuja situação individual não pode ser verificada pelas autoridades responsáveis pelo
inquérito, são sujeitos a um direito residual que é geralmente mais elevado do que o atribuído às partes que
colaboraram.

Segundo a informação de que a Comissão dispõe, a Lanxess Deutschland GmbH foi a única empresa europeia que
colaborou com as autoridades chinesas responsáveis pelo inquérito, pelo que lhe foi atribuída uma taxa do direito
individual inferior, de 19,6 %.

C 65 E / 486 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008261/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Anti-dumping tariffs imposed on the EU

According to the Chinese Ministry of Trade, China is going to impose anti-dumping tariffs on imports of the chemical
toluidine from the European Union for a period of five years.

Toluidine is used in the production of dyes, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. The tariffs imposed on EU manufacturers
could be as high as 36.9%, though one German company is to be subject to only 19.6%.

— What is the Commission’s assessment of this measure, given the recent trade disputes between China and the EU?

— Does it know why one German company is to be taxed less?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of toluidine from the EU was initiated by China on June 2012.

Definitive anti-dumping duties were imposed on June 2013 and they covered the individual duty of 19.6% imposed
on German company Lanxess Deutschland GmbH, and the residual duty of 36.9% imposed on the remaining EU
companies concerned.

The Commission is of the opinion that China has the right to initiate investigations and to impose trade defence
measures if the relevant World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules are respected.

In this context, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that it has not received any signals
either from the Member States or from the relevant industry, which were duly informed, that the EU producers of
toluidine might have been unfairly treated by China in this investigation.

According to the relevant WTO rules, the exporters that have duly cooperated with the investigating authority should
be attributed an individual duty rate which reflects their own situation. Non-cooperating exporters, for which the
individual situation cannot be verified by the investigating authority, are subject to a residual duty that is normally
higher than that attributed to cooperating parties.

According to the information available in the Commission, Lanxess Deutschland GmbH was the only European
company which cooperated with the Chinese investigating authority and therefore was attributed the lower
individual duty rate of 19.6%.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 487

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008262/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Investimentos em energias renováveis

Considerando que:

—
Um estudo de uma grande multinacional do setor energético indica que os governos europeus poderiam
poupar 45 mil milhões de euros de investimentos em energias renováveis até 2030 se as centrais fossem
construídas nos locais da Europa que oferecem o maior rendimento de energia;

—
Na base deste estudo está a constatação de que «centenas de milhões de euros são todos os anos desperdiçados
em consequência de decisões ineficazes relativas a sistemas de produção de energia e mercados em todo o
mundo»;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Considera que no espaço europeu ainda há margem para se conseguirem melhores resultados, no que diz respeito a
uma melhor gestão na produção de energia?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

Sim. A Diretiva energias renováveis (2009/28/CE) facilita a realização eficiente, em termos de custos, dos objetivos
nacionais para as energias renováveis, graças à utilização de mecanismos de cooperação entre os Estados-Membros. A
Comissão tenciona promover uma maior eficiência de custos no investimento em energias renováveis, através, por
exemplo, do recurso a mecanismos de cooperação, tal como definido na Diretiva energias renováveis, bem como
através de melhores práticas, com vista a explorar o potencial que o mercado interno da energia da UE oferece. Depois
do verão, serão publicados documentos de orientação relativos a esta questão.

C 65 E / 488 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008262/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Investment in renewable energy

According to a study by a large multinational energy company, EU governments could save EUR 45 billion of
investment in renewable energy by 2030 if installations were built at the sites in Europe that offer the highest power
yields.

This study is based on the finding that hundreds of millions of euros are lost every year as a consequence of inefficient
decisions regarding energy production systems and markets around the world.

Does the Commission believe that there is scope to achieve better results in the EU by better managing energy
production?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

Yes. The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC) facilitates the cost-efficient achievement of the national
renewable energy targets through the use of cooperation mechanisms among the Member States. The Commission
plans to promote more cost-efficiency in investment in renewables, for example through the use of cooperation
mechanisms as defined in the Renewable Energy Directive, as well as through best practices, with a view to exploiting
the EU internal energy market potential. Guidance documents that address these issues will be published after the
Summer.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 489

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008263/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Surto de dengue em Angola

Segundo dados oficiais referentes até ao dia 20 deste mês, dez pessoas já morreram em Angola vítimas da epidemia de
dengue, que se regista no país desde março deste ano, com um total de 834 casos notificados.

Uma fonte do Ministério da Saúde, citada pela agência de notícias angolana, Angop, salienta que do total de casos
notificados, 657 foram confirmados em laboratório, sendo que 214 pessoas estiveram internadas com a doença.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Tem acompanhado a evolução desta situação?

—
Que ajuda concedeu ou pondera conceder a Angola para o combate e a erradicação da dengue?

**Resposta dada por Kristalina Georgieva em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão tem acompanhado regularmente a situação desde junho de 2013 através do seu perito em Nairobi. Este
acompanhamento inclui contactos com a Delegação da UE em Angola e especialmente contactos com especialistas
em dengue da Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS) em Genebra.

A OMS presta assistência direta ao Ministério da Saúde de Angola a nível da investigação e da resposta a dar ao surto
de dengue, assegurando também a coordenação do apoio regional. O apoio imediato da OMS incluiu teleconferências
com o Ministério da Saúde e com a Delegação da OMS em Angola, bem como o envio imediato de um
epidemiologista e de um entomólogo. O Ministério da Saúde desenvolveu, com a OMS, um plano global de luta
contra a dengue com vista a melhorar a respetiva coordenação multissetorial e os financiamentos potenciais. As
medidas preventivas e de controlo que estão a ser implementadas atualmente incluem o controlo dos vetores, a gestão
dos casos, o reforço da vigilância e a sensibilização dos profissionais da saúde e das comunidades para as questões de
saúde pública.

O financiamento da UE não é limitado e é atribuído em função das necessidades para dar resposta a prioridades
concorrentes entre si em todo o mundo. Assim, a Comissão ainda não decidiu financiar qualquer ação em Angola
atendendo à reduzida dimensão da epidemia (verificam-se anualmente entre 50 e 100 milhões de casos a nível
mundial), ao risco de transmissão moderado e — com a assistência da OMS — à resposta adequada que o Ministério
da Saúde de Angola está a dar a esta epidemia.

C 65 E / 490 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008263/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Dengue outbreak in Angola

According to official figures up to 20 June 2013, 10 people have already died in Angola from a dengue epidemic,
which was first recorded in the country in March this year, with a total of 834 reported cases.

According to a source at the Ministry of Health, quoted by the Angolan news agency, Angop, 657 of the reported
cases were confirmed by laboratory tests and 214 people have been hospitalised with the disease.

— Has the Commission been monitoring this situation?

— What help has it given or is it planning to give to Angola to combat and eradicate dengue?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

The Commission has been monitoring the situation regularly since June 2013 through its expert based in Nairobi,
The monitoring includes contacts with the EU Delegation in Angola and especially contacts with dengue specialists in
the World Health Organisation (WHO) in Geneva.

WHO is providing direct assistance to the Ministry of Health (MoH) of Angola to investigate and respond to the
dengue outbreak and is coordinating regional support. WHO immediate support included teleconferences with the
WHO Angola Office/MoH and immediate deployment of an epidemiologist and of an entomologist. The MoH has
developed with WHO a comprehensive dengue responses plan to improve multi-sector coordination of the response
and for potential funding. Preventive and control measures being implemented include vector control, case
management, enhanced surveillance, public health awareness targeting health workers and communities.

EU funding is not finite and is allocated on the basis of need in response to competing priorities worldwide. As a
result, the Commission has not yet decided to fund any action in Angola given the small scale of the epidemic (yearly
there are between 50 and 100 million cases worldwide), the moderate transmission risk and — with WHO assistance
— the MoH's appropriate response to this epidemic.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 491

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008264/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Programa de assistência financeira à Grécia

Considerando que:

Tem sido noticiado que o Fundo Monetário Internacional se prepara para suspender o pagamento das tranches de
empréstimo à Grécia, caso os líderes da Zona euro não cheguem a acordo para resolverem um buraco entre 3 a 4 mil
milhões de euros no programa de resgate grego.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Confirma a situação descrita?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(26 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão pode confirmar a existência de um buraco relativamente pequeno no programa de financiamento até ao
final de 2014. O quadro 9 do relatório de cumprimento ( [1] ), publicado pela Comissão Europeia na sequência da
terceira avaliação, indica que há um buraco de cerca de 4 milhões de euros no segundo semestre de 2014.

Este facto não impediu o FMI de decidir, em 29 de julho, disponibilizar a tranche do seu financiamento, após a
conclusão da última avaliação.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/greek_loan_facility/index_en.htm

C 65 E / 492 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008264/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Greek bailout package

According to reports, the International Monetary Fund is preparing to suspend payment of tranches of the loan to
Greece if euro area leaders cannot reach an agreement to resolve the shortfall of EUR 3 to EUR 4 billion in the Greek
rescue package.

Can the Commission confirm this is correct?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The Commission can confirm that there is a relatively small financing gap in programme until the end of 2014.
Table 9 of the compliance report ( [1] ) published by the European Commission following the 3rd review indicates the
existence of a gap of about EUR 4 billion emerging in the second half of 2014.

This did not prevent the IMF from deciding on 29 July to disburse tranche of its funding following completion of the
latest review.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/assistance_eu_ms/greek_loan_facility/index_en.htm

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 493

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008265/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Publicidade a alimentos calóricos para crianças aumenta na Internet

Considerando que:

—
Apesar de vários marcas da indústria alimentar terem aderido a um compromisso europeu para não fazerem
publicidade em programas televisivos cuja audiência tenha, pelo menos, 35 % de crianças com menos de 12
anos, tem-se registado um aumento da mesma em sites na Internet — associado a motores de busca, redes
sociais, sites de música — ou ainda à colocação de produtos em programas de rádio e televisão, filmes e jogos
de computador;

—
Vários estudos confirmam a correlação entre a exposição à publicidade do produto com alto teor de gordura,
sal e açúcar e a obesidade infantil;

Pergunto à Comissão:

Perante as mudanças nas formas de anunciar, não considera a Comissão que os compromissos devem ser
permanentemente atualizados para se adotarem às novas realidades?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão Europeia está empenhada em resolver questões relacionadas com a publicidade aos alimentos com
elevado teor de gordura, sal e/ou açúcar destinados a crianças, uma vez que se trata de um domínio de ação
considerado prioritário pela estratégia da UE em matéria de problemas de saúde ligados à nutrição, ao excesso de peso
e à obesidade ( [1] ).

Os resultados do relatório de acompanhamento sobre o compromisso da UE de 2012 ( [2] ) mostram que a tendência na
publicidade televisiva continuou a descer, resultando numa diminuição de 73 % da exposição das crianças à
publicidade a alimentos e bebidas.

A Comissão considera que o compromisso e todos os compromissos voluntários semelhantes terão de ser atualizados
periodicamente. Com efeito, o compromisso já foi reforçado várias vezes, a fim de aumentar a cobertura e de modo a
incluir _sites_ de marcas industriais.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.eu-pledge.eu/sites/eu-pledge.eu/files/reports/EU_Pledge_2012_Monitoring_Report.pdf

C 65 E / 494 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008265/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Increased online advertising of high-calorie foods for children

Although several food industry brands have signed up to an EU agreement not to advertise during television
programmes where at least 35% of the audience consists of children below 12 years of age, there has been an increase
in advertising on Internet sites associated with search engines, social networks and music sites, and products have
been placed in radio and television programmes, films and computer games.

Several studies have confirmed that there is a correlation between exposure to advertising of products with high
sugar, salt and fat levels and childhood obesity.

Given that advertising methods are constantly changing, does the Commission believe that the agreements should be
continually updated in line with new situations?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

The European Commission is committed to addressing issues related to the advertising of foods high in fat, salt
and/or sugar to children, as this is an area for action highlighted by the 2007 EU Strategy on Nutrition, Overweight
and Obesity-related health issues ( [1] ).

The results of the EU Pledge 2012 Monitoring report ( [2] ) show that the downward trend in TV advertising has
continued, resulting in a decrease of 73% of children's exposure to food and drinks advertising.

The Commission considers that the Pledge and all similar voluntary commitments need to be regularly updated.
Indeed the Pledge has already been reinforced several times in particular to increase its coverage and to include
company-owned brand websites.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2007) 279.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.eu-pledge.eu/sites/eu-pledge.eu/files/reports/EU_Pledge_2012_Monitoring_Report.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 495

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008266/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Cientista português descobre fratura tectónica em formação ao longo da costa portuguesa

Considerando que:

—
Foi anunciada por um grupo internacional de cientistas, liderados por um geólogo português, a descoberta de
uma zona de subducção nas suas primeiras fases de formação (fenómeno em que uma placa tectónica da Terra
mergulha debaixo da outra);

—
Tal significa que, a confirmar-se o fenómeno, daqui a 200 milhões de anos, o oceano Atlântico poderá vir a
desaparecer e as massas continentais da Europa e da América poderão vir a juntar-se num supercontinente.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

Tem conhecimento deste importante estudo?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(13 de setembro de 2013)_

Sim, os resultados do estudo citado pelo Senhor Deputado foram comunicados nos meios de comunicação europeus.

C 65 E / 496 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008266/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Portuguese scientists discover a tectonic fault forming along the Portuguese coast

A group of international scientists led by a Portuguese geologist has announced the discovery of a subduction zone in
the early phases of formation (the phenomenon whereby one of the Earth’s tectonic plates slides under another).

If this phenomenon is confirmed, it suggests that the Atlantic Ocean could disappear in 200 million years’ time and
the European and American continental masses could join together to form a supercontinent.

Is the Commission aware of this important study?

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

_(13 September 2013)_

Yes, the results of the study mentioned by the Honorable Member have been well reported in European media.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 497

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008267/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Tratamento preventivo para o cancro da mama

Considerando que:

—
O Reino Unido vai disponibilizar tratamento preventivo com tamoxifeno e raloxifeno a mulheres com risco
elevado ou moderado de contraírem cancro da mama;

—
De acordo com o Instituto Nacional para a Excelência na Saúde e na Assistência Médica — que depende do
Ministério da Saúde britânico — uma dose diária do medicamento durante cinco anos reduz o risco de cancro
da mama em 40 por cento;

—
O Reino Unido torna-se assim no primeiro país europeu a receitar tamoxifeno e raloxifeno de forma
preventiva, apresentando uma alternativa à opção cirúrgica que tem sido considerada a mais segura para as
mulheres em situações de alto risco.

Pergunto à Comissão:

1. Como avalia a decisão do Reino Unido?

2. Considera pertinente um eventual alargamento indicativo deste tratamento preventivo aos restantes EstadosMembros da UE?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

A pergunta do Senhor Deputado diz respeito à utilização do tratamento preventivo com tamoxifeno e raloxifeno no
Reino Unido. Nos termos do artigo 168.° do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia, a organização e
prestação de serviços de saúde e de cuidados médicos é da responsabilidade de cada Estado‐Membro.

A Comissão promove o rastreio do cancro da mama através de programas de rastreio populacional, como descrito na
Recomendação do Conselho sobre a despistagem do cancro (2003), que define princípios de boas práticas para a
deteção precoce do cancro, e convida todos os Estados‐Membros a tomarem medidas comuns, a fim de
implementarem programas nacionais de rastreio populacional do cancro da mama, do colo do útero e colorretal,
com garantias de qualidade a todos os níveis. Com o objetivo de assistir os Estados‐Membros no âmbito do rastreio
do cancro, a Comissão publicou Orientações europeias para garantir a qualidade do rastreio do cancro do colo do
útero, do cancro da mama e do cancro colorretal.

C 65 E / 498 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008267/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Preventive treatment for breast cancer

The United Kingdom is going to make preventive treatment with tamoxifen and raloxifene available for women with
a high or moderate risk of developing breast cancer.

According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence — accountable to the Department of Health —
a daily dose of drugs for five years reduces the risk of breast cancer by 40%.

The United Kingdom is the first EU country to prescribe tamoxifen and raloxifene preventatively, providing an
alternative to surgery, which has been considered the safest approach for women at high risk.

1. What is the Commission’s opinion of the UK’s decision?

2. Does it believe that this preventive treatment should be recommended to EU Member States?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The question of the Honourable Member relates to the use of the preventive treatment with tamoxifen and raloxifene
in the United Kingdom. According to Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the
organisation and delivery of health services and medical care falls within the responsibility of each individual Member
State.

The Commission promotes breast cancer screening through population-based screening programmes as described in
the Council Recommendation on cancer screening (2003) which sets out principles of best practice in the early
detection of cancer. It invites all Member States to take common action to implement national population-based
screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer, with appropriate quality assurance at all levels. To
assist the Member States with cancer screening, the Commission has published European guidelines for quality
assurance in cervical cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 499

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008268/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Inundações na Índia

Considerando que:

—
De acordo com as autoridades indianas, as chuvas torrenciais de monção que estão a afetar a Índia já fizeram
mais de 1 000 mortos;

—
A região de Uttarakhand, no norte da Índia, tem sido especialmente afetada e os últimos balanços das
autoridades revelam que cerca de 19 000 pessoas estarão presas nas montanhas em áreas que não estão ao
alcance das operações de resgate.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

A UE pondera colocar algum tipo de mecanismo financeiro ao dispor do país e da região, para fazer face aos danos
causados pelas referidas inundações?

**Resposta dada por Kristalina Georgieva em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de agosto de 2013)_

Desde 14 de junho de 2013 que a chuva contínua e intensa (375 % acima da média de pluviosidade da monção) no
estado de Uttarakhand, no norte da Índia, provocou enormes deslizamentos de terras e enxurradas nos vales dos três
maiores rios, o Mandakini, o Alaknanda e o Bhagirathi, atingindo em especial os distritos de Rudraprayag, Chamoli e
Uttarkashi. As inundações em Rudraprayag foram agravadas pela rutura do lago glaciário de Vasukital, por cima de
Kedarnath. O total da população afetada nos distritos mais atingidos eleva-se a 964 000.

As inundações provocaram extensos danos de infraestruturas (estradas, pontes e edifícios). O número oficial de
mortos é de 1 000 e o número de pessoas desaparecidas situa-se entre os 3 000 e os 10 000, consoante as fontes. O
número de vítimas foi agravado pela presença de um grande número de peregrinos no local, com locais e rotas de
peregrinação atingidos em Kedarnath (distrito de Rudraprayag), Badrinath (distrito de Chamoli) e Gangotri (distrito de
Uttarkashi).

Assim que o acesso se tornou possível, a Comissão enviou uma missão ECHO às áreas atingidas. Esta missão analisou
as consequências do desastre e concluiu que as autoridades locais estavam a dar uma resposta significativa. As
necessidades humanitárias por satisfazer não eram muito grandes, apesar da enorme destruição de infraestruturas
essenciais, pelo que serão necessárias obras substanciais de reconstrução.

Sendo assim, uma semana após o desastre, a UE contribuiu com 130 000 euros para a IFRC (Federação Internacional
das Sociedades da Cruz Vermelha e do Crescente Vermelho), para suprir as maiores necessidades em termos de
assistência humanitária às vítimas das inundações. Esta assistência inclui tendas familiares e uma unidade de
tratamento de água, acompanhada por uma campanha de higiene.

Desde então, a Comissão acompanha de perto a evolução da situação.

C 65 E / 500 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008268/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Floods in India

According to the Indian authorities, the torrential monsoon rains striking India have already caused 1 000 deaths.

The northern Indian state of Uttarakhand has been particularly affected and the latest calculations by the authorities
suggest that approximately 19 000 people could be trapped in the mountains in areas beyond the reach of rescue
operations.

Is the EU considering making some kind of financial mechanism available to the country and the region to deal with
the damage caused by these floods?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

Starting on 14 June 2013, continuous and heavy rains (375% above the average monsoon rainfall) in Uttarakhand
state, northern India, resulted in devastating landslides and flash floods in the three major river valleys, the Mandakini,
Alaknanda, and Bhagirathi, affecting in particular the districts of Rudraprayag, Chamoli and Uttarkashi. Flooding in
Rudraprayag was exacerbated by the rupture of Vasukital glacial lake above Kedarnath. The total population of the
three most-affected districts is 964,000.

The floods resulted in extensive infrastructure destruction (roads, bridges, buildings). The official death toll is over
1,000 and the number of missing persons between 3.000 and 10.000, depending on the sources. The human toll was
exacerbated by the large number of pilgrims present in the area at the time, with pilgrimage sites and routes affected
in Kedarnath (Rudraprayag district), Badrinath (Chamoli district) and Gangotri (Uttarkashi district).

As soon as access was possible, the Commission deployed an ECHO mission to the affected areas. It analysed the
consequences of the disaster and concluded that there was a significant response in place led by national authorities.
The identified unmet humanitarian needs were not vast, despite massive damage to key infrastructure and thus
substantial reconstruction work would be needed.

Hence, within a week after the disaster the EU contributed EUR 130 000 to the IFRC (International Federation of the
Red Cross/Crescent) to address outstanding needs in terms of humanitarian assistance to the victims of the floods.
This assistance includes family tents and a Water Treatment Unit backed up by a hygiene campaign.

The Commission has since been closely monitoring the evolution of the situation.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 501

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008269/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Incêndios na Indonésia

Considerando que:

—
Vários incêndios na ilha de Sumatra, na Indonésia, que poderão ter sido deliberadamente ateados para abrir
espaço à plantação de palmeiras para extração de óleo, atingiram nos últimos dias proporções pouco habituais;

—
O fumo proveniente dos incêndios levou o Governo de Singapura a apelar para que a população permanecesse
em ambientes fechados devido à má qualidade do ar;

—
O Presidente da Indonésia, Susilo Yudhoyono afirmou que o seu país assumirá a responsabilidade pelo
sucedido e que será firme para com os eventuais causadores de centenas de focos de incêndio que lavram nas
florestas de Sumatra.

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

—
Tem conhecimento desta situação?

— Como a avalia?

**Resposta dada por Connie Hedegaard em nome da Comissão**

_(28 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão está ciente de que a Indonésia, Singapura e partes da Malásia foram afetadas por incêndios florestais. A
qualidade do ar em Singapura deteriorou-se, atingindo os piores níveis jamais registados na ilha.

A Comissão tem vindo, desde há muitos anos, a incentivar e apoiar os esforços para enfrentar o problema dos
incêndios florestais na Indonésia através da execução de projetos para avaliar as causas dos incêndios e reforçar as
capacidades a nível provincial nas zonas mais expostas a este flagelo. Através da Delegação da UE em Jacarta e da sua
participação em iniciativas multilaterais como o Programa de Cooperação das Nações Unidas para a Redução das
Emissões Resultantes da Desflorestação e da Degradação Florestal nos Países em Desenvolvimento (Unredd), o
Mecanismo de Parceria do Carbono Florestal e o EU REDD, a Comissão está a apoiar tanto os processos FLEGT como
REDD + na Indonésia, que têm respetivamente como objetivos a promoção da transparência e da legalidade no setor
florestal — que é fundamental para prevenir incêndios uma vez que o problema resulta, em larga medida, de uma
gestão inadequada e de um controlo insuficiente do respeito pela regulamentação que proíbe o desbravamento de
florestas pela técnica da queimada — e a introdução de incentivos positivos para a redução das emissões de CO 2
provenientes da desflorestação.

C 65 E / 502 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008269/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fires in Indonesia

Fires on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia, which may have been started deliberately to clear space for palm oil
plantations, have reached unusual levels in recent days.

The smoke caused by the fires has prompted the Government of Singapore to advise the public to remain indoors due
to the poor air quality.

The President of Indonesia, Susilo Yudhoyono, has said that his country will take responsibility and punish anyone
found to have set the hundreds of fires that are sweeping through the Sumatran forests.

— Is the Commission aware of this situation?

— What does it think of it?

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

_(28 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware that Indonesia, Singapore, and parts of Malaysia have been suffering from forest fires. Air
quality levels in Singapore have deteriorated to the worst levels ever recorded on the island.

Already for many years the Commission has encouraged and supported efforts to address forest fires in Indonesia by
implementing projects assessing the underlying causes of the fires and building capacities at provincial level in fire
prone areas. Through the EU Delegation in Jakarta and its involvement in multilateral initiatives such as UNREDD,
the Forest Carbon Partnership and the EU REDD Facilities, the Commission is currently supporting both the
Indonesian FLEGT and REDD+ processes, which respectively promote transparency and legality in the forest sector ‐
which is key to prevent fires since the problem is very much the result of inadequate governance and enforcement of
regulations that forbid the conversion of forests through slash and burn methods‐ and develop positive incentives to
reduce CO 2 emissions from deforestation.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 503

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008270/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Efeitos dos aerossóis na atmosfera

Considerando o seguinte:

—
Um estudo publicado pelo Instituto de Meteorologia britânico indica que as pequenas partículas atmosféricas
libertadas pelos aerossóis, produzidos pela atividade humana, podem ter influenciado a formação de nuvens,
levando a uma redução das tempestades tropicais no Atlântico Norte, ao longo do século XX;

—
De acordo com os autores do estudo, ao influenciar a formação de nuvens sobre o Atlântico Norte e, deste
modo, reduzindo a temperatura na superfície do mar, os aerossóis alteraram a circulação atmosférica tropical;

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Possui a Comissão algum estudo equivalente que comprove a referida teoria?

—
Como avalia as conclusões apresentadas e o seu impacto no estudo das alterações climáticas?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

O artigo publicado recentemente na revista _Nature Geoscience (_ [1] _)_ analisa o impacto das pequenas partículas libertadas
para a atmosfera e resultantes de atividades humanas («aerossóis antropogénicos») na formação das tempestades
tropicais.

A principal conclusão deste estudo é que o aumento dos níveis de aerossóis (como se observou, por exemplo, em
meados do século passado) reduz as tempestades no Atlântico Norte. Este trabalho beneficiou de financiamento da
UE através do projeto THOR ( [2] ).

O efeito dos aerossóis antropogénicos no sistema climático depende de muitas incertezas ( [3] ). Estas devem-se à elevada
variabilidade regional e temporal dos aerossóis e ao caráter incompleto dos dados de observação, bem como à
complexidade dos processos físicos subjacentes, nomeadamente no que respeita à influência dos aerossóis na
formação das nuvens. Diversos projetos de investigação financiados pela UE incidiram neste tema, através de estudos
de campo e modelos climáticos ( [4] ).

A publicação supracitada contribui para estes esforços e salienta a pertinência destas atividades de investigação,
salientando a importância dos aerossóis antropogénicos para as tempestades.

O estudo sugere que um esforço internacional destinado a reduzir as incertezas associadas aos impactos dos aerossóis
no clima poderia acelerar novos progressos. De acordo com esta recomendação, a Comissão está prestes a lançar um
conjunto de projetos de investigação que focam, designadamente, o papel dos aerossóis no sistema climático ( [5] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Dunstone et al., _Nature Geoscience_, vol. 6, p. 534, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1854

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) «Thermohaline Overturning — at Risk?»

www.eu-thor.eu

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) _IPCC Fourth Assessment Report_, 2007

http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) e.g. AMMA «African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis»

www.amma-eu.org
e Euclipse «EU Cloud Intercomparison, Process Study and Evaluation Project»
www.euclipse.eu

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) Na sequência do convite FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage-6.1-2 «Atmospheric processes, eco-systems and climate change».

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

⋅5∙ **|** )

C 65 E / 504 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008270/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ The effect of aerosols on the atmosphere

A study published by the UK Met Office suggests that microscopic particles released into the air by human activity
form aerosols that may have affected cloud formation during the 20th century and caused tropical storms in the
North Atlantic to decline.

According to the study’s authors, aerosols change tropical atmospheric circulation by affecting cloud formation over
the North Atlantic, thereby reducing the surface temperature of the sea.

— Does the Commission have any equivalent study that supports this theory?

— What is its assessment of the study’s conclusions and how they impact on research into climate change?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

The article published recently in Nature Geoscience ( [1] ) investigates the impact of small particles released into the
atmosphere from human activities (‘anthropogenic aerosol’) on the development of tropical storms.

The main conclusion of this study is that increased levels of aerosols (as observed e.g. in the mid of the last century)
reduce storm activity in the North Atlantic. This work profited from EU funding through the project THOR ( [2] ).

The effect of anthropogenic aerosols on the climate system is subject to large uncertainty ( [3] ). This is due to the high
regional and temporal variability of aerosols and incomplete observational data, as well as the complex nature of the
underlying physical processes, in particular regarding the influence of aerosols on cloud formation. A number of EU
funded research projects have targeted this topic through field studies and climate models ( [4] ).

The abovementioned publication adds to these efforts and stresses the relevance of these research activities by
highlighting the importance of anthropogenic aerosols on storm activity.

The study suggests that ‘further progress might be accelerated by an international effort to narrow the uncertainties in
aerosol impacts on climate’. In line with this recommendation, the Commission is about to launch a cluster of
research projects focusing in particular on the role of aerosols in the climate system ( [5] ).

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )
⋅4∙ **|** )

⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) [Dunstone et al., Nature Geoscience, vol 6, p. 534, 2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1854).](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1854)
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) [‘Thermohaline Overturning — at Risk?’ (www.eu-thor.eu).](http://www.eu-thor.eu/)
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 (http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html).](http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html)
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) [e.g. AMMA ‘African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis’ (www.amma-eu.org) and EUCLIPSE ‘EU Cloud Intercomparison, Process Study and](http://www.amma-eu.org/)

Evaluation Project’ (www.euclipse.eu) .

( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) following the call FP7-ENV-2013-two-stage-6.1-2 ‘Atmospheric processes, eco-systems and climate change’.

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 505

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008271/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ações europeias são o único caminho

Recentemente, o banco americano Citybank, referiu que acredita numa valorização superior a 20 % até final de 2014
das ações europeias. O banco norte-americano recomenda aproveitar quedas no mercado para reforçar a exposição a
ações europeias na segunda metade do ano.

Pergunto à Comissão:

Que previsão faz acerca do assunto descrito?

**Resposta dada por Olli Rehn em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de setembro de 2013)_

Os serviços da Comissão não fazem previsões no que se refere à evolução das ações.

C 65 E / 506 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008271/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ European stocks are the only way

The US bank Citibank recently reported that it expected a return of over 20% on European stocks by the end of 2014.
The US bank recommends taking advantage of dips in the market to increase exposure to European stocks in the
second half of the year.

What is the Commission’s forecast in this regard?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The Commission services do not forecast the evolution of stocks.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 507

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008272/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Bazedoxifeno — tratamento do cancro da mama

O bazedoxifeno pertence a uma classe de fármacos conhecidos como modeladores específicos de recetores de
estrogénio, e é frequentemente utilizado para o tratamento da osteoporose.

Um estudo levado a cabo pelo Instituto do Cancro do Centro Médico da Universidade de Duke, concluiu que o
bazedoxifeno consegue também deter o crescimento das células do cancro da mama, incluindo dos cancros que se
tornaram resistentes às terapias atuais.

Os resultados do estudo indicam que o fármaco inibiu o crescimento tanto das células do cancro da mama
dependentes do estrogénio como das que desenvolveram resistência ao antiestrogénio tamoxifeno e aos inibidores da
aromatase, dois dos medicamentos mais utilizados no combate a esta doença.

Assim, pergunto à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento deste estudo?

2. Como avalia as conclusões apresentadas?

**Resposta dada por Máire Geoghegan-Quinn em nome da Comissão**

_(23 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão tem conhecimento da investigação a que se refere o Senhor Deputado, apresentada na 95. [a] reunião anual
da Sociedade de Endocrinologia (ENDO 2013) ( [1] ), que estudou os efeitos do bazedoxifeno — um modulador
específico de recetores de estrogénio — em modelos preditivos do cancro da mama. A comercialização do
bazedoxifeno foi autorizada pela Agência Europeia de Medicamentos em 2009 ( [2] ) para o tratamento da osteoporose
pós-menopáusica em mulheres com um risco de fratura acrescido.

Os autores apresentaram os resultados obtidos utilizando modelos celulares e modelos de xenoenxertos de cancro da
mama. Serão necessários mais estudos para avaliar o potencial terapêutico do bazedoxifeno em doentes com cancro
da mama em estádio avançado.

A proposta da Comissão relativa ao Horizonte 2020 — o Programa-Quadro de Investigação e Inovação (20142020) ( [3] ) — oferecerá oportunidades para abordar a investigação de estratégios terapêuticas contra o cancro.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ENDO 2013, 15-18 de junho de 2013, San Francisco (EUA)

https://endo.confex.com/endo/2013endo/webprogram/Paper6289.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?

curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000913/human_med_000723.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-documents

( **|**

( **|**

C 65 E / 508 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008272/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Bazedoxifene — breast cancer treatment

Bazedoxifene belongs to a class of drugs known as selective oestrogen receptor modulators, and is often used in the
treatment of osteoporosis.

A study conducted by the Duke Cancer Institute (Duke University School of Medicine) has found that bazedoxifene
can also stop the growth of breast cancer cells, even in cancers that have become resistant to current therapies.

The results of the study indicate that the drug inhibited growth both in oestrogen-dependent breast cancer cells and in
cells that had developed resistance to the oestrogen antagonist tamoxifen and to aromatase inhibitors, two of the
most widely used drugs to combat this disease.

1. Is the Commission aware of this study?

2. How does it view its findings?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the research mentioned by the Honourable Member, presented at the 95th Endocrine
Society's Annual Meeting (ENDO 2013) ( [1] ) that studied the effects of bazedoxifene — a selective oestrogen receptor
modulator — on predictive models of breast cancer. Bazedoxifene was granted marketing authorisation by the
European Medicines Agency in 2009 ( [2] ) for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis in women at increased risk
of fracture.

The authors presented results using cellular and xenograft models of breast cancer. Further research is required to
assess the therapeutic potential of bazedoxifene in advanced breast cancer patients.

The Commission's proposal for Horizon 2020 — The framework Programme for Research and Innovation (20142020) ( [3] ) will offer opportunities to address research on therapeutic strategies against cancer.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ENDO 2013, 15-18 June 2013 San Francisco (USA) https://endo.confex.com/endo/2013endo/webprogram/Paper6289.html
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?

curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000913/human_med_000723.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm?pg=h2020-documents

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 509

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008274/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Bruxelas investiga petrolíferas

Considerando o seguinte:

—
Os escritórios da Platts, principal agência cujas plataformas servem de base à formação de preços de referência
dos produtos petrolíferos, em Londres, foram alvos de buscas por parte de inspetores europeus da
concorrência, em maio;

—
No mesmo dia, as sedes britânicas da BP e da Shell e da Noruega Statoil foram visitadas por inspetores no
âmbito de uma investigação europeia por suspeitas de manipulação de reporte de preços junto da Platts;

Pergunto à Comissão:

A Comissão receia que as referidas empresas possam ter atuado em conluio no reporte de preços distorcidos com o
objetivo de manipular os preços publicados em vários produtos petrolíferos e de biocombustíveis?

**Resposta dada por Joaquín Almunia em nome da Comissão**

_(9 de setembro de 2013)_

A Comissão pode confirmar que realizou, em maio de 2013, inspeções nas instalações de diversas empresas que
operam e são prestadoras de serviços nos setores petrolífero, dos produtos petrolíferos refinados e dos
biocombustíveis.

A Comissão receia que as empresas possam ter-se concertado para comunicar uma distorção dos preços a uma
agência de comunicação de preços, no intuito de manipular os preços publicados de uma série de produtos
petrolíferos e biocombustíveis. Além disso, a Comissão receia que essas empresas possam ter impedido outras de
participar no processo de avaliação de preços com o objetivo de distorcer os preços publicados.

As informações obtidas pela Comissão ainda terão de ser analisadas, pelo que é extemporâneo querer extrair
conclusões sobre o resultado da investigação. A duração do inquérito depende de certos fatores, nomeadamente a
complexidade do caso, a medida em que as empresas em causa cooperarem com a Comissão e o exercício dos seus
direitos de defesa. A Comissão procurará concluir o inquérito o mais rapidamente possível. Nesta fase, é ainda
demasiado cedo para avaliar se e por quanto tempo os consumidores podem ter sido afetados pela alegada infração.

C 65 E / 510 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008274/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Brussels investigates oil companies

Platts, the main agency whose benchmarks are used for setting reference prices for oil products, had its offices in
London searched by EU anti-trust inspectors in May.

On the same day, the British headquarters of BP and Shell and the headquarters of Statoil in Norway were visited by
inspectors as part of an EU investigation into suspected manipulation of the prices reported to Platts.

Does the Commission fear that these companies may have acted in collusion in reporting distorted prices to
manipulate the published prices of various oil and biofuel products?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

The Commission can confirm that, in May 2013, it carried out inspections in the premises of several companies
active in and providing services to the crude oil, refined oil products and biofuels sectors. The Commission has
concerns that the companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a Price Reporting Agency to
manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products. Furthermore, the Commission has concerns
that the companies may have prevented others from participating in the price assessment process, with a view to
distorting published prices.

The information obtained by the Commission will now need to be analysed and it is too early to draw conclusions
about the outcome of the investigation. The duration of an investigation depends on a number of factors, including
the complexity of the case, the extent to which the companies concerned cooperate with the Commission and their
exercise of the rights of defence. The Commission will seek to finalise the investigation as quickly as possible. It is at
this stage too early to assess whether and for how long consumers may have been affected by the alleged
infringement.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 511

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008275/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Planos de segurança alimentar

Considerando que:

—
Portugal não consegue cumprir o Plano Nacional de Controlo Plurianual Integrado — que engloba os 36
planos de segurança alimentar — imposto pela União Europeia, devido a dificuldades financeiras que afetam os
laboratórios;

—
Anualmente, milhares de amostras de alimentos recolhidas no âmbito dos planos nacionais de controlo de
resíduos e de pesticidas acabam por ser destruídas porque não há resposta dos laboratórios;

—
Existe um longo intervalo entre a recolha da amostra e a obtenção do resultado das análises, o que significa que
mesmo que seja detetado algum problema, o produto em causa já desapareceu das prateleiras das lojas;

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
Que análise faz a Comissão da situação descrita acima?

—
Não considera que há necessidade de implementar uma estratégia global?

**Resposta dada por Tonio Borg em nome da Comissão**

_(14 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão está consciente das preocupações relativas ao desempenho dos laboratórios referidas pelo Senhor
Deputado, as quais foram repetidamente identificadas aquando das auditorias efetuadas pelos peritos do Serviço
Alimentar e Veterinário da Comissão (SAV) ( [1] ) em Portugal.

Para além das recomendações específicas dirigidas ao setor, destinadas a resolver os problemas identificados, a
Comissão sugeriu que as autoridades portuguesas desenvolvessem uma estratégia laboratorial global, a fim de
responder à natureza prolongada e generalizada das dificuldades encontradas.

A Comissão tem conhecimento de que foi confiada a um grupo de trabalho a missão de identificar as opções para a
reestruturação do atual funcionamento dos laboratórios, tendo recentemente solicitado a Portugal informações sobre
os trabalhos desenvolvidos. A Comissão acompanhará de perto a evolução nesta matéria.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/SAV/index_pt.cfm

C 65 E / 512 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008275/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Food safety plans

— Portugal cannot comply with the integrated multi-annual national control plan — which includes 36 food safety
plans — imposed by the European Union, due to financial difficulties affecting laboratories.

— Each year thousands of food samples collected as part of national residue and pesticide control plans end up being
destroyed because there is no response from laboratories.

— There is a long interval between sampling and obtaining the result of the analyses, which means that even if a
problem is detected, the product in question has already disappeared from store shelves.

— How does the Commission view this situation?

— Does it not believe there is a need to implement a global strategy?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the concerns about laboratory performance referred to by the Honourable Member,
which were repeatedly identified in audits carried out by experts of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office
(FVO) ( [1] ) in Portugal.

In addition to the sector-specific recommendations made to resolve the issues identified, the Commission suggested
that the Portuguese authorities develop a comprehensive laboratory strategy to address the longstanding and
generalised nature of the difficulties encountered.

The Commission is aware that a working group was tasked with the identification of options for the restructuring of
the current functioning of laboratories, and has recently requested feedback from Portugal on its progress.
Developments in this regard will be closely followed by the Commission.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 513

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008276/13**

**à Comissão**
**Nuno Melo (PPE)**
_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Armas de fogo na UE

A Comissão Europeia negociou, em nome da UE, o Protocolo das Nações relativo às armas de fogo, ratificado por
muitos Estados-Membros, que proíbe o fabrico ilegal de armas e a sua transferência entre Estados sem o
consentimento destes.

Pergunto à Comissão:

—
A UE implementa algum plano de ação para combater o comércio ilegal de armas?

**Resposta dada por Cecilia Malmström em nome da Comissão**

_(29 de agosto de 2013)_

A Comissão apresentará ao Parlamento Europeu e ao Conselho uma Comunicação sobre armas de fogo e segurança
interna da UE: proteger os cidadãos e impedir o tráfico ilícito, até ao final do ano.

A Comunicação fará o ponto da situação, de uma perspetiva da aplicação da lei, das medidas existentes na UE para
reduzir o tráfico de armas de fogo e indicar a forma como a Comissão pretende tomar novas medidas neste âmbito.
Essas medidas podem incluir a revisão das regras do mercado interno sobre a circulação de armas de fogo civis, ações
contra o tráfico internacional, em especial proveniente dos Balcãs Ocidentais, medidas de desativação, o Plano de
Ação Europeu de 2011 de luta contra o tráfico de armas de fogo ditas «pesadas» (adotado durante a Presidência belga
do Conselho) e a participação em iniciativas internacionais, em especial o Protocolo das Nações Unidas relativo às
armas de fogo. Será analisada a forma como as medidas existentes em matéria de aplicação da lei (por exemplo, a
atividade da Europol neste domínio) podem ser reforçadas mediante recurso à legislação em vigor e ao financiamento
disponível.

C 65 E / 514 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008276/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Melo (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Firearms in the EU

The Commission negotiated the UN Protocol on firearms on behalf of the EU. It was ratified by many Member States
and prohibits the illicit manufacturing of firearms and their transfer between states without the consent of all states
involved.

— Is the EU implementing an action plan to combat the illegal firearms trade?

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

_(29 August 2013)_

The Commission will submit to the European Parliament and the Council a communication on Firearms and the
internal security of the EU: protecting citizens and disrupting illegal trafficking by the end of the year.

The communication will take stock, from a law enforcement perspective, of existing EU actions to reduce trafficking
in firearms and present how the Commission sees future steps in this area. These may include the review of internal
market rules on the movement of civil firearms, further actions against international trafficking in particular from the
western Balkans, deactivation measures, the 2011 EU Action plan to combat illegal trafficking in so-called ‘heavy’
firearms (adopted under the Belgian Council Presidency), and participation in international initiatives in particular the
UN Firearms Protocol. It will consider how existing law enforcement actions (e.g. Europol’s activity in this field) can
be strengthened using existing legislation and funding.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 515

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008277/13**

**komissiolle**
**Mitro Repo (S&D)**
_(10. heinäkuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Suomen perimät meriliikenteen väylämaksut

Komissio ei pystynyt vastaamaan edustajakollegani kirjalliseen kysymykseen (E‐008173/2011) liittyen Suomen EU:n
lainsäädännön periaatteiden mukaisesti virheellisesti kantamien väylämaksujen palauttamisesta ulkomaisille
liikenteenharjoittajille.

1. Katsooko komissio, että Suomen on EU:n lainsäädännön nojalla palautettava virheellisesti kannetut
väylämaksut?

2. Mihin toimiin komissio on ryhtynyt kyseisen tapauksen johdosta?

3. Katsooko komissio, että Suomen perimät väylämaksut ovat sisämarkkinasääntöjen mukaisia?

**Siim Kallasin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(22. elokuuta 2013)_

Komission aloittaman rikkomismenettelyn seurauksena Suomessa säädettiin väylämaksulaki 1122/2005 ja
kumottiin Suomen aikaisempi laki, joka syrji kansainvälisessä liikenteessä purjehtivia aluksia. Näin ollen komissio
katsoo, että uuden lain tultua voimaan 1. tammikuuta 2006 Suomen väylämaksujärjestelmä on EU:n lainsäädännön
ja erityisesti palvelujen tarjoamisen vapauden periaatteen soveltamisesta jäsenvaltioiden väliseen meriliikenteeseen
sekä jäsenvaltioiden ja kolmansien maiden väliseen meriliikenteeseen annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY)
N:o 4055/86 ( [1] ) säännöksien mukainen.

Mitä tulee ennen 1. tammikuuta 2006 kannettujen väylämaksujen palautuksiin, kunkin jäsenvaltion asiana on
oikeusjärjestyksessään laatia palautuksia koskevat säännöt ja menettelyt. Kuitenkaan menettelysäännöt sellaisia
oikeussuojakeinoja varten, joilla pyritään turvaamaan unionin oikeuteen perustuvat yksityisten oikeudet, eivät saa
olla epäedullisempia kuin ne, jotka koskevat samankaltaisia jäsenvaltion sisäiseen oikeuteen perustuvia vaatimuksia
(vastaavuusperiaate), eivätkä ne saa olla sellaisia, että yhteisön oikeusjärjestyksessä vahvistettujen oikeuksien
käyttäminen on käytännössä mahdotonta tai suhteettoman vaikeaa (tehokkuusperiaate).

Komissio katsoo, että maksujen palauttaminen on ratkaistu Suomen korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden antamassa
tuomiossa KHO 2009:99.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EYVL L 378, 31.12.1986.

C 65 E / 516 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008277/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mitro Repo (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Fairway dues levied by Finland on maritime traffic

The Commission was not in a position to answer the written question by my colleague (E-008173/2011) concerning
the refund to foreign transport operators of fairway dues which, under the principles of EC law, Finland had wrongly
charged.

1. Does the Commission consider that, in the light of EC law, Finland should refund fairway dues that have been
wrongly charged?

2. What measures has the Commission taken as a result of this case?

3. Does the Commission consider that the fairway dues charged by Finland are compatible with the rules of the
single market?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

Following an infringement procedure initiated by the Commission Finland adopted an Act on Fairway Dues
1122/2005 that repealed the former Finnish law which discriminated ships engaged in international trade. Therefore,
the Commission considers that since the entry into force of the new law, i.e. 1 January 2006, the regime of fairway
dues in Finland is in line with the provisions of EC law, and in particular of Council Regulation 4055/86/EEC applying
the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member
States and third countries ( [1] ).

As far as any refund of fairway dues charged before 1 January 2006 is concerned, it is for the domestic legal system of
each Member State to lay down rules and procedures governing such actions. Nevertheless, the detailed procedural
rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under European Union law must be no less favourable
than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render impossible in practice
or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by European Union law (principle of effectiveness).

The Commission considers that the issue of repayment of charges has been settled by the ruling KHO 2009:99 of the
Finnish Supreme Administrative Court.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 517

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης P-008279/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(10 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Τουρκία και Διατλαντική Εταιρική Σχέση Εμπορίου και Επενδύσεων (TTIP)

Σχετικά με τις διαπραγματεύσεις για τη Διατλαντική Εταιρική Σχέση Εμπορίου και Επενδύσεων μεταξύ ΕΕ και ΗΠΑ, η
Τουρκία εξέφρασε το ενδιαφέρον της να συμμετάσχει στη συμφωνία, παρότι δεν είναι πλήρες μέλος της ΕΕ. Επιπλέον,
υπενθυμίζεται στην Επιτροπή ότι η Τουρκία δεν έχει συμμορφωθεί με παλαιότερες εμπορικές συμφωνίες, όπως η Συμφωνία
Τελωνειακής Ένωσης με την ΕΕ, με αποτέλεσμα η Τουρκία να αρνείται να εφαρμόσει τις απαιτήσεις για έναρξη εξομάλυνσης
των σχέσεων με τη Δημοκρατία της Κύπρου και άνοιγμα των λιμανιών και των αεροδρομίων της για την Κύπρο.

Με βάση τα ανωτέρω, και δεδομένου του γεγονότος ότι η Τουρκία παραβιάζει τακτικά τις αρχές περί δικαιοσύνης και
ισότητας των διεθνών εμπορικών σχέσεων, θα μπορούσε η Επιτροπή να λάβει θέση σχετικά με τις επιδιώξεις της Τουρκίας για
προνομιακή μεταχείριση στο πλαίσιο της TTIP;

**Απάντηση του κ. De Gucht εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(19 Αυγούστου 2013)_

Σύμφωνα με την τελωνειακή ένωση ΕΕ-Τουρκίας, η Τουρκία έχει δεσμευθεί να συμμορφωθεί με την εμπορική πολιτική της ΕΕ.
Αυτό περιλαμβάνει, μεταξύ άλλων, τη σύναψη εκ μέρους της Τουρκίας συμφωνιών ελευθέρων συναλλαγών με τους εταίρους
των συμφωνιών ελεύθερων συναλλαγών (ΣΕΣ) της ΕΕ. Μέχρι στιγμής η Τουρκία εισέρχεται σε διαπραγματεύσεις και συνάπτει
τις συμφωνίες αυτές μόνη της και χωριστά από την ΕΕ. Η Τουρκία ουδέποτε υπήρξε συνδεδεμένη με διαπραγματεύσεις για τη
σύναψη συμφωνιών ελεύθερων συναλλαγών που διεξήγαγε η Επιτροπή εξ ονόματος της ΕΕ.

Δεν θα υπάρξει πολιτική απόκλιση στο πλαίσιο της διατλαντικής εμπορικής και επενδυτικής εταιρικής σχέσης (TTIP).

Ωστόσο, θα πρέπει να διευκρινιστεί ότι η Τουρκία δεν ζήτησε να αποτελέσει μέρος της TTIP, παρά να διαπραγματευθεί μια
παράλληλη ΣΕΣ με τις ΗΠΑ. Η Επιτροπή υποστηρίζει το εν λόγω αίτημα.

C 65 E / 518 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008279/13**

**to the Commission**

**Niki Tzavela (EFD)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Turkey and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

With regard to the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US,
Turkey has stated its interest in joining the agreement, despite not being a full member of the EU. Furthermore, the
Commission is reminded that Turkey has failed to comply with previous trade agreements, such as the Customs
Union Agreement with the EU, whereby Turkey has refused to implement the requirements of beginning to normalise
relations with the Republic of Cyprus and opening its ports and airports to Cyprus.

In light of the above, and given the fact that Turkey regularly violates the principle of fairness and equity in
international trade relations, could the Commission indicate its position concerning Turkey’s aspirations for
preferential treatment under the TTIP?

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

_(19 August 2013)_

In accordance with the EU-Turkey Customs Union Turkey is committed to align with the EU commercial policy. This
includes _inter alia_ the conclusion by Turkey of free trade agreements with the EU Free Trade Agreements (FTA)
partners. So far Turkey enters into negotiations and concludes such agreements on its own and separately from
the EU. Turkey has never been associated to FTA negotiations carried out by the Commission on behalf of the EU.

There will be no policy deviation under the the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

However, it should be clarified that Turkey has not requested to be a party to the TTIP, but rather to negotiate a
parallel FTA with the USA. The Commission supports this request.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 519

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-008280/13**

**alla Commissione**
**David-Maria Sassoli (S&D)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Agevolare l'integrazione e l'accesso alla cittadinanza per i figli degli immigrati nati o cresciuti in Stati membri
dell'Unione europea

Visti gli articoli 21 e 24 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, l'articolo 2 del TFUE nonché gli
articoli 9, 10 e 79 dello stesso, e l'articolo 123 del suo regolamento interno;

considerando che l'Unione europea è una comunità di valori basata sul rispetto e sulla promozione dei diritti
fondamentali sanciti dalla Carta europea, tra cui i diritti di tutti i bambini ad essere protetti, rispettati e non
discriminati; che la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione vincola tutte le autorità pubbliche e istituzioni private a
prendere in considerazione l'interesse superiore del bambino come prevalente in tutti le politiche correlate ai
bambini; e che milioni di bambini di origine non europea sono nati o cresciuti in parte negli Stati membri dell'UE
fianco a fianco con i bambini della loro età dell'UE, mentre il loro accesso alla cittadinanza è spesso lungo e difficile,
cosa che genera discriminazioni e ingiustizia e ostacola i processi di integrazione,

può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

1. Non ritiene di dover promuovere e sostenere sforzi specifici da parte degli Stati membri volti a facilitare la piena
integrazione dei bambini immigrati nelle società europee, anche promuovendo la loro parità di accesso e di
partecipazione in tutte le sfere della società, dalla scuola alla salute, ai media, alla cultura, allo sport e al
benessere?

2. Non ritiene di dover incoraggiare gli Stati membri, nel quadro delle loro competenze specifiche, a promuovere
processi di integrazione per i bambini immigrati residenti nel loro territorio, anche facilitando l'accesso alla
cittadinanza per i figli degli immigrati nati sul territorio degli Stati membri, i cui genitori sono residenti a lungo
termine?

3. Non ritiene che la cittadinanza sia una componente fondamentale di un approccio dell'Unione europea in
materia di integrazione, in particolare riguardo ai bambini immigrati, al fine di garantire loro piena uguaglianza
e non discriminazione?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(7 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione concorda con l'onorevole parlamentare che l'integrazione richiede attenzione e investimenti fin
dalle prime fasi. L'integrazione è un processo a più dimensioni che va affrontato tramite una vasta gamma di misure
politiche che coinvolgano attori di vari settori (occupazione, alloggio, sanità, istruzione ecc.) e, innanzitutto, la
comunità locale.

Investire in un'istruzione e cura della prima infanzia di alta qualità è cruciale, poiché è in questa fase che si gettano le
basi del successivo apprendimento e dei futuri risultati. Le ricerche hanno dimostrato che il livello di istruzione
raggiunto dagli studenti migranti è relativamente superiore nei paesi che presentano livelli bassi di diseguaglianza
economica, investimenti elevati nella cura dell'infanzia e un sistema ben sviluppato di educazione prescolare, e che la
mancanza di un sostegno nelle scuole costituisce la forma più significativa di discriminazione nell'istruzione dei
bambini migranti ( [1] ).

La cittadinanza è spesso considerata uno strumento per ottenere diritti e integrazione e, nonostante si tratti di una
questione di competenza nazionale, è necessario discuterne ulteriormente a livello europeo. Per questa ragione il
prossimo Forum europeo sull'integrazione (26-27 novembre 2013) sarà dedicato soprattutto alla cittadinanza.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) «Education and Migration. Strategies for integrating migrant children in European schools», a synthesis report of research results for policy
makers, 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/education_migration_nesse.pdf

C 65 E / 520 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008280/13**

**to the Commission**
**David-Maria Sassoli (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Facilitating integration and the acquisition of citizenship for immigrant children born or brought up in EU
Member States

The frame of reference for the above subject is provided by Articles 21 and 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights, Articles 2, 9, 10, and 79 of the TFEU, and Rule 123 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

The European Union is founded on shared values and on respect for, and the promotion of, the fundamental rights set
out in the Charter, including the right which all children have to be protected and respected, without suffering
discrimination. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights imposes an obligation on all public authorities and private
institutions to make children’s best interests the primary consideration in all policies relating to children. Millions of
children of non-European origin are born, or spend part of their formative years, in EU Member States, living
alongside EU children of the same age; that notwithstanding, they often have to go through a lengthy and difficult
procedure in order to obtain citizenship, a fact which gives rise to discrimination and injustice and impedes
integration processes.

1. Does the Commission not believe that it should encourage and support specific efforts by Member States to
help immigrant children integrate fully into European societies, not least by affording them equal opportunities to
enter, and participate in, every sphere of society, from school to health, the media, the arts, sport, and welfare?

2. Does it not believe that it should encourage Member States, within their specific areas of responsibility, to foster
the integration of immigrant children living on their territory, not least by helping them to acquire citizenship,
assuming that their parents are long-term residents?

3. Does it not believe that citizenship should be an essential element of any EU approach to integration intended to
ensure that immigrant children in particular will enjoy complete equality without discrimination?

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

_(7 August 2013)_

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that integration requires attention and investment from the
early stage. Integration is a multidimensional process that needs to be tackled by a variety of policy measures
involving actors from different areas (employment, housing, health, education etc.) and, first and foremost, the local
community.

Investing in quality early childhood education and care is crucial, as it is at this stage that the foundations are laid for
subsequent learning and achievements. Research has shown that the educational attainment of migrant students is
comparatively higher in countries with lower levels of economic inequality, high investments in childcare and a welldeveloped system of preschool education and that a denied support in schools is the most significant form of
discrimination in the education of migrant children ( [1] ).

Citizenship is often considered as a gateway to rights and integration and, although it is a national competence, there
is further need to discuss the issue at European level. This is the reason why the next European Integration Forum (2627 November 2013) will focus on citizenship.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Education and Migration. Strategies for integrating migrant children in European schools’, a synthesis report of research results for policy-makers,
2008. http://ec.europa.eu/culture/documents/education_migration_nesse.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 521

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej P-008281/13**

**do Komisji**
**Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)**

_(10 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Propozycja nowego rozporządzenia dotyczącego połowów stad głębinowych na północno-wschodnim
Atlantyku

W lipcu zeszłego roku Komisja Europejska przedstawiła bardzo kontrowersyjną propozycję nowego rozporządzenia
ustanawiającego szczegółowe warunki dotyczące połowów stad głębinowych na północno-wschodnim Atlantyku
oraz przepisy dotyczące połowów na wodach międzynarodowych północno-wschodniego Atlantyku i uchylające
rozporządzenie (WE) nr 2347/2002.

W kontekście tej propozycji chciałbym zadać pytania dotyczące interpretacji zapisów artykułu 5 i 11, dotyczących
zarządzania nakładem połowowym:

—
Jakie konsekwencje dla państw członkowskich posiadających kwoty gatunków głębinowych niosą za sobą
zapisy artykułów 5 i 11 propozycji nowego rozporządzenia głębinowego, mającego zastąpić rozporządzenie
(WE) 2347/2002?

—
Czy państwa członkowskie, które posiadają kwoty narodowe gatunków głębinowych, a które w ostatnich
latach wykorzystywały je wyłącznie w drodze wymian, nie zostaną pozbawione prawa do odłowienia własnej
kwoty w przyszłości?

— Czy zapisy artykułów 5 i 11 są zgodne z zasadą _relative stability_ ?

—
Czy zapisy artykułów 5 i 11 nie dyskryminują państw członkowskich, które zdecydowały ze względów
ekonomicznych i środowiskowych wykorzystywać swoje kwoty gatunków głębinowych poprzez wymiany?

—
Jaki nakład połowowy będą mogły wprowadzić państwa członkowskie, które zdecydują się w przyszłości
odłowić swoje kwoty narodowe gatunków głębinowych, biorąc pod uwagę tendencję wzrostową TACs dla
gatunków głębinowych?

—
Jaki obecnie jest poziom dopuszczalnego nakładu połowowego dla poszczególnych państw członkowskich?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarz Marię Damanaki w imieniu Komisji**

_(2 września 2013 r.)_

Artykuł 5 ma na celu zapobieżenie wzrostowi zdolności połowowej w odniesieniu do konkretnych łowisk przy
wejściu w życie nowego systemu. Wpływ połowów, zwłaszcza na gatunki nieobjęte kwotami, mógłby zostać
spotęgowany. Państwa członkowskie mogą utrzymać obecne poziomy zdolności produkcyjnych rybołówstwa bez
strat. Artykuł 11 umożliwia Radzie podjąć decyzję o przejściu na zarządzanie wyłącznie nakładami. Konwersja kwot
na nakład opierałaby się na ocenie działalności métiers połowów głębinowych w ciągu poprzednich dwóch lat.

Przejście to nie będzie realizowane automatycznie w momencie wejścia w życie nowego systemu, ale będzie miało
miejsce, jeśli i kiedy zadecyduje Rada. Obecna sytuacja dotycząca wykorzystywania kwot i nakładu nie musi być
zatem podstawą przyszłych ocen nakładów.

Jeżeli chodzi o kryterium względnej stabilności, propozycja nie pociąga za sobą straty kwot połowowych przez
posiadaczy kwot.

Państwa członkowskie mają pełną swobodę w zakresie wymiany kwot, co nie pociąga za sobą straty uprawnień do
połowów. Z doświadczenia w dziedzinie decyzji podjętych przez Radę np. w sprawie reorganizacji obszarów
objętych TAC wynika, że przy obliczeniu nowych kluczy przydziału wymienione kwoty przypisywane są ich
pierwotnym posiadaczom. Ma to na celu zachowanie względnej stabilności przy tego rodzaju operacjach.

C 65 E / 522 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Obecnie przy połowach głębinowych obowiązują pułapy nakładu połowowego ustanowione przez Komisję ds.
Rybołówstwa Północno-Wschodniego Atlantyku. Wniosek nie doprowadzi do ich zmiany. W tej chwili nie ma
możliwości określenia co się stanie, jeśli i kiedy Rada podejmie decyzję o przejściu na zarządzanie wyłącznie
nakładami, jako że podjęcie takiej decyzji wymaga oceny działalności połowowej w danym czasie.

Obecnie obowiązujący pułap nakładu połowowego wynosi 65 % pułapu ustanowionego w 2003 r.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 523

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008281/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Proposal for a new regulation on fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic

In July 2012 the Commission submitted a highly controversial proposal for a new regulation establishing specific
conditions to fishing for deep-sea stocks in the North-East Atlantic and provisions for fishing in international waters
of the North-East Atlantic and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002.

With a view to determining how to interpret Articles 5 and 11 of this proposal for a new regulation replacing
Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002, which lay down effort management arrangements, can the Commission say:

—
What impact Articles 5 and 11 will have on Member States with deep-sea quotas?

—
Whether Member States with national deep-sea quotas which have used those quotas only for exchanges over
recent years will not be denied the right to fish the quotas in the future?

—
Whether Articles 5 and 11 are in keeping with the relative stability principle?

—
Whether Articles 5 and 11 do not discriminate against Member States that have decided for economic and
environmental reasons to use their deep-sea quotas for exchanges?

—
What level of fishing effort Member States which decide in future to fish their national deep-sea quotas will be
allowed to maintain, given that TACs for deep-sea species are on the rise?

—
What the current permitted fishing effort is for the various Member States?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

Article 5 seeks to ensure there is no surge in fishing capacity entering the fishery on occasion of the entry into force of
the new regime. Failure to prevent this could exacerbate the impact of the fisheries, especially on non-quota species.
Member States can maintain current capacity levels in the fishery without losses. Article 11 allows the Council to
decide a switch to effort-only management. The conversion of quotas into effort would be based in assessing deep-sea
métiers’ activity in the previous two years.

That switch is not automatic upon entry into force of the new regime, but will happen if and when the Council
decides. The current situation on the use of quotas and deployment of effort is therefore not necessarily the basis for
future assessment of efforts.

Regarding the relative stability principle, the proposal does not entail in any way the loss of fishing quotas for quota
holders today.

Member States are fully entitled to swap their quotas and this does not entail any loss of fishing rights. The experience
of decisions taken by the Council to re-arrange TAC areas for example, shows that swaps must revert to the donors
for the purpose of new allocation keys calculations. This preserves relative stability throughout these exercises.

At present, effort ceilings decided by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission apply for deep sea fisheries. They
will not change with the proposal. What happens if and when the Council decides on a switch to effort-only
management cannot be determined now since the fishing activities must be assessed at that point.

The currently applicable effort ceiling is 65% of the one deployed in 2003.

C 65 E / 524 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(българска версия)_

**Въпрос с искане за писмен отговор E-008282/13**

**до Комисията**
**Slavi Binev (EFD)**

_(10 юли 2013 г.)_

_Относно:_ Психическо и физическо посегателство над журналисти

Бях информиран от лидерите на политическа партия Национален фронт за спасение на България, че в България е било
извършено директно посегателство над медийната свобода. Като политик, отстояващ демократичните принципи и
свободи, за мен беше шок да науча, че на 5 юли Волен Сидеров заедно с още 15 души от политическа партия „Атака“ се
били нахвърлили и пребили екип на телевизия СКАТ. Това посегателство над журналисти от една частна медия е не
само незаконно, но и недемократично и неприсъщо на председател на политическа партия. Всяко посегателство над
личността е наказуемо, а г-н Сидеров се възползва от своя парламентарен имунитет и позиция, за да нарушава закона.
Г-н Сидеров, вместо да се извини и да сътрудничи в разследването на побоя, продължава да нарушава обществения ред,
организирайки незаконни протести пред централата на телевизия СКАТ, като буквално обсажда сградата и затруднява
работата на телевизията.

Арогантното поведение на г-н Сидеров не спира до тук. Той се разхожда в парламента въоръжен с пистолет и палка;
винаги съпровождан от своите охранители. Но поведението му достигна връх, когато обвини миролюбивите

протестиращи на улицата, че са платени и че нямат право да протестират, като ги заплаши с граждански арести.

1. Наясно ли е Комисията с тези проблеми в държавата — членка на ЕС България, подкопаващи фундаменталните
демократични принципи и ограничаващи медийната свобода?

2. Какво смята да предприеме Комисията?

**Отговор, даден от на г-жа Крус от името на Комисията**

_(7 октомври 2013 г.)_

Комисията следи внимателно и се отнася сериозно към свободата и плурализма на медиите в държавите членки, в това
число и България. Комисията цели да гарантира спазването на правата и принципите, заложени в Хартата на основните
права на Европейския съюз, включително в член 11 относно свободата на изразяване на мнение и свободата на
информация, която обхваща свободата и плурализма на медиите. Трябва, обаче, да се отбележи, че съгласно член 51,
параграф 1 от Хартата същата се прилага спрямо държавите членки, единствено когато те прилагат правото на ЕС.
Въпреки това дори в случаите, когато няма връзка със законодателството на ЕС, държавите членки са длъжни да

спазват задълженията си по отношение на основните права, които произтичат от международните споразумения, от
Европейската конвенция за правата на човека и от националното законодателство.

Докладът на независимата група на високо равнище относно свободата и плурализма на медиите от януари 2013 г.
включва 30 препоръки, които, обаче, не са обвързващи за Комисията. В две последващи публични консултации
Комисията потърси обратна връзка относно препоръките на групата. След като анализът на консултациите приключи,
при всяко решение относно възможни последващи действия в рамките на компетенциите на ЕС ще бъдат взети предвид

получените отговори по време на консултациите.

Междувременно Комисията вече предприема последващи действия във връзка с искането на Европейския парламент за
изпълнение на два пилотни проекта през 2013 г.: един относно изпитването и прилагането на инструмента за
мониторинг на медийния плурализъм от независим орган и един относно Европейския център за свобода на печата и
медиите. Центърът ще проследява и документира нарушения на Хартата на основните права и на Европейската харта за
свободата на печата. Той ще служи също така като център за алармиране и реагиране при извънредни случаи.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 525

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008282/13**

**to the Commission**

**Slavi Binev (EFD)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Physical and psychological attack on journalists

I have been informed, by the leaders of the National Front for the Salvation of Bulgaria party, of a direct attack on
media freedom in Bulgaria. As a politician who champions democratic principles and freedoms, I was shocked to
learn that, on 5 July 2013, Volen Siderov and 15 other individuals from the Attack party set upon and beat up
members of a crew from the SKAT television channel. This attack, on journalists from a private broadcasting
company, was not only unlawful but also undemocratic and it is not the sort of behaviour one associates with the
chair of a political party. Any attack on a person is a punishable offence, and Mr Siderov is exploiting his
parliamentary immunity and his position in order to break the law. Instead of apologising for the attack and
cooperating with the investigation into it, he is continuing to disrupt public order by organising unlawful protests
outside SKAT’s headquarters, literally besieging the building and impeding the work of the TV channel.

Mr Siderov’s arrogant behaviour does not stop there. He walks around in Parliament armed with a gun and a
truncheon and he is accompanied at all times by his bodyguards. To crown it all, he has accused peaceful protestors of
being paid to take part in street demonstrations, has claimed that they have no right to protest and has threatened
them with citizen’s arrest.

1. Is the Commission aware of these problems in Bulgaria — a Member State of the EU — which are eroding the
basic principles of democracy and restricting the freedom of the media?

2. How does the Commission intend to react?

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

_(7 October 2013)_

The Commission follows and takes seriously the situation relating to media freedom and pluralism in Member States,
including Bulgaria. The Commission aims to ensure the respect of rights and principles enshrined in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including Article 11 on freedom of expression and information
(encompassing media freedom and pluralism). However, it must be noted that according to Article 51(1), the Charter
applies to Member States only when they are implementing EC law. Nevertheless, even in the instances where there is
no link to EC law, Member States are still bound to respect their obligations regarding fundamental rights, resulting
from international agreements, the European Convention on Human Rights and from national legislation.

The report of the independent High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism of January 2013 included 30
recommendations that are however not binding on the Commission. In two subsequent public consultations, the
Commission sought feedback on the recommendations of the Group. Once the analysis of the consultations is
finalised, any decision on possible follow-up actions within the limits of the competences of the EU will take account
of the responses to the consultations.

Meanwhile, the Commission is already following up on the request by the European Parliament to implement two
pilot projects in 2013, one regarding the testing and implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitoring tool by an
independent entity and one for a European Centre for Press and Media Freedom. The latter will monitor and
document violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the European Charter for Freedom of the Press. It
will also act as an alarm centre for acute cases.

C 65 E / 526 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008284/13**

**to the Commission**
**Brian Crowley (ALDE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Addressing the issues of ownership of data with regard to cloud computing

Currently, in Europe, much digital content is unavailable for distribution from one state to another owing to multiple
differing legislative frameworks. It is reported that customers who pay for access to such digital content in their
country of origin often cannot access this content once they travel to other countries. The Commission states that for
cloud computing to work there must be a distribution model which allows access to all content types across different
devices and territories.

Could the Commission outline what proposals it has with regard to this distribution model and how it aims to open
up access to digital content throughout the EU?

Could the Commission outline its proposals regarding liability for illegal content distributed through cloud services?

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

_(28 August 2013)_

Distribution of digital content can take place through a multiplicity of devices and services. The Commission is trying
to improve the framework conditions for cross-border offers.

The Commission is pursuing two tracks of action in order to ensure an effective single market in the area of
copyright ( [1] ). Firstly, a stakeholder dialogue — ‘Licences for Europe’ — which aims, in particular, at identifying
restrictions on cross-border access and portability and delivering practical solutions to promote multi-territory access
to online creative content. In parallel, the Commission is reviewing the EU copyright framework with a view to a
decision in 2014 whether to table legislative reform proposals. Territorial fragmentation is one of the elements of this
review.

The Commission is addressing the issue of illegal digital content in several ways, notably through specific initiatives
on child abuse content ( [2] ), cybersecurity ( [3] ) and enforcement of IPR ( [4] ).

The advent of cloud services leads to complex value chains, often spanning multiple jurisdictions. There is also the
question of how to apply notification and take-down procedures for illegal content to these emerging services. This
issue is being addressed in the Commission's initiative on notice and action procedures ( [5] ).

As regards application of private copy levies to the cloud, following the report of the High Level Mediator Antonio
Vitorino, the Commission is assessing the need to clarify the scope of the private copying exception and the
applicability of levies in particular as regards exclusion from the private copy levy regime where there is direct
remuneration of right holders.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )
⋅5∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) 18/12/12 COM(2012) 789.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/policy/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e-library/documents/policies/organised-crime-and-human
trafficking/cybercrime/docs/join_2013_1_en.pdf

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/index_en.htm
( **|** ⋅5∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/notice-and-action/index_en.htm

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 527

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008285/13**

**to the Commission**
**Brian Crowley (ALDE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protecting consumer rights

Consumers in Europe are currently finding it increasingly difficult to switch their energy supplier, with further
complications arising from a lack of information. As the Commission has frequently stated, this has led to European
energy consumers becoming non-active.

Could the Commission therefore outline what actions are proposed for energy suppliers who fail to provide ‘open’
access to quality information?

What action does the Commission propose in response to states who fail to implement or act on new legislation on
the internal energy market?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

The Third Energy Package ( [1] ) (TEP) includes provisions on transparency and access to information for consumers.
Switching procedures should be concluded within three weeks. Precontractual information should be made simple
and transparent. The legislation puts national regulatory authorities in charge of enforcing those provisions.

Furthemore, Member States have a duty to ensure that electricity/gas suppliers or distribution system operators, in
cooperation with the regulatory authority, provide energy consumers with a list of all their rights (‘energy consumer
checklist’).

The Commission verifies the compliance of Member States and their authorities with these requirements and if
necessary launches infringement procedures ( [2] ). The Commission also promotes switching and consumer awareness
through its webpage ( [3] ).

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Articles 3 and Annex I of Directive 2009/72/EC, OJ L 211, 14.8.2009 and of Directive 2009/73/EC, OJ L 211, 14.8.2009

(http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/legislation/legislation_en.htm).

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infringements/proceedings/electricity_gas_en.htm
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/consumer/rights_en.htm

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

C 65 E / 528 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008286/13**

**to the Commission**
**Brian Crowley (ALDE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Protecting vulnerable consumers from initial price fluctuation

The ‘Internal Energy Market’ for Europe hopes to integrate the 28 differing energy markets of the EU along with
neighbouring ‘third countries’ by the year 2020. Two core elements of this proposal are the protection of consumer
rights and the protection of vulnerable consumers.

One potential problem facing this proposal is the varied income levels throughout Europe.

What are the Commission’s objectives with regard to the protection of consumers during this period of
implementation and integration and how does it aim to achieve these objectives?

Could the Commission outline its proposals for easing this transaction for vulnerable consumers during the period of
price fluctuation?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

The 2012 Commission Communication ‘Making the Internal Energy Market Work’ ( [1] ) and its comprehensive action
plan addresses specifically the case of consumer rights and vulnerable consumer support in the process of the
completion of the EU's internal energy market. In line with the applicable legislation, particularly the Third Energy
Package (TEP) ( [2] ), the responsibility for supporting vulnerable consumers lies primarily with the Member States, some
of which consider that support for vulnerable customers is best provided primarily through social policy. The
Commission verifies the compliance of Member States and their authorities with the above requirements under
EC law through the ongoing conformity checks which may result in infringement proceedings ( [3] ) by the Commission
if non-conformity is identified. The Commission also strives to assist Member States to meet their obligations under
the TEP through the work of the Vulnerable Consumer Working Group and by placing the issue of consumer
protection high on the agenda of the annual Citizens' Energy Forum.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/internal_market_en.htm
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/legislation/legislation_en.htm: Directive 2009/72/EC, OJ L 211, 14.8.2009; Directive 2009/73/EC,

OJ L 211, 14.8.2009.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infringements/proceedings/electricity_gas_en.htm

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 529

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008287/13**

**to the Commission**
**Brian Crowley (ALDE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ SME frontier research and innovation support and international cooperation

SMEs are seen as the backbone of Europe as they account for the vast majority of businesses. In Europe alone, two out
of three jobs in the private sector are in SMEs, and more than half the total value-added is created by these businesses.
The Commission proposes that 15% of the Horizon 2020 budget should be dedicated to SMEs, alongside a dedicated
instrument which will foster innovative ideas.

The Commission has stated that funding will be allocated on the basis of the quality of the proposals as opposed to
geographic location, and that it wishes to foster and develop ‘outside the box’ ideas. Could the Commission outline
how it plans to communicate and engage with SMEs? What proposals are there for selecting and supporting projects?

International cooperation is to be encouraged through Horizon 2020 in order to address issues at a global level while
also fostering innovation through cooperation. Could the Commission outline its proposals for developing and
fostering such connections?

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

_(23 August 2013)_

The Commission's proposal for Horizon 2020 puts great emphasis on supporting innovative ideas for and by SMEs.
In addition to supporting SMEs through collaborative research activities within the Societal Challenges and
‘Leadership in Industrial Technologies’, specific opportunities will be provided through the dedicated SME instrument
and Eurostars, i.e. the joint initiative with EUREKA.

The SME instrument shall attract more SMEs to the Programme, provide support to a wide range of innovation
activities and help increase the commercialisation of project results by its company-focused and market-driven
approach. The Commission will seek applications from innovation-driven SMEs through information events in the
Member States. To this effect, a dedicated communication campaign and cooperation with business support
networks, i.e. the Enterprise Europe Network or the National SME Contact Points, have been launched.

Horizon 2020 will have a tangible impact on business innovation by focusing on the selection of enterprise-relevant
projects. In order to correctly select close-to-market and innovation driven projects, the role of evaluators and experts
will be crucial. Calls for expression of interest for Horizon 2020 experts and evaluators will put emphasis on
recruiting individuals with expertise in business and market-related activities. In order to reach out to them, the
Commission will approach European business support organisations and networks.

International cooperation for innovation is key. Horizon 2020 will be fully open to participation from all over the
world. In a recent Communication, the Commission has spelled out its new approach to international cooperation. ( [1] )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 497 Communication from the Commission ‘Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A
strategic approach’.

C 65 E / 530 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008288/13**

**to the Commission**
**Jill Evans (Verts/ALE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Treatment of dogs in Serbia

The appalling conditions at the Naš Dom state dog shelter in Požega, Serbia, and the treatment of the dogs there has
been brought to my attention by one of my constituents. This treatment not only contravenes EU animal welfare laws
but also Serbia’s domestic laws.

From the information I received it was reported that the dogs suffer cruelty at the hands of the workers: they are
starved to death and beaten to death with clubs in an attempt to save money by reducing the number of dogs that are
killed by the expensive toxin T61. They are brutally sterilised by unqualified veterinary assistants and many die as a
consequence of this butchery. The conditions are filthy and many of the dead dogs are left in the same cage as other
dogs. Due to this brutal abuse, it is reported that the dogs are extremely nervous and scared.

Over the past few months, there have been a number of discussions regarding the process of accession of potential
future Member States of the EU, including Serbia. It would seem that much positive action will be needed on their part
in order to fulfil the _acquis_ for consideration in the area of animal welfare.

— Does the Commission condemn the state’s treatment of dogs?

— Does the Commission agree that action must be taken in response to the contravention of EU animal welfare laws?

— What steps will the Commission take to ensure that positive action is taken by the Serbian state to improve these
conditions and hold those responsible accountable for their actions with regard to the state’s potential accession to
the EU?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to written question
E-005695/2013 ( [1] ).

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 531

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008289/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Jill Evans (Verts/ALE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Situation in Burma

Despite some positive reform in Burma such as the welcoming of exiles and the release of nearly 400 political
prisoners, there is still cause for concern about the continuation of serious human rights violations across the
country. Hundreds of political prisoners remain behind bars and the authorities have failed to identify and hold to
account past abusers.

The Rohingya Muslims are not considered as Burmese citizens and therefore face a barrier resisting their access to
education and healthcare. State security forces have taken part in abuses against the Rohingya. There is strong
implication that women are being held at the Burmese army base as sex slaves.

It has been revealed that the Swedish-made weapons that are used by the Burmese army were originally sold to the
Indian Government.

The recent decision by the European Union to lift targeted sanctions on Burma is unlikely to encourage improvement
of the current human rights situation and a further agenda will be needed to promote this.

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative condemn the use of sex slaves by the Burmese Army?

— Does the Vice-President/High Representative agree that action must be taken against the discrimination shown
towards the Rohingya Muslims, not only by citizens but also by the Burmese authorities?

— What steps will the Vice-President/High Representative take to ensure that the Burmese authorities respect the
citizens’ human rights and improve the current situation of discrimination and illegality?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The HR/VP follows very closely the human rights situation in Myanmar/Burma. So far she has no information on the
use of sex slaves by the Myanmar/Burma Armed Forces, but remains alert to relevant reports.

When the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 April 2013 decided to lift all sanctions (with exception of the arms
embargo), the Council also explicitly encouraged the Myanmar/Burma Government to pursue and implement durable
solutions to the underlying causes of the tensions that include addressing the status of the Rohingya. The HR/VP
raises its concerns regarding the spread of anti-Muslim violence and the situation of Rohingya in particular at every
opportunity, both bilaterally with the Burma/Myanmar authorities and at international level. The HR/VP personally
urged the authorities to protect the civilian population from violence, to bring perpetrators to justice, regardless of
their ethnic origin or religion — and to ensure unhindered humanitarian access to all affected communities.

Human Rights will also remain at the heart of the EU's bilateral engagement with Myanmar/Burma as stipulated in the
Comprehensive Framework setting out the EU's policy and support to Myanmar/Burma in the next three years
adopted on 22 July 2013. This will comprise in particular also the establishment of a regular human rights dialogue
between the EU and Myanmar/Burma.

C 65 E / 532 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008290/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Annual Action Programme 2012 on accompanying measures on sugar

At the end of last month the Commission signed a EUR 23 million agreement for the Guyana Annual Action
Programme 2012 on accompanying measures on sugar. So far nearly a quarter of the funds remain unallocated and
only 40% of funds have been paid.

Given that European cane refiners, including the Tate & Lyle refinery in my London constituency, are struggling
because LDC/ACP providers are not producing a sufficient quantity of raw sugar to import, can the Commission
answer the following:

1. Notwithstanding the political situation in Fiji, can the Commission explain why nearly EUR 300 million of
accompanying measures have not been awarded?

2. While the agreement with Guyana is welcome, will the Commission now unblock funding for those countries
where tens of millions of euros remain unspent, such as Barbados, Belize, Jamaica and St Christopher and
Nevis?

3. Can the Commission please assure me that the funds are mainly being used to increase the efficiency of the cane
sector, including the mechanisation of harvesting and improvement of mills, rather than for road-building
programmes or other infrastructure projects?

4. Given the inflexibility of DG Agriculture regarding the tariff-free import of sugar cane from non-ACP/LDC
countries, will the DG for Development and Cooperation (EuropeAid) and the delegations in or accredited to
the countries concerned ensure that funds are spent completely and effectively with the primary objective of
cane production efficiency in order to ensure that European jobs in the cane refining sector are not lost?

5. Can the Commission please provide any details it may have of maladministration or of fraud committed in
respect of the budget for accompanying measures on sugar?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

1. The amount quoted, EUR 300 million, refers to funds already committed by the Commission, which are being
progressively contracted out following the EU external actions procedures and in accordance with each country
programme timetable.

2. Accompanying Measures of the Sugar Protocol (AMSP) programmes in Barbados, Jamaica and St.Kitts and
Nevis are ongoing as budget support operations. Disbursments by the Commission to the countries’ Treasuries are
made in accordance with the financing agreements as and when all conditions are fulfilled, including macroeconomic
stability, public finance management, budget transparency and quantified policy goals. These funds may therefore not
been considered as ‘blocked’, nor is it the case in Belize where a project approach is followed.

3-4. The main objective of the EU sugar policy is to guarantee a sufficient supply of the market, taking into account
the interests of the different stakeholders in the sugar supply chain. AMSP is designed in accordance with the
priorities set in Article 17 of the DCI Regulation, e.g. enhancing the competitiveness of the sugar and cane sector,
promoting the economic diversification of sugar dependant areas, addressing broader impact generated by the
adaptation process, and taking into account the countries ‘national sugar adaptation strategy’. Where relevant, feeder
roads and other infrastructures may be rehabilitated so as to improve access to and from cane fields to the cane mills,
thereby reducing costs and ultimately competitiveness.

5. The Commission has systems and mechanisms in place to monitor technical operational and financial
execution of all EU funded programmes, including AMSP. This includes fraud and maladministration detection
procedures.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 533

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008291/13**

**à Comissão**
**Fiona Hall (ALDE) e Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE)**

_(10 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Projeto galaico-ibérico de exportação de energias renováveis Gibrex

A projetada interligação entre o Reino Unido e a Península Ibérica, o Projeto Gibrex, reveste-se de particular
importância estratégica para a União Europeia e o seu mercado interno de energia, já que proporciona uma outra
forma de interligar os Estados-Membros do norte aos do sul. Um corredor norte-sul inteiramente interligado
facilitaria a plena e rentável disponibilização de vastos recursos eólicos e marinhos do norte da Europa e de
abundantes recursos solares do sul. Gibrex é um dos projetos apresentados à Comissão a serem selecionados como
Projeto de Interesse Comum (PIC) ao abrigo do recém-acordado pacote de medidas em matéria de infra-estruturas
energéticas.

1. Quando procederá a Comissão à seleção final dos PIC?

2. Concorda a Comissão em que o corredor de eletricidade norte-sul é prioritário para o mercado interno de
energia da UE?

3. Concorda a Comissão em que projetos como o Gibrex se revestem de particular importância estratégica para a
União e são suscetíveis de contribuir para uma disponibilização transfronteiras das energias renováveis mais rentável?

**Resposta dada por Günther Oettinger em nome da Comissão**

_(22 de agosto de 2013)_

1. A adoção da lista de projetos de interesse comum (PIC) da União Europeia está prevista para o início de outubro
de 2013. A lista basear‐se‐á nas listas regionais de PIC propostos, aprovadas em 24 de julho pelo órgão de decisão dos
grupos regionais instituído pelo Regulamento RTE-E.

2. A Comissão reconhece a importância da interconexão norte-sul do mercado interno da energia da UE. Neste
contexto, dois corredores de eletricidade Norte-Sul encontram‐se entre as prioridades estabelecidas no Regulamento
RTE-E ( [1] ).

3. Os grupos regionais supracitados de que fazem parte os Estados‐Membros não incluíram o Gibrex nas listas
regionais de PIC propostos.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulamento (UE) n.° 347/2013, de 17 de abril de 2013, relativo às orientações para as infraestruturas energéticas transeuropeias (JO L 115 de
25.4.2013, p. 39).

C 65 E / 534 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008291/13**

**to the Commission**
**Fiona Hall (ALDE) and Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Galicia Iberian Renewable Energy Export (GIBREX) project

The planned interconnector between the UK and the Iberian Peninsula, the Galicia Iberian Renewable Energy Export
(GIBREX), is of particular strategic importance for the European Union and its internal energy market as it offers
another way of connecting the northern and southern Member States. A fully interconnected north-south corridor
would facilitate the full and cost-effective deployment of vast wind and marine resources in the north of Europe and
rich solar resources in the south. GIBREX is one of the projects submitted to the Commission to be selected as a
Project of Common Interest (PCI) under the newly agreed energy infrastructure package.

1. When will the Commission make the final selection of PCIs?

2. Does the Commission agree that the north-south electricity corridor is a priority for the EU internal energy
market?

3. Does the Commission agree that projects such as GIBREX are of a particular strategic importance for the Union
and would help a more cost-effective deployment of renewables across borders?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

1. The adoption of the European Union list of projects of common interest (PCIs) is envisaged for early
October 2013. It will be based on the regional lists of proposed PCIs as agreed upon on 24 July by the decisionMaking Body of the Regional Groups established by the TEN-E Regulation.

2. The Commission agrees on the importance of north-south interconnection in the EU internal energy market.
Accordingly, two North-South corridors in electricity are amongst the priorities set out in the TEN-E Regulation ( [1] ).

3. The abovementioned Regional Groups which include the Member States have not included GIBREX in the
regional lists of proposed PCIs.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) 347/2013 of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure, OJ L 115, 25.4.2013, p. 39.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 535

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008292/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (NI)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ L'UE predisponga interventi rapidi ed efficaci nel caso di flussi di immigrati clandestini provenienti dall'Egitto

Agli ormai ordinari sbarchi sulle coste italiane di immigrati clandestini provenienti dai paesi del nord Africa, si può
facilmente prevedere che il conflitto in atto in Egitto potrebbe comportare flussi massicci di immigrazione clandestina
verso l'Europa e, in particolare, verso le coste italiane.

— La Commissione ha già previsto misure di intervento rapide ed efficaci nel caso si verificassero questi fenomeni, in
particolare l'utilizzo di Frontex?

— In caso di emergenza, la Commissione intende far veramente in modo che gli immigrati egiziani che raggiungono
le coste dei Paesi che si affacciano sul Mediterraneo vengano ripartiti equamente tra i 28 Paesi dell'UE in nome del
principio della solidarietà e del _burden sharing_ ?

**Risposta di Cecilia Malmström a nome della Commissione**

_(14 agosto 2013)_

La situazione in Egitto e le sue possibili conseguenze migratorie vengono attentamente monitorate dalla
Commissione e dall’agenzia Frontex. Nel caso in cui uno o più Stati membri si trovassero a far fronte ad una pressione
specifica o sproporzionata, tale da richiedere un rafforzamento dell’assistenza tecnica e operativa, su richiesta dello
Stato membro interessato, Frontex potrebbe intensificare le operazioni congiunte in corso o lanciarne di nuove,
inclusi interventi rapidi ai sensi dell’articolo 8 bis del regolamento Frontex modificato ( [1] ).

La Commissione promuove da sempre la solidarietà e la condivisione delle responsabilità tra Stati membri per quanto
concerne la gestione dei crescenti flussi migratori. Tuttavia, la normativa vigente non le consente di imporre agli Stati
membri quote vincolanti per l’ammissione dei migranti da accogliere.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) GU L 304 del 22.11.2011, pag. 1.

C 65 E / 536 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008292/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (NI)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Need for a rapid and effective EU response in the event of flows of illegal immigrants arriving from Egypt

In addition to the now routine arrival on Italian shores of illegal immigrants from the countries of North Africa, the
current conflict in Egypt could easily result in huge flows of illegal immigrants bound for Europe and, in particular,
for Italian shores.

— Should this situation occur, has the Commission already prepared rapid and effective response measures, and do
they include the use of Frontex in particular?

— In the event of an emergency, will the Commission genuinely ensure that Egyptian immigrants who reach the
shores of the countries bordering the Mediterranean are divided equally among the 28 EU Member States in
accordance with the principle of solidarity and burden sharing?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

The situation in Egypt and its possible migratory impacts are closely monitored by the Commission and by the
Frontex Agency. In case of a situation when one or more Member State would be facing specific or disproportionate
pressure requiring increased technical and operational assistance, upon request from the Member States concerned,
Frontex could reinforce ongoing joint operations or launch new ones including rapid interventions in accordance
with Article 8a of the amended Frontex Regulation ( [1] ).

The Commission has always been promoting solidarity and sharing of responsibility among Member States in the
context of dealing with increased migratory flows. However, under the applicable Union law it cannot impose on
them binding admission quotas of migrants to be dealt with.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 1.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 537

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008293/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Mario Borghezio (NI)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Monitoraggio degli aiuti UE destinati all'Egitto

La task force riunitasi in Egitto a metà novembre 2012 tra l'ex Presidente Mohamed Morsi e il Vicepresidente/Alto
Rappresentante dell'Unione Catherine Ashton aveva due scopi principali:

1. promuovere la transizione democratica, contribuire a ripristinare la fiducia delle imprese e degli investitori,
affrontare problemi di carattere socioeconomico, avvicinare il più possibile l'UE e l'Egitto attraverso la
cooperazione in tutti i settori e riunire i dirigenti d'impresa UE interessati a investire in Egitto;

2. per quanto riguarda l'assistenza finanziaria dell'UE, la task force aveva annunciato un importo totale di 5
miliardi di euro per il periodo 2012-2013: 1) dalla BEI e dalla BERS prestiti per un importo fino a 4 miliardi di
euro per finanziare lo sviluppo del settore privato e importanti progetti infrastrutturali; 2) dall'UE 500 milioni
di euro sotto forma di assistenza macrofinanziaria (450 milioni in prestiti e 50 milioni in sovvenzioni); 3)
infine, sempre dall'UE, ulteriori 253 milioni di euro sotto forma di sovvenzioni (90 milioni provenienti dal
programma SPRING e 163 milioni dal Fondo investimenti per la politica di vicinato).

Alla luce della situazione politica che si è creata in Egitto in questo ultimo periodo che ha, inevitabilmente, vanificato
quanto citato al punto 1), può la Commissionne riferire:

—
se l'assistenza finanziaria sopra descritta è già in corso e, in caso positivo, quanti milioni di euro sono già stati
erogati all'Egitto e come sono stati investiti;

—
visti i recentissimi scenari politici egiziani, come intende intervenire affinché l'ingente quantità di denaro messa
a disposizione dall'UE a favore dell'Egitto non sia perduta o comunque investita in forme diverse da quelle
previste?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(6 settembre 2013)_

L'erogazione dell'assistenza finanziaria annunciata dall'Unione europea (UE) durante la riunione della task force
tenutasi a novembre 2012 è stata compromessa dall'instabilità politica e dalla mancanza di una decisione definitiva
delle autorità egiziane in merito a un programma del Fondo monetario internazionale (FMI). Nonostante queste
difficoltà, la Commissione europea ha messo a disposizione 40 milioni di euro attraverso il Fondo d'investimento per
la politica di vicinato (NIF), contribuendo all'estensione della metropolitana del Cairo. La Banca europea per gli
investimenti (BEI) ha inoltre preparato una notevole riserva di progetti infrastrutturali per il 2013 che rappresenta più
del 50 % dell'importo impegnato.

Vista la situazione nel paese, dall'inizio dell'anno non sono stati erogati fondi nell'ambito del programma SPRING
(sostegno al partenariato, alle riforme e alla crescita inclusiva) o del programma di assistenza macrofinanziaria, in
particolare a causa della mancata conclusione di un patto FMI.

La Banca europea per la ricostruzione e lo sviluppo sta avviando le proprie operazioni nel paese e intende arrivare
all'importo annunciato una volta soddisfatte le necessarie condizioni.

L'UE mantiene l'impegno di sostenere la popolazione egiziana, ribadito con fermezza nelle conclusioni del Consiglio
Affari esteri del 21 agosto 2013 ( [1] ), e farà in modo che dell'assistenza prevista possano beneficiare sia le persone più
povere e vulnerabili che la società civile. L'UE si adopererà inoltre per promuovere la riconciliazione e il consenso
politico in Egitto.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/138599.pdf

C 65 E / 538 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008293/13**

**to the Commission**
**Mario Borghezio (NI)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Monitoring of EU aid to Egypt

The task force meeting held in Egypt in mid-November 2012 between the former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi
and the Vice-President/High Representative of the Union Catherine Ashton had two main aims:

1. to promote the democratic transition, to help restore confidence among businesses and investors, to address
socioeconomic problems, to ensure that the EU and Egypt are as close as possible through cooperation in all
areas, and to bring together EU business leaders interested in investing in Egypt;

2. with regard to EU financial assistance, the task force announced a total package of EUR 5 billion for the
period 2012-2013, consisting of: (1) up to EUR 4 billion in loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to finance the development of the private
sector and major infrastructure projects; (2) EUR 500 million of macro-financial assistance from the EU
(EUR 450 million in loans and EUR 50 million in subsidies); and finally (3) a further EUR 253 million in
subsidies, again from the EU (EUR 90 million from the Support for Partnership, Reform and Inclusive Growth
(SPRING) programme and EUR 163 million from the Neighbourhood Investment Facility).

In view of the political situation that has recently developed in Egypt, inevitably thwarting the plans under point (1),
can the Commission say:

—
whether the payment of the financial assistance described above is already under way, and if so, how many
millions of euros have already been granted to Egypt and how they have been used;

—
given the very recent political developments in Egypt, how she intends to ensure that the substantial amount of
money granted by the EU to Egypt is not lost or, in any case, is not used for anything other than its intended
purpose?

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

_(6 September 2013)_

The implementation of financial assistance announced by the European Union (EU) during the November 2012 Task
Force meeting has been negatively affected by the political instability and the lack of a firm decision by the Egyptian
authorities on an International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme. Despite these challenges, the European
Commission has made available EUR 40 million through the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF) contributing
to the extension of the Cairo Metro. In addition, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has prepared a significant
pipeline of infrastructure projects for 2013 that represents more than 50% of the pledged amount.

Given the prevailing situation, since the start of the year no funds have been disbursed under the Support for
Partnership, Reform and Inclusive Growth (SPRING) programme or, in particular due to the non-conclusion of an
IMF deal, under the Macro-Financial Assistance programme.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is just starting its operations in the country and is
aiming to reach the pledged amount once the necessary conditions are met.

The EU remains committed to supporting the Egyptian population as strongly reaffirmed by the Foreign Affairs
Council conclusions of 21st August 2013 ( [1] ) and will make sure that the intended support can benefit the poorest and
the most vulnerable as well as civil society. The EU will strive to promote reconciliation and political consensus in
Egypt.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/138599.pdf

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 539

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008294/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Spazio sanitario europeo

— Considerato che il fenomeno delle denunce per presunta «malpractice» è cresciuto in maniera esponenziale ed è
stato accompagnato da un proporzionale aumento dei costi della copertura dei sinistri (+200 %) (fonte Hope);

— posto che mancano, sul piano legislativo e operativo, normative, linee guida o raccomandazioni comunitarie volte
a ridurre l'eterogeneità degli assetti normativi e operativi nazionali;

— atteso che la tutela del diritto alla vita e all'integrità psicofisica dei soggetti comporta per gli Stati membri l'obbligo
di adottare misure di carattere sostanziale, procedurale e preventivo;

— atteso che la Corte europea ha ribadito che dall'articolo 2 della CEDU discende un obbligo per gli Stati membri di
imporre agli ospedali sia pubblici che privati l'adozione di misure adeguate, anche preventive, per assicurare la
protezione della vita dei loro pazienti;

— considerato che la Corte europea (decisione del 4.5.2000, n. 45305/99; decisione del 21.3.2002, n. 65653/01) ha
affermato che «non si può escludere che gli atti e le omissioni delle autorità nel campo dei servizi alla salute possano
comportare la loro responsabilità ai sensi dell'articolo 2 della CEDU»;

— visto che con la riforma della direttiva 2005/36/CE si valorizzano il diritto di libera circolazione, stabilimento e
prestazione occasionale e il riconoscimento dei titoli, ma che, allo stesso tempo, permangono inconvenienti dovuti
all'eterogeneità dei modelli legislativi, giurisprudenziali e operativi degli Stati membri dell'UE;

si chiede alla Commissione se, alla luce del costituendo spazio sanitario europeo, ci sia interesse a favorire
l'armonizzazione di discipline e prassi, anche prevedendo:

1. l'obbligatorietà di sistemi di monitoraggio, riduzione, gestione dei rischi e degli eventi avversi negli Stati
Membri con la creazione di un'agenzia europea e di agenzie nazionali e locali negli Stati Membri (sul modello
del sistema antiriciclaggio — anti-money laundering);

2. l'assicurazione obbligatoria delle strutture sanitarie negli Stati Membri per il risarcimento dei danni ai pazienti
derivanti da condotte colpose dei sanitari o da fatto proprio dell'amministrazione (carenze strutturali e/o
organizzative) con un doppio binario di responsabilità;

3. la responsabilità penale dei medici solo al superamento di una certa soglia di gravità della condotta.

**Risposta di Tonio Borg a nome della Commissione**

_(2 settembre 2013)_

1. La raccomandazione del Consiglio 2009/C 151/01 ( [1] ) incoraggia gli Stati membri a identificare un ente
responsabile per la sicurezza dei pazienti sul loro territorio e a porre in essere sistemi di segnalazione e di
apprendimento, privi di carattere punitivo, relativi agli eventi sfavorevoli. La Commissione non intende introdurre
nuovi sistemi obbligatori di monitoraggio, riduzione e gestione dei rischi e degli eventi sfavorevoli negli Stati membri.
Secondo il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea, l'organizzazione e la fornitura di servizi sanitari e di
assistenza medica rientra in primo luogo nell'ambito di responsabilità dei singoli Stati membri.

2. La Commissione non intende introdurre una copertura assicurativa obbligatoria per le strutture sanitarie negli
Stati membri al fine di risarcire i pazienti dalle conseguenze negative connesse con l'assistenza sanitaria. La direttiva
2011/24/UE stabilisce che, nel contesto dell'assistenza sanitaria transfrontaliera, lo Stato membro di cura debba
garantire che per le cure prestate sul proprio territorio esistano sistemi di assicurazione di responsabilità professionale
o garanzie o meccanismi analoghi.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:151:0001:0006:IT:PDF.

C 65 E / 540 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

La direttiva 2011/24/UE ( [2] ) stabilisce inoltre che gli Stati membri informino i pazienti che si recano sul loro territorio
per ricevere cure mediche sulle procedure di denuncia e sui meccanismi di tutela, come pure sulle possibilità
giuridiche e amministrative disponibili per risolvere le controversie, anche in caso di danni derivanti dall'assistenza
sanitaria transfrontaliera. La soprammenzionata raccomandazione del Consiglio invita gli Stati membri a diffondere
informazioni ai pazienti sulle procedure di denuncia e sui meccanismi di tutela disponibili in caso di danni derivanti
dall'assistenza sanitaria.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0045:0065:IT:PDF.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 541

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008294/13**

**to the Commission**
**Andrea Cozzolino (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ European health area

The number of complaints of alleged ‘malpractice’ has increased exponentially and been accompanied by a
corresponding increase in the costs of accident cover (+200%) (source: Hope).

There is a lack of legislative and operational rules, guidelines and recommendations at EU level to reduce the
differences between national regulatory and operational frameworks.

The protection of individuals’ right to life and to physical and mental integrity entails an obligation on Member States
to take substantive, procedural and preventive measures.

The European Court of Human Rights has reiterated the Member States’ obligation, under Article 2 ECHR, to make
public and private hospitals take appropriate measures — including preventive measures — to ensure the protection
of their patients’ lives.

The European Court of Human Rights (judgments Nos 45305/99 of 4 May 2000 and 65653/01 of 21 March 2002)
has stated that: ‘It cannot be excluded that the acts and omissions of the authorities in the field of healthcare policy
may in certain circumstances engage their responsibility under Article 2 ECHR.’

Under the revised Directive 2005/36/EC, greater emphasis is placed on the right of free movement, establishment and
provision of services on an occasional basis and the recognition of qualifications, but at the same time problems
remain as a result of the EU Member States’ differing legislative, case law and operational models.

In view of the European health area that is being created, can the Commission say whether there are any plans to
encourage the harmonisation of rules and practices, and:

1. to introduce mandatory systems for monitoring, reducing and managing risks and adverse events in the
Member States, with the creation of a European agency and national and local agencies in the Member States
(on the model of the anti-money laundering system);

2. to introduce mandatory insurance cover for healthcare facilities in the Member States to compensate patients
for any harm caused to them as a result of the negligence of healthcare staff or the actions of managers
(structural and/or organisational failings), with two different types of liability;

3. to hold doctors criminally responsible for their actions only if they exceed a certain level of seriousness?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

1. Council Recommendation 2009/C 151/01 ( [1] ) encourages Member States to identify a body responsible for
patient safety on their territory and to put in place blame free reporting and learning systems on adverse events. The
Commission does not intend to further introduce mandatory systems for monitoring, reducing and managing risks
and adverse events in the Member States. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the
organisation and delivery of health services and medical care is primarily the responsibility of individual Member
States.

2. The Commission does not intend to introduce mandatory insurance cover for healthcare facilities in the
Member States to compensate patients for harm related to healthcare. Directive 2011/24/EU foresees that, in the
context of cross-border healthcare, the Member State of treatment must ensure that a systems of professional liability
insurance, or a guarantee or similar arrangement are in place for treatment provided on its territory.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:151:0001:0006:EN:PDF.

C 65 E / 542 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

Directive 2011/24/EU ( [2] ) further requires that Member States inform patients coming for treatment in their country
about complaint procedures, mechanisms for seeking remedies and legal and administrative options available to
settle disputes, including in the event of harm arising from cross-border care. The abovementioned Council
Recommendation encourages Member States to disseminate information to patients about complaint procedures and
available remedies in case of harm arising from healthcare.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0045:0065:EN:PDF.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 543

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008295/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), Pino Arlacchi (S&D),**
**Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Fabrizio Bertot (PPE), Mara Bizzotto (EFD), Lara Comi (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE),**

**Franco Frigo (S&D), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Vincenzo Iovine (S&D), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Erminia**
**Mazzoni (PPE), Guido Milana (S&D), Claudio Morganti (EFD), Cristiana Muscardini (ECR), Alfredo Pallone**
**(PPE), Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE), Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE),**

**Antonio Cancian (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE) e Elisabetta**

**Gardini (PPE)**
_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Riduzione del personale TNT Express in Italia

TNT Express Italy è parte di TNT Express N.V., multinazionale olandese che opera nel settore dei servizi di trasporto
espresso, fornendo a livello globale soluzioni di consegna. L'azienda dispone di un network nazionale con 117 filiali
dislocate in molte regioni, 14 hub, 5 servizi clienti e oltre 1 200 TNT point, e garantisce occupazione a circa 3000
dipendenti.

Lo scorso 10 giugno TNT Express ha annunciato un piano di riorganizzazione aziendale per fare fronte al perdurare
della crisi economica. Il predetto piano prevede di far confluire le attività operative delle filiali più piccole in strutture
di dimensioni maggiori, comportando, così, 854 esuberi e la chiusura di 24 filiali tra il 2013 e il 2014. Lo scorso
28 giugno e 2 luglio lavoratori e sindacati hanno organizzato due giorni di scioperi di protesta.

Tenuto conto che il programma di mobilità per 854 dipendenti sarà avviato già il prossimo 24 agosto, al termine
della citata procedura di riorganizzazione, e che per i lavoratori non è previsto alcun sistema di ammortizzatori
sociali, può la Commissione precisare quanto segue:

—
Tali licenziamenti possono essere ricompresi fra quelli previsti per ricevere finanziamenti, nel quadro del Fondo
europeo per la globalizzazione (FEG) e del Fondo sociale europeo (FSE), per il reimpiego e la riqualificazione dei
lavoratori?

—
L'utilizzo dei predetti fondi potrà essere realizzato attraverso un coordinamento su base nazionale o regionale?

—
Esistono altri strumenti finanziari o misure di cui i lavoratori e/o l'azienda potrebbero beneficiare al fine di
contenere l'impatto che la predetta ristrutturazione in atto avrà sul numero complessivo dei lavoratori
occupati?

**Risposta di László Andor a nome della Commissione**

_(30 agosto 2013)_

Il Fondo sociale europeo (FSE) si prefigge di promuovere le opportunità occupazionali dei lavoratori, tra l'altro
accrescendo la loro adattabilità al cambiamento e sostenendo le azioni condotte negli Stati membri per lottare contro
la disoccupazione. L'FSE è implementato per il tramite di programmi operativi nazionali o regionali (PO)
conformemente al principio della gestione concorrente. La Commissione invita pertanto gli onorevoli deputati a
mettersi in contatto con le autorità di gestione competenti per i PO ( [1] ) delle regioni italiane in questione al fine di
ottenere informazioni sulle possibilità offerte da ciascun PO per aiutare i lavoratori in esubero a trovare un nuovo
lavoro.

Per quanto concerne il Fondo europeo di adeguamento alla globalizzazione (FEG), dall'inizio del 2012 possono essere
accettate soltanto domande volte ad aiutare i lavoratori messi in esubero in seguito ai grandi mutamenti intervenuti
nella struttura del commercio mondiale a causa della globalizzazione. Per il periodo 2014-2020 la Commissione ha
proposto di reintrodurre su base permanente il criterio di crisi tra i motivi per un potenziale sostegno del FEG.

Soltanto gli Stati membri possono candidarsi a un sostegno del FEG, anche se l'iniziativa di una candidatura può
provenire da stakeholder individuali. Lo Stato membro è responsabile dell'implementazione, della gestione e del
controllo del sostegno erogato ai lavoratori, ma alcune di queste responsabilità possono essere delegate a livello
regionale o locale.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=386&langId=en.

C 65 E / 544 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

I principali strumenti di cui dispone l'UE per erogare un sostegno sono l'FSE e il FEG. Gli Stati, inoltre, gestiscono
spesso programmi propri. La Commissione non dispone di informazioni dettagliate su tali programmi e suggerisce
pertanto di contattare direttamente le autorità pertinenti dello Stato membro.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 545

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008295/13**

**to the Commission**
**Salvatore Iacolino (PPE), Magdi Cristiano Allam (EFD), Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), Pino Arlacchi (S&D),**
**Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Fabrizio Bertot (PPE), Mara Bizzotto (EFD), Lara Comi (PPE), Carlo Fidanza (PPE),**

**Franco Frigo (S&D), Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Vincenzo Iovine (S&D), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Erminia**
**Mazzoni (PPE), Guido Milana (S&D), Claudio Morganti (EFD), Cristiana Muscardini (ECR), Alfredo Pallone**
**(PPE), Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE), Giancarlo Scottà (EFD), Giommaria Uggias (ALDE), Salvatore Tatarella (PPE),**

**Antonio Cancian (PPE), Tiziano Motti (PPE), Roberta Angelilli (PPE), Barbara Matera (PPE) and Elisabetta**

**Gardini (PPE)**
_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Reduction of TNT Express workforce in Italy

TNT Express Italy is part of TNT Express NV, a Dutch multinational that operates in the express services sector,
providing worldwide delivery solutions. The company has a national network consisting of 117 branches located in
various regions, 14 hubs, 5 customer services departments and more than 1 200 TNT points, and employs around
3 000 people.

On 10 June 2013 TNT Express announced a corporate restructuring plan to cope with the ongoing economic crisis.
Under the plan, the smallest branches and their operations will be merged into larger branches, resulting in
854 redundancies and 24 branch closures between 2013 and 2014. On 28 June and 2 July 2013 employees and trade
unions staged two days of protest strikes.

Given that the mobility programme for 854 employees will begin as early as 24 August 2013 — at the end of the
restructuring process — and that there are no social safety nets in place for the employees, can the Commission say:

—
whether these redundancies can be included among those eligible to receive funding from the European
Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) for the retraining and redeployment
of workers;

—
whether the use of that funding can be coordinated on a national or regional basis;

—
whether there are any other financial instruments or measures from which the employees and/or the company
could benefit in order to reduce the impact that the current restructuring process will have on the total
workforce?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

The European Social Fund (ESF) aims to promote employment opportunities of workers, _inter alia_ by increasing the
adaptability of workers to change and by supporting actions in Member States tackling unemployment. The ESF is
implemented through national or regional operational programmes (OPs) according to the principle of shared
management. The Commission would therefore invite the Honourable Members to contact the managing authorities
competent for the OPs ( [1] ) of the Italian regions concerned to obtain information as to possibilities offered by each OP
with a view to supporting the redundant workers to find a new job.

Regarding the European Globalisation adjustment Fund (EGF), since the beginning of 2012, only applications to
support workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation
can be accepted. For the period of 2014-2020, the Commission has proposed to reintroduce a crisis criterion on a
permanent basis as one of the grounds for potential EGF support.

Only Member States are eligible to apply for EGF support, although the initiative for an application may come from
stakeholders. The Member State is responsible for the implementation, management and control of the support
provided to the workers, but some of these responsibilities can be delegated to the regional or local level.

The EU's main potential supporting instruments are the ESF and the EGF. In addition, Member States often run their
own programmes. The Commission does not possess detailed information on these, and it is best to contact the
relevant Member State authorities directly.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=386&langId=en

C 65 E / 546 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008296/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE)**

_(10 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Uitlatingen kredietbeoordelaar Moody's over bankenbelasting in Nederland

1. Is de Commissie bekend met het feit dat kredietbeoordelaar Moody's zich aansluit bij een van de aanbevelingen
van het verslag van de Commissie Structuur Nederlandse Banken getiteld „Naar een Dienstbaar en Stabiel Bankwezen”
om de bankenbelasting te schrappen? ( [1] )

2. Zijn deze uitlatingen van Moody's in overeenstemming met Bijlage I, afdeling D, deel III, punt 4 van
Verordening (EG) nr. 1060/2009 inzake ratingbureaus?

3. Acht de Commissie het wenselijk dat kredietbeoordelaars zich op dergelijke wijze uitlaten over het toekomstig
beleid van de overheden die zij beoordelen, daarbij overwegend dat het advies over de structuur van de Nederlandse
banken nog niet door het Nederlandse parlement behandeld is?

4. Vindt de Commissie dat er sprake is van belangenverstrengeling wanneer kredietbeoordelaars zich uitspreken
over de wenselijkheid van een bankenbelasting als de banken die daardoor geraakt worden belangrijke klanten zijn
van de kredietbeoordelaars? Hoe treedt de Commissie daartegen op?

5. Wat gaat de Commissie doen om ervoor te zorgen dat schadelijke praktijken van kredietbeoordelaars zoals
belangenverstrengeling en ongewenste inmenging met beleid van overheidsentiteiten worden aangepast?

**Antwoord van de heer Barnier namens de Commissie**

_(10 september 2013)_

Ratingbureaus staan onder toezicht ( [2] ) van de Europese Autoriteit voor effecten en markten (ESMA), die over alle
noodzakelijke bevoegdheden beschikt om toezicht te houden op ratingbureaus. Gezien de haar toegewezen
bevoegdheden is de ESMA dan ook de bevoegde autoriteit om in voorkomend geval toezichtsactie te ondernemen. De
Commissie heeft tot dusver geen specifieke informatie ontvangen over schendingen van de CRA-verordening ( [3] ).

Wat het specifieke geval van Moody betreft waarop het geachte lid doelt, begrijpt de Commissie dat de publieke
verklaring van het ratingbureau niet plaatsvond bij de aankondiging van een rating voor een overheid of voor de
overheidsschuld voor Nederland. Zij valt bijgevolg niet onder de regels van de CRA-verordening betreffende de
presentatie van ratings en ratingoutlooks ( [4] ).

De Commissie gelooft dat overheidsratings een hoge mate van transparantie vereisen om marktverstoring te
vermijden.

Hoewel het EU-regelgevingskader voor ratings maatregelen betreffende openbaarmaking en transparantie bevat die
voor ratings van overheidsschuld gelden, zal de Commissie nagaan of verdere maatregelen nodig kunnen zijn om
beleggers in staat te stellen de kredietwaardigheid van lidstaten onpartijdig en objectief te beoordelen. Meer bepaald is
de Commissie voornemens uiterlijk 31 december 2014 een rapport bij het Europees Parlement en de Raad in te
dienen betreffende de vraag of het aangewezen is een Europese kredietwaardigheidsbeoordeling voor overheidsschuld
te ontwikkelen. Zo nodig zal de Commissie ook alle passende vervolgmaatregelen voorstellen.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) „Moody's positief over idee schrappen banktaks”)

http://www.telegraaf.nl/dft/nieuws_dft/21714534/__Moody_s_positief_over_idee_schrappen_banktaks__.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Verordening (EU) nr. 513/2011 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 11 mei 2011 tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 1060/2009

inzake ratingbureaus, PB L 145 van 31.5.2011, blz. 30.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Verordening (EU) nr. 462/2013 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 21 mei 2013 tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 1060/2009

inzake ratingbureaus, PB L 146 van 31.05.2013, blz. 30.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Bijlage I, afdeling D, deel III, punt 4, van Verordening (EU) nr. 462/2013 heeft regels betreffende de presentatie van ratings en ratingoutlooks

ingevoerd.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 547

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008296/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Statements by Moody's credit rating agency concerning taxation of banks in the Netherlands

1. Is the Commission aware that Moody’s credit rating agency has endorsed one of the recommendations in the
report by the Commission on the Structure of Banks in the Netherlands entitled ‘Naar een Dienstbaar en Stabiel
Bankwezen’ [Towards a Serviceable and Stable Banking Sector], namely that the tax on banks should be abolished? ( [1] )

2. Do these statements by Moody’s accord with Annex I, Section D, Part III, point 4, of Regulation (EC)
No 1060/2009 on credit rating agencies?

3. Does the Commission consider it desirable that credit rating agencies should make such statements about the
future policy of the authorities that they assess, bearing in mind that the report on the structure of banks in the
Netherlands has not yet been considered by the Netherlands Parliament?

4. Does the Commission consider there to be a conflict of interest if rating agencies express views on the
desirability of a tax on banks if the banks affected are major clients of the credit rating agencies? What action does the
Commission take to prevent this?

5. What will the Commission do to ensure that detrimental practices by credit rating agencies such as conflicts of
interest and undesirable interference with the policies of government bodies are modified?

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

_(10 September 2013)_

Credit rating agencies are supervised ( [2] ) by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) which has all
necessary supervisory powers over credit rating agencies. Therefore, in view of its attributed competences, ESMA is
the competent authority in taking supervisory action where appropriate. The Commission has currently not received
specific information on violations of the CRA regulation ( [3] ).

As regards the Moody’s specific case that the Honourable Member is referring to, the Commission understands that
the credit rating agency’s public statement did not take place when announcing a credit rating for sovereign or
sovereign debt for Netherlands. As result, it does not fall under the rules of CRA Regulation regarding the
presentation of credit ratings and rating outlooks ( [4] ).

The Commission believes that sovereign ratings require a high degree of transparency in order to avoid market
disruption.

While the EU regulatory framework for credit ratings contains measures on disclosure and transparency that apply to
sovereign debt ratings, the Commission will examine whether further measures could be needed in order to allow
investors to make an impartial and objective assessment of Member States’ creditworthiness. Specifically, the
Commission intends to, by 31 December 2014, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the
appropriateness of the development of a European creditworthiness assessment for sovereign debt. If necessary, the
Commission will also propose any appropriate follow up measures.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) ‘Moody's positief over idee schrappen banktaks’

http://www.telegraaf.nl/dft/nieuws_dft/21714534/__Moody_s_positief_over_idee_schrappen_banktaks__.html

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 513/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on

credit rating agencies, OJ L 145, 31.5.2011.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Regulation (EU) No 462/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on

credit rating agencies, OJ L 146, 31.05.2013.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Annex I, Section D, Part III, point 4, of Regulation (EU) No 462/2013 introduced rules regarding the presentation of credit ratings and rating

outlooks.

( **|**

( **|**

( **|**

C 65 E / 548 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008297/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(10 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Toepassing van het arrest Papismedov en de prejudiciële beslissing betreffende artikelen 202-204 van het
Communautair douanewetboek

De opsporingsdiensten van de Belgische douane stellen zich vragen met betrekking tot de uniforme toepassing van
het zogenaamde arrest Papismedov (arrest van 30 september 2004 in zaak C-195/03, Papismedov) en de prejudiciële
beslissing betreffende de uitlegging van de artikelen 202 tot en met 204 van het Communautair Douanewetboek
(CDW).

1. Wat zijn de specifieke instructies van de Commissie inzake de toepassing van dit arrest?

2. Klopt het dat voor zaken boven de 500 000 euro kwijtschelding kan worden bekomen bij de Commissie?

3. Klopt het dat de schulden moeten worden ingeschreven in boekhouding B?

**Antwoord van de heer Šemeta namens de Commissie**

_(3 september 2013)_

1. De Commissie heeft geen specifieke instructies gepubliceerd in verband met het arrest-Papismedov.

2. Wanneer de douaneautoriteiten van mening zijn dat de voorwaarden van artikel 220, lid 2, onder b), of
artikel 239, lid 1, van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2913/92 van de Raad van 12 oktober 1992 tot vaststelling van het
communautair douanewetboek (CDW) zijn vervuld, moeten verzoeken om niet-navordering, kwijtschelding of
terugbetaling van douanerechten in gevallen waarmee een bedrag van 500 000 euro of meer aan rechten is gemoeid,
aan de Commissie worden voorgelegd overeenkomstig artikel 871, leden 1 en 3, en artikel 905, leden 1 en 3, van
Verordening (EEG) nr. 2454/93 van de Commissie van 2 juli 1993 houdende vaststelling van enkele bepalingen ter
uitvoering van Verordening (EEG) nr. 2913/92 van de Raad tot vaststelling van het communautair douanewetboek.

3. De douaneautoriteiten in de lidstaten nemen een vastgestelde douaneschuld op in de B-boekhouding ( [1] )
(specifieke boekhouding) als de schuld, op het tijdstip waarop het bedrag anders via de A-boekhouding (normale
boekhouding) ter beschikking zou moeten worden gesteld, nog niet betaald is en de autoriteiten over geen zekerheid
beschikken (of moeten beschikken) in overeenstemming met de bepalingen van het CDW. Voorts kan een
vastgestelde schuld, ook wanneer er een zekerheid is gesteld, in de B-boekhouding worden opgenomen als die schuld,
op het tijdstip waarop het bedrag anders via de A-boekhouding ter beschikking zou moeten worden gesteld, door de
debiteur wordt betwist.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Artikel 6 van Verordening (EG, Euratom) nr. 1150/2000 van de Raad (PB L 130 van 31.5.2000, blz. 1).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 549

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008297/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Application of the Papismedov judgment and the preliminary judicial ruling on Articles 202-204 of the
Community Customs Code

The investigation department of the Belgian Customs Service has doubts about the uniform application of the
‘Papismedov judgment’ (judgment of 30 September 2004 in Case No C-195/03, Papismedov) and the preliminary
judicial ruling concerning the interpretation of Articles 202-204 of the Community Customs Code (CCC).

1. What are the Commission’s specific instructions regarding the application of this judgment?

2. Is it true that, where more than EUR 500 000 is involved in a case, it is possible to obtain remission from the
Commission?

3. Is it true that the debts must be entered in the B account?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

1. The Commission has published no specific instructions on the ‘Papismedov’ judgment.

2. Where the customs authorities consider that the conditions laid down in Article 220(2)(b) or 239(1) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (CCC) are fulfilled, the
authorities shall transmit the case concerning waiver of the entry in the accounts, remission or repayment of the
customs duties in which EUR 500 000 or more is involved to the Commission to be settled according to
Article 871(1)(3) and 905(1)(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions
for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.

3. The customs authorities in the Member States enter an established custom debt in the B (or separate) account ( [1] )
if, at the time the amount would otherwise be due to be made available via the normal or A account, it remains
unpaid and no security is held (or should be held) by the authorities in compliance with the provisions of the CCC.
Additionally, an established debt may be entered in the B account notwithstanding a security being held if, at the time
the amount would otherwise be due to be made available via the A account, that debt is the subject of an appeal by the
debtor.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p.1.

C 65 E / 550 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord E-008298/13**

**aan de Commissie**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**

_(10 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ Rechten van werknemers in onderaanneming

Werknemers van onderaannemingen die getroffen worden door herstructureringen of het faillissement van de
opdrachtgever bij wie ze werkzaamheden uitvoeren, kunnen doorgaans niet genieten van de maatregelen van het
sociaal plan waarvan de werknemers die rechtstreeks in dienst zijn van de opdrachtgever wel genieten, zoals
collectieve ontslagvergoedingen, opzegtermijnen en/of hertewerkstellingstrajecten.

De werknemers van de onderaannemers hebben immers een contract met hun werkgever-onderaannemer en vallen
in de regel niet onder het sociaal plan dat de opdrachtgever met de werknemersvertegenwoordigers onderhandelt.

— Welke maatregelen zijn volgens de Commissie mogelijk om de discriminatie tussen werknemers van
onderaannemers en werknemers van de hoofdaannemer op dezelfde werkplaats in geval van faillissementen of
herstructureringen van de hoofdaannemer weg te werken?

— In veel lidstaten bestaat er nauwelijks wetgeving over de rechten van werknemers in onderaanneming. Kan de
Commissie richtsnoeren uitwerken voor de lidstaten om de praktijk van onderaanneming op een transparante en
niet-discriminerende wijze te laten verlopen?

**Antwoord van de heer Andor namens de Commissie**

_(30 augustus 2013)_

Naar aanleiding van haar groenboek uit januari 2012 ( [1] ) en de goedkeuring van het verslag van Cercas door het
Europees Parlement op 15 januari 2013 ( [2] ) zal de Commissie een mededeling publiceren om een kwaliteitskader vast
te stellen voor de EU-wetgeving en ‐initiatieven die voor herstructureringen van belang zijn en zal zij beste praktijken
presenteren die door alle belanghebbenden kunnen worden toegepast.

Ten aanzien van de tweede vraag: de Commissie overweegt momenteel niet nieuwe wetgeving voor te stellen
betreffende de rechten van werknemers die bij onderaannemers in dienst zijn. In haar voorstel voor een richtlijn
betreffende de handhaving van Richtlijn 96/71/EG ( [3] ) heeft de Commissie echter voorgesteld in de bouw een systeem
van hoofdelijke aansprakelijkheid in te voeren om de rechten te beschermen van gedetacheerde werknemers die voor
onderaannemers werkzaam zijn, in het bijzonder ten aanzien van de betaling van het minimumloon en nabetalingen
van achterstallig loon of socialezekerheidsbijdragen.

De Commissie kan meedelen dat acht lidstaten, naast Noorwegen en Zwitserland, inmiddels verschillende systemen
van hoofdelijke aansprakelijkheid hebben vastgesteld.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Zie de antwoorden en een samenvatting op http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Resolutie van het Europees Parlement van 15 januari 2013 betreffende informatie voor en raadpleging van werknemers, anticipatie en beheer van

herstructurering, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//NL.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Voorstel voor een richtlijn betreffende de handhaving van Richtlijn 96/71/EG betreffende de terbeschikkingstelling van werknemers met het oog

op het verrichten van diensten.

( **|**

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 551

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008298/13**

**to the Commission**

**Ivo Belet (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Rights of workers in subcontracting firms

Workers employed by subcontractors who are affected by the restructuring or bankruptcy of the contractor for
which they carry out their work cannot usually benefit from the same package of social measures (‘social plan’) as
workers employed directly by the contractor, such as compensation for collective redundancy, notice periods and/or
routes to re-employment.

Workers employed by subcontractors have a contract with the subcontractor employing them and are not normally
covered by the social package which the contractor has negotiated with workers’ representatives.

— What measures does the Commission consider could be taken to eliminate discrimination between the employees
of subcontractors and the employees of the main contractor at the same workplace in the event of the restructuring or
bankruptcy of the main contractor?

— In many Member States there is little or no legislation on the rights of workers employed by subcontractors. Can
the Commission devise guidelines for the Member States to ensure that subcontracting takes place in a transparent
and non-discriminatory manner?

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

_(30 August 2013)_

Following its January 2012 Green Paper ( [1] ) and the adoption by the European Parliament on 15 January 2013 of the
Cercas report ( [2] ), the Commission will issue a communication establishing a Quality Framework that will frame
the EU legislation and initiatives relevant to restructuring and will present the best practices to be implemented by all
stakeholders.

With regard to the second question, the Commission is currently not considering to propose any new legislation on
the rights of workers employed by subcontractors. However, in its proposal for a directive on the enforcement of
Directive 96/71/EC ( [3] ), the Commission proposed to introduce a limited ‘joint and several liability’ system in the
construction sector to protect the rights of posted workers working for subcontractors, in particular as regards
payment of minimum wage and back-payments of outstanding remuneration, or social security contributions.

The Commission can inform that eight member states, in addition to Norway and Switzerland, already have
established different systems of joint and several liability.

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

⋅1∙ **|** )
⋅2∙ **|** )

⋅3∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) See the replies and a summary under http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=8908&langId=en.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EP Resolution of 15 January 2013 on Information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring,

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0005+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Proposal for a directive on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of

services.

( **|**

C 65 E / 552 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008299/13**

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

_(10 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wyniki konsultacji społecznych w sprawie gazu łupkowego

W dniach 20.12.2012-23.3.2013 r. Komisja Europejska przeprowadziła konsultacje społeczne w sprawie
niekonwencjonalnego wydobycia paliw kopalnych, w tym tzw. gazu łupkowego. W badaniu wzięło udział 22 875
osób, z tego nieco ponad połowę respondentów stanowili Polacy (11 713 osób).

Dysproporcja w zakresie liczby ankiet złożonych przez poszczególne państwa członkowskie jest bardzo duża (od 1
w przypadku Łotwy do 11 714 w przypadku Polski). Ankiety w 85 % pochodzą z 4 państw członkowskich, które
w sumie stanowią około 34 % populacji UE: PL, FR, RO, ES.

1. Czy w związku z powyższym Komisja zamierza wyciągać jakiekolwiek wnioski dotyczące całej Unii
Europejskiej?

2. Czy Komisja zamierza powtórzyć lub poszerzyć formuły konsultacji w sprawie gazu łupkowego?

3. Czy Komisja zamierza na podstawie wyników z państw takich jak Łotwa (1 ankieta), Grecja (3 ankiety) i Estonia
(4 ankiety) wysuwać jakiekolwiek wnioski dotyczące opinii społeczeństw tych państw na temat gazu ziemnego
z łupków?

4. Czy Komisja zamierza przeliczać uzyskane wyniki na populację danego państwa? Czy w związku z tym
pojedyncza ankieta przesłana przez mieszkańca Łotwy będzie potraktowana jako opinia całego społeczeństwa
łotewskiego?

5. Czy Komisja podziela zdanie, iż fakt, że większość odpowiedzi pochodzi z Polski, wskazuje na to, że materia
pozostaje w gestii państw członkowskich, zgodnie z zasadą subsydiarności?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez komisarza Janeza Potočnika w imieniu Komisji**

_(13 sierpnia 2013 r.)_

1. Wyniki konsultacji zostaną uwzględnione w ramach dokonanej przez Komisję oceny wariantów strategicznych
opracowanej w połączeniu z „Ramami oceny dotyczącymi środowiska, klimatu i energii, umożliwiającymi
bezpieczne niekonwencjonalne wydobycie węglowodorów”. Inicjatywa ta jest częścią programu prac Komisji na
2013 r.

2. i 3. Odpowiedź na pytanie Szanownego Pana Posła brzmi: nie.

4. i 5. Chociaż konsultacja skierowana jest do wszystkich obywateli UE, przewiduje się, że odpowiedzi napłyną
głównie z państw posiadających złoża gazu łupkowego, w których prowadzona jest obecnie debata publiczna na ten
temat. Niekoniecznie przemawia to jednak za rozważaniem tej kwestii wyłącznie na poziomie państwa
członkowskiego. Wyniki zostaną zaprezentowane zarówno w formie nieważonej, jak i z uwzględnieniem liczby
ludności poszczególnych państw członkowskich.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 553

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008299/13**

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

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Findings of public consultation on shale gas

The Commission held a public consultation on unconventional fossil fuels, including shale gas, between
20 December 2012 and 23 March 2013. There were 22 875 respondents, around half (11 713) of whom were Polish.

There were very large disparities between the numbers of responses sent in from the Member States (ranging from a
low of 1, from Latvia, to a high of 11 714, from Poland). Eighty-five per cent of the responses came from only four
Member States, namely Poland, France, Romania and Spain, which, taken together, account for some 34% of the EU’s
overall population.

1. Does the Commission intend to draw any conclusions for the EU as a whole from the results of this
consultation?

2. Does it intend to rerun the consultation process, possibly on a broader basis this time?

3. On the basis of the results of the initial consultation, does it intend to draw any conclusions as to what the
general public in countries such as Latvia (one response), Greece (three responses) and Estonia (four responses) thinks
of shale gas?

4. Will it set the number of responses from each Member State against the size of its population? For instance, will
it view the single response received from Latvia as representative of the opinions of the Latvian people as a whole?

5. Does the fact that such a large proportion of the responses came from a single Member State, Poland, not tend
to indicate that this is a matter that should be dealt with by the Member States, in accordance with the subsidiarity
principle?

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

_(13 August 2013)_

1. The results of the consultation will be taken into account in part of the Commission's assessment of policy
options developed in conjunction with the ‘Environmental, Climate and Energy Assessment Framework to Enable
Safe and Secure Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction’. This initiative is part of the 2013 Commission Work
Programme.

2 and 3. The answer to the questions of the Honourable Member is no.

4 and 5. While all EU citizens are invited to contribute to the consultation, it is expected that submissions come
primarily from countries with shale gas resources and where a public debate on the subject is ongoing. This is not
necessarily an indication of whether or not the issue should be exclusively dealt with at the Member State level.
Results will be presented both in unweighted form and taking into account the population of the different Member
States.

C 65 E / 554 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008301/13**

**to the Commission**

**Struan Stevenson (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Excessive cost of challenging decisions in the UK

A constituent of mine challenged the Scottish Government-approved plans for Fife Council to increase the size of St
Andrews by up to one quarter. The proposals include the construction of a minimum of 1 000 houses, a business
park, a science park and a distributor road on the western edge of the town.

After losing two cases in the Scottish Court of Session in Edinburgh, the UK Supreme Court has also recently
dismissed my constituent's legal challenge and she is now faced with a legal bill of at least GBP 173 000.

However, this large fee that my constituent is now faced with is in direct contravention of Directive 2003/35/EC on
public participation in the drawing-up of plans relating to the environment. This directive explicitly states that such
challenges must not be prohibitively expensive, yet the UK and Scottish courts have shown a complete disregard for
this piece of EU legislation.

I am aware that the Commission has taken the UK to the European Court of Justice over legal proceedings proving
too costly — including situations in which the potential financial consequences of losing such challenges prevents
individuals from bringing cases against public bodies.

I wholeheartedly welcome the Commission’s decision to take the UK to the European Court of Justice over this
matter, yet as this matter is becoming considerably severe, could I urge the Commission to take further action directly
with the UK and Scottish governments regarding this case?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

The Commission has opened an infringement procedure against the UK concerning prohibitive excessive costs of
legal action. The case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) (Case C-530/11) and is at a very advanced
stage as the oral hearing already took place. With the infringement procedure the Commission seeks clarification
whether the UK complies with the obligation in Article 3(7) of Directive 2003/35/EC ( [1] ) providing for public
participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment. According to
that provision a review procedure before a court to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, acts
or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of this directive should not be prohibitively expensive. A
ruling by the ECJ on this issue will provide guidance for other cases of alleged prohibitively expensive costs of legal
action in the UK, falling in the scope of Directive 2003/35/EC. Nevertheless, the ECJ has already provided its first
views on the notion of prohibitively expensive costs of legal actions in a preliminary ruling in Case C-2060/11 —
Edwards — of 11 April 2013.

The Commission is not aware of the case referred to by the Honourable Member but is surprised to learn that such a
high fee is being charged to a complainant in a case falling under the directive, in particular since the judgment in ex
parte Edwards. In order to verify the individual facts of this case, the Commission would propose that the Honourable
Member provides additional details.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 156, 25.6.2003.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 555

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008302/13**

**to the Commission**
**William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Participants in the High Level Group on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Can the Commission provide a full list of members of the ‘High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth’ dealing
with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)?

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

_(8 August 2013)_

The High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth (HLWG), which was created in November 2011 ( [1] ), did not have
any formal membership and therefore a membership list does not exist. It was chaired by the EU Trade Commissioner
and United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and its work of the HLWG was managed by Jean-Luc Demarty,
Director General for Trade and Miriam Sapiro, Deputy US Trade Representative. The EU input to the reports issued by
the HLWG were the result of a common effort of various Commission services, in particular its Directorate-General of
Trade. In this respect, the Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Members' attention to the recently published
list of EU lead negotiators for all the areas covered by the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ( [2] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/november/tradoc_148387.pdf
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=950

C 65 E / 556 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008303/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(10 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Pregunta complementaria a E-003405/2013

En su respuesta a la pregunta E-003405/2013, la Comisión declaraba: «Tras tener conocimiento de los artículos
periodísticos sobre las garantías concedidas por el Instituto Valenciano de Finanzas, la Comisión ha pedido a las
autoridades españolas información adicional sobre esa medida. En caso de que detectara que se han concedido ayudas
estatales al Valencia CF, consideraría la adopción de las medidas pertinentes con arreglo a las normas sobre ayudas
estatales del Tratado.»

En el día de hoy, el juzgado de Valencia ha sentenciado que el 70 % de las acciones del Valencia CF son ahora
propiedad de Bankia.

En su respuesta, la Comisión también declara: «En el marco de la profunda reestructuración prevista en el plan para
BFA/Bankia y con el fin de evitar cualquier falseamiento indebido de la competencia, una de las medidas será la venta
de las participaciones no estratégicas de dicha entidad definidas en el plan o que resulten de la ejecución de garantías
concedidas por ella durante los últimos años.»

¿Cree la Comisión que Bankia debe vender sus participaciones en el Valencia CF para cumplir con las condiciones
acordadas en su plan de reestructuración y en el Memorando de Entendimiento?

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

_(9 de septiembre de 2013)_

España y Bankia se han comprometido, en el marco del plan de reestructuración de Bankia aprobado por la Comisión
en noviembre de 2012, a que este banco venda sus participaciones industriales a fin de centrarse en su negocio
bancario principal. Este compromiso se ajusta plenamente al objetivo principal de Bankia de recuperar la viabilidad.

Bankia seguirá funcionando en los próximos años como una entidad financiera que proporciona préstamos a la
economía. A este respecto, si, en el curso de sus operaciones bancarias normales, Bankia recibiera acciones de una
empresa (incluido un club de fútbol, como se indica en la pregunta de Su Señoría) la Comisión espera que dicho
banco gestione esos activos atendiendo a criterios bancarios puramente comerciales a fin de maximizar los ingresos
procedentes de dichos activos.

Por último, debe tenerse en cuenta que la Comisión no controla cada decisión comercial de Bankia, pero que sí
supervisa la ejecución del plan de reestructuración y de los compromisos fijados en el mismo.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 557

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008303/13**

**to the Commission**
**Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Follow-up to Question E-003405/2013

In its answer to Question E-003405/2013, the Commission stated: ‘Following press reports about guarantees
provided by the Valencia Finance Institute, the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities for more information
on this measure. Were the Commission to identify state aid as having been granted to FC Valencia, it would consider
the appropriate steps to take under the state aid rules of the Treaty.’

Today, the Valencia court ruled that 70% of the shares in FC Valencia were now owned by Bankia.

In its answer, the Commission also stated: ‘As a consequence of the deep restructuring foreseen in BFA/Bankia’s plan
and in order to avoid undue distortions of competition, one of the measures will be the sale of BFA/Bankia’s
participations in non-strategic participations identified in the plan or resulting from the execution of guarantees
granted by the BFA/Bankia over the past years.’

Does the Commission think that Bankia should sell its shares in FC Valencia to meet the conditions agreed in its
restructuring plan and in the memorandum of understanding?

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

_(9 September 2013)_

Spain and Bankia have committed, as part of Bankia's restructuring plan approved by the Commission in
November 2012, to the bank divesting its industrial stakes in order to focus on its core banking business. This
commitment is fully in line with Bankia's main objective of restoring its viability.

In the coming years, Bankia will continue to operate as a financial institution providing lending to the economy. In
that context, if Bankia were to receive shares from an undertaking (including a football club, as mentioned in the
Honourable Member's question) in the course of its normal banking operations, the Commission expects Bankia to
manage those assets from a purely commercial banking perspective and with a view to maximising the proceeds from
those assets.

Finally, it should be noted that the Commission does not monitor every single commercial decision of Bankia, but it
does monitor the implementation of the restructuring plan and the commitments in it.

C 65 E / 558 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008304/13**

**to the Commission**
**Derek Vaughan (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Food Supplements Directive

Regarding the Food Supplements Directive (2002/46/EC), is the Commission able to provide information on the
following points:

1. Can the Commission provide details on the expected timetable for the setting of maximum permitted levels for
vitamins and minerals in food supplements?

2. Can the Commission offer details regarding what maximum permitted level is likely to be set, and what impact
this is likely to have on independent health food stores and consumers?

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

_(14 August 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E‐007867/2013.

Please note that directive 2002/46/EC ( [1] ) on food supplements will not result in reduction of consumers' choice but
will rather ensure that food supplements placed on the market are safe and thus will allow consumers to choose from
a wide range of safe products.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p. 51‐57.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 559

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008306/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Due sorelle pachistane uccise, a quanto pare, per aver ballato sotto la pioggia

Alla fine di giugno 2013, diversi giornali internazionali hanno riportato la notizia dell'omicidio di due sorelle
pachistane, presumibilmente vittime di un delitto d'onore nella regione di Gilgit-Baltistan, nel nord del Pakistan.

Le due adolescenti, Basra e Sheza Noor, sono state uccise dopo aver pubblicato un video che le riprendeva sorridenti
mentre correvano intorno alla loro casa e ballavano sotto la pioggia. Secondo il quotidiano britannico _Daily Telegraph,_
cinque uomini a volto coperto avrebbero fatto irruzione nella casa delle due sorelle, uccidendo loro e la madre a colpi
di arma da fuoco. La polizia ritiene che l'omicidio sia stato commesso a causa del video, e che il fratellastro delle due
ragazze sia coinvolto nella sconcertante aggressione.

Secondo la relazione annuale 2012 della commissione per i diritti dell'uomo del Pakistan, 913 donne, tra cui 99
minorenni, sono rimaste vittima di cosiddetti delitti d'onore familiari nel 2012. Sebbene il delitto d'onore sia
considerato un reato, i responsabili rimangono in molti casi impuniti.

1. È a conoscenza il Vicepresidente/l'Alto Rappresentante del tragico caso di Basra e Sheza Noor?

2. Quali azioni ha intrapreso il Vicepresidente/l'Alto Rappresentante, insieme alle autorità pachistane competenti,
per contribuire a fermare o per condannare pubblicamente delitti d'onore simili commessi in Pakistan?

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

_(24 settembre 2013)_

L’AR/VP è a conoscenza del caso delle sorelle Noor. Si rinvia alle risposte alle interrogazioni E-10574/12 ed E10338/12 in merito alle azioni dell’Unione europea per affrontare la questione dei delitti d’onore nel dialogo con il
Pakistan e alle azioni svolte dalle autorità pakistane. L’UE ha regolarmente condannato la violenza nei confronti delle
donne e dei bambini e ha esortato il governo pakistano ad adottare misure urgenti per garantire la tutela dei diritti di
entrambi questi gruppi, appellandosi inoltre alle autorità perché garantiscano l’incolumità fisica e la protezione dei
diritti di tutti i cittadini.

La questione dei delitti d’onore sarà sollevata con il nuovo governo in occasione del prossimo dialogo sui diritti
umani, previsto per l’autunno 2013. La posizione dell’UE è che sia possibile influenzare gli sviluppi unicamente
mediante un impegno progressivo a tutto campo con il Pakistan, migliorando fra l’altro la sensibilizzazione e la
protezione dei diritti umani, rafforzando le organizzazioni della società civile, sostenendo programmi in materia di
istruzione ed equilibrio di genere nonché programmi sullo stato di diritto e favorendo l’accesso alla giustizia per i
gruppi vulnerabili.

I delitti d’onore sono un fenomeno di rilevanza mondiale. Nel 2009 una risoluzione ( [1] ) del Consiglio d’Europa ha
sottolineato che il problema dei delitti d’onore si è aggravato, anche in Europa, e ha rammentato la difficoltà di
accertare l’entità di tali crimini. Uno dei maggiori ostacoli è dato dall’assenza di testimoni. Le vittime di questi crimini
sono di norma donne e, nella maggioranza dei casi, i delitti d’onore sono perpetrati da parenti della donna o della
ragazza ritenuta colpevole.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Risoluzione 1681(2009).

C 65 E / 560 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008306/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Pakistani sisters reportedly murdered for dancing in the rain

In late June 2013 various international newspapers reported on the murder of two Pakistani sisters who were shot
dead in an alleged honour-killing incident in the northern region of Gilgit.

Teenage sisters Basra and Sheza Noor were shot dead after publishing a video in which they smiled, ran around their
house and danced in the rain. According to the UK newspaper the _Daily Telegraph_, five masked men broke into their
family home and shot them dead along with their mother. Police believe the murder was due to the video clip and that
the girls’ stepbrother had a hand in the appalling attack.

In its 2012 annual report, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan revealed that 913 women, including 99
minors, were killed in 2012 in so-called family dishonour killings. Although honour killing is considered a crime, in
many cases those responsible are allowed to escape without punishment.

1. Is the Vice-President/High Representative aware of the tragic case of Basra and Sheza Noor?

2. What actions has the Vice-President/High Representative taken together with the relevant Pakistani authorities
to help stop or publicly condemn such honour killings in Pakistan?

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

_(24 September 2013)_

The HR/VP is aware of the case of the Noor sisters. See replies to E-10574/12 and E-10338/12 concerning action
taken by the European Union to address the issue of honour crimes in its dialogue with Pakistan, and steps taken by
the Pakistani authorities. The EU has regularly condemned violence against women and children and encouraged the
Government of Pakistan to take urgent measures to ensure protection for the rights of both groups and has called on
the authorities to ensure the physical security and protect the rights of all its citizens.

The issue of honour killings will be raised with the new government in the forthcoming human rights dialogue,
expected to take place in the autumn of 2013. The EU’s position is that we can only influence developments through
progressive engagement with Pakistan across the board, including through improving awareness and protection of
human rights, strengthening civil society organisations, supporting programmes related to education and gender
balance, and programmes on the rule of law as well as support for access to justice for vulnerable groups.

Honour crimes are a worldwide phenomenon. A 2009 Council of Europe resolution ( [1] ) warned that the problem of
honour killings has worsened, including in Europe, and referred to the difficulty of assessing the number of such
crimes. A major challenge is a lack of witnesses. The most frequent victims of this crime are women, and in the
majority of cases, honour killings are perpetrated by other family members of the woman or the girl regarded as
culpable.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Resolution 1681 (2009).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 561

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008307/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Le proteste di Gezi Park: responsabilità della diaspora ebraica secondo il viceprimo ministro turco

Il 2 luglio 2013 il quotidiano turco _Hürriyet Daily News_ ha riportato la notizia secondo cui Beşir Atalay, viceprimo
ministro del paese, avrebbe accusato tra gli altri la diaspora ebraica di essere responsabile delle proteste avvenute lo
scorso mese in tutta la Turchia.

In un video del 1 [o] luglio filmato nella provincia di Kirikkale, in Anatolia, Atalay avrebbe dichiarato: «Vi sono cerchie,
invidiose della crescita della Turchia, che si stanno unendo, e tra di esse vi è la diaspora ebraica. Avete visto
l'atteggiamento dei mezzi di comunicazione stranieri durante gli incidenti di Gezi Park; hanno preso tutto per buono
cominciando a trasmetterli immediatamente, senza prima esaminarli».

1. È la Commissione a conoscenza dei commenti che sarebbero stati pronunciati dal viceprimo ministro turco
Beşir Atalay?

2. Intende la Commissionne sollevare la questione di tali spiacevolissimi commenti presso le competenti autorità
turche, chiedendo ai leader turchi di assumersi la responsabilità dei morti e dei feriti e dei danni causati dalle azioni
della polizia turca?

**Risposta di Štefan Füle a nome della Commissione**

_(4 settembre 2013)_

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza delle dichiarazioni del vice primo ministro turco e le considera inaccettabili,
soprattutto in quanto provengono da un alto funzionario del governo turco. La Commissione condanna tutte le
forme e manifestazioni di razzismo e xenofobia, che sono incompatibili con i principi e i valori su cui si fonda l’UE.

2. Per quanto riguarda le proteste di Gezi Park, la Commissione ha ribadito alle autorità turche che occorrono
indagini rapide e trasparenti sulla violenza attuata dalla polizia e che i responsabili devono essere assicurati alla
giustizia.

C 65 E / 562 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008307/13**

**to the Commission**
**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Turkish Deputy Prime Minister allegedly blames Jewish diaspora for Gezi Park protests

On 2 July 2013, Turkey’s _Hürriyet Daily News_ reported that the country’s Deputy Prime Minister, Beşir Atalay, had
accused the Jewish diaspora and others of being responsible for the protests which took place across Turkey last
month.

In a video shot on 1 July in the Anatolian province of Kirikkale, Atalay appears to have said: ‘There are some circles
that are jealous of Turkey’s growth. They are all uniting, on one side the Jewish diaspora. You saw the foreign media’s
attitude during the Gezi Park incidents; they bought it and started broadcasting immediately, without doing an
evaluation’.

1. Is the Commission aware of the comments seemingly made by Turkish Deputy PM Beşir Atalay?

2. Will the Commission raise the issue of these deeply regrettable comments with the relevant Turkish authorities,
and will Turkish leaders be asked to take responsibility for the casualties and damage caused by the actions of the
Turkish police?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the reported declarations of the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister and considers them
unacceptable, especially because they were made by a senior member of the Turkish Government. The Commission
condemns all forms and manifestations of racism and xenophobia, as they are incompatible with the principles and
values the EU is founded on.

2. Concerning the Gezi protests, the Commission has stressed to the Turkish authorities that a swift and
transparent investigation into the police violence needs to be followed through and those responsible need to be
brought to account.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 563

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008308/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Leader islamico lancia un appello a sferrare attacchi contro le Olimpiadi invernali

Il 3 luglio 2013, il leader di un gruppo islamico del Caucaso settentrionale ha annunciato che è scaduta la moratoria
sugli attacchi contro obiettivi situati all'esterno della regione. Doku Umarov, noto come «emiro dell'emirato del
Caucaso», ha invitato i suoi sostenitori a utilizzare la «massima forza» per creare disordini nelle Olimpiadi invernali di
Sochi del 2014. Stando a diverse fonti di informazione, Umarov avrebbe intenzione di creare uno Stato islamico nella
regione del Caucaso. Le forze di sicurezza, impegnate nel potenziamento della vigilanza, devono affrontare enormi
ostacoli. Nei primi cinque mesi dell'anno sono stati uccisi almeno 41 operatori del servizio di sicurezza e 62 militanti.
Umarov ha rivendicato la responsabilità di numerosi attentati in Russia, tra cui l'attentato dinamitardo suicida presso
l'aeroporto Domodedevo di Mosca, dove nel 2011 sono rimaste uccise 37 persone.

Stando al Wall Street Journal, le autorità russe si sarebbero impegnate a rafforzare la sicurezza delle Olimpiadi
invernali e delle gare stesse, e il governo starebbe stanziando 50 miliardi di dollari USA sia per l'evento che per
migliorare le infrastrutture. In un messaggio Umarov ha dichiarato che i russi «stanno pianificando i giochi olimpici
sulle ossa dei nostri avi, sulle ossa di tanti, di molti musulmani morti e sepolti sul nostro territorio lungo le coste del
Mar Nero, e noi mujaheddin non dobbiamo permettere che ciò accada e ricorreremo a qualsiasi mezzo che
l'onnipotente Allah ci consente di utilizzare».

1. Quali eventuali misure intende adottare l'UE per valutare la portata della minaccia rappresentata dai gruppi
militanti islamici del Caucaso settentrionale nei confronti dei giochi olimpici di Sochi del prossimo anno?

2. Ritiene il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante che gli sforzi russi volti ad allontanare la presenza di militanti
islamici dal Caucaso settentrionale abbiano avuto un esito positivo?

3. Quali misure sta adottando l'UE per sostenere la Russia nel contrastare la nascita di gruppi jihadisti militanti nel
Caucaso, schieratisi negli ultimi anni con al-Qaeda e altri gruppi terroristici internazionali?

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

_(5 settembre 2013)_

Spetta alle agenzie competenti della Federazione russa valutare le minacce esistenti nel Caucaso settentrionale. Mentre
gli Stati membri dell'UE collaborano e scambiano informazioni sulle minacce connesse al terrorismo a livello
dell'Unione, i contatti e gli scambi su tali questioni con la Federazione russa hanno luogo principalmente su base
bilaterale. L'UE intrattiene un dialogo politico globale con la Russia che tocca anche le questioni relative alla lotta
contro il terrorismo, ed entrambe le parti stanno studiando la possibilità di sviluppare una cooperazione in questo
settore. Attualmente gli sforzi si concentrano sulla redazione di una dichiarazione congiunta sulla lotta contro il
terrorismo.

La sicurezza dei giochi olimpici di Sochi è un tema importante non solo per la Russia ma per la comunità
internazionale in generale. La Russia ha sollevato la questione nel dialogo con l'UE, ma non ha mai né chiesto
assistenza, né affermato che avrebbe difficoltà a garantire la sicurezza nei prossimi giochi invernali.

C 65 E / 564 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008308/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Islamist leader calls for attacks on the Winter Olympics

On 3 July 2013, the leader of a North Caucasus Islamist group announced that the moratorium on attacks against
Russian targets outside the region has been lifted. Doku Umarov, known as the ‘Emir of the Caucasus Emirate’, has
called on his followers to use ‘maximum force’ to disrupt the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. According to the
various news sources, Umarov wants to create an Islamic state in the Caucasus region. Security forces which are
working to tighten security are facing enormous obstacles. In the first five months of the year, at least 41 security
personnel and 62 militants were killed. Umarov has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks in Russia, including
the suicide bombing at Moscow’s Domodedevo airport that killed 37 people in 2011.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Russian officials have vowed to tighten security for the Winter Olympics and for
the Games themselves and the government is reportedly spending USD 50 billion on the event and to improve
infrastructure. Umarov is on record as stating that the Russians ‘plan to hold the Olympics on the bones of our
ancestors, on the bones of many, many dead Muslims buried on the territory of our land on the Black Sea, and we
mujahedeen are obliged not to permit that, using any methods allowed us by the almighty Allah.’

1. What steps, if any, is the EU taking to assess the extent of the threat posed by Islamist militant groups in the
North Caucasus regarding next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi?

2. Does the Vice-President/High Representative believe that Russian efforts to dislodge the presence of Islamist
militancy in the North Caucasus have been successful?

3. What steps is the EU taking to support Russia in tackling the rise of militant jihadi groups in the Caucasus,
which in recent years have aligned themselves with al-Qaeda and other global terrorist groups?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

The assessment of threats existing in the North Caucasus lies in the competence of relevant agencies of the Russian
Federation. The EU Member States do cooperate and exchange information at EU level on threats related to terrorism,
whereas contacts and exchanges on these matters with the Russian Federation take place primarily on a bilateral basis.
The EU has a comprehensive political dialogue with Russia touching also upon issues related to the fight against
terrorism, and both sides are exploring possibilities to develop cooperation in this area. Currently, efforts are focusing
on drafting a joint statement on combatting terrorism.

The security of the Sochi Olympic games is an important issue not only for Russia but for the international
community at large. Russia has raised it in the dialogue with the EU but has at no point asked for assistance nor
indicated that it would have difficulties with ensuring the security of the up-coming winter games.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 565

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008309/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Attacchi nel Sinai e nel Suez

Due giorni dopo che il Presidente Mohammed Morsi è stato rimosso dalla sua carica, uomini armati non identificati
hanno attaccato un aeroporto a El Arish, una città del Sinai. La Reuters ha riferito che il comandante della terza
armata, il generale Osama Askar, ha dichiarato che lo «stato di allerta» delle forze armate è stato alzato al suo livello
più alto. Un soldato è stato ucciso, e altri due sono stati feriti, presso un posto di polizia nella città di Rafah al confine
con Gaza. Attualmente è ancora incerto se esista o meno un legame tra l'attacco a El Arish e la rimozione di
Mohammed Morsi dalla carica di Presidente. Gli attaccanti hanno sparato delle granate con propulsione a razzo
contro i posti di controllo dell'esercito a difesa dell'aeroporto di El Harish. Secondo il _Jerusalem Post_, tuttavia, l'esercito
smentisce che sia stato dichiarato uno stato di emergenza, anche se vi sono delle informazioni secondo le quali
l'esercito egiziano si tiene pronto a fronteggiare violente proteste da parte dei sostenitori di Morsi e da parte dei
Fratelli Musulmani.

1. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante riguardo alla possibilità che l'instabilità politica al
Cairo possa innescare una violenta reazione militante da parte dei sostenitori dei Fratelli Musulmani e da parte di altre
fazioni islamiche più estremiste, eventualmente armate, in Egitto?

2. Data l'instabilità che è emersa in tutta l'Africa del Nord sin dall'inizio della Primavera araba, il
Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante non ritiene che sia essenziale che l'UE delinei una strategia per far fronte alle
eventuali conseguenze?

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

_(10 settembre 2013)_

L'UE è perfettamente consapevole degli eventi cui fanno riferimento gli onorevoli deputati e, in particolare alla luce
dei recenti sviluppi nel paese, sta monitorando la situazione in loco in stretto contatto e attraverso il dialogo con le
principali parti interessate al fine di adottare le misure necessarie e appropriate. A tale riguardo, le conclusioni del
Consiglio del 21 agosto 2013 impongono a tutte le parti di impegnarsi in un dialogo autentico e inclusivo al fine di
ristabilire un processo democratico, rispondendo così alle legittime richieste e aspirazioni del popolo egiziano.

Per quanto riguarda la strategia dell'UE, è importante tenere conto del fatto che la base per l'impegno dell'Unione
europea in Egitto è la nuova politica europea di vicinato adottata nel 2011, secondo la quale l'impegno dell'UE è
strettamente subordinato al rispetto dei valori e dei diritti fondamentali, secondo il principio «more for more»
(maggiori aiuti a fronte di un maggiore impegno) ( [1] ).

Infine, l'UE, in particolare nelle attuali circostanze, rimane inequivocabilmente impegnata a sostenere le aspirazioni
del popolo egiziano verso la democrazia e una governance inclusiva.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0303:FIN:it:PDF.

C 65 E / 566 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008309/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Attacks in the Sinai and Suez

Two days after President Mohammed Morsi was removed from office, unidentified gunmen attacked an airport in the
Sinai town of El Arish. Reuters reported that the commander of the Third Field Army, General Osama Askar, said that
the ‘state of readiness’ of the armed forces had been raised to its highest level. One soldier was also killed, and two
were wounded, at a police station on the Gaza border of Rafah. There is currently uncertainty over whether or not the
attack at El Arish is connected with Mohamed Morsi’s removal from office. Attackers fired rocket-propelled grenades
at army checkpoints guarding El Arish airport. However, according to the Jerusalem Post, the military denies that a
state of emergency has been put into effect, even though there are reports that Egypt’s military is bracing itself for
violent protests by supporters of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

1. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative regarding the likelihood that political instability
in Cairo could spark a militant backlash by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and other more extreme —
possibly armed — Islamist factions in Egypt?

2. Given the instability that has emerged across North Africa since the start of the Arab Spring, does VicePresident/High Representative believe that it is crucial that the EU outline a strategy in dealing with the potential
fallout?

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

_(10 September 2013)_

The EU is well aware of the events illustrated by the Honourable Members. The EU, especially in light of the recent
developments in the country, is monitoring the situation on the ground in close contact and dialogue with key stake
holders in order to take the necessary and appropriate measures. In this respect, the Council Conclusions of
21 August 2013 urge all parties to engage in a real and inclusive dialogue in order to restore a democratic process
responding to the legitimate requests and aspirations of the Egyptian people.

Regarding the EU strategy, it is important to bear in mind that the basis for the EU engagement in Egypt is the
renewed EU Neighbourhood Policy adopted in 2011 according to which the EU engagement is strictly linked to the
respect of fundamental rights and values, the so-called more-for-more principle ( [1] ).

Finally, the EU, particularly under the present circumstances, remains unequivocally committed to supporting the
Egyptian people in their aspirations to democracy and inclusive governance.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0303:FIN:en:PDF

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 567

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008310/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Il futuro degli aiuti dell'UE all'Egitto

In merito alla destituzione del presidente dell'Egitto Mohamed Morsi, avvenuta con l'intervento militare in seguito alle
richieste espresse in occasione di proteste popolari su vasta scala, l'Alto Rappresentante/Vicepresidente ha dichiarato
quanto segue: «Invito tutte le parti a ritornare rapidamente al processo democratico, a organizzare altresì elezioni
presidenziali e parlamentari libere ed eque e ad approvare la costituzione, in maniera onnicomprensiva, onde
consentire al paese di riprendere e completare la sua transizione democratica».

Al momento l'UE ha stanziato 5 miliardi di EUR a favore dell'Egitto, ma stando al quotidiano _European Voice_, un
portavoce dell'AR/VP avrebbe sostenuto che «lei non era a conoscenza di piani urgenti per riconsiderare in questo
momento i programmi di aiuti [dell'UE], tuttavia i fatti avvenuti la notte scorsa sono ancora in fase di assestamento».

Il quotidiano riferisce inoltre che secondo la Corte dei conti europea gli aiuti dell'UE concessi all'Egitto prima e dopo
la Primavera araba sono «mossi da buone intenzioni ma inefficaci». La Corte dei conti osserva altresì che il principale
programma per i diritti umani ha avuto un impatto modesto ed è stato in gran parte infruttuoso. Stando alle denunce
non è stato fatto abbastanza per risolvere le questioni in sospeso, che invece potrebbero essere affrontate con gli aiuti
stranieri. L'agenzia stampa Reuters, citando fonti dell'UE, ha riferito che gli aiuti saranno incentrati sul livello dei
progressi compiuti nell'ambito del sostegno alla democrazia.

1. Quali misure è disposto ad adottare il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in risposta alle critiche della Corte dei
conti europea secondo cui le risorse dell'UE sarebbero state utilizzate in modo inefficace a sostegno dell'Egitto e in
merito alle sue dichiarazioni relative alla salvaguardia e alla promozione dei diritti umani?

2. Quali azioni è disposto a intraprendere il Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante qualora le nuove autorità
provvisorie dell'Egitto non siano in grado di tenere elezioni libere ed eque entro un termine ragionevole?

3. Qual è la posizione del Vicepresidente/Alto Rappresentante in merito al riconoscimento del nuovo capo di Stato
provvisorio dell'Egitto Adli Mansour, e come valutano i funzionari dell'UE in servizio al Cairo i recenti sviluppi nel
paese?

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

_(6 settembre 2013)_

La Commissione ha accettato le osservazioni e molte delle raccomandazioni della Corte dei conti, in particolare quelle
volte a migliorare l'efficacia del dialogo strategico UE sulla governance e la gestione dello strumento di sostegno al
bilancio in Egitto.

L'assistenza fornita dall'UE, in particolare il sostegno al bilancio settoriale, ha permesso di erogare ed estendere servizi
sociali di base alle persone più povere e vulnerabili. Altri programmi dell'UE sostengono settori fondamentali quali la
creazione di posti di lavoro, l'occupabilità dei giovani e la formazione professionale.

L'Unione seguirà con la massima attenzione gli sviluppi politici in Egitto, specie per quanto riguarda i diritti umani e
la democrazia. In linea con le conclusioni del Consiglio del 21 agosto, il SEAE riesaminerà l'assistenza dell'UE in
collaborazione con la Commissione. Come indicato nelle suddette conclusioni, si continuerà a fornire assistenza nel
settore socioeconomico e alla società civile.

L'UE sostiene le aspirazioni democratiche del popolo egiziano e caldeggia, in particolare, il rapido avvio di un
processo di trasformazione democratico e inclusivo, che porti all'organizzazione di elezioni parlamentari e
presidenziali e all'insediamento di un governo civile democraticamente eletto.

L'UE è in contatto con le nuove autorità provvisorie e con altri interlocutori politici quali i Fratelli musulmani,
rappresentanti dei movimenti di opposizione e esponenti della società civile. L'Unione continua a sostenere una
soluzione pacifica ed è pronta a fornire, su richiesta, la necessaria assistenza.

Va sottolineato, infine, che l'impegno dell'UE in Egitto si basa sulla nuova politica europea di vicinato adottata nel
2011.

C 65 E / 568 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008310/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Future of EU aid to Egypt

In light of the removal of Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi through military intervention following demands voiced
in large-scale popular protests, the High Representative / Vice-President responded by saying ‘I urge all sides to rapidly
return to the democratic process, including the holding of free and fair presidential and parliamentary elections and
the approval of a constitution, to be done in a fully inclusive manner, so as to permit the country to resume and
complete its democratic transition’.

The EU has currently earmarked EUR 5 billion for Egypt, but according to the _European Voice_ newspaper, a
spokesperson for the HR/VP has said that she was ‘not aware of any urgent plans to rethink [the EU’s] aid
programmes at the moment but the dust is still settling on what happened last night’.

The newspaper also reported that the European Court of Auditors has described EU aid to Egypt before and after the
Arab Spring as ‘well-intentioned but ineffective’. The Court of Auditors has also noted that the main human rights
programme has had little impact and has largely been unsuccessful. There have been complaints that not more has
been done to address outstanding problems, which foreign aid is expected to tackle. Citing EU sources, the news
agency Reuters has said that aid will hinge on what progress is made towards supporting democracy.

1. What steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to take in response to criticism by the European
Court of Auditors that EU money has been used ineffectively in supporting Egypt, and to its statements regarding the
safeguarding and promotion of human rights?

2. What actions is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared to take if Egypt’s new interim authorities fail to
hold free and fair elections within a reasonable timescale?

3. What is the position of the Vice-President/High Representative towards recognising Adli Mansour as Egypt’s
new interim Head of State, and what is the assessment of EU officials in Cairo regarding these latest developments in
the country?

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

_(6 September 2013)_

The observations and many of the recommendations by the Court of Auditors have been accepted by the
Commission, in particular those aiming at improving the effectiveness of EU policy dialogue on governance and
strengthening the management of the Budget Support (BS) instrument in Egypt.

Support provided by the EU and in particular under sector budget support, has allowed the provision and extension
of basic social services to reach out the poorest and the most vulnerable population. Other EU programmes are
supporting key areas such as Job Creation, Youth Employability and Vocational Training.

The EU will follow closely the political developments in Egypt and especially in the field of human rights and
democracy. Following the Council Conclusions of 21 August, the EEAS, in cooperation with the Commission, will
review EU assistance. As indicated in the Council Conclusions, assistance in the socioeconomic sector and to civil
society will continue.

In this respect, the EU is supporting the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people. In particular, the EU is calling
for a rapid move to a democratic and inclusive transformation process, leading to Parliamentary and Presidential
elections and a democratically elected civilan government.

The EU is in contact with the new intrim authorities as well as with other political stakeholders such as the Muslim
Brotherhood, representatives of the opposition movements and civil society. In this respect, the EU continues to
support a peaceful solution and stands ready to help as requested.

Lastly, it is important to bear in mind that the basis for the EU engagement in Egypt is the renewed European
Neighbourhood Policy adopted in 2011.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 569

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008311/13**

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

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) e Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ VP/HR — Nuove insurrezioni in Iraq

Il 20 giugno 2013 Radio Free Europe ha riferito di un allarmante incremento della militanza settaria in Iraq, inoltre
sono ricomparsi gruppi che si erano presumibilmente sciolti nella metà degli anni 2000. Gli attacchi, gli attentati
dinamitardi e gli omicidi commessi dagli sciiti-sunniti sono aumentati, con il risultato che il numero di vittime non è
mai stato così alto dal 2008. Dal mese di aprile sono state uccise tragicamente almeno 2 000 persone.

Gli iracheni riferiscono di milizie e gruppi armati che si aggirano per le strade di Baghdad, suddivise negli anni passati
tra i gruppi settari. Molte persone temono ora di lasciare le proprie abitazioni o di passeggiare per le strade. I negozi
sono chiusi e la popolazione non partecipa a grandi eventi per paura di essere presa di mira; anche gli studenti
temono di uscire di casa per sostenere gli esami.

Il primo ministro iracheno Nouri al-Maliki si è impegnato a prendere misure rigorose contro le milizie e altri gruppi
armati presenti a Baghdad. Il governo ha però messo in guardia sul fatto che gli estremisti sunniti stanno unendo le
proprie forze per attaccare le comunità sciite e i simboli dell'autorità di governo. Ora si teme che le milizie sciite
possano per punizione prendere nuovamente di mira i simboli e le comunità dei sunniti.

Qais al-Shadher, un indipendente con incarichi legislativi e appartenente al comitato di riconciliazione nazionale,
ritiene che l'intensificarsi della crisi politica e le dichiarazioni sediziose dei rivali politici abbiano portato alla
ricomparsa di milizie armate. Qais al-Shadher ha detto che: «Noi [il governo] non abbiamo tenuto fede alle proposte
delineate nel programma di riconciliazione nazionale … Non abbiamo teso la mano alle tribù [sunnite] che hanno
sostenuto il processo politico quando il governo si è rivolto a loro [per contrastare al-Qaeda] nel 2006 e nel 2007.
Ciò si è tradotto in una mancanza di fiducia e in un sentimento di delusione [tra i sunniti]».

1. Alla luce della crescente violenza settaria in Iraq, quali misure intende adottare il Vicepresidente/Alto
Rappresentante per sostenere gli sforzi di riconciliazione tra i sunniti moderati e le forze sciita?

2. Come valutano i funzionari dell'UE in servizio a Baghdad la capacità delle autorità irachene di prevenire lo
scoppio di una guerra civile?

3. Quali misure sta prendendo l'UE per sostenere il processo di riconciliazione tra i vari gruppi etnici e religiosi del
paese?

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

_(3 settembre 2013)_

L'AR/VP segue molto attentamente la situazione in Iraq e ha regolarmente condannato gli alti livelli di violenza che si
continuano a registrare nel paese, compresa l'ondata di attentati degli ultimi mesi. Ha inoltre espresso preoccupazione
per l'aumento delle tensioni politiche che indeboliscono la stabilità del paese.

L'AR/VP ha sollevato il tema dell'Iraq in occasione dei Consigli Affari esteri del febbraio e del marzo 2013, durante i
quali i ministri degli Esteri dell'Unione europea hanno riconosciuto l'importanza di promuovere la stabilità politica in
Iraq e di rafforzare l'impegno dell'UE nei confronti di questo paese. Di conseguenza, il Consiglio Affari esteri dell'
aprile 2013 ha adottato conclusioni specifiche sulla situazione in Iraq.

L'AR/VP ha visitato il paese il 17 giugno 2013 e invitato tutte le parti a collaborare per affrontare le questioni
politiche e di governance attraverso il dialogo. Ha inoltre incoraggiato il consolidamento dei progressi democratici
attraverso istituzioni forti ed efficienti — elemento chiave di ogni sistema democratico.

L'UE ha sempre sostenuto gli sforzi democratici dell'Iraq e incoraggiato la riconciliazione nazionale come prerequisito
per un sistema democratico inclusivo ed efficace. L'AR/VP ha ripetutamente invitato i leader politici a compiere ogni
sforzo per porre fine alla spirale di violenza e continuerà a seguire gli sviluppi interni in Iraq con molta attenzione.

C 65 E / 570 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008311/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Fiorello Provera (EFD) and Charles Tannock (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Re-emergence of insurgency in Iraq

On 20 June 2013, Radio Free Europe reported on the alarming rise in sectarian militancy in Iraq. Groups which were
thought to have disbanded in the mid-2000s have now re-emerged. There has been a rise in the numbers of SunniShi’ite attacks, bombings and assassinations. The result has been a death toll the like of which had not been seen since
2008. Since April at least 2 000 people have tragically been killed.

Iraqis report that militias and armed groups roam the streets of Baghdad, which in previous years were carved up
along sectarian lines. Many people are now afraid to leave their homes or walk in the streets. Shops have been shut
and people are cancelling large events for fear of being targeted. Students are also afraid to leave home in order to sit

exams.

Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has pledged to clamp down on the militias and other armed groups in Baghdad.
However, the government has warned that Sunni extremists are joining forces to attack Shi’ite communities and
symbols of government authority. Now there is a fear that Shi’ite militias will once again start to target Sunni symbols
and communities in retribution.

Qais al-Shadher, an independent lawmaker belonging to the National Reconciliation Committee, believes that the
deepening political crisis and inflammatory remarks made by rival politicians have led to the re-emergence of armed
militias. Mr al-Shadher said: ‘We [the government] didn’t fulfil the proposals outlined in the National Reconciliation
programme … We haven’t embraced the [Sunni] tribes that supported the political process when the government
called on them [to fight Al-Qaeda] in 2006 and 2007. That has led to a lack of trust and feeling of disappointment

[among Sunnis]’.

1. In light of the growing sectarian violence in Iraq, what steps is the Vice-President/High Representative prepared
to take in order to support reconciliation efforts between moderate Sunni and Shi’ite forces?

2. What is the assessment of EU officials in Baghdad regarding the ability of the Iraqi authorities to prevent the
outbreak of a civil war?

3. What steps is the EU taking to support the reconciliation process between the country’s various ethnic and
religious groups?

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

_(3 September 2013)_

The HR/VP follows the situation in Iraq very closely. She has condemned consistently the continuing high levels of
violence in Iraq, including the spate of attacks in the recent months. She also expressed concern about the increased
political tensions undermining Iraq’s stability.

The HR/VP initiated a discussion on Iraq at the February and March 2013 Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) meetings
where EU Foreign Ministers agreed on the importance of promoting political stability in Iraq and enhancing the EU’s
engagement with the country. Consequently, the April 2013 FAC adopted conclusions specifically on the situation in
Iraq.

The HR/VP visited Iraq on 17 June 2013 and urged all parties to work together to address political and governance
issues through dialogue. She also encouraged the consolidation of democratic gains through strong and efficient
institutions — a key element in any democratic system.

The EU has consistently supported Iraq’s democratic endeavours and encouraged national reconciliation as a
prerequisite for an inclusive and effective democratic system. The HR/VP has repeatedly called on the political leaders
to make every effort to end the cycle of violence, and she will continue to follow the internal developments in Iraq
very closely.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 571

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008313/13**

**au Conseil**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Voiture et CO 2 : des émissions sous-estimées

Le secteur des transports — et surtout celui de l'automobile — est le principal responsable des émissions de gaz à effet
de serre, auxquelles on attribue la responsabilité de l'actuel réchauffement climatique. Parmi ces gaz, figure en premier
lieu le gaz carbonique (CO 2 ) produit par la combustion de l'essence ou du diesel. Et les émissions de CO 2 sont
directement liées à la consommation de carburant et donc au coût d'utilisation du véhicule. Les constructeurs

automobiles sont fermement incités à réduire sensiblement ces émissions.

Les organisations de consommateurs, dont Test-Achats par exemple, mesurent systématiquement, à l'occasion de
leurs tests d'automobiles, la consommation et les émissions réelles. Il en ressort que les chiffres avancés par les
fabricants sont toujours inférieurs à la réalité. Une étude du Conseil international sur les transports propres (ICCT)
montre que le fossé entre les chiffres de consommation annoncés et les chiffres réels est passé de moins de 10 % en
2011 à 25 % en 2012.

Pour mettre un terme à cette tricherie, une solution existe: un nouveau protocole de test, le WLTP (Worldwide Light
Duty Test Procedure) dont les résultats sont sensiblement plus proches de la réalité qu'avec le protocole actuel. Le
Parlement européen a proposé qu'il soit appliqué dès 2017, mais certains États membres souhaitent repousser cette
introduction jusqu'à 2020.

L'Union européenne a approuvé, le 24 juin dernier, un accord de compromis pour appliquer des règles plus strictes
sur les émissions de CO 2 des voitures neuves à partir de 2020. Il s'agit d'un accord entre la Commission européenne, le
Parlement et la Présidence irlandaise du Conseil européen qui doit encore être ratifié. Ce compromis prévoit la mise en
place obligatoire du nouveau protocole de test WLTP le plus rapidement possible. Cependant, aucune date précise n'a
été mentionnée pour la mise en place du nouveau test.

1. Le Conseil partage-t-il l'avis selon lequel l'introduction du WLTP doit se faire rapidement, et plus précisément
avant 2017?

2. Le Conseil compte-t-il mettre tout en œuvre pour rappeler les États membres à l'ordre et accepter la date
proposée?

**Réponse**
_(7 octobre 2013)_

Les textes législatifs régissant les émissions de CO 2 des voitures et véhicules utilitaires légers, qui ont fait l'objet d'un
accord ad référendum entre les négociateurs du Parlement, du Conseil et de la Commission à la fin juin 2013,
contiennent en effet un libellé de compromis concernant une nouvelle procédure d'essai harmonisée au niveau
mondial pour les voitures particulières et les véhicules utilitaires légers (WLTP), qui est en cours de développement
dans le cadre de la Commission économique des Nations unies pour l'Europe (UNECE) et indiquent que la WLTP
devrait être appliquée dès que possible. Les dispositions de ces textes devront être mises en œuvre une fois que le
Parlement et le Conseil auront définitivement adopté les actes législatifs.

C 65 E / 572 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008313/13**

**to the Council**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Underreported car CO 2 emissions

The transport industry — and in particular the automotive sector — is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions,
which are considered to be the cause of today’s global warming. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide
(CO 2 ), which is produced when petrol or diesel is burnt. CO 2 emissions are directly linked to fuel consumption and
therefore to the cost of operating a vehicle. Car manufacturers are thus strongly encouraged to significantly reduce
these emissions.

Consumer organisations, such as Test-Achats, routinely measure actual fuel consumption and emission levels in their
automotive tests. Their findings show that the figures reported by manufacturers are always lower than their actual
values. A study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) shows that the difference between the
consumption figures reported by manufacturers and the actual values recorded during the tests leapt from less than
10% in 2011 to 25% in 2012.

However, a new test procedure called WLTP (Worldwide Light Duty Test Procedure) could soon put an end to this
deceit, as it gives readings that are much closer to the actual values than those measured with the current procedure.
Parliament proposed that it be used from 2017, but some Member States are keen to delay its introduction until
2020.

On 24 June 2013, the European Union reached a compromise and decided that more stringent CO 2 emission limits
should be set for new cars from 2020. This agreement was between the Commission, Parliament and the Irish
Presidency of the EU Council and must still be ratified. The compromise calls for the new WLTP test procedure to be
introduced as swiftly as possible. However, no specific date is given for when this should happen.

1. Does the Council agree that the WLTP test procedure should be introduced as swiftly as possible, i.e. before
2017?

2. Will the Council make every effort to bring the Member States into line to agree on the proposed date?

**Reply**
_(7 October 2013)_

The legislative texts regulating CO 2 emissions from cars and light commercial vehicles, agreed ad referendum between
the negotiators of Parliament, Council and Commission at the end of June 2013, indeed contain compromise
wording on a new worldwide harmonised light vehicles test procedure (WLTP), which is currently being developed
under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and indicate that the WLTP
should be applied at the earliest opportunity. The provisions of these texts will have to be implemented once
Parliament and Council have definitively adopted the legal acts.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 573

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008314/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Aziende europee e lavori forzati cinesi

È di questi giorni la rivelazione di alcuni detenuti australiani e neozelandesi appena usciti dal carcere cinese di
Dongguan: secondo quanto affermano, sarebbero stati costretti a produrre elementi per auricolari nella fabbrica del
carcere, dove i detenuti subiscono ripetuti abusi fisici e sono costretti all'isolamento, a privazioni e umiliazioni nel
caso in cui non riescano a raggiungere gli obiettivi di produzione. Gli stessi auricolari sono poi venduti a grandi
compagnie aeree, tra cui se ne annoverano una australiana, una di Dubai e una inglese, che le utilizzano sui voli a
lunga distanza. Ai detenuti non vengono riconosciuti che pochi spiccioli per il loro lavoro, oltre ad essere picchiati e
reclusi, come già detto, se non svolgono il loro lavoro in modo da accontentare i sorveglianti. Gli stessi ex detenuti
dichiarano che oltre ai pezzi di auricolari, erano costretti a produrre anche complementi elettronici per una grande
industria degli elettrodomestici svedese e per una americana.

La Commissione:

1. È in grado di certificare se all'interno del carcere di Dongguan o di carceri con regimi di lavoro simili siano
detenuti cittadini degli Stati membri?

2. Non ritiene di dovere verificare insieme agli Stati membri le cui aziende sono coinvolte la condotta delle
suddette aziende e il rispetto delle Convenzioni dell'OIL sui diritti dei lavoratori?

3. Quali strumenti utilizza per il controllo dell'eticità della produzione delle merci che entrano nel mercato
interno?

**Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione**

_(19 settembre 2013)_

Secondo le informazioni fornite dagli Stati membri, sembra che vi siano due cittadini olandesi nella prigione di
Dongguan che stanno effettivamente lavorando, ma in condizioni in nessun caso simili a quelle descritte
nell'interrogazione. Anche pochi altri cittadini dell'UE sono attualmente detenuti in altre prigioni in Cina e sembra
che alcuni di essi siano lavorando, ma nessuno di loro ha denunciato condizioni dure simili a quelle descritte.

Anche se la Commissione non ha fatto ricorso a procedure vigenti per controllare la natura etica delle importazioni
nell'UE, essa sostiene attivamente le prassi di comportamento responsabile nelle imprese, anche per quanto riguarda
la gestione della catena di approvvigionamento. Per quanto riguarda le sue iniziative e la portata della sua azione in
rapporto alla condotta delle imprese nei paesi terzi, la Commissione rimanda l'onorevole deputato alle risposte
all'interrogazione E-007540/2013.

L'onorevole deputato può inoltre fare riferimento alla risposta della Commissione all'interrogazione E007894/2013 ( [1] ) concernente le denunce di un presunto ricorso al lavoro forzato dei detenuti nella prigione di
Dongguan.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm.

C 65 E / 574 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008314/13**

**to the Commission**
**Cristiana Muscardini (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ European businesses and Chinese forced labour

A group of Australian and New Zealand inmates recently released from China’s Dongguan Prison have revealed in the
last few days that they were forced to make earphone parts in the factory inside the prison, where inmates suffer
regular beatings, periods of solidarity confinement, deprivation and humiliation if they fail to meet production
targets. The earphones are then sold to major airlines, including one from Australia, one from Dubai and one from
the United Kingdom, which use them on long-haul flights. As well as the aforementioned beatings and periods of
solitary confinement if they do not carry out their work to the guards’ satisfaction, the inmates are paid a pittance for
what they produce. Those same former inmates claim that, in addition to earphone parts, they were forced to produce
electronic accessories for a major Swedish and US household appliance manufacturer.

1. Can the Commission confirm whether any EU citizens are being held in Dongguan Prison or in prisons with
similar labour systems?

2. Does it not consider it necessary to verify, together with the Member States whose businesses are involved, the
conduct of those businesses and their compliance with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions on
workers’ rights?

3. What instruments does it use to check that goods entering the internal market have been produced ethically?

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

_(19 September 2013)_

According to the information provided by Member States, there appear to be 2 Dutch citizens in Dongguan prison
who are indeed working but the conditions are nowhere near similar to those described in the question. A handful of
EU citizens are also currently being held in other prisons in China and some inmates seem to be working but have not
complained about harsh conditions similar to those described.

While the Commission does not have dedicated procedures in place to check the ethical nature of imports into
the EU, it actively supports responsible business conduct practices, including on supply chain management.
Concerning its initiatives and scope of action with regard to the conduct of EU companies in third countries, the
Commission refers the Honourable Member to its replies to Question E-007540/2013.

The Honourable Member may also wish to refer to the Commission's reply to Question E-007894/2013 ( [1] )
concerning the alleged claims of the use of forced prison labour in Dongguan prison.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html?tabType=wq#sidesForm

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 575

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008315/13**

**alla Commissione**
**Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Carlo Casini (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE),**

**Giovanni La Via (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Aldo Patriciello (PPE), Gino**

**Trematerra (PPE) e Potito Salatto (PPE)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Concessioni per la gestione della distribuzione di gas

In Italia l'affidamento dei servizi del gas è regolato dall'articolo 46 bis del D.L. 159/2007, che dispone che le gare
d'appalto debbano essere effettuate per Ambiti territoriali minimi (c.d. Atem), e dalle relative normative di attuazione,
in particolare il D.M. 74/2011 che ha individuato 177 Atem, il D.M. 252/2011 che contiene l'elenco dei comuni
appartenenti a ciascun Atem, il D.Lgs 93/2011 che stabilisce che le gare per l'affidamento del servizio sono effettuate
«unicamente per Atem» e il D.M. 226/2011 che disciplina i criteri per la gestione delle gare e la valutazione delle
offerte. Quest'ultimo D.M. contiene norme vaghe e impone oneri burocratici eccessivi ai comuni, che si vedono
privati della loro autonomia decisionale in quanto obbligati a delegare a un ente terzo la gestione delle gare e la
valutazione delle offerte. In particolare, l'articolo 4 del D.L. 69/2013 prevede che, per i Comuni che non rispettano i
termini del D.M. 226/2011, la Regione nomini un commissario ad acta per l'espletamento della gara. Di fatto,
dunque, le procedure farraginose scoraggiano l'indizione, da parte dei Comuni, di nuove gare d'appalto che, a fronte
degli elevati oneri connessi, consentono la partecipazione di pochi operatori soltanto, con conseguenti minori

entrate.

La tempistica prevista determinerebbe inoltre la concomitanza di procedure di gara in numerosi ambiti, dando luogo,
di fatto, a una restrizione della potenziale concorrenza. Ad oggi non è stata espletata alcuna gara d'ambito e gli attuali
gestori continuano a gestire per deroga di legge la fornitura di gas. La Commissione europea già nel 2007 aveva
rilevato, nella sua Indagine settoriale sui mercati del gas e dell'elettricità, importanti distorsioni di mercato derivanti da
barriere d'ingresso nel mercato.

Ritiene la Commissione che sia opportuno avviare una nuova indagine conoscitiva per valutare la violazione della
libera concorrenza e della libertà di stabilimento o le distorsioni del mercato in difformità degli articoli 101 e 102 del
trattato sull'Unione europea (TUE) in materia di concorrenza? Se del caso, intende procedere con eventuali correttivi e
sanzioni?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(5 settembre 2013)_

Il decreto legislativo 164/2000, il decreto ministeriale 226/2011 e le altre disposizioni nazionali citate dall’onorevole
deputato stabiliscono norme concernenti le procedure di gara per l’assegnazione del servizio di distribuzione del gas
in Italia. In base a tali disposizioni, le procedure di gara devono essere organizzate a livello aggregato in 177 ambiti
territoriali identificati a tale fine. Come indicato dalla Commissione nella sua risposta all’interrogazione E007564/2013 ( [1] ), le norme UE in materia di appalti pubblici non fissano obblighi in relazione al livello ottimale da
prevedere per la fornitura del servizio di distribuzione del gas. Di conseguenza, gli Stati membri possono organizzare
le procedure di gara al livello territoriale che ritengono più opportuno.

Quanto al fatto, citato dall’onorevole deputato, che nessuna procedura di gara ha ancora avuto inizio, la
Commissione osserva che il decreto-legge 69/2013 del 21 giugno 2013 contiene disposizioni che dovrebbero
consentire alle autorità competenti di attivare le procedure nei prossimi mesi.

In base alle informazioni disponibili, la Commissione non ritiene che la situazione descritta dall’onorevole deputato
dia luogo a una violazione della normativa dell’UE sugli appalti pubblici. Per quanto riguarda gli aspetti relativi alla
normativa dell’UE in materia di concorrenza, la Commissione segue da vicino gli sviluppi sul mercato del gas dell’UE e
non esiterà ad intervenire, di propria iniziativa o in coordinamento con le autorità nazionali della concorrenza, se ciò
risultasse necessario in base alle regole di concorrenza. Tuttavia, essa non prevede attualmente di avviare una nuova
indagine nel settore europeo del gas in base all’articolo 17 del regolamento 1/2003.

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

C 65 E / 576 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008315/13**

**to the Commission**
**Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Antonio Cancian (PPE), Carlo Casini (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE),**

**Giovanni La Via (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Aldo Patriciello (PPE),**

**Gino Trematerra (PPE) and Potito Salatto (PPE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Concessions for the management of the gas distribution service

In Italy concessions for gas services are regulated by Article 46a of Legislative Decree 159/2007, which stipulates that
tender procedures must be completed for minimum territorial areas, and by its implementing provisions, in particular
Ministerial Decree 74/2011, which identifies 177 minimum territorial areas, Ministerial Decree 252/2011, which
lists the municipalities belonging to each minimum territorial area, Legislative Decree 93/2011, which stipulates that
tender procedures for awarding concessions must be completed ‘only for minimum territorial areas’, and Ministerial
Decree 226/2011, which lays down the criteria for managing tender procedures and evaluating bids. The latter
Ministerial Decree contains vague rules and places excessive bureaucratic burdens on municipalities, which are
deprived of their decision-making autonomy since they are obliged to delegate the management of tender procedures
and the evaluation of bids to a third party. In particular, Article 4 of Legislative Decree 69/2013 stipulates that if
municipalities do not adhere to the time limits laid down by Ministerial Decree 226/2011, the Region must appoint
an adjudicator to complete the tender procedure. In practice, therefore, the muddled procedures discourage
municipalities from issuing new invitations to tender that, due to the high costs involved, allow only a few operators
to participate, with a consequent loss of income.

The time limits laid down would also mean that tender procedures have to be carried out at the same time in
numerous areas, effectively limiting any potential competition. To date, not a single area tender procedure has been
completed, and the existing operators continue to manage the gas distribution service on the basis of legal exceptions.
As far back as 2007, the Commission noted, in its sector inquiry into the gas and electricity markets, that competition
was being seriously distorted by barriers to market entry.

Does the Commission consider it appropriate to launch a new inquiry to assess whether free competition and the
freedom of establishment are being infringed or whether the market is being distorted in contravention of
Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on competition? If necessary,
will it take any corrective action and apply any penalties?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

Legislative Decree 164/2000 and Ministerial Decree 226/2011, as well as the other national provisions mentioned by
the Honourable Member, lay down rules on tendering procedures for the award of the gas distribution service in Italy.
According to these provisions, tendering procedures have to be organised at aggregated level in 177 geographical
areas identified to that effect. As the Commission pointed out in its reply to Question E-007564/2013 ( [1] ), EU public
procurement rules do not set out obligations as to the optimal level for the provision of the gas distribution service.
Hence, Member States can organise the tendering procedures according to the geographical level that they consider
appropriate.

As to the fact — mentioned by the Honourable Member — that no tendering procedure has yet started, the
Commission notes that Decree Law 69/2013 of 21 June 2013 contains provisions that should enable the competent
authorities to launch the procedures in the coming months.

On the basis of available information, the Commission does not consider that the situation described by the
Honourable Member gives rise to infringements of EU public procurement law. As regards the aspects related to EU
competition law, the Commission closely follows the developments on EU gas markets and will not hesitate to act,
either by itself or in coordination with national competition authorities, if required under the competition rules.
However, it does not currently envisage launching another inquiry into the European gas sector pursuant to
Article 17 of Regulation 1/2003.

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 577

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008316/13**

**al Consiglio**
**Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Vito Bonsignore (PPE), Antonio**

**Cancian (PPE), Carlo Casini (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), Vincenzo Iovine (S&D),**
**Giovanni La Via (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Aldo Patriciello (PPE), Oreste Rossi**
**(PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella**

**(PPE) e Giommaria Uggias (ALDE)**

_(10 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Situazione drammatica in Libano

Il Libano, che dall'esplosione della crisi siriana ha cercato di mantenere una relativa stabilità nell'area mediorientale,
sta iniziando a subirne i pesanti contraccolpi. Recentemente, infatti, a Tripoli, città dell'attuale primo ministro
libanese, miliziani libanesi di Hezbollah sostenitori del presidente siriano Bashar el Assad si sono scontrati con gli
oppositori libanesi al regime siriano. La violenza degli scontri ha richiesto l'intervento dell'esercito. Sulla scia di
Tripoli, altri scontri, questa volta di natura interreligiosa, tra musulmani sciiti e sunniti, si sono verificati verso il sud
del paese, nelle città di Beirut e Sidone. L'instabilità interna ha inoltre messo in allerta Israele, che ha effettuato diverse
manovre di incursione terrestre e aerea sul territorio libanese. Dal cessate il fuoco dopo la guerra del 2006, il confine
sud libano-israeliano è pattugliato da uno schieramento di truppe ONU(con l'Italia a capo della missione), che ha più
volte denunciato la pericolosità della situazione.

L'inviato speciale ONU per l'attuazione della risoluzione 1559, Roed Larsen, ha infatti ribadito l'importanza strategica
del Libano nell'area. Questi, già nel 2010, aveva ammonito che «il Medio Oriente si trova in una fase estremamente
critica, con venti trasversali e un uragano che sta per scoppiare. E nel mezzo di queste correnti c'è una tenda sorretta
da due pali: uno è costituito dalla Palestina e l'altro dal Libano. Se uno dei due si spezza, l'intera tenda cadrà».

Alla luce di quanto precede, può il Consiglio far sapere:

1. se non ritiene doveroso sostenere gli sforzi del governo di Beirut di mantenere l'equilibrio nell'area e intimare al
regime siriano di non trascinare il Libano negli scontri;

2. se non ritiene necessaria un'azione a tutela degli esponenti politici libanesi, che sono naturalmente esposti a
rischi di attentato?

**Risposta**
_(7 ottobre 2013)_

Il Consiglio è pienamente consapevole della situazione descritta dagli onorevoli Parlamentari, di cui condivide le
preoccupazioni.

Il Libano è il paese maggiormente colpito dalle ricadute del conflitto in Siria. L'UE ritiene che sia prioritario allentare la
tensione e pertanto sostiene pienamente gli sforzi delle forze armate libanesi per mantenere l'ordine e la stabilità.
Appoggia fermamente gli sforzi volti alla formazione di un governo e ha ripetutamente invitato tutti i soggetti politici
a rispettare la politica ufficiale libanese di dissociazione dal conflitto siriano. Inoltre, l'UE fornisce assistenza
finanziaria al Libano per permettergli di fare fronte alla crisi senza precedenti dei profughi siriani.

L'Alto Rappresentante si è recato nel paese il 17-18 giugno e ha ribadito il sostegno dell'UE alla politica del Libano di
dissociazione dal conflitto siriano. Ha inoltre esortato tutte le parti a dare prova di moderazione e a rispettare
pienamente gli impegni assunti nella dichiarazione di Baabda.

Il 23 agosto il portavoce dell'Alto Rappresentante ha rilasciato una dichiarazione che condanna con la massima
fermezza l'attacco terroristico di Tripoli e ribadisce che il terrorismo e qualsiasi forma di violenza contro i civili sono
totalmente inaccettabili. L'Alto Rappresentante ha anche invitato tutte le parti a dare prova di moderazione e a
cooperare pienamente con le autorità libanesi. In tale contesto ha ribadito il costante impegno dell'UE a favore
dell'unità, della stabilità, dell'indipendenza, della sovranità e dell'integrità territoriale del Libano.

Attraverso la sua delegazione a Beirut, l'UE segue costantemente la situazione e mantiene un dialogo con le principali
parti interessate per essere in grado di rispondere agli sviluppi con misure adeguate.

C 65 E / 578 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008316/13**

**to the Council**
**Giuseppe Gargani (PPE), Sonia Alfano (ALDE), Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), Vito Bonsignore (PPE), Antonio**

**Cancian (PPE), Carlo Casini (PPE), Lara Comi (PPE), Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), Vincenzo Iovine (S&D),**
**Giovanni La Via (PPE), Clemente Mastella (PPE), Alfredo Pallone (PPE), Aldo Patriciello (PPE), Oreste Rossi**
**(PPE), Potito Salatto (PPE), Marco Scurria (PPE), Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), Salvatore Tatarella**

**(PPE) and Giommaria Uggias (ALDE)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Alarming situation in Lebanon

Lebanon, which has been trying to maintain relative stability in the Middle East since the Syrian crisis erupted, is
starting to suffer serious consequences. Recently in Tripoli, the home city of the current Lebanese Prime Minister,
Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who support the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, clashed with Lebanese activists
opposed to the Syrian regime. The clashes were so violent that the army had to intervene. Following the events in
Tripoli, further clashes broke out in the southern cities of Beirut and Sidon, this time between different religious
factions, namely Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims. The internal instability has also put Israel on the alert, the Israelis
having conducted several raids on Lebanese territory by air and by land. Since the ceasefire after the war in 2006, the
southern border between Lebanon and Israel has been patrolled by a deployment of United Nations troops (with Italy
leading the mission), which has reported how dangerous the situation is on several occasions.

The UN Special Envoy for the implementation of Resolution 1559, Terje Roed-Larsen, has stressed Lebanon’s
strategic importance in the region. In 2010 he warned that the Middle East was at an extremely critical juncture. He
said that crosswinds were blowing and a hurricane was about to blow up. In the middle of those crosswinds was a tent
held up by two poles: one represented by Palestine and the other by Lebanon. If either of the poles broke, the whole
tent would collapse.

1. Does the Council not think it should support the Lebanese Government’s efforts to maintain stability in the
region and order the Syrian regime not to drag Lebanon into the clashes?

2. Does it not think action should be taken to protect Lebanese politicians, who are obviously at risk of attack?

**Reply**
_(7 October 2013)_

The Council is well aware of the situation described by the Honourable MEPs, and shares their concerns.

Lebanon is the country most affected by the spill-over effects from the conflict in Syria. The EU believes that deescalating tensions is a priority and thus full support is being provided to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in their
efforts to maintain order and stability. The EU strongly supports efforts to form a Government and has repeatedly
called on all political actors to respect Lebanon's official policy of dissociation from the conflict in Syria. Furthermore,
the EU is also assisting Lebanon financially in order that it can cope with the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis.

The EU High Representative visited the country on 17-18 June and reiterated the EU's support for Lebanon's policy of
dissociation from the conflict in Syria. The High Representative also urged all the parties to show restraint and fully
abide by the commitments made in the Baabda Declaration.

On 23 August, the spokesperson of the High Representative issued a statement condemning the terrorist attack in
Tripoli in the strongest terms and reaffirming that terrorism and any form of violence against civilians are completely
unacceptable. The High Representative also called on all sides to exercise restraint and fully cooperate with the
Lebanese authorities. In this context, the High Representative reiterated the EU's continued commitment to Lebanon's
unity, stability, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Through its Delegation in Beirut, the EU is continuously monitoring the situation and maintains a dialogue with key
stakeholders with a view to ensuring that it can respond to developments with appropriate measures.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 579

_(Wersja polska)_

**Pytanie wymagające odpowiedzi pisemnej E-008317/13**
**do Komisji (Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel)**

**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(10 lipca 2013 r.)_

_Przedmiot:_ Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel – Zatrzymania w dzień 50. urodzin Michaiła
Chodorkowskiego

26 czerwca, w dniu 50. urodzin Michaiła Chodorkowskiego, rosyjska opozycja zorganizowała w Moskwie akcję
solidarności z tym więźniem politycznym. Kilkuset demonstrantów zgromadziło się na Bulwarze Twerskim, a potem
część opozycjonistów przeszła jeszcze na Stary Arbat. Jak informują rosyjskie media, to właśnie na Arbacie policja
zatrzymała ok. 40 osób, uznając zgromadzenie za niesankcjonowane. Wśród zatrzymanych znalazło się kilkoro
dziennikarzy, m.in. Aleksander Ryklin, redaktor naczelny „Jeżedniewnogo żurnala” oraz Anna Dombrowskaya,
operator projektu „Lenta.Doc”.

To wydarzenie pokazuje po raz kolejny, że wolność zgromadzeń w Federacji Rosyjskiej jest fikcją. Nawet pokojowe
demonstracje są w tym kraju pacyfikowane przez funkcjonariuszy policji, a demonstranci są zatrzymywani
i skazywani na kary aresztu lub grzywny.

W związku z tym, zwracam się z zapytaniem, czy Wiceprzewodniczącej/Wysokiej Przedstawiciel ma zamiar
interweniować w sprawie zatrzymania pokojowych demonstrantów podczas akcji solidarności z Michaiłem
Chodorkowskim oraz podjąć kroki w celu zagwarantowania poszanowania prawa do wolności zgromadzeń w Rosji?

**Odpowiedź udzielona przez Wysoką Przedstawiciel/Wiceprzewodniczącą Catherine Ashton w imieniu**

**Komisji**
_(13 września 2013 r.)_

Unia Europejska z uwagą śledzi wydarzenia w Rosji. Obawy UE dotyczące ostatnich wydarzeń w obszarze praw
człowieka i rządów prawa wyrażono na wszystkich szczeblach: podczas ostatniego szczytu UE‐Rosja, podczas
ostatnich konsultacji na temat praw człowieka, które odbyły się 17 maja br. oraz podczas innych kontaktów
dwustronnych wysokiego szczebla.

Podczas tych spotkań oraz na wielu forach międzynarodowych (takich jak ONZ, OBWE i Rada Europy) UE
niezmiennie wzywa Rosję do pełnego wypełnienia przyjętych przez nią zobowiązań międzynarodowych oraz do
zagwarantowania pełnego poszanowania prawa do wolności zgromadzeń i wolności słowa.

Jeżeli chodzi o sprawę Chodorkowskiego to pozostaje ona jedną z przykładowych spraw, które wzbudzają poważne
zaniepokojenie Unii. UE wielokrotnie wyrażała swoje obawy podczas konsultacji z Rosją oraz na innych forach,
również na spotkaniach najwyższego szczebla. Michaił Chodorkowski ma zostać zwolniony z więzienia
w październiku 2014 r., Unia Europejska w dalszym ciągu będzie bacznie przyglądać się jego sprawie.

C 65 E / 580 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008317/13**
**to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)**

**Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ VP/HR — Arrests on the 50th birthday of Mikhail Khodorkovsky

On 26 June, to mark the 50th birthday of the political prisoner Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Russian opposition members
organised an event in Moscow as a mark of solidarity. Hundreds of opposition supporters gathered on Tverskoy
Boulevard before some of them set off for Arbat Street where, according to Russian media, police arrested around 40
of them, stating that permission had not been obtained for the gathering. Among those detained were several
journalists, including Alexander Ryklin, editor-in-chief of the newspaper _Jeżedniewny_, and Anna Dombrowskaya,
project operator for _Lenta.Doc_ .

These events show, once again, that freedom of assembly in the Russian Federation does not exist. Even peaceful
demonstrations are stamped on by the police, with the demonstrators arrested and given jail terms or fines.

In light of the above, does the Vice-President/High Representative intend to intervene in the matter of the arrest of
peaceful demonstrators marking their solidarity with Mikhail Khodorkovsky and to take action to ensure the respect
of freedom of assembly is upheld in Russia?

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

_(13 September 2013)_

The EU closely monitors the developments in Russia. The EU’s strong concerns regarding recent developments in the
area of human rights and the rule of law were reiterated at all levels of our relationship: during recent EU-Russia
Summits, the latest human rights consultations on 17 May and at other high level bilateral contacts.

During these meetings and also in international fora (including the UN, OSCE and Council of Europe) the EU
continues to call on Russia to fully comply with its international commitments and to ensure full respect for the
freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

With regard to the Khodorkovsky case, it remains one of the emblematic cases that are of serious concern to the EU.
These concerns have been raised consistently at the EU’s consultations with Russia as well as in other fora, including
at the highest level. Mr Khodorkovsky is due for release in October 2014, and the EU will continue to follow his case
closely.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 581

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008318/13**

**à la Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Pour une plus grande transparence des études cliniques

À peine la moitié de toutes les études sur les médicaments font l'objet d'une publication dans des revues médicales, les
plus publiées étant du reste surtout celles qui débouchent sur des résultats positifs. Les résultats négatifs, par contre,
sont le plus souvent passés sous silence.

Par manque de transparence, la vraie valeur d'un médicament est trop souvent surestimée. L'ouverture de l'accès à
toutes les données permettra à des experts de procéder à des analyses indépendantes et d'éviter des drames.

1. Comment la Commission explique-t-elle qu'à peine la moitié de toutes les études sur les médicaments font
l'objet d'une publication dans des revues médicales, les plus publiées étant du reste surtout celles qui débouchent sur
des résultats positifs?

2. La Commission partage-t-elle l'avis selon lequel TOUS les résultats de toutes les études cliniques devraient
être publiés?

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

_(5 septembre 2013)_

1. La Commission informe l'auteur de la question que les données concernant les essais cliniques sont également
soumises pour l'obtention des autorisations de mise sur le marché des médicaments et qu'elles font donc l'objet d'une
évaluation.

2. La Commission est soucieuse de garantir une meilleure transparence des données relatives aux essais cliniques.
La proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif aux essais cliniques de médicaments à usage
humain et abrogeant la directive 2001/20/CE ( [1] ), en particulier, dispose que le résumé des résultats des essais cliniques
doit être accessible au public sauf s'il convient d'en préserver la confidentialité pour des motifs liés à la protection
des données à caractère personnel conformément au règlement (CE) n° 45/2001, à la protection d'informations
confidentielles à caractère commercial ou à la surveillance effective de la conduite d'un essai clinique par un
État membre.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)369 final, 2012/0192 (COD).

C 65 E / 582 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008318/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marc Tarabella (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Towards greater transparency in clinical trials

Barely half of all pharmaceutical trials are published in medical journals, and those that are published tend to be those
that are successful. Unsuccessful trials, on the other hand, generally go unpublished.

Owing to a lack of transparency, a drug’s true value is all too often overestimated. Opening up access to all the
available data would enable experts to carry out independent assessments and prevent tragedies.

1. How does the Commission explain the fact that barely half of all pharmaceutical trials are published in medical
journals, and that those that are published tend to be those that are successful?

2. Does the Commission share the view that the ALL the results of all clinical trials should be published?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

1. The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that clinical trials data are also submitted in
view of obtaining a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product and therefore assessed.

2. The Commission is committed to ensure better transparency on data from clinical trials. In particular, the
proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on clinical trials on medicinal products for
human use and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC ( [1] ) provides for that the summary of the results of the clinical trial
should be publically accessible unless confidentiality is justified for reasons of protecting personal data in accordance
with Regulation (EC) 45/2001, protecting commercially confidential information or ensuring the effective
supervision of a clinical trial by a Member State.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 369 final, 2012/0192 (COD).

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 583

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008319/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)**

_(10. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Outsourcing von Vorratsdaten in Drittstaaten

Im Rahmen des EuGH-Verfahren am 9. Juli 2013 merkte der Richter an, dass 36 % Prozent der Vorratsdaten in
Drittstaaten gespeichert werden. Auch im bereits am 13. Juli 2010 angenommenen Bericht (01/2010 über die zweite
Durchsetzungsmaßnahme) der Artikel 29 Gruppe wurden schon Bedenken dahin gehend geäußert, dass
„Outsourcing besonders bei kleineren Betreibern eine weitverbreitete Praxis darstellt, was natürlich einige Zweifel
hinsichtlich der tatsächlichen Einhaltung der Datenschutzvorschriften aufwirft“.

1. Wie viele Vorratsdaten werden in Drittstaaten gespeichert?

2. In welchen Drittstaaten befinden sich die Daten?

3. Wie wird sichergestellt, dass die Daten in Drittstaaten auf legale Art und Weise gespeichert werden?

4. Wie wird sichergestellt, dass Datenschutzvorschriften in Drittstaaten eingehalten werden?

5. Wie hat sich die Verlagerung von Vorratsdaten in Drittstaaten im Zeitraum von 2006 bis heute entwickelt?

6. Wie erhebt die Kommission ob in den Drittstaaten Datenschutzstandards eingehalten werden?

7. Welche Mitgliedstaaten und welche Betreiber betreiben Outsourcing von Vorratsdaten in Drittstaaten?

8. Inwieweit wirkt sich das Save-Harbor-Abkommen auf ausgelagerte Vorratsdaten auf?

9. Wann wird die Kommission einen Vorschlag zur Überarbeitung der Richtlinie 2006/24/EG vorlegen?

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

_(16. September 2013)_

Die Europäische Kommission beantwortete die Frage des Berichterstatters im Rahmen der mündlichen Verhandlung
vom 9. Juli 2013 in den Rechtssachen C-293/12 und C-594/12, über die der Gerichtshof nun berät. Unter diesen
Umständen hält es die Kommission nicht für angebracht, zu der Frage Stellung zu nehmen.

C 65 E / 584 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008319/13**

**to the Commission**
**Josef Weidenholzer (S&D)**

_(10 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Outsourcing of data storage in third countries

On 9 July 2013, the Judge-Rapporteur in the data retention cases before the Court of Justice noted that 36% of
retained traffic data was stored in third countries. As long ago as 13 July 2010 a report by the article 29 Data
Retention Working Party (Report 01/2010 on the second joint enforcement action) had highlighted concern that
‘outsourcing is a widespread practice especially among smaller operators […] casting some doubts as [to] effective
compliance with data protection requirements’.

1. How much retained data is stored in third countries?

2. In which third countries is this data stored?

3. How is it ensured that data is stored lawfully in third countries?

4. How is compliance with data protection requirements ensured in third countries?

5. What has been the trend in the storage of data in third countries since 2006?

6. How does the Commission establish whether data protection standards are complied with in third countries?

7. Which Member States and which operators outsource data retention to third countries?

8. How does the ‘Safe Harbor’ agreement affect outsourced data storage?

9. When will the Commission bring forward a proposal for revision of the Data Retention Directive
(2006/24/EC)?

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

_(16 September 2013)_

The European Commission responded to the question of the reporting judge at the hearing of 9 July 2013 in cases
C-293/12 and C-594/12. The cases are now in deliberation by the Court of Justice. In these circumstances, it does not
appear appropriate for the Commission to comment further on the question.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 585

_(Deutsche Fassung)_

**Anfrage zur schriftlichen Beantwortung E-008321/13**

**an die Kommission**
**Norbert Neuser (S&D)**

_(11. Juli 2013)_

_Betrifft:_ Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz durch den Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung —
Beihilfeverfahren

Die EU-Kommission hat mit Beschluss vom 25. April 2012 entschieden, dass die Umlagezahlungen zugunsten des
Zweckverbandes Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rheinland-Pfalz eine staatliche Beihilfe darstellen und diese mit dem
Binnenmarkt unvereinbar sind.

Im Juli 2012 haben sowohl der Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung als auch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland gegen
den Beschluss der EU-Kommission Klage vor dem Europäischen Gericht erster Instanz erhoben.

Eine Entscheidung des Gerichts liegt bis heute nicht vor.

Kann die Kommission vor diesem Hintergrund folgende Fragen beantworten:

1. Welche Möglichkeit sieht die Kommission, durch eine Neukonzeption des Zweckverbands die zukünftige
Entsorgung in diesem Sektor sicherzustellen?

2. Wie kann eine Neukonzeption des Zweckverbandes im Konsens mit der Kommission erfolgen, insbesondere
auch mit dem Ziel, ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland zu vermeiden?

3. Wie können die Bediensteten des bisherigen Zweckverbandes und der Betreibergesellschaft (insgesamt
ca. 120 Arbeitsplätze) in eine neue Lösung integriert werden?

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

_(20. August 2013)_

Der negative Kommissionsbeschluss, den der Mitgliedstaat umsetzen muss, sieht vor, dass der Zweckverband den
vollen Beihilfebetrag zurückzuzahlen hat. Sollte er dazu nicht in der Lage sein, gilt die Rückzahlungsverpflichtung als
erfüllt, sobald der Beihilfeempfänger seine Wirtschaftstätigkeit endgültig einstellt. Sollte der Zweckverband die
Beihilfe nicht in voller Höhe zurückzahlen können, ist es von größter Bedeutung, jegliche wirtschaftliche Kontinuität
zwischen diesem Unternehmen und einen neuen Anbieter von Tierkörperbeseitigungsdienstleistungen
auszuschließen. Dabei obliegt es der Kommission zu bewerten, ob eine vorgeschlagene neue Lösung zweckmäßig ist.
Der neue Dienstleister muss insbesondere den Beihilfevorschriften genügen.

Ein Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen Deutschland nach Artikel 108 Absatz 2 AEUV kann nur dann vermieden
werden, wenn der Kommissionsbeschluss ordnungsgemäß umgesetzt wird. Eine Umstrukturierung würde in der
Regel eine marktkonforme Veräußerung der Vermögenswerte erfordern, die für die Erfüllung der
Tierkörperbeseitigungspflicht notwendig sind, bzw. zumindest den Verkauf der eigentlichen Betriebslizenz in einer
offenen, transparenten und nichtdiskriminierenden Ausschreibung. Eine _en bloc_ -Übertragung der Vermögenswerte ist
nicht zulässig, da es sich dabei in Anbetracht der nicht erfolgten vollständigen Rückzahlung der Beihilfe um eine
Fortführung der geförderten Tätigkeit handeln würde.

Im Falle der Einstellung der Wirtschaftstätigkeit des Zweckverbands ist es nicht möglich, dass der neue Betreiber die
Beschäftigten automatisch übernimmt. Eine solche automatische Übernahme würde dem Grundsatz der
Unterbrechung der Geschäftsfortführung zuwiderlaufen. Folglich gälte der Kommissionsbeschluss als nicht
umgesetzt, und die Verpflichtung der Beihilferückzahlung in voller Höhe würde auf den neuen Betreiber übergehen.
Die Beschäftigten des Zweckverbands könnten sich selbstverständlich einzeln und gleichberechtigt um eine
Anstellung bei dem neuen Betreiber für Tierkörperbeseitigung bewerben.

C 65 E / 586 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008321/13**

**to the Commission**
**Norbert Neuser (S&D)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Disposal of animal carcases in Rhineland Palatinate by the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung (specialpurpose association for animal carcase disposal)

In its Decision of 25 April 2012, the Commission decided that the contributions paid to the association in Rhineland
Palatinate constituted government aid and that these were incompatible with the internal market.

In July 2012, both the association and the Federal Republic of Germany brought a case before the European Court of
First Instance.

The Court has yet to pronounce its verdict.

1. How does the Commission think the association might be reorganised in order to safeguard the future of animal
carcase disposal?

2. How can a reorganisation of the association be undertaken with the Commission’s agreement in order also to
avoid infringement proceedings being initiated against Germany?

3. How can the employees of the association and its operating company (representing around 120 jobs in total) be
integrated into a new format?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

The negative Commission decision, which is for the MS to implement, imposes on the Zweckverband the obligation
to repay the full amount of aid. If it cannot repay the aid, the recovery obligation is considered implemented when the
beneficiary permanently ceases its economic activity. Should the Zweckverband not be able to repay the aid in full, it
is therefore paramount to exclude economic continuity between the Zweckverband and any new provider of animal
carcass disposal services. It is the Commission's role to assess whether a proposed new solution is adequat. In
particular, the new provider must operate in conformity with State Aid rules.

Infringement proceedings against Germany under Article 108(2) TFEU can only be avoided if the Commission's
decision is properly implemented. Reorganisation would, in principle, require a market conform sale of the assets
necessary for the animal carcasses disposal duty or, at least, the sale of the license for the operation itself, in an open,
transparent and non-discriminatory tender. Transfer of the assets _en bloc_ is not acceptable, since in the absence of full
repayment of the aid, this would amount to continuation of the aided activity.

In case of cessation of economic activity by the Zweckverband, it is not possible to automatically integrate its
employees into a new provider. Such an automatic integration would contradict the principle of discontinuity, with
the result that the Commission's decision would not be considered implemented and the obligation to repay the aid in
full would pass to the new provider. The Zweckverband's employees could, of course, individually and on an equal
footing, apply for employment with the new provider taking charge of animal carcass disposal.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 587

_(Suomenkielinen versio)_

**Kirjallisesti vastattava kysymys E-008322/13**

**komissiolle**

**Petri Sarvamaa (PPE)**

_(11. heinäkuuta 2013)_

_Aihe:_ Matkustajamäärien rajoittaminen suurnopeusjunien vaunuissa

Toisin kuin muussa matkustajaliikenteessä (lento-, tie‐ ja meriliikenteessä) ei ole laadittu vielä EU-säännöksiä
rajoittamaan junavaunukohtaista matkustajamäärää.

Komission tammikuussa 2013 esittelemä neljäs rautatiepaketti sisältää monia keinoja parantaa matkustajien
oikeuksia ja turvallisuutta. Turvallisuusasiat, jotka sisältyvät ehdotukseen Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston
direktiiviksi rautateiden turvallisuudesta (2013/0016(COD)), vaikuttavat kuitenkin koskevan vain todistuksia ja
teknisiä seikkoja. Vaunukohtainen matkustajamäärien rajoittaminen on sitä vastoin jätetty jäsenvaltioiden
viranomaisille ja toimijoille. EU-säännösten puuttuminen tällä alueella voi aiheuttaa monia riskejä matkustajien
turvallisuudelle, erityisesti suurnopeusjunissa.

Monista syistä, kuten ylibuukkauksen ja muiden odottamattomien tapausten vuoksi, matkustajien on usein pakko
seistä pitkiä aikoja suurnopeusjunissa. Vaikka raideliikenne on tilastollisesti merkittävästi turvallisempaa kuin
tieliikenne, matkustajien turvallisuus aiheuttaa huolta tällaisissa tilanteissa, joissa junat kulkevat täpötäysien vaunujen
kanssa yli 200 km:n tuntinopeutta.

Tätä koskevien EU-säännösten puuttuminen heikentää komission taustalla olevaa aikomusta edistää raideliikennettä
vihreämpänä ja ennen kaikkea turvallisempana vaihtoehtona tieliikenteelle.

Onko olemassa tiettyä syytä EU-säännösten puuttumiselle vaunukohtaisesta matkustajien enimmäismäärästä
suurnopeusjunissa? Onko komissio harkinnut sisällyttävänsä tällaisia rajoituksia ehdotukseensa direktiiviksi
rautateiden turvallisuudesta (2013/0016(COD))?

**Komission jäsen Siim Kallasin komission puolesta antama vastaus**

_(22. elokuuta 2013)_

EU:n rautatielainsäädännössä ei säännellä suurnopeusjunien vaunukohtaista enimmäismatkustajamäärää. Euroopan
laajuisen tavanomaisen rautatiejärjestelmän liikkuvan kaluston osajärjestelmää ”veturit ja henkilöliikenteen liikkuva
kalusto” koskevasta yhteentoimivuuden teknisestä eritelmästä 26. huhtikuuta 2011 annetussa komission päätöksessä
2011/291/EU ( [1] ) asetetaan kuitenkin uusia tai uudistettuja turvallisuusvaatimuksia matkustajia kuljettaville
suurnopeusjunille.

Mikään tähän mennessä tehty tutkimus ei puolla sitä, että junien matkustajamääriä olisi rajoitettava turvallisuussyistä.
Tällaisia rajoituksia olisi vaikea soveltaa, ne vähentäisivät rautatieliikenteen houkuttavuutta (koska ennakkovaraus
tulisi pakolliseksi) ja nykyiset junamatkustajat siirtyisivät todennäköisesti käyttämään muita vähemmän
ympäristöystävällisiä ja vähemmän turvallisia liikennemuotoja, vaikka EU:n politiikan tavoite on täysin
päinvastainen. Lisäksi liikennehäiriöiden sattuessa matkustajien lukumäärän rajoittaminen hankaloittaisi
matkustamista huomattavasti. EU:ssa on kuitenkin tehty joitakin tutkimuksia junien sisätilojen suunnittelusta, jolla
voitaisiin parantaa matkustajien turvallisuutta onnettomuustapauksissa. Tällainen tutkimustyö otetaan
tulevaisuudessa mahdollisesti huomioon tarkasteltaessa asiaankuuluvien EU:n teknisten eritelmien muuttamista.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) EUVL L 139, 26.5.2011.

C 65 E / 588 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008322/13**

**to the Commission**

**Petri Sarvamaa (PPE)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Restrictions on passenger numbers in high-speed train carriages

In contrast to the situation obtaining in the other main forms of passenger transport — air, road and sea — no EU
regulation exists as yet restricting the number of passengers that may be transported per railway carriage.

The Fourth Railway Package presented by the Commission in January 2013 introduces several measures to improve
passenger rights and safety. Importantly, however, the safety matters covered in the proposal for a directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council on railway safety (2013/0016(COD)) seem to relate only to certificates and
technical issues, while the task of restricting passenger numbers per carriage is left to the authorities and operators of
Member States. The lack of EU regulation in this area would appear to create a number of risks for passenger safety,
especially in the case of high-speed trains.

Due to a number of reasons — over-booking and other unforeseen circumstances — passengers are often forced to
remain standing for long stretches of time in high-speed trains. While rail travel is, statistically, significantly safer than
road travel, in situations like these, with trains with overcrowded carriages travelling in excess of 200 km/h, passenger
safety becomes a source of concern.

The lack of such EU regulation undermines the Commission’s underlying argument in promoting rail travel as a
greener, and more importantly, safer alternative to road travel.

Is there a particular reason for the absence of EU regulation on the maximum number of passengers per high-speed
railway carriage? Has the Commission considered including such restrictions in its proposal for a directive on railway
safety (2013/0016(COD))?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

EU railway legislation does not regulate the maximum number of passengers per high-speed railway carriage.
However Commission Decision 2011/291/EU of 26 April 2011 concerning a technical specification for
interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem — ‘Locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ of the transEuropean conventional rail system ( [1] ), imposes to new or renewed high speed train safety requirements to carry
passengers on board.

There is no research to date which would support restricting the numbers of passengers on board trains for safety
reasons. Such restrictions would be difficult to apply, would reduce the attractiveness of rail as a transport mode (by
removing the ‘turn up and go’ option) and consequently be more likely to drive people towards using less green and
less safe alternatives, when current EU policy is striving for the opposite. Moreover, at times of disruption of traffic, an
approach of restricting passenger numbers would make an onward or homebound journey much more difficult.
However, there is some research at EU level on the interior design of trains to provide greater protection for
passengers in the event of an accident and such work might be considered in future amendments of the relevant EU
technical specifications.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) OJ L 139, 26.5.2011.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 589

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008323/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Diffamazioni sui social network: in aumento il numero delle vittime

Con l'enorme diffusione dei social network sono aumentati i casi di cyberbullismo, una nuova forma di violenza sul
web diffusa soprattutto tra gli utenti più giovani, in Italia e all'estero. Diffamazioni, offese e violenze implicite nelle
pubblicazioni da parte di amici o compagni di scuola hanno provocato in alcuni ragazzi uno stato di umiliazione e
depressione tali da indurli, nei casi più estremi, al suicidio. L'ultimo episodio in Italia riguarda una ragazzina di 14
anni di Novara che, nella notte tra il 4 e il 5 gennaio scorso, si è gettata dalla finestra in seguito a un filmato pubblicato
on line che la riprendeva durante una festa. Sfruttando l'anonimato offerto dalla rete, chiunque può diffondere
rapidamente notizie o informazioni di qualsiasi natura, false o a scopo diffamatorio, violando la sfera dei diritti della
personalità, compreso il diritto alla propria reputazione e al proprio onore.

Oltre che dal punto di vista giuridico, la gravità di tali comportamenti si ripercuote sulla vita personale delle vittime
colpendone l'autostima, le capacità socio-affettive e l'identità personale.

— È la Commissione informata dei fatti?

— Con riferimento all'accordo firmato con alcune delle principali società del web il 10 febbraio 2009 in occasione del
«Safer Internet Day», può far sapere quali sviluppi sono stati raggiunti nella protezione degli utenti dai rischi on line?

— Non ritiene necessaria una revisione dell'attuale legislazione europea in materia, che stabilisce che la
comunicazione via Internet non può essere equiparata alla trasmissione a mezzo stampa o a mezzo radio e televisione
perché le modalità tecniche di diffusione sono diverse e incomparabili, stabilendo, invece, che anche la pubblicazione
in rete di qualsiasi testo o notizia rientra in tale forma di disciplina?

— Considerando che la legislazione europea tutela la libertà di espressione e la privacy di chi esprime opinioni nei
social network, ma demanda agli ordinamenti nazionali la tutela dei «soggetti passivi», non riterrebbe opportuno
predisporre una normativa comunitaria uniforme per tutelare anche questa seconda categoria di soggetti, vittime di
illeciti on line?

— Quali altre iniziative ritiene idonee a combattere le distorsioni nell'uso corretto della tecnologia digitale per tutelare
i diritti della libertà degli utenti?

**Risposta di Neelie Kroes a nome della Commissione**

_(26 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione è consapevole del fatto che i giovani, che costituiscono un gruppo particolarmente vulnerabile in
rete, necessitano di misure particolari di protezione da qualsiasi tipo di comportamento o contenuto dannoso
presente nei social network che possa condurre a casi di autolesionismo o di suicidio tra i minori. Al tempo stesso, tali
misure non dovrebbero incidere sulla libertà di espressione in modo ingiustificato o eccessivo.

Pertanto, nel 2009, la Commissione ha sviluppato con fornitori di servizi di social networking (SNS) i principi UE per
un uso più sicuro dei siti di socializzazione in rete e ne ha successivamente monitorato l'applicazione. Più di recente,
la Commissione ha collaborato con la coalizione CEO ( [1] ), che mira a rendere Internet un luogo migliore per i minori,
per sviluppare funzioni online più visibili e di facile uso per la segnalazione di contenuti, contatti e comportamenti
dannosi, per stabilire impostazioni relative alla privacy in funzione dell'età, e per diffondere gli strumenti di controllo
parentale.

Dal 2004 la Commissione cofinanzia una rete paneuropea di centri «Internet più sicuro», attraverso l'omonimo
programma, in ciascuno degli Stati membri, la cui funzione principale è sensibilizzare i giovani, gli insegnanti e i
genitori ai possibili rischi presenti in rete e al modo in cui farvi fronte. Tali centri si occupano inoltre della gestione di
un servizio telefonico di assistenza, che fornisce consulenza e sostegno, e della raccolta delle segnalazioni di
comportamenti e contenuti Internet dannosi, che trasmettono poi agli organi competenti.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Coalizione di 31 imprese di punta che operano nel campo delle tecnologie e dei media, compresi i social network.

C 65 E / 590 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

La Commissione ha recentemente pubblicato un Libro verde intitolato «Prepararsi a un mondo audiovisivo della
piena convergenza: crescita, creazione e valori» ( [2] ) in cui si discute la questione della protezione dei minori alla luce
del fenomeno della convergenza dei media. La Commissione sta attualmente conducendo una consultazione pubblica
sul sopracitato Libro verde.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013)231 def.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 591

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008323/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Rising number of victims of defamation on social networks

The explosion in the popularity of social networks has led to an increase in cases of cyberbullying, a new form of
online cruelty that is widespread, especially among younger users, both in Italy and abroad. Defamation, insults and
implied violence in online posts by friends or schoolmates have, in the most extreme cases, driven some humiliated
and depressed young people to suicide. The latest incident in Italy involved a 14-year-old girl from Novara who, on
the night between 4 and 5 January 2013, leapt from a window after a video of her, which was taken during a party,
was put online. Hiding behind the anonymity offered by the Internet, anyone can quickly spread news or information
of any kind, including false or defamatory information, violating personal rights, including the right to reputation and
honour.

In addition to the legal implications, the seriousness of these acts has consequences for victims’ personal lives and
affects their self-esteem, their social and emotional abilities and their personal identity.

— Is the Commission aware of these facts?

— In view of the agreement signed with several major Internet companies on Safer Internet Day on
10 February 2009, can the Commission say what progress has been made in protecting users against online risks?

— Does it not think it is time to review current EU legislation on the subject, which lays down that online
communications cannot be considered the same as press communications or radio and television communications
because they are distributed in a technically different and incomparable way, and to lay down instead that publishing
any text or news online also falls under this kind of legislation?

— Considering that EU legislation protects the freedom of expression and the privacy of those who express opinions
on social networks, but requires national legal systems to protect ‘passive individuals, does it not think it should draw
up uniform EU legislation also to protect this second category of people, namely victims of online abuse?

— What other initiatives does it think should be taken to tackle distortions in the proper use of digital technology in
order to protect users’ right to freedom?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The Commission is aware that young people are a particularly vulnerable group online, needing special protection
measures from any kind of harmful conduct or content on social networking sites, which can lead to incidents of selfharming and suicide amongst minors. At the same time, such measures should not affect freedom of expression in an
unjustified or disproportionate way.

Therefore, in 2009 the Commission developed with SNS providers the Safer Social Networking Principles for the EU
and subsequently monitored their implementation. More recently the Commission has been working with the CEO
Coalition ( [1] ) to make the Internet a Better Place for Kids in order to develop actions on making online tools for
reporting harmful content, contact and conduct more visible and easy to use, on age-appropriate privacy settings as
well as on deployment of parental control tools.

Since 2004, the Commission through the Safer Internet Programme has co-funded a pan-European network of Safer
Internet Centres in all Member States. Its main task is to raise awareness among young people, teachers and parents,
about possible risks online and how to deal with them. These Centres also run helplines which provide advice and
support and gather reports on harmful conduct and Internet content which they forward to the appropriate body for
action.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) A Coalition of 31 leading technology and media companies, including social networks.

C 65 E / 592 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

The Commission has recently published a Green Paper ‘Preparing for a Fully Converged Audiovisual World: Growth,
Creation and Values’ ( [2] ) where the issue of the protection of minors in the light of the convergence of media services is
discussed. The Commission is currently conducting a public consultation on this Green Paper.

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 231.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 593

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008324/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Distretto veneto della ceramica, lotta al dumping e alla contraffazione e sostegno al Made in Italy

Nato nel diciottesimo secolo, il distretto veneto della ceramica della provincia di Vicenza, situato tra Malo, Isola
Vicentina, Villaverla, Caldogno, Bassano Del Grappa, Nove e Marostica, è attivo in due diversi settori produttivi:
quello della terracotta — vasi da fiori, laterizio e cotto per l'edilizia — e quello della ceramica artistica.

Dal 2007 a oggi il settore comunitario della produzione di ceramica ha perso però oltre 10 000 posti di lavoro a
causa di una concorrenza sleale delle importazioni asiatiche in dumping, che a lungo termine ha leso gravemente le
imprese manifatturiere dell'UE e nel caso specifico le eccellenze del Made in Italy.

La Commissione, che ha recentemente approvato i dazi sulle importazioni di piastrelle di ceramica cinesi e avviato la
procedura anti-dumping contro le importazioni di ceramiche da tavola e stoviglie dalla Cina:

—
ha valutato di attivare specifiche barriere tariffarie o contingentamenti anche per il settore della ceramica
artistica?

—
in vista della prossima programmazione dei fondi strutturali per il periodo 2014-2020, ha pensato di stanziare
dei fondi specifici per permettere alle eccellenze del settore manifatturiero europeo e, dunque, al distretto
veneto della ceramica, di sviluppare tecnologie intelligenti e investire in applicazioni che rendano sempre più
difficile la contraffazione?

—
ha pensato di contribuire alla valorizzazione della ceramica artistica veneta, patrimonio europeo attraverso la
creazione di musei e il sostegno ad altre iniziative che ne diffondano la conoscenza in tutto il mercato unico?

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

_(4 settembre 2013)_

1. La Commissione è a conoscenza della sensibilità dell'industria ceramica dell'UE dinanzi alle importazioni a
basso prezzo e/o fraudolente e adotta ove possibile misure appropriate. L'UE rimane tuttavia un esportatore netto di
prodotti ceramici, il che dimostra la natura altamente competitiva della sua industria che è in generale caratterizzata
da forti interessi offensivi. Pertanto è necessario assicurare il rispetto delle regole commerciali da parte di tutti gli
operatori economici per garantire il successo dei prodotti unionali di qualità attuando la strategia della Commissione
per l'accesso al mercato e portando avanti i negoziati di accordi commerciali preferenziali.

2. Quello della specializzazione intelligente è un approccio strategico allo sviluppo economico grazie al sostegno
mirato alla ricerca e all'innovazione (R&I). La Commissione assiste attualmente la Regione Veneto nella concezione,
nello sviluppo, nell'attuazione e nel riesame della sua strategia di ricerca e innovazione per la specializzazione
intelligente (RIS). Ciò servirà da base, nel periodo 2014-2020, per gli investimenti dei Fondi strutturali nella R&I, il
che rientra nel futuro contributo della politica di coesione all'agenda di Europa 2020 per la crescita e l'occupazione.

3. L'azione 3.2 del programma 2007-2013 per la Regione Veneto, cofinanziata dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo
regionale, offre la possibilità di sostenere progetti che tutelano e valorizzano il patrimonio culturale se collegati allo
sviluppo socioeconomico regionale, e in tale capitolo rientra anche il sostegno ai musei regionali. Tuttavia, in linea
con il principio della gestione condivisa utilizzato per l'amministrazione della politica di coesione, la selezione e
l'attuazione dei progetti rientra nelle responsabilità delle autorità nazionali. La Commissione suggerisce pertanto che
l'onorevole deputata si metta direttamente in contatto con l'autorità di gestione del programma ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regione Veneto, Direzione Programmazione, Rio dei Tre Ponti — Dorsoduro, 3494/A, 30123 Venezia (VE)Tel. 041-2791469/1470/1472 email: programmazione@regione.veneto.it.

C 65 E / 594 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008324/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Ceramic district in the Veneto region, combating dumping and counterfeiting, and support for Italian-made
products

Dating back to the 18th century, the Veneto ceramic district in the province of Vicenza, comprises Malo, Isola
Vicentina, Villaverla, Caldogno, Bassano Del Grappa, Nove and Marostica, and is active in two distinct production
sectors: terracotta — flowerpots, bricks and tiles for building — and decorative ceramics.

Since 2007, over 10 000 jobs have been lost in the EU ceramics sector as a result of unfair competition from the
dumping of Asian imports, which has seriously damaged manufacturing companies in the EU in the long run and, in
the case in question, quality Italian products.

The Commission recently approved duties on imported ceramic tiles from China and opened anti-dumping
proceedings against imports of ceramic tableware and crockery from China.

— Has the Commission also considered specific tariff barriers or import quotas for the decorative ceramics sector?

— In view of the next structural funds programming period 2014-2020, has it considered allocating specific funds to
enable the top producers in the European manufacturing sector and, therefore, the Veneto ceramics district to
develop smart technologies and to invest in applications that make counterfeiting increasingly difficult?

— Has it considered helping to promote decorative ceramics from the Veneto region, which are part of Europe’s
heritage, by setting up museums and supporting other initiatives that spread awareness of them throughout the single
market?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

1. The Commission is aware of the sensitivity of the EU ceramic industry to low-priced and/or fraudulent imports
and takes appropriate action where possible. The EU remains however a net exporter of ceramics products, which
demonstrates the highly competitive nature of its industry which is overall characterised by strong offensive interests.
Therefore it is necessary to ensure the respect of trade rules by all economic operators for EU quality products to
succeed, by implementing the Commissions Market Access Strategy and the negotiation of preferential trade
agreements.

2. Smart Specialisation is a strategic approach to economic development through targeted support to research and
innovation (R&I) The Commission is currently assisting the Veneto region to design, develop, implement and review
its Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation (RIS [3] ). This will be the basis for the Structural Funds
2014-2020 period investments in R&I, which is part of the future Cohesion Policy's contribution to the Europe 2020
jobs and growth agenda.

3. Action 3.2 of the 2007-2013 programme for region Veneto, co-funded by the European Regional
Development Fund, offers the possibility to support projects which protect and enhance the cultural heritage when
linked to regional socioeconomic development and includes support to regional museums. However, in line with the
shared management principle used for the administration of cohesion policy, project selection and implementation is
the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission therefore suggests that the Honourable Member
contact directly the managing authority of the programme ( [1] ).

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Regione Veneto, Direzione Programmazione, Rio dei Tre Ponti — Dorsoduro, 3494/A, 30123 Venezia (VE)Tel. 041 2791469 — 1470 — 1472
e-mail: programmazione@regione.veneto.it

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 595

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008325/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Spazi abitativi per indigenti occupati da rom con notevoli disponibilità economiche

Dopo una serie di controlli eseguiti dai Carabinieri a Roma, è emerso che la maggioranza dei nomadi di etnia rom, che
occupavano spazi abitativi per indigenti di proprietà del Comune di Roma, possiede ingenti somme di denaro,
autovetture di lusso, beni mobili e immobili, pur non essendo questi regolarmente denunciati quali di loro proprietà.

Una volta rilevate tali incongruenze, le autorità hanno proceduto col segnalare la situazione al Comune affinché
potesse accertare se la posizione di queste famiglie fosse compatibile con i requisiti necessari perché fossero loro
assegnati alloggi per indigenti, che contrariamente potrebbero essere riassegnati.

La Commissione:

—
è a conoscenza dei fatti sopra esposti?

—
è a conoscenza di riscontri di questo tipo negli altri Stati membri?

—
può spiegare secondo quali evidenze la minoranza rom venga dalla Commissione stessa considerata una
minoranza vulnerabile, anche a fronte delle evidenze sollevate dalle autorità italiane, sia a Roma sia in molte
altre zone del nostro paese, dove tali comunità risiedono?

—
ritiene che in questo momento di crisi, gli sforzi e gli aiuti dovrebbero concentrarsi sul soddisfare le esigenze di
chi, contrariamente ai rom, non cerca l'assistenza statale pur avendo auto di lusso, denaro e immobili di
proprietà?

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

_(5 settembre 2013)_

Molti Rom che vivono nell'UE, e anche in Italia, devono affrontare quotidianamente pregiudizi, discriminazione ed
esclusione sociale. La maggior parte della documentazione disponibile, fra cui le relazioni della Commissione ( [1] ), pone
in evidenza le forti disparità fra Rom e il resto della popolazione in quattro settori fondamentali: istruzione,
occupazione, salute e alloggio. Dai risultati del sondaggio pilota sui Rom dell'Agenzia dell'UE per i diritti
fondamentali emerge inoltre che i Rom continuano a essere emarginati e che vivono generalmente in condizioni
socioeconomiche molto disagiate.

Spetta in primo luogo agli Stati membri favorire la loro integrazione. Come raccomandato nel quadro dell'UE per le
strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom fino al 2020 e ulteriormente ribadito dalle conclusioni del Consiglio
sull'inclusione dei Rom, gli approcci nazionali devono essere adeguati alle circostanze nonché alle dimensioni e alla
situazione specifica delle popolazioni Rom interessate. Adottando le conclusioni del Consiglio del 2011 ( [2] ) gli Stati
membri si sono impegnati a elaborare e attuare politiche finalizzate a migliorare l'integrazione sociale ed economica
dei Rom.

La Commissione è impegnata ad assistere gli Stati membri nelle azioni per l'integrazione dei Rom.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012)226 final; COM(2013)454 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Conclusioni del Consiglio EPSCO del 19 maggio 2011 sull'inclusione dei Rom.

C 65 E / 596 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008325/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Accommodation for deprived persons occupied by wealthy Roma

A series of inspections conducted by the Italian military police in Rome have revealed that most ethnic Roma
travellers living in accommodation for deprived persons in the municipality of Rome are very well off financially and
own luxury cars, assets and property, but they do not declare such wealth as they should.

Once these discrepancies came to light, the police alerted the municipal authorities to the situation so they could
check whether those families’ circumstances met the necessary requirements for them to be allocated
accommodation for deprived persons, which could otherwise be reallocated.

— Is the Commission aware of the above facts?

— Is it aware of inspections like this in other Member States?

— Can it explain on what grounds the Roma minority is considered by the Commission itself to be a vulnerable
minority, also in the light of the evidence found by the Italian authorities in Rome and in many other parts of Italy
where these communities live?

— Does it think that at this time of crisis, efforts and aid should be directed towards meeting the needs of those who
do not seek help from the State, unlike the Roma, who have luxury cars, money and property?

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

_(5 September 2013)_

Many Roma living in the EU, including in Italy, face prejudice, discrimination and social exclusion in their daily lives.
Most available evidence, including the Commission's progress reports ( [1] ), points towards serious gaps between Roma
and non-Roma in 4 key areas — education, employment, health and housing. The findings of the EU Fundamental
Rights Agency's Roma pilot survey also reveal that Roma continue to be marginalised and mostly live in very bad
socioeconomic conditions.

The primary responsibility for Roma integration rests with the Member States. As recommended in the EU
Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 and further stressed in the Council Conclusions on
Roma inclusion, the national approaches should be tailored to their own circumstances as well as to the size and
specific situation of their respective Roma populations. Member States committed to design and implement policies
aimed at advancing their social and economic inclusion by adopting Council conclusions in 2011 ( [2] ).

The Commission is committed to support the Member States in their actions for Roma inclusion.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2012) 226 final; COM(2013) 454 final.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) EPSCO Council Conclusions on Roma inclusion adopted on 19 May 2011.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 597

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008326/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Automobilisti italiani penalizzati nel pagamento della polizza assicurativa di responsabilità civile autoveicoli

L'Aci, Automobile Club d'Italia, lancia un allarme: solo in Veneto sono 310 000 le auto non assicurate, circa un
veicolo su otto. Cresce il numero di italiani che, in parte a causa delle difficoltà economiche dovute alla crisi e in parte
agli alti costi delle tariffe, non rispettano l'obbligo di pagamento delle polizze assicurative. Gli automobilisti italiani
spendono in media ogni anno 740 euro per il pagamento dell'assicurazione, quasi il doppio degli altri cittadini
europei. Secondo l'Aci, il divario delle assicurazioni auto tra l'Italia e il resto d'Europa può essere risolto con un
intervento normativo a due livelli: da una parte il contrasto all'evasione assicurativa, dall'altra la riduzione fino al 40 %
del prezzo delle polizze, così come avanzato nella proposta di legge presentata al governo italiano.

Ciò premesso, può la Commissione rispondere ai seguenti quesiti:

— È a conoscenza di questo problema?

— Considerando che l'antitrust aveva già rilevato in Italia un livello di concorrenza non soddisfacente e che il
mancato pagamento della polizza, oltre a costituire un illecito fiscale, danneggia la collettività ripercuotendosi sugli
automobilisti onesti, non ritiene opportuno richiamare il governo italiano, che non ha ancora assunto alcun
provvedimento correttivo in tal senso, sulla necessità urgente di una riforma?

— Con riferimento alle dichiarazioni del Vicepresidente di Mobast, associazione che lotta contro l'aumento dei prezzi
delle assicurazioni, rese in occasione dell'audizione al Parlamento del 19 giugno scorso, sulla mancanza di
concorrenza e trasparenza che hanno portato l'Italia a raggiungere il primato negativo in Europa sulle tariffe e
l'evasione assicurativa, non riterrebbe necessario un intervento legislativo a livello dell'UE per evitare la creazione di
pericolose differenze tariffarie che discriminano gli automobilisti dei diversi Stati membri?

— Con riferimento alla risposta fornita all'interrogazione n. E-004237/2013, nella quale la Commissione si
impegnava a fornire in tempo utile le ultime stime sulla circolazione di veicoli nel territorio dell'UE sprovvisti di
polizza assicurativa, può far sapere se tali stime sono pervenute dagli Stati membri e, in tal caso, comunicare le stesse?

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(6 settembre 2013)_

La Commissione è a conoscenza del persistere in Italia dei problemi riguardanti il mercato italiano delle assicurazioni
di autoveicoli. La questione è trattata nell’indagine settoriale del 22 febbraio 2012 dell’Autorità garante della
concorrenza e del mercato (AGCM) italiana, che non ha tuttavia riscontrato alcuna violazione delle regole di

concorrenza.

Ad ogni modo, dato il carattere nazionale e subnazionale delle presunte pratiche in oggetto, l’Autorità garante della
concorrenza e del mercato italiana si trova in una posizione privilegiata rispetto alla Commissione per affrontare
possibili violazioni delle norme di concorrenza nazionali o europee.

Ai sensi dell’articolo 29 della direttiva 92/49/CEE (terza direttiva assicurazione non vita), gli Stati membri dell’UE non
possono intervenire per fissare i prezzi né richiedere informazioni _ex ante_ in merito. Come indicato nel corso di
un’audizione della commissione per le petizioni del Parlamento europeo, la Commissione ha in programma di
rivedere la normativa UE in materia di assicurazioni non vita in prospettiva di un eventuale miglioramento.

La Commissione prevede di raccogliere e analizzare i dati sulla circolazione dei veicoli non assicurati negli Stati
membri in un prossimo futuro e provvederà a comunicarne i risultati all’onorevole parlamentare quando saranno
disponibili.

C 65 E / 598 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008326/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Italian drivers paying the price for third-party motor insurance policies

The Italian Automobile Club (ACI) has warned that in the Veneto region alone, 310 000 cars, around one in eight, are
uninsured. Partly due to financial difficulties caused by the crisis and partly due to high rates, a growing number of
Italians are failing to take out a mandatory insurance policy. On average, insurance costs Italian drivers EUR 740 per
year, almost double what it costs drivers living in other parts of the EU. According to the ACI, the difference in the
cost of car insurance between Italy and the rest of Europe can be resolved by legislating in two areas: by combating
insurance evasion, and by cutting the cost of policies by up to 40%, as proposed in the draft law submitted to the
Italian Government.

— Is the Commission aware of this problem?

— Considering that the Antitrust Authority has already found that there is an unsatisfactory level of competition in
Italy and that failure to take out an insurance policy, as well being a form of tax evasion, harms everyone by affecting
honest drivers, does the Commission not think that it should remind the Italian Government, which has still not
taken any corrective measures in this regard, that reform is urgently needed?

— In view of the statements made by the Vice-President of Mobast, an association that opposes rising insurance
prices, at the parliamentary hearing of 19 June 2013, regarding the lack of competition and transparency which have
led Italy to have the highest insurance costs and the highest levels of insurance evasion in Europe, does the
Commission think that EU-wide legislative intervention is required to avoid the creation of dangerous price
differences that discriminate against drivers in different Member States?

— With regard to the answer given to Question E-004237/2013, in which the Commission undertook to provide the
latest estimates on uninsured driving in the EU in due course, can it say whether it has received these estimates from
the Member States and, if so, say what they are?

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

_(6 September 2013)_

The Commission is aware of the persisting issues as regards the Italian motor insurance market as dealt with in the
sectorial enquiry of the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) of 22 February 2012. This enquiry did not however
identify any violation of competition rules.

In any case, given the national and sub-national character of the alleged practices, the Italian Competition Authority
would be better placed than the Commission to address any possible breach of national or European competition
rules.

Under Article 29 of Directive 92/49/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), EU Member States may not intervene to
set prices or require _ex ante_ information on prices. The Commission is intending, as indicated in a hearing of the
European Parliament Petitions Committee, review its legislation on non-life insurance for possible improvements..

The Commission is planning to collect and analyse data on uninsured driving from the Member States in the near
future. It will inform the Honourable Member of the results when they are available.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 599

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta E-008327/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Campi rom abusivi e accattonaggio: emergenza sociale, sostegno per i comuni veneti e fondi attualmente
stanziati dall'UE per l'integrazione dei rom

Nel comune di Venezia è stato recentemente sgomberato un accampamento abusivo di romeni di etnia rom,
sospettati di molti episodi di vandalismo e minacce ai danni dei cittadini, che vivevano di espedienti e accattonaggio.

Nel territorio del comune di Venezia, almeno 65 siti sono stati oggetto di provvedimenti di sgombero, mentre fra il
2012 e la metà del 2013 ben 375 verbali sono stati elevati dalla polizia municipale per infrazioni commesse dagli
occupanti i suddetti luoghi.

Da quanto rilevato dalle autorità, l'attività di accattonaggio è un fenomeno che interessa più Stati membri
coinvolgendo gruppi organizzati dell'est europeo di etnia rom che si spostano fra varie città del nord Italia,
soprattutto del Veneto, ma anche in Spagna e Francia, coinvolgendo in queste attività minorenni e favorendo
situazioni di disagio sociale e delinquenza.

— È la Commissione a conoscenza del fenomeno?

— Qual è la situazione negli altri Stati membri?

— Intende la Commissione aprire un tavolo di confronto fra i rappresentanti dei paesi interessati da queste
problematiche sociali al fine di coordinare un intervento volto a contenerle e mitigarle, sostenendo le realtà
territoriali, come i comuni veneti colpiti, e agendo con accordi specifici negli Stati di provenienza?

— Considerando l'allarme sociale innescato da questi fenomeni sui nostri territori, può la Commissione indicare
l'ammontare dei finanziamenti stanziati a favore dell'integrazione dei rom all'interno dell'UE?

— Come valuta la Commissione la politica di integrazione sociale dei rom in Italia e in Europa tenendo conto dei fatti
sopra esposti?

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

_(4 settembre 2013)_

La Commissione segue da vicino i progressi compiuti in relazione ai Rom negli Stati membri e riconosce la gravità
della situazione. La Commissione si adopera per affrontare le cause all’origine del lavoro minorile e dell’accattonaggio
e per prendere in considerazione le esigenze delle persone vulnerabili, quali i Rom. Tuttavia, sono gli Stati membri che
devono fare molto. Spetta essenzialmente alle autorità nazionali occuparsi della persistente emarginazione sociale ed
economica della popolazione Rom.

Nel contesto del quadro dell’UE per le strategie nazionali di integrazione dei Rom, la Commissione ha intensificato il
dialogo con gli Stati membri in materia di integrazione di queste popolazioni, in particolare istituendo nell’ottobre
2012 la rete dei punti di contatto nazionali per i rom, per discutere delle soluzioni ai problemi identificati.

Come posto in evidenza nella relazione intermedia della Commissione del 2013 ( [1] ), gli Stati membri dovrebbero
anche incentivare la creazione di capacità delle amministrazioni locali e delle organizzazioni della società civile
utilizzando i fondi nazionali e dell’UE in modo da favorire con efficacia l’inclusione dei Rom a livello locale.

I fondi strutturali dell’UE sono stati utilizzati per intensificare gli sforzi nazionali e sono un importante strumento
finanziario per assicurare che le strategie nazionali per l’integrazione dei Rom si traducano nella loro inclusione
socioeconomica. Per il nuovo periodo di finanziamento 2014-2020, la Commissione ha proposto che una priorità
specifica di investimento sia riservata all’integrazione delle comunità emarginate quali i Rom e ha imposto l’obbligo di
attuare un’adeguata strategia di inclusione dei Rom. La Commissione propone di utilizzare almeno il 20 % dei fondi
dell’FSE ( [2] ) per iniziative destinate all’inclusione sociale, compresa l’integrazione dei Rom.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013)454 def. del 26.6.2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Fondo sociale europeo.

C 65 E / 600 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008327/13**

**to the Commission**

**Mara Bizzotto (EFD)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Illegal Roma camps and begging: social emergency, support for municipalities in the Veneto region and funds
currently allocated by the EU for integration of Roma

The municipality of Venice recently cleared an illegal camp of ethnic Roma from Romania, who were suspected of
being responsible for many incidents of vandalism and threatening citizens, living on their wits and begging.

At least 65 sites have been cleared in the municipality of Venice, while some 375 reports were raised by the municipal
police between 2012 and mid-2013 for offences committed by those living on the sites.

According to the authorities, begging is an issue that affects several Member States and involves organised Roma
groups from eastern Europe who move from town to town in northern Italy, particularly in the Veneto region, but
also in Spain and France, involving children in these activities and fostering social unrest and crime.

— Is the Commission aware of this phenomenon?

— What is the situation in other Member States?

— Does the Commission plan to set up a forum between representatives of the countries affected by these social
problems in order to coordinate action to curb and mitigate them, supporting local areas, such as the affected
municipalities in the Veneto region, and coming to specific arrangements to take action in the states of origin?

— In view of the social concern triggered by these issues in Italy, can the Commission say how much funding has
been allocated for the integration of Roma in the EU?

— What does the Commission think of the policy for the social integration of Roma in Italy and in Europe, in view of
the above facts?

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

_(4 September 2013)_

The Commission is following very closely the progress made on the situation of Roma in Member States and
acknowledges the gravity of the situation. The Commission is committed to addressing the root causes of child labour
and begging and to taking into account the needs of vulnerable persons, such as Roma. However, significant work
needs to be done by Member States themselves. The primary responsibility for addressing the persistent social and
economic marginalisation of Roma people rests with national authorities.

In the context of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies, the Commission enhanced its dialogue
with the Member States on Roma integration, in particular by establishing in October 2012 the network of National
Roma Contact Points, in order to discuss solutions to the identified challenges.

As emphasised in the Commission 2013 progress report ( [1] ) the Member States should also support capacity building
of local authorities and civil society organisations by using national and EU funds so that they can effectively achieve
Roma inclusion at local level.

The EU Structural Funds have been mobilised to boost national efforts and are an important financial lever in
ensuring translation of National Roma Integration Strategies into real socioeconomic inclusion of Roma
communities. For the new funding period 2014-2020, the Commission has proposed a specific investment priority
to be devoted to the integration of marginalised communities, such as Roma and has made it a requirement that an
appropriate Roma inclusion strategy is in place. The Commission proposes to use at least 20% of ESF ( [2] ) resources for
social inclusion which also includes Roma integration.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) COM(2013) 454 final of 26.06.2013.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) European Social Fund.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 601

_(Versão portuguesa)_

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008328/13**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ponto de situação atual das negociações entre a UE e os EUA — I

Considerando que:

A União Europeia (UE) e os Estados Unidos da América (EUA) iniciaram recentemente negociações no sentido de
concluir um acordo de comércio livre que, almejando ser o mais amplo a nível mundial, visa facilitar o comércio
transatlântico através da eliminação das barreiras alfandegárias ainda existentes no setor das exportações e
importações e o reconhecimento mútuo de padrões industriais;

Recentemente ocorreram algumas tensões diplomáticas com os EUA relacionadas com revelações respeitantes a
atividades de espionagem e que tais acontecimentos tornam o momento atual de negociações particularmente
delicado e sensível, podendo afetar o desenrolar das negociações que foram, por uns tempos, adiadas;

Um acordo de comércio livre entre a UE e os EUA seria de grande interesse para ambas as partes na medida em que
contribuiria não só para a dinamização das economias e para o crescimento económico de ambas as partes, mas
também para o reforço mútuo de uma estratégia e de uma aliança transatlânticas;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Qual o ponto de situação atual das negociações do acordo de comércio livre entre a UE e os EUA?

2. Tem conhecimento de que os recentes acontecimentos relacionados com a revelação de atividades de
espionagem possam eventualmente ter interferido com o atual desenvolvimento das negociações?

3. Neste contexto, qual é atualmente a posição da União Europeia quanto à viabilidade do desenvolvimento e
conclusão, num futuro próximo, das negociações relativas a um acordo de comércio livre com os Estados
Unidos? Tem, a este propósito, alguma meta temporal em vista?

**Pergunta com pedido de resposta escrita E-008329/13**

**à Comissão**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 de julho de 2013)_

_Assunto:_ Ponto de situação atual das negociações entre a UE e os EUA — II

Considerando que:

A União Europeia (UE) e os Estados Unidos da América (EUA) iniciaram recentemente negociações no sentido de
concluir um acordo de comércio livre que, almejando ser o mais amplo a nível mundial, visa facilitar o comércio
transatlântico através da eliminação das barreiras alfandegárias ainda existentes no setor das exportações e
importações e o reconhecimento mútuo de padrões industriais;

Recentemente ocorreram algumas tensões diplomáticas com os EUA relacionadas com revelações respeitantes a
atividades de espionagem e que tais acontecimentos tornam o momento atual de negociações particularmente
delicado e sensível, podendo afetar o desenrolar das negociações que foram, por uns tempos, adiadas;

Um acordo de comércio livre entre a UE e os EUA seria de grande interesse para ambas as partes na medida em que
contribuiria não só para a dinamização das economias e para o crescimento económico de ambas as partes, mas
também para o reforço mútuo de uma estratégia e de uma aliança transatlânticas;

Pergunta-se à Comissão:

1. Tem conhecimento de que algum Estado-Membro se tenha oposto à evolução das negociações de um acordo
de comércio livre entre a UE e os EUA, tendo em conta os acontecimentos recentes relacionados com a
revelação de atividades de espionagem por parte dos EUA?

C 65 E / 602 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

2. Há outras questões, para além da questão relacionada com atividades de espionagem, que sejam de natureza
controversa no seio dos Estados‐Membros e possam, por isso, afetar o decorrer das negociações?

3. Quais os principais resultados obtidos na última ronda de negociações de julho e quais os capítulos que já
estão, eventualmente, fechados?

**Resposta conjunta dada por Karel De Gucht em nome da Comissão**

_(3 de setembro de 2013)_

A Comissão manifestou a sua grande preocupação e procurou obter uma clarificação completa e imediata dos EUA
quanto às suas alegadas atividades de espionagem na medida em que digam respeito a cidadãos e a instalações da UE.
Embora a Comissão esteja empenhada nas negociações da Parceria Transatlântica de Comércio e Investimento (TTIP),
espera que, em paralelo, os recém-criados grupos de trabalho UE-EUA discutam as questões da proteção de dados
suscitadas por estas atividades que são da competência da UE, e analisem a supervisão das atividades de espionagem
dos EUA. O Conselho autorizou a Comissão a negociar um acordo e não fez depender o início das negociações de
nenhumas condições sobre as questões relativas ao PRISM, o programa de vigilância da _National Security Agency_ (NSA)
dos EUA. De igual modo, a Resolução do Parlamento Europeu sobre o programa de vigilância da NSA dos EUA,
adotada em 4 de julho de 2013, não se pronunciou a favor do adiamento das negociações. A primeira ronda de
negociações mostrou o potencial da TTIP, tendo incluído negociações substanciais sobre a gama completa de temas a
incluir no acordo. Os grupos de negociação estabeleceram as respetivas abordagens e ambições nos vinte domínios
diferentes que a TTIP deverá abranger, nomeadamente: acesso ao mercado para os produtos agrícolas e industriais,
contratos públicos, investimento, energia e matérias-primas, questões de regulação, medidas sanitárias e
fitossanitárias, serviços, direitos de propriedade intelectual, desenvolvimento sustentável, pequenas e médias
empresas, resolução de litígios, concorrência, questões aduaneiras/facilitação do comércio e empresas públicas. Os
negociadores identificaram algumas áreas de convergência em várias componentes da negociação e, no que respeita
às áreas de divergência, começaram a explorar as possibilidades de colmatar as diferenças.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 603

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008328/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Current state of play of negotiations between the EU and the US — I

The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) recently opened negotiations on concluding a free trade
agreement which aims to be the largest in the world and to facilitate transatlantic trade by eliminating existing tariff
barriers on imports and exports and mutually recognising industry standards.

Recently there have been some diplomatic tensions with the US due to revelations concerning espionage activities.
These events make this negotiating period particularly delicate and sensitive and may affect how the negotiations,
which were temporarily postponed, proceed.

A free trade agreement between the EU and the US would be of great interest to both parties as it would help to boost
the economies of and stimulate economic growth in both regions, as well as to mutually reinforce a transatlantic
strategy and alliance.

1. What is the current state of play of negotiations on a free trade agreement between the EU and the US?

2. Is the Commission aware as to whether recent events regarding the revelation of espionage activities may have
interfered with the current development of negotiations?

3. In this context, does the EU think it is viable to develop and conclude negotiations on a free trade agreement
with the US in the near future? Does it have a target date in mind in this regard?

**Question for written answer E-008329/13**

**to the Commission**

**Nuno Teixeira (PPE)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Current state of play of negotiations between the EU and the US — II

The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) recently opened negotiations on concluding a free trade
agreement which aims to be the largest in the world and to facilitate transatlantic trade by eliminating existing tariff
barriers on imports and exports and mutually recognising industry standards.

Recently there have been some diplomatic tensions with the US due to revelations concerning espionage activities.
These events make this negotiating period particularly delicate and sensitive and may affect how the negotiations,
which were temporarily postponed, proceed.

A free trade agreement between the EU and the US would be of great interest to both parties as it would help to boost
the economies of and stimulate economic growth in both regions, as well as to mutually reinforce a transatlantic
strategy and alliance.

1. Is the Commission aware as to whether any Member States have opposed the development of negotiations on a
free trade agreement between the EU and the US, in view of recent events regarding the revelation of US espionage?

2. Are there any other issues, besides the revelations of espionage, which have caused controversy within the
Member States and could therefore affect the course of the negotiations?

3. What were the main results achieved during the last round of negotiations in July and which chapters may
already be closed?

C 65 E / 604 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

**Joint answer given by Mr De Gucht on behalf of the Commission**

_(3 September 2013)_

The Commission has expressed its strong concern and has sought a full and immediate clarification from the US on
their supposed intelligence activities to the extent that they concern EU citizens and premises. While the Commission
is committed to the TTIP negotiations, it expects that in parallel, the recently set up EU-US working groups will
discuss data protection issues raised by these activities that fall within EU competence, and analyse the oversight of US
intelligence activities. The Council has authorised the Commission to negotiate an agreement and did not make the
beginning of the negotiations conditional on issues concerning PRISM, the US National Security Agency (NSA)
surveillance programme. Equally, the European Parliament's resolution on the US NSA surveillance programme
adopted on 4 July 2013 did not call for negotiations to be postponed. The first round of negotiations has shown the
potential that the TTIP holds. It included substantial talks on the full range of topics to be covered in the agreement.
Negotiating groups have set out respective approaches and ambitions in as much as twenty various areas that the
TTIP is set to cover, including: market access for agricultural and industrial goods, government procurement,
investment, energy and raw materials, regulatory issues, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, services, intellectual
property rights, sustainable development, small‐ and medium-sized enterprises, dispute settlement, competition,
customs/trade facilitation, and state-owned enterprises. Negotiators identified certain areas of convergence across
various components of the negotiation and — in areas of divergence — begun to explore possibilities to bridge the

gaps.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 605

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub P-008330/13**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(11 ta' Lulju 2013)_

_Suġġett:_ Il-kriżi tal-immigrazzjoni fil-Mediterran

Il-kwistjoni tal-immigrazzjoni illegali fil-Mediterran ilha teżisti. Kull sena eluf ta' immigranti illegali jippruvaw jaqsmu
mill-Afrika lejn l-Ewropa biex ifittxu ġejjieni aħjar għalihom u għall-familji tagħhom. Ħafna minnhom imutu waqt
dan it-tentattiv.

— X'miżuri speċifiċi qed tieħu l-Kummissjoni biex trażżan dan il-fluss ta' migrazzjoni illegali lejn l-Ewropa?

— Tista' l-Kummissjoni tgħid jekk nedietx xi diskussjonijiet dwar din il-kwistjoni mal-Libja, minn fejn ħafna minn
dawn l-immigranti illegali jippruvaw jaqsmu l-Mediterran?

— Jekk dan huwa l-każ, x'kienu l-konklużjonijiet ta' dawn id-diskussjonijiet, u x'miżuri ġew implimentati b'riżultat
tagħhom?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Malmström f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(27 ta' Awwissu 2013)_

Il-flussi tal-migrazzjoni irregolari li jilħqu x-xtut Ewropej mil-Libja madwar il-Mediterran huma r-riżultat ta’ bosta
fatturi, fosthom il-kapaċità limitata tal-awtoritajiet Libjani li jikkontrollaw il-fruntieri tagħhom, li jittrattaw lorganizzazzjonijiet ta' kuntrabandu tal-migranti u li jistabbilixxu kundizzjonijiet diċenti ta’ ażil jew immigrazzjoni.

L-UE diġà ppruvat tħeġġeġ lill-awtoritajiet Libjani biex jindirizzaw dawn il-problemi kollha u qed timplimenta diversi
inizjattivi f’dan l-ambitu. B’mod partikolari, il-Kummissjoni qiegħda tiffinanzja u tħejji diversi proġetti, li flimkien
għandu jkollhom ir-riżultat li jtejbu l-kapaċità tal-awtoritajiet Libjani biex tiġi evitata l-migrazzjoni irregolari, jiġu
promossi kundizzjonijiet deċenti ta' immigrazzjoni u ażil u biex ikun hemm l-għassa u jitwettqu l-operazzjonijiet ta’
tfittxija u salvataġġ fil-Mediterran u biex tissaħħaħ il-kooperazzjoni tal-pulizija fil-ġlieda kontra r-reati
transnazzjonali.

Barra minn hekk, fit-22 ta’ Mejju 2013 il-Kunsill tal-Unjoni Ewropea approva l-użu ta’ missjoni ċivili tal-Politika ta'
Sigurtà Difiża Komuni (PSDK) għall-assistenza fil-fruntieri tal-Libja. L-għan strateġiku tal-missjoni hu li tappoġġa lawtoritajiet Libjani biex jiżviluppaw kapaċità għat-titjib tas-sigurtà tal-fruntieri tagħhom tal-art, tal-baħar u tal-ajru
f’terminu ta’ żmien qasir, u jiżviluppaw strateġija integrata usa’ ta’ ġestjoni tal-fruntieri fuq medda twila ta’ żmien.

Il-Kummissjoni tittama li, billi tibni wkoll fuq ir-riżultati ta’ dawn l-inizjattivi varji, is-sitwazzjoni fil-Libja u lkapaċitajiet tal-awtoritajiet Libjani se jitjiebu gradwalment. Jekk dan iseħħ, il-Kummissjoni beħsiebha tibda malawtoritajiet Libjani Djalogu dwar il-Migrazzjoni, il-Mobbiltà u s-Sigurtà, kif mitlub mill-konklużjonijiet tal-Kunsill
għall-Ġustizzja u l-Affarijiet Interni adottati fid-9 ta’ Ġunju 2011.

C 65 E / 606 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008330/13**

**to the Commission**
**Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Mediterranean immigration crisis

The issue of illegal migration in the Mediterranean is a long-standing one. Every year thousands of illegal migrants
attempt to cross from Africa into Europe in search of a better future for themselves and their families. Many of them
die in the attempt.

— What specific measures is the Commission taking to stem this flow of illegal migration into Europe?

— Has the Commission initiated any discussions with Libya, from where many of these illegal migrants attempt to
cross the Mediterranean, about this issue?

— If so, what are the conclusions of these discussions, and what measures have been implemented as a result?

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

_(27 August 2013)_

The irregular migration flow reaching European shores from Libya across the Mediterranean is the result of several
factors, including the limited capacity of Libyan authorities to control their borders, to deal with migrants' smuggling
organisations and to set up decent asylum or immigration conditions.

The EU has already tried to engage Libyan authorities to address all these problems and is implementing several
initiatives in that scope. In particular, the Commission is financing and preparing several projects, whose combined
results should be to enhance the capacity of Libyan authorities to prevent irregular migration, promote decent
immigration and asylum conditions and to carry out patrolling and search and rescue operations in the
Mediterranean and to enhance police cooperation in combating transnational crimes.

In addition, on 22 May 2013 the Council of the European Union approved the deployment of a civilian CSDP mission
on border assistance in Libya. The strategic objective of the mission is to support the Libyan authorities to develop
capacity for enhancing the security of their land, sea and air borders in the short term, and to develop a broader
integrated border management strategy in the long term.

The Commission hopes that, building also on the results of these various initiatives, the situation in Libya and the
capacities of Libyan authorities will progressively improve. Should this happen, the Commission envisages to start
with Libyan authorities a Dialogue on Migration, Mobility and Security, as requested by the Justice and Home Affairs
Council conclusions adopted on 9 June 2011.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 607

_(Verżjoni Maltija)_

**Mistoqsija għal tweġiba bil-miktub P-008331/13**

**lill-Kummissjoni**
**Marlene Mizzi (S&D)**

_(11 ta' Lulju 2013)_

_Suġġett:_ Il-proġett pilota Eurema

Fit-8 ta' Lulju 2013, l-Uffiċċju Ewropew ta' Appoġġ fil-qasam tal-Asil (EASO) ħareġ ir-Rapport Annwali tiegħu dwar
il-qagħda tal-Ażil fl-Unjoni Ewropea fl-2012. F'dan ir-rapport intqal li mis-96 post allokati fl-2012 għar-rilokazzjoni
fil-qafas tal-proġett pilota dwar ir-rilokazzjoni fl-UE minn Malta (Eurema), 14-il ruħ biss ġew fil-fatt irrilokati sa
Jannar 2013.

— Fid-dawl ta' dan kollu, tista' l-Kummissjoni tispjega r-raġunijiet li għalihom l-għadd ta' rilokazzjonijiet attwali kien
daqshekk baxx?

— Mit-28 Stat Membru, 12-il pajjiż biss taw xi forma ta' assistenza għar-rilokazzjoni minn Malta (5 permezz ta'
ftehimiet bilaterali, 7 permezz tal-Eurema). X'inhuma r-raġunijiet li għalihom l-Istati Membri jiddeċiedu li ma
jipparteċipawx?

**Tweġiba mogħtija mis-Sinjura Malmström f'isem il-Kummissjoni**

_(22 ta' Awwissu 2013)_

Il-Kummissjoni hija ddiżappuntata li l-għadd ta’ postijiet allokati għal rilokazzjoni permezz tal-proġett EUREMA II
kien relattivament baxx u li n-numru ta’ persuni effettivament rilokati kien saħansitra iżgħar. Il-Kummissjoni
beħsiebha tevalwa l-EUREMA ladarba l-proġett jitlesta fl-aħħar tal-2013.

Minkejja dawn iċ-ċifri, ta’ min jinnota li permezz tal-ewwel proġett EUREMA I ġew rilokati 227 persuna. B’kollox,
madwar 690 persuna ġew rilokati minn Malta lejn pajjiżi tal-UE jew Pajjiżi Assoċjati mill-2005, li jirrappreżentaw
madwar wieħed minn kull 30 applikant għall-ażil lejn Malta f’dak il-perjodu.

Waħda mir-raġunijiet għall-għadd iżgħar ta' dawk rilokati bil-EUREMA II hija marbuta mad-diffikultajiet biex ilbenefiċjarji jiġu mħeġġa jitilqu minn Malta u jibdew ħajja ġdida f’pajjiż fejn jista’ ma jkunx hemm komunità ta'
kompatrijotti tagħhom. Barra minn hekk, xi Stati Membri jqiegħdu kundizzjonijiet fuq dawk il-persuni li
jikkunsidraw għar-rilokazzjoni, pereżempju jillimitaw il-postijiet għar-refuġjati biss, aktar milli għall-benefiċjarji ta’
protezzjoni sussidjarja, jew familji biss. Il-maġġoranza kbira ta’ benefiċjarji f’Malta għandhom l-i _status_ ta’ protezzjoni
sussidjarja.

Xi Stati Membri li ma allokawx postijiet għar-rilokazzjoni nnutaw li huma jqisu r-rilokazzjoni bħala “fattur li jiġbed”.
Il-Kummissjoni ma għandha l-ebda provi biex tikkonferma din l-istqarrija. Stati Membri oħra ppreferew
jikkonċentraw fuq ir-risistemazzjoni minn barra l-UE.

Il-Kummissjoni tibqa’ konvinta fil-merti tar-rilokazzjoni f’sitwazzjonijiet fejn l-Istati Membri jaffaċċaw pressjoni fuq
is-sistema tal-ażil tagħhom u ħabbret l-intenzjoni tagħha li torganizza forum annwali dwar ir-rilokazzjoni biex jassisti
lill-Istati Membri jistabbilixxu l-għadd ta’ postijiet li jixtiequ jallokaw għar-rilokazzjoni biex jieħdu fondi
supplimentari bil-Fond għall-Migrazzjoni u l-Ażil. Il-Kummissjoni beħsiebha tlaqqa’ l-ewwel laqgħa ta' din ix-xorti filħarifa tal-2013.

C 65 E / 608 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008331/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marlene Mizzi (S&D)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Eurema pilot project

On 8 July 2013, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) issued its Annual Report on the situation of Asylum in
the European Union 2012. In this report it was stated that out of the 96 places allocated in 2012 for relocation under
the European Union’s pilot-project on Intra-EU relocation (Eurema), only 14 had been actually relocated up to
January 2013.

— In light of all this, could the Commission explain the reasons why the number of actual allocations was so low?

— Out of 28 Member States, only 12 countries gave some form of relocation assistance to Malta (5 through bilateral
agreements, 7 through Eurema). What are the reasons for Member States deciding not to participate?

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

_(22 August 2013)_

The Commission is disappointed that the number of places pledged for relocation through the EUREMA II project
was relatively low and that the number of persons actually relocated was even lower. The Commission intends to
evaluate EUREMA once the project is complete at the end of 2013.

Notwithstanding these figures, it should be noted that the earlier EUREMA I project relocated 227 persons. In total,
around 690 persons have been relocated from Malta to EU or Associated Countries since 2005, representing around
one in thirty asylum applicants to Malta in that period.

One reason for the lower numbers in EUREMA II relates to the difficulties in encouraging beneficiaries to leave Malta
and start a new life in a country where there may be no community of their compatriots. Moreover, some Member
States place conditions on who they would consider for relocation, for example restricting places only to refugees,
rather than to beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, or only taking families. The vast majority of beneficiaries in Malta
have subsidiary protection status.

Some Member States that did not pledge places for relocation have noted that they consider relocation to be a ‘pull
factor’. The Commission is unaware of any evidence to substantiate this. Other Member States preferred to
concentrate on resettlement from outside the EU.

The Commission remains convinced of the merits of relocation in situations where Member States face pressure on
their asylum system and has announced its intention to hold an annual relocation forum to assist Member States in
determining the number of places they wish to pledge to relocate in order to access top-up funding under the Asylum
and Migration Fund. The Commission intends to convene a first such meeting in the autumn of 2013.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 609

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-008332/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Franco Bonanini (NI)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Avvio di un'inchiesta antidumping da parte della Cina sul vino europeo

Come preannunciato da molti organi di stampa internazionali, la Repubblica popolare cinese ha recentemente
ufficializzato l'apertura di una formale inchiesta antidumping e antisovvenzioni nei confronti delle importazioni di
vino europeo in Cina. Tale iniziativa, sfornita di ogni prova documentale, appare un'azione di rappresaglia politica
rispetto alla recente imposizione da parte dell'UE di dazi provvisori nei confronti delle importazioni di pannelli solari
cinesi in Europa.

Alla luce di tale annuncio, il sottoscritto interroga la Commissione per sapere quando intenda agire, a livello
internazionale e bilaterale, ponendo in essere tutte le iniziative necessarie a impedire gli abusi della normativa
antidumping (accordo antidumping) dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio (OMC) e quindi le azioni
potenzialmente in grado di danneggiare le importazioni di vino europeo nella Repubblica popolare cinese; in
particolare chiede alla Commissione se intende ricorrere al meccanismo di risoluzione delle dispute dell'OMC e,
qualora non lo ritenga opportuno, di spiegarne in dettaglio le ragioni.

L'interrogante chiede inoltre alla Commissione quali ulteriori iniziative intenda intraprendere per garantire il rispetto,
da parte della Repubblica popolare cinese nel corso della sua indagine, di tutte le disposizioni previste dalla
legislazione e dalla giurisprudenza dell'OMC, soprattutto in termini di utilizzo di dati certi, di trasparenza delle
procedure e di garanzie per le parti, inclusa un'effettiva possibilità di esporre le proprie posizioni e di richiedere
spiegazioni dettagliate durante le differenti fasi della procedura.

**Risposta di Karel De Gucht a nome della Commissione**

_(25 luglio 2013)_

La Commissione invita l'onorevole parlamentare a prendere visione della risposta data all'interrogazione scritta
E-5790/2013 ( [1] ).

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

C 65 E / 610 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008332/13**

**to the Commission**

**Franco Bonanini (NI)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Instigation by China of an anti-dumping investigation into European wines

As had already been reported in many sections of the international press, the People’s Republic of China recently
officially opened a formal anti‐dumping and anti‐subsidy investigation into European wines imported into China.
This move, which is not backed by any documentary evidence, seems to be a political reprisal for the recent
imposition by the EU of provisional duties on imports into Europe of solar panels from China.

In the light of this announcement, can the Commission state when it plans to initiate bilateral and international action
and take all the necessary initiatives to stop violations of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) anti‐dumping rules,
and hence prevent measures that are detrimental to imports of European wines into the People’s Republic of China?
Can it indicate, in particular, whether it intends to resort to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. If not, can it
explain in detail why not?

Can the Commission also state what further initiatives it plans to take to ensure that the People’s Republic of China, in
the course of its investigation, complies with the whole body of WTO rules and case law, especially as regards the use
of reliable data and transparent procedures that offer guarantees to the parties concerned, including that of having a
genuine opportunity to express their own views and request detailed explanations at the various stages of the
procedure.

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

_(25 July 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-5790/2013 ( [1] ).

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

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 611

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-008333/13**

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

_(11 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Posible fraude en los fondos Servef (Servicio Valenciano de Empleo y Formación)

Según la información que figura en la sindicación de cuentas de 2011 del Servicio Valenciano de Empleo y Formación
(Servef), la Generalitat (Gobierno autonómico) de la Comunidad Valenciana, del Partido Popular, supuestamente ha
desviado fondos destinados a las ayudas de formación y empleo durante el ejercicio 2011.

El supuesto desvío de fondos se produjo en las ayudas para las personas más vulnerables: se trata de ayudas para
desempleados que están obligados a realizar cursos de formación para recibir dichas ayudas, pero la administración
termina incumpliendo su parte. Según dicha sindicación de cuentas de la Generalitat valenciana, el grado de
realización de las partidas presupuestarias orientadas a programas de formación y empleo tan solo llega al 1,6 % de
los fondos designados. Asimismo, el documento establece que dicha institución ha ingresado todos los fondos a los
que tenía derecho por parte del SPEE, pero no ha realizado los pagos, desapareciendo una cantidad de
239 876 787 euros, de los que no existe prueba alguna de que hayan sido empleados para su destino original.

En un contexto en el que se están destapando numerosos supuestos escándalos de corrupción del Partido Popular
español, muchos de ellos vinculados a la Comunidad Valenciana, surgen estos errores en las cuentas públicas. Dichos
programas de ayuda han recibido la contribución de los Fondos Estructurales de la Unión Europea para el fomento de
las políticas activas de empleo. Tanto las autoridades españolas así como la Comisión Europea tienen responsabilidad
en la auditoría y el control de la ejecución de los fondos de la Unión Europea.

— ¿Conoce la Comisión el caso expuesto?

— ¿Ha verificado la Comisión la prácticamente nula realización de los citados fondos por parte de la Generalitat
valenciana?

— ¿En qué forma ha controlado la Comisión la realización de los citados fondos desde el citado año?

— ¿Tiene la Comisión conocimiento de otras irregularidades en la gestión de los Fondos Estructurales en la
Comunidad Valenciana?

— ¿Considera que el Gobierno de España ha cumplido sus obligaciones de control en estos fondos?

— ¿Piensa abrir una investigación sobre las citadas ayudas?

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

_(1 de octubre de 2013)_

La Comisión no dispone de información sobre las alegaciones planteadas por Su Señoría y le agradecería que le
remitiera más detalles sobre el tipo de actividad y el origen de los fondos comprometidos, así como todos los demás
elementos que pudieran plantear dudas o sospechas acerca del posible uso indebido de los fondos de la UE en la
Comunidad Valenciana.

La Comisión efectúa un seguimiento regular de la ejecución del Fondo de Cohesión y los Fondos Estructurales
mediante diversas herramientas, como los comités de supervisión y las reuniones de revisión anuales. Por lo que se
refiere a la gestión financiera, la Comisión supervisa de cerca la ejecución financiera de los citados fondos y lleva a
cabo controles y auditorías periódicos. La Comisión ha aplicado en la Comunidad Valenciana los procedimientos
previstos en los Reglamentos cuando se han detectado deficiencias o irregularidades en los sistemas de gestión y
control.

C 65 E / 612 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

(English version)

**Question for written answer P-008333/13**

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

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Alleged embezzlement of SERVEF (Valencian Community employment offices) funding

According to information from the 2011 accounts of _the_ Valencian Community’s public employment offices
(SERVEF), the community’s Partido Popular-controlled autonomous government is alleged to have embezzled funds
earmarked for training and employment aid during the 2011 financial year.

These allegations concern aid for the some of most vulnerable groups in society, namely unemployed people who
were forced to follow training courses before they could receive aid. However, the authorities failed to keep their side
of the bargain. The accounts of the Valencian Generalitat show that only 1.6% of the funds allocated to training and
employment programmes were actually used for them. They also state that the Generalitat received all funding to
which it was entitled for the running of the employment service (SPEE), but failed to make any payments. This has
resulted in a situation where a sum of EUR 239 876 787 remains unaccounted for.

These accounting irregularities come at a time when there are many other alleged cases of corruption within the
Spanish Partido Popular, many of them linked to the Autonomous Community of Valencia. These aid programmes
have benefited from contributions from the EU’s structural funds; both the Spanish authorities and the Commission
are therefore responsible for monitoring and auditing the use of EU funding.

_—_ Is the Commission aware of this case?

— Has the Commission looked into the Generalitat’s use of almost none of these funds?

— How has the Commission monitored the use of this funding since the year in question?

— Is the Commission aware of other irregularities in the management of structural funds in the Valencian
Community?

— Does it think that the Spanish Government has fulfilled its obligation to monitor the use of this funding?

— Does it intend to open an investigation into the use of this funding?

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

_(1 October 2013)_

The Commission has no information on the allegations raised by the Honourable Member and would be pleased to
receive more details on the type of activity, the origin of the funds committed as well as all the other elements that
might raise doubts or suspicion about the possible misuse of EU funds in the Valencian Community.

The Commission follows up the implementation of the Cohesion and Structural Funds (CSF) regularly through
different tools including the annual Monitoring Committees and Review Meetings. As regards the financial
management, the Commission closely monitors the financial execution of the CSF funds and carries out regular
controls and audits. The Commission has applied in the Valencian Community the procedures foreseen in the
regulations whenever deficiencies in the management and control systems or irregularities have been detected.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 613

_(Versione italiana)_

**Interrogazione con richiesta di risposta scritta P-008334/13**

**alla Commissione**

**Erminia Mazzoni (PPE)**

_(11 luglio 2013)_

_Oggetto:_ Procedura di infrazione su «cittadella della giustizia» di Bari

Visto che:

—
il Comune di Bari pubblicò nel 2003 un avviso di ricerca di mercato sulla GUUE al fine di ricevere proposte per
l'istituzione della «cittadella della giustizia», vista la precarietà e inadeguatezza degli uffici esistenti, e con
delibera 1045/2003 dichiarò conforme alla ricerca il progetto della Pizzarotti & C. S.p.A., che metteva a
disposizione dell'amministrazione un'area di proprietà e l'erigenda struttura, con contratto di locazione;

—
il contenzioso nazionale, aperto da altra impresa, si è concluso con il riconoscimento, in via definitiva, che la
delibera 1045 non costituiva «aggiudicazione», non trattandosi di appalto, e che il contratto proposto si
qualifica come «contratto di locazione»;

—
nel settembre 2012 l'UE ha avviato un'indagine per violazione della direttiva europea 2004/18/CE sugli appalti
pubblici e in conseguenza, ad aprile il Consiglio di Stato, nonostante il giudicato, ha rimesso alla Corte di
Giustizia la questione se il contratto di locazione di «cosa futura» possa rientrare nella disciplina di evidenza
pubblica a norma dell'articolo 16 della direttiva 2004/18/CE;

—
nel giugno 2013 la Commissione europea ha indirizzato un parere motivato alla Repubblica italiana,
considerando che, nonostante la qualifica formale del contratto quale «atto d'impegno a locare», esso equivalga
di fatto ad un appalto di lavori, tralasciando di considerare elementi qualificanti come: A) la proprietà dell'area,
B) l'assenza di un capitolato di lavori, C) l'indicazione delle sole caratteristiche generali dell'immobile da locare,
D) il valore del contratto, incompatibile con un appalto, E) l'atto di impegno a locare non ancora sottoscritto.

Si chiede alla Commissione: se la stessa possa avviare una procedura nei confronti dello Stato italiano, considerata
l'inesistenza dell'atto che si assume in violazione; se essa non ritenga applicabili i principi sanciti nel Libro verde della
Commissione sugli appalti per cui è regolare il ricorso ai privati nella realizzazione di opere pubbliche se vi sia da
parte del privato l'assunzione di oneri finanziari e rischi, elementi estranei all'appalto, e siano rispettate trasparenza
delle procedure e parità di trattamento; perché essa abbia omesso di considerare che la direttiva 2004/18/CE esclude
l'applicazione della disciplina degli appalti nel caso in cui aree private inedificate siano ritenute idonee all'uso
pubblico, per caratteristiche individuate e motivate, che le rendono infungibili rispetto ai bisogni della Pubblica
Amministrazione.

**Risposta di Michel Barnier a nome della Commissione**

_(26 agosto 2013)_

La Commissione non può condividere i pareri espressi nella presente interrogazione riguardo alla procedura
d'infrazione n. 2012/4000 relativa alle procedure per la costruzione degli edifici della nuova sede unica
dell’amministrazione giudiziaria di Bari.

La procedura d'infrazione, avviata nel settembre 2012, riguarda la decisione di aggiudicazione con la quale
l'amministrazione aggiudicatrice ha selezionato l’offerta dell'impresa di costruzione responsabile dell'esecuzione dei
lavori. Il fatto che non sia stato ancora firmato alcun contratto non esclude l’esistenza di un’infrazione.

La valutazione della Commissione nell’ambito della presente procedura d'infrazione ha tenuto debitamente conto di
tutti gli elementi di fatto e di diritto disponibili, compresi quelli citati dall’onorevole deputato. Tale valutazione è
pienamente in linea con la legislazione dell’UE in materia di appalti pubblici e con la prassi consolidata descritta nel
Libro verde menzionato dall’onorevole deputato.

Infine, la posizione della Commissione si basa sulla giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia dell’UE, in particolare le
sentenze nelle cause Köln Messe e Helmut Müller ( [1] ). In base a detta giurisprudenza, tutti gli appalti pubblici di lavori
sono contratti, indipendentemente dalla loro qualifica formale, il cui oggetto è — come nel caso in questione — la
realizzazione di opere.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Sentenza del 29 ottobre 2009, causa C-536/07, Commissione contro Germania; sentenza del 25 marzo 2010, causa C-451/08, Helmut Müller.

C 65 E / 614 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008334/13**

**to the Commission**

**Erminia Mazzoni (PPE)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Infringement proceedings in respect of the ‘Citadella della Giustizia’ in Bari

In 2003, Bari City Council published a call for proposals in the OJEU for a new ‘Citadella della Giustizia’ (court
complex) in view of the poor condition and inadequacy of the existing premises. In Decision 1045/2003 it
announced that the requirements were met by the plans submitted by Pizzarotti & Co SpA, under which an area of
land and the complex being built were made available to the Council in the form of a rental contract.

Legal proceedings initiated in Italy by another company resulted in definitive judicial recognition that Decision 1045
did not constitute an ‘award of tender’ as this was not a tender procedure, and that the proposed contract was a ‘rental
agreement’.

In September 2012, the EU opened an investigation into the infringement of Directive 2004/18/EC on public
contracts and, despite the judicial ruling, in April the Council of State referred to the European Court of Justice the
matter of whether a ‘future’ rental agreement fitted the definition of competitive tendering under Article 16 of
Directive 2004/18/EC.

In June 2013, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Italian Republic, in which it indicated that although the
contract was officially designated an ‘undertaking to rent’, it was in fact the equivalent of a works tendering
procedure, while not taking into account indicative factors such as: a) ownership of the area; b) the absence of works
specifications; c) evidence of the general characteristics usually associated with rental property; d) the value of the
contract, which was inconsistent with a tendering procedure; e) the as‐yet‐unsigned undertaking to rent.

In the light of the above, can the Commission state whether it is able to initiate proceedings against the Italian State,
when the undertaking it is alleged is being infringed does not exist? Does it not feel that the principles set out in the
Commission green paper on procurement procedures, according to which it is legitimate for private entities to
undertake public works if those entities assume the financial burdens and risks involved, when these aspects are not
covered by the tender procedure and if transparent procedures and equal treatment is applied? Why did it fail to take
into account the fact that, under Directive 2004/18/EC, private unbuilt areas considered suitable for public use are
exempted from the rules on tendering, when for specific and justified reasons they are non‐fungible in respect of
public administration requirements?

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

_(26 August 2013)_

The Commission cannot subscribe to the views expressed in this question about infringement case No 2012/4000
concerning the procedures for the construction of the buildings for the new single seat of the judicial administration
in Bari.

The infringement proceedings, as launched in September 2012, concern the award decision by which the contracting
authority selected the offer of the construction company responsible for executing the works. The fact that no
contract has yet been signed does not exclude the existence of an infringement.

The Commission’s assessment in this infringement procedure has duly taken into account all available factual and
legal elements, including those mentioned by the Honourable Member. Such assessment is also fully in line with EU
public procurement legislation, and established practice as explained in the Green Paper referred to by the
Honourable Member.

Finally, the Commission’s position is based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU, especially the judgments
in Köln Messe and Helmut Müller ( [1] ). According to that case law, public works contracts are all contracts, irrespective
of their formal classification, whose object is — as in the present case — the execution of works.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Judgment 29 October 2009, Case C-536/07, _Commission_ v _Germany_ ; judgment 25 March 2010, Case C-451/08, Helmut Müller.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 615

_(Nederlandse versie)_

**Vraag met verzoek om schriftelijk antwoord P-008335/13**

**aan de Commissie**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(11 juli 2013)_

_Betreft:_ „Dalligate” en de rol van het secretariaat-generaal van de Commissie met betrekking tot de richtlijn
Tabaksproducten

De e-mailcorrespondentie van september 2012 tussen Catherine Day, secretaris-generaal van de Commissie, en Paola
Testori, directeur-generaal van DG SANCO, betreffende het voorstel voor een nieuwe richtlijn Tabaksproducten doet
de volgende vragen rijzen:

1. Waren de instructies om de richtlijn te wijzigen afkomstig van het kabinet van voorzitter Barroso, na
„vruchtbare discussies”, of was het een initiatief van mevrouw Day? Waren er andere personen bij betrokken?
Zijn de instructies schriftelijk of mondeling meegedeeld? Indien zij schriftelijk zijn gegeven, kan het Parlement
inzage krijgen in het document? Hoe komt het dat het kabinet van de toenmalige bevoegde commissaris Dalli
niet op de hoogte is gesteld?

2. Indien de instructies mondeling zijn gegeven, van wie waren ze afkomstig? Kan iemand het Parlement
meedelen wat de instructies precies inhielden en waarom ze werden gegeven?

3. De secretaris-generaal en/of de juridische dienst van de Commissie waren tegen het voorstel van DG SANCO
om smaken te verbieden en tegen neutrale of standaardverpakkingen. Waarom vonden de diensten in kwestie
deze twee punten onaanvaardbaar?

4. Hoe vaak hebben mevrouw Day en Michel Petite de afgelopen 24 maanden elkaar ontmoet? Kan het Parlement
een overzicht krijgen van alle telefoongesprekken tussen mevrouw Day en de heer Petite? In mei 2012 heeft de
heer Petite met mevrouw Day contact opgenomen om haar in kennis te stellen van informatie van Swedish
Match over een vermoedelijk geval van omkoperij. Waarom adviseerde mevrouw Day de heer Petite zijn cliënt
voor te stellen de informatie aan de secretaris-generaal door te spelen? Waarom adviseerde zij de heer Petite niet
het dossier direct aan OLAF te doen toekomen?

5. Heeft het kabinet van de heer Barroso de secretaris-generaal opgedragen contact op te nemen met de directeurgeneraal van OLAF om op de hoogte te worden gebracht van de ontwikkelingen in het onderzoek van OLAF?
Zo ja, hoe dikwijls en wanneer? Heeft het secretariaat-generaal contact opgenomen met de heer Petite na de
start van het onderzoek van OLAF om de resultaten van de contacten tussen Swedish Match en OLAF te weten

te komen?

**Antwoord van de heer Barroso namens de Commissie**

_(15 oktober 2013)_

1. Het kabinet van de voorzitter heeft geen instructies gegeven, omdat de gebruikelijke procedure werd gevolgd.
De artikelen 20 en 23 van het reglement van orde van de Commissie bevatten de regels voor de samenwerking en
coördinatie tussen de diensten. De secretaris-generaal is verantwoordelijk voor de coördinatie tussen de diensten
tijdens de voorbereidende werkzaamheden, voor de inhoudelijke kwaliteit en voor de formele naleving van de regels
voordat documenten aan de Commissie worden voorgelegd. De verantwoordelijke dienst raadpleegt „tijdig de
diensten die bij het voorstel voor een besluit een rechtmatig belang hebben”. De juridische dienst moet worden
geraadpleegd over alle besluiten en documenten die juridische implicaties kunnen hebben en het secretariaat-generaal
over alle initiatieven die van politiek belang zijn, of voorkomen in het jaarlijks werkprogramma van de Commissie, of
institutionele aspecten betreffen, of aan een effectbeoordeling of een openbare raadpleging zijn onderworpen ( [1] ).

Dit overleg tussen de diensten van de Commissie vond ook plaats bij de voorbereiding van de richtlijn inzake
tabaksproducten. Zowel de juridische dienst als het secretariaat-generaal hebben met DG SANCO samengewerkt om
ervoor te zorgen dat het ontwerp-voorstel aan de regels en normen van de Commissie voor ontwerp-wetgeving
voldoet. DG SANCO heeft het kabinet van de heer Dalli in kennis gesteld van het overleg tussen de diensten van de
Commissie.

2. Zie antwoord op vraag 1.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:055:0060:0067:NL:PDF.

C 65 E / 616 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

3. De juridische dienst en het secretariaat-generaal waren nooit gekant tegen het voorstel van DG SANCO om
smaken te verbieden. Met betrekking tot de neutrale of standaardverpakkingen hebben de juridische dienst en het
secretariaat-generaal tijdens het overleg hun twijfels kenbaar gemaakt ten aanzien van de rechtsgrondslag en de
aandacht gevestigd op het feit dat de in een derde land geldende voorschriften inzake neutrale of
standaardverpakkingen toen in het kader van het geschillenbeslechtingssysteem van de WTO werden aangevochten
en op de in die context gerezen juridische kwesties, waarbij zij erop wezen dat voor dergelijke maatregelen harde
bewijzen nodig zijn.

4. De secretaris-generaal heeft, samen met de overige leden van de ethische commissie ad hoc, op 17 april 2012 de
heer Petite eenmaal ontmoet. Zoals reeds is aangegeven in het antwoord op de tweede en de derde vragenlijst van de
Commissie Begrotingscontrole (CONT) in juni en september 2013, heeft de heer Petite begin mei 2012 in een
telefoongesprek met de secretaris-generaal gevraagd hoe Swedish Match informatie onder de aandacht van de
Commissie kon brengen. Hij werd ervan in kennis gesteld dat de onderneming zich moest wenden tot de secretarisgeneraal, het officiële adres voor de correspondentie met de instelling.

5. Als onderdeel van de gebruikelijke voorbereiding van het zomerreces van 2012 heeft de secretaris-generaal het
Europees Bureau voor Fraudebestrijding (OLAF) gevraagd of een beslissing betreffende de zaak tijdens het zomerreces
werd verwacht. Er zijn tijdens het onderzoek van OLAF geen contacten tussen het SG en de heer Petite geweest.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 617

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008335/13**

**to the Commission**
**Bart Staes (Verts/ALE)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Dalligate and the involvement of the Commission's Secretariat-General in the TPD

The email correspondence of September 2012 between Catherine Day, Secretary-General of the Commission, and
Paola Testori, Director-General of DG Sanco, concerning the draft Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) raises the
following questions:

1. Did instructions to change the draft TPD come from Mr Barroso’s Cabinet after ‘fruitful discussions’, or were
these the initiative of Ms Day? Were other people involved in this process? Were instructions transmitted in
written form or orally? If in written form, can Parliament be provided with these documents? Why was the
Cabinet of Commissioner Dalli, the Commissioner responsible at the time, not informed?

2. If instructions were given orally, who issued them? Can Parliament be provided with a summary of what
exactly the instructions consisted of and why they were issued?

3. The Commission’s SG and/or the legal service were opposed to DG Sanco’s proposal to forbid flavours and
against plain packaging. Why were these two points an issue for the departments in question?

4. How many times has Ms Day met Michel Petite during the last 24 months? Can Parliament have an overview of
all telephone calls between Ms Day and Mr Petite? Mr Petite contacted Ms Day in April or May 2012 to inform
her of information from Swedish Match (SM) about a possible case of bribery. Why did Ms Day advise Mr Petite
to suggest that his clients hand over the information to the SG? Why did she not advise Mr Petite to hand over
the file directly to OLAF?

5. Did Mr Barroso’s Cabinet instruct the SG to get in contact with OLAF’s DG to be informed about how the OLAF
investigation was proceeding? If so, how many times did that happen and when? Did the SG contact Mr Petite
after the start of the OLAF investigation to find out the outcome of the contacts between SM and OLAF?

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

_(15 October 2013)_

1. No instructions were issued by the cabinet of the President since the normal process was followed. Articles 20
and 23 of the internal rules of procedure of the Commission contain the rules applicable to interdepartmental
cooperation and coordination. The Secretary General is responsible for the coordination between departments in the
preparatory stages, for the quality in terms of substance and for the formal compliance with the rules before
documents are submitted to the Commission. The department responsible shall consult ‘the departments with a
legitimate interest in the draft text in sufficient time’. The Legal Service must be consulted for all legal instruments and
documents which may have legal implications and the Secretariat General for all initiatives of political importance or
which are part of the Commission annual work programme or concern institutional issues or are subject to impact
assessment or public consultation ( [1] ).

This inter service consultation process was followed in the case of the preparation of the Tobacco Products Directive.
Both the Legal Service and the Secretariat General worked with DG Sanco to ensure that the draft proposal met the
Commission's rules and standards for draft legislation. DG Sanco informed the Cabinet of Mr Dalli on the inter service

process.

2. See reply to question 1.

3. The Legal Service and the Secretariat General never opposed DG Sanco's proposal to forbid flavours as such. As
regards plain packaging, during the interservice discussion process the Legal Service and the Secretariat General
expressed doubts as regards the legal basis and pointed to the fact that a third country's rules on plain packaging were
currently challenged in front of the WTO dispute settlement system and the legal issues raised in that context,
highlighting the need to base any such measures on strong evidence.

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:055:0060:0067:EN:PDF

C 65 E / 618 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

4. The Secretary General met Mr Petite once on 17 April 2012, with the other members of the ad hoc ethical
committee. As already stated in the answers to the second and third questionnaire of the CONT Committee in June
and September 2013, Mr Petite contacted the Secretary General by phone in early May 2012 enquiring how Swedish
Match could bring information to the attention of the Commission. He was advised that the company should write to
the Secretary General who is the official addressee of correspondence to the Institution.

5. As part of the normal process of preparing the summer permanence of 2012 the Secretary General asked OLAF
whether a decision on the case was expected during the summer break. There were no contacts between the SG and
Mr Petite during the OLAF investigation.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 619

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita P-008336/13**

**a la Comisión**
**María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D)**

_(11 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Financiación de la UE para actividades de investigación desarrolladas en asentamientos israelíes ilegales

La UE está obligada a respetar el Derecho internacional en el ejercicio de sus atribuciones y a garantizar la coherencia
entre sus políticas y actividades.

En el contexto de las relaciones entre la UE e Israel, la UE y sus Estados miembros han reafirmado su compromiso «de
aplicar plena y eficazmente toda la legislación […] de la UE» ( [1] ) y «de velar por que —conforme al Derecho
internacional— todos los acuerdos entre el Estado de Israel y la Unión Europea indiquen, de forma explícita e
inequívoca, que no se aplicarán a los territorios ocupados por Israel en 1967, es decir, ni a los Altos del Golán, ni a
Cisjordania, incluido Jerusalén Oriental, ni a la Franja de Gaza» ( [2] ).

La Comisión publicará próximamente unas directrices sobre la elegibilidad de las entidades israelíes y sus actividades
para recibir financiación europea. Estas directrices deberían precisar la obligación de la UE de denegar la concesión de
financiación a cualquier entidad o actividad que lleve a la UE a prestar ayuda o asistencia para mantener
asentamientos israelíes o a reconocer como legítimos los actos, ilegales desde el punto de vista internacional, por los
que se crean y se mantienen estos asentamientos.

1. ¿Considera la Comisión que la legislación vigente de la UE (incluida la jurisprudencia) y el corpus legislativo
internacional pertinente no ofrecen base jurídica suficiente como para denegar la financiación a ciertas actividades si
estas han de desarrollarse en asentamientos israelíes en territorios ocupados?

2. ¿Tiene intención la Comisión de firmar un acuerdo con Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (ADSL) para un nuevo
proyecto de gran envergadura en virtud del Séptimo Programa Marco?

3. ¿Necesita la Comisión esperar a que se publiquen las directrices para concluir que la UE no puede reconocer
como legítimos los actos, contrarios al Derecho internacional, que son responsables de la creación y el
funcionamiento de las instalaciones de ADSL ubicadas en los asentamientos y que la Comisión, por tanto, tampoco
puede utilizarlas ni conceder subsidios para que otros las utilicen?

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

_(2 de septiembre de 2013)_

La Comisión ruega a Su Señoría consulte la respuesta que diera a la pregunta escrita E-008337/2013 ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Conclusiones del Consejo sobre el proceso de paz de Oriente Próximo de 14 de mayo de 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Conclusiones del Consejo sobre el proceso de paz de Oriente Próximo de 10 de diciembre de 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 65 E / 620 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer P-008336/13**

**to the Commission**
**María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU funding of research activities carried out in illegal Israeli settlements

The EU is obliged to respect international law in the exercise of its powers and to ensure consistency between its
policies and activities.

In the context of EU-Israel relations, the EU and its Member States have reaffirmed their commitment ‘to fully and
effectively implement existing EU legislation’ ( [1] ) and ‘to ensure that — in line with international law — all agreements
between the State of Israel and the European Union must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to
the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the
Gaza Strip’ ( [2] ).

Soon-to-be published Commission guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities for EU funding are
expected to clarify the EU’s obligation to exclude any entity or activity that would cause the EU to render aid or
assistance to maintain Israeli settlements or to recognise as lawful the internationally illegal acts that create and
maintain them.

1. Does the Commission consider that existing EU legislation (including EU case-law), together with the relevant
bodies of international law, provides no legal basis for excluding activities from funding because they are to be carried
out in Israeli settlements that have been established in occupied territories?

2. Does the Commission intend to sign a major new project agreement under the FP7 with Ahava Dead Sea
Laboratories Ltd (ADSL)?

3. Does the Commission have to wait for the publication of the guidelines to conclude that the EU cannot
recognise as lawful the internationally illegal acts that are responsible for the creation and operation of ADSL’s
settlement-based facilities, and that the Commission may therefore neither employ nor subsidise others’ employment
of them?

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

_(2 September 2013)_

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-008337/2013 ( [3] ).

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process of 14 May 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process of 10 December 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 621

_(Versión española)_

**Pregunta con solicitud de respuesta escrita E-008337/13**

**a la Comisión**
**Véronique De Keyser (S&D), Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Willy Meyer**

**(GUE/NGL), Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL) y Emer Costello (S&D)**

_(11 de julio de 2013)_

_Asunto:_ Financiación de la UE para actividades de investigación desarrolladas en asentamientos israelíes ilegales

La UE está obligada a respetar el Derecho internacional en el ejercicio de sus atribuciones y a garantizar la coherencia
entre sus políticas y actividades.

En el contexto de las relaciones UE-Israel, la UE y sus Estados miembros han reafirmado su compromiso «de aplicar
plena y eficazmente toda la legislación […] de la UE» ( [1] ) y «de velar por que —conforme al Derecho internacional—
todos los acuerdos entre el Estado de Israel y la Unión Europea indiquen, de forma explícita e inequívoca, que no se
aplicarán a los territorios ocupados por Israel en 1967, es decir, ni a los Altos del Golán, ni a Cisjordania, incluido
Jerusalén Oriental, ni a la Franja de Gaza» ( [2] ).

La Comisión publicará próximamente unas directrices sobre la elegibilidad de las entidades israelíes y sus actividades
para recibir financiación europea. Estas directrices deberían precisar la obligación de la UE de denegar la concesión de
financiación a cualquier entidad o actividad que lleve a la UE a prestar ayuda o asistencia para mantener
asentamientos israelíes o a reconocer como legítimos los actos, ilegales desde el punto de vista internacional, por los
que se crean y se mantienen estos asentamientos.

1. ¿Considera la Comisión que la legislación vigente de la UE (incluida la jurisprudencia) y el corpus legislativo
internacional pertinente no ofrecen base jurídica suficiente como para denegar la financiación a ciertas actividades si
estas han de desarrollarse en asentamientos israelíes en territorios ocupados?

2. ¿Tiene intención la Comisión de firmar un acuerdo con Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (ADSL) para un nuevo
proyecto de gran envergadura en virtud del Séptimo Programa Marco?

3. ¿Necesita la Comisión esperar a que se publiquen las directrices para concluir que la UE no puede reconocer
como legítimos los actos, contrarios al Derecho internacional, que son responsables de la creación y el
funcionamiento de las instalaciones de ADSL ubicadas en los asentamientos y que la Comisión, por tanto, tampoco
puede utilizarlas ni conceder subsidios para que otros las utilicen?

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

_(21 de agosto de 2013)_

1. Remitimos a Su Señoría a la respuesta que diera la Comisión a la pregunta E-007505/2012 ( [3] ) relativa a los
aspectos jurídicos de la financiación destinada, en el marco del Séptimo Programa Marco de Investigación, Desarrollo
Tecnológico y Demostración (7° PM), a entidades israelíes activas en los territorios ocupados.

2. La Comisión puede confirmar que no tiene el propósito de suscribir con Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd
(ADSL) ningún acuerdo para la realización de un nuevo proyecto en el marco del 7° PM y que en la actualidad no se
prevén más proyectos con la participación de esa sociedad. El acuerdo más reciente celebrado con ella para la
ejecución de un proyecto dentro del 7° PM se firmó el 5 de julio de 2013. El proyecto en cuestión se sometió a una
evaluación realizada por expertos externos y no se seleccionó para su financiación sino después de haberse
comprobado que su clasificación se situaba bien por encima del umbral necesario. Todos los contratos del 7° PM en
los que ha participado la sociedad Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories (ADSL) se han acordado respetando el marco jurídico
derivado de las normas que establece el Programa Marco en materia de participación y de convocatoria de propuestas.
La situación, sin embargo, está cambiando ahora.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Conclusiones del Consejo sobre el proceso de paz de Oriente Próximo de 14 de mayo de 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Conclusiones del Consejo sobre el proceso de paz de Oriente Próximo de 10 de diciembre de 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 65 E / 622 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

3. La Comisión, que tiene la voluntad de dar respuesta al problema de las entidades israelíes que trabajan en los
territorios palestinos ocupados, publicó el 19 de julio pasado, como señala Su Señoría, las llamadas _«Directrices sobre el_
_derecho de las entidades israelíes y sus actividades en los territorios ocupados por Israel desde junio de 1967 a optar a las_
_subvenciones, premios e instrumentos financieros financiados por la UE a partir de 2014» (_ [4] _)_ . En el caso de los proyectos de
investigación e innovación, estas directrices se aplicarán al programa Horizonte 2020. Toda suma marginal que haya
podido utilizarse en virtud del 7° PM para financiar actividades de investigación en los territorios ocupados no tendrá
continuación dentro de ese programa.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Ref: DO C 205 de 19.7.2013, p. 9.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 623

_(Ελληνική έκδοση)_

**Ερώτηση με αίτημα γραπτής απάντησης E-008337/13**

**προς την Επιτροπή**
**Véronique De Keyser (S&D), Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Willy Meyer**

**(GUE/NGL), Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL) και Emer Costello (S&D)**

_(11 Ιουλίου 2013)_

_Θέμα:_ Χρηματοδότηση της ΕΕ για τις ερευνητικές δραστηριότητες που διεξάγονται στους παράνομους ισραηλινούς
οικισμούς

Η ΕΕ είναι υποχρεωμένη να σέβεται το διεθνές δίκαιο κατά την άσκηση των εξουσιών της και να διασφαλίζει τη συνέπεια
ανάμεσα στις πολιτικές και τις δράσεις της.

Στο πλαίσιο των σχέσεων ΕΕ-Ισραήλ, η ΕΕ και τα κράτη μέλη της επιβεβαίωσαν τη δέσμευσή τους «να εφαρμόζουν πλήρως και
αποτελεσματικά την ισχύουσα νομοθεσία της ΕΕ» ( [1] ) και «να διασφαλίζουν — σύμφωνα με το διεθνές δίκαιο — ότι όλες οι
συμφωνίες μεταξύ του κράτους του Ισραήλ και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης πρέπει να δηλώνουν κατηγορηματικά και ρητά ότι
δεν εφαρμόζονται στα εδάφη που κατέλαβε το Ισραήλ το 1967, ήτοι τα Υψώματα του Γκολάν, τη Δυτική Όχθη και την
Ανατολική Ιερουσαλήμ, καθώς και τη Λωρίδα της Γάζας» ( [2] ).

Αναμένεται σύντομα η δημοσίευση των κατευθυντηρίων γραμμών της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την επιλεξιμότητα των
ισραηλινών φορέων και των δραστηριοτήτων τους για τη χρηματοδότηση της ΕΕ οι οποίες πρόκειται να διασαφηνίσουν την
υποχρέωση της ΕΕ να εξαιρέσει κάθε φορέα ή δραστηριότητα που θα αναγκάσει την ΕΕ να χορηγήσει βοήθεια ή συνδρομή για
να διατηρήσει ισραηλινούς οικισμούς ή για να αναγνωρίσει ως νόμιμες τις διεθνώς παράνομες πράξεις που τους
δημιούργησαν και τους διατήρησαν.

1. Θεωρεί η Επιτροπή ότι η ισχύουσα νομοθεσία της ΕΕ (συμπεριλαμβανομένης της νομολογίας της ΕΕ), από κοινού με
τους αντίστοιχους φορείς του διεθνούς δικαίου, δεν παρέχει νομική βάση για να εξαιρεθούν δραστηριότητες από τη
χρηματοδότηση τη στιγμή που αναπτύσσονται σε ισραηλινούς οικισμούς και έχουν συσταθεί σε κατεχόμενα εδάφη;

2. Προτίθεται η Επιτροπή να υπογράψει συμφωνία για ένα νέο μεγάλο έργο σύμφωνα με το 7ο πρόγραμμα πλαίσιο με την
εταιρεία Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (ADSL);

3. Πρέπει η Επιτροπή να περιμένει να δημοσιευτούν οι κατευθυντήριες γραμμές για να συμπεράνει ότι η ΕΕ δεν μπορεί να
αναγνωρίσει ως νόμιμες τις διεθνώς παράνομες πράξεις που είναι υπεύθυνες για τη δημιουργία και τη λειτουργία των
εγκαταστάσεων της εταιρείας ADSL με την έδρα της σε οικισμό και ότι η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί γι' αυτό το λόγο ούτε να
απασχολήσει ούτε να επιδοτήσει την απασχόληση άλλων;

**Απάντηση της κ. Geoghegan-Quinn εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής**

_(21 Αυγούστου 2013)_

1. Τα Αξιότιμα Μέλη του Κοινοβουλίου καλούνται να ανατρέξουν στην απάντηση στην ερώτηση E-007505/2012 ( [3] )
σχετικά με τις νομικές πτυχές της χρηματοδότησης ισραηλινών οντοτήτων που δραστηριοποιούνται στα Κατεχόμενα Εδάφη
στο πλαίσιο του έβδομου προγράμματος-πλαισίου δραστηριοτήτων έρευνας, τεχνολογικής ανάπτυξης και επίδειξης
(7ου ΠΠ).

2. Η Επιτροπή μπορεί να επιβεβαιώσει ότι δεν προτίθεται να υπογράψει τυχόν νέες συμφωνίες σχεδίων στο πλαίσιο του
έβδομου προγράμματος πλαισίου (7ου ΠΠ) με την Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (ADSL) και ότι δεν προβλέπεται επί
του παρόντος να υλοποιηθούν οποιαδήποτε περαιτέρω σχέδια με συμμετοχή της προαναφερόμενης εταιρείας. Η πλέον
πρόσφατη συμφωνία σχεδίων με την εταιρεία αυτή στο πλαίσιο του 7ου ΠΠ υπογράφηκε στις 5 Ιουλίου 2013. Το
συγκεκριμένο σχέδιο αποτέλεσε αντικείμενο αξιολόγησης από εξωτερικούς εμπειρογνώμονες και κατετάγη σαφώς πάνω από
το όριο πριν να επιλεγεί για χρηματοδότηση. Όλες οι συμβάσεις με τη συμμετοχή της Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories (ADSL)
εντός του 7ου ΠΠ είχαν συμφωνηθεί με βάση το ισχύον νομικό πλαίσιο, όπως προβλεπόταν από τους κανόνες συμμετοχής
του 7ου ΠΠ και από τις αντίστοιχες προκηρύξεις υποβολής προσφορών. Ωστόσο, η κατάσταση αυτή μεταβάλλεται πλέον.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου για την ειρηνευτική διαδικασία στη Μέση Ανατολή της 14ης Μαΐου 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Συμπεράσματα του Συμβουλίου για την ειρηνευτική διαδικασία στη Μέση Ανατολή της 10ης Δεκεμβρίου 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html

C 65 E / 624 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

3. Η Επιτροπή έχει αναλάβει τη δέσμευση να αντιμετωπίσει το ζήτημα των ισραηλινών οντοτήτων που εκτελούν εργασίες
στα Κατεχόμενα Παλαιστινιακά Εδάφη και, όπως σημειώνουν τα Αξιότιμα Μέλη του Κοινοβουλίου, δημοσίευσε τον
τελευταίο μήνα, στις 19 Ιουλίου 2013, « _Κατευθυντήριες γραμμές σχετικά με την επιλεξιμότητα των ισραηλινών_
_οντοτήτων και των δραστηριοτήτων τους στο έδαφος που καταλαμβάνεται από το Ισραήλ από τον Ιούνιο του 1967 όσον_
_αφορά τις επιδοτήσεις, τα έπαθλα και τα χρηματοδοτικά μέσα που θα χρηματοδοτούνται από την ΕΕ από το 2014 και_
_έπειτα» (_ [4] ). Όσον αφορά τα σχέδια έρευνας και καινοτομίας, οι εν λόγω κατευθυντήριες γραμμές θα εφαρμόζονται για το
πρόγραμμα «Ορίζοντας 2020». Κάθε οριακή χρηματοδότηση στο πλαίσιο του 7ου ΠΠ η οποία ενδέχεται να έχει
χρησιμοποιηθεί για ερευνητικές δραστηριότητες στα Κατεχόμενα Εδάφη θα διακόπτεται στο πλαίσιο του προγράμματος
«Ορίζοντας 2020».

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) ΕΕ 2013 C 205, σ. 9.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 625

_(Version française)_

**Question avec demande de réponse écrite E-008337/13**

**à la Commission**
**Véronique De Keyser (S&D), Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE),**
**Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL) et Emer Costello (S&D)**

_(11 juillet 2013)_

_Objet:_ Financement par l'Union d'activités de recherche menées dans les colonies israéliennes illégales

Dans l'exercice de ses compétences, l'Union est tenue de respecter le droit international et de veiller à la cohérence
entre ses différentes politiques et actions.

Dans le contexte des relations entre l'Union et Israël, l'Union et ses États membres ont réaffirmé leur «détermination à
mettre en œuvre effectivement et pleinement la législation de l'UE en vigueur» ( [1] ) et à «faire en sorte que —
conformément au droit international — tous les accords entre l'État d'Israël et l'Union européenne indiquent
clairement et expressément qu'ils ne s'appliquent pas aux territoires occupés par Israël en 1967, à savoir le plateau du
Golan, la Cisjordanie, y compris Jérusalem-Est, et la bande de Gaza» ( [2] ).

La Commission publiera prochainement des lignes directrices concernant l'éligibilité des entités israéliennes et de
leurs activités à un financement de l'Union, qui devraient clarifier l'obligation qu'a l'Union d'exclure toute entité ou
activité qui impliquerait que celle-ci aide à maintenir des colonies israéliennes ou considère comme légaux les actes
visant à la construction et au maintien de telles colonies, qui sont illégaux au regard du droit international.

1. La Commission considère-t-elle que la législation existante de l'Union (y compris la jurisprudence), avec les
organes compétents de droit international, ne prévoit pas de base juridique permettant d'exclure certaines activités du
financement du fait qu'elles sont menées dans les colonies israéliennes qui ont été établies dans les territoires occupés?

2. La Commission entend-elle signer avec la société Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (ADSL) un nouvel accord de
projet important dans le cadre du 7 [e ] PC?

3. La Commission doit-elle attendre la publication des lignes directrices susvisées pour conclure que l'Union ne
peut pas considérer comme légaux les actes illégaux au regard du droit international qui débouchent sur la mise en
place et le fonctionnement des installations de la société ADSL, implantées dans les colonies, et que la Commission ne
peut dès lors pas employer ces installations, ni en subventionner l'emploi par des tiers?

**Réponse donnée par M** **[me]** **Geoghegan-Quinn au nom de la Commission**

_(21 août 2013)_

1. Les Honorables Parlementaires voudront bien se reporter à la réponse donnée à la question E-007505/2012 ( [3] )
pour ce qui est des aspects juridiques du financement des entités israéliennes déployant des activités dans les
territoires occupés au titre du septième programme-cadre pour des actions de recherche, de développement
technologique et de démonstration (7 [e] PC).

2. La Commission confirme qu'elle n'envisage pas de signer de nouveaux accords de projet avec Ahava Dead Sea
Laboratories Ltd (ADSL) dans le cadre du 7 [e] PC et qu'aucun autre projet avec cette société n'est prévu à l'heure actuelle.
Le dernier accord de projet du 7 [e] PC avec ADSL a été signé le 5 juillet 2013. Il a été évalué par des experts extérieurs
indépendants et a obtenu un très bon classement avant d'être sélectionné en vue d'un financement. Tous les contrats
avec la société ADSL et relevant du 7 [e] PC ont été élaborés dans le respect du cadre juridique applicable, dans les
conditions prévues par les règles de participation du 7 [e] PC et par les appels concernés. La situation est toutefois en
train d'évoluer.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Conclusions du Conseil sur le processus de paix au Proche-Orient du 14 mai 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Conclusions du Conseil sur le processus de paix au Proche-Orient du 10 décembre 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/parliamentary-questions.html

C 65 E / 626 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

3. La Commission s'est engagée à aborder la question des entités israéliennes déployant des activités dans les
territoires palestiniens occupés et, comme les Honorables Parlementaires l'ont noté, a publié le 19 juillet dernier les

«
_lignes directrices relatives à l'éligibilité des entités israéliennes établies dans les territoires occupés par Israël depuis juin 1967 et_
_des activités qu'elles y déploient aux subventions, prix et instruments financiers financés par l'UE à partir de 2014» (_ _[4]_ _)._ Pour les
projets de recherche et d'innovation, ces lignes directrices seront applicables au programme Horizon 2020. Tout
financement marginal susceptible d'avoir été alloué à des activités de recherche dans les territoires occupés au titre du
7 [e] PC sera interrompu dans le cadre d'Horizon 2020.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Réf: JO C 205 du 19.7.2013, p. 9.

5.3.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65 E / 627

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008337/13**

**to the Commission**
**Véronique De Keyser (S&D), Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), Willy Meyer**

**(GUE/NGL), Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL) and Emer Costello (S&D)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ EU funding of research activities carried out in illegal Israeli settlements

The EU is obliged to respect international law in the exercise of its powers and to ensure consistency between its
policies and activities.

In the context of EU-Israel relations, the EU and its Member States have reaffirmed their commitment ‘to fully and
effectively implement existing EU legislation’ ( [1] ) and ‘to ensure that — in line with international law — all agreements
between the State of Israel and the European Union must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to
the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, namely the Golan Heights, the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and the
Gaza Strip’ ( [2] ).

Soon-to-be published Commission guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities for EU funding are
expected to clarify the EU’s obligation to exclude any entity or activity that would cause the EU to render aid or
assistance to maintain Israeli settlements or to recognise as lawful the internationally illegal acts that create and
maintain them.

1. Does the Commission consider that existing EU legislation (including EU case-law), together with the relevant
bodies of international law, provides no legal basis for excluding activities from funding because they are to be carried
out in Israeli settlements that have been established in occupied territories?

2. Does the Commission intend to sign a major new project agreement under the FP7 with Ahava Dead Sea
Laboratories Ltd (ADSL)?

3. Does the Commission have to wait for the publication of the guidelines to conclude that the EU cannot
recognise as lawful the internationally illegal acts that are responsible for the creation and operation of ADSL’s
settlement-based facilities, and that the Commission may therefore neither employ nor subsidise others’ employment
of them?

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

_(21 August 2013)_

1. The Honourable Members are referred to the answer to Question E-007505/2012 ( [3] ) regarding the legal aspects
of funding Israeli entities operating in the occupied territories under the Seventh Framework Programme for
Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (FP7).

2. The Commission can confirm that it does not plan to sign any new project agreements under FP7 with Ahava
Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd (ADSL) and that no further projects involving this company are foreseen at present. The
most recent FP7 project agreement with this company was signed on 5 July 2013. The project in question was subject
to external expert review and was ranked well above the threshold before being selected for funding. All contracts
involving Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories (ADSL) under FP7 were agreed within the applicable legal framework as laid
down by the FP7 rules for participation and the relevant calls. However, this situation is now changing.

3. The Commission is committed to addressing the issue of Israeli entities carrying out work in the Occupied
Palestinian Territories and, as the Honourable Members note, has published on July 19th 2013 last ‘ _Guidelines on the_
_eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial_
_instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards’_ ( [4] ). For research and innovation projects, these guidelines will apply
for Horizon 2020. Any marginal funding under FP7 that may have been used for research activities in the occupied
territories will be discontinued under Horizon 2020.

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

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

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process of 14 May 2012.
( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Council Conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process of 10 December 2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html
( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) OJ 2013 C 205, p. 9.

C 65 E / 628 EN Official Journal of the European Union 5.3.2014

_(English version)_

**Question for written answer E-008338/13**

**to the Commission**
**Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR)**

_(11 July 2013)_

_Subject:_ Modern lighting

Around 2 million people across the EU are affected by modern lighting. For instance, patients with the condition
Xeroderma Pigmentosum (XP) are only able to be in incandescent light, whilst others only find halogen lighting
acceptable. These problems can be exacerbated when travelling from place to place — whilst many can use halogen
lighting in their homes, they find it difficult accessing public transport, places of work, medical services and religious
institutions that use different types of lighting.

Halogen lighting is reported to be banned by the EU from 2016, which is likely to further decrease the choice
available to those who, for example, suffer from short exposure to Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) and long
exposure to Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).

With this in mind, what is the Commission doing to help accommodate those who suffer from such conditions and
who often find it difficult to go about their daily lives?

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

_(20 August 2013)_

The Commission issued mandates to its Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
(SCENIHR) to review the possible health effects of artificial lighting on people with certain illnesses and on the general
public. SCENIHR estimated that approximately 250,000 people in the EU are suffering from illnesses accompanied by
light sensitivity, and that suitable light sources exist for every light sensitive patient ( [1] ). The Commission is not aware
of any scientific research in contradiction to these findings. For further information, the Commission would like to
refer the Honourable Member to its previous answers to written questions ( [2] ).

The Commission is currently reviewing the impact of the requirements of Regulation 244/2009 ( [3] ) on consumers (to
be completed in 2013).

Furthermore, the recent Regulation 1194/2012 ( [4] ) requires manufacturers to provide publicly available information
on the spectral power distribution in the wavelength range 180-800nm, covering the visible spectrum up to ultraviolet and down to infrared radiation. This requirement provides useful information for light sensitive patients and
their healthcare professionals to choose a product according to their needs.

( **|**

⋅1∙ **|** )

( **|** ⋅1∙ **|** ) SCENIHR opinion on Light Sensitivity from 2008.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_019.pdf
SCENIHR opinion on Health Effects of Artificial Light from 2012.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_035.pdf

( **|** ⋅2∙ **|** ) Answers to written questions 1940/2013 and 4836/2012.
( **|** ⋅3∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 244/2009 of 18 March 2009 implementing Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for non-directional household lamps.

( **|** ⋅4∙ **|** ) Commission Regulation (EU) No 1194/2012 of 12 December 2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for directional lamps, light emitting diode lamps and related equipment.

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

( **|**

⋅2∙ **|** )
⋅3∙ **|** )

⋅4∙ **|** )

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